reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Actually you are right. I missed that I was getting the wrong CPU on that 216.72 score... My apologize. My mistake.
SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro
Score: 157.26 - Core i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz (turbo 3.9Ghz)
Score: 114.30 - AMD FX 8350 4Ghz (Turbo 4.2 Ghz)
114.30 / 157.26 = 0.7268218237314002
AMD CPU is 72.6% of the Intel one.
This is why it is budget priced!
$189.99 / $329 = 0.5774772036474164
AMD CPU is 57.7% the price of the Intel one.
But the intel on gets you an extra 27.4% performance in SiSoftware Sandra 2012 SP4c Pro.
Some people want performance.
Most people want more performance out of a new computer that will hopefully last them longer. Most people are willing to spend more for this speed
bump. How do I know this?
Intel market share is at 80%!!! What is AMD's?
Everyone loves a good under-dog. But that under-dog is cheaper for a reason. And that reason is performance.
Also if you look at that chart you will notice 3 CPU's from some generations ago of intel.
Intel Core i7 970 (Gulftown 6c/12t)
Intel currently has Ivy Bridge 22nm
Before that was Sandy Bridge 32nm
Before that was Westmere microarchitecture, the 32 nm shrink of Nehalem.
The first release was the Core i7 980X in the first quarter of 2010
AMD's latest CPU is getting beaten by a die shrink released at the start of 2010. Both are 32nm.
Intels latest is 22nm and it has a performance buff.
Why Am I even discussing this?
The results speak for themselves.
I look at these charts, And I see more than a little performance loss.
edit on 23-12-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)