So I went to Intel...

J

Jakalwarrior

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
3,189
Went from an AM2 2.9ghz X2 to a 3.8ghz core 2. How much difference is there? Lots in SuperPI, 3dmark06, and my FPS in old games. Also encoding videos goes faster now. The rest of the time It feels exactly the same. I often forget ive even upgraded until I try to encode a video and go "hmm I wonder how long the old X2 would have taken". On a side note, my AM2 system of course felt no faster than my old 939 system which my wife uses. For gaming and general usage it would be hard to tell the 3 systems apart if the video cards were equal.

I knew this was going to be the case before I upgraded. I am just reaffirming what has been said a million times ;)
 
I'm confused about a couple of things... 1) are you regretting your decision 2) I believe you just listed that all your CPU intensive apps are faster yet you dont notice a difference maybe I'm confused :LOL:

Well anyway you shouldnt expect a bump in something like opening firefox - a PII could do this just as fast as a quad core $4000 beast. If you're going for faster windows operations you need a raptor drive ;)
 
looks like your upgrade is already outdated and you need to upgrade again. You can't expect today's performance with yesterdays hardware can you.
 
His point is very relevant, just because something benchmarks faster in X and Y games doesn't mean it actually improves your everyday computing experience, especially if you don't play X and Y games. First and foremost price per performance (overclocking or not) should always be your determining factor when purchasing, not random benchmarks. It's refreshing to see it acknowledged.
 
I'm trying to sell my e8400/P5Q Deluxe to get a 790FX and 9950. I know intel is faster blah blah but I'm really up for the challenge of the phenom, as far as oc'ing goes. I've been really bored with intel. Don't get me wrong I've loved all of the Core2/Core2 Quad variants that I've tested and used but they're all too easy as far as overclocking goes. I had no issue's getting my 9450 to 3.8ghz and I could of hit 4ghz but my Enzotech couldn't cope with the heat.
 
throw in 8GB ram, and run 64 bit vista ultimate on both systems and you will feel more of the difference. Since the old 939 maxes out with 4GB and thats pushign the NB (4 GB is really enough memory but damn I love how fast photoshop opens and closes and opens with vista 64 and 8G)...

If your Video card was not the bottleneck you should feel the difference. I know I can, and I have a quad with slower burst speeds than your CPU. My CPU was maxing out in crysis with the 8800GTS and Opteron 165 clocked at 2.7ghz. This is no longer the case. But for browsing the net, there is not much difference naturaly.

TheBlueChanell said:
I'm trying to sell my e8400/P5Q Deluxe to get a 790FX and 9950. I know intel is faster blah blah but I'm really up for the challenge of the phenom, as far as oc'ing goes. I've been really bored with intel. Don't get me wrong I've loved all of the Core2/Core2 Quad variants that I've tested and used but they're all too easy as far as overclocking goes. I had no issue's getting my 9450 to 3.8ghz and I could of hit 4ghz but my Enzotech couldn't cope with the heat.
Click to expand...

Lucky you I'm having a hell of a time getting my Q9450 over 3200 mhz Burn Test Stable. It does do 3200mhz off stock volts but only if I manualy adjust all 3 GTL's and read voltages from the MB to calculate their ratio. It's hardly an easy task, and I'm even using water cooling with fuzion v2 and a tripple thermochill... Now getting the opteron 165 to 2.7ghz....THAT WAS EASY!
 
TheBlueChanell said:
I'm trying to sell my e8400/P5Q Deluxe to get a 790FX and 9950. I know intel is faster blah blah but I'm really up for the challenge of the phenom, as far as oc'ing goes. I've been really bored with intel. Don't get me wrong I've loved all of the Core2/Core2 Quad variants that I've tested and used but they're all too easy as far as overclocking goes. I had no issue's getting my 9450 to 3.8ghz and I could of hit 4ghz but my Enzotech couldn't cope with the heat.
Click to expand...

So you want to sell your Intel for an AMD because Intel is TOO easy to overclock? This is the first time I've heard of anyone (be it Intel or AMD users) who are actually dissappointed that they have a good chip. :rolleyes:
 
If 1080p playback weren't an issue, I'd be happy with my old machines. But, the only thing I'd like to speed up is the Internet sometimes. I have 10mb/s cable and it's still frustrating when you click on something and some site is down or whatever.
 
So you want to sell your Intel for an AMD because Intel is TOO easy to overclock?
Click to expand...

I guess for some people, the challenge of overclocking the CPU is the most fun part. To each his own though I would prefer a highly overclockable chip.

His point is very relevant, just because something benchmarks faster in X and Y games doesn't mean it actually improves your everyday computing experience, especially if you don't play X and Y games
Click to expand...

I agree. I was considering replacing my 2.9 GHz X2 with a cheap Intel board and a low-end C2D and try to reach ~3GHz with it.. But I decided to use the money to get a bigger monitor instead as I was still using a 19" @ 1280x1024 witth 25ms response time. With the new 22" monitor at 1680x1050 4xAA/16XAF running 3DMark 06, my system gets 88% of the performance of a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 used with a 4850 as in this review. Not bad for a $55 CPU on a $60 mobo... Sure there will eventually be games that need a better CPU, but by then there will be plenty of $60 CPUs to choose from. No need to buy a $400 CPU now to run games that aren't even out yet :)
 
RamonGTP said:
So you want to sell your Intel for an AMD because Intel is TOO easy to overclock? This is the first time I've heard of anyone (be it Intel or AMD users) who are actually dissappointed that they have a good chip. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is hardly a new concept, part of the fun of overclocking is not knowing what you're gonna get (though I tire after years of it now). I think it very likely that the Phenom is still being probed for it's true depths. Someone hit 3.5Ghz the other day by playing with the voltages in a way that many hadn't tried yet. And not on a new 790GX board with ACC even, on a $60 770 chipset budget board. Getting close to that isn't a rarity anymore, every day people are pushing more and more out. Is it equal to Intel overclocks? No. Is it possibly more fun exploring it's abilities and trying to take the underdog to new heights? Why not?
 
RamonGTP said:
So you want to sell your Intel for an AMD because Intel is TOO easy to overclock? This is the first time I've heard of anyone (be it Intel or AMD users) who are actually dissappointed that they have a good chip. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No. I feel you're looking at it the wrong way. I'm not disappointed with having a good chip, I think it's awesome, I'm not sure if it's luck or what but I always get really great overclocks out of everything I've had be it Intel or AMD.

I like having an understanding of what's floating around the market because most of my friends and family come to me for their computer advice. To be honest, I felt I wasn't doing anything to utilize the Q9450 which is why I sold it off and stuck with my E8400.

I have become rather bored the past few months with my hardware. I've have pretty much owned or tested every major Core2 derivative and while they are nice performing chips I feel it's time to familiarize myself with something different. I just like trying out new things and seeing what is going on rather than having to have THE best or fastest chip at the time. I sold off my X2 3800 that was running @ 3ghz for a Pentium D930 in that era t to change up the pace.

Over the past few months I've been reading around on Xtreme Systems and [H] about the Phenom and peoples experiences especially those that switched form Intel. I was almost ready to straight swap my P5Q/Q9450 for a 790FX/9950 a month or so back. I figured I'd end up being disappointed because at the time the Phenom's were getting dismal overclocks and the board I wanted was running the outdated SB600. The SB750 was released and a good number of people are actually hitting 3.2ghz+ with their 9850's.The 9950's, especially the newer ones, are doing even better without any insane voltages.

The 9950 is $170ish now on Newegg and even if I won't utilize the quad now you can't beat that price. If you combo it with the MSI 790GX board it's $300 in cart which equates to $150 for the CPU and $150 the motherboard you REALLY can't beat that and slower or not a Quadcore be it a phenom or a core2 @ 3.2ghz is fast.

The next thing I'm debating is wether or not I'm going to get a 790GX or wait for more 790FX/SB750 boards to filter out. I had my first foray into a mult-gpu setup with the crossfire setup in sig. After getting all the kinks worked out, everything working, and the drivers installed I can say it's safe to say that I've had a mostly positive experience. I was absolutely blown away with my Age of Conan performance. I just sold my 4850's last night. I may spend the little extra coin for the 790FX board once something other than the Foxconn is available because I do plan on purchasing a 2nd HD4870 and having two lanes @ 16x is something that I can see benefiting from in the long run.

On top of that all we have the release of Crysis Warhead, Stalker Clear Sky and Far Cry 2 just around the corner, and I'm hoping that those games may actually utilize a quad-core CPU so I may end up really enjoying the switch.

The bottom line is I enjoy computers and hardware and I see nothing wrong with switching things out and experimenting to further my knowledge with the hardware I use and if I'm happy who cares. :D
 
I had a e4300 and I am using a EE 2400 @ 2.6 - mild OC. When I crop large pics using irfanview it feels a hundred times smoother on the AMD VS the E4300 at teh same speed...

Outside of that it really feels the same. Yea Super PI was half the time but seriously - it really doesn't feel much different.

I am going Intel only because I am able to buy similar parts for the same price. Looking to try it again.

I don't remember trying 1080P on the Intel. I know the Am2 be 2400 chokes on less than 2.6. If the Intel runs smooth at 2.6 I will keep it. AM2 also seems to have more affordable offerings on MATX.


The Quad is a nice option. Once the OC mess and the TLB bug is for sure behind you really can't beat a $100 Quad.
 
twoeyes said:
I'm confused about a couple of things... 1) are you regretting your decision 2) I believe you just listed that all your CPU intensive apps are faster yet you dont notice a difference maybe I'm confused :LOL:

Well anyway you shouldnt expect a bump in something like opening firefox - a PII could do this just as fast as a quad core $4000 beast. If you're going for faster windows operations you need a raptor drive ;)
Click to expand...

Just trying to reassure the AMD users that they aren't missing out. I'm not regretting, I wanted a new toy to play with. I already want a new board since this one wont let me pass 405 FSB and my chip is only a hair above stock vcore at 3.85ghz. Benchmarks and encoding are all I stand to gain with a faster processor but its fun overclocking. I would like to note though that the 2.8 ghz pentium 4 775 socket system I am on at work hits 100% CPU usage and bogs on google maps if I move too fast :p
 
I'd say the difference in regular windows usage isn't anything exciting. Any dual core chip is going to be able to handle regular light computer usage great. Anything CPU intensive and you will definitely notice a difference though. I basically pumped 600$ into my system just for games and media applications, I don't regret anything at all.
 
What games and media applications are you noticing a difference in? Once I pump the graphic settings until the video card cries uncle, the FPS is about the same on either system. For media creation I do gain a speed advantage, but for media usage it is the same. I only encode stuff every few months though so no real advantage. If I were encoding things all the time I would have went with a quad. For me it was just wanting to see some numbers past 3ghz.

IMO: there just isn't any day to day things that are "cpu intensive" any more other than video encoding (honestly, how often do most people encode video? pirates and youtubers excluded). Its like Nvidia said, its all about the video card these days.
 
Honestly switching from my [email protected] to the [email protected] I notice my framerate doesn't dip in games as much but the difference isn't too noticable. Haven't tried doing anything else except for priming which was significantly faster but overly useless.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
IMO: there just isn't any day to day things that are "cpu intensive" any more other than video encoding (honestly, how often do most people encode video? pirates and youtubers excluded). Its like Nvidia said, its all about the video card these days.
Click to expand...

Yes, and while nVidia said that, they also showed video encoding (and physics and folding) done on the GPU.
So quite literally it's ALL about the video card these days.

But games will probably find a way to use the CPU that now sits mostly idle, they always have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top