Dual core on a budget! Who needs AMD?

[Markfw]

As far as throttling, yes my 820D throttles, depending on vcore at different temps, but they DO throttle, but throttlewatch doesn;t work correctly to see that, but S&M DOES. Duvie and I have seen it. The 805 and 820 are the same core, but different multi.

 

[mckennaiii]

Would this be a good combo?
D 805 & Abit IL8

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Questar

1. While it hasn't been proven scientifically (no study done to my knowledge), the hotter a chip runs internally, the shorter it's lifespan.

False. Chips don't "wear out".

Of course they do...how long have you been working on computers??
Overclockers Guide on CPU lifespan

2. While the chip may be clocked high enough according to it's settings, throttling will kick in often (unless you're water cooling), and it should get worse over a period of a few months.

False. People are running these at 3.9Ghz without throttling on air. It will not "get worse" over time.

Of course it does...One of the byproducts of thermal fatigue is an increase in leakage (hence an increase in power required).

 

[Absolute0]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Good points about power consumption. I haven't really cared for that since I either live in residences at university or apartments with utilities included. I can understand people's concern long term. The article does compare long term costs though and it seems it takes fairly long for normal usage when the prices match. Also the power consumption for that intel cpu over amd at most will be 100W more which is 1 light bulb. I hardly see anyone complaining about having 1 more lightbulb turned on in their home, am I wrong?

Certainly the same argument is not being made in video forums for why people should choose 7900GTX over X1900XTX. And Markfw900 isn't you caring for long term costs contradicts your RX-8 purchase? It gets what like 17mpg in city and needs refilling of 4 quarts of oil every 2 weeks? Imo It's negligible to compare electricity bills for 1 PC system (not 10) over the course of 2 years (how long ppl on anantech keep systems). And I am not so sure if AMD cost $130 and was smoking intel that cost $295, the same argument would have been made against amd had its power consumption been higher than intel.

There's a few other things to consider as well...

1. While it hasn't been proven scientifically (no study done to my knowledge), the hotter a chip runs internally, the shorter it's lifespan.
2. While the chip may be clocked high enough according to it's settings, throttling will kick in often (unless you're water cooling), and it should get worse over a period of a few months.
3. He added a $50 HSF and $7.50 case fan to the 805 (while stating that the included HSF was fine for the AMD). So we need to add another $57.50 to the price of the 805. This makes it closer to $190 vs $295...
4. He didn't state what the ambient temps were, but I don't imagine that he did it on a warm spring day without A/C...
5. For a truly budget system, you'll want good on-board graphics. For AMD, the 6100 line of mobos include a Vista ready DX-9 GeForce 6100...and the Radeon Express 200 include a good Vista Ready graphics solution as well (either are ~$60 each). The Radeon line is available for Intel, but NOT for dual core Intel...so let's add another $40 for a seperate video card. Now we're at $230 vs $295

So, by saving ~$65, you are:
1. risking a dead CPU from overclocking
2. adding the headache of monitoring the ambient and chip temerature constantly
3. probably lose your CPU sooner
4. performing 2-14% slower in all real-world tests except DVD shrink...
5. using almost twice the power

You're limited to the box of their argument, let's think outside the box for a second.

First of all, cut the BS, no one is forced to buy a Scythe ninja. He was able to get to 3.6 Ghz on stock volts, now that implies a very minute thermal increase up to that point - stock cooler should have sufficed. Throw out that argument, the 805D costs 135$ while the 3800+ costs 295$.

1) Risking a dead CPU from overclocking. Have you overclocked? How the hell often do you kill CPUs from overclocking? It's such a small risk you shouldn't have mentioned it. I've gone through 19 AMD64s on all kinds of cooling and raising the HTT and voltage a tad never hurt anything
2) Useless argument... it ran 3 degrees hotter than the AMD, big deal. Prescotts can take more heat than AMDs, 57c doesn't hurt them.
3) Uhmmm... no. Pressy loading even into the low 60s is normal. Not like it's going to die just because it's a couple degrees hotter.
4) That's true, the 3800+ is faster, but that's not the point, the point is that one costs less than half as much and performs 90% as good. Apparently they're not driving home the point well enough.
5) Almost twice the power? It's 1.5x as much power, it's not that big a deal.

I'm very impressed by the 805-D processor. On watercooling (which is all i run) it's been going over 4 Ghz easily. Now my 3800+s i usualy run around 2.87 which would still chew into a 4 Ghz 805-D pretty hard, but for the price it's simply unbeatable.

Oh yeah you neglected to mention how he used a 60$ heatsink (zalman 9500) on the AMD.

More like 190$ 805-D setup versus 355$ AMDX2 setup. And 90% as fast! Damn impressive.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dexvx
You people realize that Fry's has the Pentium-D 920 + Mobo combo for $199?

The "save on power" arguement is stupid, IMO. Even on 24/7 load, you'd need over 3 years to make up the difference in initial cost. If people were that anal over power, they'd get Core Duo solutions to all their problems.

5. For a truly budget system, you'll want good on-board graphics. For AMD, the 6100 line of mobos include a Vista ready DX-9 GeForce 6100...and the Radeon Express 200 include a good Vista Ready graphics solution as well (either are ~$60 each). The Radeon line is available for Intel, but NOT for dual core Intel...so let's add another $40 for a seperate video card. Now we're at $230 vs $295

The 950GMA is a Vista Ready graphics solution. With a decent amount of memory allocation, you can run Vista @ Aero fine.

Which mobo is Fry's combining that with?
The 950GMA mobos are $100 anyway (unless you want ECS...shiver), so it's still an additional $40...

 

[Absolute0]

805-D for 130$ shipped
******/product/productdetails.aspx?submit=&item=19-116-001&ATTmicroprocessors%20pc
**apparently anandtech doesn't like links. Help, help i'm being suppressed

http:// www. chiefvalue.com /product/productdetails.aspx?submit=&item=19-116-001&ATTmicroprocessors%20pc


get rid of the spaces

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Absolute0


You're limited to the box of their argument, let's think outside the box for a second.

First of all, cut the BS, no one is forced to buy a Scythe ninja. He was able to get to 3.6 Ghz on stock volts, now that implies a very minute thermal increase up to that point - stock cooler should have sufficed. Throw out that argument, the 805D costs 135$ while the 3800+ costs 295$.

He actually comments on this in the footnotes...

"For those that think the X2 uses an inferior heatsink, you are wrong from a performance standpoint. They perform the same with the Zalman at full fan speed"

He did not make this comment about the 805 however, and since it tends to run hot at stock speed already, I'll stand by my comments (unless you have seen an overclock using stock cooling in an overclock for an 805?)

1) Risking a dead CPU from overclocking. Have you overclocked? How the hell often do you kill CPUs from overclocking? It's such a small risk you shouldn't have mentioned it. I've gone through 19 AMD64s on all kinds of cooling and raising the HTT and voltage a tad never hurt anything

How many Netburst chips have you tried? To answer your question, yes...I have fried a chip from overclocking (as others here have reported doing...)

2) Useless argument... it ran 3 degrees hotter than the AMD, big deal. Prescotts can take more heat than AMDs, 57c doesn't hurt them.

Hmmm...it ran 3 degrees hotter but used 113 watts more at peak. Doesn't something strike you as odd there?? (think conservation of energy...)

3) Uhmmm... no. Pressy loading even into the low 60s is normal. Not like it's going to die just because it's a couple degrees hotter.
4) That's true, the 3800+ is faster, but that's not the point, the point is that one costs less than half as much and performs 90% as good. Apparently they're not driving home the point well enough.
5) Almost twice the power? It's 1.5x as much power, it's not that big a deal.

I'm very impressed by the 805-D processor. On watercooling (which is all i run) it's been going over 4 Ghz easily. Now my 3800+s i usualy run around 2.87 which would still chew into a 4 Ghz 805-D pretty hard, but for the price it's simply unbeatable.

Oh yeah you neglected to mention how he used a 60$ heatsink (zalman 9500) on the AMD.

More like 190$ 805-D setup versus 355$ AMDX2 setup. And 90% as fast! Damn impressive.

[/quote]

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: dexvx
You people realize that Fry's has the Pentium-D 920 + Mobo combo for $199?

The "save on power" arguement is stupid, IMO. Even on 24/7 load, you'd need over 3 years to make up the difference in initial cost. If people were that anal over power, they'd get Core Duo solutions to all their problems.

5. For a truly budget system, you'll want good on-board graphics. For AMD, the 6100 line of mobos include a Vista ready DX-9 GeForce 6100...and the Radeon Express 200 include a good Vista Ready graphics solution as well (either are ~$60 each). The Radeon line is available for Intel, but NOT for dual core Intel...so let's add another $40 for a seperate video card. Now we're at $230 vs $295

The 950GMA is a Vista Ready graphics solution. With a decent amount of memory allocation, you can run Vista @ Aero fine.

Which mobo is Fry's combining that with?
The 950GMA mobos are $100 anyway (unless you want ECS...shiver), so it's still an additional $40...

Dunno, I saw it on the Hot Deals forum. From what I've seen, its a cheapo ECS 945 board.

 

[imported_Questar]

Of course they do...how long have you been working on computers??

Since the very first personal computer. You?

How about a link from an authoritative souce?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Dunno, I saw it on the Hot Deals forum. From what I've seen, its a cheapo ECS 945 board.

Thanks for the reply, m8.

I just want to be clear...I'm not trying to slam the 805 (well, OK...maybe a little ), I'm just pointing out that this isn't a new Celeron 300A scenario (my very first OC).
To me, it's sort of like dropping a corvette engine into a VW Bug...sure it's a cool thing to do, but by the time you spend the money you should in modding the damn thing, you could have just bought the Vette!

Cheers

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Questar

Of course they do...how long have you been working on computers??

Since the very first personal computer. You?

How about a link from an authoritative souce?

Questar, this is basic Physics...did you read the link and the sources quoted? Maybe if you could provide a link from someone who says otherwise?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Absolute0

First of all, cut the BS, no one is forced to buy a Scythe ninja. He was able to get to 3.6 Ghz on stock volts, now that implies a very minute thermal increase up to that point - stock cooler should have sufficed. Throw out that argument, the 805D costs 135$ while the 3800+ costs 295$.

Not everyone can get 3.6 ghz on stock volts with these things. It's real hit-or-miss. I don't know why, but my guess is that Intel is using the 805D as a way to dump Smithfield cores in such a way that they don't undermine Presler sales.

You could be getting an 820D (or worse?). You could be getting something that would have been badged as an 840EE back when Smithfield was the flagship dual-core. Who knows?

If you'd listen to stevty, you'd know that his 805D runs at 57C on water cooling. He isn't the only one. These things can easily behave like 820Ds. Anyone who gets 3.9 ghz on air has got a lucky chip.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: dexvx
You people realize that Fry's has the Pentium-D 920 + Mobo combo for $199?

Excellent point. I'd rather have the 920 combo for cheap dual-core at stock speeds.

The "save on power" arguement is stupid, IMO. Even on 24/7 load, you'd need over 3 years to make up the difference in initial cost. If people were that anal over power, they'd get Core Duo solutions to all their problems.

I held on to my old Thunderbird for 4 years. I held on to my machine from before that (a k6-233 that was later upgraded to a k62-350 that a friend lent me) for about four years. If someone like me bought a 805, it'd hit me in the wallet and financially limit my CPU choices down the road. And yes, Core Duo is far superior to Smithfield! Anyone looking for a budget dual-core should investigate one of those now, or perhaps later after Merom launches.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Questar
False. Chips don't "wear out".
Where did you come up with a rediculous idea like that EVERYTHING wears out over time, and higher heat and higher current will wear out a CPU faster, just like any other electronic device. If you don't think so, try running a chip with no thermal protection with no heatsink, and see what happens to it..

Originally posted by: Questar
False. People are running these at 3.9Ghz without throttling on air. It will not "get worse" over time.

The above invalidates you entire argument. Quit making stuff up.

While there are some heatsinks that will work well enough to keep it from throttling on air, no 2 people will have exactly the same conditions, are there is plenty of chances that they WILL throttle @3.9ghz, which from what I have seen, 3.9ghz isn't that common anyway.

 

[AkumaX]

i'd be more forgiving if it were a 905

 

[Markfw]

Stevty has been to my house, and we played with 820d,920d, ES sample, etc.. He has been my cooling solution(BT, open case and fan in the opening), and he and I agree, 3.9 on air is fantasticly lucky and throttleing WILL occur, its just a matter at what vcore, and what speed it will happen. Mine does it at 1.475 vcore at ~60c, less vcore means less speed, but higher temp before throttling, and as I said, you need S&M to see it. Duvie has witnessed it also. The heat and throttling are the two really bad parts, I give up arguing the power draw, since most of you don't seem to care about that.

EDIT: Wityh good cooling (I have just about the best) , 3.43 was the best stable OC without throttling I could find at constant 100% load on both cores at 1.475 vcore. This seems to be pretty common from what I have seen on the 820 and 805.

 

[imported_Questar]

Maybe if you could provide a link from someone who says otherwise?

Why, I'm not the one making false staements.

How about a link from ANY chip manufacturer that says chips wear out.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Questar

Maybe if you could provide a link from someone who says otherwise?

Why, I'm not the one making false staements.

How about a link from ANY chip manufacturer that says chips wear out.

How bout something called common sense..

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Questar

Maybe if you could provide a link from someone who says otherwise?

Why, I'm not the one making false staements.

How about a link from ANY chip manufacturer that says chips wear out.

They aren;t false statements, YOU are the one who is making false statements. He gave you links, and everyone here knows you are wrong.

 

[Absolute0]

Yeah it's pretty obvious that a CPU wears out eventually, like a light bulb...

Just that it's usually so many years away that it isn't much of an argument about anything. Unless you keep 10 year old computers around running!

 

[Markfw]

Some die in 2 ! The more vcore or the more heat, the shorter the span.

 

[Absolute0]

Gotta use some real voltage to have it die in two i'd say. Anyway, 1.4-1.475v and mid 50s C is pretty harmless.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Absolute0
Yeah it's pretty obvious that a CPU wears out eventually, like a light bulb...

Just that it's usually so many years away that it isn't much of an argument about anything. Unless you keep 10 year old computers around running!

That's a fairly common mistake because it's based on history (older CPUs lasted many years longer). The problem is that the older CPUs also ran MUCH slower and generated far less heat. This is why their lifespan was soooo much longer than todays CPUs.

Another point (this from personal experience on 2 systems)...as time goes on, the temp of the CPU will increase from heat and use. For example, when I first bought my 3200+ system, I used a program called "Toast" (excellent stress program) on it for an hour. The highest that the temp went was 44 degrees. I tried it again on the same system (several months later) after making sure there wasn't any dust at all inside (I do this regularly) and the temp is closer to 50 now. The ambient temps are identical as it's climate controlled in here...

It would be interesting for me to see if any of you have tried to do the same on some of your more used systems. BTW, this particular system has never been overclocked.

 

[Markfw]

The only CPU I had die was a Athlon XP 1700. It wasn't mine, so I don't know all the curcumstanes, but it HAD a heatsink on it when it came in. The people that brought it over don't know squat about CPU's, so I am sure it was on there all the time. No other anomolies. I do have a Pentium 200 that still works.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Questar

1. While it hasn't been proven scientifically (no study done to my knowledge), the hotter a chip runs internally, the shorter it's lifespan.

False. Chips don't "wear out".

2. While the chip may be clocked high enough according to it's settings, throttling will kick in often (unless you're water cooling), and it should get worse over a period of a few months.

False. People are running these at 3.9Ghz without throttling on air. It will not "get worse" over time.

The above invalidates you entire argument. Quit making stuff up.

It is widely known heat is the enemy of all computer parts...common sense please...

Secondly it will get worse cause undoubtedly unless you clean daily, the fans will build up with dust (causing less CFM by fans); heatsinks will get clogged with dust acting like a thermal blanket and depleting the effectinveness of thermal conduction...

My p4 2.4c@3.5ghz would only hit 58c after a fresh install and cleaning but in about 6-8 weeks it could hit temps of 66c...that is not even taking into consideration my best temp in the winter months versus summer months....in that house I had no AC so summer months I had room temps in the low 80's versus mid 60s in the winter...



After your ridiculous comments I INVALIDATE YOUR BIRTH!!!!