AMD where are you?

[1OFMANY]

So..I work for Intel and I definitely cheer for the home team, but competition is what makes things better and cheaper and AMD ( the bad guys :P) have dropped the ball, and I am pissed off about it. Anyone know when they are going to get back on the horse and bring something to the table again? They were top dogs for about 4 years while Intel floundered with the Pentium 4 crap, all of a sudden..poof...no more AMD :(

[HackerX]

This game has gone back and forth for many years. Not the first time Intel has been in front, nor will AMD fall behind for too long.

[Vortex]

I have no idea what AMD is doing. First they buy ATI, possibly their most idiotic move. Ever. NVidia + AMD was always the winning combination in terms of CPU, Chipset, and GPU. AMD has had mediocre at best experience with chipsets, and ATI was always more of an Intel favored platform to begin with.

The C2D era is a complete fiasco, and I'm not aware of anything that can compete with intel's 45nm technology. If the QX9650 is any indication, the coming generation will make the current AMD failures look like golden ages.

And this is coming from a strong AMD supporter :(

[Sylvanus]

It's getting more and more expensive to do the R+D to keep up with Intel. They screwed up big time with Barcelona and it will take a long time to recover. They recently got a big cash infusion, but who knows if that will do any good or if it is just delaying the inevitable. There are many other silicon companies that are competing with Intel in other markets, but the microprocessor market is the big one.

Of course Intel's biggest 'competitor' right now is their heritage. They are trying to live up to their past, trying to regain profit margins, maintain Moore's Law and keep employees happy. This is not an easy feat. It probably makes it more difficult to do the first two while simultaneously doing the last without AMD. Why should they work harder when the competition has no chance of catching up in the near future?

[Vortex]

Which is exactly why everyone - even ardent Intel fanbois - should want a strong and robust AMD. Competition is always a good thing, and despite the awesomeness of C2D and the coming 45nm platform... I'm not looking forward to AMD and consequently - ATI dying, and leading to a ghost world of little CPU or GPU innovation.

[Sylvanus]

I also work for Intel (I probably should have mentioned that in my first post). The current mentality is that the company can't go back to how it was before AMD came around: ie, bad customer service, and only moderate innovations from one generation to the next making only one parameter better while ignoring the rest (faster CPU's that use a ton of power). The company is honestly trying to get ahead and stay ahead by being the best company it can be, regardless of whether there is competition or not.
At least as far as the CPU business goes.


I'm not really looking forward to ATI dying though. I think the GPU business could use more healthy competition. NVIDIA definitely has the best GPU's, but they suck power and run hot (kind of like the old Intel). Intel's are barely noteworthy and ATI's are ok but definitely need a lot of improvement.

[iamnotspock]

WEll, I just bought an AMD chip. 45 watts. Compared to the typical nuclear-powered Intel CPU that is very pleasant. Low power, low heat, low noise . . . it's very green. AMD + Linux is a good alternative to Wintel. And their 64-bit architecture makes a lot more sense to me.

[1OFMANY]

I am not an AMD hater by any means, and if you want a decent inexpensive CPU by all means you can get a good deal with AMD.


And their 64-bit architecture makes a lot more sense to me.

Also, if you actually USE a TRUE 64 bit application and don't want to use a Xeon, AMD is also a good choice. But I can tell you how many times I or anyone I know have EVER used a TRUE 64 bit application. Zero.

[Sylvanus]

WEll, I just bought an AMD chip. 45 watts. Compared to the typical nuclear-powered Intel CPU that is very pleasant. Low power, low heat, low noise . . . it's very green. AMD + Linux is a good alternative to Wintel. And their 64-bit architecture makes a lot more sense to me.

It really makes no difference to me whether you choose AMD over Intel. But if you have read the tech magazines lately you'll find that the new (within the last year) Intel CPU's are cooler, faster, quieter and more overclockable. Prices are comparable, but with a hotter CPU you'll spend a lot more money in the long run cooling it. Don't get me wrong, the old Pentiums Intel made weren't nearly as good as AMD's old Athlons, but there is a very good reason AMD is performing poorly. Their products just can't compete.

[Vortex]

WEll, I just bought an AMD chip. 45 watts. Compared to the typical nuclear-powered Intel CPU that is very pleasant. Low power, low heat, low noise . . . it's very green. AMD + Linux is a good alternative to Wintel. And their 64-bit architecture makes a lot more sense to me.

Intel has moved far past the netburst days of P4s. You can find C2Ds in the 45watt range. Hell, the QX9650 is what, ~50watts ~0.975V stock clocked at 4 cores at 3GHZ each with 12MB of L2 cache. Yea.

The 64bit native is nice, if your running a 64bit OS running native 64bit applications. Which never happens in a desktop environment. Ever. 64bit is still a long, long time away from actual utilization. Well probably be off the x86 architecture before then.

[iamnotspock]

Intel has moved far past the netburst days of P4s. You can find C2Ds in the 45watt range. Hell, the QX9650 is what, ~50watts ~0.975V stock clocked at 4 cores at 3GHZ each with 12MB of L2 cache. Yea.

The 64bit native is nice, if your running a 64bit OS running native 64bit applications. Which never happens in a desktop environment. Ever. 64bit is still a long, long time away from actual utilization. Well probably be off the x86 architecture before then.

Yeah, I forgot to mention my Linux box is a server. It runs 64-bit Ubuntu with OpenSSL, PostgreSQL, etc. I do believe it's a bit faster on 64-bit today. But with the open source model it will be significantly faster in the near future.

Actually, I always thought that AMD should get together with Linus and his open-source pals b/c a much improved 64-bit Linux kernel, databae, Apache, etc. would be a killer app for their chip. But I think it will happen anyway.

Meantime, the death of x86 has long been predicted . . . ;-))

[simoncpu]

Intel has moved far past the netburst days of P4s. You can find C2Ds in the 45watt range. Hell, the QX9650 is what, ~50watts ~0.975V stock clocked at 4 cores at 3GHZ each with 12MB of L2 cache. Yea.

The 64bit native is nice, if your running a 64bit OS running native 64bit applications. Which never happens in a desktop environment. Ever. 64bit is still a long, long time away from actual utilization. Well probably be off the x86 architecture before then.

"Never" is never a precise word. "Usually" is a word that's usually appropriate. :)

We're running dozens of desktop workstations here on FreeBSD and Linux x86_64 using amd64 processors. :p

[burazekun]

I can say I am disapointed in the raw performance that comes from AMD's current processor selection. However I use AMD's in the computers I build for budget or energy effecient machines. I like Intel, and have rooted for them for some time.

When it comes to budget, or price, AMD based systems are about 80 dollars cheaper to build and have more effeciency per watt and per buck.

The new 780G AMD chipset, takes this it to new waters. The board includes a HD 3200 graphics chip that can "Hybrid" Crossfire to a graphics card like the HD 3450. Improoving performance 65%. This allows people on a budget to make a decent computer for around $400. Add that with the energy effeciency of the chipset only using 43 -73 watts making people who beleive in preventing polution or just to save on the energy bill to rejoyce.

The chipset also inclueds the hardware in the HD3200 to process Blueray HD content allowing you to use even the lowly Sempron processor to watch it.

Needless to say, I am impressed by the new chipset who, without ATI would have never have come into exsistance. I see buying ATI as dentremental, however they may be able to recover. Intel wont be on top forever, but I do like it's Core arcitecture. In the higher end, Intel beat AMD down. However I do like AMD's Quad Core solution. It is a bit cheaper, though not as powerful. It works well because of it's lower energy requirements.

I'm not building beasts now, though I would use a Intel for one of those with either the 780 Nvidia chipset or the X38/48 and a 2x Nvidia 8800gt 512meg graphics cards or a HD 3870x2 ATI graphics card.

[qwerty]

Actually I was wondering where they've gone too. I have fond memories of my first k6 processor and like vortex had the amd+nvidia combo in all of my boxes since then (in fact I still have; the X2 3800+64ibit and 6800GT).

I think intel really played the cards right with the whole 64bit game and worked to release a standard that AMD couldn't comply to after already locking themselves into their own intructionset. That plus intels core duo and their partnership with apple seemed to be the last time that AMD appeared stong in the industry (04-05?).

As for the linux 64bit processor kernal, well to be honest I could never get complete support for workstation use and 64bit (partially due to the graphics card) gotta install most packages by hand and do things the old fashion way(which is good but bad if you need something now), I have found it much easier to suck it up and use 386 distros. So unfortunatly this is another problem with AMD's 64bit marketting strategy, they should have promoted development rather than assuming it would just happen (like ip6 :D).

I'd like to see AMD come back into the story within the next year cause I'm due for an upgrade 1st quarter next year ;) and the parts should be cheap enough by then.

[burazekun]

Actually I was wondering where they've gone too. I have fond memories of my first k6 processor and like vortex had the amd+nvidia combo in all of my boxes since then (in fact I still have; the X2 3800+64ibit and 6800GT).

I think intel really played the cards right with the whole 64bit game and worked to release a standard that AMD couldn't comply to after already locking themselves into their own intructionset. That plus intels core duo and their partnership with apple seemed to be the last time that AMD appeared stong in the industry (04-05?).

You'd be surpised how well that combo still works. Do you have a PCIE slot? |If so you could easily upgrade to a new graphics card. However if you want to make a good PC that can play games like Crysis, whoes only point is really eye-candy and a FPS system used hundreds of times before it. Then you really do want a upgrade. If it's a mild one, then I would just suggest a 8600gts or if you have a powersuply that can handle it, a 8800gt. That'll give you some power though you would lose some of the potency with the processor now, but it will be significantly better. Or you could always go with the 3750 from ATI. It's cheap, works well and on lower energy standards, not as good as the 8800gt but can allieviate some of the stress on your CPU during gameplay and HD content play.

As for Apple taking on intel, Macs have a small corner on the market, taking only as much as 25%. Though Apple made a smart move with taking in the Core 2 architecture. Apples biggest issue is expandability right now. Limited program and hardware selection made better by working with other companies. As it is now, I see more Mac's running with Core 2 Duo's and shitty HD 2400's for outragous price of $1100 and performance that really could use improovement. Outside of looking bueatiful, I beleive most people agree that they aren't economical choices seeing you can buy a PC with the same parts for 500 cheaper.

Performance Machine

Mac Pro:
Optical Drive: 16x SuperDrive
Hard Drive: 320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Memory: 2GB (2 x 1GB)
Processor: 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

$2,499.00

XPS 630:
Processor: Intel® Core™2 Q6600 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache, 2.40GHz, 1066FSB)
Optical Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
Memory: 2GB2 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
Hard Drive: 320GB3 - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB2

$1,249

This reflects my opinions on Mac's and maybe a few others a well. I just want to state what I preceive and am not interested in a flame war against Mac. Mac's have their place, though not at my home. The beauty they have as a desktop or all in one solution would appeal to many other groups.

Well that's my disclaimer... but in all honesty I dont think I needed to say so much.

[Victor Tango]

Well that's my disclaimer... but in all honesty I dont think I needed to say so much.

EDIT: Bleh, pay me no mind. I can't read properly today. Mac Pro, not Macbook Pro. *facepalm*

[Vortex]

Well that's my disclaimer... but in all honesty I dont think I needed to say so much.

Technically, high-end macs do have a price advantage over PC retailers (last I checked, anyways) - but only in the extreme highend bracket. Of course, I personally can't imagine buying either a mac or a PC - custom/personally built is the only way to fly.

Couple things about your equipment analysis above:

8600GT/8800GT have near identical power requirements. Only difference is unlocked pipes/stream processors. I don't *think* either requires a 5V line in from the PSU directly. Either way, your system likley wont break 400W peak use with only 1 GPU, CPU, and under 3HDDs, so its not like its a big deal anyways.

With the 9600GT, I still fail to see any reason to recommend ATi cards. G92 blows them out of the water on every imaginable measure. ATI may be playing the "drop the prices game", but when going up $20-30 sees such a huge increase in performance from same tier nvidia tech, well.... Also, the 3850 is a competitor for the 8800GT 256mb G92 card, the 3870 is the competitor for the 8800GT/9600GT. The market for a 3850 is very low, and it has performance equal to its pricetag.

Also, and I do hate to say this - there is *absolutely* no reason to recommend ANY AMD processor. Sure, a 3800X2 won't be bad or anything, but a C2D processor for the same cost will blow it out of the water. Phenom is a joke, and top tier Athlon/FX chips just get decimated compared to their C2D counterparts. Its bad all across the board, and gets worse the higher up you get. You might find room for some low wattage AMDs... but the new 45nm process form intel will destroy that market within 1 year (E8500 benchmarks are nothing short of godly).

Also, for crysis, nothing short of an 8800GT will play it *well*. My own 7600GT will play the game at bare lowest settings, but if you want to actually enjoy the game, you need an 8800GT. 3870's don't compete well here.

[szaxazs]

I and a friend have been waiting for the Phenoms like small children craving for candies, and after seeing reviews and comparisons we were disappointed to the fact that AMD didn't made any big step with the new Phenoms. Yet we still hope for an AMD breakthrough.

Let's hope theese guys will come up with some good ideas.

[burazekun]

Technically,

I dont know where you got your information, but please allow me to correct you in some aspects of your speach. Lets start off on the 8800gt 8600gt concept you had.

First let me post a link:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The 8800gt is a new manufacturing process with inclueds soem features never seen in the previous cores. It is built on the 65nm arcitecture instead of the 0.08µ or the 0.09µ. This means it has little relation to the originals before it and has approximately twice the number of transistors then the 8600gt and has an extended power requirement, requiring one standard standard 6-pin PCIE power cord unlike the 8600gt. The power requirements are higher then the 8600gts by up to 47 watts.

As for the AMD verse the Core 2 Duo. The Core 2 Duo stops at the Allendale 4500 which sells for $124. Where then it is called a Pentium Dual Core, which opperates off the Allendale arcitecture. And as the link below will show, the Pentium Dual Core and the AMD 64 X2 have simular performance with AMD being more effecient and as we expected the Pentium having a slight performance edge.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In respects to that, there are more all in one solutions inlcuding the one I mentioned in this thread about the 780g chipset. Offering better AMD solutions then intel motherboards and offering them for generally cheaper prices, 10-25 dollars cheaper depending.

In my opinion, AMD doesn't have the win, but it has won the entry level spectrum and competes at the mid range.

As for hitting on ATI in the Mid Range sector. I would like to ask you to veiw this link as well.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is no denying the 9600gt's power, but I am still ok with ATI.

I personally use a ATI HD 2600xt with 256 megs DDR4 from MSI. My 3DMark 06 scorer was just under 10,000.

My system is old using:

Pentium D 805 overclocked to 3.6ghz air cooler.
Abit AW8D motherboard utilitizing the 975x intel chipset. Sadly I cant use the Core 2 Duo arcitecture.
2 gigs of Patriot DDR2 667ghz ram
HD 2600xt 256DDR4
3x250gig Maxtor Maxline III's
Samsung 20x SATA Dual Layer DVD burner
Antec P180 case and a Rosewill 500watt powersuply

I'm happy with it, but I am looking to conserve on power by getting a AMD 770 or 790x/fx chipset and a AMD X2 4200 or the Quad core. Laugh if you may, but I do like to save on my energy bills. It's better then my hoggy 975x chipset and my 136 watt demanding processor.

[nickasummers]

I use Intel for my cpu and ATI for my gpu. As far as i can tell ATI video cards are roughly equal in power for lower price. I have an ATI HD 2900 PRO that I got for less than an 8800gt which according to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. is roughly equal.

My computer has
Intel core 2 duo E6750 2.66GHz @ 3.2GHz (stock cooling)
2 gig of ddr3 1066 ram
HD2900Pro
500gig I don't know the maker hard drive
Antec Sonata II case
some off brand 600watt power supply (it only costed $30 and it hasn't blown up yet! actually it had some reviews saying it lasted a year and was still working for some people. My dad bought one as a spare PSU)

I like the ATI Video card and i hope they keep up the good work

edit: humorously enough, my friend has a computer with an AMD processor and an Nvidia video card.

[burazekun]

I remember reading an article that said that many people prefered the picture and movie quality that came from ATI over nVidia graphics solutions. I like your setup though Nickasummers. Though would you really want to risk those kinds of parts if the powersuply decided to blow? If it did, it could cause damage to many of your computer components. Last one that blew on me, I lost 2 gigs of ram, they wouldn't work. Decided to go with Rosewill or more reputable manufacturing companies like thermal take, cosiar, antec, so I wouldn't have to pay another 160 dollars to replace the ram. Good news is.... ram is cheaper these days.

[nickasummers]

Good news is.... ram is cheaper these days.

no kidding, you can get two 2gig sticks from newegg for 60.99 after rebate.

[1OFMANY]

It's better then my hoggy 975x chipset and my 136 watt demanding processor.

Go with a DP35DP intel mobo and a Q9450 or E8400.

[pavman]

My apologies if you've already discussed this, wish I would have seen this thread earlier to contribute.

From what I recall in an article I read in the last 6 months, the newer multi-core architecture and Intel's capacity to create the smaller multi-core chips, having double-digit numbers of manuf. facilities, decimates AMD's capacity to create anywhere the same volume of chips, having somewhere around 2 - 5 manuf. facilities setup for the architecture. Something to do with microns and technical chip related nomenclature blah blah blah.

Bottom line is... Intel will *eventually* screw it up. In fact, in many ways, they already have. I mean, I don't really see much performance increases over some of the old P4 chipsets, and for a while there the old P4 architecture was still really expensive, which tells me that either the market doesn't see a performance improvement to justify investing in new hardware, or that there is no real performance difference. Adding multiple cores doesn't really seem to produce much more performance increase for workstations running windows, and it seems like they've pulled a switcheroo with regards to bus speed with the newer chipsets. So, some might argue until the software catches up with the hardware, dual-core won't really be utilized efficiently.

And until they realize that there are folks who understand that when you go from an architecture with a high bus speed to one with a dual-core, but lower bus speeds, the market perception, at least, rejects it from a performance standpoint.

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that Intel decided to come out with 8 million different product lines for their chipsets, and moved away from the clock speed as the identifier and towards a more shady way of describing the processor. Upside is, the P800D has a 2MB L2 cache :) or something along those lines...very nice.

I am thoroughly impressed with my AMD system tho. First AMD ever, and I've been building systems for many years.

For instance.. I have an AMD FX57 system 2.8Ghz with an 800mhz bus, 2GB of ram, SATAII, etc. I built this about a year or two ago. I also replaced a bad dual-celeron Linux system (lets hear it for the ABIT BP6 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) with a P800D that has 1GB of DDRII. Its a dual core system, but I don't really see *why* the bus speed for memory is 400/533mhz vs the older technology @ 800mhz. Its almost as if they've got an elaborate shell game going on with all their different "products" and renaming everything to make it more time consuming for the consumer to compare apples to apples. IMHO, of course.

I was a bit disappointed to find that Intel changed how the chip sits in/on the mobo. The LGA775 chips don't have pins on them, rather they just sit on pins in the mobo. So it brings the mobo price up while dropping the chip prices. I would think this has a higher likelyhood of failure over the life of the chip, as I would think pins tend to wear out the chip contact more quickly. And the fact that there's a mondo-honkin fan/heat-sink combo on top of it just makes me think they need to come up with a better solution to the problem of heat. I mean, when the fan/heatsink is so heavy that it starts to warp the board over time, let's face it...we have design issues.

[athenian200]

I've been worried about AMD for a long time now. It seems like they're not keeping up with Intel at all. I mean, they just barely got a Quad-core processor out in time, and as far as I know, they haven't even switched to 45nm process technology yet.

My concern is whether they can possibly improve their design fast enough... as well as Intel's doing, I just don't see it.

On the other hand, I have heard rumors about the way Intel changed pin layout on the processors recently causing them to fail sooner... in addition to more thermal problems.

[Sylvanus]

I've been worried about AMD for a long time now. It seems like they're not keeping up with Intel at all. I mean, they just barely got a Quad-core processor out in time, and as far as I know, they haven't even switched to 45nm process technology yet.

My concern is whether they can possibly improve their design fast enough... as well as Intel's doing, I just don't see it.

On the other hand, I have heard rumors about the way Intel changed pin layout on the processors recently causing them to fail sooner... in addition to more thermal problems.

They really don't have the money to spend on research like Intel does. Intel spends more money on R+D than the GNP of some countries. It's really hard to compete with that, there have been unsubstantiated rumors of a buyout from IBM or private ownership. They've been losing massive amounts of money for the last year and they claim they will be profitable this quarter, but who knows by how much or if at all.

[burazekun]

They really don't have the money to spend on research like Intel does. Intel spends more money on R+D than the GNP of some countries. It's really hard to compete with that, there have been unsubstantiated rumors of a buyout from IBM or private ownership. They've been losing massive amounts of money for the last year and they claim they will be profitable this quarter, but who knows by how much or if at all.

AMD is a company that could make a profit if they were to invest right now in their strong suites, entry and mid range processors. Also they are the only ones with a chipset supporting native quad GPU support. The AMD 790fx. And when playing games, if you have a system that could tolerate the processor demand of four GPU's, it is a good system. But AMD helped out with that aspect as well.

Now let me take a break here, as I want to mention that I am sounding like a covert AMD fan and with me saying I have been rooting for Intel for some time. This makes me a oxymoron. I want to clarify, I am impressed with the options avalable to the AMD with the chipsets they have released. All in one solutions that simply come off as great ideas is the 7050, 690g, and the 780g chipsets. First one made with nVidia. I have built and sold four 7050 systems to date. Doesn't sound like much but I dont own a actual bussiness. But all the systems run stable and strong, none of them have failed and all perform well playing games like Supreme Commander and Half Life 2 without problems.

As for buying the new Wolfdale proc, I am holding off on that. That isn't worth the money, buying a processor that only has a marginal performance increase for 50 dollars more isn't in my check book. I can get a AMD Phenom for 30 cheaper and it work better then it, but not as good as the conroe quad which is in a simular price bracket as the Wolfdale.

This is what I am looking at:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With this Proc:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is what interests me if I bought a Core 2 Duo
Mortherboard:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and
Processor:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You can see the price difference. I have firmly beleived in only having what you need. As it is, the AMD 64 x2 performs better then the Pentium D. You have to stress the Pentium D parts to get close to Core 2 Duo's. So it'll still be an upgrade and my electric bill will thank me. And remember, being Wolfdale is of the 45nm architecture doesn't mean it uses 45watts it's just like every Conroe, higher demands with load.

[Sylvanus]

You can see the price difference. I have firmly beleived in only having what you need. As it is, the AMD 64 x2 performs better then the Pentium D. You have to stress the Pentium D parts to get close to Core 2 Duo's. So it'll still be an upgrade and my electric bill will thank me. And remember, being Wolfdale is of the 45nm architecture doesn't mean it uses 45watts it's just like every Conroe, higher demands with load.

Many of the newer Intel products coming out are designed specifically for the gamers and high performance industry needs that are willing to spend $1000+ in order to get the best processor available. Unfortunately that isn't a huge market, so they will lose some business to AMD when the prices are approxiamtely the same but AMD can produce more configuration options. Unlike Conroe however the new 45nm CPU's were made using the Hi-K process, which is supposed to make a big difference in gate leakage and therefore lower power consumption. True it will use more power with load, it will use less power at full load than its predecessors. How much less, I'm not sure, but for most people it's not enough to make them go out and spend $1000+ just to save a few watts.

[burazekun]

Many of the newer Intel products coming out are designed specifically for the gamers and high performance industry needs that are willing to spend $1000+ in order to get the best processor available. Unfortunately that isn't a huge market, so they will lose some business to AMD when the prices are approxiamtely the same but AMD can produce more configuration options. Unlike Conroe however the new 45nm CPU's were made using the Hi-K process, which is supposed to make a big difference in gate leakage and therefore lower power consumption. True it will use more power with load, it will use less power at full load than its predecessors. How much less, I'm not sure, but for most people it's not enough to make them go out and spend $1000+ just to save a few watts.

I like how well that was put. I just wanted to add my tid bit of apreciation.

[Sylvanus]

780g-changes-graphics-game (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

AMD RELEASED THE 780G chipset yesterday, and it is going to change the graphics game. The firm has done the seemingly impossible - made an integrated graphics part that does not immediately draw ridicule from all sides. It is actually good.
...
How well did it do? Right out of the box, no tuning at all, it hit 1197 on 3DMark06. Before you sniff that you can beat that with a 8800GTX, well, keep in mind that this is a $89 CPU on a sub-$100 board. Think about that, four-digit 3DMark06 scores for under $200, that is amazing.

This is where AMD will start to make their comeback...

[Vortex]

Also, for all the LGA haters out there:

LGA is a *good thing*. Bent pins on CPUs are a serious issue. Its very easy to damage a CPU pin, and even fixing minor damage voids all warranties on it. By switching the pins to the Mobo, they are kept in a much more secure environment, thereby greatly reducing the likelihood of pin damage or breakage. The LGA on a CPU won't be damaged nearly so easily, so high value CPU's gain extra life. Even if the LGA pins on the mobo become damaged - mobo warranties are *much* better than CPU's, making any "increased cost" (seriously, its not adding anything) a net savings for the customer.



I always thought/considered that the concept of the LGA contacts was a much better idea over the older pin style. Just seems like a better way to be making electrical contact between chip and socket

[Caramel]

I wish Intel would set a release date for the Nehalem processors. Or at least give out a bit more information..

My current pc (Athlon 64 3000+, 2 gig memory, 6800Ultra) needs to be replaced big time. But its a waste of money to get a Wolfdale if the Nehalem will be out in a few months. :/

[1OFMANY]

Here is your "energy concerns" compared:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Forget anything you ever read about Pentium D. Throw it away unless you like to overclock etc..

Its all about Core™ Architecture. The Core 2 Duo is my choice but if you like a quad the 45nm is a better product. Uses less power, generates less heat, larger L2 cache.

[Vortex]

Why do people even mention Pentium Ds? They're based on the P4, had a *very* limited life, and failed miserably. I'd wager most forumites have never seen a true Pentium D - yes, they're that rare. They were also impossible to cool even at stock voltages. C2D isn't based on netburst, its a completely different processor. It's more like a Pentium III on crack than a Pentium 4 with lolburst.

[burazekun]

Why do people even mention Pentium Ds? They're based on the P4, had a *very* limited life, and failed miserably. I'd wager most forumites have never seen a true Pentium D - yes, they're that rare. They were also impossible to cool even at stock voltages. C2D isn't based on netburst, its a completely different processor. It's more like a Pentium III on crack than a Pentium 4 with lolburst.

Pentium D's where the start of the Core 2 Duo architecture, there were allot of other ends involved like the first Core architecture showed up as a 479 pin processor. But didn't make big till it was upgraded to the Core 2 architecture, and by that point the pentium D had already prooven the dual core structure was viable. That was where conroe came out. Pentium D was a processor, with it's half life of over a year. If you look for computers around the 400-500 dollar range you can probably find, from companies like ACER, Pentium Ds in use still. As for cooling, I am overclocking a Pentium D 805 from it's native 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz and running it at 87F or around 30.5C air cooled by Thermaltake CL-P0372.

Now for Wolfdale. It sucks, not worth its price. Conroe is still the better choice. Wolfdale is only a precursor to the next chip. Nephlim or whatever they called it. It's a tester chip for newer technologies working off the old. Remind anyone of the Pentium D? It should, Pentium D was only a test bed for an idea, just like Wolfdale.

I also checked out my options. I am putting out a budget of $200 dollars for an upgrade (99 motherboard and 99 for a processor). Not $460 (220 motherboard and 250 Processor).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you look there, you will see some benchmarks. Now the Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black actually performs admirably against the Conroe 6600 which is about 100 dollars more. Now the Black eddition is meant for overclocking so it is unfair to look at its stock speed.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
VS
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

People aren't made of money. Most of us have things like living to do. If I spend 460 for a upgrade like that I better be getting allot of use out of it.

Chips are also measured by the chip not per core. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is rated at 130 watts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vortex]

Pentium D's where the start of the Core 2 Duo architecture, there were allot of other ends involved like the first Core architecture showed up as a 479 pin processor. But didn't make big till it was upgraded to the Core 2 architecture, and by that point the pentium D had already prooven the dual core structure was viable. That was where conroe came out. Pentium D was a processor, with it's half life of over a year. If you look for computers around the 400-500 dollar range you can probably find, from companies like ACER, Pentium Ds in use still. As for cooling, I am overclocking a Pentium D 805 from it's native 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz and running it at 87F or around 30.5C air cooled by Thermaltake CL-P0372.

Now for Wolfdale. It sucks, not worth its price. Conroe is still the better choice. Wolfdale is only a precursor to the next chip. Nephlim or whatever they called it. It's a tester chip for newer technologies working off the old. Remind anyone of the Pentium D? It should, Pentium D was only a test bed for an idea, just like Wolfdale.


Wrong. Pentium D's are dual-core Pentium 4s on LGA775 socket. They are Netburst based and have *nothing* to do with the core architecture. The Core architecture is a derivative of Yonah, which is based on the Pentium M, which is a heavily modified version of the Pentium III.

Netburst is *soley* the Pentium 4 line, and got killed off because it sucked. Terribly.

Pentium D (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Core Architecture (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Pentium Ds have *nothing* to do with Conroe, or any other Core Proc. Period, the end.

As for wolfdale...

Anandtech Review (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Turns out, Wolfdale kicks serious ass. It overclocks to 4.0Ghz+ easily, its 45nm based, is faster clock per clock than the 65nm porcs, and has a MSRP of only ~$200. Basically, wolfdale is a tiny god if your looking for only two cores. If you want four, you'll either go with the Q6600, or the QX9650, which is essentially a quard core wolfdale.

Nehalem will be 45nm based, but have the memory controller moved to on-dye. It wont be released until late this year if Intel stays true to its roadmap, and you wont see non Extreme variants until spring 2009.

In other words, if your upgrading now, there is no reason not to get a wolfdale or Q6600 if your looking to put $200 into your CPU. At best, affordable nehalems will be a year away, and they will come with a complete North Bridge redesign, so you'll have to replace the mobo anyways, and likely be DDR3 based, so thats new ram as well.

There's always something newer and faster out a year from now.

Also, tomshardware is notoriously bad. Nobody really respects his benchmarks. IF, and thats a big IF, an Athlon 5000 Black can keep up with a Q6600, thats only because the Q6600 is quadcore, and the systems weren't comparable. Q6600's are both faster per clock and run faster overall - there is no real reason they should lose on an even playing field, and the Q6600 will leverage 2 more execution cores on top of the per-clock advantage.

[burazekun]

Pentium D did have something to do with Core. Not with the "Arcitecture" dirrectly, did you read? I said it was the test bed for dual core structure. That was what it had to do with Core 2 "Duo". They fixed the issues that came with Pentium D over the course of 800 and 900 series, then carried the project to the Core. That was why AMD yelled at intel for not having a "true dual core system" was during the Pentium D. Now Intel is using two Core 2 Duo's to make a quad core and AMD yelled at intel for that too. "Cant you grow your own quad cores? We are!"

Just remember that the Pentium M does use Pentium 4 technologies as well as Pentium III.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for the Wolfdale being overclocked to 4ghz, I saw a article some time back doing that with a e6600 Conroe. That's where things get expensive. Newer water cooling system, more expensive cases for airflow. Higher end ram meant for overclocking.

As for DDR3, a good stick of that is still 169 for 2 Gig's. Not eccenomical yet for marginal performance boosts.

And who said I wanted to pay 200 for a CPU? I said and showed you I was looking at a AMD X2 5000+ Black eddition which I plan to overclock. It was $94, $99 standard. A good AMD motherboard runs around $99-$160 as well.

Lets take a step back here as well, as I mentioned. We dont all have money burning our pockets away. Seems like you are a great Intel loyalist. I cant knock that out of you, I've rooted for intel myself. But AMD is a GREAT entry and mid range product. For extreme enthusiests like yourself this is a hard thing to grasp I suspect. Hell I have to bite my tounge to stop me from buying things I dont need. Super expensive motherboards, Processors with power I would never use and graphics cards whoes price is enough to pay for my funeral and warm enough to heat my house.

So take a step back, think conservatively, and think with the mind, "What do I truly need from a computer?" Then, whatever answer it is, that is your answer. When people ask around, or spread their curiosity, it is to find out what best suites them. Thinking on a balanced board is how companies thrive. How nVidia is capable or releasing GREAT graphics cards and in the same set, sell you shit. It's because they are aiming at every group base with the idea that there is a multitude of different needs and wont force an option down one pipe only offering one choice and open up with a multitude of strengths with varying degrees. So AMD has it's place seeing the Allendale didn't rock the lower market spectrum like people thought it would.

Let me remind everyone, Conroe is a good archetecture. But my arguements here have been to show people that AMD is not shit, and I have pointed out many features, tests, and other informations in regards to this arguement. I can say I am looking forward to the Nahelem

And in reply to Vortex's claims that Tomshardware is unreliable, I have collected Maxinum PC for some time as well and could dredge the CPU out of there I just used tomshardware because of their online avalability. A staple of storts.

[Vortex]

Again, there was no relation to the pentium D and the Core. Pentium D is netburst, Pentium Core is Core. Not only that, but Intel had long sense had dual core processors, both in the pentium III, Xenon, and Pentium 4 line (through SMP). Even if they needed a testbed, they wouldn't use a processor with a completely different and crappy architecture in netburst to test it!

The pentium M article confirms all this. They went back to the Pentium III and pimped it out. The only thing from the pentium 4 line it had was the bus interface (re: northbridge).

You could probably clock an E6600 to 4ghz, but nowhere near as easily. The 45nm processors have different chemicals used in the transistor gates, leading to dramatically reduced leakage and heat consumption. You can get pretty close to 4Ghz on air on a wolfendale, and Anandtech peaked them at 4.5Ghz on water.

Again, there are Intel proccessors that would beat out an X2 5000 in the $100 range. The black edition is actually rather redundant because those chips are running pretty close to maxed out already, so the unlocked multiplier doesn't help them much in OCing.

Also, $200 into the brain and heart of your system is not "enthusiast" level. Thats midgrade. Enthusiast are the QX9650s of the world. Making sure that the most critical component in your system isn't a junker isn't exactly a bad idea.

And for the last time, I'm *not* some intel loyalist. The last Intel system I built was on the Pentium II! I'm running, as I said on page one, an X2 4200 and a 7600GT! FFS, looking at the benchmarks and the price/performance levels, and saying Intel rapes AMD is not fanboism, its the objective truth.

I'm not interested in changing peoples buying decisions in a thread based around AMD's lack of competitiveness. If you want specific build help, make a thread about that system. AMD *is* shit right now, they fail at every objective standard, and aren't even on 45nm processes yet. Just because their cheap and their products still work (save phenom), doesn't mean their actually worth buying. The performance and cost efficencey of Intel is an utter smackdown right now.

Anandtech is a staple. TomsHardware has exagerated tests in the past and has poor testing control. Major computer forums (2cpu, extreemesystems, etc) would not take a TH review at face value for these reasons.

[burazekun]

Again, there was no relation to the pentium D and the Core. Pentium D is netburst, Pentium Core is Core. Not only that, but Intel had long sense had dual core processors, both in the pentium III, Xenon, and Pentium 4 line (through SMP). Even if they needed a testbed, they wouldn't use a processor with a completely different and crappy architecture in netburst to test it!

The pentium M article confirms all this. They went back to the Pentium III and pimped it out. The only thing from the pentium 4 line it had was the bus interface (re: northbridge).

You could probably clock an E6600 to 4ghz, but nowhere near as easily. The 45nm processors have different chemicals used in the transistor gates, leading to dramatically reduced leakage and heat consumption. You can get pretty close to 4Ghz on air on a wolfendale, and Anandtech peaked them at 4.5Ghz on water.

Again, there are Intel proccessors that would beat out an X2 5000 in the $100 range. The black edition is actually rather redundant because those chips are running pretty close to maxed out already, so the unlocked multiplier doesn't help them much in OCing.

Also, $200 into the brain and heart of your system is not "enthusiast" level. Thats midgrade. Enthusiast are the QX9650s of the world. Making sure that the most critical component in your system isn't a junker isn't exactly a bad idea.

And for the last time, I'm *not* some intel loyalist. The last Intel system I built was on the Pentium II! I'm running, as I said on page one, an X2 4200 and a 7600GT! FFS, looking at the benchmarks and the price/performance levels, and saying Intel rapes AMD is not fanboism, its the objective truth.

I'm not interested in changing peoples buying decisions in a thread based around AMD's lack of competitiveness. If you want specific build help, make a thread about that system. AMD *is* shit right now, they fail at every objective standard, and aren't even on 45nm processes yet. Just because their cheap and their products still work (save phenom), doesn't mean their actually worth buying. The performance and cost efficencey of Intel is an utter smackdown right now.

Anandtech is a staple. TomsHardware has exagerated tests in the past and has poor testing control. Major computer forums (2cpu, extreemesystems, etc) would not take a TH review at face value for these reasons.

So as I read, you are all paper. You favor Anandtech who is biased in their articles in one direction or another with little middle ground and proper critism. The reason I stopped with them a year and a half ago.

Second, Allendale is a low midrange with their release of the 4000 series processor line. And the Pentium Dual core 2000 is the entry level. The 6000 series forward is upper-midrange and higher end up to ethusiest levels. Of course I expect you to throw more pages back with vague descriptions and assults against my choice in material that follows through with my own tests and tests of other individuals, all with varrying degrees of that same result all without comprehending what I said and have repeated with the fear of insanity showing its self with the repition.

That asside, Pentium D was NOT a test bed for the "CORE" Architecture which was already in developement. It was a test bed for a "home consumer based Dual Core CPU system" where the information and flaws of the test bed were weeded out. The idea to squish the two Pentium 4 Smithfeilds is also from the same Isreal research that made Core architecture, and used the same method to make a quad core out of conroes that was used to make the Pentium D's.

Now I never said that the E6600 or Q6600 where ethusiest chips, I said you where an ethusiest. The E6600 is a Upper Midrange with the Q6600 being used in many ethusiest machines because with overclocking it is more cost effecient then the Q6700 and QX6850 releases.

You should never have to pay more then 170 for a midrange peice of equipment. True midrange Conroe processors are the E6550 and lower costing 189 and less but dont have the same power potentiel as the Conroe E6600. Entry level is the 2000 series Pentium Dual Core and the Low end is the 4000 series Allendale which is based of the defective 6300 Conroe processor. No real difference between the two from what I read.

Sad as it is, the Allendale competes with the AMD where AMD is more effecient. AMD doesn't have any good Upper Midrange and higher, that was established, that was what this thread was about. But is has great "ENTRY" and "Mid Range" processors that are capable of doing most of your computing needs. How do I know this? Because I build computers and test them relentlessly.

I remember the day when people came up to me, throwing stats and papers they read about the ATI HD 2600xt saying I should invest into a Geforce 8600gts.

I bought the ATI HD 2600xt on a whim and tested the card personally. I marked 9756 in 3D Mark 2006. The were impressed seeing their 8800GTS's were only slightly higher in comparisn ranging from the 9500-11000 range.

I've built low end computers with these ideas in mind. And had them playing games like "Bioshock" and "Lost Planet" in times where people were scrambling for new hardware to play them. But most people dont need ball busting performance to do what they want.

Right now, AMD/ATI offer the best solutions for media and basic gaming. Doesn't matter how much you rub a greased up conroe or wolfdale in my face saying "This is great". I have said they where great, but not worth the money if I dont need that power. I can play every game I wanted to play now. So if I "upgraded" to the superior AMD (as compared to the Pentium D which you bashed back with, in pharaphrased, "Conroe stupid, AMD sucks in comparisn".) And looking at the price bracket and the power AMD has for it's bracket and to factor in the pathetic Pentium D 805.

Get a good overclocker motherboard for aobut $100-$130 and a AMD Black for about $100. I can push later for the power I need. It'd be another two years before something worthwhile comes out where then I'd need to upgrade again. And at that point Nahelem would be in my price range and hopefully there would be better options then the current entry level and ethusiest boards intel has. I said that the X38/X48 impress me, but so does the 770 AMD chipset and the 790FX AMD chipset. The price difference is too great, 790fx supports 4x16 PCIE 2.0 graphics cards which compensate for the processors inability to compete with Conroe's high end selection and are more energy conservative then the X38 which was one of my opening arguements. AMD has more energy effecienct solutions.

Just because you feel all alone thinking that your AMD 64 X2 4200 Windsor processor isn't doing what you want it to. Doesn't mean that it's the processors fault. I worked on a project for a company called GAP Technologies to improove the effeciency of their computers and increase reliability and security. It's amazing just what crap a comptuer collects. And how much a used hardware, like a hard drive can gum up over a long period of time.

This is experience over your paper reports.