4p

[lemzip]

i agree with Wayne, AMD are doing so well at the moment for what you actually get for your money.

 

[ghop]

I had the decision recently between the AMD P2 965 and the Intel i5 750. I gathered that they were pretty much identical for gaming but i5 has the edge elsewhere so I thought, I'll spec up what I would get if I were to go on either platform and the AMD setup worked out a pound cheaper. So I went i5

AMDs lower end are absolutely fantastic at the moment though. If I was getting a budget system, AMD would be my number 1 choice but Intel are still dominating the high end imo.

 

[JonJ678]

No offence taken, it was an interesting reply. I apologise if it came across as fanatical support of f@h, in truth I wouldn't buy hardware solely for this purpose as I don't have that much faith in Stanford doing anything useful with the data. However the banter in the sub forum (which indeed I spend little time in) is good and it keeps my room warm in winter. I suppose I should post my certificate. This zealot has fewer work units than you do

I'm running two 8800gt in order to use three monitors, but they're not folding at present as the ppd from an 8800gt running quadro drivers (seems to ruin it relative to geforce for some reason) in linux is about 1.2k and a lot of hassle, and the air cooled one is loud. System is nominally built for cad, not for folding or gaming.

That said, I was using f@h as a cpu benchmark, not as a justification for buying things. Most benchmarks are centered around gaming, super pi is a bit irrelevant to hang an argument off, and spec view perf would be widely ignored. So I settled on smp folding as a more widely understood cpu benchmark to make the point that for cpu performance the two systems are on level pegging, and the comparison not as conclusive a win for amd as you imply. I suppose I could spec an i3 system which matches the amd for gaming at the same price point, but as I'm not interested in gaming performance I'll leave that for someone else.

Your OP lists motherboard, ram, quad core processor for each side. If the required processor performance is low enough for the amd to be sufficient then yes it makes sense. However if you want cpu performance, the intel is considerably quicker than the amd. The argument that these amd components cost half as much as the intel is weakened by these being "bundles" rather than systems. If standardised case/psu/hard drive/graphics card are included in the pricing the amd is perhaps 70% the cost of the intel one for 70% the cpu performance.

You asked beh if he'd notice the system changing to an amd quad, I'll answer this as well. The occasional old game I play would show no difference. Folding would slow considerably, I'd probably notice the ppd drop but I might not. 3D modelling would be more frustrating, as I would be restricted to simpler models if I wanted to maintain a usable frame rate. Finite element analysis and rendering would show a considerable increase in time per operation, but as I don't currently run the same calculations repeatedly I wouldn't notice the slow down. I'd resent it once I found out though.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Big.Wayne I have followed your posts on here quite a bit

Hey Duke!

I have been reading your posts also, it's a two way thing!

I'm not sure where this sudden AMD fan boy bit has come from? Every post is about AMD. Got a new job?

Although it's entirely off-topic it's a fair question although I find it funny you are suspicious and are questioning my motives!

Any advice or opinions I give are entirely my own, made with good intentions and zero financial incentive other than to save money for myself and save money for my forum buddies. I do not know how valid my viewpoint is hence this thread to discuss things more. I am very self analyzing and try to become aware of what makes me tick, why I do things, what motivates me etc and to be honest I have struggled with justifying premium hardware purchases for years but didn't really like to break away from the pack, on the few occasions I did and dabbled in Intel Budget land I found the pickings very poor and I couldn't get my tweaking fix using a cheap Intel board . . .

However now the rules have changed, the newer £60 AMD chipsets are brilliant, all the bells and whistles an enthusiasts would want (PCI-E 2.0 x16, SATA RAID 0/1/10, eSata, DX10.1 IGP, HDMI, etc) and I am left feeling that INTEL have been charging me too much . . . . and the budget CPU's are the same thing, triple/quad cores, virtualization tech, fast IMC, hardware interoperability etc

I just think INTEL could do better, give us more for less cost £££ and I see no other way to achieve this than to buy products from AMD, It's a total win/win situation for me personally, I have a great computer that fits all my needs well and for a very reasonable price *and* if enough people stop buying Intel then they will get the message and produce & price products accordingly.

Logically if the AMD hardware can satisfy my enthusiast needs it stands to reason they can satisfy most other enthusiasts needs as well . . . however for one reason or another a lot of people are not being made aware of the great value to be had from choosing a much cheaper product . . . OcUK don't stock the Athlon II X3, why do you think this is?

Anyway simply put . . . Intel work for us, not the other way around, we are the ones who call the shots not them. If you feel content with their products and their prices then fair enough, however if you do feel their products are not aimed at you or are perhaps over-priced then do something about it . . . buy AMD!

 

[alexx]

amd had it now intel do until it swings the other way thats just how it is (for me anyway)

 

[Happy]

Hey Happy!

I know you are a keen folder having read many of your posts, I am interested to know a little more though . . . Would you consider yourself a competitive folder first and a doer of good deeds second or the other way round . . .

What I am keen to know is do you personally get the same *high* from PPD as say a competitive bencher chasing the 3DMark world record and is the extra expenditure justified because of this? i.e is that one of the things that gives you a kick . . parp parp etc

I've always folded on the side and have never thought of designing and building a computer based around a lust for PPD, having said that I have choosen a nVidia graphics card in the past over an ATI card because I found the nVidia card was just so much better with the GPGPU stuff but that was a secondary decision, the primary reason was to game and in that respect I am happy with either an nVidia or ATI card but the nVidia card just edged it for its better folding capability . . .

Thanks for your feedback, it's always interesting to hear peoples thoughts!


Well it sounds like you got the right hardware for the tasks you run but take my word on it that the newer AMD kit is really nice . . . I bought one of their budget Athlon II X3's a few months ago and I'm impressed, really nice product at an incredible price, this is in fact the cheapest processor I have ever bought in my life and I was not expecting too much . . . however my expectations were not only met they were exceeded . . . coming from a 4GHz Dual Core Wolfdale I have not noticed my PC suddenly lagging up, I'm not left wanting in anyway and ended up with about £80 more in my pocket after moving from LGA775 to AM2+

Just a humble triple core @ 3.6GHz air cooled costing less than 25% of the asking price of the cheapest Intel® Core™ i7 . . . terrible value I tell you!

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7199/athloniix3bigwayneoverc.gif[IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]

I suppose in honesty I would have to say that it's the competitive factor that keeps me folding primarily, but assisting in the research is also an interesting secondary role. I suppose your right to make a link with people's interest in overclocking, like others trying to get the last MHz out of their rigs, I likewise try to maximise my PPD. I feel the extra expenditure I incurred as a result of upgrading is surpassed by the new benefits - After the sale of my older gear, it only cost £250 for the upgrade to my i7/UD5/12GB rig.

[IMG]http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo21/Happy_Ocuk/Clipboard01-39.jpg?t=1263942413

However the purchase of my i7 rig can be justified for a couple of reasons, mainly for similar reasons JonJ described earlier. I like yourself share an interest in efficiency, I had two rigs folding previously, and in a small room they generated lots of heat, used more electricity and took up lots of space.

I therefore decided the best approach to solve this - whilst keeping my PPD as high as possible, as well as reducing my electricity consumption and heat output would be to upgrade to a single rig. The i7 happened to fit the bill nicely, and my PPD is down to around 26K now. However with the i7 I now also have the option to run the 'large' workunits meaning my output to be pushing 36K+ PPD from the one rig, something no other single socket C2Q/AMD PII/i5 system would be able to achieve. (Maybe a very highly clocked i5, but the lack of bonus points for a brisk completion of the work unit would mean it wouldn't really be worth while, you may as well just use the standard SMP option)

I can only agree with you on the Nvidia front, they are so much more efficient than ATI cards for F@H (though Stanford being lazy with optimising the ATI client isn't helping!) However for F@H the i7 is an ideal chip as no AMD comes close even with their counterparts in the C2D/C2Q/i3/i5 range.

I can't argue the fact that AMD offer outstanding performance for the money, i3 is also looking very appealing for that reason also


Edit:- Wayne I have seen you in the DC section every now and then but it doesn't appear you fold for team 10, are you with CPC? Just to support my competitive side of folding

 

[jamesgoss]

Hi guys, with all this talk of AMD value for money you've piqued my interest; if I can get a quad cpu/mobo/ram combo and get another 4870 for crossfire for the same price as just an i750 setup, it's a no-brainer.

I am surprised at how willing I was to fork out £300 odd for an i750 setup, but then I stopped to think: "Why does it still cost that much just for 3 components?" I suppose it doesn't have to if you go the AMD route. So I find myself agreeing with Big.Wayne even though deep down I'd probably want superior performance for a disproportionate premium.

Is there a review that comprehensively shows performance between the latest AMD quads and Intel CPUs? One could then make a choice as to price/performance.

Just thought I'd share my thoughts, rambling though they are.

 

[skippy2421]

It’s funny that I stumbled across this thread as I was thinking about this the other day. I've got to admit like you Big Wayne Intel just aren’t doing it for me right now with their new chips (atom aside). If I was to upgrade now (which I won’t anyway as my current rig is fine) I’d probably go for a phenom 2 right about now.

Admittedly the Intel chips are very impressive performance wise but I just could never justify spending that much for the very little gains I would actually see. (I only really game and a bit of maths/stats with a little encoding thrown in).

I imagine I’m not the only one that's like this but I’ve had my q6600 for some time now and it really shows no sign of struggling and I haven't even clocked mine all that high. So I’m left thinking what is the point of these chips other than these small niche markets which you pointed out earlier. As a result I really struggle to find myself excited by any of the new chip advancements of late as they all seem rather pointless to the average user. However this could go the other way as I think Intel and their atom could go far especially when combined with nvidia's ion chip. I find myself spending a lot more time following the news on their new mobile/energy efficient chips.

hehe seems people have noticed your new love for AMD especially the new athlon II, damn fan boys get everywhere Jokes aside you do have a very valid point most of the time in the fact the athlon II will manage what most people want to do and save you a great deal of money in the process. However most people want the biggest and best regardless of whether they need it or not so I suppose the Intel chips will continue to sell well.

 

[Marine Iguana]

Ahh folding, the i7 fits so perfect into this role I think, I got my i7 because a won a motherboard I was going to upgrade to i7 anyway so it just made the process quicker for me.

And sometime next year i will upgrade again, I have a illness I think but I have been that way since i was 14 when i had a k-6 400Mhz overclocked to 450Mhz with a voodoo 2 SLI , My e-peen was on form that year

My first Intel CPU was a E6550 had always had a AMD up till then and just wanted to try a different CPU and i was rubbish at overclocking the 64 bit AMD chips dunno why maybe i was just me. So now the AMD ones are not good enough for my current uses for my rig which includes gaming when i have time

 

[Sylver123]

I may be wrong but maybe one of reasons why Intel`s higher pricing is because no real competition from AMD.

Hopefully AMD will be more competitive in 2011 in all areas of the market, from low end to high end so Intel doesn`t get a chance to price their chips whatever thay like.

 

[easyrider]

This clocks to 4ghz + and 50 quid more gets you a i5 750 trashing that AMD spec in its path.

Your point wayne?

Ram AMD home as much as you like. But its getting boring. Intel offer great bang for buck...Its just that you are wearing AMD Blinkers my friend.

There is a reason AMD are cheaper...They have to be in order to compete in the Market...Its not rocket science. It really is that simple.

 

[skippy2421]

This clocks to 4ghz + and 50 quid more gets you a i5 750 trashing that AMD spec in its path.

Your point wayne?

Ram AMD home as much as you like. But its getting boring. Intel offer great bang for buck...Its just that you are wearing AMD Blinkers my friend.

There is a reason AMD are cheaper...They have to be in order to compete in the Market...Its not rocket science. It really is that simple.

you can clock an i3 to 4ghz with no cooler? you really are a talented clocker easyrider that's another 30 quid on that spec of yours for 2 of them.

as for the 50 quid comment for i5? i'm not sure where you are going with that one. Surely same logic can be applied to the AM3 where you'll end up with a phenomII x4, and the price gap will continue to expand in doing so as the phenomII will only require you add another 40 for the 955.

Admittedly we are in an enthusiasts forum so it's expected the i5 and co will be popular choices but i think what Wayne is getting at is if you're only gaming or basic web stuff the athlonII x4s will give you a cheap quad core option (thus allowing greater spend on GPU if needed).

You would only have a tiny sacrifice in peformance, or in some cases an increase if the budget saved allows you to step up in the GPU stakes. Don't get me wrong i'm not trying to say the i5 is a bad chip easyrider because it's really not, i think the point to this thread is how come whenever say a £600 spec is asked for i5 and PII are always out there but the athlonII is quickly disregarded. I think it makes Big Wayne sad his beloved chip is ignored so much

You are right in saying AMD are only cheaper as it's the only way they can compete though because it really is. They're nowhere near the performance of i7 right now so what else are they to do.

hmmm i should hang around the cpu forum more, atleast you get a more civilised debate as oppose to the graphics forum where it's all banner waving with insults flying around.

Edit: Just to add on the above as i prematurely hit submit, with i5 price being as it is and AMD's placement of their chips i personally struggle to see the point in the i5 range. It may not be a view shared by others, obviously easyrider being one of these but it's just what i think at the moment. i3 and i7 clearly have their places but i think the i5 range might just be a little overpriced for what it actually is. I would also say i3 is a tad overpriced too at the moment but it's new so i'm not going to make too much of a fuss on that one right now.

 

[pieman109]

While I agree with easyriders thinking to some degree, how can you compare (pricewise) an intel "dualcore" with an "Athlon X4"? Ignoring the fact the amd system would be even cheaper, wouldn't the Athlon II X4 beat the i3 dualcore when rendering due to the extra two cores?

 

[JeffyB]

While I agree with easyriders thinking to some degree, how can you compare (pricewise) an intel "dualcore" with an "Athlon X4"? Ignoring the fact the amd system would be even cheaper, wouldn't the Athlon II X4 beat the i3 dualcore when rendering due to the extra two cores?

The i3 hyperthreads so although it has 2 physical cores it can run 4 threads, fantastic chip. It also has a lower tdp than the 620 so has great overclocking ability, seeing several forum members easily above 4ghz on air with the 530.

 

[SMAndy]

Just to throw my two pennies into the mix.

Intel and AMD are very different beasts. Both of them definitely have their place, and this is how I see it.

Intel: Much better for business PC's. They do process more than AMD's, but AMD always has had a reputation for being gaming processors. I know this hasn't changed since they first jumped on top with the old Athlon XP series. i7 chips are built for encoding/folding/CAD as the 8 threads it can handle actually helps there. When you're gaming, this is actually a hindrance (proof is that in most, if not all reviews, the i5 wins in gaming benchmarks).

AMD chips work perfectly fine in all situations. I'm running an x3 720BE at 3.5Ghz with 2.4Ghz HT and CPU-NB, with 1600Mhz RAM. Got a GTX260 with an 8800GT as a PhsyX card. I could possibly out-fold some people since the entire 8800 is used for physX, which equates to more than someone setting it on a single card (I think...) But I'm not a folder, I'm a gamer. I don't leave my PC on all day, and I don't want to have to close down programs when i want to play a game. Proof that my PC runs everything I want it to more than fast enough is that in all the games I play, i have the settings on very high on everything, and it still works fine.

Borderlands: Runs oh-so-smooth that since i updated to the latest nvidia drivers (complications with AA mean i had to turn that off) and now it runs faster than it ever has.

Dragon Age: Running this at 8x AA, and i never had a single bit of slowdown throughout one and a half playthroughs.

Portal: Kind of old now, but this always seemed more power hungry than other source engine games. Still runs brilliantly at high AA.

All older games that I play, i use the nvidia control panel to put 8xQ AA on, and I've not had a problem since...


Yes, Intel have their place. But I still think the price premium is because they're designed to be professional machines before they are enthusiast machines. Companies can afford to do it if they want their workstations to be fast. But I'm always going to be an AMD person because I can't justify the extra cost for something that will give me very little in terms of a noticeable boost. 60fps is the limit on most machines anyway!

If i were to get an intel setup at all, i'd get something like a C2Q, or an i5. I don't like Hyperthreading because of the performance drop in some situations. But the total cost of an intel setup is still too much to justify... My current setup with an X3 720 cost me in total £1300, but thats because I have a pretty expensive case, 2 £200 monitors, £200 of input devices, and I run my sound through a £400 hifi setup. (that £400 not included in my pc cost though!)

 

[Trunks9486]

For me the market is clear for each company. I will agree with the above poster on the new i5 processors and the i3s to a certain degree. They are too expensive for what they are, and i hate the fact that no model without the graphics is offered. Half the silicon on those processors is given to graphics that most of us in these forums will rarely use.

AMD needs to come close to intel in IPC, they are in the same situation that intel was with the P4, only they dont have the manufacturing advantages that intel had nor the money to burn through.

That said, i can't wait for Bulldozer and Sandy bridge, Nehalem was kinda boring ^_^

 

[Duke]

Hey Duke!

I have been reading your posts also, it's a two way thing!


Although it's entirely off-topic it's a fair question although I find it funny you are suspicious and are questioning my motives!

Any advice or opinions I give are entirely my own, made with good intentions and zero financial incentive other than to save money for myself and save money for my forum buddies. I do not know how valid my viewpoint is hence this thread to discuss things more. I am very self analyzing and try to become aware of what makes me tick, why I do things, what motivates me etc and to be honest I have struggled with justifying premium hardware purchases for years but didn't really like to break away from the pack, on the few occasions I did and dabbled in Intel Budget land I found the pickings very poor and I couldn't get my tweaking fix using a cheap Intel board . . .

However now the rules have changed, the newer £60 AMD chipsets are brilliant, all the bells and whistles an enthusiasts would want (PCI-E 2.0 x16, SATA RAID 0/1/10, eSata, DX10.1 IGP, HDMI, etc) and I am left feeling that INTEL have been charging me too much . . . . and the budget CPU's are the same thing, triple/quad cores, virtualization tech, fast IMC, hardware interoperability etc

I just think INTEL could do better, give us more for less cost £££ and I see no other way to achieve this than to buy products from AMD, It's a total win/win situation for me personally, I have a great computer that fits all my needs well and for a very reasonable price *and* if enough people stop buying Intel then they will get the message and produce & price products accordingly.

Logically if the AMD hardware can satisfy my enthusiast needs it stands to reason they can satisfy most other enthusiasts needs as well . . . however for one reason or another a lot of people are not being made aware of the great value to be had from choosing a much cheaper product . . . OcUK don't stock the Athlon II X3, why do you think this is?

Anyway simply put . . . Intel work for us, not the other way around, we are the ones who call the shots not them. If you feel content with their products and their prices then fair enough, however if you do feel their products are not aimed at you or are perhaps over-priced then do something about it . . . buy AMD!

Very good reply I wasn't suggesting that it was personal gain or anything )) but just seemed as if you just 'found' AMD or something

Anyway, I would also suggest them too. For a previous company (local PC shop) we used to build all our own systems, which looking back was very time consuming but most were AMD (many Socket A and then 754 systems). Since then I found the Intels better for the entry/med level but again recently now I work for myself, I don't really have time to build systems myself so for a company would just buy in a 'business PC' - the HP Pro range is good for this and comes with... Athlon II It was the second one supplied to a customer, the first was almost identical but was an entry level Core 2 Duo. I actually found the AMD a little quicker overall.

 

['Wes]

Nice read.

 

[Indy500]

You do realise you quoted an AMD basket that has two of everything, easyrider?

 

[easyrider]

You do realise you quoted an AMD basket that has two of everything, easyrider?

My intel basket is two of everything too.