Yeah, the low-end single core to high-end dual core upgrade should be very interesting to a lot of 939 users. But when considering a completely new system it looks like Conroe is the way to go. And that makes AM2 a platform that really nobody needs.
Yeah, the low-end single core to high-end dual core upgrade should be very interesting to a lot of 939 users. But when considering a completely new system it looks like Conroe is the way to go. And that makes AM2 a platform that really nobody needs.
damn, i want a new processor (although my 4000 should be ok!) because i want a new gfx card (i have 2x 6600GT's that wont work SLi, each sell for ~£95 on eBay used, so i think i could probably sell them, then buy a 6800GT)
So I'll be able to buy a dual-core 3800+ for less than I can buy a single-core 3500+ now? 
I think it's time to buy my new PC. 
I think it's time to buy my new PC. I dunno if that's so. In gaming you don't use much memory bandwidth.
However, those value DDR400 ram sticks are pretty cheap.
I beg to differ. You use vaste ammounts, but it's dependent on the game (BF2 is ram hungry and likes 2gb, and if you don't have 2gb throws data back and forth so much your HDD starts to cry, where as Pong barely touches it), however the gains you do get are not that major, using memory which has the same speeds as your proc is faster anyway, plus it'd be a good time to grab a few sticks of low latcency stuff. I have some value ram in my rig right now, and though it was free, I wouldn't recomend it to anyone as it died after about 1 year (all the sticks I've had of it, plus all the people I know who got some had the same problem), buy good ram, you can get a gig for under £100 these days.
Huh? Ofcourse you do. The faster the memory (and bus) is, the faster the CPU receives data. Otherwise the CPU is waiting for the cache/memory to be freed when processing instructions.
You're probably right. Thanks for the clarification.
I'm still running an Athlon XP 3000+ here so I'm definitely going for a whole new system with Conroe.
wasnt am2 the socket that requires a lot of caution when selecting a cpu to make your ram run at full speed ?
either way i dont see much point in buying an amd anymore atm
i think youre much better of if you just overlcock the 3.2 ...
a 4600 isnt all that much faster only some 400 Mhz ore something in that ballpark
either way i dont see much point in buying an amd anymore atm
i think youre much better of if you just overlcock the 3.2 ...
a 4600 isnt all that much faster only some 400 Mhz ore something in that ballpark
AM2 socket AMD's need to be clock speed divisible by 400mHz to run DDR2 800 at full speed. 939's don't use ddr2 and don't have this issue. Thats what i understand from it.
The X2 isn't THAT much faster, but it is a huge advantage when you're virus scan comes on, you're downloading stuff, you've got stuff going on in the background, etc...
If you've got a low speed 939, then a dual core is a significant jump to another 939 X2, which can be overclocked quite well.
Clock speed isn't everything. Though that said my 3000+ has beat the shit out of a couple of duallies. Which I found ammusing.
I actually just priced out 2 boxes yesterday, one AMD and one Intel. All parts were the same except the CPU and motherboard. The Intel box ended up being $1300, while the AMD was $1200. However, using the benchmarks on Anandtech as a rough guide, the 8% increase in price results in about an 8-10% increase in performance under HL2. Plus the Intel has a TON of headroom for overclocking. Not that I'm really into overclocking, but it seems Conroe is rather severely underclocked.
If you go to the end of the benchmark article, however, and look at the results at 640x480, you can get a much better idea of how much better Conroe will be for LFS than an Athlon 64 X2. However, note that in that section they are comparing the 2 top end CPU's, so take into consideration that the X6800 already has about a 12% performance lead to begin with over the FX-62 at 1600x1200.
(Note: The one caveat is Anandtech used 2 X1900XT's whereas I picked out a 7900GT).
If you go to the end of the benchmark article, however, and look at the results at 640x480, you can get a much better idea of how much better Conroe will be for LFS than an Athlon 64 X2. However, note that in that section they are comparing the 2 top end CPU's, so take into consideration that the X6800 already has about a 12% performance lead to begin with over the FX-62 at 1600x1200.
(Note: The one caveat is Anandtech used 2 X1900XT's whereas I picked out a 7900GT).
I'm about to build myself a new PC and I was all set to go with AMD, but.... I'm not so sure now. They drop prices dramatically so they can protect market share. Why do they need to suddenly protect market share so agressively? There can only be one answer.
a friend of mine built a new system, amd 3800+ (64bit am2) and got himself some nice ddr2 ram.....you have to see that thing run. it installed xp from scrach in 17 mins and it ca convert an avi movie to dvd in 15.............o and he bought an nvidia 7600 (512mb) pci-e card for £59...............i want 
amd are working on a new technology too....it's called 4x4. it basically means yo can stick 2 duel core 64bit cpu's into one mobo but it is rumoured to only be for servers (but that is what he amd64(duel) was first meant for)...aso this new pentium is being compaired to an amd that is 1 year old...so imo it isnt that impessive.
amd are working on a new technology too....it's called 4x4. it basically means yo can stick 2 duel core 64bit cpu's into one mobo but it is rumoured to only be for servers (but that is what he amd64(duel) was first meant for)...aso this new pentium is being compaired to an amd that is 1 year old...so imo it isnt that impessive.
I don't buy the "you can't compare a brand new architecture to an older architecture" argument. You're going to buy one or the other, it really doesn't matter if one's older. All that matters is which offers the best performance for the money. With the new price cuts, I'm inclined to say Intel and AMD are about on par in that respect at the moment, but Conroe seems to have a lot more clockspeed headroom than K8.
I think intel actually has the upper hand in processors now. I've read that it always works out how AMD is ahead for a while, and then Intel overtakes them.
The new Intel chips don't seem to offer that much in reality, after reading some gaming benchmarking. More headroom certainly, since they are at the start of their development. AMD will be launching the K8L in several months time before coming up with a complete replacement. It's continual evolution from all parties.
thats quite an understatement bob
bascially intel now has a cpu that runs as cool as a k8
consumes as little powers as a k8
is a whooping 10-20% fatser than a k8
seems to be cheap to make
and apparently clocks just a good as netburst
id say its a definite winner
bascially intel now has a cpu that runs as cool as a k8
consumes as little powers as a k8
is a whooping 10-20% fatser than a k8
seems to be cheap to make
and apparently clocks just a good as netburst
id say its a definite winner
for now
i personally would not by an intel (just a choice).
but who has been the winner for the past 4-5 years? i would say AMD and just cuz intel have a "better" cpu now it doesn't mean amd will stop development......intel are like honda F1 sometimes they might win, but usually they fail to complete the full race :P
No offense but you have said nothing new.
There is hardly any gain right now going to DDR2.I have at home A64 3200+(socket 939) and I get XP installed in the same time.I got record at 15minutes.
AM2 socket its about ability to give more bandwitch to more cores.DDR just couldnt provide it anymore.Well the final result for AMD with AM2 socket is not as attractive as AMD would probably wish and even considering Intel came with Core 2 processors.¨the situation for AMD looks pretty bad.The good news is that the pricing will got radically down which is good för us - the customers.
Still funny a bit.Intel beated sligthly(10-20 percent) AMD architecture(in gaming sector)which is pretty old now and has been only slightly tweaked during time.
The mutlimedia area looks more promissing for Intel new architecture then in the rest.Also the overcloking ability doesnt look bad.
Well to make some end I am happy with my system and I will probably built a new one at the end of 2007/start of 2008 so it mean then I can end with AMD K8L which might kick Intel ass again...who know
...or it can be the other way for AMD
.Its just how you present it.Since AMD released K8 architecture the Intel was failing and failing so I guess some storm has to happend inside Intel.
Has anyone noticed these price cuts yet? I haven't seen anywhere with AMDs cheaper than they used to be 
Yes.
Well I noticed in 1 online shop in my country that the pricing of all AMD A64 processors were indeed drastically reduced.I have just converted our currency to Euros.
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice, socket 939) 63.5 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (Venice, socket 939) Box 66 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice, socket 939) Box 76 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Venice, socket 939) Box 90 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ (San Diego, socket 939) Box 111 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (Venice, socket 939) Box 114 Euro
AMD A64 X2 3800+ (Manchester, socket 939) Box 153 Euro
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego, socket 939) Box 160 Euro
AMD A64 X2 4200+ (Manchester, socket 939) Box 185 Euro
AMD A64 X2 4400+ (Toledo, socket 939) Box 227 Euro
AMD A64 X2 4600+ (Manchester, socket 939) Box 237 Euro
AMD A64 X2 4800+ (Toledo, socket 939) Box 287 Euro
Its not best as in USA I could get pricing pretty close to what AMD mentioned.I hate that in USA you can buy whole PC pretty "cheap".
1
2
AMD CPU pricing reduced up to 56 percent soon!!!
(48 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG