exactly...why does anyone care?
If the point is that AMD is still a viable processor, what was the need to bring Intel into the first post to begin with?
Edit: Kotrtim is right, this thread is going nowhere fast....I think the point has pretty much been made though...AMD is a good enough processor and you shouldn't feel that you absolutely must buy an Intel processor, but Intel processors are not any less stable than AMD processors.
Originally posted by: Don66
Why's his post a lightning rod?
Why should anyone get riled up?
He posted that he was happy with his disiscion about going to AMD rather than Intel.
If anyone gets their ass in a bunch over what the op posted maybe they need to take a walk, go visit a friend..Get a real life...
You really don't see anything divisive about the tone or specific words employed in the OP's sentence which I bolded in your post's quote above?
Had the op posted I just left AMD for Intel would there have been any real opposition?
While I agree with your point about negitive responses, I don't think that the OPs intent was try and inflame anyone's inner Intel fanboy:shocked::laugh:
(I own all intel computers)
- Sep 28, 2005
- 20,894
- 3,247
- 126
Im asking that all of you guys respect other people and let them be happy.
AS i said... THE ONLY PERSON THAT MATTERS IS THE PERSON WHO BUILT IT.
ITS NOT YOUR MACHINE SO WHY ARE YOU RANTING SO MUCH ABOUT IT?
if your happy with the machine, then it is a project well done.
To set things straight:
1. There is NOTHING WRONG with an AMD machine. They are excellent machines and will do MORE then the average person requires.
2. AMD however IS NOWHERE NEAR TOP TIER. And yes We all know INTEL is faster, but this isnt the point of this thread.
Lets keep the focus on AMD in this thread. You guys with Intel points, dont worry, i'll make sure nothing gets misinformed.
But lets leave Intel out of this for now please. Intel seems to be gasoline on fire in this thread.
And if you guys want to get all nit picky, Erinyes is probably faster then most Q6600 builds on this forum. And SHE's an AMD.
Of course builder/budget is totally different, and thats why.
But its how you make the machine, and if your happy with it.
Erinyes scores 15k in 3dmark with my HD3870's in Xfire. :T
AS i said... THE ONLY PERSON THAT MATTERS IS THE PERSON WHO BUILT IT.
ITS NOT YOUR MACHINE SO WHY ARE YOU RANTING SO MUCH ABOUT IT?
if your happy with the machine, then it is a project well done.
To set things straight:
1. There is NOTHING WRONG with an AMD machine. They are excellent machines and will do MORE then the average person requires.
2. AMD however IS NOWHERE NEAR TOP TIER. And yes We all know INTEL is faster, but this isnt the point of this thread.
Lets keep the focus on AMD in this thread. You guys with Intel points, dont worry, i'll make sure nothing gets misinformed.
But lets leave Intel out of this for now please. Intel seems to be gasoline on fire in this thread.
And if you guys want to get all nit picky, Erinyes is probably faster then most Q6600 builds on this forum. And SHE's an AMD.
Of course builder/budget is totally different, and thats why.
But its how you make the machine, and if your happy with it.
Erinyes scores 15k in 3dmark with my HD3870's in Xfire. :T
This was his reasoning for going to AMD and being happy with it, however he didnt elaborate at all about the issues he was having.
It sounds like he doesnt do enough research and got lucky with his AMD system being stable.
Sure a P35 ECS motherboard is going to a finnicky piece of crap. So is a PC-Chips AMD board. (just examples)
Let me step in here to clarify a couple of points. First of all, the original intent of this thread was to let people who were thinking of trying AMD that I have had a very positive experience with AMD on their modern AM2+ platform. It was NOT intended to offend any of the intel folks here. There has been scant information on AMD products lately because of the progress intel has made so I wanted to let those lurkers wondering about AMD know what my experience was like. There is no shortage of posts on this forum about how Mr. X OC'd his new intel quad to XXXX speed so I don't see a problem letting people know how AMD is doing. If anyone thinks this thread was about anything else, you are mistaken.
BTW, just in case someone was curious, my P35 mobo was an Intel DP35DP model, not some cheapy ECS product. It seemed to suffer from some usb issues so I returned it.
BTW, just in case someone was curious, my P35 mobo was an Intel DP35DP model, not some cheapy ECS product. It seemed to suffer from some usb issues so I returned it.
perdomot, I actually built an opteron system for a friend right before C2D came out. Back then it was DFI board//Opty 165//2Gb DDR ram//7600GT//2x200GB RAID etc etc. And my friend still uses that machine for home. No problem at all and he loves the fact that everything just worked well for what he does (mostly apps), never even asked me to do any upgrade for him. He's just satisfied with it. That I say is a good build.
nyker96, I agree that satisfaction with one's rig is the critical element and that was what I wanted to communicate to the other folks here.
ultra laser, I don't think apps running was ever a question. What has been in doubt is that a person could build an AMD rig that could provide excellent performance at stock speeds. I wanted people to know I had tried the AMD solution and was well satisfied with it.
ultra laser, I don't think apps running was ever a question. What has been in doubt is that a person could build an AMD rig that could provide excellent performance at stock speeds. I wanted people to know I had tried the AMD solution and was well satisfied with it.
RallyMaster
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2004
- 5,581
- 0
- 0
My contribution to this thread:
I built an Opteron 146 machine two or three weeks ago for my parents. It does everything they need to do much faster than their AXP2400+ (which is now a living room DVD player). I realize that an Pentium E2160/2180/2200 etc. is cheap but for $20 for the 146, $40 for a Socket 939 motherboard, $20 for a 6600GT, $30 for a PSU with memory and case already purchased long ago, I say it's a pretty good deal. It's a low-cost, stable system that doesn't need to be overclocked or run under stress 24/7. They're not running 3DMark, F@H or any really high power usage programs. The fact of the matter is that while we all know that Intel has gotten progressively better, AMD hasn't really gotten worse. They're still making strides towards a better, more efficient processor and is by no means a slow part for the majority of what people do. I'm typing this on an AthlonXP 2500+ that I built last year and other than the fact that I need another stick of memory, I find it to be a rock solid system that cost me $100 total (300W Fortron, 2500+, Ti4200 and NF7-S). My primary system is an AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ and I haven't changed anything in that system other than the hard drive capacity since two years ago when I bought the X2. There isn't a single Intel processor in use in this house at this point.
Am I willing to try one? Of course. I actually wanted to build a E2220 system this summer and pair it up with a 8800GT or something. However, that takes another paycheck or so and I would rather just play games on my new Xbox 360.
I built an Opteron 146 machine two or three weeks ago for my parents. It does everything they need to do much faster than their AXP2400+ (which is now a living room DVD player). I realize that an Pentium E2160/2180/2200 etc. is cheap but for $20 for the 146, $40 for a Socket 939 motherboard, $20 for a 6600GT, $30 for a PSU with memory and case already purchased long ago, I say it's a pretty good deal. It's a low-cost, stable system that doesn't need to be overclocked or run under stress 24/7. They're not running 3DMark, F@H or any really high power usage programs. The fact of the matter is that while we all know that Intel has gotten progressively better, AMD hasn't really gotten worse. They're still making strides towards a better, more efficient processor and is by no means a slow part for the majority of what people do. I'm typing this on an AthlonXP 2500+ that I built last year and other than the fact that I need another stick of memory, I find it to be a rock solid system that cost me $100 total (300W Fortron, 2500+, Ti4200 and NF7-S). My primary system is an AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+ and I haven't changed anything in that system other than the hard drive capacity since two years ago when I bought the X2. There isn't a single Intel processor in use in this house at this point.
Am I willing to try one? Of course. I actually wanted to build a E2220 system this summer and pair it up with a 8800GT or something. However, that takes another paycheck or so and I would rather just play games on my new Xbox 360.
Jeez, $100 for a system is amazing. I wonder how that rig would compare to the new Eee Box PC coming out soon.
RallyMaster
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2004
- 5,581
- 0
- 0
Not really sure. I like the new direction that computer companies are taking these days with low-power, budget minded PCs. Most people aren't enthusiasts and therefore don't need a computer that will run Crysis at 1920x1200 on high graphics. I see the PC market as kind of hitting the plateau where people no longer need more than we have. I believe the PCs now are fast enough to do what most people need to do until the next technological revolution (perhaps it's Web 2.0 so we can all obtain HD content quickly and have faster downloads that require more networking capacity). IMO there hasn't really been a big shift in the computer industry where someone has created something spectacular and absolutely necessary. It's been the same add more cores, make it more efficient and make it run faster strategy that has been around for a while (although multicore hasn't really been around that long).
I agree with you on the shift toward Green PCs. I remember seeing a Via cpu set up where the hold system consumed less than 60 watts of electricity at peak and under 40 watts at idle and it was running Vista Basic smoothly. Simply amazing.
Congrats, that's all that matters. Enjoy the new system.
AMD is perfectly viable. As long as there's a place in the market for a company, it'll always be viable.
And to the OP, cheers for the heads up :thumbsup:
manc
Not all that long ago, in a thread I was part of someone said something more or less like, "the Phenom sucks at gaming, the Phenom sucks at running everyday apps, the Phenom sucks a lot of power, the Phenom sucks at overclocking"... that's not an exact quote and I won't mention the posters name to not start some kind of flame war, but some people seem to have that mentallity.
I don't understand it. It's like some people think that as soon as there is a faster chip their current system suddenly doesn't work anymore. I understand the hobbist part of it, it's not that you always 'need' the faster technology, but you want it. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems like as soon as some people upgrade they look down on the older and/or slower technology. The C2D's are an incredible processor, there's not doubt about that. I'd love to have one myself, but I really have no need for two systems.
I know that the C2D's overclock like a dream. I know they are faster clock for clock. But AMD is priced competitively and there isn't anything that I can't do with my system that I need to do. I upgraded from a socket 939 system, not because it was too slow, but I had that system for about 2.5 years, I just got the upgrade bug. I can't wait to pair up a 4870 (or maybe even two someday) with my 790FX/Phenom. It'll be a killer gaming system, even with my 'sucky' processor.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Enjoy your system OP, just like me I'm sure you are aware that the C2D's bench much faster, especially overclocked. But, again just like me, I'm sure your system will do everything and anything you need it to do more then fast enough.
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 2
- 81
:laugh:
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
So basically what they are trying to say, is an inferior product is OK, because you dont really need chips as good as Intels...because you wont notice the difference?
I read it as it is a viable alternative to non-overclocker/enthusiasts who just need a working system. After all, if computers were cars we'd be laughing at perdomot right now for buying a Camry when a Mustang GT is so much faster and tuneable.
How many real world people (outside of the server/workstation world) did that affect?
I'll tell you this... though I have almost all Intel systems right now, to this day I still have booting issues with my main rig running an Abit IP35-E, occasional booting issues with my LAN party box running an Asus P5K-VM and while it is stable, my wife's Gigabyte P965-S3 series board was a nightmare to overclock (failed OC would cause it to not POST for a while - minutes to hours). Maybe this has nothing to do with Intel CPUs themselves, however when viewing it from a platform level, sometimes it's just nice to have things... work. Like my HTPC AM2 system which has always (knock on wood) worked and never glitched.
The old "it's so dead" or "it gets killed" syndrome where, like magic, hardware that is no longer at the top of the performance heap LOSES 97% performance overnight.
Like some of us, I run 2 systems, one AMD, and one INTEL. Before I get into the specs of each system, I have a question.
Vista64 has a "Performance Information and Tools" for general purpose benchmark of your system. Does this tool use a different algorithym for AMD than for Intel? If I score the same on both AMD and Intel systems does it mean the AMD system is slower or handicapped?
My Intel system is a Quad 6600, PC2 6400 Memory 4GB, 680i SLI LT, 8800gt in SLI, with 4 Raptor 150GB in a Raid 0 setup. VISTA64 SCORE 4.8 (memory) and the rest are all 5.9.
My AMD system is a dual processor Opteron dual core 275, 8GB PC3200Reg ECC, MSI K8N Master2 FAR with only one bank of memory, (so NUMA is out, and the second processor (or third and fourth if you go dual core) will have slower memory access since it has to request access through the first processor, NForce 4 SLI, Radeon 3870 512MB GDDR4 and 4 U320 10K Maxtor Atlas SCSI drives in a Raid 0 setup on a LSI U320-2E 8X Pci Express megaraid card. PS - Yes I do have backup drives in the form of SAS.
The Score for this machine was almost identical with the VISTA64 SCORE being 5.0 (memory) and the rest are all 5.9.
My Question again is, Does this tool use a different algorithym for AMD than for Intel?
With the exception of professional multimedia, 3d rendering software suites, would we notice a difference? I personally know the disparity between the two processors and how they scale with the Intel processors really beating the AMD to tears with some professional benchmarks, software and tools.
But for the most part, I think the experience is the same and the performance gains are reaching a point of diminishing return. The difference between 160FPS and 200FPS at 1680 by 1050 is really a mute point.
If I were using Adobe CS3, Maya, Final Cut Pro etc... I would definately be running a Skulltrail Intel setup.
And yes, I agree that it is funny how one day the best CPU on earth is AMD and the Next day it is compared and reviewed against intel as if it couldn't even boot up a Vista System.
Zap,
I was using the Gigabyte P965-S3 mobo for my E4400 too and it was not so good. Just finished putting the E4400 into an older Biostar 945 mobo and it seems to be doing well. I think that the platform is very important and that seems to have been AMD's idea too with the Spider platform.
I was using the Gigabyte P965-S3 mobo for my E4400 too and it was not so good. Just finished putting the E4400 into an older Biostar 945 mobo and it seems to be doing well. I think that the platform is very important and that seems to have been AMD's idea too with the Spider platform.
I think you pretty much have the best of each world. Though the results are interesting, I wouldn't put a great deal of emphasis on the Vista scores. I think it's meant to determine:
1) Can your hardware run Vista; and
2) Which area of your hardware may be lacking in order to run Vista effectively.
I would guess the diffence in memory scores (irregardless of NUMA) is more related to the latency/timing differences bwtween DDR and DDR2.
The only issue I see for you (with both the 'Q' and the Optys) is the lack of SSE4. Other than that . . . Go Man Go!
I think everyone learned that long ago with all the flaky chipsets that used to be paired up with AMD's. AMD CPUs were never that bad, but AMD got a bad rap from all the crap platforms they got paired with.
In your original post, you now seem to be making the same (illogical) association with Intel CPUs. If you pair an Intel CPU with an Intel motherboard and it has lots of issues - by all means shout it to the world. But be honest enough to lay blame where blame is due.
BTW - I think your original point is valid. AMD platforms are fine for what most people need. So are Intel platforms. The logical question for those looking to buy is which provides the best value, with the features they want. That could be the subject of countless threads...
* Not speaking for Intel Corp *
AMD's benefits simply need to be publicized better. I can stably undervolt my G2 5000+ BE to 4x .7 Volts, using RMClock on Windows XP Pro SP3 x86. Fairly remarkable if you ask me. My C2D doesn't even come close to this. If this is an important feature then you will be happy. AMD also fully supports virtualization, even in their lowliest chip. Ditto on that.
I might have even considered Nehalem, with its IMC and HT facsimile. Even if only top-tier Extreme chips will contain an IMC. But Intel's anti-competitive practices have been a real disconnect for me. I would rather run 10 percent slower (and pay the equivalent price) than ever support a company like that. If one day AMD (or Via) becomes faster than the average competitor, even better.
Anyway, I'm more concerned with us users finally realizing true parallel processing and 64-bit support. We still live in an age of sequential computing and only a handful even bother to take notice. Perhaps, in a few years, we'll look back on both Phenom a C2Q and laugh at their relative sloth. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pocket the difference.
I might have even considered Nehalem, with its IMC and HT facsimile. Even if only top-tier Extreme chips will contain an IMC. But Intel's anti-competitive practices have been a real disconnect for me. I would rather run 10 percent slower (and pay the equivalent price) than ever support a company like that. If one day AMD (or Via) becomes faster than the average competitor, even better.
Anyway, I'm more concerned with us users finally realizing true parallel processing and 64-bit support. We still live in an age of sequential computing and only a handful even bother to take notice. Perhaps, in a few years, we'll look back on both Phenom a C2Q and laugh at their relative sloth. Meanwhile, I'll continue to pocket the difference.
according to google 0.7V, which happens to be the lowest possible VID, is almost universally unstable. not surprisingly really since at that voltage, most 6T bitcells can't even hold a value. so perhaps AMD might not want to trumpet 0.7V stability because it looks like it is a 1-in-10000 part anomaly.
btw, one of the most annoying rumors about nehalem is that is supposedly copied the IMC and/or HT from AMD. you really shouldn't say that because it makes you sound like a complete jackass.
I was quite impressed with my B3 kentsfield being able to run small FFT stable at a mere 0.86V on vaporphase (-40C @ load) at 1.6GHz.
http://i272.photobucket.com/al...ableVcoreversusGHz.jpg
Sure its -40C which always helps with those interface defects, but that is a crapload of xtors operating at 1.6GHz without stability issues on a mere 0.86V of signal. I was quite impressed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 14K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter