4p

[pieman109]

@Phoenix
Less sarcasm from you Phoenix. Re-read my post, including the quote. I am responding to Wayne saying he hopes the amd will be quicker under some circumstances, with an argument to the effect that I can't think of a single example where the amd could be quicker than the intel.

I don't know how I can make the line regarding graphics cards clearer. The only circumstance in which the amd can be considered quicker is if it's combined with a better graphics card than the x58 system, and you only judge it by gaming performance.

I'm hugely irritated that you were too thick to grasp this the first time around, and by how you expressed your incomprehension.

@Pieman the flaw in what you're saying is that Wayne is repeatedly steering this away from a discussion on what system is the best value for money by refusing to permit discussion of any other processors. If the cheaper system is good enough then that clearly makes more sense. Restricting the discussion to Intel high end and AMD mid end while forbidding discussion of the i3 in particular prevents any further conclusions being made however.

I tend to agree with you in part, but what wayne is showing is cost disparity between lowend and high end components versus performance, ie: is it worth it? ignore the other combinations available and just using the two systems quoted, what is being demonstrated is the fact that you don't get twice the performance for twice the cost, you might get say, 20%-30% increase,( I don't know the exact figure but I'm sure some person might hazard a more accurate figure/s) for a 100% increase in cost. Hence my own analogy with the Cray super computer and the X4, course the cray will be a darn sight quicker, but would you consider it worth the increased cost?

Wether ppl here think that wayne is justified in only allowing the two sets of components being used that were quoted in the original post is a moot point, its his post and he can do what he likes with it as it were.

And like I said in me previous post, what about comparing cost versus performance between i3 and i7? I bet that would raise a few eyebrows.

 

[Big.Wayne]

No, I just had reasonably good data for the other two system and I was aiming at the i7 buyers not the i3 buyers! . . . If you think about it for a bit you will see a bit better hopefully . . . somebody should have gone off straight away and done that without expecting me to be able to collate all the data which is stll only starting to come through now . . .

Perceptions are an interesting thing!

[edit]

and from the limited data I had I believed the Athlon II X4 was a better multi-purpose system than the i3

 

[JonJ678]

Ah, I think I follow. Apologies for focusing on the amd vs intel side, and not on the mid vs high end part.

I fear I'd have to agree with the OP in this case then. If the amd is sufficient, then that makes the most sense. Computing tends to rely on bottlenecks though, it is the current situation that most tasks are not cpu limited which makes this deduction possible. When cpu limited, the high end looks like a much better buy. An i7 for gaming doesn't make all that much sense to me, but buying the amd for cad work if you can find the funds for an i7 doesn't make sense either.

X4 vs i3 is a closer comparison, both in terms of cost and performance, which I believe easy and I have been trying to point out in various ways. 920 vs 620 isn't an interesting comparison as the price gap and performance gap are both large, so which one you want is easily determined by what you use the computer for.

The same issue arises with i3 vs i7, large performance increase for large cost increase, you buy the faster one if you can benefit from it or if cost doesn't matter. Or if you've been mislead by marketing, which I suspect is why you chose amd vs intel.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Where was the Intel® Core™ i3 pimp? . . . was that easy crashing my thread!

In hindsight what was to stop anyone doing the same thing I did but like another showroom/thread instead of a Presidential style debate!

 

[Big.Wayne]

920 vs 620 isn't an interesting comparison as the price gap and performance gap are both large

No man . . not too Jonny-freshman who only knows the name Intel® Core™ i7 brand name like he knows the iPod name . . .thats how good Intel®'s marketing is . . the brand name is strong but the little guy is basically gonna be gaming and what not . . . . AMD products did not exist to these guys . . .i.e they had no exposure . . their not Pro's like you guys! . . . we saved them like £300+

 

[JonJ678]

Crashing perhaps, though I think he was trying to redirect it. The amd quad core vs the higher clocked hyperthreaded dual core, both using dual channel ddr3. Either is probably about right for gaming builds at present.

As gaming is the biggest use on these boards, probably followed by computationally difficult work, whether to buy i3/i5 or amd is a difficult choice which a lot of people need to make.

The choice is a lot simpler for me, I just want raw cpu power

If the objective to this thread was just to point out that amd processors work, though not as well as intel ones, then I can't help but feel you're preaching to the wrong crowd. Most of us are aware that looking at benchmarks before buying hardware is a good idea.

 

[Big.Wayne]

The choice is a lot simpler for me, I just want raw cpu power

Totally I see that but I think maybe the mistake your making is not seeing the actual punters needs who are not you?

The problem is up until a few weeks ago no-one was really talking about AMD with any Gusto . . . only really the machine that peaks at the top of benches get spoke about . . . . it's in our interests (You, Pieman, Myself, everyone elses) that AMD do well . . . .otherwise its only Intel and a stagnant market . . . the harder I push AMD the better and cheaper both Intel & AMD products we all get! . . . it's getting that balance redressed!

 

[JonJ678]

I tend to group people on here as gamers, people who want cpu power and don't care about graphics, and those who need neither of these but want it to be swift.

The first group should be keen on graphics cards and amd processors, the second on the x58 920, the third on a mix of older hardware overclocked as the newer hardware offer no improvement yet.

I suppose the main benefit to these forums is working out which group new people are likely to fit in and matching them to the appropriate hardware.

 

[PhoenixUK]

I tend to group people on here as gamers, people who want cpu power and don't care about graphics, and those who need neither of these but want it to be swift.

The first group should be keen on graphics cards and amd processors, the second on the x58 920, the third on a mix of older hardware overclocked as the newer hardware offer no improvement yet.

I suppose the main benefit to these forums is working out which group new people are likely to fit in and matching them to the appropriate hardware.

I'll put most people into one more different group:
" I have no idea what I need or what I want and I had previously a pentium 2 so I'll buy an i7 and 5970 to play games like CS 1.6 at 1024x768 so I can e-peen around my friends with 500fps benchmarks like the other xyz guy on the website ".

Those people have no idea what they're doing and probably wouldn't notice the difference between athlon II x2 and i7 965 under ln2 if you didn't tell me which rig is which but they know that they've seen the benchmarks showing a whooping 40% fps increase ( 100vs140fps) so they will buy it since it's better.

 

[JonJ678]

They're the gamers

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Many gamers are only running a single core or dual core processor under 3GHZ:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Around 75% of Steam users are using a dual core or single core processor and 80% have processors with clockspeeds under 3GHZ.

85% of Steam users are running their games on monitors with resolutions of 1680X1050 and under.

Steam has 20 million users AFAIK.

 

[Pneumonic]

They're the gamers

lol

 

[eyetrip]

This thread has made it to 11 pages with the "point" made in the OP?

Those price comparisons are just silly. Premium stuff has always been more costly. In addition to that I can put an I7 860 CPU with decent (recent) mobo, 4gb mem and CPU cooler together for around £420. A Phenom 2 965 BE with decent mobo, 4gb memory and CPU cooler will be around £350. Hardly twice the price for an Intel setup which still whips the 965 in general.

I don't think anybody has forgottten AMD are there, and while there may be some that push Intel over AMD for fan boy reasons, I think the majority of suggesting/purchasing decisions are made on best performance someone can get in a particular price bracket, in relation to tasks system is used for. Many also want to buy what will last them the longest.

Intel have the better processors, most thing considered, so should Intel fall into a price range suggested by someone, then they should be recommended.

And sure, we really need competition to keep the market at a nice level. What this means is that AMD need to step up their game. They were doing brilliantly with the Athlon X2's and dropped the ball big time after that.

Sure, the current AMD processors aren't terrible. They just aren't as good.

Hope I am making my point properly here. Feeling sick and struggling to string things together as well as I'd like.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like AMD has gained some overall market share in 2009 at the expense of Intel:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10441017-64.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...el_Amid_Rise_of_Microprocessor_Shipments.html

 

[Big.Wayne]

This thread has made it to 11 pages with the "point" made in the OP?

Hello ffallic,

thanks! . . . I think?

I don't think anybody has forgottten AMD are there

I kinda know what you mean but the reality is often different to how "we think"

Sure, the current AMD processors aren't terrible. They just aren't as good

I would argue that they are . . . at the very least I would make a case that they "are more than good enough" for most mortal computer users who have a finite budget and want maximum value for their groats!

Hope I am making my point properly here. Feeling sick and struggling to string things together as well as I'd like.

No problem, I think I understand where your coming from! . . . anyway get well soon and please feel free to ask anymore questions!

 

[Big.Wayne]

The amd quad core vs the higher clocked hyperthreaded dual core, both using dual channel ddr3. Either is probably about right for gaming builds at present

Not strictly true Jon, the AMD path works great with *existing* DDR2

I'd just like to point out I am operating on many different levels here although some of my points are not leaping out I'm hoping that some people will connect-the-dots themselves . . .

I personally don't think it's a good time to be buying DDR3 technology, at this stage the gains are relatively small for most of us and it seems a pity not to be able to make use of of favourite DDR2 sticks. This is of course a debatable point *but* for me personally I'm glad to have the choice!

8GB of DDR2, working well and gaining value every day! . . .

As gaming is the biggest use on these boards, probably followed by computationally difficult work, whether to buy i3/i5 or amd is a difficult choice which a lot of people need to make

I agree . . . although the more factors you introduce to the process the easier it becomes, price would be one such factor, hardware interoperability an other, of course one other factor here and one that won't be obvious to a great deal of young people is the Company Business Ethics! . . . this point could quickly be dismissed by some people but that does not mean it isn't an important factor to some . . . It is not within the scope of this thread to discuss the latter point but I just thought I would highlight the many possible *factors* that each seperate person may or may not have when it comes to their purchasing decisions!

The choice is a lot simpler for me, I just want raw cpu power

And I whole heartedly respect your personal reasons . . . I share this factor in common with you however I just want as much "raw cpu power" as I can afford . . . the only difference here is I personally (and many others) do not gain anything by spending above and beyond a certain amount of money for our personal needs/wants. This factoring process can sometimes result in an individual getting *stuck* when making decisions and it's often the slightest thing that can tip the scales enough for you to make a choice and get on with the fun part . . .ordering, building and using!

If the objective to this thread was just to point out that amd processors work, though not as well as intel ones, then I can't help but feel you're preaching to the wrong crowd

Well I believe you may be basing that statement on an *assumption*, I wouldn't want to say what is and what isn't "The Crowd" . . . we are all individuals after all, what appeals to you may not appeal to me . . or him or her!

Most of us are aware that looking at benchmarks before buying hardware is a good idea.

Hehe your getting warm Jon . . . your getting very warm! . . . I would also just add your statement is again based on an *assumption* . . . there are a great many people that would not really look at a benchmark and instead defer the logic process to an *expert* . . . like you (with your own set of values and your own set of personal needs) . . .

Many thanks for your continued discussion Jon, this is how I like it!

 

[FoxEye]

Wayne, sorry to barge in on your thread (again ), but...

x3 425 (£53 delivered)
ph2 555 (£77)

...which would you stick in a gaming rig? I know you're a bang-for-buck guy, so I'm asking you

If was spending £90+, I'd get the i3 530. So the ph2 555 is getting pretty borderline... but it could be a (power-hungry) quad... argh, too much pressure! Someone get me some coffee.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Off Topic:

Wayne, sorry to barge in on your thread (again )

Lol on one hand I should shoot you but on the other hand how flattering that you should come to me for help in making a decison! . . . even if it is off topic heh!

AMD® Athlon™ II X3 425
AMD® Phenom™ II X2 555

Tough choice mate . . . they are both beauties!

1. Claudia Lynx
2. Kate Beckinsale

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Who are the lovely ladies in the previous post??

Looks like Anandtech has had some success with the X2 555BE:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3730

 

[PhoenixUK]

If you're running on a cheap motherboard that cannot obtain high fsb a 555BE would be better due to unlocked multiplier. It also will most like offer better gaming performance but on the other hand 425 will do slightly better at encoding and stuff and might do better in multi threaded games ( not by much tho ).

They're both similar in performance, however the main question here is:
How much power you need?

The 555BE is probably better all around but is bit more expensive and the 425 could probably run anything you want it to anyways.

What is your current setup ?


-----
PS. I've seen the 435 around for 56inc