evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
You should do some google and see that in the server market, AMD smokes Intel with it's scalable performance. But it doesn't matter since were talking about desktop performance.
You should do some google and see that in the server market, AMD smokes Intel with it's scalable performance. But it doesn't matter since were talking about desktop performance.
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
I re-read the entire thread, and I don't see anyone trying to say or even hint that AMD would be a better buy IF the user/buyer is going to overclock. Even still, it is fair to compare AMD and Intel clock for clock even if overclocking is a consideration, because clock-for-clock performance is pretty much the same. However, the win goes to Intel since their chips can clock higher. Thus, a much higher clock (when overclocking) paired with its already slight-efficiency advantage per-clock compared to AMD means Intel is the no-brainer choice. But I'll reiterate, I don't see anyone trying to claim otherwise in regards to overclocking.
However, I will say that an Athlon X2 Brisbane processor is fairly effective at overclocking. On stock voltages and stock heatsink, I was able to take a $60 (the price at the time I bought it) Athlon X2 4000+ from 2.1 GHz to 2.6 GHz, even able to maintain higher HT and Memory speeds. That's not a bad result, considering that the cheapest Pentium Dual Core (E2160) was about over $70 at the time I was building the system, meaning AMD won with price and acceptable performance (with overclocking taken into consideration). Currently, the Athlon X2 5000+ (non BE) and Intel Pentium E2180 are similar in price. At stock settings, AMD has a pretty clean performance advantage as the 5000+ runs at 2.6 GHz while the E2180 runs at 2.0 GHz. But by taking overclocking into consideration, the E2180 would probably hit 3.0 GHZ (and beyond) much easier than the 5000+ would, so it holds a greater advantage for entry-level enthusiasts.
It appears a common misconception that the clock for clock performance between X2s and Pentium Es are similar. You mentioned earlier there being a 100 - 200MHz 'difference' between the two. In reality its about a 400 - 500MHz or ~22% per clock advantage to the Pentium E, according to Xbitlabs, which put the X2 5200+ (2.7GHz) and X2 4200+ (2.2GHz) as equivalents to the E2200 (2.2GHz) and E2160 (1.8GHz) respectively. The E2180 is some ~5% slower than the X2 5000+, hardly a 'clean' victory in my books, but it does again prove that AMD is price competitive, at least at stock speeds, which it appears most people would agree with. This leads me to my next point - overclocking.
Personally, I think Brisbane X2 overclocking (especially the BE variants) is somewhat overrated. People marvel at how easy it is to get an BE 5000+ to 3GHz, well its a stock 2.6GHz chip! I think the 3GHz 'milestone' number somewhat distorts things, since its barely a 15% overclock to 3GHz, which really isn't that impressive at all. The BE 5000+ is now being replaced by a 5400+ model, which clocks at 2.8GHz. It costs $90 without a HSF (Newegg price). Assuming a $20 HSF is used, the price comes in at $110, and what do you get? A G2 stepping Brisbane X2 that would probably top out at 3.2 - 3.3GHz. For $10 more you can get an E7200, which can easily be pushed to 3.5GHz on the stock HSF. On clockspeed alone this may not seem like much, but factor in the 35 - 40% per clock advantage of the E7200 and it becomes a landslide victory for the C2D.
Your $60 X2 4000+ vs $70 E2160 comparison is also somewhat peculiar, as I believe on a price/performance level the E2160 would come out well ahead after overclocking. It appears you were looking for the lowest possible price, rather than the best price/performance ratio at similar pricepoints.
An E2160 would have probably overclocked to 3GHz on stock cooling, which when coupled with the ~22% per clock advantage would put it some ~40% faster than an X2 @ 2.6GHz, whilst costing ~17% more.
Here we go again. Someone dare mentioned using an AMD system, so all the Intel guys are up in arms... after all, the C2D's overclock really well. 
Here you go OP, do not get a Phenom/A64, they're terrible. My Phenom is lucky to even boot into Windows. On the rare occassion it does make it to Windows, if I try and launch MS Word the system hangs then gives me a BSOD, finally smoke pours out of the computer and sometimes I see sparks. I tried to launch a game once... just once. Upon doing so my monitor went blank and there was an earthquake in California. On the other hand a C2D is so fast that it's booted up to a useable desktop before your finger even leaves the power button after pressing it. ALSO, I hear there are a gang of Phenoms wanted in the north east for a string of convenience store robberies. Mean while the C2D is up for sainthood in the Catholic church and feeds the homeless on weekends. Phenoms can only overclock 1MHz with liquid nitrogen for cooling, and even then it'll fry the motherboard in a matter of seconds. Every single Intel quad reaches 4GHz as the norm. No Phenom reaches 3.5GHz even with the new southbridge.
Here you go OP, do not get a Phenom/A64, they're terrible. My Phenom is lucky to even boot into Windows. On the rare occassion it does make it to Windows, if I try and launch MS Word the system hangs then gives me a BSOD, finally smoke pours out of the computer and sometimes I see sparks. I tried to launch a game once... just once. Upon doing so my monitor went blank and there was an earthquake in California. On the other hand a C2D is so fast that it's booted up to a useable desktop before your finger even leaves the power button after pressing it. ALSO, I hear there are a gang of Phenoms wanted in the north east for a string of convenience store robberies. Mean while the C2D is up for sainthood in the Catholic church and feeds the homeless on weekends. Phenoms can only overclock 1MHz with liquid nitrogen for cooling, and even then it'll fry the motherboard in a matter of seconds. Every single Intel quad reaches 4GHz as the norm. No Phenom reaches 3.5GHz even with the new southbridge.
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Here we go again. Someone dare mentioned using an AMD system, so all the Intel guys are up in arms... after all, the C2D's overclock really well.
Here you go OP, do not get a Phenom/A64, they're terrible. My Phenom is lucky to even boot into Windows. On the rare occassion it does make it to Windows, if I try and launch MS Word the system hangs then gives me a BSOD, finally smoke pours out of the computer and sometimes I see sparks. I tried to launch a game once... just once. Upon doing so my monitor went blank and there was an earthquake in California. On the other hand a C2D is so fast that it's booted up to a useable desktop before your finger even leaves the power button after pressing it. ALSO, I hear there are a gang of Phenoms wanted in the north east for a string of convenience store robberies. Mean while the C2D is up for sainthood in the Catholic church and feeds the homeless on weekends. Phenoms can only overclock 1MHz with liquid nitrogen for cooling, and even then it'll fry the motherboard in a matter of seconds. Every single Intel quad reaches 4GHz as the norm. No Phenom reaches 3.5GHz even with the new southbridge.
Wow, someones had a bad day huh.
I'm not sure what your problem is, since this very topic is about discussing whether there is a discernable gulf in performance between AMD and Intel, and for most part its been discussed in a civilised and respectful manner, which is a refreshing change. General consensus is that at stock speeds, AMD is competitive, but falls behind when overclocking. If you have a different opinion, why not voice it instead of launching a sarcastic rant and derailing this thread. :thumbsdown:
I would like to add to this thread by asking this question.....
If I decided to go with an AMD platform, say a Phenom 9650 and my primary use was gaming and web design applications such as PS and DW, what would be the BEST AMD chipset to go with?
I have been working with Intel stuff for so long I have lost all track of what is even available in AMD circles.
yes, I have done a lot of research and reading, I was just wondering if I could get a few suggestions on the best motherboards available at present or coming in the near future for the Pheom with an AMD chipset, not Nvidia.
I presently use Crossfire with 4850's so I would want a board that does xfire.
If I decided to go with an AMD platform, say a Phenom 9650 and my primary use was gaming and web design applications such as PS and DW, what would be the BEST AMD chipset to go with?
I have been working with Intel stuff for so long I have lost all track of what is even available in AMD circles.
yes, I have done a lot of research and reading, I was just wondering if I could get a few suggestions on the best motherboards available at present or coming in the near future for the Pheom with an AMD chipset, not Nvidia.
I presently use Crossfire with 4850's so I would want a board that does xfire.
I would recommend a mobo based on the latest SB750 South Bridge.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...cription=sb750&x=0&y=0
Anandtech SB750 preview: http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=473
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...cription=sb750&x=0&y=0
Anandtech SB750 preview: http://anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=473
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,260
- 16,118
- 136
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Here we go again. Someone dare mentioned using an AMD system, so all the Intel guys are up in arms... after all, the C2D's overclock really well.
Here you go OP, do not get a Phenom/A64, they're terrible. My Phenom is lucky to even boot into Windows. On the rare occassion it does make it to Windows, if I try and launch MS Word the system hangs then gives me a BSOD, finally smoke pours out of the computer and sometimes I see sparks. I tried to launch a game once... just once. Upon doing so my monitor went blank and there was an earthquake in California. On the other hand a C2D is so fast that it's booted up to a useable desktop before your finger even leaves the power button after pressing it. ALSO, I hear there are a gang of Phenoms wanted in the north east for a string of convenience store robberies. Mean while the C2D is up for sainthood in the Catholic church and feeds the homeless on weekends. Phenoms can only overclock 1MHz with liquid nitrogen for cooling, and even then it'll fry the motherboard in a matter of seconds. Every single Intel quad reaches 4GHz as the norm. No Phenom reaches 3.5GHz even with the new southbridge.
Slowspyder, we do not need the rant. Truth is a valid defense.
FACT: The C2D is >22%faster at the same clock on most things (see above link)
FACT: The C2D/Q's overclock higher than their AMD counterparts
These two facts alone answer the OP's question. Your rant is non-productive and un-needed here. Please stick with the facts, most here have done so.
Thanks for that.... So the SB750 SB isnt available on the 790 FX?
I do not need integrated graphics as I am running crossfire.
Is there any other difference between the 790GX and the 790FX other than the integrated graphics?
It seems that the 790FX and SB750 would be a great combo.. if that is going to happen.
I do not need integrated graphics as I am running crossfire.
Is there any other difference between the 790GX and the 790FX other than the integrated graphics?
It seems that the 790FX and SB750 would be a great combo.. if that is going to happen.
Pretty much what Harpoony said but I would be tempted to wait a few weeks and see which vendors roll out an AMD 790FX with the sb750.
The 790GX will CrossFire PCIe Gen2 at 'x8x8' (which is effectively x16x16 Gen1). The Biostar 790GX for $100 looks like a great deal ...
I would also suggest you consider jumping on the Phenom 9600BE / Hitachi 320Gb hard drive for $155. I've had no problems with mine running 2.7GHz with stock HSF and voltage after weeks of torturous testing on my MSI 790FX w/sb600.
The advantage of the 790FX over the -GX is that your CrossFire will be PCIe Gen2 x16x16 (with the potential of adding a third HD4850.
The advantage of the Phenom 9600BE is that it is effectively a quad for $100 and that it has an unlocked multiplier. I have had no issues with the infamous 'TLB errata' (and I'm not running the 'fix'
). Another plus is that when the 45nm Phenom quads roll out in a few months (with higher clocks and lower voltages) you'll be ready to pounce ...Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I would also suggest you consider jumping on the Phenom 9600BE / Hitachi 320Gb hard drive for $155. I've had no problems with mine running 2.7GHz with stock HSF and voltage after weeks of torturous testing on my MSI 790FX w/sb600.
The advantage of the 790FX over the -GX is that your CrossFire will be PCIe Gen2 x16x16 (with the potential of adding a third HD4850.
The advantage of the Phenom 9600BE is that it is effectively a quad for $100 and that it has an unlocked multiplier. I have had no issues with the infamous 'TLB errata' (and I'm not running the 'fix'
Thats an awesome deal if you also need a HDD. If not you can always sell it on Ebay anyway.
You're right about the TLB errata, it was blown way out of proportion and is basically a non issue for desktop users.
Topic: How big is the performance difference between AMD & Intel?
Between the Brisbanes and Allendales: 400MHz
An X2 5000+ at 2.6GHz stock is roughly similar to an e2200 at 2.2GHz stock across the vast majority of benchies at Tom's CPU Charts.
So if you clock the an AMD Brisbane microprocessor to 3.2GHz an Intel Allendale microprocessor would be equal to it at 2.8GHz.
As noted the Intel will in most circumstances overclock higher than the AMD if that is your thang.
Between the Brisbanes and Allendales: 400MHz
An X2 5000+ at 2.6GHz stock is roughly similar to an e2200 at 2.2GHz stock across the vast majority of benchies at Tom's CPU Charts.
So if you clock the an AMD Brisbane microprocessor to 3.2GHz an Intel Allendale microprocessor would be equal to it at 2.8GHz.
As noted the Intel will in most circumstances overclock higher than the AMD if that is your thang.
Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I generally dislike using 'MHz' figures to compare different architectures since its all relative. A 400MHz 'difference' at 2GHz becomes 600MHz at 3GHz. Its better to just use a % figure to differentiate between clock for clock efficiencies.
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Pretty much what Harpoony said but I would be tempted to wait a few weeks and see which vendors roll out an AMD 790FX with the sb750.
The 790GX will CrossFire PCIe Gen2 at 'x8x8' (which is effectively x16x16 Gen1). The Biostar 790GX for $100 looks like a great deal ...
I would also suggest you consider jumping on the Phenom 9600BE / Hitachi 320Gb hard drive for $155. I've had no problems with mine running 2.7GHz with stock HSF and voltage after weeks of torturous testing on my MSI 790FX w/sb600.
The advantage of the 790FX over the -GX is that your CrossFire will be PCIe Gen2 x16x16 (with the potential of adding a third HD4850.
The advantage of the Phenom 9600BE is that it is effectively a quad for $100 and that it has an unlocked multiplier. I have had no issues with the infamous 'TLB errata' (and I'm not running the 'fix'
Heyheybooboo, THANKS!!
OK, when you say 9600BE you are referring to the 9600 Black Edition 2.3ghz?
Where is this 9600BE and Hitachi Hardrive combo being offered?
Now, a few a question about the AMD Dual Core CPUs...
I see that the Athlon 64 X2's are VERY CHEAP!
I am still up in the air about whehter I really need the QUAD..
I have owned both the Q9300 and the E8400 and they seem to perform basically the same in most of my applications, However, for some wierd reason the Q9300 does cause problems for me when I run Call of Duty 4... for some reason my USB devices act up in that game on a QUAD. Whn I run a Dual core, I dont have the problem.
So, if I go the AMD route, do I go Quad or Dual?
I am a website designer and use PS and DW alot as well as having numerous coding editors open. I play games occaisonally and have the 4850s in xfire for that.
So, what advantage would the Phenom x4 give me over a Athlon 64 X2 5000 or 6000+?
Do the Athlon 64 X2 and Phenoms use the same motherboards?
JUst looking for more recommendations considering my applications and use.
Thanks
I'm not arguing but I went through a rather tedious day 'spreadsheeting' the results from Tom's benchmarks and comparing them. The 400MHz figure between the Brisbanes and the Allendales was rather consistent when looking at different clock speeds.
As the level of L2 cache increased to 2mb and up the clock speed differential rose to around 500MHz to 550MHz in some benches (or dropped to around 450MHz in some cases with the Windsors and their extra cache depending upon the comparison).
There were also some 'dead ends' since they have not updated the charts in a while. It is interesting to compare the various chipsets and CPUs - I hope they follow up soon with a update because it is a reasonable resource.
What was interesting was that increasing the L2 on the Intel microprocessors from 2Mb to 4Mb did not show nearly the gain that was seen in going from 1Mb to 2Mb across the desktop benchies. A few 'greater than the average' gains were seen in some gaming tests.
:thumbsup:
Actaully the OP never specified so everyone is jumpring to conclusions as far as which chip, but a desktop one would more than likely be 99% the answer. But since the OP didn't mentioned I didn't want Server chips being disgraced in this thread.
Thats a mathematical impossibility, unless the Core 2 scaled worse as clockspeeds increase, which doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm simply saying that % work better because they can be applied between different architectures at any clockspeed.
Using your method, an E2x00 @ 3GHz would be equivalent to an X2 @ 3.4GHz, but using the +22% figure obtained by Xbitlabs puts it equivalent to an X2 @ 3.66GHz. Conversely, by your method an E2140 @ 1.6GHz would be equivalent to an X2 3800+ @ 2GHz, but benchmarks suggest the X2 3800+ is faster in the majority of cases.
The OP made it very clear to me that OCing is not a factor because he clearly asks about comparing two cpus running at the same speeds. Since Intel OCs higher than AMD, I interpret the question being about stock speeds. As someone who went from the C2D platform to the AMD Phenoms, I can testify that performance is quite similar between the two systems in daily tasks. Where I notice a big difference is in the platform. AMD just released the 790GX mobos which replace the 780G ones. I have the 780G from Gigabyte and it has proven considerably more stable than the P35 mobo I tried. A cursory look at the motherboard forum shows all the different issues various P35 mobos have had so far and according to most sites, the P45 doesn't bring much new to the table to tempt users to upgrade. AMD was pushing the platform idea and considering the success of their 48xx series vid cards and my personal experience with a Spider platform pc, I'd say its worth it to check out AMD if OCing is NOT a factor.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,260
- 16,118
- 136
Various issues with P35 ? And no reason for P45 ? I have a house full of P35, and no issues. The only issue I had was a P965 that didn't like a 45nm chip, and now that chip is on a P45@4.07, and I haven't even tried for more, since I use it for work. When I get some time, watch out.
Don't spread any fud here please.....
Hi Mark & Agio
Don't count AMD out of the Fun bunch yet... As AMD just released the 790GX chipset motherboards & they allow the Phenom to OC pretty well.. I think they were getting 3.4 gig OC in reviews....
Making for a much fairer Ballgame, don't you think !!
I hope one of my friends wants to build one , as my AMD builds have been far & few between !!
Lets encourage AMD to keep competition alive, it's better for all of us !!
Ol'Pal
Don't count AMD out of the Fun bunch yet... As AMD just released the 790GX chipset motherboards & they allow the Phenom to OC pretty well.. I think they were getting 3.4 gig OC in reviews....
Making for a much fairer Ballgame, don't you think !!
I hope one of my friends wants to build one , as my AMD builds have been far & few between !!
Lets encourage AMD to keep competition alive, it's better for all of us !!
Ol'Pal
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
It was late when I wrote my reply and I pretty much typed whatever came to mind. However I guess I forgot to stress that at the time I was considering what option to buy (which was 6 months ago), the best (cheapest) option was an Athlon X2 platform. IIRC, the cheapest Pentium E was over $80, but the E2160 may have been around $76. I don't even think the E7200 was out at the time I was considering this build.
Anyway, you are right. I should have used percentages. I would also like to state that for my purpouses, gaming performance was all that mattered. If I could spend less money and still get better or similar gaming performance, then I was going to take that option.
The benchmarks I used for this determination were actually from AT. I'm having a hard trouble finding the article again, but in this article they basically overclocked both an Athlon x2 and a Pentium E to 3.0 GHz. Overall in games, the Athlon X2 was just as fast, and the non-Brisbane cores were faster. But I'll use the Xbitlabs article you supplied to determine the clock-to-clock comparison:
The average framerate reported (across all games except 3DMark) is 61.0 fps for the 4200+, 65.1 fps for the E2200, and 71.4 fps for the E4500. Since they all run at the same frequency, per clock the E2200 is 6.72% faster than the 4200+ while the E4500 is 9.68% faster than the E2200 and 16.05% faster than the 4200+.
So a 2200 MHz Athlon X2 would need to run at at least 2347 MHz to match a Pentium E2200 in gaming performance. This makes some sense with my methodology, as the E2200 framerate average fell between the averages of the 2.3 GHz 4400+ (@62.8 fps) and the 2.5 GHz 4800+ (@66.6 fps).
Ah, I just found the article that convinced me to buy the AMD platform 6 months ago:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3051&p=6
That article shows a Brisbane, Windsore, and Allendal core performing within 3% amongst each other when clocked to the same 3.0 GHz. I ended up buying the Biostar TF560 along with the 4000+. Basically that article just reaffirmed that not only would I save money by going with an AMD platform, but I would get performance so similar to the Intel platform I was considering that I wouldn't even notice a difference. In reality I wouldn't be noticing a difference, because the system I built was for my brother, but that hardly matters. No average gamer would be able to discern the difference.
The combo deal is here at Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103244
Just scroll down and look at the left column. Under "Combos and Essentials" click on View All and you should see the hard drive deal. It's actually a really sweat deal. The 9600BE by itself is $150. With the combo deal, a 320GB Hitachi HDD is only costing you $5.
Athlon X2s and Phenoms do use the same motherboard, as long as it is socket AM2/AM2+. However keep in mind some boards may not support all of the available processors.
You should definitely pick up a Phenom processor over an Athlon X2. Although I am a little confused as to what components you have now and what other components you are planning on putting into the system. In other words, are you going to Crossfire a couple of HD4850s with this new AMD build you're considering?
Just some advantages of the Phenom over the Athlon X2:
-Quite a bit faster clock for clock
-Have an extra 2 processing cores (or an extra 1 if you went with a triple core Phenom)
-Enhanced multi-tasking and multi-threaded ability
Markfw900,
I don't believe its "spreading fud" to point out how the P35 chipset mobos had quite a few issues such as booting problems. The motherboard forum here is full of reports on this so just because you haven't encountered any issues doesn't mean they don't exist. My experiences with a P965 and a P35 mobo were negative enough for me to switch back to AMD and from a performance/stability point of view, I am very happy. As for the P45, I've read many reviews and most always seem to mention that if you have an excellent P35 rig, you don't have much of a reason to upgrade as the benefits do not justify the added expense and trouble.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,260
- 16,118
- 136
First, you see the tip of the iceburg in forums. If people don't have a problem, they don't post (except here in the OC forum where they like to share good OC's). So of course the forum will be full of problems. However, I just scanned page one, and I didn't see one singe post about a posting problem.
As for P45, I switched up, since they have better compatability with the 45nm chips, but in ANY case you would not want to upgrade your motherboard, unless you were changing chips, there is virtually never a reason other than that.
As for P45, I switched up, since they have better compatability with the 45nm chips, but in ANY case you would not want to upgrade your motherboard, unless you were changing chips, there is virtually never a reason other than that.
The forums aren't the only place that problems got reported. When I was looking to get a P35 mobo, I also checked the reviews at Newegg and saw many of the same problems reported there that I saw in the forums. Abit's board was one of the most complained about boards because of the booting issues although once it booted up, it seemed to perform fine. Go back a few pages or do a search under booting issues and you'll see quite a bit of discussion. Haven't seen much in the way of complaints about the P45 so far, so it might be a good reason to try one of those mobos. I'm running a 780G mobo right now but am tempted by the new 790GX series just released. Even though I wont need the raid 5 or ACC benefits for OCing, it still feels tempting and there are plenty of people who give in to temptation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter