Scootiep

January 12, 2011 at 9:21am

This article was actually a very interesting read:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375574,00.asp

The jist of it is that Fusion vs. Sandy Bridge isn't really a "vs." at all. Sandy Bridge is more for the "power user" absent the graphics part and Fusion is more for the low power person who still wants decent graphics. I think Fusion will most likely fit my new HTPC/media server project best but I'm guessing if I want to be able to do some light gaming on it. So my new question becomes, can any of the current Fusion offerings from AMD handle something up to World of Warcraft well? I know that most of my games (Bad Company 2, Civ 5, Fallout, etc.) won't run at all on them, but I'm wondering how they handle some of the less graphic intensive games out.

aldude505

January 12, 2011 at 8:42am

I was extremely surprised by the prices of these chips, they are very close to the current 'i' series chips... Even with the motherboard upgrade it still isn't bad!

md123

January 12, 2011 at 8:24am

I am trying to hold out for Bulldozer to see what they come up with.  In the meantime I agree: the longer they wait the more money they are losing.  AMD's chip better be either really good, or really inexpensive.

Scootiep

January 12, 2011 at 8:16am

Anybody have any links to comparrison's of Sandy Bridge vs. Fusion graphics performance? Looking for purposes of a HTPC/media server build.

strykyr

January 12, 2011 at 8:00am

puulease...neither amd or ati are woth the energy or effort

Teh_tourist

January 12, 2011 at 7:35am

Ordered mine from Newegg Sunday morning, 2600K & P8P67 Deluxe. They come in today :D

ocnier

January 12, 2011 at 7:21am

AMD i don't know what you're gonna do, but you'd better do it fast.  At least you have the graphics momentum for now.