Are AMD defeated ?

FatRakoon · 24 Nov 2007 at 11:18

Well, AM2 has 2 advatages that spring to mind.

1 - Pricing
2 - Performance

There is no doubt that in both cases, its an advantage over 939

However, to choose AM2 of Intels C2D -I cannot see a good reason.

I dont have an AM2 myself, but I have a number of 939 and 2 Intels ( Conroe Q6600 & P4 660 Prescott @ 4.3 ) and I fail to see any reason why I should bother with AM2 purely because its cheaper when I am already at the level than an AM2 will give me ( Not quite, but not enough to warrant paying out )

mattyrigby00 · 24 Nov 2007 at 11:43

am2 is basically ddr2 and some higher cpus - just like how on intel systems, core 2 duos dont work on most p4 boards. socket 775 mightve been going for a long time but the core 2 duo-775 and the p4-775 are basically different sockets.

something_totally_different · 24 Nov 2007 at 14:05

FatRakoon said:
Well, AM2 has 2 advatages that spring to mind.

1 - Pricing
2 - Performance

There is no doubt that in both cases, its an advantage over 939

However, to choose AM2 of Intels C2D -I cannot see a good reason.

I dont have an AM2 myself, but I have a number of 939 and 2 Intels ( Conroe Q6600 & P4 660 Prescott @ 4.3 ) and I fail to see any reason why I should bother with AM2 purely because its cheaper when I am already at the level than an AM2 will give me ( Not quite, but not enough to warrant paying out )

I have a DFi 939 rig with standard DDR and an old opteron 170 90nm cpu that would demolish most AM2 setups. the performance gains are marginal in places and negative in others.

FatRakoon · 24 Nov 2007 at 14:20

Yes, but the high end AM2 setups are faster than the 939 ones.

I have a number of 939 setups, and I for one would be stupid to go for an AM2 setup purely because the higher end CPUs will be faster than mine, because they wont be THAT much faster will they?

I run all my 939 setups at 2.5, oen is at 2.3 but thast because thats all it seemed to do without me hacking away it at, but its only a LAN PC so Im not wasting time tweaking it to get higher, and 2 of my 3800 systems are at 2.7, and both can probably go higher,but again... Im not wasting time as they are not my main systems.

Id be a little bit thick to upgrade to AM2 just to get 3Ghz

Besides... A half decent C2D system would cost the same as an AM2 and will give me a faster CPU.

Jokester · 24 Nov 2007 at 14:22

All Phenom does is give someone who is already on AM2 a painless upgrade to quad core.

Jokester

dr. sarf · 24 Nov 2007 at 16:23

Are these available for my current AM2 mobo as well as AM2+ then?
Just read a confusing spec sheet somwhere thats all.

Jokester · 24 Nov 2007 at 16:25

Yes, they'll work in AM2 boards as well but will almost need flashing with a new BIOS that supports them.

Jokester

dr. sarf · 24 Nov 2007 at 16:28

So there's 2 different models? The ones I've seen are socket 1207 which obviously won't fit. I think the ones on OcUK are AM2 though.
Flashing BIOS, hmmm never had to do that. lol

mattyrigby00 · 24 Nov 2007 at 16:29

the socket 1207 ones are the opteron server versions

dr. sarf · 24 Nov 2007 at 16:34

mattyrigby00 said:
the socket 1207 ones are the opteron server versions

Tempted to trade in the 6000 for one in that case.
Why does the Gigabyte Mobo website never seem to work. :mad:

Without wandering too far off topic, how difficult is it to flash/update the BIOS? I know my mobo came with an application to do it for you via windows, but heard thats not the best way to do it.

seen this too:

Note: If you install AMD AM2+ CPU on AM2 motherbord, the system bus speed will downgrade from HT3.0(5200MHz) to HT1.0(2000 MT/s) spec; however, the frequency of AM2+ CPU will not be impacted. Please refer "CPU Support List" for more information.

Jamous · 25 Nov 2007 at 22:55

Reading this thread with interest, a lot of knowledgeable people here!

Minstadave · 25 Nov 2007 at 22:56

Flash in windows, just don't do it when on a dodgy overclock.

the.m · 25 Nov 2007 at 23:24

Circles, it just seems to go round in them, I remember when Athlon64 came out and wiped the floor with the P4, we got similar threads like, what are intel doing, will they survive and so on, I begin to wonder if its all a plot and they say to each other whos turn is it now to lead (joke). I got fed up with AMD back then as I thought they took the p with there pricing and non stop changing of cpu's with different cache and it all happened in a clock speed of 1.8 - 2.6 Ghz, what a joke we all fell for it. they earnt bundles, now they are paying the price for resting on their backsides. tough luck. What I like about intel at the moment is excellent cpu's at very good prices, i dont feel ripped off and that combination makes success.

something_totally_different · 25 Nov 2007 at 23:49

the.m said:
Circles, it just seems to go round in them, I remember when Athlon64 came out and wiped the floor with the P4, we got similar threads like, what are intel doing, will they survive and so on, I begin to wonder if its all a plot and they say to each other whos turn is it now to lead (joke). I got fed up with AMD back then as I thought they took the p with there pricing and non stop changing of cpu's with different cache and it all happened in a clock speed of 1.8 - 2.6 Ghz, what a joke we all fell for it. they earnt bundles, now they are paying the price for resting on their backsides. tough luck. What I like about intel at the moment is excellent cpu's at very good prices, i dont feel ripped off and that combination makes success.

have you been on another planet?

the.m said:
Circles, it just seems to go round in them, I remember when Athlon64 came out and wiped the floor with the P4, we got similar threads like, what are intel doing, will they survive and so on,

when? the world and his dog knows intel are ten times the size of AMD.

the.m said:
I got fed up with AMD back then as I thought they took the p with there pricing and non stop changing of cpu's with different cache and it all happened in a clock speed of 1.8 - 2.6 Ghz, what a joke we all fell for it. they earnt bundles, now they are paying the price for resting on their backsides.

eh?

Intels CPU`s were all over the shop across several platforms back then, AMD had 939, the Athlons, the athlon X2`s and opterons all on the same socket with easy to understand model numbers... how is this complicated? Also AMD did not earn bundles, there market share barely increased over the 3 years they had the faster, cheaper and more efficient product, do a little research and you will understand why.

FatRakoon · 26 Nov 2007 at 01:51

the.m said:
SNIP!!

Drugs?

something_totally_different · 26 Nov 2007 at 02:08

FatRakoon said:
Drugs?

indeed, they seem quite hallucinogenic by that account too.

Angilion · 26 Nov 2007 at 02:59

Hobgoblin said:
can anyone tell me why IBM dont go into the consumer market? they seem to make cracking chips and have a huge number of FAB's and money and practically everything already

They do very well without going into the consumer market and they're not suited for it. It would be a risky venture and why would they bother?

the.m · 26 Nov 2007 at 09:21

XanderThal said:
have you been on another planet?

No I have been around some time actually.

when? the world and his dog knows intel are ten times the size of AMD.

there were quite a few threads back then on many forums asking question about intels lack of response to amd's 64. of course its obvious Intel are so large, dont state the obvious.

eh? Intels CPU`s were all over the shop across several platforms back then, AMD had 939, the Athlons, the athlon X2`s and opterons all on the same socket with easy to understand model numbers... how is this complicated? Also AMD did not earn bundles, there market share barely increased over the 3 years they had the faster, cheaper and more efficient product, do a little research and you will understand why.

I wasn't refering to intel, I was explaining how i feel about AMD right now. If they bring out a cpu worth buying, I would be one of the first.

the.m · 26 Nov 2007 at 09:28

FatRakoon said:
Drugs?

Sorry, I dont understand what you are trying to say?

something_totally_different · 26 Nov 2007 at 12:40

the.m said:
No I have been around some time actually.
there were quite a few threads back then on many forums asking question about intels lack of response to amd's 64. of course its obvious Intel are so large, dont state the obvious.

indeed, but none saying

the.m said:
will they survive and so on,

the.m said:
I wasn't referring to intel, I was explaining how i feel about AMD right now. If they bring out a cpu worth buying, I would be one of the first.

but you were not. you were talking about the AMD of the past...

the.m said:
I got fed up with AMD back then as I thought they took the p with there pricing and non stop changing of cpu's with different cache and it all happened in a clock speed of 1.8 - 2.6 Ghz, what a joke we all fell for it.

considering their pricing was cheaper and simpler to understand, as was their entire range of CPU`s I and others I am sure, will fail to see how you managed to get fed up over the good value of a better CPU than anything Intel had at the time. :confused: