Is there ANY reason to buy an AMD chip?

T

thinkdifferent

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
72
Hi,

I'm about to start on a new build and I was wondering if AMD would be a good chip to use. I like the platform, but I'm just not sure about the chips. It seems that intel rapes AMD in just about every category. I just wanted to get some opinions.
 
...

If you need to flex your benchmark muscles and get more performance than say Intels Q6600, no there is no reason to buy AMD right now because there are no options in that range. If you care more about whether or not you can play any game on the market and not spend lots of cash, there are plenty of reasons to buy AMD chips. My $55 X2 4000+ overclocks to 3.3Ghz, so do basically all X2's. At that speeds you'll be hard pressed to find a game being bottlenecked by the CPU if you're running any game with graphics turned up. My 8800GT is my bottleneck in Crysis, not my $55 AMD CPU.

Unless you care about SuperPi or whatever other benchmark, AMD is, in my opinion at least, the better choice to get a powerful system for less $$$, which was the deciding factor for me since I can't afford $2,000 systems.
 
how about keeping up the competition so we r not stuck with one manufacturer
 
Durring the P4 waves I was hardcore AMD. P4's were garbage.

AMD cant touch Intels core 2's right now. Most $55 E2180 can get 3 ghz too, perform a little better, and run cooler. Not to mention there are better MB's at lower prices.

I really hope for us the consumers/enthusiasts that AMD leapfrogs back soon. :(
 
Here's my situation

I have about 2,000. If I don't use it for personal equipment before the end of July, it goes away for good.

Given that, should I still go for AMD?
 
thinkdifferent said:
Here's my situation

I have about 2,000. If I don't use it for personal equipment before the end of July, it goes away for good.

Given that, should I still go for AMD?
Click to expand...

I could spend $2000 on a PC alone but I could also get a PS3, an X360 and a PC within that budget to play MGS4, GTA4, GoW2, Crysis and other games as well.
 
Well that settles it.

I hope AMD has something soon, but I'm going for intel. I wish I could get a PS3 or an xbox, but it's only to be spent of word equiptment for myself.
 
efficiency

Every time you make a post about your cpu you only have to type in 3 letters vs 5 with the "other" brand
 
onedestinazn2 said:
what he said. intel counterpart motherboards are usually more expensive
Click to expand...
For example? I can only think of where that's true at the top end, like overpriced X38/X48 and 790i SLI boards. If AMD could have released Phenom FX, you would have seen ridiculously priced AMD boards too. When AMD is only selling $200 CPUs, there's no market for $350 motherboard. With $1000 CPUs OTOH...

The typical Asus Deluxe models are pretty closely priced: P35 and 790FX boards are around $190-$200, a mid range integrated video G35 Intel branded motherboard is under $100, near the same price as a basic tier one 780G motherboard (of course the 780G has faster graphics).

I'm really cheap when it comes to hardware and I don't really see a difference in prices between the two (other than top end above) and I buy lots of both every year, never spending over $80-$90 for a motherboard.
 
for 2000, I would buy:

Intel E8400/8500
Asus P5Q3
2GB OCZ gold 1333mhz ddr3 (only 80.00 After rebate before like 90)
Hd3870X2 I would buy 2 of them but you could game well on just one
pc-p&c 750 watt psu
dvdrw= your choice
hdd=your choice
 
65nm is a wash for AMD, and they know it. That's why they've cancelled Kuma and stuff for 65nm. I would say wait for 45nm AKA k10.5, but that's not going to happen before the end of July.

AMD is for value and price/performance. If you have this 2000 (and it sounds like you didn't work for it, which makes it even better), then you should just splurge and buy a high end Intel system, and then wait for either 4870 or gtx 280 and go from there.

Only thing that sucks about going intel now is that next gen won't be socket compatible with LGA755, so you have more upgradability with AMD, since they're trying to avoid that (but it did get a little botched going with new CPUs (phenoms) in old mobos (AM2)).
 
sdlvx said:
Only thing that sucks about going intel now is that next gen won't be socket compatible with LGA775, so you have more upgradability with AMD,
Click to expand...
Yep, that's one very good reason. I got shouted down here a while ago for suggesting the very same thing.

And just in general, sticking on the same upgrade path if possible is the easiest way. There are some (like me) who don't mind tearing down a whole system, but others don't want to mess with replacing a motherboard and reconfigure the OS, etc.

At the low end AMD is pretty compelling because they're dumping (deliberate word choice) mid range dual core 65W CPUs for dirt cheap. At newegg you could get an X2 5000+ BE for only $72. I paid about $55 for my last X2 5200+ at Fry's. Of course there are also good reasons to go for dirt cheap E2180 CPUs.
 
price is really the only reason to go with AMD. And even that has been taken back a bit by Intel as of late.
I just bought a e8400 for 189.99. Thats dirt cheap for a TOP end dual core.

As far as upgradability; how long do you thing the AM2 platform is gonna last? They've been on that socket for 2 generations already. I can't see there being all that much more upgradability out of that socket.
 
am2/am2+ compatibility was a shallow promise at best. amd insists that am3 will be compatible with am2+, but i only see that happening if the k10.5 can catch fire with the enthusiast crowd.
 
Tom128 said:
...

If you need to flex your benchmark muscles and get more performance than say Intels Q6600, no there is no reason to buy AMD right now because there are no options in that range. If you care more about whether or not you can play any game on the market and not spend lots of cash, there are plenty of reasons to buy AMD chips. My $55 X2 4000+ overclocks to 3.3Ghz, so do basically all X2's. At that speeds you'll be hard pressed to find a game being bottlenecked by the CPU if you're running any game with graphics turned up. My 8800GT is my bottleneck in Crysis, not my $55 AMD CPU.

Unless you care about SuperPi or whatever other benchmark, AMD is, in my opinion at least, the better choice to get a powerful system for less $$$, which was the deciding factor for me since I can't afford $2,000 systems.
Click to expand...


Wow how did u get a 3.3 oc out of that cpu?
 
I'd like to know too. :p

I've never gotten higher than about 2.8GHz (500-800MHz OC) with any of my X2 CPUs and normal air cooling like a stock AMD cooler or a Freezer 64. I guess if you have chilled water and don't mind exceeding maximum data sheet voltage and you're lucky, that you can get a 4400+ to 3.3GHz.

One exception might be my new 5200+ 65nm (2.7GHz), but I only have a stock cooler for it right now and i'm trying to keep the power usage low on it.
 
Ok I don't even see the x2 4000 at Newegg I can only assume that it operates at 2.0 ghz. So 3.2 that's amazing if it's true - show us a screenshot of it because it has to be water cooling.
 
Albanu1800 said:
Wow how did u get a 3.3 oc out of that cpu?
Click to expand...

By setting the HT clock to 315 ;)

But seriously I just set the voltage to 1.5v, HT Clock to 315 and stepped my ram back to 667 mode instead of 800. Thats about all I need to do. My Zalman 9500 does a good job of keeping temps in the 60c range. Thats a bit higher than I like though which is why I normally run it at 3Ghz, which is still way above the bottlebeck of an 8800GT.

Also, I have see on several sites that my mobo, Asus M3A, is very good at overclocking X2's for whatever reason. Realize than any 65nm Brisbane has the potential to run at the same speeds a 5000+ BE can reach, which often get into 3.5Ghz territory. It all depends on what AMD sets the chip to when it leaves the factory. For the most part, they are all the same piece of silicon.
 
thinkdifferent said:
Well that settles it.

I hope AMD has something soon, but I'm going for intel. I wish I could get a PS3 or an xbox, but it's only to be spent of word equiptment for myself.
Click to expand...

pxc said:
That's $100 more than I would spend on a motherboard. Considering a stock retail 3.2GHz X2 processor is only $144, I don't see the point in spending that much for a motherboard either: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103228&Tpk=6400%2b
Click to expand...

Well the OP decided to go with an Intel setup which has plenty of options available to him. Picking the mb depends on what options you want to have. Pxc I understand what you are saying going economical is good but you may be leaving out some options you might want in a mb.
 
It's a hard, hard choice. Back in the P4/A64 days, you could say A64 hands down... and this continued to the first dual-core processors too. The Athlon64 was just that good. Sadly though, this just isn't the case today. I mean, yes, you can get an unlocked Phenom (sans the L3 cache bug) and overclock it to hell and back... buuuuut, you can do the same with the new quad core 2 chips too. it all boils back down to price really. You can get 'near core two performance' for considerably less money.

It all just depends. If you're cash strapped and can't get the top end Intel offerings, you can get the top end AMD offerings and overclock to nearly Intel's best. If you can afford it, you can be the best with Intel, who overclock as well if not better.

Not helpful I know, but... it's ultimately your decision based on money.
 
Just so you guys know I am not completely BSing you here is the best overclock I was able to get in the 10 minutes I decided I wanted to try getting it.

I could not get it to 3.3Ghz but I did get it to 3.15Ghz, still a fairly decent 1,050Mhz overclock for a $55 CPU. I promise I have had it at 3.3Ghz, I just apparently played with more numbers than I though. I also have different ram in there. I underclocked the ram just to see if that was the issue but it was still getting mad over 3.15Ghz, and I don't want to bother anymore tonight.

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=375251
 
hardware_failure said:
I really hope for us the consumers/enthusiasts that AMD leapfrogs back soon. :(
Click to expand...

Well, check out the Nehalem preview at Anandtech.
AMD leapfrogging back is a total pipe dream at this point.

On top of that, Intel is announcing a new, cheap quadcore line, the Q8000 series.
So finally Intel will have quadcores that are slow enough to compete with Phenom, and their 45 nm and smaller caches will make them much cheaper than the current quadcores.
 
pxc said:
I've never gotten higher than about 2.8GHz (500-800MHz OC) with any of my X2 CPUs and normal air cooling like a stock AMD cooler or a Freezer 64.
Click to expand...

you're obviously doing it wrong :p

both X2 chips i've owned could do 3ghz pretty easily on air. one was one of the 'slower' F2 chips too, the other is my ridiculous 5000+ that can do 3ghz with less than stock voltage :eek:

it's really about your luck i guess.

Tom, that's a pretty sweet overclock for a G1 chip. what voltage are you using? :D
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
you're obviously doing it wrong :p
Click to expand...
Naw, most other people get the same results, 500-800MHz overclocks are common on the same CPUs.

I'm not talking about 1 or 2 chips either. I've had about a dozen S939 and AM2 dual cores with speeds between 1.9GHz and 2.3GHz. One "problem" is that I tend to use the boxed cooler or silent coolers, and I also weigh the benefits of spending too much trying to overclock something that erases any benefit of buying the cheaper CPU model. I don't overclock just to get a high overclock. I overclock to maximize performance/$. The overclocks I run the CPUs at aren't just some trophy speed, it has to run 100% stable every day, in a closed case (without a bazillion fans) even in the middle of summer.
 
cost: AMD x4 cpu's do not command anywhere near the premium on the used market as Core 2 chips. Being that's the case, a x4 cpu for a server or something like that might be a good idea. For a desktop-only chip, Core 2 Duo is where it's at.

just look for a deal on a x4 cpu

edit: and, for what it's worth, an Athlon64 x2 2.5ghz cpu will do 99.9% of what every day users want, with a good hard drive and plenty of RAM.

CPU's aren't so much the bottleneck anymore unless you're doing media encoding or something like that (and even then the Phenom x4 doesn't disappoint)

in games... it just doesn't matter right now, no games really take advantage of quad core - so you're just better off getting a dual core cpu if you game a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top