-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4p
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
So this is comparable to/better than a Q6600?
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,287
The difference widens. i7 can overclock to 4GHz without too much trouble, possibly more. The athlon will cap around 3.6GHz from what people have been posting around. Couple that with the lower IPC for the athlon causing the difference to widen. They are solid chips for their money, but other AMD chips offer better value IMO.
Yes and how farHello beh*,
thanks for the feedback!
couple of questions . . . . would you say your primary decision on the hardware you purchase is based on how well they overclock?
Reviews, forum member benchmarks. Quad core DB for exp.
As above.
Some office/enterprise apps, a little encoding and gaming.
If I was to send in a team of ninjas to swap out your Intel System Core for an AMD system Core while you slept would you notice the *downgrade* from the way you use a computer and the things you do? . . . if you would can you give me an example, hopefully something that isn't a benchmark of course
You ninjas would be taken out by my distributed home laser defense system.
I am under the impression that the latest AMD chips are cutting edge? . . .at least that's my personal perception, admittedly not as fast in some tasks as the latest Intel kit but the AMD stuff is certainly fast enough to blaze through most demanding workloads and then some . . . all this for a very reasonable price! . . . .we should be all over it in these forums as that's what we do I thought? . . . that is take a piece of coal and make it into a Diamond, not take a Diamond and make it into a better Diamond?
I'm happy to be proven wrong but my understanding is that a 4.2Ghz i7 920 D0 would out perform the highest spec AMD processor at present.
Each to their own of course but I hope to see even the most diehard power user picking up a little AMD box to evaluate/dip their tow in . . . sitting side by side with their 100% more expensive hardware I expect most will be suprised at how well the little pocket rocket keeps up!
Your right, but I'm afraid that this forum is rather bias, i.e., I would imgine that very few high end systems are utilised to their full potential but I guess most people dont care.
Fully respect your argument bud.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Why do people say that it's not worth upgrading from a Q6600 to an i7 but won't accept that for most people a 620 (better than the Q6600 in most cases) is so much better value for money and will easily fufill all their needs?
Suggesting one should upgrade from a Q6600 to a 620 is just plain silly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
That's not what i said - but you will accept that the Q6600 is still enough for pretty much anyone?
Yeh I'm not sure what your point is there mate. Are you saying that if you were after the performance that a Q6600 would provide then a 620 would be a better option? If so then I think this is the major point that Wayne is trying to get across - bang for buck. And if you’re not interested in the cutting edge, then I think you would be a fool to not consider AMD.
However, as I said above I think the majority of OCUK members are enthusiasts and thus strive to get the best kit, no matter what their intended use is. I know that is not logical, but neither is buyer behaviour. These types of 'I want the best' decisions are hardly limited to PC components.
However, as I said above I think the majority of OCUK members are enthusiasts and thus strive to get the best kit, no matter what their intended use is. I know that is not logical, but neither is buyer behaviour. These types of 'I want the best' decisions are hardly limited to PC components.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
True, but i think there's always a thrill you get from pushing 'cheap' kit (again, not just in computer hardware) to its limits.
They don't make up 85% of the market though, otherwise Intel would be price gouging even more than they are already, and AMD would be out of business.
I don't think this forum is Bias.
I think this forum members like to have the fatest kit out and really don't give a stuff about saving 100 quid on a chip if that means the golden 4ghz+ i7 crowd.
People work hard and want to buy hardware to enjoy.
Regardless of wether they use the power or not.
Fact is, a lot of the members here are still at uni don't have a job and need to watch the pennies.
Others drive BMW's have jobs and enjoy buying new kit.
There is no doubt that the Athlon is good value and bang for buck.
But thats not the point for most people. They want the enjoyment of clocking ,reaching the giddy heights of 4ghz with their chips and spending their hard earned cash ,not on value mid range products, but the fatest kit out.
I don't need a lecture in how or why I spend my money...I don't smoke, gamble, I drink sensibly now
and have disposable income. So what do I spend my money on? I don't need any more gear for my cinema room and I want to have some new tech..Why should I settle for mid range to save, what, a few quid?
I don't need to save a few quid.
I have money.
I work damn hard.
I want to enjoy the fruits of my labour..Not settle for the ordinary.
I could have bought a Ford mondeo and played safe and been boring.
I didn't I bought a BMW because I wanted to.
Why do purchases always have to be sensible?
Live a little, spend your money how you want and **** AMD.
I don't want to settle for the DEAL I want 4ghz i7 with 8 threads and I don't care if it cost'e me two crappy AMD systems.
I don't want 2 main stream PC's I want One cutting edge one. Its my choice.
Its my life,its my money.
Not anybody elses. I would buy and build an AMD 620 system for my kids do play on but for me..Why settle for second best when I can afford the BEST.
AMD are slower than INTEL thats why their chips are cheaper.
If AMD release a new CHIP thats faster then thats fine...They can make a comeback and all is good.
Until then AMD can go **** themselves....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Do we really have to have all these huge pictures? A link would suffice...
Some points you failed or chose not to answer in my previous post.
Wayne,
You're a gamer no?
Is i3 not faster than athlon II in games for the same price?
Is i3 not just a good solution for the same budget?
Hello Superewza,
oh dear, I thought the pictures would be good instead of clicking a link to a page full of advertising and what not, took me some time to compile them, optimise them, they are not too wide just tall . . . and you have broadband no?
If its a real problem I would be happy to accommodate if there are lots of users surfing on dial-up modems on an laptop!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Sure, half meg broadband. This many on a page it takes a while to load, and by the time they have i've got bored. Time wasted if you ask me
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,749
- Location
- Planet Earth
It is funny that no body seems to be mentioning the cost of the AM2+ and AM3 motherboards which tend to be far cheaper than their socket 1156 equivalents.
The fact that you have the choice between DDR2 and DDR3 too can also reduce the cost of a build if you have some fast enough DDR2 to hand already.
For £80 and under you can get a Crossfire capable 790X AM3 motherboard like the ASUS M4A79XTD EVO.
AFAIK the socket 1156 motherboards which can do Crossfire at PCI-E 2.0 8X are much more expensive.
Then you get the X2 550BE which offers most of the framerates of a Core i3 530 at a much lower price. OTH,there is also the X3 720 and X4 925 which also compete with the Core i3 530 and 540 at a similar or lower platform price.
The X4 630 is faster and cheaper in non-gaming tasks than the Core i3 530 too.
The fact is that the Athlon II and Phenom II as a platform can offer better value for money in many cases than an equivalent Intel budget build ATM.
If the cost of the budget Intel motherboards and CPUs drops relative to the AMD equivalent then the Intel system is better value for money and vice versa.
If you have enough money then a top end Intel system will offer more performance.
Different builds have different uses and budgets so just blinding preferring one company is not at all objective. Hence how much you can spend on a CPU and motherboard will not always be the same for similarly priced builds.
If someone has £500 to spend on a build and not a penny more then it is no point telling them to spend more.
Enthusiasts tend not to realise that even £50 more on a build can be a lot of money over what someone has budgeted. It is not that they may not have the money but it is simply how much they would consider a relevant amount to spend on a computer.
I really don't see why people have to be so emotionally attached to their own hardware choices.
It is childish.
The fact that you have the choice between DDR2 and DDR3 too can also reduce the cost of a build if you have some fast enough DDR2 to hand already.
For £80 and under you can get a Crossfire capable 790X AM3 motherboard like the ASUS M4A79XTD EVO.
AFAIK the socket 1156 motherboards which can do Crossfire at PCI-E 2.0 8X are much more expensive.
Then you get the X2 550BE which offers most of the framerates of a Core i3 530 at a much lower price. OTH,there is also the X3 720 and X4 925 which also compete with the Core i3 530 and 540 at a similar or lower platform price.
The X4 630 is faster and cheaper in non-gaming tasks than the Core i3 530 too.
The fact is that the Athlon II and Phenom II as a platform can offer better value for money in many cases than an equivalent Intel budget build ATM.
If the cost of the budget Intel motherboards and CPUs drops relative to the AMD equivalent then the Intel system is better value for money and vice versa.
If you have enough money then a top end Intel system will offer more performance.
Different builds have different uses and budgets so just blinding preferring one company is not at all objective. Hence how much you can spend on a CPU and motherboard will not always be the same for similarly priced builds.
If someone has £500 to spend on a build and not a penny more then it is no point telling them to spend more.
Enthusiasts tend not to realise that even £50 more on a build can be a lot of money over what someone has budgeted. It is not that they may not have the money but it is simply how much they would consider a relevant amount to spend on a computer.
I really don't see why people have to be so emotionally attached to their own hardware choices.
It is childish.
Last edited:
- Status