AMD has just outed a selection of new Athlon II procs, which do little to help it reclaim
the performance crown, but will be of interest to anyone who likes to keep things minimal -- whether we're talking about prices or temperatures. Starting at $69 per chip (when bought in bulk) with the 2.7GHz dual-core X2 235e and topping out at $143 for the 2.3GHz quad-core X4 605e, AMD's new e-tagged processors operate within a 45W thermal envelope, as opposed to the relatively standard 65W TDP. The Sunnyvale outfit makes some ill-advised claims of "up to 75 percent" better performance versus comparable Intel CPUs -- the small print tells us that number is derived from 3DMark Vantage while testing with different GPUs -- but we suppose until the
Thuban six-core shows up, AMD will have to take performance gains from wherever it can get 'em, including its own imagination.
posted Oct 20th 2009 4:12AM
Usually the first poster always gets downranked...anyway moving onto my question
When building a computer why would a person choose intel over amd? (well unless they're rich) AMD has great processors for great prices and you can always overclock it...i just don't understand
faster, cooler (until now, I guess) and believe it or not, you can overclock intels too.
1. not everyone overclocks. (and that's a large fraction)
2. price/performance ratio is the most important factor. currently core i5 750 cost about the same as phenom 2 X4 965 and performs way better in most occasions
3. getting a future-proof motherboard (socket, chipset) is important if you plan to change your CPU in the future. e.g getting an LGA 775 cpu (core 2) right now is not wise coz there won't be any new CPU supporting it. But both AM3 and LGA1156 or LGA1336 are far better choices.
4. Other parts of your system. e.g you can't afford DDR3 so you can't get a core i7 on LGA 1336
5. some people are fans of AMD or intel
6. etc...
I have an Athlon 64 X2 5000 at 2.6GHz running my Mythbox for my HTPC and a 5200+ overclocked to 3.2GHz running Windows 7 on my gaming desktop. I'd go with Intel, but it's just too damn expensive! Across the board, Intel's processors and its associated motherboards can't compete with AMD's lineup (performance per dollar). Using AMD processors makes it possible to have a decent HTPC for under $500.
Intel is just overpriced I'm amd all the way
I expect the answers you will receive will point that Intel chips are plain faster clock for clock, and in certain uses, that can matter a lot. If you are talking from purely a gaming perspective, I agree. In my opinion, getting a decent AMD chip and putting the savings towards stronger graphics will yield better results for gamers on a budget, than making room in the budget for a Core i7. Core i5 may be hard to ignore though now, though I am not too keen on needing a new socket for it.
When its all said and done though, I don't thing the PC enthusiast gaming market is sizable enough to dictate anything. There are people out there doing CPU intensive things, and those people would probably be well advised to get a Core i7 920 if they can spare the couple hundred difference (not hard to justify the cost when you consider how long you'll use the rig for).
If you are talking about a simple budget box to use the internet and microsoft office, watch some videos, no gaming, then yeah, I don't think you can ignore an AMD setup with an integrated HD4200 graphics chip.
Personally, my rig is for games, and I handle everything just fine with my "measley" P2 X3 720BE. Overclocked to 3.6GHz with an unlocked 4th core. It's the Crossfire Radeon 4870's that let me run the games at max, my cpu usage is never maxed. Though, for fun, I am keeping this hefty overclock stable with some high voltages, I am curious to see how long it will take the chip to fry, as I have never fried a chip before. I am prepared to replace it with a 955BE if it dies, since the price of that chip is plummeting, but it'll be an interesting experiment.
Place your bets! Will my Phenom II X3 run at 1.65V (bios) / 1.525V (CPU-Z) until mid 2011? [Yes, that VDroop is ridiculously bad]
For some time, my test was: am I going to do a lot of video encoding or source code compilation? No - then AMD. Otherwise - Intel.
I can afford both, but in past years I pretty much never seen my old AMD CPU at 100% load.
I'd say we have already reached the CPU performance point when things like power usage and price/performance ratio are more important than raw performance.
I'm not a fan of AMD in particular (I strongly prefer quality of Intel) yet I simply can't come up with any justification for e.g. i7 setup which only for CPU+RAM+MB reaches into $600+ area. Intel rotates their CPU sockets way too fast for the expensive setup to remain upgradable over ~5 years. And if you go down to i5, then AMD still maintains price advantage thank to cheaper MBs.
In the end, I'd rather throw more RAM onto AMD setup instead - both Windows and Linux like that a lot more than faster CPU.
Huh. I came in here expecting to find screaming fanboys defending their chosen platform, but instead... I found people having reasonable discussions! (I hope I didn't just jinx anything.)
Man, I guess I read too many comments at Anandtech... not sure why I ever bother, though it probably has something to do with the part of the brain that activates when people watch two railroad locomotives colliding at high speeds.
I've been wanting to build a system around the $99 Athlon II X4, but the Watts/GHz ratio on these new ones are pretty impressive. I'd probably still go with the cheaper, faster processor, but still, I can definitely see the draw... or rather, the lack of draw (get it? 'cause it draws less current? no? OK, never mind...).
actually gaming doesnt really need a super fast quad-core, if you were doing video/image/or sound editing, things that need the cpu just as much as the gpu THEN i would say go with the intel, i have a cheap old x2 5200 and a hd3850 and i get by pretty ok with it on games. Also if you do a lot of compressing/uncompressing, the intel would help with that a lot too. I just couldnt afford the intels.
furthermore, who knows, amd could be making even better processors if it werent for the problems intel caused with its dirty dealings.
For a cheap system with integrated graphics, AMD is the way to go.
For a mainstream system with a graphics card, AMD is still the way to go as the cost savings buy you a better graphics card, or let's be honest: *buys you the graphics card*.
For a business/research/education system its a bit more complicated. Reliability and software compatibility are important ... those Phenom bugs were not fun, trying to get early Phenoms to work with 4GB with Vista 64bit was a friggin' nightmare. After that experience I have decided that Intel will get the nod from here on in for our "high performance" machines i.e. running molecular simulations, etc...
Aw, how embarrassing! You didn't get first!
AMD are quickly becoming the budget conscious builders choice when it comes to HTPCs, and these chips will only solidify their position in the admittedly niche market, but I am happy, I currently have a quad Phenom 95w. I may be tempted to swap it out for one of these, it really is overkill for a media center.
Keeping my Intel quad in my work machine though... :D
Agreed.
I have a Phenom X3 and it IS overkill for my SageTV server. However, it's a monster for H.264 comskip. I would be willing to sacrifice that a little bit to go down from 95w to 45w.
Their are more average non hardcore users in the market to sell to so even if they are not the fastest GPU they will still be making a lot more for their price for performance. Well i think chip makers are preparing the market for software makers to take advantage sort of like if you build it they will come. i hope.... i want 6 cores, 6 GPU in a HTPC needing 5 blu ray players running at the same time just to create the picture that could only be dreamed about. Who knows what people will make i just know even with my super fast computer it still feels and time consuming to do many things at once. I just think if are tech is so fast right now how come we are not ripping threw things like thing could hold us down. a lot of software still takes awhile. I was thinking ATI could do 3 screens i wonder how good it can just make one. it is a nice feature but mostly for production work like maybe web development, excel well watching the news.
Even Intel fanboys benefit if AMD get back in the game. Intel do by far their best stuff when they feel threatened.
AMD please do something about overheating! i have the athlon x2 QL-64 in my laptop and i gotta say this thing isn't good with heat. the average temps hover over 58C or 136F and the fan is so F-ing loud! the bottom of the laptop gets really hot, i had to go out and buy a cooling pad for it.
That's not really overheating, just hot :)
My Macbook Pro's Core 2 P8600 runs at 97c full load/55c idle, laptops do tend to run hot, just the way it is i guess :)
I was looking at the Core i7 920 a while back and for the performance I thought it sounded reasonable despite the price tag. But I forgot about the motherboards and boy do those X58 motherboards cost a ton!
I decided to postpone my major CPU upgrade (from an Athlon X2 3800+ Brisbane). I instead opted for a $80 MSI 780G AM3 mobo (forgot the name, but it has everything I need) and an Athlon II X4 620 instead. The combo costs even cheaper than the X58 mobos I looked at a while back. Sure, it's nowhere near as fast as the Core i7 but I actually have cash now to upgrade my video card instead. Currently using a Geforce 8800 GT and I'm currently eying the Radeon HD 5850. I'd still be using my 8800 GT if I got the Core i7. I think it's a fair trade-off, all I'm after is better gaming performance though video editing is a second thought. I'm quite happy with my modest upgrade. Now I'm just waiting for the HD 5850 prices to fall to $200 at least (if that even happens... I heard Nvidia's 'unofficially' surrendered the mid and upper-range GPU market given the unbelievably stiff competition from AMD/ATI).
When building a new system the most money should be spent for an SSD drive and not a new CPU or GPU. For the average user a faster more expensive CPU doesn't return as much boost as a new SSD does. So this new $69 Athlon is perfect for anyone that is looking to build a fast and efficient system. All we need now is the release of the new AMD ATI Radeon HD 5650 or 5670 to build a cool and highly efficient system.
You are going to hell.
You all have me and my terrible luck to thank for the timing of this announcement. I just ordered an Athlon II X4 620 on Friday, so of course AMD outs a bunch of new chips before UPS can even deliver the one I bought.
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Oh yeah man, thats too bad...
Ah Athlon, my mini space heater during those cold nights in the dorm.
The memories!