Mainboard Maker "Predicts" Launch of AMD FX "Bulldozer" Chips at Computex.

If I get my Bulldozer rig built just before Star Wars The Old Republic comes out, I will be a happy man!

Seriously, if you like Intel, then you want AMD to succeed because it makes the market healthier, just like how Microsoft needs Apple, fanboy or not.
 
If AMD is actually bringing back the FX moniker, then they've got to be pretty confident in the product they have
 
ZerazaX said:
If AMD is actually bringing back the FX moniker, then they've got to be pretty confident in the product they have
Click to expand...
Or it's a desperate attempt by marketing to make people think the CPU's have decent performance like the glory days of FX chips back in 2003-2005. That being said, I would have to agree with you. I don't think AMD is that stupid. The only people who know or care about the FX moniker in the first place are enthusiasts, and they aren't dumb enough to fall for marketing lies if this turns out to be one.

Honestly, I bet the high-end desktop chip will at best equal a i7 2600k in multi-threaded apps and be priced accordingly at around $300. I doubt it will match the high end i7's due out later this year. I believe it will be the server and HPC markets that the bulldozer architecture will really shine.
 
I hope the 4 module 8 core Bulldozer will be 40+% faster than i7 2600k for fully threaded applications and no more than 15% slower in single threaded apps. Otherwise, it would be pretty disappointing performance for 100% more "cores" and all those other architectural advancements over Phenom II. They've set the bar high, now they gotta deliver the goods.
 
applemaggot said:
If I get my Bulldozer rig built just before Star Wars The Old Republic comes out, I will be a happy man!

Seriously, if you like Intel, then you want AMD to succeed because it makes the market healthier, just like how Microsoft needs Apple, fanboy or not.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.

At the end of the day though, It's not only about performance, Sandy's run cool and overclock like nobody's business.

I mean hitting 5ghz on water is almost easy as long as you have a decent setup. Not like many games are multithreaded anyway. There is virtually no gains to be seen with 4+ cores.

Amd really have to top that or it will be a shame, seriously if you can't match your competitors mid range with your flagship chip that you had 6+months more to work on.
 
Corvette said:
I bet AMD hoped the the unlocked sandy bridge were going to command a higher premium so that they could advertise their unlocked against Intel's unlocked :p
Click to expand...

Bus overclocking on AMD has always been finicky and really not the greatest, hence the black editions. The only thing they can say is 'unlocked' is the bus if all things continue as they have (SB blk / bus / whatever term you want to use has like 5-6mhz room if you're lucky), as marketing wise both vendors have multiplier locked and unlocked chips available.
 
xAlex79 said:
Amen to that.

At the end of the day though, It's not only about performance, Sandy's run cool and overclock like nobody's business.

I mean hitting 5ghz on water is almost easy as long as you have a decent setup. Not like many games are multithreaded anyway. There is virtually no gains to be seen with 4+ cores.

Amd really have to top that or it will be a shame, seriously if you can't match your competitors mid range with your flagship chip that you had 6+months more to work on.
Click to expand...

Yeah I hear all of that but I get tired of Intel's BS games. I was all set yesterday to just say screw it because I am tired of waiting on both Llano and Bulldozer and buy two Intel set ups but then I start going through the component selection process and I am reminded that the i3 2100, which I would use for the new HTPC, has Intel's lowest-end IGPU (brilliant) and the whole deal with the P and H boards and the standard and K CPU's and how you either have a CPU you can overclock OR you have access to an IGP.... I mean that is just horseshit gamplaying IMO. Have to wait for an exorbitantly priced X board to have access to both, etc.

The whole thing just pisses me off. AMD doesn't seem to play those games. They might be a bit behind and slower but they aren't fucking around with their customers. I would really like to buy a 2500K setup because it is obviously the best thing going but it is the principle of the thing to me. I think I am off Intel until they quit playing games. Rewarding that type of crap just sticks in my craw too much, no matter how good their CPU's are.
 
beto said:
Yeah I hear all of that but I get tired of Intel's BS games. I was all set yesterday to just say screw it because I am tired of waiting on both Llano and Bulldozer and buy two Intel set ups but then I start going through the component selection process and I am reminded that the i3 2100, which I would use for the new HTPC, has Intel's lowest-end IGPU (brilliant) and the whole deal with the P and H boards and the standard and K CPU's and how you either have a CPU you can overclock OR you have access to an IGP.... I mean that is just horseshit gamplaying IMO.
Click to expand...
Who the hell is going to want to overclock a K processor and still use the integrated graphics?
 
Anyone who wants a dedicated Folding@Home/BOINC box, for starters. I would imagine there are other applications which don't take much advantage of the gpu where you would still appreciate the increased performance of a good overclock on a sandy bridge cpu.
 
DarkStryke said:
Bus overclocking on AMD has always been finicky and really not the greatest, hence the black editions. The only thing they can say is 'unlocked' is the bus if all things continue as they have (SB blk / bus / whatever term you want to use has like 5-6mhz room if you're lucky), as marketing wise both vendors have multiplier locked and unlocked chips available.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but have you seen the MSI review? http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/04/13/msi_890fxagd65_am3_motherboard_review/7

It can be done!
 
DarkStryke said:
Bus overclocking on AMD has always been finicky and really not the greatest, hence the black editions. The only thing they can say is 'unlocked' is the bus if all things continue as they have (SB blk / bus / whatever term you want to use has like 5-6mhz room if you're lucky), as marketing wise both vendors have multiplier locked and unlocked chips available.
Click to expand...
I think HT overclocking is more dependent on the quality of the board itself. The last 4 AM2/+ boards I have bought could all reach 270-280MHz minimum: Biostar TF570SLI, ECS 780G Black, Jetway HA06, Gigabyte MA790X-UD4P. The HA06 and 790X-UD4P could both go over 300MHz with the HT multi set at 8x. Both of them were able to overclock the Athlon II 620 I had up to 3.6GHz CPU, 3GHz NB, 2.4GHz HT. The main things that would hold me back were either my ram (cheapo '1066' DDR2) or the CPU (620 needed over 1.5v just to hit 3.6).

I wouldn't so much say finicky.
 
JMccovery said:
I think HT overclocking is more dependent on the quality of the board itself. The last 4 AM2/+ boards I have bought could all reach 270-280MHz minimum: Biostar TF570SLI, ECS 780G Black, Jetway HA06, Gigabyte MA790X-UD4P. The HA06 and 790X-UD4P could both go over 300MHz with the HT multi set at 8x. Both of them were able to overclock the Athlon II 620 I had up to 3.6GHz CPU, 3GHz NB, 2.4GHz HT. The main things that would hold me back were either my ram (cheapo '1066' DDR2) or the CPU (620 needed over 1.5v just to hit 3.6).

I wouldn't so much say finicky.
Click to expand...
The CPU also effects HT reference clock ceilings. The same boards that clocked poorly with Phenom I's could still get 300+ MHz with the previous Athlon X2's.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Who the hell is going to want to overclock a K processor and still use the integrated graphics?
Click to expand...

I certainly would. In most things that I do as a programmer the CPU is the bottleneck with basically current generation low end GPU being fine for the 3D rendering of medical images provided the drivers work in the OS used (I use windows and linux 50/50).
 
Last edited:
Lord_of_Doors said:
Anyone who wants a dedicated Folding@Home/BOINC box, for starters. I would imagine there are other applications which don't take much advantage of the gpu where you would still appreciate the increased performance of a good overclock on a sandy bridge cpu.
Click to expand...

isnt folding on a gfx card a lot faster still?
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Who the hell is going to want to overclock a K processor and still use the integrated graphics?
Click to expand...

What's that Sandy Bridge feature that uses the IGP for video transcoding? I presume someone would want to overclock it for that.
 
WBurchnall said:
This quote from the article begs the question, how far behind in performance was the Phenom II aritechture behind the Core2 // Core i7 technology? Does a Phenom II processor + 50% equal a core i7 processor roughly in performance?
Click to expand...

SuperPi 1M with my Phenom II 24.812 seconds.

Core i7 runs 8-10 seconds.

Overclocked i5 2500k to 5.5 Ghz: 2.469 seconds.


I'd say that it's more than 50% :) My Sandy Bridge will be ordered Monday. I plan on a thread comparing benchmarks.
 
spacing guild said:
SuperPi 1M with my Phenom II 24.812 seconds.

Core i7 runs 8-10 seconds.

Overclocked i5 2500k to 5.5 Ghz: 2.469 seconds.


I'd say that it's more than 50% :) My Sandy Bridge will be ordered Monday. I plan on a thread comparing benchmarks.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but SuperPi is not the be all, end all of benchmarks. SuperPi to 32M or WPrime is much better.
 
JMccovery said:
I'm sorry but SuperPi is not the be all, end all of benchmarks. SuperPi to 32M or WPrime is much better.
Click to expand...


lol...ok

Super Pi 1.5 32m (a primarily single-threaded benchmark):

11min 47sec 720ms - Core 2 E6700 (2.66Ghz)@4300mhz

9min 2sec 690ms - Core i7 920@4190mhz

17m 43s E2160 @ 3600MHz

My quad core rig - 25 minutes 20.162s


not...even...close... ;)


wPrime 1024m (multi-threaded):

Core i7 920 @ 4,608.7MHz- 109.516 seconds

Core 2 Q9550 (2.83Ghz) @ 4505MHz- 271.813 seconds

Core i7 920 stock- 294.777 seconds

My Rig- 477.624 seconds, which puts me right about a Core2 Quad Q8400.

A dual core Core i5 661 @ stock beats my quad with 454.812 seconds.

Not....even...close :p

Vantage: CPU + GPU:

My quad core Phenom 2 + GTX 460 1 GB 3d Mark Vantage: 12008

Dual Core i3 530 + HD 5850: 12308
 
Last edited:
spacing guild said:
SuperPi 1M with my Phenom II 24.812 seconds.

Core i7 runs 8-10 seconds.

Overclocked i5 2500k to 5.5 Ghz: 2.469 seconds.


I'd say that it's more than 50% :) My Sandy Bridge will be ordered Monday. I plan on a thread comparing benchmarks.
Click to expand...

You don't mention what speed the Phenom II is at...you could have it clocked at almost half the speed of the Sandy Bridge proc (3.0 Ghz vs. 5.5 Ghz). Not the fairest of comparisons.
 
Red Shirt said:
You don't mention what speed the Phenom II is at...you could have it clocked at almost half the speed of the Sandy Bridge proc (3.0 Ghz vs. 5.5 Ghz). Not the fairest of comparisons.
Click to expand...


The speed is in my sig...lets I can OC my Phenom II to about 3.8 GHz...my 830 is a custom model sold only through HP, it should be better than a Athlon II..bc the 840 has no 6M L3 cache but my 830 does have 6MB L3 cache...will my marks jump significantly? Maybe...but
lets face it...clock for clock it's on the level of a low-end Core 2 quad. That's generations ago.


Core i7 with same OC beats the pants off of Phenom...that's the point. In single threaded application..the speed of an i7 is more than double a phenom. There are stock i7's running the same multi-threaded benchmarks at similar speeds as AMD's latest six-cores.

Would I pick a Core i3 530 over the quad-core I have now?....abso-freaking-lutely.

If AMD wants some hearts and minds back....Bulldozer better be good. Which I kinda hope it is...I've liked AMD, esp. when they the gamer CPUs of choice. But as for me right now...i'm jumping ship. ;)
 
OC your phenom II to 3.8 ghz would result in a 1.2 ghz gain, which would mean a 42% increase in clock speed (in your case) and therefore result in a 42% decrease in time, assuming it scales linearly with clock speed (which is reasonable to assume). That would put your superpi at 14.5 minutes. Can you still say that's not even close? For the wPrime test, that would result in ~280 seconds. Please try to make more fair comparisons, you almost sound like an Intel fanboy for god's sake. And that processor was never intended to go up against an i7, more like an i3 or i5. The 965 was priced to compete against the i5 750. Your comparisons simply don't make any sense at all.

It's been well known for a long time now that Phenom II's do not have the IPC's that the first generation i7's have, and that it's more in line with the Core2Duo/Core2Quad. It is also well known that Sandy Bridge has increased the IPC from the first generation i7's.
 
Tsumi said:
OC your phenom II to 3.8 ghz would result in a 1.2 ghz gain, which would mean a 42% increase in clock speed (in your case) and therefore result in a 42% decrease in time, assuming it scales linearly with clock speed (which is reasonable to assume). That would put your superpi at 14.5 minutes. Can you still say that's not even close? For the wPrime test, that would result in ~280 seconds. Please try to make more fair comparisons, you almost sound like an Intel fanboy for god's sake. And that processor was never intended to go up against an i7, more like an i3 or i5. The 965 was priced to compete against the i5 750. Your comparisons simply don't make any sense at all.

It's been well known for a long time now that Phenom II's do not have the IPC's that the first generation i7's have, and that it's more in line with the Core2Duo/Core2Quad. It is also well known that Sandy Bridge has increased the IPC from the first generation i7's.
Click to expand...

It would be a 1 Ghz increase for me...yeah it would get better with a 1 GHz overclock. No maybe they weren't meant to go against Core iX. But I have been researching Core and Phenom benchies extensively for my upcoming upgrade...It's just amazing how far Intel is over AMD. Instead of making a better processor...they just tacked on some more cores. I am really disappointed in my CPU...I thought at least it would beat a Core 2 in most of the games I play...I had a dual core e8400 @ 3.6 ghz four years ago that was faster than this.
 
spacing guild said:
It would be a 1 Ghz increase for me...yeah it would get better with a 1 GHz overclock. No maybe they weren't meant to go against Core iX. But I have been researching Core and Phenom benchies extensively for my upcoming upgrade...It's just amazing how far Intel is over AMD. Instead of making a better processor...they just tacked on some more cores. I am really disappointed in my CPU...I thought at least it would beat a Core 2 in most of the games I play...I had a dual core e8400 @ 3.6 ghz four years ago that was faster than this.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why people always recommend a higher clocked dual core over a lower clocked quad core. That's because games can't take advantage of 4 cores, they can only take advantage of two, so obviously a 3.6 ghz dual core would beat a 2.8 quad core in gaming. You just did not get the right CPU for your uses, and that fault lies entirely with you. And the Phenom II line has been out for two years now, they're not going to make any changes to the architecture, especially with bulldozer coming out. They've just been tweaking Deneb architecture, lowering power consumption and temps to allow higher clocked chips. The only reason why they tacked on two more cores was because they were able to tweak things to the point where they could without going over power and heat issues, and they needed at least something to compete with low-end i7's. Look at the price of the current 1090T. It's priced even lower than the i5 2500k, that should tell you something about the market AMD is currently competing in.
 
spacing guild said:
And I am correcting that. :D
Click to expand...

Seems stupid to "jump ship" a month and a half before a new architecture launch. Its your money, but doing research before purchase is important, and part of that is knowing product launches. Seems silly to talk about how slow a Phenom is why you are still using one of the slower models, and that AMD has lost everybody just before they launch a CPU that you have no idea what the performance envelope was. I would make the same recommendation if the roles were reversed and BD was raping SB, if we were a month away from IB suggest to wait to see that performance first.
 
Remember when a new PC always cost $3,000 to 5,000? Now thanks to competition from AMD you can buy the latest technology for a few hundred dollars.

Also Intel was milking the market, Pentium II was around for a long time before any new technologies became available. At the same time Intel was indicted and convicted for criminal acts in International courts, price fixing, inti-competitive practices, etc.

So the bottom line -- we want an even playing field and we want AMD to succeed!
 
Topweasel said:
Seems stupid to "jump ship" a month and a half before a new architecture launch. Its your money, but doing research before purchase is important, and part of that is knowing product launches. Seems silly to talk about how slow a Phenom is why you are still using one of the slower models, and that AMD has lost everybody just before they launch a CPU that you have no idea what the performance envelope was. I would make the same recommendation if the roles were reversed and BD was raping SB, if we were a month away from IB suggest to wait to see that performance first.
Click to expand...


First of all...my CPU has the 6MB L3 cache of higher end Phenoms...but even some of the Athlon II quad cores without L3 cache beat my system @ around the same clock speed as mine...there are Phenom IIs with 1800 HT and same clock speeds that defeat my CPU...I have fast DDR3 RAM and 2000 HTs. There's no reason why my system is as weak as it is. Even if I oc'd my CPU, it would still be weaksauce.

I would need about $120 or better motherboard and 80-100 more for RAM to get the features and overclocking to make my Phenom II even remotely bearable.

For $100 more...I get quad-core Sandy Bridge. No contest.

If Bulldozer is going to be that great...there would be "leaked" preview benchmarks to try to prevent people from doing what I am doing. AMD's tact with CPUs and GPUs is price-performance and efficiency...that's what they have been good at for the last few years. And if they do come out with something that equals Sandy Bridge...how much cheaper do you think it will be? It's AM3+...that means i'd have to buy another motherboard to upgrade. May as well get what I want now for something I have studied and understood, instead of waiting for a platform that might just as well cost the same or more for equal performance. It's going to cost me around $320 dollars to rebuild my system into a killer.



You remember a game called Crysis? Everyone was so sure the sequel would be awesome... we all know how that turned out. :p
 
spacing guild said:
SuperPi 1M with my Phenom II 24.812 seconds.

Core i7 runs 8-10 seconds.

Overclocked i5 2500k to 5.5 Ghz: 2.469 seconds.


I'd say that it's more than 50% :) My Sandy Bridge will be ordered Monday. I plan on a thread comparing benchmarks.
Click to expand...

where did you get the results for the intel cpus?
i've seen a couple of super pi (1M) results for the 2600k and they can't pull sub 5sec results.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15868&page=144

the 2 2600k's in this thread are running @ 5.6-5.7GHz and getting around 6.5 secs

perhaps you should look at anands cpu bench comparison for a more complete picture...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

amd cpu specs;
http://products.amd.com/en-us/desktopcpuresult.aspx

intel current gen cpu specs;
http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/index.htm

intel older gen cpu specs;
http://www.intel.com/products/processors/previousgeneration/index.htm

i don't subscribe to either amd or intel in regard to their products tho i do look forward to the upcoming BD release. i for one am a little tired of intel dicking around their customers with their rash of new sockets and limited (crippled) chipsets. not to mention their less than stellar corporate governorship.
i think anyone contemplating a system upgrade would do well to wait for amd's new release.
 
Corvette said:
If the Phenom II 830 is an HP exclusive, and you have it at stock speeds, does that mean you have a bone stock Hewlett-Packard computer? Could the problem be the HP?

Phenom II 830 info: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom II X4 830 - HDX830WFK4DGM.html
Click to expand...


Yes...the motherboard is HP OEM- no overclocking. But Like I said...after doing research, I
just don't think I am going to get the performance I want for the money I'd need to upgrade to overclock. It was my full intention to upgrade my motherboard and RAM and get into some serious overclocking later on...but these prices...it's just not worth it.

When I first bought my system, I wanted something to play my games and surf the net. My HP has done that decently with the video card and power supply upgrades. But in my RTS games...it's just not as fast as i'd hoped. I figured this CPU would at least beat a Core 2 clock for clock but it doesn't. It's wonderful having my balls busted because I slow-down the game speed for everyone else who have i5s and i7s...It's nice seeing Sins of a Solar Empire stuttering with a full fleet, running @ 9 fps.

I run a 20 min. SupCom replay with 7 AIs at 10x game speed playback in an abysmal
8 min 45 seconds. A Core i7 920 @ stock runs it four minutes faster. Many games are like SupCom...they claim quad-core support...but the reality is, a fast dual core in single threaded apps. trumps a quad core. I can only guess how fast a Sandy Bridge quad core will run, given it's single-threaded prowess.
 
spacing guild said:
First of all...my CPU has the 6MB L3 cache of higher end Phenoms...but even some of the Athlon II quad cores without L3 cache beat my system @ around the same clock speed as mine...there are Phenom IIs with 1800 HT and same clock speeds that defeat my CPU...I have fast DDR3 RAM and 2000 HTs. There's no reason why my system is as weak as it is. Even if I oc'd my CPU, it would still be weaksauce.

I would need about $120 or better motherboard and 80-100 more for RAM to get the features and overclocking to make my Phenom II even remotely bearable.

For $100 more...I get quad-core Sandy Bridge. No contest.

If Bulldozer is going to be that great...there would be "leaked" preview benchmarks to try to prevent people from doing what I am doing. AMD's tact with CPUs and GPUs is price-performance and efficiency...that's what they have been good at for the last few years. And if they do come out with something that equals Sandy Bridge...how much cheaper do you think it will be? It's AM3+...that means i'd have to buy another motherboard to upgrade. May as well get what I want now for something I have studied and understood, instead of waiting for a platform that might just as well cost the same or more for equal performance. It's going to cost me around $320 dollars to rebuild my system into a killer.



You remember a game called Crysis? Everyone was so sure the sequel would be awesome... we all know how that turned out. :p
Click to expand...

If your CPU is not keeping up with Athlon II x4 at the same clock speeds... something is seriously wrong with your setup. Either your CPU is bad, or your system is setup improperly. The Athlon II x4 is the Deneb core without L3 cache. Yours is the Deneb core with L3 cache. Your processor should be more powerful than an Athlon II x4 at the same settings, albeit slightly (tests at around 3 ghz put the Phenom II ~5% more powerful than the Athlon II). At higher clock speeds, the L3 cache becomes more important.

I think your problem is your RAM. In what configuration do you have your 6gb RAM? 3x2gb, or 2x2gb + 2x1gb? If it's the 3x2gb configuration, you're not running your processor in dual-channel mode, which limits performance. Remove one of the extra RAM and see what happens.

It has already been proven that HT has minimal effects on system speeds. 2000 HT is more than enough bandwidth for communication with the chipset.

For you to rebuild your system into a good one probably just means getting a better motherboard. Good ones (790X) can be had for about $100. 890FX boards can be had for ~$130 with support for AM3+ (MSI 890FXA-GD65).

To rebuild your system with Sandy Bridge, you would want at least a 2500K if you want overclocking capabilities, which you probably do want, since you are comparing your stock Phenom II with overclocked CPU's. As far as I've seen, the 2500K is around $250. Toss in a good motherboard, that would run you ~$150. It would cost you close to $400 to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, whereas upgrading your motherboard would be ~25% of the cost. Assuming you have a Microcenter nearby, it would still cost you at least $300.
 
Tsumi said:
If your CPU is not keeping up with Athlon II x4 at the same clock speeds... something is seriously wrong with your setup. Either your CPU is bad, or your system is setup improperly. The Athlon II x4 is the Deneb core without L3 cache. Yours is the Deneb core with L3 cache. Your processor should be more powerful than an Athlon II x4 at the same settings, albeit slightly (tests at around 3 ghz put the Phenom II ~5% more powerful than the Athlon II). At higher clock speeds, the L3 cache becomes more important.

I think your problem is your RAM. In what configuration do you have your 6gb RAM? 3x2gb, or 2x2gb + 2x1gb? If it's the 3x2gb configuration, you're not running your processor in dual-channel mode, which limits performance. Remove one of the extra RAM and see what happens.

It has already been proven that HT has minimal effects on system speeds. 2000 HT is more than enough bandwidth for communication with the chipset.

For you to rebuild your system into a good one probably just means getting a better motherboard. Good ones (790X) can be had for about $100. 890FX boards can be had for ~$130 with support for AM3+ (MSI 890FXA-GD65).

To rebuild your system with Sandy Bridge, you would want at least a 2500K if you want overclocking capabilities, which you probably do want, since you are comparing your stock Phenom II with overclocked CPU's. As far as I've seen, the 2500K is around $250. Toss in a good motherboard, that would run you ~$150. It would cost you close to $400 to upgrade to Sandy Bridge, whereas upgrading your motherboard would be ~25% of the cost. Assuming you have a Microcenter nearby, it would still cost you at least $300.
Click to expand...

I am running Unganged dual-channel 2x64-bit.

As I said, I would need different RAM for overclocking included with the cost of a new AMD motherboard.

I wish I was near a Microcenter...I am going with a Biostar H67 micro-ATX with two PCI-e slots....so now i'll have use for my shelved 9800 GT 1 GB as a Physx card. And I am going with a 2500 non-K. I cannot do overclocking with my RAM, so to keep costs down I am transferring it to the non-K system. I could set the memory divider very low to DDR3 800 Mhz, which should get me to 200 Blck, but I don't have faith in it. A stock 2500 should be perfect for my purposes...with a P67 I might be able to squeeze a few 100 Mhz out of it with limited overclocking. When I upgrade again, which will not be for a while...I am going to build a totally new rig. A new 2500k runs about $229...btw. The combo I am getting is on NewEgg for 285 dollars + plus tax and ship.

I am keeping the Phenom II and motherboard for HTPC, when I get some cheap parts to make it whole again.
 
With the Phenom II, you can do FSB overclocking and just simply reduce memory, HT, and NB multipliers. No need to get new RAM, why would you need to? Good RAM is cheap now too, you can get 1600mhz RAM for about ~$30-40 AR now, 2x2gb.

With a 2500, you won't get any more than ~105 blck, since the PCI-E timer is dependent on it, instead of being independent. The PCI-E timer does not like being adjusted, and quickly gets unstable. You have to get the K if you're planning on any sort of overclocking. P67 won't do better than H67 in terms of adjusting blck. Additionally, using that 9800GT in the second PCI-E slot will severely limit bandwidth to your other devices, including SATA, and USB 3.0 if that board has it. I believe that SATA6 and USB shares bandwidth with that second x16 slot, as well as every other PCI-E slot besides the primary x16 slot. Not sure how the configuration works, but I've seen limitations where if you use the second x16 slot, you cannot use SATA6 ports or USB 3.0 ports.
 
Tsumi said:
With the Phenom II, you can do FSB overclocking and just simply reduce memory, HT, and NB multipliers. No need to get new RAM, why would you need to? Good RAM is cheap now too, you can get 1600mhz RAM for about ~$30-40 AR now, 2x2gb.

With a 2500, you won't get any more than ~105 blck, since the PCI-E timer is dependent on it, instead of being independent. The PCI-E timer does not like being adjusted, and quickly gets unstable. You have to get the K if you're planning on any sort of overclocking. P67 won't do better than H67 in terms of adjusting blck. Additionally, using that 9800GT in the second PCI-E slot will severely limit bandwidth to your other devices, including SATA, and USB 3.0 if that board has it. I believe that SATA6 and USB shares bandwidth with that second x16 slot, as well as every other PCI-E slot besides the primary x16 slot. Not sure how the configuration works, but I've seen limitations where if you use the second x16 slot, you cannot use SATA6 ports or USB 3.0 ports.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't plan on overclocking. I would need new RAM and after-market cooling. I would need a decent P67 mobo around $150. I know I wont get much from a 2500 vanilla in terms of overclocking...but i've heard that it's possible to squeeze a few 100 mhz out of it. I won't be overclocking with Sandy Bridge, anyway...which affords me a cheaper H67 motherboard, no need to upgrade RAM and no need for after-market cooling.


I just don't think it's worth it to OC my Phenom. New RAM, (6-8 GB RAM at least) decent after-marking cooling and another motherboard would put me around $200. I can get the Sandy Bridge I want for $120 dollars more.

Not worried about 9800 GT affecting bandwidth to other areas. I have two SATA drives..DVD and HD...and four USB devices...i'll be fine.
 
Whatever. You just go down your one track mind with your imaginary needs. 6gb is completely unnecessary for anything other than heavy transcoding work that requires lots of RAM. Gaming often requires no more than 3gb RAM. Yes, it is possible to squeeze a few hundred, increasing by 5mhz with a 33 multiplier does give you 165 mhz overclock.

Like I said before, you do not need to upgrade your RAM to overclock your Phenom II. You should get a decent aftermarket cooling solution anyways, and would only cost you about $20. A good motherboard for overclocking purposes only would run you maybe $70-80, one of the 870 chipsets.
 
spacing guild said:
First of all...my CPU has the 6MB L3 cache of higher end Phenoms...but even some of the Athlon II quad cores without L3 cache beat my system @ around the same clock speed as mine...there are Phenom IIs with 1800 HT and same clock speeds that defeat my CPU...I have fast DDR3 RAM and 2000 HTs. There's no reason why my system is as weak as it is. Even if I oc'd my CPU, it would still be weaksauce.

I would need about $120 or better motherboard and 80-100 more for RAM to get the features and overclocking to make my Phenom II even remotely bearable.

For $100 more...I get quad-core Sandy Bridge. No contest.

If Bulldozer is going to be that great...there would be "leaked" preview benchmarks to try to prevent people from doing what I am doing. AMD's tact with CPUs and GPUs is price-performance and efficiency...that's what they have been good at for the last few years. And if they do come out with something that equals Sandy Bridge...how much cheaper do you think it will be? It's AM3+...that means i'd have to buy another motherboard to upgrade. May as well get what I want now for something I have studied and understood, instead of waiting for a platform that might just as well cost the same or more for equal performance. It's going to cost me around $320 dollars to rebuild my system into a killer.



You remember a game called Crysis? Everyone was so sure the sequel would be awesome... we all know how that turned out. :p
Click to expand...
I am not saying that you should buy BD. I am reccomending you don't thumb your nose at it before you know how to run based on the fact that you have a poorly configured machine with a random hard to find "special" CPU that already clocked almost 33% less other Phenom II's that "get spanked" by a SB. Hell if you told the forum you were building a Nahelem in December I would have told you that you should probably wait till SB. As someone who says they always liked AMD you seem to refuse the idea that maybe this 5 year old architecture and 2 year old core shouldn't keep up with a new CPU released just a couple months ago, and that its the CPU getting released in a month or so that is the real competition.

Its your money. I hope for my sake that you are wrong and in 6 months your talking about how SB is disapointing and that you should have waited for SB. Its nothing personal but I am an AMD fan and I am hoping for the best. But I am building a new PC this year and the better CPU for me gets the purchase. If its SB then so be it. I just think don't think your way of going about it is smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top