Which Platform (AMD VS Intel) has the most upgrade path left?

Format _C:

Format _C:

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
Jun 12, 2001
Messages
4,207
I know another AMD VS Intel thread sorry :D but I want to spend my money well :). So I'm looking to upgrade my main system (In Sig) but I don't know which platform to choose I know AMD is cheaper thats why I originally choose socket 939 then AMD was sneaky and came out with AM2 :mad: I was currently looking at AM2 motherboards and CPU's but then I saw AMD came out with AM2+ (Don't know if or when they will change the socket type again). I am also looking at the Intel line of CPU's. I know Intel has used the LGA 775 for years and it looks like they will continue to for a while (I hope). I don't do much gaming so I don't need a super high end system + I plan to use some parts from my current system to make a complete computer (Video card, Hard Drive, and DVD-Rom) So which is the better choice for better long term upgrade ability?
 
Intel will be releasing their Nehalem CPU later this year which has an onboard memory controller, similar to AMD CPUs. As a result, more than likely there will be a new socket and chipset with the release of Nehalem. So by this time next year, most likely none of the newer Intel CPUs will be compatible with current Intel motherboards.

AMD, on the other hand, isn't any good either. AMD is releasing their new socket AM3 CPUs and motherboards later this year. And supposedly, all AM3 CPUs will be backwards compatible with socket AM2 motherboards.

However, AM2+ CPUs were suppose to work with all AM2 motherboards. However, the release of the Phenom CPUs, which used socket AM2+, showed that many AM2 mobos could not support Phenom CPUs without a BIOs update. Unfortunately, many mobo companies did not bother to write up BIOs updates for their AM2 mobos due to a variety of reasons, money being one of them and concentration on newer products being another. As a result, at last count, there were a total of 17 socket AM2 motherboard that were officially compatible with Phenom CPUs.

Seeing as how bad AM2+ support is, it does leave room for serious doubt on whether or not socket AM3 CPUs will be compatible with socket AM2 motherboards.

So in terms of long-term upgrade ability (a year or more) and CPU power, you're pretty screwed either way. However in terms of video card power, you won't be so screwed since all PCI-E 2.0 graphics cards are backwards compatible with the older PCI-E 1.1. In addition, it'll be a long long time before PCI-E 2.0 is even needed.
 
The E6550 isn't a good deal no matter how you look at it. It's a low multiplier chip that's almost as expensive as the E8400 ($190 at Microcenter) which is a newer 45nm process chip that'll OC far, far higher.

An E4500 isn't bad for a mid-range OCing chip, but honestly the only two really "good buys" for Intel right now are the E2140/2160/2180/2200 (depends on price) which are dual cores good to ~3.2Ghz with good cooling and the Q6600, a quad good to ~3.6Ghz with good cooling.
 
Don't get a Pentium D; get one of the Pentium Dual-Core E2xx0 series processors (with the Allendale cores). For example, you can find a retail E2160 for $69 plus shipping. They are also good overclockers and have the potential to reach speeds of up to 3.2GHz (YMMV) even on the stock HSF.
 
A 2.0Ghz C2D is in most cases faster than a 3Ghz Pentium D. Considering how cheap the lower end C2Ds are at the moment there is zero reason to build /any/ machine, regardless of budget, based on NetBurst architecture at this point.
 
tiraides said:
Don't get a Pentium D; get one of the Pentium Dual-Core E2xx0 series processors (with the Allendale cores). For example, you can find a retail E2160 for $69 plus shipping. They are also good overclockers and have the potential to reach speeds of up to 3.2GHz (YMMV) even on the stock HSF.
Click to expand...

Good overclockers yes, the lack of cache hurts though.
 
Nenu said:
Good overclockers yes, the lack of cache hurts though.
Click to expand...

Not really. 5-15% performance difference depending on the application at the same clocks between the E6xxx series, their full-cache equivalents, so a 3.2Ghz E2xxx is about as fast as a 3Ghz E6xxx. Nothing to sneeze at for ~$70-80. If the small cache bothers you the E4500 is a good choice, or a second-hand E6xxx series.

Important to note that the newer E2xxx chips are shipping with a smaller heatsink which is absolute crap for OCing.
 
RangerSVT said:
Totally disagree.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll at least give my reasoning... its mainly the multiplier.

$122 @ mwave.com, 2MB L2 Cache
E4500: 11 × 200 = 2.2Ghz, DDR2-400 << STOCK speeds
E4500: 11 × 266 = 2.9Ghz, DDR2-533 << Easy OC
E4500: 11 × 300 = 3.3Ghz, DDR2-667 << Good OC
E4500: 11 × 333 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-667 << Great OC

$170 @ mwave/newegg, 4MB L2 Cache
E6550: 7 × 333 = 2.3Ghz, DDR2-667 << STOCK speeds
E6550: 7 × 400 = 2.8Ghz, DDR2-800 << Easy OC
E6550: 7 × 465 = 3.2Ghz, DDR2-930 << Good OC
E6550: 7 × 500 = 3.5Ghz, DDR2-1000 << Great OC

$190 @ MicroCenter, 6MB L2 Cache
E8400: 9 × 333 = 3.0Ghz, DDR2-667 << STOCK
E8400: 9 × 400 = 3.6Ghz, DDR2-800 << Nice OC
E8400: 9 × 445 = 4.0Ghz, DDR2-890 << Good OC
E8400: 9 × 500 = 4.5Ghz, DDR2-1000 << Great OC

For nearly $50 less, you can reach the same clock speed with the E4500. The only difference would be the cache size (aside from VT, but most people don't need VT anyhow). Though, as seen throughout the reviews posted above, the cache size doesn't matter that much. Yet, if L2 cache size is your thing, for only $20 more, you get 2MB more L2 cache (for a total of 6MB) and a much higher OC potential. Therefore, in my opinion, the E6550 isn't worth its price (its overpriced).
 
I never paid $170 for my E6550, It was substantially lower, so again, I totally disagree with you, and my opinion is the E6550 is not a bad chip, and totally worth it.

Thanks.:p
 
RangerSVT said:
I never paid $170 for my E6550, It was substantially lower, so again, I totally disagree with you, and my opinion is the E6550 is not a bad chip, and totally worth it.

Thanks.:p
Click to expand...

I'm talking about widely available prices. Sure, you're special, good for you. I got my raptor for $0, so its definately worth it over any other 7200RPM drive, so YOU should go out and get one, too! :rolleyes:

Just because you got a good deal on your item doesnt make it worthwhile to everyone else who can't get that same deal RIGHT NOW. :rolleyes:

Obviously, if you could get the E6550 significantly cheaper than the E4500, it would be worth it... otherwise, its not. I never said it was a bad chip... I said its overpriced when you consider what the E4500 and E8400 chips can do as well as their CURRENT price differences. :p
 
you rambling like a maniac makes me giggle.

Anyways. You seem to not like it when others disagree with you, we can continue this topic for ages, and you still will think the same, and so will I.
 
RangerSVT said:
you rambling like a maniac makes me giggle.

Anyways. You seem to not like it when others disagree with you, we can continue this topic for ages, and you still will think the same, and so will I.
Click to expand...

...his "rambling" made perfect sense, and he had the math to back it up. As did I, though in more condensed form. I'm not planning to continue this, regardless of the response as it's just not worth the time, but honestly, saying things like that just makes you look bad.
 
RangerSVT said:
you rambling like a maniac makes me giggle.
Click to expand...

I'd quote a song with "maniac," but that would seriously date me, lol. Just because your ramblings don't make sense and mine do, doesnt mean I'm a maniac. Then I get reminded of that other quote... everyone driving faster than you is a maniac, and everyone driving slower than you is an idiot. Now this... is rambling. What I said above in previous posts... that, is called reasoning. :p You can disagree all you want, but I like to give reasons sometimes, so other people reading get better information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top