- Joined
- May 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,430 (0.28/day)
- Location
- A frozen turdberg.
System Name | Runs Smooth |
---|---|
Processor | FX 8350 |
Motherboard | Crosshair V Formula Z |
Cooling | Corsair H110 with AeroCool Shark 140mm fans |
Memory | 16GB G-skill Trident X 1866 Cl. 8 |
Video Card(s) | HIS 7970 IceQ X² GHZ Edition |
Storage | OCZ Vector 256GB SSD & 1Tb piece of crap |
Display(s) | acer H243H |
Case | NZXT Phantom 820 matte black |
Audio Device(s) | Nada |
Power Supply | NZXT Hale90 V2 850 watt |
Software | Windows 7 Pro |
Benchmark Scores | Lesbians are hot!!! |
So what you're saying is that Intel isn't interested in making the most amount of money?
And this locked multiplier thing didn't actually happen?
And the wildly profitable overpriced dual core CPUs didn't actually happen?
And the choice of putting the HD2000 gpus into desktop parts didn't actually happen?
Intel doesn't need to move to quadcores. WHY would you think so??? Is there some new entrant to the market offering a competing product??
Actually AMD doesn't have a dual core in their FX line. Just because we know that BD isn't all that competitive doesn't mean that your average consumer knows that. When an average person goes in to the store, what do you think that they will pick? 2 cores for the same price as 4? I don't think so
Getting rid of dual cores would be a wise choice by Intel.