I am getting AMD A64 x2 5000 Black Edition and Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H which is based on 780G chipset. How well does that CPU overclock?
so I will be getting a new comp...
- Thread starter lookouthere
- Start date
I also want to know how well it'll OC on that board,i've seen the X2 5000+ BE get 3.0-3.2GHz on other boards,but i couldn't find any reviews with a 780G board and the X2 5000+ BE
About 2.4GHz on a 65nm C2D, 2.3GHz on a 45nm C2D.
A 3.2GHz Brisbane is equal to a 2.8GHz E2140 perhaps. It won't touch a 2.8GHz Conroe/Wolfdale or even Allendale, not even close.
This is why comparing clockspeeds nowadays is pretty much useless (and has been for some time, since P4), as there are so many CPUs with varying levels of performance per clock.
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
I'm going to build a new AMD box in a few months on that 790G chipset for a kick butt HTPC. That's a good way to support AMD.
I'm looking at a new 38xx video card since the prices are good now and my x1950Pro would have a happer home back in my dual opty box.
Those are two good ways to support AMD. I really wanted to buy an AMD processor for my new build but there just wasn't any way I could justify it right now. The p35 chipset is too solid, this Abit board I got is too widley used and succesfull and the 2180 was too tempting of an OCing chip to NOT buy. Here I am @ 3.2ghz and kicking butt.
But OP, your system is nice. don't feel bad.
I'm looking at a new 38xx video card since the prices are good now and my x1950Pro would have a happer home back in my dual opty box.
Those are two good ways to support AMD. I really wanted to buy an AMD processor for my new build but there just wasn't any way I could justify it right now. The p35 chipset is too solid, this Abit board I got is too widley used and succesfull and the 2180 was too tempting of an OCing chip to NOT buy. Here I am @ 3.2ghz and kicking butt.
But OP, your system is nice. don't feel bad.
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: lookouthere
no reason. but maybe one
I'm all about supporting AMD, but not when ALL their current products are inferior to Intel's. It just doesn't make sense at this point.
FUD
shocksyde
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2001
- 5,539
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: lookouthere
no reason. but maybe one
I'm all about supporting AMD, but not when ALL their current products are inferior to Intel's. It just doesn't make sense at this point.
FUD
Duff?
Some of AMD's low end products are quite compelling for some niche applications. For example the BE series chips, any dual core selling < $50. Intel does have celerons with equivalent price points, performance and power usage as well, but the amount of analysis to determine which product is better is just simply not worth the brainpower.
For non-enthusiast users AMD still makes both price and performance competitive products. It's only when you factor OCing (which is a no-brainer for core2 chips) that the picture changes. There isn't a single AMD dual core that'll come close to a 3+ ghz 2 series or faster. The fastest Phenom is 10-50% slower (depending in the app. phenoms win winrar benchmarks) than a Q6600 at stock clocks, but once the Intel quad is dialed to a likely OC of 3ghz or faster there's no comparison. You may luck out and get a Phenom capable of 3 ghz with extreme cooling, but then you could luck out and get a 3.8 ghz Q6600 or 4.5 ghz E8400.
Most mainstream Intel chips run cooler and use less power even overclocked than equivalently performing (and priced) AMD counterparts. So over the service life of 2+ years Intel is a clear winner on raw performance, performance/watt, performance/BTU or any other metric factoring in either cost or instructions/time or both. Across the entire product range.
Sources: readily available benchmarks of stock and OCd Intel 2, 4, 6 and 8 series vs AMD 3800 to 6400+, 6400+ vs Phenom, E8400 vs 6400. Personal experience with E2180 and X3210.
For non-enthusiast users AMD still makes both price and performance competitive products. It's only when you factor OCing (which is a no-brainer for core2 chips) that the picture changes. There isn't a single AMD dual core that'll come close to a 3+ ghz 2 series or faster. The fastest Phenom is 10-50% slower (depending in the app. phenoms win winrar benchmarks) than a Q6600 at stock clocks, but once the Intel quad is dialed to a likely OC of 3ghz or faster there's no comparison. You may luck out and get a Phenom capable of 3 ghz with extreme cooling, but then you could luck out and get a 3.8 ghz Q6600 or 4.5 ghz E8400.
Most mainstream Intel chips run cooler and use less power even overclocked than equivalently performing (and priced) AMD counterparts. So over the service life of 2+ years Intel is a clear winner on raw performance, performance/watt, performance/BTU or any other metric factoring in either cost or instructions/time or both. Across the entire product range.
Sources: readily available benchmarks of stock and OCd Intel 2, 4, 6 and 8 series vs AMD 3800 to 6400+, 6400+ vs Phenom, E8400 vs 6400. Personal experience with E2180 and X3210.
Originally posted by: lookouthere
no reason. but maybe one
A horrible reason, unless you have financially invested into the company.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,277
- 16,121
- 136
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: lookouthere
no reason. but maybe one
I'm all about supporting AMD, but not when ALL their current products are inferior to Intel's. It just doesn't make sense at this point.
FUD
Can you support that with any evidence whatsoever ? Any examples ?
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: lookouthere
no reason. but maybe one
I'm all about supporting AMD, but not when ALL their current products are inferior to Intel's. It just doesn't make sense at this point.
FUD
Can you support that with any evidence whatsoever ? Any examples ?
You could statrt with several of Anand's articles on the subject of desktop price and performance - other article comparisons of K10 Barc's to Intel Xeon 45nm's.
You are welcome to consider any of the many articles on the release of the 780g chipset this week. (Actually - any of the 700-series chipset will do) Quite impressive.
I'm disputing as FUD the comment "" ALL their (AMD) current products are inferior to Intel's ""
You could view Tom's CPU Charts and compare CPUs based upon price and performance. Looks highly competitive in a good many areas to me.
And before you start, ""Buh buh buh but ...!"" consider the simple fact that 95,32786%+ of computers are not overclocked. The actual battle is the business desktop. It looks to me like AMD is anything but inferior.
Does Intel whomp AMD on the high end? I'm not disputing that.
It's okay to be a fanboy, guys. But yah need to lay off the incessant propaganda and BS. Both Intel and AMD make fine products. All this slather degrades the quality and reputation of the AT Forums ...
You are free to continue down the road to FanBoy Forumism if you do not care to police and call out the FUD. However, the end result will be the further degradation of the posts and the loss of true enthusiasts (regardless of brand).
My favorite computer is my next. How about you?
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,277
- 16,121
- 136
heyheybooboo, while I don't disagree with your statements (good points BTW), I feel that the original statement was simply not qualified, and thats the way I took it.
Stated another way (let me try)
"When considering average overclocking, ALL their (AMD) current products are inferior to Intel's"
And that would apply to desktop, since servers should NEVER be overclocked. The minute you take that out, then the rules sure change. However, I have seen that it appears for the first time in quite a while, Intel is taking back its server lead, so that leaves bottom end only as I see it.
Also remember, this forum is CPU's AND Overclocking. Most people here OC.
Stated another way (let me try)
"When considering average overclocking, ALL their (AMD) current products are inferior to Intel's"
And that would apply to desktop, since servers should NEVER be overclocked. The minute you take that out, then the rules sure change. However, I have seen that it appears for the first time in quite a while, Intel is taking back its server lead, so that leaves bottom end only as I see it.
Also remember, this forum is CPU's AND Overclocking. Most people here OC.
You can expect 3.2-3.3GHz with the X2 5000+ BE.
At this point there's not much of a reason to go AMD unless you are an avid supporter or you happen to fall into one of the niches that they compete well in.
If you aren't going to buy a GPU, then going AMD is perfect because the 780G chipset is the best IGP out there and nothing on the Intel side compares.
Otherwise, in general, E21xx series + OC will be a better idea.
If you are going AMD, you might want to consider this chip instead of the 5000+ BE:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819105147
It's an Opteron 1210 HE, guaranteed F3 stepping and will overclock to 3GHz+. It's also going to be slightly faster clock-for-clock than the 5000+ BE because it has 2x1MB of L2 cache versus 2x512KB for the 5000+. The only thing you have to be careful about with the the 1210 HE is its 9x multiplier; to reach 3GHz, you need a board capable of 333MHz HT. Not many reviewers have overclocked 780G boards, so I don't know how well it handles high HT. If it's like the 790FX, then you're fine and 333Mhz won't be a problem.
At this point there's not much of a reason to go AMD unless you are an avid supporter or you happen to fall into one of the niches that they compete well in.
If you aren't going to buy a GPU, then going AMD is perfect because the 780G chipset is the best IGP out there and nothing on the Intel side compares.
Otherwise, in general, E21xx series + OC will be a better idea.
If you are going AMD, you might want to consider this chip instead of the 5000+ BE:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819105147
It's an Opteron 1210 HE, guaranteed F3 stepping and will overclock to 3GHz+. It's also going to be slightly faster clock-for-clock than the 5000+ BE because it has 2x1MB of L2 cache versus 2x512KB for the 5000+. The only thing you have to be careful about with the the 1210 HE is its 9x multiplier; to reach 3GHz, you need a board capable of 333MHz HT. Not many reviewers have overclocked 780G boards, so I don't know how well it handles high HT. If it's like the 790FX, then you're fine and 333Mhz won't be a problem.
Intel has a product to match or exceed to the performance of the competing AMD at every point on the PC spectrum.
AMD is competitive at the low end (say an arbitrary cut-off of $130 or so). Their products will match Intel's for heat production, power consumption and performance, and in some cases they exceed Intel. But only at stock speed. Once you begin to factor in the overwhelming overclocking advantages of the Core 2 architecture then things begin to slant heavily towards Intel. On the high end (which is an important [for marketing reasons] but very small market segment of the market) Intel is completely unchallenged. AMDs flagship struggles to match the overall performance or their 3rd or 4rth line product.
throw in the TLB errata debacle for Phenom and you can see why AMD is such a bad position right now. And I say that as someone who was a diehard K8 supporter.
There are definitely certain segments of the market where AMD is still an attractive option, and if my pc requirements fell into those areas then i would have reservations about buying one of their products. And as bad as things look now, AMD is not in a technologically worse position that Intel was in 2004 (although they are the smaller company) and this is unlikely to be the end of the 2 company cpu era (at least I hope not).
As for the OPs original question. A 3-3.2 ghz 5000+ is going to offer the performance of a 2.6-2.8 ghz Conroe C2D (conroe is 15-20% faster clock for clock, on average, than K8), or a slightly slower (say 2.5 ghz or so) wolfdale C2D (which are 4-8% faster clock for clock than the Conroes). However, the vast majority of users will not do many things that will actually take advantage of that extra speed (gaming tends to be gpu limited even on a 5000+ and only cpu intensive activities like video encoding or complex math computations will really push your CPU). Nevertheless, if you are buying any entirely new system (motherboard, memory, cpu etc) with a $500+ budget, or are interested in overclocking then intel is probably a better choice in terms of performance/dollar spent. Of course, you have to be able to live with yourself after embracing the dark side...
AMD is competitive at the low end (say an arbitrary cut-off of $130 or so). Their products will match Intel's for heat production, power consumption and performance, and in some cases they exceed Intel. But only at stock speed. Once you begin to factor in the overwhelming overclocking advantages of the Core 2 architecture then things begin to slant heavily towards Intel. On the high end (which is an important [for marketing reasons] but very small market segment of the market) Intel is completely unchallenged. AMDs flagship struggles to match the overall performance or their 3rd or 4rth line product.
throw in the TLB errata debacle for Phenom and you can see why AMD is such a bad position right now. And I say that as someone who was a diehard K8 supporter.
There are definitely certain segments of the market where AMD is still an attractive option, and if my pc requirements fell into those areas then i would have reservations about buying one of their products. And as bad as things look now, AMD is not in a technologically worse position that Intel was in 2004 (although they are the smaller company) and this is unlikely to be the end of the 2 company cpu era (at least I hope not).
As for the OPs original question. A 3-3.2 ghz 5000+ is going to offer the performance of a 2.6-2.8 ghz Conroe C2D (conroe is 15-20% faster clock for clock, on average, than K8), or a slightly slower (say 2.5 ghz or so) wolfdale C2D (which are 4-8% faster clock for clock than the Conroes). However, the vast majority of users will not do many things that will actually take advantage of that extra speed (gaming tends to be gpu limited even on a 5000+ and only cpu intensive activities like video encoding or complex math computations will really push your CPU). Nevertheless, if you are buying any entirely new system (motherboard, memory, cpu etc) with a $500+ budget, or are interested in overclocking then intel is probably a better choice in terms of performance/dollar spent. Of course, you have to be able to live with yourself after embracing the dark side...
I still think AMD is cheaper to build since i use 780G chipset w/o discrete graphic. If I go with Intel, I would have to buy a graphic card. Hennethannun is right, I dont think I really will push all that cpu out. I also dont think this system will last a year because I am waiting the tri or quad amd to drop price Btw, What is FUD?
Btw, What is FUD?I think you are grossly underestimating the clock for clock performance of C2D. By my calculations, a Conroe (4MB L2/1333FSB) chip is around 35% faster per clock than a Brisbane core X2. A Wolfdale is 40%+ faster.
Not many people take into account that the Brisbane core X2s are actually slower than the Windsor X2s per clock, and also has some weird RAM divider configurations due to the use of 1/2 multipliers. In a worse case scenario you can have DDR2-800 running at DDR2-740 instead.
According to this THG 5000+ BE article, at 3.1GHz it is still slower than a 2.33GHz E6550 overall. That is a 33% clockspeed advantage for a performance deficit of -2.5%. The article also shows the 3.1GHz 5000+ BE slower than a stock X2 6000+ 3GHz, thus proving that Brisbane is about 5% slower than Windsor per clock.
I also disagree that gaming is GPU limited even on a stock X2 5000+, there are many games available today that can take advantage of faster C2D based CPUs.
A few examples:
Call of Duty 4
Crysis
Supreme Commander
World in Conflict
Originally posted by: lookouthere
I still think AMD is cheaper to build since i use 780G chipset w/o discrete graphic. If I go with Intel, I would have to buy a graphic card. Hennethannun is right, I dont think I really will push all that cpu out. I also dont think this system will last a year because I am waiting the tri or quad amd to drop price
There are Intel chipsets with integrated graphics as well, but they are nowhere as " powerful" for gaming as the 780G. I quote "powerful" because it's all relative. The gaming performance of the 780G IGP is MUCH better than the competing G35/G45 offerings from Intel (which are truely woeful), but compared to most standalone GPUs it is still VERY slow, it's basically a cut down Radeon 3450, which is already scraping the barrel as far as discrete GPUs go.
The 780G will let you game at low resolutions and details at acceptable framerates, but if you intend to seriously game on either platform, you will need a much more powerful GPU (at least a Radeon 3850 or Geforce 9600 GT) either way.
what I really care is the fact that AMD/ATI can decode any HD better than other atm. so that's probably why I went with AMD
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter