View Single Post

Default 

February 18th, 2012, 00:35
I don't think anandtech is intel bias. You really can't hold it against him that amd consistently offers less performance than intel. Amd hasn't been competitive since the athlon thunderbird and if you read his articles then he says as much.

Back on topic. I own the asus p8z68-v pro. It's a rock solid board. I've overclocked my i7 2600k to 4.8 ghz with no troubles. If your overclocking i'd go with asus i've owned 3 asus and 3 gigabyte boards and found asus USUALLY overclocks better. If your not i've found asus and gigabyte to be rock solid. So I don't think you can go wrong with either. The asus does have some limitations if you are going to use all 3 pci-e slots. I forget the specifics because it's been a while since I set mine up if you download the manual it will tell you. Not sure if the gigabyte has the same limitations.

I wouldn't touch an amd system right now. I'm not a fanboy and have owned amd in the past but they just can't compete if your focus is gaming. You can get an i5 for $179.00 right now and in games that aren't gpu bound it is 30 to 40 fps faster most of the time than an AMD Bulldozer 8150 at $259.00 .

Right now most games are going to be gpu bound but in a year or so when your graphics card isn't as fresh owning an i5 over an 8150 could be the difference between playing a game at 40 fps and watching a slideshow at 15 fps. I hope amd gets their act together as competition is good. I believe amd's inability to compete is one of the reasons intel's 2011 platform is so expensive.
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch

#8

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,124