These benchmarks were done with a radeon 4850... which is a fine card but not for benchmarking high end cpu's in gaming. So you can't put too much weight on those gaming results unless you're gaming on the cheap... in which case any of these cpu's is probably not on your shopping list.
otherwise I really dislike nvidia because I was burned by them years ago and haven't forgotten... but I do think the constant anti nvidia and pro amd/ati stuff is getting out of hand on this website. Realistically ati has better gpu's and intel has better cpu's. Nothing lately has changed that.
I was just thinking, and this is not a slight against this particular article, but this entire site has become way too anti-Nvidia, Intel, Microsoft, etc. and way too pro-ATI, AMD, and Linux. This is not to say that journalism can be completely unbiased, and everybody likes an underdog, but I like reading this site, but ultimately I want news, not spin, and frankly all this site has to offer lately is spin. I'm definitely drifiting more towards [H]ard and Fudzilla... just thought you guys should know... and yes, I'm a bit drunk at present.
These guys always have weird articles. This one is no different.
It is yet another apples to spare tire comparison. At least, it shows that there is beginning to be some parity between the processors in many use cases. But as usual, they painted a picture THEY wanted people to see.
So this 2.7GHz X2 competes 'well' with a value segment, 2.5GHz, 800MHz FSB (not 1066 or 1333), 2MB L2 (not 4MB or 6MB) cache as the 'standard' line of chips.... in games. Other reviews show the C2D 5200 being even or faster at computational problems (Photoshop, transcoding, etc.) But at least it uses a bit more power and can overclock 800MHz (as opposed to 1GHz or more). Got it.
yes the title should be called that
just check newegg
wow, the web site in the article you link first must be the uglyest pub-infested crappy designed site I have ever seen.
;-))
The Inq! You fiends. Writing core i7 965 in the headline to make more people click this lin'q.
Haha
These benchmarks were done with a radeon 4850... which is a fine card but not for benchmarking high end cpu's in gaming. So you can't put too much weight on those gaming results unless you're gaming on the cheap... in which case any of these cpu's is probably not on your shopping list.
otherwise I really dislike nvidia because I was burned by them years ago and haven't forgotten... but I do think the constant anti nvidia and pro amd/ati stuff is getting out of hand on this website. Realistically ati has better gpu's and intel has better cpu's. Nothing lately has changed that.
I was just thinking, and this is not a slight against this particular article, but this entire site has become way too anti-Nvidia, Intel, Microsoft, etc. and way too pro-ATI, AMD, and Linux. This is not to say that journalism can be completely unbiased, and everybody likes an underdog, but I like reading this site, but ultimately I want news, not spin, and frankly all this site has to offer lately is spin. I'm definitely drifiting more towards [H]ard and Fudzilla... just thought you guys should know... and yes, I'm a bit drunk at present.
These guys always have weird articles. This one is no different.
It is yet another apples to spare tire comparison. At least, it shows that there is beginning to be some parity between the processors in many use cases. But as usual, they painted a picture THEY wanted people to see.
So this 2.7GHz X2 competes 'well' with a value segment, 2.5GHz, 800MHz FSB (not 1066 or 1333), 2MB L2 (not 4MB or 6MB) cache as the 'standard' line of chips.... in games. Other reviews show the C2D 5200 being even or faster at computational problems (Photoshop, transcoding, etc.) But at least it uses a bit more power and can overclock 800MHz (as opposed to 1GHz or more). Got it.