newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 28,473 (4.15/day)
- Location
- Indiana, USA
Processor | Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz |
---|---|
Motherboard | AsRock Z470 Taichi |
Cooling | Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans |
Memory | 32GB DDR4-3600 |
Video Card(s) | RTX 2070 Super |
Storage | 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache |
Display(s) | Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28" |
Case | Fractal Design Define S |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard is good enough for me |
Power Supply | eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
Chart #1: FX-8150 has a natural clockspeed advantage and the 980X is an old architecture (Gulftown which is based on Bloomfield that is over two years old). Would have been more fair to leave the 980X out of it but, they did it for a reason (cherry picking).
Chart #2: Why is everything normalized to 2500K? I'll tell you why, it makes little differences look bigger. Take with a leathal dose of salt.
Chart #3: Fantastic! AMD processors work with instructions only their software uses. Kind of pointless.
Chart #4: Comparing to the most expensive Intel platform (LGA1356) with the second most expensive CPU (980X) proves nothing that isn't already known (its expensive). If they had a case to argue, they'd be comparing it to the price of a Core i7 2600 system...
Pretty much everything I was going to say. The only reason they picked the 980X for the price compare is because it is an Extreme edition and it is $1000. Compare it to a 2600K build and I bet the numbers are pretty damn close.
And all the talk in the OP about Intel being in for a "Price-performance shock" is hardly accurate. They possitioned the 2700K in a way that allows them to adjust prices on the 2600K as they wish specifically in preperation for this.