What I want from AMD

[coolpurplefan]

I just thought of something. If the new Intels can beat the crap out of AMD chips, why don't they sell FX equivalent chips for under $200?
I want to be able to buy a single core 2.8 GHz with 1MB cache for under $200 for socket 939 or even socket 754. Wouldn't that just make everything way more easy for everyone?

Then they can come out with 3.0 GHz and 3.2 GHz and charge more for those. I don't want to buy new RAM. It's too expensive and it sucks crap to change platforms. I just want cheaper, faster AMDs.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

AMD won't do it because for many people, like you, it's not a cpu vs. cpu issue - it's a cpu (c2d) $ + mobo $ + ddr2 ram $ vs. a cpu (amd fx6x) $. Anyway, there have been smoking deals on FX 55s... didn't the egg recently have oem fx55s for something like $130 shipped?

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
I just thought of something. If the new Intels can beat the crap out of AMD chips, why don't they sell FX equivalent chips for under $200?
I want to be able to buy a single core 2.8 GHz with 1MB cache for under $200 for socket 939 or even socket 754. Wouldn't that just make everything way more easy for everyone?

Then they can come out with 3.0 GHz and 3.2 GHz and charge more for those. I don't want to buy new RAM. It's too expensive and it sucks crap to change platforms. I just want cheaper, faster AMDs.

That would basically be admitting defeat to Intel, not to mention AMD can't yield 3.0GHZ/3.2GHZ K8 in significant quantities.

 

[Cygnus X1]

What I want from AMD is a sub 120.00 Opteron 170 to replace my 3200.

 

[Duvie]

What I want is some innovation to the X2 line.

I want larger cache per core instead of this bullshite of less cache per core like they are doing...

I want dual integrated memory controllers...

I want 4 execution units if it is supposed to compete against Intels current architecture


I want something that can OC....


Right now I cannot justify any purchase of an AMD system for myself...no matter the price...

If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level. My boxes need to be good folders since in their downtimes they need to always be crunching. Fact of the matter is C2D processors about double athlon output in crunchiing workunits. Some newer work units are starting to hit the cache and when cache sizes are 2mb or larger they can really accelerate. in these levels they outproduce X2's by 4 times. This is downright sickening, but it is true.

I want a native 4 core K8L with a lot of enhancements that can start to compete again. here is to hoping I am not dreaming too much.

I was with AMD from 1998-2001....then Intel 2001-2004...then AMD 2004-2006...and no back to Intel....It is a basic see-saw so I anticipate AMD will have seomthing in 2008 that may be worth buying again.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I found a used FX57 on Ebay for $180, in other words try Ebay

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

Well this shows me you dont know much of this topic or me. I OC and I know that I likely still cannot get my A64 much past 2.8ghz (with some work), yet all of my C2D's have done 3.4ghz with a mere 10% OC in vcore. At that point it is already 20% faster in clock speed. In average of test the C2D is 20% faster clock for clock so I will at least get 40%.

Now in the make or break test for me is F@H and the a C2D at 3.2-3.4ghz is twice as fast as my X2/opties were at 2.5-2.6ghz....That is 100% faster....


I think I will go with the extra cost. still cheaper then building another opty box to euqal or better the performance of the 1 box for the C2D.



Also why take me down the dead end path of buying more DDR. That is just plain stupid. Not to mention dead end path of sckt 939.

At least for my investment I can plop in a quad core later. Can you do that? NOPE!!! So in the end that box will if can oc to 3.2ghz (which my QX6700 can) then I get 4x the performance of the opty box. I dont wnat 4 boxes to equal 1. Kind of reminds of the "Total cereal commercial"....


BOTTOM LINE...PERFORMANCE COST AND IT HAS NEVER SCALED PERFECTLY....SO DONT COMPARE LOWER END PRODUCT THAT IS BEING DUMPED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT COMPETING AT THIS MOMENT..


Literally if you gave me an opty and board for free I would still sell it and buy another C2D. i mean if I have to forgo all the extra cost associated with building a system, which you people conveniently always exclude, then I know it wonT be 40% still.

A decent power supply, case, adequate case cooling (since both systems for me would be oC'd), aftermarket cooler, SATA HDD, DVD-bunrner...Those items alone willbe in the the range of 350+...

So 500/364 = 37.3%

now total system cost

850/714 = 19%.....NOW THAT CLEARLY WINS FOR THE INTEL BY THE SIMPLE FACT CLOCK FOR CLOCK THE C2D IS FASTER BY 19%

Not to mention I forgot a vid card. I can do probably 40 bucks for a basic 2d/3d card non gamer.

890/754 = 18%


EDIT:

I already told you the F@H, but here you go. My 2.5ghz machine took 50min/frame (83hours or 3.47days) to complete WU 2124. (a non bonus Unit so the best comparison)

The C2D boxes even at 3.4ghz takes 24min/frame or 40hours...

in a bonus work unit like 1495 and 1499

Opty at 2.5ghz takes about 18min/frame or 30hours...the C2D (2mb cache version) takes 5min/frame for 8hours and 20min....or 3.5x faster..


DVDshrink....clock for clock it is 33% faster
TMPGenc .....clock for clock is 34% faster

Like I told you a no-brainer!!!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
I found a used FX57 on Ebay for $180, in other words try Ebay

I personally dont buy used cpus or cpus from Ebay...too many horror stories. i will stick with comparison to known VIRGIN parts.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

Well this shows me you dont know much of this topic or me. I OC and I know that I likely still cannot get my A64 much past 2.8ghz (with some work), yet all of my C2D's have done 3.4ghz with a mere 10% OC in vcore. At that point it is already 20% faster in clock speed. In average of test the C2D is 20% faster clock for clock so I will at least get 40%.

Now in the make or break test for me is F@H and the a C2D at 3.2-3.4ghz is twice as fast as my X2/opties were at 2.5-2.6ghz....That is 100% faster....


I think I will go with the extra cost. still cheaper then building another opty box to euqal or better the performance of the 1 box for the C2D.



Also why take me down the dead end path of buying more DDR. That is just plain stupid. Not to mention dead end path of sckt 939.

At least for my investment I can plop in a quad core later. Can you do that? NOPE!!! So in the end that box will if can oc to 3.2ghz (which my QX6700 can) then I get 4x the performance of the opty box. I dont wnat 4 boxes to equal 1. Kind of reminds of the "Total cereal commercial"....


BOTTOM LINE...PERFORMANCE COST AND IT HAS NEVER SCALED PERFECTLY....SO DONT COMPARE LOWER END PRODUCT THAT IS BEING DUMPED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT COMPETING AT THIS MOMENT..


Literally if you gave me an opty and board for free I would still sell it and buy another C2D. i mean if I have to forgo all the extra cost associated with building a system, which you people conveniently always exclude, then I know it wong be 40% still.

A decent power supply, case, adequate case cooling (since both systems for me would be oC'd), aftermarket cooler, SATA HDD, DVD-bunrner...Those items alone willbe in the the range of 350+...

So 500/364 = 37.3%

now total system cost

850/714 = 19%.....NOW THAT CLEARLY WINS FOR THE INTEL BY THE SIMPLE FACT CLOCK FOR CLOCK THE C2D IS FASTER BY 19%

Extra cost of the system is moot. I'm assuming most people are picking up cases and psus and hard drives for practically free.

I also disagree that socket 939 is obsolete. Aside from still being competitive for many tasks (maybe not the one you you conveniently specified), most people barely use one core, so dual core will hold most people out for quite a while. Look at people who have ended up with old SDRAM...it's fetching a premium on the used market still. It's got PCI-E to keep up with gaming. Heck, I think DDR2 may even be the one to skip. By this time next year DDR3 will be the big thing....what is DDR2 going to give you over DDR in the meantime?

I'm impartial as I'm currently using an old P4 standby and have built both C2D and Opty servers at work, so I'm not a fanboy of anything. But I am building a new desktop within the next couple weeks and could go either way because, as I pointed out, the cost difference does make AMD still competitive for 99.9% of people.....apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I got my brand new opty 165 from ebay for less than that FX57....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

Well this shows me you dont know much of this topic or me. I OC and I know that I likely still cannot get my A64 much past 2.8ghz (with some work), yet all of my C2D's have done 3.4ghz with a mere 10% OC in vcore. At that point it is already 20% faster in clock speed. In average of test the C2D is 20% faster clock for clock so I will at least get 40%.

Now in the make or break test for me is F@H and the a C2D at 3.2-3.4ghz is twice as fast as my X2/opties were at 2.5-2.6ghz....That is 100% faster....


I think I will go with the extra cost. still cheaper then building another opty box to euqal or better the performance of the 1 box for the C2D.



Also why take me down the dead end path of buying more DDR. That is just plain stupid. Not to mention dead end path of sckt 939.

At least for my investment I can plop in a quad core later. Can you do that? NOPE!!! So in the end that box will if can oc to 3.2ghz (which my QX6700 can) then I get 4x the performance of the opty box. I dont wnat 4 boxes to equal 1. Kind of reminds of the "Total cereal commercial"....


BOTTOM LINE...PERFORMANCE COST AND IT HAS NEVER SCALED PERFECTLY....SO DONT COMPARE LOWER END PRODUCT THAT IS BEING DUMPED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT COMPETING AT THIS MOMENT..


Literally if you gave me an opty and board for free I would still sell it and buy another C2D. i mean if I have to forgo all the extra cost associated with building a system, which you people conveniently always exclude, then I know it wong be 40% still.

A decent power supply, case, adequate case cooling (since both systems for me would be oC'd), aftermarket cooler, SATA HDD, DVD-bunrner...Those items alone willbe in the the range of 350+...

So 500/364 = 37.3%

now total system cost

850/714 = 19%.....NOW THAT CLEARLY WINS FOR THE INTEL BY THE SIMPLE FACT CLOCK FOR CLOCK THE C2D IS FASTER BY 19%

Extra cost of the system is moot. I'm assuming most people are picking up cases and psus and hard drives for practically free.

I also disagree that socket 939 is obsolete. Aside from still being competitive for many tasks (maybe not the one you you conveniently specified), most people barely use one core, so dual core will hold most people out for quite a while. Look at people who have ended up with old SDRAM...it's fetching a premium on the used market still. It's got PCI-E to keep up with gaming. Heck, I think DDR2 may even be the one to skip. By this time next year DDR3 will be the big thing....what is DDR2 going to give you over DDR in the meantime?

I'm impartial as I'm currently using an old P4 standby and have built both C2D and Opty servers at work, so I'm not a fanboy of anything. But I am building a new desktop within the next couple weeks and could go either way because, as I pointed out, the cost difference does make AMD still competitive for 99.9% of people.....apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Yeah that is a lot of assumptions...Plus opinions are like %^^$...You know the next part. we are talking about me, but I think when I give advice unless people actually have a sckt 939 mobo and want to upgrade (a decent 20-30% gain) i wouldn't ever advise them to get a sckt 939. i would at least push them to an AM2 board to give them a possible round or 2 of cpu upgrades. You are pushing buying sckt 939 mobo and DDR ram. If they had those things and no money to upgrade then that is when sckt939 cpu is a still viable option. Getting new ram and a new mobo and offer a sckt 939 and DDR? Plain stupid!!!!!


I am impartial!!! I have had AMDs exclusively since 2004. Sold my quad opteron boxes cause my dual core C2D beat them both. This was in multithreaded apps and i have had threads showing this...AND IT WAS IN MORE THE 1 APP...read and learn.

apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Clearly no reading and comprehension skills...i gave you 3 examples. Folding, multimedia, and I can give examples in CAD apps as well. C2D doesn't specialize in one app to hit that magical number of 40% for you....Again read reviews and learn. People in this board OC and are already out of the norm. these are enthusiasts and the people I likely give advice to. So right off the bat I am speaking to more power users.

99.9% Quite laughable where you pulled that number...Not even close. Notrhing seems to defend your arguement.

 

[Duvie]

I get it you are trying to defend your purchase and since you have an old P4 which most agree that netburst was a bust, you just dont have the experience to talk about it. The reviews do the work for you but you likely find a way to discount them.

I couldn't find a link to a gigabyte sckt 939 board for $69. Saw a Neo4-f MSI board for $68 though I was never able to get that board stable at the same FSB my neo2 was. I dont think that is the same quality IMO even to the Gigabyte boards you can get for the 110 range.

Most of the boards I see done in the sub 80 range are micro-atx boards or ATX boards running AGP. But heck since you like to advise peopel to buy dead end parts recommend Agp AS WELL. I dont see a real known good ocing board until in the mid 80's....

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

Well this shows me you dont know much of this topic or me. I OC and I know that I likely still cannot get my A64 much past 2.8ghz (with some work), yet all of my C2D's have done 3.4ghz with a mere 10% OC in vcore. At that point it is already 20% faster in clock speed. In average of test the C2D is 20% faster clock for clock so I will at least get 40%.

Now in the make or break test for me is F@H and the a C2D at 3.2-3.4ghz is twice as fast as my X2/opties were at 2.5-2.6ghz....That is 100% faster....


I think I will go with the extra cost. still cheaper then building another opty box to euqal or better the performance of the 1 box for the C2D.



Also why take me down the dead end path of buying more DDR. That is just plain stupid. Not to mention dead end path of sckt 939.

At least for my investment I can plop in a quad core later. Can you do that? NOPE!!! So in the end that box will if can oc to 3.2ghz (which my QX6700 can) then I get 4x the performance of the opty box. I dont wnat 4 boxes to equal 1. Kind of reminds of the "Total cereal commercial"....


BOTTOM LINE...PERFORMANCE COST AND IT HAS NEVER SCALED PERFECTLY....SO DONT COMPARE LOWER END PRODUCT THAT IS BEING DUMPED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT COMPETING AT THIS MOMENT..


Literally if you gave me an opty and board for free I would still sell it and buy another C2D. i mean if I have to forgo all the extra cost associated with building a system, which you people conveniently always exclude, then I know it wong be 40% still.

A decent power supply, case, adequate case cooling (since both systems for me would be oC'd), aftermarket cooler, SATA HDD, DVD-bunrner...Those items alone willbe in the the range of 350+...

So 500/364 = 37.3%

now total system cost

850/714 = 19%.....NOW THAT CLEARLY WINS FOR THE INTEL BY THE SIMPLE FACT CLOCK FOR CLOCK THE C2D IS FASTER BY 19%

Extra cost of the system is moot. I'm assuming most people are picking up cases and psus and hard drives for practically free.

I also disagree that socket 939 is obsolete. Aside from still being competitive for many tasks (maybe not the one you you conveniently specified), most people barely use one core, so dual core will hold most people out for quite a while. Look at people who have ended up with old SDRAM...it's fetching a premium on the used market still. It's got PCI-E to keep up with gaming. Heck, I think DDR2 may even be the one to skip. By this time next year DDR3 will be the big thing....what is DDR2 going to give you over DDR in the meantime?

I'm impartial as I'm currently using an old P4 standby and have built both C2D and Opty servers at work, so I'm not a fanboy of anything. But I am building a new desktop within the next couple weeks and could go either way because, as I pointed out, the cost difference does make AMD still competitive for 99.9% of people.....apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Yeah that is a lot of assumptions...Plus opinions are like %^^$...You know the next part. we are talking about me, but I think when I give advice unless people actually have a sckt 939 mobo and want to upgrade (a decent 20-30% gain) i wouldn't ever advise them to get a sckt 939. i would at least push them to an AM2 board to give them a possible round or 2 of cpu upgrades. You are pushing buying sckt 939 mobo and DDR ram. If they had those things and no money to upgrade then that is when sckt939 cpu is a still viable option. Getting new ram and a new mobo and offer a sckt 939 and DDR? Plain stupid!!!!!


I am impartial!!! I have had AMDs exclusively since 2004. Sold my quad opteron boxes cause my dual core C2D beat them both. This was in multithreaded apps and i have had threads showing this...AND IT WAS IN MORE THE 1 APP...read and learn.

apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Clearly no reading and comprehension skills...i gave you 3 examples. Folding, multimedia, and I can give examples in CAD apps as well. C2D doesn't specialize in one app to hit that magical number of 40% for you....Again read reviews and learn. People in this board OC and are already out of the norm. these are enthusiasts and the people I likely give advice to. So right off the bat I am speaking to more power users.

99.9% Quite laughable where you pulled that number...Not even close. Notrhing seems to defend your arguement.

Your claims of 100% were for one application. Everything else is going to be close. Just scanning through the AT benchmarks, it looks like 10-30%. And for the price comparison I used an E6300, but you're comparing, apparently, the E6400 because I haven't heard of E6300's getting consistently 3.4Ghz....which pushes the price/performance gap further apart.

Guys like you, who are mystifyingly encoding media pretty much all day, I'm sure those few seconds are going to make a difference because outside of that overall system performance will be within a hair of each other. I'm surprised you haven't gone out and wasted money on a QX6700. Oh, wait, you did.

 

[StopSign]

What I want from AMD is a free X1950XTX shipped to my door. Maybe then I'll consider buying an AMD processor right now.

 

[Markfw]

You haven;t heard of E6300's consistently getting 3.4 ?... Lets see, I have 3, all at that or higher, and Duvie had 2 at that speed.

As for motherboards, if you want to run a C2D at stock (20% faster than X2 at the same clock) then use a $52 motherboard. I have one sitting right beside my Opteron 170@2.5, and this one beats it !

And its faster in all apps, can;t you read benchmarks ?? So what possible reason would there be to buy an X2 for a from scratch type build ?????

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Duvie
If I can buy an E6300 for 180ish and OC it easily to 3.2ghz with little effort how can I justify any purchase of an AMD cpu? They would have to do 3.8ghz to equal that and they are not even close to that level.

Because it's cheaper by $150 when you factor in the MB and memory.

There is a nice Gigabyte 939 board for $64 and PQI 2GB DDR is $150 at newegg right now. Add a $150 165 and that's $364. The cheapest quality C2D setup is going to be $190 for an E6300, a P965 board for $110, and 2GB of DDR2 for $200 for a total of $500.....almost 40% more cost for what is not going to be more than 20% more performance.

Well this shows me you dont know much of this topic or me. I OC and I know that I likely still cannot get my A64 much past 2.8ghz (with some work), yet all of my C2D's have done 3.4ghz with a mere 10% OC in vcore. At that point it is already 20% faster in clock speed. In average of test the C2D is 20% faster clock for clock so I will at least get 40%.

Now in the make or break test for me is F@H and the a C2D at 3.2-3.4ghz is twice as fast as my X2/opties were at 2.5-2.6ghz....That is 100% faster....


I think I will go with the extra cost. still cheaper then building another opty box to euqal or better the performance of the 1 box for the C2D.



Also why take me down the dead end path of buying more DDR. That is just plain stupid. Not to mention dead end path of sckt 939.

At least for my investment I can plop in a quad core later. Can you do that? NOPE!!! So in the end that box will if can oc to 3.2ghz (which my QX6700 can) then I get 4x the performance of the opty box. I dont wnat 4 boxes to equal 1. Kind of reminds of the "Total cereal commercial"....


BOTTOM LINE...PERFORMANCE COST AND IT HAS NEVER SCALED PERFECTLY....SO DONT COMPARE LOWER END PRODUCT THAT IS BEING DUMPED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT COMPETING AT THIS MOMENT..


Literally if you gave me an opty and board for free I would still sell it and buy another C2D. i mean if I have to forgo all the extra cost associated with building a system, which you people conveniently always exclude, then I know it wong be 40% still.

A decent power supply, case, adequate case cooling (since both systems for me would be oC'd), aftermarket cooler, SATA HDD, DVD-bunrner...Those items alone willbe in the the range of 350+...

So 500/364 = 37.3%

now total system cost

850/714 = 19%.....NOW THAT CLEARLY WINS FOR THE INTEL BY THE SIMPLE FACT CLOCK FOR CLOCK THE C2D IS FASTER BY 19%

Extra cost of the system is moot. I'm assuming most people are picking up cases and psus and hard drives for practically free.

I also disagree that socket 939 is obsolete. Aside from still being competitive for many tasks (maybe not the one you you conveniently specified), most people barely use one core, so dual core will hold most people out for quite a while. Look at people who have ended up with old SDRAM...it's fetching a premium on the used market still. It's got PCI-E to keep up with gaming. Heck, I think DDR2 may even be the one to skip. By this time next year DDR3 will be the big thing....what is DDR2 going to give you over DDR in the meantime?

I'm impartial as I'm currently using an old P4 standby and have built both C2D and Opty servers at work, so I'm not a fanboy of anything. But I am building a new desktop within the next couple weeks and could go either way because, as I pointed out, the cost difference does make AMD still competitive for 99.9% of people.....apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Yeah that is a lot of assumptions...Plus opinions are like %^^$...You know the next part. we are talking about me, but I think when I give advice unless people actually have a sckt 939 mobo and want to upgrade (a decent 20-30% gain) i wouldn't ever advise them to get a sckt 939. i would at least push them to an AM2 board to give them a possible round or 2 of cpu upgrades. You are pushing buying sckt 939 mobo and DDR ram. If they had those things and no money to upgrade then that is when sckt939 cpu is a still viable option. Getting new ram and a new mobo and offer a sckt 939 and DDR? Plain stupid!!!!!


I am impartial!!! I have had AMDs exclusively since 2004. Sold my quad opteron boxes cause my dual core C2D beat them both. This was in multithreaded apps and i have had threads showing this...AND IT WAS IN MORE THE 1 APP...read and learn.

apparently not you as you do just one task and one task only and C2D specializes at it.

Clearly no reading and comprehension skills...i gave you 3 examples. Folding, multimedia, and I can give examples in CAD apps as well. C2D doesn't specialize in one app to hit that magical number of 40% for you....Again read reviews and learn. People in this board OC and are already out of the norm. these are enthusiasts and the people I likely give advice to. So right off the bat I am speaking to more power users.

99.9% Quite laughable where you pulled that number...Not even close. Notrhing seems to defend your arguement.

Your claims of 100% were for one application. Everything else is going to be close. Just scanning through the AT benchmarks, it looks like 10-30%. And for the price comparison I used an E6300, but you're comparing, apparently, the E6400 because I haven't heard of E6300's getting consistently 3.4Ghz....which pushes the price/performance gap further apart.

Guys like you, who are mystifyingly encoding media pretty much all day, I'm sure those few seconds are going to make a difference because outside of that overall system performance will be within a hair of each other. I'm surprised you haven't gone out and wasted money on a QX6700. Oh, wait, you did.

1 app was 100%, but the other apps were 30+% clock for clock plus the fact I can OC my C2D 20% further then I could an opty. especially with a cheap board like you are recommending....You can justify whatever in terms of overall speed over a 24 hour duration. Especially since you discount my folding. Fact is I like being able to set down when I am using the cpus for multimedia and blazing through it. like 50% faster then I could versus my X2 4400+ or still faster then my quad opty box at 2.5ghz could.


The most clueless comment is the e6300 COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First off I had an E6300 and it did 3.43ghz on my S3 mobo. I sold it. The E6300's are topping out around the same point as the E6400's. I had one I built for a buddy on an S3 and it did 3.4ghz as well (orthos stable for 24 hours). It was build for multimedia apps and it would have taken an X2 in the range of 3.9ghz+ to equal it. GOOD LUCK!!!! Look at MarkFW900's rigs. he has all 6300's and all of his on S3 mobos can hit 3.4ghz....Absolutely clueless and pulling numbers and facts out of your arse.

I bought a QX6700 ES from a friend....I paid 650 for it.....less then 2x the cost of a single E6700....I would have never paid 1000-1300 it was selling retail for. keep your lame comments to the fact your argument has been lame from the beginning and virtually undefendable.

 

[StopSign]

Edit the quotes please. My scroll bar is starting to vanish...

 

[Duvie]

Sorry...

I am done talking to someone who is clueless to reality....I give facts and numbers and he gives assumptions and opinions....

 

[Markfw]

YUp... So if you don;t OC, you can;t beat the C2D in price for mobo+memory+chip for performance, and if you do OC, you can;t touch it in performance, but it MAY cost a little more for 2x or 3x the performance...

Why do you think I am trying to sell my X2's before they are worthless ? I still have one X2, and 2 single core chips to dump. (I am keeping my 4400, Opteron 170 and dual opteron's for now)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You haven;t heard of E6300's consistently getting 3.4 ?... Lets see, I have 3, all at that or higher, and Duvie had 2 at that speed.

With $100/GB memory? Stock heatsink?

As for motherboards, if you want to run a C2D at stock (20% faster than X2 at the same clock) then use a $52 motherboard. I have one sitting right beside my Opteron 170@2.5, and this one beats it !

LOL. What C2D MB is that? I believe you, but I've got to see what board that is.

For all your animosity, you've only managed to prove, barely, that the priceerformance ratio is about even. If so, then why not go with the configuration that leaves you with more money in your pocket? You guys got like 12 rigs each, so to you $200 is irrelevent, but for most people, even enthusiasts, a 939 X2 rig would be imperceptible from a C2D rig which makes it a viable option still.

 

[Markfw]

$160 for cpu and stock HSF + $52 for ECS PT890T-A V1.0 LGA 775 VIA PT890 + $100 for a gig of PC5300. So $10 less for the motherboard and $10 more for the chip, but its a minimum 20% faster. So it wins price/performance.

And yes, the memory on my 6300;s is $100/gig, less actuall. And if you OC a little you can use stock hsf, but like AMD, massive OC's require aftermarkey HSF's

As for the money comment, why do you think we buy C2D ? because stock or OC'ed they offer better price/performance. AGAIN, I have my $52 motherboard with stock HSF right next to my Opty 170 with aftermarket HSF, BOTH using DDR PC3200 memory, the C2D@2.5, the same as the opty, and it beats it by 40% performance. And where do you find a $64 motherbord that will OC ? Granted my $52 motherboard won't go far, but when you start out at 20% performance advantage, a $64 motherboard will never make up for that.

Also, you need to specify all parts, and the objective. Total less $ , no OC ? Bang/buch with OC ? Whaichever category you pick, C2D wins.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
$160 for cpu and stock HSF + $52 for ECS PT890T-A V1.0 LGA 775 VIA PT890 + $100 for a gig of PC5300. So $10 less for the motherboard and $10 more for the chip, but its a minimum 20% faster. So it wins price/performance.

And yes, the memory on my 6300;s is $100/gig, less actuall. And if you OC a little you can use stock hsf, but like AMD, massive OC's require aftermarkey HSF's

As for the money comment, why do you think we buy C2D ? because stock or OC'ed they offer better price/performance. AGAIN, I have my $52 motherboard with stock HSF right next to my Opty 170 with aftermarket HSF, BOTH using DDR PC3200 memory, the C2D@2.5, the same as the opty, and it beats it by 40% performance. And where do you find a $64 motherbord that will OC ? Granted my $52 motherboard won't go far, but when you start out at 20% performance advantage, a $64 motherboard will never make up for that.

Also, you need to specify all parts, and the objective. Total less $ , no OC ? Bang/buch with OC ? Whaichever category you pick, C2D wins.

I don't think it wins, I think they tie. I don't want to start insisting we nitpick on the current falling prices of DDR memory and overclockability of an X2 with stock cooling or that I can go cheaper on the 939 but specified a quality board and Gigabyte is. But I'll say that outside of professional benchmark running, the upgrade from X2 to C2D is the first one I ever thought was gratuitous even for enthusiasts. For some people the difference is worth it, and for others it's marginal. Consider what a drastic turn for the better your rig would take if you dumped $150-200 extra into the video card or sound card and went with X2 over C2D.

 

[lopri]

Aren't you guys tired of this?

 

[Noubourne]

I want a pony and a plastic rocket.