Last message on previous page:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/foru [...] estructure

i think you can go into the thread above and see what i comment i have post.and not many can really reject what i have posted.because its just pure facts that i put up.

Well, for starters, Macs are built on an Intel platform because thats the one Mr Jobs chose when it was decided that it was time for MacOS to come over to the x86 platform. It took them a long time to develop the hardware and software to run on the Intel platform, and since the Mac is a closed platform, you wont see a Mac with an AMD processor without a similar investment in hardware development (The software will work, see OSX86)

You seem to miss the point of the DX10.1 argument. DX10 doesn't bring much to the table when compared to DX9, where as 10.1 actually brings a level of improvement. DX10 sux so bad because nVidia talked Microsoft into nerfing DX10 since they couldnt get a card to do it. ATI had no such problems.

Just read your replys in the other thread. Did it enter your mind that the price cuts affected Intels old 65mn CPUs? Cant immagine why they would cut the price on there old crap...

AMD isnt going away, no matter how badly you want it to happen. They will restructure, they might even be bought out, but AMD will be here tommorow.

.

At first I thought that was a shot at me, but then upon further review of my past comments in this thread, I have found that statement to be true!

I don't drink, so I'll have to go with silly silly. But perhaps reynod can provide us with the plain drunk silly we need!

Reynod Web Cam:

then how about Alienware such big company?whay they dont have an AMD platform?is it a closed platform again?i dont think so.and when Mac switch i rememeber that AMD is there as well.why they didnt choose AMD when AMD is considerably cheaper as well.so price isnt a factor when consider performance is the main object.so that prove Intel is better on their offering.

and what doesnt need development to get the new stuff out?i guess AMD didnt thats why ND2xxx and HD3xxx is performaning similar in term of real life performance.lets hope this will change when the new gen come out thats for both Nvidia and AMD.GT200 vs RV770.

DX10.1 is different in rendering graphics in a different way then before.only few feature has been added and the current DX10 graphics card will be compatible.but doesnt offer huge graphics quality improvement in assassin's creed.minor differences cannot be seen in gameplay.especially fast pace game.would you stop at where ever you are in a game and look and say to yourself WUAH!!THE LEAF ON THE TREE LOOKS ABIT BETTER THEN DX10!OH DAMM I JUST GOT KILLED!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX
when more games come out with DX10.1 will show proof if that is correct or not.

they reason why Intel reduce price is because they want to get the las boost in the product before they quit the market and to get rid of stock.and this is what every company will do that include AMD.why AMD reduce prices on their product?because its inferior they need to sell it cheap to grab sales.also note that there are huge number of people still buying the Q6600 these days.compare to the NEWLY RELEASED Phenom product which is meant to be superior that what intel can offer but selling it so cheap.and the result?FLOP HARD!!!

human are smart,so they choose what is better and stay away from whats bad.so when both AMD and Intel is in the option list they choose Intel and not AMD.

From this point forward, just like multithreading, its hard to argue the use or non use of DX10.1. Its here, so is multithreading. Its minute, but its here. I place myself squarely behind these facts. Cant argue one, and not the other. If one gives better performance or both(DX10.1 and multithreading) then how can you argue against it, when paying the same price or even less to have it? You cant buy a gpu and oc it to levels like you currently can with Intels chips vs AMDs. So its not really apples to apples either. Buy a lower end Intel cpu, oc it, and you have better than a comparable highend cpu. This cant be done with gpus. So its different, differing segments, which bleed one into the other, but not from top to bottom concerning ocing and price performance. An all out attack on AMD is just plain wrong here, and way OT. People may not like AMD bringing Intel to court, hell, as much love as I have for M$ (being sarcastic here) I still didnt and dont like them being brought to court relentlessly by whoever. But this has to run its course to get to the real findings. Some of it Im sure some of us wont want to hear, but if found true or false, itll at least be shown. If these points are fruitless, and AMD doesnt have anything, then so be it. But dont say ATI/AMD gpus are non competitive like the Intel/AMD situation, this simply isnt so

be default the 9600GT is not as fast as the HD3870 in anyway.but when it oc to a level its on par with the 3870 while being £100 cheaper in the UK.so when comparing price/performance ratio both side are equal.both had the same time to develop what ever they want to develop.but AMD took the wrong route so no one is to blame for apart from themself.

As i never say AMD product is not competitive.at stock the AMD will equal or even beat Intel's offering at the same level.but when overclock Intel is far more superior and that what AMD cant achieve.how much can a thing go(overclock) is what the product is trully offering(max performance).and hence you get better value for your money.

so when multithreading is trully become mainstream then wouldn't the gap between the Q6600 and Phenom 9850 be even wider?and not to mention about overclocked form.

i wonder how much AMD would get if they win the case at the end?and how much will it mean to AMD?or is AMD just want publicity?

ATI (AMD didnt own them at the time) didnt take the wrong way, it was pulled from them by an enebpt nVidia and M$ . Just look here for facts http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/arch [...] -dx10.aspx Now thats old history, M$ decrees, nVidia fails and ATI/AMD gets screwed. And in reference to the 9600 vs the 3870, doesnt the 3870 oc too? They both oc about the same, unlike the cpus (Intel and AMD) And yes, nVidia had the same amount of time, they just couldnt do it. Read my link, its all there. nVidia failed, M$ wanted everyone aboard their new OS, so they went backwards to accomodate nVidia

Alienware with a PHENOM!!-->http://www.alienware.com/product_d [...] KU-DEFAULT

And the 8800GT/GTS gets smoked so hard by the 9800 series, since nVidia designed a whole new chip for that...

Im done arguing with you, come back when you have a clue.

i have read your link.but Nvidia got the hardware but just lacking in driver support where as AMD/ATI doesnt even have the hardware ready(lacking behind).even given that "extra time" AMD fail to deliver.but on the other hand even after the late start of Nvidia's development, today we still see Nvidia offer "less powerful" card+good driver=better performance but AMD on the other hand offer technically much powerful card+bad driver=worser performance in any OS DX9 and DX10.

about ocing the 3870, the 9600GT is no match to it after 3870 being oced.but end of the day 3870 is 1 class higher then the 9600GT anyway,it should never compare to the 9600GT but the performance the 3870 offered let itself down.

still want to see what DX10.1 can really do.