AMD processor suggestions.

[wuliheron]

why not spend a small amount more and get the 2500k? sure you can buy the slower AMD cpu and AM3+ board in hopes that Bulldozer will be good but why bother when you can have a good cpu NOW? at best AMD will match or barely beat the 2500k at the same price points. heck if anything knowing you can upgrade to Ivy Bridge while already having a superior chip now seems to make more sense anyway.

That just depends on the individual and their budget. If you have the money why even bother thinking about it at all. I'm sure someone like Paris Hilton would prefer to spend a few minutes shopping online and buying a $20,000.oo prebuilt and most people prefer to buy disposable computers every 4 years or so. For the rest of us the issue is how to get the most for our money not just today, but in the long run.

Again, it isn't just a $100.oo today, but being able to use the same mobo and ram for longer. That adds up and if a cheap processor plays games perfectly well today why pay more? Some people might be more interested in getting 300 fps in Half Life 2, but I'd rather spend that money on new games or a better graphics card or whatever. If I wanted to get really cheap I'd buy a console, but I want the extra eyecandy and a computer.

 

[toyota]

wuliheron, IF you are going to give the advice to go AMD cpu with AM3+ mobo just for hopes Bulldozer will be worth upgrading to then why not get a 2500K NOW? that will likely be just as cheap or even cheaper when its all said and done anyway. not to mention its nonsense to act like the AM3+ boards will have any more longevity to them than the 1155. we already know Ivy Bridge will be compatible with 1155 so there goes that excuse right there.

 

[wuliheron]

wuliheron, IF you are going to give the advice to go AMD cpu with AM3+ mobo just for hopes Bulldozer will be worth upgrading to then why not get a 2500K NOW? that will likely be just as cheap or even cheaper when its all said and done anyway. not to mention its nonsense to act like the AM3+ boards will have any more longevity to them than the 1155. we already know Ivy Bridge will be compatible with 1155 so there goes that excuse right there.

I'd suggest using a Ouija board or anything other then spouting total paranoid nonsense. Intel sockets have always changed faster then AMD and if bulldozer is a total flop it means they're going bankrupt and that's bad news for everyone. They may not be great competition, but they're some of the only competition Intel has. If you want to spend more for an i5 I say that's great and I'd recommend right now that most people who spend $800.oo or more on a rig should buy an i5. That doesn't mean everyone should buy an i5!

 

[Tuna-Fish]

Intel sockets have always changed faster then AMD

Short memory -- LGA 775 vs Socket940,754,939, AM2.

Intel has all but confirmed that 1155 will be compatible with ivy bridge, while on the other hand, on AMD roadmaps AM3+ will get replaced by FM2 next year. At the moment the smart money is on 1155 outliving AM3+.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Short memory -- LGA 775 vs Socket940,754,939, AM2.

Intel has all but confirmed that 1155 will be compatible with ivy bridge, while on the other hand, on AMD roadmaps AM3+ will get replaced by FM2 next year. At the moment the smart money is on 1155 outliving AM3+.

Given usual Intel antics with S775 I won't count on IB compatibility on S1155 boards.

That still doesn't discredit the fact that 2500K / mobo is still better value for money now vs PhII/AM3+ or PhII / (future!!!!) BD / AM3+.

 

[wuliheron]

Short memory -- LGA 775 vs Socket940,754,939, AM2.

Intel has all but confirmed that 1155 will be compatible with ivy bridge, while on the other hand, on AMD roadmaps AM3+ will get replaced by FM2 next year. At the moment the smart money is on 1155 outliving AM3+.

Google really is your friend. I suggest you do a search for backwards compatible AMD chips verses Intel chips rather then pulling one red herring out of your ass after another.

Both Intel and AMD had a lot of trouble getting the basic design down for multicore processors, but that's all in the past now. In fact, Intel just admitted they believe they finally have the basic design down pat with sandy bridge and you can be assured that AMD has put all that hard won experience to use in bulldozer as well.

 

[bryanW1995]

I hear this "upgrade path" crap from AMD fanboys all the time. Buy a cheaper CPU now, upgrade on a few years with the same mobo, intel mobs are expensive, blah blah.

Let me tell you from first hand experience that it doesn't often work. I built an AM2 system a few months before Core 2 came out thinking that Phenom would be good and that I could use the same board to upgrade to Phenom later.

Not only did Phenom massively suck, my board ad many of the other early AM2 boards did NOT support Phenom, contrary to AMD's claims of backwards compatibility.

Looking back on it, I could have built a Pentium D system that would have supported even the later generation Core 2 Quads. So you AMD fanboys need to drop that argument.

A very early 775 mobo was just as likely to support conroe as your am2 mobo was to support barcelona, so that wouldn't have been any better situation for you. Of course, if given the choice then conroe was lightyears ahead of barcelona from a performance standpoint.

Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to buy a cheap cpu/nice mobo with the plan to upgrade the cpu at a later date. That strategy worked for me once back in the athlon xp days and later going from an e6750 to a q9450, but at least in the latter case I was extremely lucky that abit had such a great mobo/price combo back then with the IP 35 pro. If you plan to upgrade to BD in the future using a current AM3+ mobo then you should buy a good board, probably $150 or even up to $200, negating much of the advantage of going with AMD in the first place.

 

[wuliheron]

A very early 775 mobo was just as likely to support conroe as your am2 mobo was to support barcelona, so that wouldn't have been any better situation for you. Of course, if given the choice then conroe was lightyears ahead of barcelona from a performance standpoint.

Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to buy a cheap cpu/nice mobo with the plan to upgrade the cpu at a later date. That strategy worked for me once back in the athlon xp days and later going from an e6750 to a q9450, but at least in the latter case I was extremely lucky that abit had such a great mobo/price combo back then with the IP 35 pro. If you plan to upgrade to BD in the future using a current AM3+ mobo then you should buy a good board, probably $150 or even up to $200, negating much of the advantage of going with AMD in the first place.

You can get an AM3+ mobo for as little as $60.oo and decent full sized ATX with the latest 900 chipset for a $100.oo. Whether its a good idea or not again just depends on the individual and their budget. In the middle of a recession its almost criminal to suggest Intel is the only way to go. With how much people push Intel at this website I'm beginning to think they must receive kickbacks from them.

 

[bryanW1995]

That just depends on the individual and their budget. If you have the money why even bother thinking about it at all. I'm sure someone like Paris Hilton would prefer to spend a few minutes shopping online and buying a $20,000.oo prebuilt and most people prefer to buy disposable computers every 4 years or so. For the rest of us the issue is how to get the most for our money not just today, but in the long run.

Again, it isn't just a $100.oo today, but being able to use the same mobo and ram for longer. That adds up and if a cheap processor plays games perfectly well today why pay more? Some people might be more interested in getting 300 fps in Half Life 2, but I'd rather spend that money on new games or a better graphics card or whatever. If I wanted to get really cheap I'd buy a console, but I want the extra eyecandy and a computer.

Your scenario could make sense, but rather than buying a 955 be I'd get a dirt cheap x3 cpu, maybe a 720 or something like that. You don't a BE to overclock on a decent mobo anyway, and that extra savings could give you a reasonable argument for going small now with a major upgrade plan going forward.

You can get an AM3+ mobo for as little as $60.oo and decent full sized ATX with the latest 900 chipset for a $100.oo. Whether its a good idea or not again just depends on the individual and their budget. In the middle of a recession its almost criminal to suggest Intel is the only way to go. With how much people push Intel at this website I'm beginning to think they must receive kickbacks from them.

It used to piss me off when I would see intel fanboys trash on AMD here, and all things being equal, or even close to equal, I'd prefer AMD because I've owned them almost exclusively up until 2007. Unfortunately, AMD has been so bad and Intel has been so good lately that for the average enthusiast there hasn't really been a choice. It's gotten so bad that intel feels they can segment their cpus, limit overclocking, bring out separate very expensive platforms/cpus for the high end, etc etc. I blame amd for this more than intel, all intel is doing is maximizing their profits. Hopefully a high end BD will outperform on average a 2600k at a similar price, because something like a return to competition will give us all a real choice again. Just because somebody buys intel these days that doesn't mean he's a fanboy, it just means that maybe he wants something better than the low end for the past 5 years.

One thing that has been mentioned lately that I agree with is that AMD looks to make all their BD cpus BE, so we might conceivably get midrange (2500-2600k) type performance on a budget again. If that were to happen then AMD would be apt to get back many of their old, loyal fans.

 

[Bartman39]

One thing that has been mentioned lately that I agree with is that AMD looks to make all their BD cpus BE, so we might conceivably get midrange (2500-2600k) type performance on a budget again. If that were to happen then AMD would be apt to get back many of their old, loyal fans.

If you look at it from standing way back its pretty easy to figure the only loyalty is with the wallet... (best bang for the buck at the time):thumbsup:

Competition is nothing but good for us...

 

[bryanW1995]

That's not true. Loyalty with the wallet is important, certainly, but if AMD can even be competitive then they will receive a lot of support from longtime users and/or people who just like the underdog. AMD's problem since conroe came out has been that intel is just absolutely dominant in the high end for everybody and in the middle range for overclockers as well. I'm suggesting that intel has left that "middle range" open, and that if things go well for amd then overclockers could possibly use low end AMD cpus to compete with intel's middle range offerings for the next couple of years.

 

[wuliheron]

Your scenario could make sense, but rather than buying a 955 be I'd get a dirt cheap x3 cpu, maybe a 720 or something like that. You don't a BE to overclock on a decent mobo anyway, and that extra savings could give you a reasonable argument for going small now with a major upgrade plan going forward.

Yeah, that's another alternative especially if you are interested in upgrading soon to bulldozer.

It used to piss me off when I would see intel fanboys trash on AMD here, and all things being equal, or even close to equal, I'd prefer AMD because I've owned them almost exclusively up until 2007. Unfortunately, AMD has been so bad and Intel has been so good lately that for the average enthusiast there hasn't really been a choice. It's gotten so bad that intel feels they can segment their cpus, limit overclocking, bring out separate very expensive platforms/cpus for the high end, etc etc. I blame amd for this more than intel, all intel is doing is maximizing their profits. Hopefully a high end BD will outperform on average a 2600k at a similar price, because something like a return to competition will give us all a real choice again. Just because somebody buys intel these days that doesn't mean he's a fanboy, it just means that maybe he wants something better than the low end for the past 5 years.

One thing that has been mentioned lately that I agree with is that AMD looks to make all their BD cpus BE, so we might conceivably get midrange (2500-2600k) type performance on a budget again. If that were to happen then AMD would be apt to get back many of their old, loyal fans.

Intel and AMD are both huge and complex soulless corporations. You might as well blame gravity for causing you to fall. Either they produce something worthwhile or they don't. I also think its getting pretty hard to say exactly where AMD is going with bulldozer, but its pretty safe to say the whole future of gaming processors is up in the air.

Ideally you want something like 8 cpu cores and 300 streaming processors on a gaming processor. That's enough to run full blown matrices on the cpu for simple physics and AI and enough to do more complex physics and AI on the streaming processors all without affecting a discrete graphics card. Shuffle the parts around a little and you could have a quad cpu with enough streaming processors for serious integrated graphics that can also be crossfired with a discrete gpu. At any rate, heterogeneous computing is about to hit the market in a big way and I'm sure the learning curve is going to be at least as steep as multicore processors. So far game developers and computer manufacturers have downplayed physics and AI, but it one of the last remaining areas they can add serious eyecandy to games and the technology is about to become cheap.