×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD Undercuts Intel With Six-Core Phenom IIs

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the crave-7-and-11-core-options dept.

AMD 361

EconolineCrush writes "As Slashdot readers are no doubt aware, Intel's latest 'Gulftown' Core i7-980X is an absolute beast of a CPU. But its six cores don't come cheap; the 980X sells for over a grand, which is more than it would cost to build an entire system based on one of AMD's new six-core CPUs. The Phenom II X6 line starts at just $200 and includes a new Turbo capability that can opportunistically raise the clock speed of up to three cores when the others are idle. Although not as fast as the 980X, the new X6s are quick enough to offer compelling value versus even like-priced Intel CPUs. And the kicker: the X6s will work in a good number of older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

361 comments

Holy crap this is old. (2, Informative)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119820)

But anyhow. I like AMD they are a good brand but to be honest their 6 core dose not undercut intel's 6 core. It maybe undercuts intel's 4core . But even than they only trade blows in quantitative analysis.

In short this posting is old and not very accurate. So doubly pointless

Serioulsy ... (5, Insightful)

dnamaners (770001) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120014)

There are more than a few things that AMD besides gaming and over clocking (Intel strong points) that make an AMD a good choice. I don't want to start holy war here but there is not much real gap here 10-5% in my tests at best. The price * power use thing shows AMD is a good choice in many places. Price alone makes me deploy more than a few AMD clusters. Don't just look at the max value on the "speedometer" to see how good a car is, we mostly drive at the speed limit. Take from it what you will.

Re:Serioulsy ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120552)

There is no speed limit in computing... and especially not in clusters. AMD competes in no arena intel has a presence. Its been very lop sided ever since the i7s came out, and it looks to stay that way for at least another year.

Re:Serioulsy ... (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120830)

enjoy testing unstable INTEL chips then. The first gen of any intel product is how they stress test, all they do before they go on market is get one stable in the lab.

Re:Holy crap this is old. (3, Interesting)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120254)

Although not as fast as the 980X, the the new X6s are quick enough to offer compelling value versus even like-priced Intel CPUs. And the kicker: the X6s will work in a good number of older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update.

So doubly pointless

Indeed as this is the "the" new X6s.

I still like the underdog and hope they do well. The latest and greatest is often overkill.

This should drive the i7 price down (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119822)

finally...

Re:This should drive the i7 price down (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119992)

Yeah, a lot of people waiting for i7 price to drop instead of actually buying nice AMD product will surely result in drops of Intel CPU prices, right?

Re:This should drive the i7 price down (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120428)

Yeah, a lot of people waiting for i7 price to drop instead of actually buying nice AMD product will surely result in drops of Intel CPU prices, right?

Of course it does. It doesn't matter why someone chooses to not buy a product, it only matters that they make that choice and thus the product doesn't sell. Companies have gone bankrupt because people chose to wait for a better deal.

Re:This should drive the i7 price down (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120646)

Intel will sell lots of CPUs regardless; it was just about this group waiting specifically for price decreases "forced" by potential attractiveness of a nice product from smaller competing vendor, a situation which GP basically subscribed to.

Re:This should drive the i7 price down (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120696)

Waitaminute, Intel makes real CPUs? I thought they were overpriced motherboard CPU socket fillers used in shipping.

Re:This should drive the i7 price down (2, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120924)

Thus resulting in a lower price on the new i7 MacBook Pro!

waiting... waiting...

I need a new computer (2, Informative)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119846)

all these cores and benchmarks...

i still run computer with one core and no modern graphics card

Re:I need a new computer (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32119944)

all these cores and benchmarks...

i still run computer with one core and no modern graphics card

Me too, it makes a great router.

Re:I need a new computer (3, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120038)

Rest assured that most of the 1337 h4xx0rZ who will soon spew reams of artificial benchmark trivia are just demonstrating that what they really use their Maibatsu Monstrosity XP9000 system for is running a web browser.

Re:I need a new computer (1)

Sepiraph (1162995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32121026)

That's true, how much computing power does an average, non-gaming, non-power user need? Even if you throw in multi-media, including voip and video, I doubt your average user will be able to use all that computing power (also the later depends more on the GPU, which will become more and more important in the future). I suppose with the cost of cpu power getting lower and lower, it may not matter as much and we will see more hardware comes with some sort of computer (e.g. your entire house).

Recently, I built a new system based on the core7 i930, reasoning being there is simply no AMD cpu that can match its performance, and I do consider myself a power user when I am using it for emulating Cisco CCIE labs and probably be running several VM instances in the future.

Re:I need a new computer (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120130)

Please share the list of software that you use and enjoy.

Re:I need a new computer (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120246)

On my Dell Mini 10 (2-thread Atom CPU, Intel GPU), I spend most of my time in Firefox, gedit, GIMP, ca65, and FCE Ultra. It was the same on my Eee PC 900 before it gave up the magic smoke.

Re:I need a new computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120498)

Sounds like the stuff I've used regularly on my K6-2 machine years back. Makes me wonder where all this GHz waste is really allocated on!

Re:I need a new computer (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120718)

Ahh, so you are playing PIRATED game ROMs in FCE Ultra. It makes sense though. People who use cheap, rubbish computers are more likely to steal since they are leeches on society.

Or maybe you actually own all of those games and a console copier with which to make legal ROM dumps. Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Re:I need a new computer (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120548)

My dell laptop, a 6 year-old Latitude D600 with 1.6 gHz processor, 512 MB Ram, and integrated low-end ATI runs Ubuntu Studio 9.10, most compiz effects enabled(the only thing that really slows it down is a background skydome image, so I don't run that) with multiple desktops and multiple browsers(including instances of YouTube) or Jack/Ardour/Hydrogen running without slowing.

The only speed problems I have are the time it takes to fire up certain applications like OpenOffice and Gimp, but they run OK once open.

My next desktop will have a core2 duo or AMD equivalent and a more modern graphics card, making it WAY more than good enough, and the tower with monitor's still gonna cost less than an iPad!

Re:I need a new computer (2, Funny)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120804)

making it WAY more than good enough

I believe we programmers have the magic to make today's 32nm dual core to function like your old processor.

Re:I need a new computer (5, Insightful)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120296)

It gives us VM's - lots and lots of VM's. I can reproduce a production app environment entirely on one quiet little box, including the load-balancer, firewall and name servers. It used to take a half a rack of loud, expensive servers all with disks and other stuff that breaks and needs monitoring and replacing. I can't wait for the 8-core chips to become affordable.

Re:I need a new computer (4, Funny)

skam240 (789197) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120918)

So why on earth are you even bothering to comment on this article? You clearly have no need for a top of the line system. Good for you! You're just like my mom! Does it make you feel superior to brag about your single core? Are you the computer ascetic of our generation?

re AMD (5, Interesting)

freddieb (537771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119930)

We all should hope AMD does well. I use AMD chips in about 90% of my systems. Value is the main reason. Intel makes excellent products however you invariably have to upgrade the motherboard to use a new chip. AMD has been kinder in this regard recently. I go with a middle of the pack system anyhow and I really appreciate the value AMD provides.

Re:re AMD (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120024)

Intel's kind of funny like that.

LGA775 was kicking around for like, 5 years before LGA1156, but, Socket 478 was around for about 3 years before *that*.

of course, there's also Socket 7, who can forget those days?

Re:re AMD (1)

bruno.fatia (989391) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120248)

Yeah but try installing a new processor into an old motherboard with just a BIOS upgrade, see how that goes...

Re:re AMD (3, Informative)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120306)

yah except with intel even if the new cpu used the same socket the new chipset was required for the new cpu forcing an upgrade 755 broke the mold but intel are back to there old tricks with 2 or 3 cpu sockets that ARNT compatible with each other amds guilty of it too 754 949 939.. but they eventually chose 939 for the definitive socket for the first gen 64 bit cpus then moved on to the AM sockets all are compatible with each other AMx doesn't work in AM3 BUT AM3 works in AMx

Re:re AMD (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120478)

I meant to say was that they seem to do what AMD did, which was float between like, 2 or 3 CPU socket types then settle on one(for the consumer level at least. If you're buying octo-core Xeons you're probably not building it yourself) for a good half decade.

Re:re AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120636)

While it kind of sucks to have to upgrade the motherboard for a new chip, I went back to Intel from AMD on my last build and couldn't be happier. All three AMD systems I'd put together had their quirks -- from mild to major -- that I chalked up to shitty motherboard manufacturers (including one extremely well-known brand that shipped a malfunctioning board right back to me and called it tech support -- nevermind that their Northbridge chip was melting their passive cooling solution off the board. I never overclock, either.)

I finally decided to throw another couple of hundred dollars at my next system and went for the best price/performance chip at the time (Intel Pentium D 3.4) on an Intel motherboard, and found memory that had been tested with this combination (which seemed to be a real problem with AMD boards.) Everything has worked perfectly for five years -- and I've pushed the hardware with gaming, compiling, and virtual machine experimentation -- so I'm going to do the same for the next system.

When I go for a new chip, I've got to get a new board, but there are other advantages; my video card is a PCI Express x16 2.0 but my motherboard only has a 1.0 slot, which means it's running with half the bandwidth the card could use. To me, the difference would be enough to spring for a new motherboard even if I was able to drop a new CPU into this one. So I have to figure, if I can get five years life out of my computer systems, it's totally worth the premium given that other motherboard-related technology usually progresses a step or two over the same time period.

Re:re AMD (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120730)

I certainly hope they do well. Many of my systems run AMD too. They do represent great value. Plus, I would hate to see Intel as the only desktop CPU manufacturer.

I don't really care for AMD at all (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32121012)

And yet I still hope they do well. Competition is good for everyone. The better AMD's offerings, the better Intel's response has to be if they wish to compete.

You can really see that back in the Athlon era. Suddenly AMD launched to the top performance wise, they had a chip that was powerful and relatively cheap compared to the P3. What happened? Intel cut prices, but also released a huge speed bump. Whereas previously it was in the realm of 600MHz the P3s topped out at, they started shipping 933MHZ P3s in rather short order. Clearly Intel was producing chips that could work faster, they simply didn't bin them higher because there was no need. Game them a way to bring out speed improvement for not cost later. However with AMD's competition, they had to do it sooner.

Then of course there's the P4. It wasn't a bad architecture over all, but it didn't work as well as it should. Main reason was speeds didn't scale like Intel thought they would. Initial tests showed they should be able to get 10GHz out of them in time, but real world it didn't work out. Ok but they were still plenty good chips, they performed well enough for what most people used. Intel could have simply refined the design... But that wasn't an option because AMD's offerings were so strong. So instead Intel had to do a redesign, and from that we got the Core 2, which is an extremely solid architecture.

The fight with AMD is what keeps the costs low and quality high on both sides. So, even if you don't care for AMD, as I don't, you still have to like the company and that they are around. I want to see AMD going for Intel's throat on a continual basis. I want to see both companies have to push their technologies to the limit to make the very best chips possible, and then sell them as cheap as possible. The competition is a wonderful thing.

Cores vs performance (4, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119940)

The problem is AMD is using an outdated architecture. More cores != more speed for general use. Yeah, if you are compiling your own software you can get things to work really fast with 6 cores but how many applications really take advantage of multiple cores? Very, very few. A single fast core can outperform a few slow cores in general usage and AMD seems only concerned with getting more and more cores on a single CPU die which really doesn't translate to great performance in the real world for general use.

Re:Cores vs performance (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119996)

Try transcoding some video one time kiddo.

Hell if I could get 24 atoms in one socket that would be fantastic for me.

Transcoding is not common (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120310)

Try transcoding some video one time kiddo.

That's not necessarily the best example. Most people do not produce original high-definition video, and the United States (home of Slashdot editors) has made it illegal to break DRM in order to transcode major-label video. Besides, GPU-accelerated transcoding can use more cores than a CPU-only transcoder ever can because it is embarrassingly SIMD.

Transcoding is common (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120618)

Way to belittle an excellent example of the usefulness of multiple cores.

Original HD production? Illegal to break DRM? So do you think it's only the occasional cinematographer or pirate who uses software based on FFmpeg and X.264 to transcode vids for HTPC or iPod? Because neither currently targets OpenCL or CUDA.

Re:Cores vs performance (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120456)

Why the fuck would you go for more cores in a CPU rather than more cores in a GPU? A better GPU will speed up video encoding/decoding much more than a better CPU will.

Oh that's right, you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120776)

Your GPU method only supports certain video types, this method supports far more.

Depends what you do. (2, Informative)

FatSean (18753) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120028)

I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores. Then there is my bit-torrent app and...

Seems like you can easily use all those cores.

Apps that sleep (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120398)

I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores.

The app server uses a core only when someone is using the app. And what does the IDE do for you between keystrokes?

Then there is my bit-torrent app

Network bound, probably sleeping much of the time. Or what am I missing?

Re:Depends what you do. (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120668)

I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores. Then there is my bit-torrent app and...

Seems like you can easily use all those cores.

Stop using Azureus for your bit torrent client, and downloading a file will no longer require a fill core with of CPU time.

Or, if you are using a sane torrent client, what the hell kind of internet connection are you using that you are still CPU bound on a file transfer?!?!

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120100)

$ ps aux | wc -l

If that prints anything less than 6, hats off to ya!

Re:Cores vs performance (3, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120176)

Almost all those processes spend almost all their time idle or blocking on something, though, not contending for a core.

Re:Cores vs performance (4, Insightful)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120362)

Well if your load average is always less than 0.10 your computer is likely overpowered.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120432)

Indeed, which is why things like netbooks have gotten popular: modern computers are overpowered for most normal end-user applications.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120388)

$ top

If that prints more than a couple of processes in a running state, not sleeping waiting for I/O, you have quite an unusual workload.

Re:Cores vs performance (1, Interesting)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120174)

It depends on what you consider "general use". Some cases demand more cores. GTA 4 is more or less unplayable on dual core systems, so an AMD is the cheapest option. As always, look at what you want to do, and then buy a computer, and don't be a fucking idiot.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120338)

This was common wisdom 5 years ago. Nowadays, there's a shitload of CPU-intensive applications making good use of additional cores. And the trend is towards more and more such applications. This, in turn, means that the architecture that allows for easier multi-core CPUs will win out.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

Ryiah (1324299) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120556)

More cores != more speed for general use. Yeah, if you are compiling your own software you can get things to work really fast with 6 cores but how many applications really take advantage of multiple cores? Very, very few.

Even if it were true that very few general use applications take advantage of multiple cores, the average user is running more than one application. For example, I looked at a system a friend was running and she had Windows 7 and Norton AV on a Celeron 900. She typically does Office applications and runs a browser at the same time. Compared to her old system its pretty snappy, but it still isn't anywhere near as decent.

Re:Cores vs performance (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120814)

The more cores the better for me. I run a couple of home servers, which each run several VMs under KVM. Sure, this isn't general use, but I don't care about that. For all my "general use" tasks, the MacBook works just fine.

gcc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120872)

All the big cpu hog apps like gcc support multiple cores quite well. If your not running big cpu hog apps, just get yourself a nice high end laptop, and plug it into a big monitor, then you'll have portability and all the performance you'll ever need.

Re:Cores vs performance (4, Insightful)

ld a,b (1207022) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120894)

Your real-world usage is what exactly? Playing badly designed games?

I want to play badly designed games *while* I am compiling, listening to some music and possibly leaving my browser on with some badly written JavaScript running. I also want my CPU not to melt.

You would need at least a 5GHz CPU to match a current dual-core CPU in this area. The ongoing trend is to have more and more things running and getting updated in real time. An it has been for a long time.

Files getting indexed, illegal files getting downloaded, stupid GUIs getting rendered, music getting played, Interpreted languages getting JIT-compiled ...

Gamers are still stuck in the microcomputer era. The real world isn't. And there isn't really a choice in the first place, the choice is more cores and a better experience or getting stuck at XGHz and having to pipe liquid Hydrogen into your home.

I think we will see more CPUs with more cores and likely more storage units to avoid resource starvation. More speed is just not possible.

Re:Cores vs performance - VMware (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120914)

For all us virtualization types more cheaper cores = more better. The future is in virtualization and I think AMD gets this.

Value for money vs FanboiGasms (5, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119958)

On a price performance basis AMDs Phenom IIs have consistenly been a better buy for some time now. To the point it's hard to suggest anyone buying intel at all, unless money is no object. (I don't know why I bought Intel anyway :S). Honest hardware review sites (that aren't far up the ass of vendors) are at the point of recommend AMD CPUs on a price/performance basis.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31857.html [tomshardware.co.uk]

It seems Intel doesn't get even a "honorable mention" until page 3. At $120 price point, Core i3 gets a look in. Oh, they also don't recommend anything above about $160 to quote Tom's: "Best gaming CPU for $190: None".

To add further insult, money saved from AMD motherboards being cheaper (in particular SLI/xfire AMD boards are a good whack cheaper) will let you put money towards more storage, a SSD or a step up in CPU speed.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (-1, Flamebait)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120022)

I don't know if this still holds true, but in my experience AMD has produced crappier CPUs than Intel. I've had AMD boards die on me much sooner than my Intel boards. And while I'm sure this video isn't as true anymore, it does give something to think about in AMD vs Intel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsr1R1qy1Y [youtube.com] . Myself, if I want a cheap rig to last for 2-3 years, I buy AMD. If I want something to last any longer its generally got Intel parts.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120252)

Ummm...you do know that your BOARD dieing doesn't have jack to do with your CPU right? Unless of course you bought another board to find out somehow the CPU died which I never see happen outside of some dumbass not having good enough thermal control on the system. Buy a better board & PSU. I'll bet anything the board you used was a POS vs what you've used for your Intel rigs.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (-1, Flamebait)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120568)

Except that if the AMD boards consistently die sooner, that does have something to do with the CPU. It means if you buy that CPU, you need to budget/plan for the eventual mobo replacement.
I'll admit, while I'm not a hardcore loyalist or anything, if I'm building a system I buy Intel, mostly just because I've never had problems with them. And my laptop is currently Intel. but it's getting long in the tooth, and the CPU *seems* to be having issues, while my last laptop was AMD and lasted up until it was too slow for what I was doing, so my next laptop is up for grabs in the processor department.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (4, Informative)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32121056)

Your anecdotal stories are really only relevant to you. You'd be better off on /. presenting some sort of statistical evidence for your claim otherwise it's simply FUD and readers are correct to dismiss it as such. We're all here for conversation so if you have a real point bring it.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

KingKaneOfNod (583208) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120266)

The reason I buy Intel CPUs and chipsets is because I had a bad experience with an AMD X2 dual core CPU about a year ago. I'd had the CPU/motherboard for about 3 years and constantly battled compatibility issues with games (the main use for my computer); most games had timing issues (e.g. ran way too fast - kind of like playing a game made for an 16 Mhz 286 on a 40 Mhz 386), even after I'd applied all the XP patches and installed the AMD dual core optimizer. Then, to top it off the motherboard died (never had that happen before). So after that I bought a Core 2 DUO and have never looked back; no compatibility problems with any of the games the X2 had, and it has run very reliably.

The ironic thing is that my last two PCs before that had AMD chipsets that I had been happy with, but one bad experience like that has been enough to put me off AMD for good.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120868)

What games are you playing that don't properly clock control? I've never had that hapen, and have been building with AMD since socket 754 was new, and playing games about that long as well. I call BS.

Nobody expects you to .... (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120968)

abuse an AMD processor like overclocking.

I have built 8 machines since the socket 7 era and not a single problem come through. My K6-2 333 can still run as of today (w/ Win98 of course).

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120386)

Not my experience. All AMD based mobos and processors I purchased in the last 10 years have lasted many years past their useful life. I'd buy AMD again with confidence.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (2, Informative)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120406)

then DONT buy an SiS or VIA based mobo buy one with an AMD chip set or an NVIDIA chip set VIA if your desperate for cheep

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120800)

every computer I have built over the last 15 years still works, both intel and amd.. maybe you just buy shit hardware.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120086)

Plus the integrated GFX on most AMD boards is a bit more sensible than Intel one, meaning separate card can be more often ignored (or at the least the initial configuration not including it, and the machine will be still sensibly nice)

(yes, there's integrated Nvidia - not with latest Intel arch though; previously not so readily available...and for some reason motherboards for Intel with Nv GFX were consistently more expensive than for AMP CPUs with Nv GFX, at least where I am)

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (2, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120390)

I am running an M4A78T-E with ATI HD 3300 integrated graphics. It does surprisingly well. I have not doled out any money for new high end games for a while, but it easily handles games that brought my previous graphics card to its knees (it was top of the line in 04). I am eventually going to get a modern graphics card so I can play around with OpenCL, but I really have not felt a pressing need for it with my gaming habits.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (1)

LamboAlpha (840950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120598)

I will start this by saying that I have built four AMD desktop computers over the years and currently use three AMD systems (a single and quad core desktop and one dual core laptop). The quad core desktop was built as a server (video processing/storage/backup).

But, it is now time to upgrade my primary single core desktop computer (gaming and general use). I would prefer it if I could get an AMD system, however after doing the research, I am currently planning on building an Intel Core i7-930 based system. I completely agree that I could get an AMD system at a better price, but the performance would be worse than the Intel system. The point of this system is good performance at a decent price.

I had already planned to get the Intel based system before reading this review, but the Phenom II X6 review by Tom’s Hardware just reinforced my original decision. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-890fx,2613-14.html [tomshardware.com]

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (4, Informative)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120686)

It seems Intel doesn't get even a "honorable mention" until page 3. At $120 price point, Core i3 gets a look in. Oh, they also don't recommend anything above about $160 to quote Tom's: "Best gaming CPU for $190: None

and then... you stopped reading.

Best gaming CPU for $200:

Core i5-750

The new Core i5 brings top-of-the-line Nehalem-class performance at a $200 price point. We recently awarded it our Recommended Buy honor after seeing it stand up to more expensive CPUs in games and other demanding apps.

They don't recommend spending more than $200, though.

Re:Value for money vs FanboiGasms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120746)

I've no particular preference regarding Intel vs. AMD, but I will point out that in practice the word "fanboi" always, without any exceptions ever, means "someone who likes something I don't".

ECC Support (4, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 3 years ago | (#32119974)

And additional benefit of AMD processors is that they all support ECC RAM.

Re:ECC Support (5, Informative)

pslam (97660) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120318)

This is a big reason I picked an AMD Phenom II over a Core i7 recently. To get ECC support from Intel, you need to buy a Xeon, at which point they charge you an extra $800-$1000 for the gates to be enabled. Screw that, I'll go with a chip 80% cheaper and 10% slower.

BIOS Update.... (1)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120006)

Does anyone think for a minute they will update the BIOS on a board when they can sell you a new one?

Re:BIOS Update.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120142)

BIOS updates come out all the time.

Re:BIOS Update.... (4, Informative)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120280)

Yes actually...I've worked with so many boards that were made for AM2 that were made long before Phenom came out that work phenomenally with Phenom chips after a quick bios update. Now if your talking a prebuilt HP special POS, well that's your own fault.

Re:BIOS Update.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120366)

Yes

Re:BIOS Update.... (2, Informative)

D J Horn (1561451) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120494)

Yes. This is far from the first time a new CPU has been supported on older boards by updating BIOS.

Re:BIOS Update.... (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120608)

ASUS/AMD certainly does, they have the most friendly system to upgrade your BIOS, just burn a firmware image on an empty CD, restart and let the computer startup from that cd and all goes automatically.
Don't forget to make a backup of your current bios and burn that on a separate CD.

Missed the Mark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120018)

Too bad the flagship product doesn't out perform even an Intel Core i5 750....

As an AMD fanboi, I can really say I am disappointed in this missed opportunity.

AMD (5, Funny)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120068)

AMD basically has a processor that has a high performance/price ratio for any budget. I will be loyal to AMD for quite some time. Im seriously considering tattooing AMD on myself.

Re:AMD (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120154)

Complementary /b/ suggestion ...

Do It Faggot!

^_^

love to see one of those.... (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120128)



older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update.

Isn't that an oxymoron?!? A BIOS update on and older AM2+ mobo?

Seth

ill pit my i7-920 against any AMD 6 core (-1, Troll)

sqkybeaver (1415539) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120212)

i have many Intel based systems that have been reliable for ten years, while many of the AMD systems i built haven't lasted two years, price is an indicator of the length of system reliability. not to mention i have personally seen prototype chips from Intel that were years ahead of AMD at the time.

Re:ill pit my i7-920 against any AMD 6 core (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120322)

And guaranteed the AMD systems you have crap out were probably using junk boards & PSUs. Unless the chip fizzled, the CPU choice had nothing to do with it. Plus really? Your going to talk about prototypes vs whats on the market? Both have stuff that's way ahead of whats on the market. That's why the call it's a (spell it with me now) P-R-O-T-O-T-Y-P-E. AMD has it's strengths. It's why Intel's x64 architecture is the same as AMD's. They got their shit together first, and made it work.

Re:ill pit my i7-920 against any AMD 6 core (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120364)

and I've had AMD systems last as long as your Intel systems.

Quite frankly the quality of power supply, memory, and motherboard, are more important than the CPU. Both Intel and AMD make reliable CPUs, and you can find cut rate MoBos sold for either, and many low cost PCs using AMD CPUs also come with a low cost supply.

I have been waiting for this day! (2, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120260)

includes a new Turbo capability that can opportunistically raise the clock speed

Does this mean I can get my turbo button back on my computer?

But wait, there's more!!! (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120298)

If you act now, we'll throw in this brand new nose hair trimmer for FREE!!!! Get rid of those pesky nose hairs with our patented root-ripper design that leaves your nose feeling clean for months. Also, if you order within 24 hours we'll include a 29 foot garden hose!

Certain restrictions apply. $19.95 shipping & handling, delivery within continental US and Canada only. ...I love AMD, but COME ON man. Make it a LITTLE less obvious.

Cores is the new MHz (5, Insightful)

pankajmay (1559865) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120684)

I have been wondering for quite some time - do regular joe consumers really need all those cores? OR is everyone buying into the marketing hype of processor manufacturers without thinking whether we would actually need that many cores??

First of all, any computer organization text will inform you that as the number of cores increase - scheduling amongst those cores becomes an exponentially costly issue in itself. This scheduling/load balancing of course has to be ultra low latency to maintain a reasonable throughput.
Not to mention the fact, that on software side managing threading and choosing instructions to parallelize is a big headache. Many decent programmers cannot get it right so that in itself defeats the presence of different cores.

Secondly - unless you are continuously doing protein folding, calculating eigen values of huge matrices, or are acting as a node for traffic in your part of the world -- most people's processor cores will spend a majority of their time idling or spin-lock. Is it any surprise then that both Intel and AMD are advertising technologies to power down three cores, boosting the power for the other three?? Simply because most end-users will rarely utilize all six of their cores simultaneously. Yes, that is even true no matter if you are doing heavy video transcoding or running multiple servers, and playing games simultaneously - you will still leave your cores without any task simply because unless the bandwidth of the memory bus catches up, your cores will be waiting for data to process.
This is why Intel's i-series architecture is superior to AMDs and likely the fact their processors cost more, because they have addressed the memory bus issue.

You have to realize your computer acts like a chain and it is only as fast as its weakest link.

I have been advising people that any new dual or quad processor will suffice - they should instead spend that extra money on buying a better motherboard, speedier RAM, and of course high-speed HDD.

Trust me when I say that just that approach above will yield systems that are actually much faster than coupling an i7/Mega-core behemoth with an old hard-disk and crappy RAM.

It is an altogether different matter that computers are already so speedy that most users cannot for the love of God discern between the speeds of any recent dual-core and a top-of-the-line processor - and it is not their fault -- the advantages now we are talking about are incremental. The power is present but cannot be harnessed. So any gloating is moot.

Re:Cores is the new MHz (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32121126)

Don't know about average joes, but for work, a quad core drops compile jobs from 17 mins to 3.
For home use, I usually pull 40-80% load on 4 cores, so I would say I get good use out it.

This chip from AMD was launched WEEKS ago! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32120862)

This story is so out dated now it's crazy. Slashdot needs to wake up and follow tech again.

The BIG News that the SOCKET stays the same AM3 (1)

Proudrooster (580120) | more than 3 years ago | (#32120902)

This is what I love about AMD, other than the price and ability to overclock. I can upgrade the BIOS and pop this CPU in my system without throwing out the MOBO and having to reload the O/S. If this were Intel, I would have to buy a new motherboard to support the slightly new CPU.

Thank you AMD for not playing socket-a-paloozo like Intel!

Oh, BTW, my 3.2Ghz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition runs stable at 3.8Ghz for $160. :) If I ever win the lotto I will buy an an i7, until then, GO AMD!

for less than $1000,why not get a 12-core Opteron? (5, Interesting)

strstr (539330) | more than 3 years ago | (#32121042)

For less than the price of Intel's top desktop chip, you can get an uber-1337 AMD Opteron with 12-cores. Beat that, Intel...

Prices start at $750.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...