cybergunkoo81
Distinguished
- Dec 9, 2008
- 48
- 0
- 18,530
- Status
JohnnyLucky
Glorious
- May 30, 2007
- 10,903
- 11
- 44,315
Looking forward to the AMD vs Intel comparisons. If possible please inlcude a few mainstream benchmarks.
I've always built my PCs to fit how they're to be used at home. These days, I build my gaming rig with Intel chips. But my other 5 machines are being migrated one at a time to contemporary AMD chips. It's true what the article says. Most everyday users don't actually need the raw power of high performance Intel chips for mundane tasks like surfing the web or running basic everyday applications. That's why it was so easy for me to go with an Athlon II X2 250 for this machine which I built 3 weeks ago. It was built to replace an ancient Athlon XP 2200 that I was using to surf the web and access data I have stored in the cloud. The most important thing for me was the fact that the AM2+ board will let me migrate to an Phenom II X6 if (or WHEN) I get the itch.
TA152H
remind me what kind of engineering stuff you do that will profit form this 'extra speed' large CFD and FEA are still going take days to complete sure you could probably shave a few hours of that... but still going take days.... now if your talking small scale FEA, sure with your sparkling super fast CPU you might save what 30mins to an hour on a run, your seriously telling me the majority of engineers sit around for 30min to an hour waiting for the FEA runs to finish..... if you really need something to be crunched fast and cost is not a consideration then your talking grid computing, or better still use that extra cash to buy a tesla system if speed really was that overriding of a factor, but a faster CPU.... doesn't really buy you much when were talking real engineering applications, more RAM probably get you a better boost
now if your talking about media encoding, thats a whole different ball game
remind me what kind of engineering stuff you do that will profit form this 'extra speed' large CFD and FEA are still going take days to complete sure you could probably shave a few hours of that... but still going take days.... now if your talking small scale FEA, sure with your sparkling super fast CPU you might save what 30mins to an hour on a run, your seriously telling me the majority of engineers sit around for 30min to an hour waiting for the FEA runs to finish..... if you really need something to be crunched fast and cost is not a consideration then your talking grid computing, or better still use that extra cash to buy a tesla system if speed really was that overriding of a factor, but a faster CPU.... doesn't really buy you much when were talking real engineering applications, more RAM probably get you a better boost
now if your talking about media encoding, thats a whole different ball game
cutterjohn
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2009
- 37
- 0
- 18,530
This is hilarious. Back in AMD's glory days everyone made fun of Intel for trying to push the clocks higher, and now that the only way that AMD can come close to competing is by cramming in more cores(but this only works well for the few adequately designed & threaded apps) and raising clock rates the fanbois come out of the woodwork to drool.
The only upshot of the whole thing is that at least AMD is forced to keep prices low ow they'd be gone in a minute.
I previously owned AMD CPUs this decade until it was time to upgrade the nb again last year. AMD simply could not offer the processing power and battery life in notebooks, similar to the way in which they can't really directly compete with Intel on the desktop any longer.
I'd decided to put off a desktop rebuild until Sandy Bridge, and hopefully Bulldozer will be out right around the same time with prices stabilizing so that performance can be compared, although I'm not very hopeful for AMD TBB(rutally)H. In any event I expect that they'll have a new socket anyways and we already know that Intel will have two(ATM).
The only upshot of the whole thing is that at least AMD is forced to keep prices low ow they'd be gone in a minute.
I previously owned AMD CPUs this decade until it was time to upgrade the nb again last year. AMD simply could not offer the processing power and battery life in notebooks, similar to the way in which they can't really directly compete with Intel on the desktop any longer.
I'd decided to put off a desktop rebuild until Sandy Bridge, and hopefully Bulldozer will be out right around the same time with prices stabilizing so that performance can be compared, although I'm not very hopeful for AMD TBB(rutally)H. In any event I expect that they'll have a new socket anyways and we already know that Intel will have two(ATM).
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.
i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man.
Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious......
Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic.
Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)
AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMD
But im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"
Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.
the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....
i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man.
Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious......
Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic.
Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)
AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMD
But im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"
Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.
the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....
@cutterjohn:
I think that is a great idea. In the next 18 to 24 months, prices will drop and performance will rise. AMD will undoubtedly be the best choice unless you have way too much money. With today's newly announced mobile chips looking quite good and the apparent wide acceptance by manufacturers, I would suggest the future will hold an AMD laptop for me. Perhaps you too, never is a very long time. While I am eager for the next gen, I am aware that BOTH will require new sockets and underlying architecture. The current strategy AMD has of having a nice easy upgrade path is the second time they have done this that I have witnessed. I applaud it, as it makes for a much 'greener' footprint that constantly changing or adding platforms such as Intel is constantly doing. This seems to me to be a build, refine, refine, refine and refine again strategy. You work out the bugs. Just like software production.
I think that is a great idea. In the next 18 to 24 months, prices will drop and performance will rise. AMD will undoubtedly be the best choice unless you have way too much money. With today's newly announced mobile chips looking quite good and the apparent wide acceptance by manufacturers, I would suggest the future will hold an AMD laptop for me. Perhaps you too, never is a very long time. While I am eager for the next gen, I am aware that BOTH will require new sockets and underlying architecture. The current strategy AMD has of having a nice easy upgrade path is the second time they have done this that I have witnessed. I applaud it, as it makes for a much 'greener' footprint that constantly changing or adding platforms such as Intel is constantly doing. This seems to me to be a build, refine, refine, refine and refine again strategy. You work out the bugs. Just like software production.
djdarko321
because you enjoy paying $1000 for a CPU ??? i support AMD because i remember what life was like before the Athlon, do you even think there would be an i7 if there was no Phenom or that we can even get a decent CPU for under $200
because you enjoy paying $1000 for a CPU ??? i support AMD because i remember what life was like before the Athlon, do you even think there would be an i7 if there was no Phenom or that we can even get a decent CPU for under $200
tick..............tock.................
yes they do look promising i agree. but they are still playing catch up ........ i wonder what type of tech we would be playing with IF we had other "original" companies to level the playing field and force each other to keep coming up with newer better things at a faster pace. Mobile and Desktop wise.
Sure keeping same mobo, psu, and everything else system wise for some random amount of yrs to save money sounds awesome....... nah it doesnt rly........ things could be so much diff right now for us if we werent with this mindset the markets have created. Slowing technology down, and hindering our technological evolution as we advance, by using this "budget" scheme of things. So none of this really matters..... Be stuck doing same thing for yrs on end because the companies only care about "budget", not advancing. NVM that subject lol
AMD needs to be "original" again, since theres only 2 "major" cpu manufacturers, so that we can advance into newer better things. The more as tech advances, the more we do, but only allowed as far as the market greed will let you. (like Intel always being $500 and up for "good") So dont take my previous posting wrong. LOL
I hope I got that out there right. lol 😛
yes they do look promising i agree. but they are still playing catch up ........ i wonder what type of tech we would be playing with IF we had other "original" companies to level the playing field and force each other to keep coming up with newer better things at a faster pace. Mobile and Desktop wise.
Sure keeping same mobo, psu, and everything else system wise for some random amount of yrs to save money sounds awesome....... nah it doesnt rly........ things could be so much diff right now for us if we werent with this mindset the markets have created. Slowing technology down, and hindering our technological evolution as we advance, by using this "budget" scheme of things. So none of this really matters..... Be stuck doing same thing for yrs on end because the companies only care about "budget", not advancing. NVM that subject lol
AMD needs to be "original" again, since theres only 2 "major" cpu manufacturers, so that we can advance into newer better things. The more as tech advances, the more we do, but only allowed as far as the market greed will let you. (like Intel always being $500 and up for "good") So dont take my previous posting wrong. LOL
I hope I got that out there right. lol 😛
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]amdme2[/nom]djdarko321because you enjoy paying $1000 for a CPU ??? i support AMD because i remember what life was like before the Athlon, do you even think there would be an i7 if there was no Phenom or that we can even get a decent CPU for under $200[/citation]
ya dont say?
ye my first was a 80286 cpu IBM system that was my dads b 4 he passed. i was 5. 😛 so come again...
ur not understanding my posts (also my post under Huda)soz they went over ur head ..... hard when ur a gullible fanboi i suppose
ya dont say?
ye my first was a 80286 cpu IBM system that was my dads b 4 he passed. i was 5. 😛 so come again...
ur not understanding my posts (also my post under Huda)soz they went over ur head ..... hard when ur a gullible fanboi i suppose
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
for those that h8 the truth.
[citation][nom]djdarko321[/nom]unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man. Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious...... Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic. Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMDBut im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....[/citation]
and thats how it goes ...... xD
[citation][nom]djdarko321[/nom]unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man. Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious...... Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic. Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMDBut im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....[/citation]
and thats how it goes ...... xD
djdarko321
im not really a 'fanboi' as you put it, i'll happily admit that Intel probably kicks AMD with regards to the i7, but if there was no AMD to force Intel to up their game then there really would be no incentive for Intel to do anything, and yes AMD has to license their instructions set from intel, i dont think they are in any position to go solo and make their own instruction set and wait for the industry 'NOT' to adopt the new standard, your right AMD would not be alive if not for a fair few court ruling, but i think thats more attributed to intel's unfair practices in exploiting their monopoly
when your in AMDs position originality has nothing to do with it, it was hard enough for AMD to get market acceptance let alone get Microsoft and co to accept and develop for a brand new instruction set, something intel can happily command being the dominate supplier of chips for the x86 platform
i think you misunderstood my post, it's not the rantings of a fanboi but rather an observation of how intel create the current status quo, at least AMD is forcing some progress (much to intel's attempt to stifle it by exploiting their monopoly)
you have to admit intel is greatly to blame for the stagnation of innovation in the CPU field, with the recent court win maybe we might start to see some progress
im not really a 'fanboi' as you put it, i'll happily admit that Intel probably kicks AMD with regards to the i7, but if there was no AMD to force Intel to up their game then there really would be no incentive for Intel to do anything, and yes AMD has to license their instructions set from intel, i dont think they are in any position to go solo and make their own instruction set and wait for the industry 'NOT' to adopt the new standard, your right AMD would not be alive if not for a fair few court ruling, but i think thats more attributed to intel's unfair practices in exploiting their monopoly
when your in AMDs position originality has nothing to do with it, it was hard enough for AMD to get market acceptance let alone get Microsoft and co to accept and develop for a brand new instruction set, something intel can happily command being the dominate supplier of chips for the x86 platform
i think you misunderstood my post, it's not the rantings of a fanboi but rather an observation of how intel create the current status quo, at least AMD is forcing some progress (much to intel's attempt to stifle it by exploiting their monopoly)
you have to admit intel is greatly to blame for the stagnation of innovation in the CPU field, with the recent court win maybe we might start to see some progress
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
yes agreed totally amdme3. read my Huda post ..... as i said tho AMD has originality .... they did when they wooped intels arse w the IMC. They need to be innovative again and stifle Intel's tick for tock routine that keeps putting AMD a cpl yrs behind. which sux for us as consumers because like I said in my Huda posting, because of this, we are forced to reap the "past" tech benefits not what things should rly be. Yes Bulldozer is coming out along with Llano but what does Intel have in store? AMD needs to innovate everything all over again so that we the people wont always have to think "budget" previous tech is better.
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
especially when another giant like Nvidia plays on Intels side most of the time GPU wise. (even tho they are always fighting, they still work together)
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
sorry about triple posting, i forgot to add this as well
AMD IS and ALWAYS is in a position to make their own instruction sets i.e. 3dnow amd64 (x86-64 altho its an iteration from IA-64 AMD redid it for us)
and sse4a (AMD's iteration of the sse4)
UP UR GAME AMD or die trying ....... and then we suffer.
AMD IS and ALWAYS is in a position to make their own instruction sets i.e. 3dnow amd64 (x86-64 altho its an iteration from IA-64 AMD redid it for us)
and sse4a (AMD's iteration of the sse4)
UP UR GAME AMD or die trying ....... and then we suffer.
spoofedpacket
Distinguished
- Jun 13, 2009
- 201
- 0
- 18,690
Does the author know what 'bait and switch' means, or is he just applying it randomly to put more words in an article?
Someone posted that AMD "stole" the x86 architecture through court-room shennanagans. That's not true, they bought a license from Intel.
AMD extended the x86 to x86-64 because Intel would not license the IA64 architecture which was for the failed Itanium and Itanium2 processors.
There was a period of time not too long ago that Intel was behind AMD in consumer CPU innovation. The K6 and K8 had features that Intel ultimately adopted to remain competitive. You cannot call AMD backward or non-competitive. AMD marketed the first dual and single die dual processor. AMD also marketed the first consumer 64-bit CPU too.
AMD is as highly technically competent as Intel is. AMD's problem is they are small and lack the capital necessary for rapid development of new processess.
AMD extended the x86 to x86-64 because Intel would not license the IA64 architecture which was for the failed Itanium and Itanium2 processors.
There was a period of time not too long ago that Intel was behind AMD in consumer CPU innovation. The K6 and K8 had features that Intel ultimately adopted to remain competitive. You cannot call AMD backward or non-competitive. AMD marketed the first dual and single die dual processor. AMD also marketed the first consumer 64-bit CPU too.
AMD is as highly technically competent as Intel is. AMD's problem is they are small and lack the capital necessary for rapid development of new processess.
[citation][nom]emjayy[/nom]It's true what the article says. Most everyday users don't actually need the raw power of high performance Intel chips for mundane tasks like surfing the web or running basic everyday applications. That's why it was so easy for me to go with an Athlon II X2 250 for this machine which I built 3 weeks ago. ... The most important thing for me was the fact that the AM2+ board will let me migrate to an Phenom II X6 if (or WHEN) I get the itch.[/citation]
I could not agree with you more. AMD offers better value and I too have an Intel gaming machine and AMD utility machines for Internet browising and business applications. I use BE-2400 CPU on ASUS M3A78EM motherboards for my utility computers.
I could not agree with you more. AMD offers better value and I too have an Intel gaming machine and AMD utility machines for Internet browising and business applications. I use BE-2400 CPU on ASUS M3A78EM motherboards for my utility computers.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]spoofedpacket[/nom]Does the author know what 'bait and switch' means, or is he just applying it randomly to put more words in an article?[/citation]
It makes a lot more sense to criticize an article after actually reading it.
Try page 2, sport.
It makes a lot more sense to criticize an article after actually reading it.
Try page 2, sport.
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
[citation][nom]NucDsgr[/nom]Someone posted that AMD "stole" the x86 architecture through court-room shennanagans. That's not true, they bought a license from Intel.AMD extended the x86 to x86-64 because Intel would not license the IA64 architecture which was for the failed Itanium and Itanium2 processors.There was a period of time not too long ago that Intel was behind AMD in consumer CPU innovation. The K6 and K8 had features that Intel ultimately adopted to remain competitive. You cannot call AMD backward or non-competitive. AMD marketed the first dual and single die dual processor. AMD also marketed the first consumer 64-bit CPU too. AMD is as highly technically competent as Intel is. AMD's problem is they are small and lack the capital necessary for rapid development of new processess.[/citation]
plz read b 4 criticizing wrongly stated comments tnx
[citation][nom]djdarko321[/nom]unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man. Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious...... Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic. Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMDBut im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....[/citation]
[citation][nom]Huda[/nom]tick..............tock.................yes they do look promising i agree. but they are still playing catch up ........ i wonder what type of tech we would be playing with IF we had other "original" companies to level the playing field and force each other to keep coming up with newer better things at a faster pace. Mobile and Desktop wise.Sure keeping same mobo, psu, and everything else system wise for some random amount of yrs to save money sounds awesome....... nah it doesnt rly........ things could be so much diff right now for us if we werent with this mindset the markets have created. Slowing technology down, and hindering our technological evolution as we advance, by using this "budget" scheme of things. So none of this really matters..... Be stuck doing same thing for yrs on end because the companies only care about "budget", not advancing. NVM that subject lol AMD needs to be "original" again, since theres only 2 "major" cpu manufacturers, so that we can advance into newer better things. The more as tech advances, the more we do, but only allowed as far as the market greed will let you. (like Intel always being $500 and up for "good") So dont take my previous posting wrong. LOL I hope I got that out there right. lol[/citation]
plz read b 4 criticizing wrongly stated comments tnx
[citation][nom]djdarko321[/nom]unbiased as im a person that wants performance at the time when i upgrade.i remember AMD started woopin Intel's butt when they introduced the IMC(integrated memory controller) and got rid of the FSB, no middle man between the cpu and ram. crappy proc w IMC will beat good proc w a slow middle man. Kinda funny in 06 core 2 line (Conroe) comes out and beats the hell outta everything AMD had at the time. Guess what ....the Core 2 Duo/Quad line up all still used a FSB middle man w no IMC. Hillarious...... Now since AMD has finally beaten the older Core 2 lineup (lmmfao)they need 6 cores to go against 4... is it fair? 6 vs 4? lolz comparisons should be 6 vs 6 or the quads vs quads... marketing mumbo jumbo u gotta filter thru it all to get the little bit of logic. Remember now, AMD has had to lisense ALL cpu instruction sets from Intel or BUST! ... i.e. x86 mainly w all the SSE sets. AMD 64 is an iteration from IA-64. (Itanium procs by HP and Intel)AMD wouldnt be alive if it wasnt for the court ruling in 1991. Allowing them to basically"steal" Intel's technologies and "clone" their procs for cheaper. Making the Am386. IBM had a big hand in this issue as well. Must be great not being original at all....= AMDBut im for cheap as well but performance...is the main issue, along w "future proofing"Fanboy of neither btw....... originality pwns all.the i7's are basically revamped core2's w QPI and hyperthreading and some instruction set optimizations. So it goes both ways....[/citation]
[citation][nom]Huda[/nom]tick..............tock.................yes they do look promising i agree. but they are still playing catch up ........ i wonder what type of tech we would be playing with IF we had other "original" companies to level the playing field and force each other to keep coming up with newer better things at a faster pace. Mobile and Desktop wise.Sure keeping same mobo, psu, and everything else system wise for some random amount of yrs to save money sounds awesome....... nah it doesnt rly........ things could be so much diff right now for us if we werent with this mindset the markets have created. Slowing technology down, and hindering our technological evolution as we advance, by using this "budget" scheme of things. So none of this really matters..... Be stuck doing same thing for yrs on end because the companies only care about "budget", not advancing. NVM that subject lol AMD needs to be "original" again, since theres only 2 "major" cpu manufacturers, so that we can advance into newer better things. The more as tech advances, the more we do, but only allowed as far as the market greed will let you. (like Intel always being $500 and up for "good") So dont take my previous posting wrong. LOL I hope I got that out there right. lol[/citation]
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
also researching b 4 u comment helps a lil as well ....am386 if u cant read. and yes i said AMD was being original when they made the iteration of IA-64. sheesh such illiteracy soz 😛
AMD is smart to have these great processors at such low prices. A couple months ago I built this PC with a X3 435 and a Radeon 5600 (yes I should have got the 4850 or 4870 for the same price). This system kicks ass. I've played Bad Company 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Fallout 3, Sims 3, Dragon Age, and Borderlands all at max settings. All of the games run very good at max settings with slightly noticeable frame drops. Windows 7 runs very smoothly with full Aero features on. So my question is this, Why do people spend $1000 on Intel processors or $500 on some Nvidia card when you can build a really cheap system to do almost the same thing. Guess how much the X3 435 was? $75 free shipping. The Radeon? $80 free shipping.
Seriously, I would like a true justification of spending over $1000 for a single processor on your gaming machine when you can spend $500 for A WHOLE SYSTEM that does basically the same job. If you're a normal person with a budget then AMD is for you. Sure my rig isn't the fastest, but it sure does the job I want it too. I can live with 40 frames per second...
Seriously, I would like a true justification of spending over $1000 for a single processor on your gaming machine when you can spend $500 for A WHOLE SYSTEM that does basically the same job. If you're a normal person with a budget then AMD is for you. Sure my rig isn't the fastest, but it sure does the job I want it too. I can live with 40 frames per second...
[citation][nom]antisyzygy[/nom]@zehpavoraAMD has released superior technology in the past, but now they are a bit behind. In the near future AMD will be ahead again, then Intel will beat them for a bit, ad infinitum. I bet you are one of those a-holes that always tout the latest and greatest thing like you were one of the founding members of a subculture that discovered it. I bet three years ago all you did was proclaim how Nvidia is the greatest, and I bet now ATI is your new thing. All you are coming across as is a sycophant, dilettante, imposter.[/citation]
I'd like to add and take you through the time tunnel back to 2007:
Nvidia came out with the toaster oven called the 8800 GTX. Back then the majority of users know only to recite 3 letters: FPS. I remember the press preparing eulogies for ATI. Back to 2010:
Nvidia's new over hyped and over late Fermi architecture gives us the 480GTX, that hasn't beaten the 5800 series in most benchmarks and as for power consumption and heat generation...well...you can pretty much say we have a proof now to global warming..XD.
Seriously usually I am an objective guy, that researches and build a solid opinion before buying\commenting\doing anything ( unless my girlfriend wants to be spontaneous XD). I can admit the AMD and ATI have fault, every company on earth does, but when people can't get they're head out of their ass and read for 5 minutes and learn something other than FPS, well that just hard-codes my firmware...
I'd like to add and take you through the time tunnel back to 2007:
Nvidia came out with the toaster oven called the 8800 GTX. Back then the majority of users know only to recite 3 letters: FPS. I remember the press preparing eulogies for ATI. Back to 2010:
Nvidia's new over hyped and over late Fermi architecture gives us the 480GTX, that hasn't beaten the 5800 series in most benchmarks and as for power consumption and heat generation...well...you can pretty much say we have a proof now to global warming..XD.
Seriously usually I am an objective guy, that researches and build a solid opinion before buying\commenting\doing anything ( unless my girlfriend wants to be spontaneous XD). I can admit the AMD and ATI have fault, every company on earth does, but when people can't get they're head out of their ass and read for 5 minutes and learn something other than FPS, well that just hard-codes my firmware...
djdarko321
Distinguished
- May 12, 2010
- 40
- 0
- 18,530
who said i mainly game? i want u to run Cubase 5 (full version) with multiple vsti's (like reFX Nexus 2.2, Vanguard, Komplexer for example)rewired with reason 4 and ableton using an M Audio ASIO 2.0 2496 audiophile sound card and u tell me how good those AMD chips do with midi and raw audio. LMAO they choke too quick. i mainly run DAW's as audio is my hobby. people dont ONLY use their system's for gaming and other forms of non productivity.
need4speeds
Distinguished
- Jan 6, 2009
- 1,573
- 39
- 20,190
My friend bought a new upgrade kit for $159.99, a budget asusrock micro atx with a geforce7050 chipset, two 1 gb sticks of cheap generic ddr2-800, a retail regor 250 with its tiny cooler. A 500 gig seagate 12 series sata 2 hdd was $49.99. He has a xbox360 with lots of xbox360 games so there is no point in upgrading the video. He wanted a fast computer for media/movies/internet which the geforce 7 does quite well. Also reusing a case/300 watt atx, ide dvd burner and usb2 external hdd.
The board sets the 1.4v chip at 1.429v to compensate for vdroop since a .3v vdroop under load which is typical for a poor p/s and cheap board. I dropped the HT to 800, mem to 667, enabled a fixed speed setting that makes the pci and pcie buss stay at stock. 3.59ghz(242fsb) brought the memory back up to 398mhz(796mhz effective). the HT back up to about 940. Overclocked at 3.59ghz even under load the cpu stayed the whole time under 37 C with 34-35C being the average temp. It also runs really quiet all the time.
The regor 260 gives you a higher multi for a stock 3.2ghz clock, so add .59 and you get 3.79ghz with a cheap board/mem that comes packaged with a budget upgrade kit.
Keep in mind on most cheaper boards the northbridge,memory,ht,sound chip,lan chip,and sometimes the gpu, also gets overclocked with the fsb, so with a 242fsb speed it proved to be stable but at 248 it had sound glitches when tested playing the pro street demo. It was a bit choppy, the geforce7 is about the same speed as the old ati 9600xt or geforce5900 so games like call of duty play ok on it.
The regor is really fast for a budget chip, It would do ok paired with a card like the 5770 making a cheap and quiet running gaming system.
The board sets the 1.4v chip at 1.429v to compensate for vdroop since a .3v vdroop under load which is typical for a poor p/s and cheap board. I dropped the HT to 800, mem to 667, enabled a fixed speed setting that makes the pci and pcie buss stay at stock. 3.59ghz(242fsb) brought the memory back up to 398mhz(796mhz effective). the HT back up to about 940. Overclocked at 3.59ghz even under load the cpu stayed the whole time under 37 C with 34-35C being the average temp. It also runs really quiet all the time.
The regor 260 gives you a higher multi for a stock 3.2ghz clock, so add .59 and you get 3.79ghz with a cheap board/mem that comes packaged with a budget upgrade kit.
Keep in mind on most cheaper boards the northbridge,memory,ht,sound chip,lan chip,and sometimes the gpu, also gets overclocked with the fsb, so with a 242fsb speed it proved to be stable but at 248 it had sound glitches when tested playing the pro street demo. It was a bit choppy, the geforce7 is about the same speed as the old ati 9600xt or geforce5900 so games like call of duty play ok on it.
The regor is really fast for a budget chip, It would do ok paired with a card like the 5770 making a cheap and quiet running gaming system.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
I swapped my mini-LED display for a $1,300 OLED monitor. Here’s what happened- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question Chronic Freezes on ASUS Vivobook Go E1504FA
- Latest: Detective_Khalifah_dtcfscd
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram