<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Korean_Redneck @ Jul 23 2010, 10:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They bought Nvidia????? Whhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaat?? I bought ATI graphics card because I thought AMD goes best with ATI.. daaaaaaaaaaannngggggggg</div>


Yeah, ATI = AMD. NVidia is very unsupported these days. Intel makes its own graphics and on-chip acellerators. NVIDIA is just out there flappin.


I have to say... After looking at the benchmarks,<span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"> <span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%">the newest AMD chip is worse then the i5 chip in my computer in some tests, and it costs more.</span>
</span>
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ph...0fx,2613-8.html

Intel is still the way to go.

 

^ we already cleared that up. AMD = ATI ... I was wrong. nVidia is on their own still, AFAIK.

 

I've had all AMD 'til my recent(ish) i7 purchase.

 

I have been running AMD chips since about 2004. I've been very pleased.

Intel is doing far better than they were now when it comes to value.

When I built my last machine a couple of months ago I went with an AMD quad core chip. For what I wanted it was a great value for the money. My purchase was also influenced by motherboard options available to me. By going with an AMD I was able to get ATI onboard video that is adequate to allow me to not buy a separate video card, saving me a ton. I know onboard video is common, but GOOD onboard video is not.

I've built a couple of budget PC's for friends lately using Intel CPU's also because of the bang for the buck they provided in that configuration.

I am never above the technology curve, it allows me to upgrade twice as frequently for the same price keeping me less obsolete overall.