Going back to AMD

FatRakoon · 31 Jul 2008 at 03:53

amkan13 said:
ASUS M3A79-T DELUXE has been announced:
http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=12238
no ETA though

Ok, I am considering an Asus board after recently hearing about Linux installed on-chip in them???? Only Asus I have ATM is the A8N-SLI and thats not a bad board.

sr4470 said:
Or, I can show you results I get from a non-AMD\ATI board when I get round to it, and persuade you there are other decent chipsets

Im all ears mate.

I have only been buying 775 Boards lately, and last AMD I bought was NForce4 939 so nowt AM2.

Indy500 · 31 Jul 2008 at 03:56

FatRakoon said:
Im all ears mate.

I have only been buying 775 Boards lately, and last AMD I bought was NForce4 939 so nowt AM2.

I can't afford a quad though, unless I find one used at a cut price.

FatRakoon · 31 Jul 2008 at 11:52

Do you know what.... My honest opinion...

When I went from the E6300 to the Q6600, the performance increase was...

... Well, nothing to be honest with you

In fatc if you ask me, assuming that quad core is going to rock your boat is a bad idea.

I honestly wished that I had never bothered with it.

NOTHING I have runs better on a Quad core to what it does on a Dual core... NOTHING.

in fact, and I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE THIS WRONG, but if anyone out there has a dual core and a quad core CPU, to please give it a go...

Right, Convert XtoDVD v2 on a dual core E6300 - I run 4 editions of this, converting 4 seperate AVI Videos to DVD. The AVI Videos are on E: and the DVD Files get written to D: ( Physically seperate drives to speed it up )
It takes between 10 and 15 minutes on average to convert these all to DVD.

Now, the very same setup but a Quad core Q6600 instead, and not forgetting that the Cache and the Sped differences of these 2 CPUs and anyway, get the Q6600 to do those exact same AVI files and how long does it take?

It takes over half an hour??? - twice as long!!!!

I mean, thats impossible isnt it?

2.4 x 4 is slower than 1.8x2

But try it.

Indy500 · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:04

FatRakoon said:
Do you know what.... My honest opinion...

When I went from the E6300 to the Q6600, the performance increase was...

... Well, nothing to be honest with you

I was going to buy a dual anyway, but you've bought a Phenom so I can't offer you a direct comparison as far as overclocking goes, which is what I meant

FatRakoon · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:18

LOL yeah sorry about that I do waffle.

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 18:33

decto said:
I have to agree with the above. AMD are fine for basic home server / media centre duties but for anything where performance counts they can't touch intel these days.

I've two AMD systems, one a media center - AM2 Dual core and one my server s939 dual core.

For anything gaming or production related ... Intel... sad but true.....

come on you greens

I totally, totally disagree!!

I had a Q6600 with 8gb ram and fatality board and it run crap! So i now have a AMD Phenom 9550 with 4gb ram and it runs so much faster at everything! , its a true quad core and not just 2x dual cores. Clickability is a lot faster than the Q6600 aswell.

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Aug 2008 at 18:47

Clickability?

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 19:12

Yeah as AMD have the memory controller on *** chip die so no need to go to the bridge (as intel have to) , which slows down clickability (the time it takes from clicking an icon to it loading up)

Matt

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Aug 2008 at 19:16

I hear this all the time, as a user of both AMD and Intel systems I just don't believe it.
I suggest that it's all in your head or the Intel system was not set-up correctly.

Fast hard-disk, fast memory and a decent OS install should not have any slow down in "clickability"...

marscay · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:00

Jihad said:
Actually different cars have different feels and interior designs, this is a processor and they will all 'feel' the same.

precisely....i can understand why the OP wants to try out an AMD rig again, something to tinker with etc and all that.

but the car analogy is just stupid, i defy anyone to know what processor they are working with in a blind test .....you do read some funny stuff at times

'clickability' there's another peach.....and a phenom 9550 is so much faster than a q6600??? this place is turning/turned into [H].

marscay · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:03

FatRakoon said:
Do you know what.... My honest opinion...

When I went from the E6300 to the Q6600, the performance increase was...

... Well, nothing to be honest with you

In fatc if you ask me, assuming that quad core is going to rock your boat is a bad idea.

I honestly wished that I had never bothered with it.

NOTHING I have runs better on a Quad core to what it does on a Dual core... NOTHING.

in fact, and I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE THIS WRONG, but if anyone out there has a dual core and a quad core CPU, to please give it a go...

Right, Convert XtoDVD v2 on a dual core E6300 - I run 4 editions of this, converting 4 seperate AVI Videos to DVD. The AVI Videos are on E: and the DVD Files get written to D: ( Physically seperate drives to speed it up )
It takes between 10 and 15 minutes on average to convert these all to DVD.

Now, the very same setup but a Quad core Q6600 instead, and not forgetting that the Cache and the Sped differences of these 2 CPUs and anyway, get the Q6600 to do those exact same AVI files and how long does it take?

It takes over half an hour??? - twice as long!!!!

I mean, thats impossible isnt it?

2.4 x 4 is slower than 1.8x2

But try it.

maybe the program is a heap of ****???

try encoding through CCE and you'll feel the power of the quad str8 away, the same goes for encoding lossless music to lossy/mp3 with Lame for example.

the quad is only as useful as the software used and the operator using it.

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:12

Emlyn_Dewar said:
I hear this all the time, as a user of both AMD and Intel systems I just don't believe it.
I suggest that it's all in your head or the Intel system was not set-up correctly.

Fast hard-disk, fast memory and a decent OS install should not have any slow down in "clickability"...

Ok....
Firstly... Im a qualified I.T Manager so know what im talking about
Secondly it certainly isnt in my head.
Thirdly i built this and was running as fast as it could possibly run , had a new genuine os (vista) and exactly the same hard disk that is used in my current phenom setup.
Fourthly its a known fact to people in the know that the phenom has the memory controller built onto the die as intel has to use the fsb.

So there IS a definite difference. I have experienced a few people aswell who have gone over to phenom who have noticed definite improvements in speed, clickability(yes intel is slower due to the external memory controller) and general useability of the system.

If people dont believe me then fine, i have nothing to gain or lose by that , but i am a happy user at the moment and its not intel thats making me that happy.

Matt

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:13

marscay said:
precisely....i can understand why the OP wants to try out an AMD rig again, something to tinker with etc and all that.

but the car analogy is just stupid, i defy anyone to know what processor they are working with in a blind test .....you do read some funny stuff at times

'clickability' there's another peach.....and a phenom 9550 is so much faster than a q6600??? this place is turning/turned into [H].

I suggent before you mock people who have used both , thatyou go and use a pc with a phenom processor before resorting to childish remarks!

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:20

Just because you're a "Qualified I.T manager" I should believe in "clickability"?
I have used both AMD and Intel systems, studied an IT related course and work in IT. (This makes no difference at all) Just because you might happen to work in the field it doesn't make the opinion more valuable.

The difference would be miniscule, I question your claims and I question your previous Intel setup.

immortalgeek said:
Fourthly its a known fact to people in the know that the phenom has the memory controller built onto the die as intel has to use the fsb.

Even my old 754 Clawhammer had the MC onboard, it's not "people in the know", every man and his dog (almost) knows that AMD use an onboard memory controller.

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:23

I question your claim that you work in IT as you obviously dont know what your talking about. My intel setup was as good as it could have got. I had 8gb ram, fatality board, mint cooler, fast hard disk and it took 25 mins to install flight sim. My phenom took just 8 mins , hardly a miniscule improvement!!

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:24

You're basing how quick a processor is based on the install of a game?
...

I have nothing more to add.

Final8y · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:30

immortalgeek said:
I question your claim that you work in IT as you obviously dont know what your talking about. My intel setup was as good as it could have got. I had 8gb ram, fatality board, mint cooler, fast hard disk and it took 25 mins to install flight sim. My phenom took just 8 mins , hardly a miniscule improvement!!

I think Clickability is responsiveness that lot of users with both Intel/AMD setup are saying the same thing that the AMD Phenom is more responsive even if its not actually faster over all once the tasks get going.

immortalgeek · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:30

No im not! , im merely saying that experience was a lot faster using the phenom. Your just a ***** that is typing one liners in the hope people will like you!

Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick

Emlyn_Dewar · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:31

lol, you've lost the plot, well done.

Final8y · 3 Aug 2008 at 20:34

immortalgeek i would edit that quick as its not worth the holiday.
and the fact is that most will not believe until they have used it for them self, its there loss.