Amd Why?

[TheBluePill]

AMD Works if you fall in to these catagories;

1) Price-to-performance for your exect budget requirements favor AMD.
2) Stuck with an AM2/S939 Platform and require an AMD CPU.
3) Looking for a cheap upgrade for an AM2/S939 Platform.
4) Brand Specific Shopper who favors AMD.
5) Find an excellent "deal" on said AMD Processor that is too good to pass up.

Its not a matter of AMD< or > than Intel. its a Price-to-Performance Specific or Application/Utilization Specific purchasing decision.

 

[Zybortrix]

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

Why?

Because the 780 AMD Chipset rapes its Intel and Nvidia counterparts with its feature set, PCI 2.0 bus in mATX FF (circa as we speak) and onboard Blue Ray decoding.

Because the thrice bashed three core Phenoms destroy all the Intel dual core's in applications which use more than two cores and cost far less than Intel quads and their own four core brothers.

Because, if you're not clutching for the highest benchmarks and bragging rights by a handful of frames in your favorite game at the local LAN each weekend (or forum, hehe), there's nothing at all 'wrong' with AMD's CPU offerings.

And finally AMD based mainboards typically sell for far less than their Intel rivals. Making the over all cost of a system that much cheaper. In fact, the only way you can really continue to bash AMD is if you're talking about Intel's high end beating their high end and ignoring the price per performance issue (and the all the more ignored 'purpose driven' PC) entirely.

Now, i have issues with Phenom pricing here in Australia as Intel chips continue to get cheaper and cheaper while the Phenoms haven't moved much at all but that's my only complaint concerning AMD's current line up.

But we get shafted all over the place and our public seems to think it's fine so that's a little off topic.

Basically, everyone knows that AMD chips aren't for the die hard performance nutcase (and i mean that affectionately and with camaraderie) but they're certainly very sophisticated and powerful chips and AMD continues to do things their own way and innovate with risk, for better or worse, and that's pretty respectable.

My final disclaimer; I don't even own an AMD system. But i certainly don't berate them as useless lemons because they are most certainly not in the vast majority of mainstream and professional computer applications.

Besides i'm a 'die hard performance nutcase' too so my opinion is admittedly a little nichey.

Anyhow peace and love and stuff like that.

Z.

 

[maxius]

I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

The best reason is upgradeability socket 775 dies when intels next line is launched. the new 45nm amd processers will be compatiable with the current am2 infrastructure. am2/3 are backwards compatiable so it offers an upgrade path on the cheep.

 

[Hvatum]

Why?

Because the 780 AMD Chipset rapes its Intel and Nvidia counterparts with its feature set, PCI 2.0 bus in mATX FF (circa as we speak) and onboard Blue Ray decoding.

Because the thrice bashed three core Phenoms destroy all the Intel dual core's in applications which use more than two cores and cost far less than Intel quads and their own four core brothers.

Because, if you're not clutching for the highest benchmarks and bragging rights by a handful of frames in your favorite game at the local LAN each weekend (or forum, hehe), there's nothing at all 'wrong' with AMD's CPU offerings.

And finally AMD based mainboards typically sell for far less than their Intel rivals. Making the over all cost of a system that much cheaper. In fact, the only way you can really continue to bash AMD is if you're talking about Intel's high end beating their high end and ignoring the price per performance issue (and the all the more ignored 'purpose driven' PC) entirely.

Now, i have issues with Phenom pricing here in Australia as Intel chips continue to get cheaper and cheaper while the Phenoms haven't moved much at all but that's my only complaint concerning AMD's current line up.

But we get shafted all over the place and our public seems to think it's fine so that's a little off topic.

Basically, everyone knows that AMD chips aren't for the die hard performance nutcase (and i mean that affectionately and with camaraderie) but they're certainly very sophisticated and powerful chips and AMD continues to do things their own way and innovate with risk, for better or worse, and that's pretty respectable.

My final disclaimer; I don't even own an AMD system. But i certainly don't berate them as useless lemons because they are most certainly not in the vast majority of mainstream and professional computer applications.

Besides i'm a 'die hard performance nutcase' too so my opinion is admittedly a little nichey.

Anyhow peace and love and stuff like that.

Z.

Well said. AMD Quad Core is the cheapest way to get quad core. I want a quad core for Supreme Commander, what's the best way to get it for $200. AMD.

People are DUMPING on AMD, fine by me, it means people who are not blinded by what's at the high end and actually want the best thing they can get for the money, then AMD wins. At least for quad core. I'm not sure how the single core or dual core segment breaks down.

 

[TheBluePill]

Well said. AMD Quad Core is the cheapest way to get quad core. I want a quad core for Supreme Commander, what's the best way to get it for $200. AMD.

People are DUMPING on AMD, fine by me, it means people who are not blinded by what's at the high end and actually want the best thing they can get for the money, then AMD wins. At least for quad core. I'm not sure how the single core or dual core segment breaks down.

Intel just dropped the Q6600 to $183... Makes the argument for lowest quad price a bit more muddy. Hey.. Competition is good.

 

[bfellow]

AMD Works if you fall in to these catagories;

1) Price-to-performance for your exect budget requirements favor AMD.
2) Stuck with an AM2/S939 Platform and require an AMD CPU.
3) Looking for a cheap upgrade for an AM2/S939 Platform.
4) Brand Specific Shopper who favors AMD.
5) Find an excellent "deal" on said AMD Processor that is too good to pass up.

Its not a matter of AMD< or > than Intel. its a Price-to-Performance Specific or Application/Utilization Specific purchasing decision.

I can't believe you put in S939...

 

[TheBluePill]

I can't believe you put in S939...

There are plenty of folks on this board with S939 system that are still upgrading them.. Even though an new board and 2gb of DDR2 would only run $100 or less, Its enough for them to still buy an Opteron to go in there.

Hell.. I was running a S939 X2-3800 until May.. I opted to go the Q9300 route.. But, I had a larger budget than a lot of folks trying to eek by with what they can.

 

[bfellow]

Well people can also upgrade their Socket A or Socket 478 boards... heck I gave a friend a Geforce 6200 as an AGP upgrade for his A64 3000+ system but those aren't really considered "upgrades" when he can just retire the system for a better machine.

 

[lodingi]

I've used both & I like both. I go with what best serves me at the time of my upgrades.

 

[TheBluePill]

Well people can also upgrade their Socket A or Socket 478 boards... heck I gave a friend a Geforce 6200 as an AGP upgrade for his A64 3000+ system but those aren't really considered "upgrades" when he can just retire the system for a better machine.

I agree with ya there..

AM2 is only 26 months old though.. I figure platforms up to 3 years old are still viable.. Even AM2+ is relativly new..

Im always in favor up upgrading the entire system when you do.. CPU/MB/RAM at a minimum.. I never really liked the Incremental Upgrade scheme, pop a board and go 2-3-4 CPUs in it..

 

[Hvatum]

Intel just dropped the Q6600 to $183... Makes the argument for lowest quad price a bit more muddy. Hey.. Competition is good.

Yeah, that makes the quad core segment a little less clear. With the higher price of motherboard though its still cheaper to get AMD. Especially with the black edition unlocked multiplier and people that already own AMD motherboards.

 

[lodingi]

Just a quick question. I'm not a fanboy nor am I starting a flame thread but......

Why would anyone like Spiderman when Superman could clearly kick his ass? I'm just saying.

 

[Aquineas]

I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

It's simple. If AMD goes away, the cost of your beloved Intel CPUs will go up, without question. It might even double.

 

[Aquineas]

that's exactly it...AMD may be 5-15% slower clock for clock but it's still a very, very usable processor, for everything I need to do.

Now back in the day when we had Cyrix processors, they didn't even come close to holding a candle to the Pentium MMX or Pentium II.
<snip>

Hmmm I'm going from memory here.. But wasn't one of the Cyrix processors faster in integer than what Intel was offering at the time, but slower in FP, and thus many didn't take it seriously because it was slower in FP. I also think part of the problem at the time was that the Cyrix was also running a bit warm..

 

[Trepidati0n]

I buy what fits my needs. In certain segments...AMD is still the best bang for buck. For true HTPC's (now ones moonlighting as gaming machines), AMD wins hands down. It is just a very well balanced platform with a nice price to boot. For me...I picked up X2 6000+ for $75. Throw in a $50 mobo and a $20 for 2GB of RAM and I pretty much had a VERY solid base for gaming. Means I could put in anything (graphics card) and get very credible numbers.

Remember, when buying a PC, please, figure out what really matters (what you actually do the most of), then decide from there.

 

[sdlvx]

I'm going to buy a 45nm Deneb simply because I'm tired of you Intel assclowns running around in forums being douchebags.

I don't care if it's slower or whatever, a phenom is going to be an upgrade from my opty 165.

 

[dook43]

I'm going to buy a 45nm Deneb simply because I'm tired of you Intel assclowns running around in forums being douchebags.

I don't care if it's slower or whatever, a phenom is going to be an upgrade from my opty 165.

onoz whatevar will we do

 

[Azhar]

I am not trying make a chaos, but I am just wondering, why would ANYONE interested in a nice computing experience buy an AMD CPU ?

Seriously, AMD is just not doing their job right, so why keep buying their pos stuff? Except for ATI though...ATI is doing good.. but why an AMD CPU instead of Intel?

AMD is definitely NOT a POS. You're just comparing speed with AMD's processors and Intel's current offering. Just because AMD's slower doesn't mean it's a POS. It's more than fast enough for today's computer which is typically bottlenecked by other hardware, namely video cards and hard drives.

You're taking things out of context.

I chose AMD because it's in my upgrade path. I have AMD boards, and I tend to leapfrog between upgrading boards and processor, so I never have to buy both at the same time.

 

[/dev/null]

Intel has no "low end" (sub $100) parts with hardware virtualization. Practically all AMD's low end parts have it, except maybe semprons.

 

[TheBluePill]

Yeah, that makes the quad core segment a little less clear. With the higher price of motherboard though its still cheaper to get AMD. Especially with the black edition unlocked multiplier and people that already own AMD motherboards.

Are the motherboards really any more expensive though.. You can get a functional Intel MB for $50 or less now.. Ditto on the Ram for it..

 

[hstuehmeyer2000]

Are the motherboards really any more expensive though.. You can get a functional Intel MB for $50 or less now.. Ditto on the Ram for it..

not really, you can get a used or open box p35/p965 motherboard for between $50-$70, but you can also get a decent used am2 board for around $30-40 though

 

[harpoon]

not really, you can get a used or open box p35/p965 motherboard for between $50-$70, but you can also get a decent used am2 board for around $30-40 though

How many of those AM2 mobos can support Phenom? And even if they could, you lose AOD functionality, not to mention poor overclocking potential. How many decent Phenom overclocks have you seen with an AM2 board?

I think that makes the small price difference in mobos somewhat trivial, considering the Q6600 is under $200 and the equivalent Phenom costs $235...

I'm not even going to mention low end AM2+ mobos that can't support the higher TDP Phenoms such as the 9850BE / 9950BE, whereas any P35 mobo can support a quad without question...

I think many of you are just clutching at straws on the 'value' stakes.

 

[hstuehmeyer2000]

How many of those AM2 mobos can support Phenom? And even if they could, you lose AOD functionality, not to mention poor overclocking potential. How many decent Phenom overclocks have you seen with an AM2 board?

I think that makes the small price difference in mobos somewhat trivial, considering the Q6600 is under $200 and the equivalent Phenom costs $235...

I'm not even going to mention low end AM2+ mobos that can't support the higher TDP Phenoms such as the 9850BE / 9950BE, whereas any P35 mobo can support a quad without question...

I think many of you are just clutching at straws on the 'value' stakes.

i didn't say that one or the other was better, i was just stating how much things cost,
and i think that this is a decent phenom oc for a am2 board

(from polygon@ The Rebels Haven)
also i like amd systems because they seem to feel a little more snappy, but intel is still faster, but that is my personal opinion so YMMV

 

[nerp]

AMD still offers a compelling choice for people who aren't necessarily looking to dominate in Crysis.

Take a peek at system #2 in my sig. It's a great office machine that I built for $220 including a slim case and PSU (had a spare HD and Vista license). System uses very little power, flies through my daily tasks at work and still has enough balls to handle CS:S at 1280x1024 with frames around 50-80fps. Oh, and the CPU fan doesn't even spin at idle. I don't have a kill-a-watt meter but I've seen plenty of power consumption charts for 780G boards with the 4850e to know that a comparable g33/E2200 or similar would likely get beaten by my 780g rig, cost more, use more electricity and get trounced in graphics/games. Remember, this is an office workstation where overclocking is out of the question and maximum stability is the primary objective. So OCing the E2200 doesn't make any sense, besides the power usage/heat issues. So don't suggest that Intel would be a better route for this rig because I can always overclock it. At stock, intel can't compete with the 4850e and 780G combo in this price range with integrated graphics and motherboards for $69.

4850e + 780G is a real winner of a platform for office machines and HTPC boxes. Intel comes up very short in these two departments. Both the processor and the chipset are relatively new and demonstrate that AMD can produce some compelling products. I think there is a competitive place for AMD in the market.

I sure do love my E2180@3.2 ghz. That's my main rig at home. Fanboyism is for wankers and juveniles.

There are many more considerations that just who has the fastest cpu. More and more people like me are starting to build boxes to fill niche roles and I'm glad with my new AMD build.

 

[RamonGTP]

Oh come on now I think that's a little over the top. The performance gap is there but it's not that huge like everyone makes it out to be. Read my post above about Intel alternatives back in the day. If you had a Cyrix chip, you couldn't even play games all all, the Cyrix FPU was extremely weak.

I don't think it's that over the top really. The performance difference may not be THAT large, but neither is the price difference IMO. Cyrix and anything else in the past is really irrelevant to this conversation.

 

[Potatocodone]

If you run stock perhaps, if you're overclocking an E2180 for about the same price would easily outperform it - and it comes with a HSF too.

Running stock the AMD 5000+ BE would be alot better than the E2180 although I have been wondering about them two when it comes to overclocking.

I am currently building a computer for the family and either processor would be fine but I'm still trying to decide.

Although... I'm not too fond of the idea of giving my family an overclocked computer. Mhmm...

 

[harpoon]

Running stock the AMD 5000+ BE would be alot better than the E2180 although I have been wondering about them two when it comes to overclocking.

I am currently building a computer for the family and either processor would be fine but I'm still trying to decide.

Although... I'm not too fond of the idea of giving my family an overclocked computer. Mhmm...

At stock the X2 5000+ BE is about 5 - 10% faster. They are both capable of overclocking to 3GHz or more, but the E2180 is some 10 - 15% faster clock for clock.

If you're building for a family and they're not power uses, just get the 5000+ BE I reckon. Especially if you plan to use integrated graphics, where the 780G is the clear standout.