deadmanavir (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thats a good point, i think the graphic cards are not the same. Less powerful on the right. Thats why he didn't mention the GPU.

kit159 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

or RPGs =D

sjvietboy408 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

If you look carefully at the right monitor which is running on an Intel hardware, you'll notice that the graphics are not set to the max compared to the monitor on the left which is running on an AMD hardware.

deadmanavir (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Maybe you're running on low or medium setting, these benchmark are running on High setting

98ZJKE28 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

its about real world performance(for the average pc owner and user).... the largest percentage of buyers are interested in performance per cost. in this case AMD wins. For Overclocking Intel has the market for enthusiasts

Mdaftz (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

actually this is not bull, because price point speaking, you should understand that if you can pay that price for a triple core that equivalent to a dual core for intel, but i must agree intrel CPU kicks AMD ass, but their too expensive, i bought my AMD 6000 B/e @ 80 bucks.. it's freaking fast O/C -> 3.6 i can't afford thoose super expensive CPU's but i'm playing every game on HIGH/Highest w/ my 4830

trent1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Lol yeah.. This video fails.

sjvietboy408 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I dear them to compare the performance of this AMD to the latest Intel processor. My rig is worse than the Intel rig in this video, and yet it doesn't lag that bad when running World in conflict. This is pure propaganda.

Exxod07 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

lol owned

trent1542 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

This is such bull.. AMD fanboys are trying to make Intel look bad... They use the latest AMD processor and compare it to a old Intel processor.