Slashdot Mirror
Dell's First XPS System With AMD Phenom II Tested
MojoKid writes "Dell's new XPS 625 is their latest AMD-based creation, and is the
first out of the Dell labs using the relatively new Phenom II processor. Initial reviews of AMD's new chip have been favorable, as this new quad-core processor is slated to deliver roughly the same performance as Intel's quad-core Core 2 processors at more tolerable price points. While it's pretty clear that the Phenom
II can't quite crack Core i7 levels of performance in most usage scenarios, the new Dell rig does show more than respectfully in a
myriad of benchmarks.
This was obviously a solid design win for AMD with their latest CPU."
Anyone want to add up all of the components and show us how much cheaper you could get it for?
Intel i7 (2.6GHZ I believe) ~ $288 on newegg.com, phenom II 3ghz ~ $219 (2.6GHZ version ~$170)
Minus its a Dell. Incredible boring machines, Dells. Has Dell, ever done anything innovative?
Now add a motherboard and memory.
The cheapest LGA1366 motherboard I could find on NewEgg is $190.
The cheapest AM2+ motherboard I could find on NewEgg is $60
Also, the AM2+ can still use DDR2 ram, while the core i7 requires more expensive DDR3.
Except I can tell you they won't use something like Asus for the motherboard, more like MSI or Gigabyte, which are also reputable, but cheaper in price, and though the Dell case probably is only worth the $100 or so, they still could put in a much nicer case for another 50 to 100 bucks, another 50 for a card with better cooling, the hard drive they used is $179...
Basically, they could save 50 bucks on the motherboard, put it towards a better version of the graphics card, which after accounting for the hdd, would only put them at maybe $1200. So they're making a pretty easy $300 bucks per system there...
How did this get marked as informative? The processors compared are not, well, comparable. The guy just matched the clock speed with no regard for actual performance. The 3Ghz AMD performs worse than a 2.6Ghz i7
The "do not currently have anything close" disclaimer is, I am guessing, why Intel can afford to charge $1000 for the chip. And you're comparing the 2.93GHz i7 price to the 3GHz Phenom II, whereas the benchmarks clearly show that the 2.66GHz i7 is still faster (sometimes just a little, I know) than the 3GHz Phenom II, and even mostly faster than the overclocked 3.4GHz Phenom II. So, your pricing is skewed in AMD's favor, because it is comparing specs, not performance. the i7 is getting better performance out of a 2.66GHz clocked CPU than AMD is getting out of a 3.0GHz clocked CPU... but you should be comparing price of comparable CPUs, not clock-speed-is-similar CPUs...
"AMD's new Phenom II X4 940 chip is a speedy little bugger"
But what is a "speedy little bugger"? A Gerbil?
This phrase makes the author sound dumb.
Does it really use ddr2-800 instead of ddr-1066? Seems like an odd oversight, unless I'm missing something. TFA says "The processor is connected to 4 GB of DDR2-800 memory, which gives theoretical memory bandwidth of 12.8 GB/s".. Anybody know for sure based on that 12.8g/s measurement? The 800 runs at 200x4 while 1066 runs at 266x4. The article doesn't even mention 1066 at all, ie, "it doesn't use 1066 because" or anything.. Actually, I just checked wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddr3 and it seems 12.8 gig is associated with ddr3/1600 ram.. now I'm really confused.
I've been fighting with mine for over a month. The motherboard will see 4 sticks of DDR2 1066, but I can't much past POST before the computer locks up. I can't even run memtest. I sent back the mobo and the proc. I've swapped out the memory as well. I try a different brand of mobo, and still I can't run 4 sticks of memory.
Finally someone mentions on the AMD forums that there is a known defect with the processor affecting some customers where you can't run more than 2 sticks of DDR2 1066. I find a statement on Asus's website recommending you only run 2 sticks. Foxconn tells me they know about the defect, and so does Biostar.
I call AMD and ask if they're working on it, and if eventually I can get a warranty replacement that works. The AMD rep immediately cuts me off and insists that a memory problem can't be related to their processor. I point out the memory controller is in the proc, and they keep insisting I bought the wrong mobo. So I told them I used both a Foxconn and Biostar mobo. They insist I must have cheap off-brand memory. I bought Kingston, but I also tested Gskill.
They keep insisting that Kingston isn't on the authorized vendor list, and that no one supports Kingston memory. I'm about to laugh. AMD kept insisting up and down they know for a fact that memory problems just can not be related to them in any way shape or form. They're not winning me over with the argument that their product is infallible.
The proc runs amazingly fast for the price, but with customer support like that, I'm damned temped to send the proc back and build a more expensive Intel rig and never buy AMD again.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The AM2+ boards start at $60, and DDR2 800 and DDR2 1066 is also pretty cheap. You can get similar performance with an AMD rig for considerably less money.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Please cite a benchmark where the 940 (3Ghz Phenom II X4) performs worse than the 2.6 GHz i7. I'd really like to see it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Quite a few of the i7 920's (2.66GHz) are hitting 4GHz on air. A very large number (most?) are getting to 3.8GHz.
I put together an i7 system earlier this month (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121769&cid=26794093). EVGA X58 motherboard and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $370 - $30MIR. i7 920 from Microcenter for $230. I'm not sure $570 is really "very expensive" compared to AMD alternatives. It's more, but it's not a huge amount when you compare apples to apples (i.e. not comparing budget-bin AM2+ motherboards to the feature-packed X58 boards). Also, the the Dell is only AM2+ - AM3 systems also are DDR3-only (removing the disparity in RAM from the price comparison).
I still stand by my view that if you already have a good AM2+ or LGA775 system, one of those new CPUs can provide a nice, inexpensive upgrade. If you're building a new system, then AM2 and 775 are old parts that are already on their way out. You can save a little bit if you have a strict budget, lower requirements, or no plans to upgrade. However, an i7 will be a better overall value due to the extra performance and the increased likelihood of future upgradability.
As all the benchmarks in the review show, the Phenom II was designed to compete with the C2Q, and it does that pretty well. The i7 does cost more, but also beats it (even when overclocked) by a pretty good amount overall.
There are very few benchmarks where the Phenom II beats an i7. Anandtech's benchmarks show this. Google for pretty much any Phenom II review and you'll see that. They're decent chips, and very competitive given their cost. The absolute highest performing however...
Now, landing thrusters.. landing thrusters, hmm. Now if I were a landing thruster, which one of these would I be?
but better NZXT tempest case same chip 8 gig of reaper memory 2 750 gig HDs cost to build 848$ When doing the specs close to those i got right around 600
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You mean quad Crossfire. SLI is NVIDIA's tech. Interestingly, I own an MSI K9A2 Platinum, with a pair of 3870s and 8GB of RAM. Not got around to upgrading my CPU from the 9600 Black Edition that's currently in the socket though. Also, with the advent of 4GB memory modules it's theoretically possible to have 16GB on the board (not sure if anyone's tried this yet).
Goten Xiao