Slashdot Mirror
AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh
MojoKid writes "AMD has again launched a bevy of new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers. Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena, AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream. HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635. For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high."
I agree, I have a Phenom x2 and my whole system cost me a mere €300, - including sound, HDD and good enough video to have a 3d gnome desktop.
Mostly, the poor performance (subjectively, save the benchmarks) of the 64 bit processors made me balk. I had two of them, and they were garbage, IMO.
And this is from a long time supporter of AMD.
Now I have to ask, what's the market for this?
Is it going to compete against Atom?
It seems from the article, it's actually going to compete against the higher/mid range of intel processors, at which point I have to wonder, if they burned me with their 64 bit processors, why would I consider 100 bucks a good deal when I fully expect to get burned again?
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high
The Phenom II draws 187 watts under full load, so yeah -- a pretty big bang actually, if you aren't careful. You get less "bang" with a E6300.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
...will not matter if their energy consumption gets too expensive. We need more energy, and cheaply. I swear, it's like The Little Shop of Horrors. Only this time, it's the computers screaming, "Feeeed me!!!"
Life is not for the lazy.
The standard whitegood market, where everything is cheap and disposable.
The standard pleb doesn't really give a damn whether it can crunch a billion petaflops in under a nanosecond, or heat a cup of water standing on the desk by its sheer awesomeness.
All they care about is whether they can chat to their friends, write a letter, browse the intert00bs and lose the last bit of their privacy by posting everything on facebook.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Why are you still posting you fucking racist?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&cid=30867676
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1521586&cid=30867630
very cool :)
and when i see one near me i am gonna grab it getting these features will allow me at least to even consider the odd purchase and yes im on a low income.
Would like to get one of these discount quadcore AMD processors, don't know which is the best option for a Hackintosh, though. Any recommendations? My current hackintosh is Intel-based and I don't know how tricky it might be to configure a working AMD--based hackintosh. Links appreciated.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
People I have known have used a computer using an Awful Macro Devices processor and had almost nothing but lockups and crashes. On the other hand I have a Genuine Intel Processor and no problems. This is why Apple has chosen Intel over AMD. BTW, Intel supports open source while AMD is an M$ lapdog. INTEL FTW!
It's fast enough for any usual non-gaming usage...and also for most games, if you're fine with mostly ignoring latest gen ones (and really, with so many great older ones that's easy). Plus it is consistantly passively cooled.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Hackintosh, go Intel. Stop being an AMD faggot fanboy. They're rubbish. First you are too cheap to buy a Mac and still wanna steal Mac OSX, second you are too cheap to buy a proper CPU.
"Would you please elaborate on the "poor performance"."
Why? I don'thave to explain/justify anything, so why would I?
"so please further elaborate on how "they burned (you) with their 64 bit processors"."
No, I won't.
"What additional benefit were you expecting from 64-bit architecture?"
Where did I say I "expected an additional benefit"? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
I don't get why you think a) I have to justify my experience to you, and b) you think I said something I clearly didn't.
I used them they were slow, nuff said.
And by that I mean
I paid for a product which , IN MY OPINION, underperformed. AS A CUSTOMER, MY OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER ME FROM BUYING AMD AGAIN
And no other explanation is necessary, for you or anyone else.
However, before you assume I'm trolling, I will say I used them in a professional capacity, and daily, and they were not up to the task.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.
There wasn't ANYTHING "troll" about my honest discussion of my experience,and you people who modded me down are fucking idiots.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
Um, of course you are entitles to your opinion. However, if you want to air your opinion in the public square and are not willing to share any details to back it up, you're no better then the crazy dude on the corner talking about the faeries that visit him at night..
For example, AMD outperforms Intel pound-for-pound in graphics and video rendering (which would make sense since they acquired ATI). If you're building a media center, get a computer with an AMD processor. It's one of the few things in life where cheaper is better.
The Institute of Incomplete Research has determined that 9 of out 10
that's like saying you bought a 318i expecting the performance of a M3, and then claiming the 318i under performs. It's only under performing to your unrealistic expectations, but performs where it should for the money.
From one who modded you down, I did so for the following reasons:
/. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you,
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution.
Thank you, the AC who burned 3 mod points on one poster in one article. Posting as AC, obviously, to preserve my moderation.
"I paid for a product which , IN MY OPINION, underperformed. AS A CUSTOMER, MY OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DETER ME FROM BUYING AMD AGAIN" That is sufficient for me and all that needs said.
Yes, something with an intel processor. Save yourself the headaches, its not worth the savings.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Despite the above comment being made by an intel troll you will need an intel system to run osx. Most any of the cheap intel chipsets (like the g31) will work with osx.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Uhm, media centers require little processing power really, not particularly sure why you seem to think they are special.
I've got a 3800 that handles 4 incoming tv streams at a time, in HD, streams to two televisions at a time, and re-encodes for my iphone. The heaviest part is re-encoding, everything else is done in silicon elsewhere, incoming streams are already mpeg or the card encodes analog streams to mpeg so thats just disk IO, streaming TV or displaying it doesn't require much, its just disk IO again as the video card does the decoding ...
Media center PCs just aren't processor intensive devices.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I've been out of the PC building loop for years since I moved to a mac, and while I still plan to keep a mac laptop, I am studying scientific computing in grad school starting in April and was looking to buy a beefy linux machine. These CPUs look really interesting, but I was hoping not to have to buy a tower to house it in. Do these things run alright in a mini-case? Any suggestions on a good small case to house one of these in?
Monstar L
You were modded down because your comment provided no useful information for Slashdot readers.
As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence. I and a lot of others visitors know from personal experience that AMD products aren't garbage. If you're going to make this claim, you'd better back it up with meaningful performance metrics.
And by that I mean
The moderators read your comment which , IN THEIR OPINION, underperformed.
"I think slashdot readers might be interested in the remarks of someone more experienced with both AMD and Intel processors, rather than someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was"
Speaking of due diligence,if you'd actually read his post, you'd realize your claims in that quote are addressed, specifically,where he said he had TWO of them.
That's ok, you can go ahead and flame him without know WTF you're talking about, this is slashdot and you're a fanboi, you're entitled.
Seriously though, you look pretty silly flaming him when you have to openly lie about the situation.
I mean, why ask him anything when you don't intend to debate accurately, or even attempt to? You just overtly lied, and the proof is in the posts you were responding to.
Honestly there is a very big learning curve you're going to need to overcome in order to get a reliable hackintosh build on an AMD platform. To be honest, your best bets are an intel (socket 775) based platform. Various motherboards there will have issues (usually audio), not to mention video cards. AMD chipsets tend to have more issues still. If you want to go with a Mac, I'd just suggest starting with a mini, if that doesn't suit your needs bump up to an intel based hackintosh.
Don't get me wrong, imho the AMD 785G motherboards with a nice Athlon X2/X4 are a great starter platform, just not a great hackintosh platform. I've built 4 780/785 based setups in the past year and a half, they run great for mom, grandma, my media center etc. What does seem like it *should* be promising would be an nvidia 9300 series board with a core2 quad. Note: if you're into heavy gaming at a higher resolution than say 1650x1024 or so, then you won't be happy with onboard graphics.
Posting as AC, obviously, to preserve my moderation.
Yea, it frustrate me too that you can't post and mod using the same account on slashdot.
Some of us like the higher fidelity from the unsmoothed pixels that software rendering masters!
Damn kids with your fancy bicubicly stretched pixels and anti-aliased edges. Get off my screen!
"As far as I'm concerned, you said AMD CPUs were "garbage" while refusing to back up these claims with supporting evidence"
That's funny, when I read it, it seemed he was saying, "100 bucks isn't enough of a price advantage to coax me into buying", which is a claim that in no way involves anything other than his opinion,and thus needs no "backing it up".
I guess you need to work on your reading comprehension, cause you're just making shit up out of thin air, and modding people down because you can't read worth a damn is pretty shitty.
Totally agree. Hackintoshes just don't play nicely with AMD CPUs.
"1. Screaming and yelling at a poster for being a idiot because they do not agree with you, /. is to be a meaningful, intelligent, mature discussion of a particular article, and
2. Failing to recognize that the commenting system on
3. Not understanding that capitalization of words is to be done in accordance with proper rules of grammer, and not as a means to yelling louder over your percieved persecution."
In other words, you abused you mod points and used them incorrectly.
Nice job douche, you should quit modding posts until you learn how to do it without abusing it.
And it's "GRAMMAR" you fucking twat.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Just to join in the fun; if you post your opinions on a public forum you are expected to back up your claims with examples and logic. If you cannot do so, either because of personal beliefs, or other restrictions such as NDAs, then do not post them.
Of course, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that alone worth little on a discussion board. The merit of this system comes from the fact that others may examine your arguments, and either adjust their own beliefs, or reply to your data with their own data. Saying you believe something and not backing it up adds little to the discussion; none of us know you, so we cannot judge if your opinion really has merit. And do not be too surprised when people start trying to interpret your post and "putting words in your mouth." That just means you didn't explain things well enough, so they had to draw their own conclusions.
While I do not believe you are trolling, I do think you completely missed the point of the comment system, at least for this topic.
The case size doesn't matter so long as you can pull enough air through it. I look after a few 1U sized servers with 2 twin quad core machines in each fed by the same power supply in between the motherboards. You could almost use the things as a hair dryer.
So, would there really be any difference if Nvidia board similar to Intel 9300 ones was the variant...for AMD?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Flash, sure it barely makes a dent in my Q8300 but my old p4 could never run any of the popular flash sites fullscreened.
Yes, it doesn't have a Intel processor in it and isn't "GenuineIntel". OS X looks for some hardware chip flags. It won't install on a AMD CPU.
You don't *have* to justify your opinion, but no one *has* to listen to it or give it any relevance.
By posting here it can be assumed that you want your opinion to be heard and considered and thus probably do care about people listening to it. Thus it would be assumed that you would justify your opinion and not respond in like a flaming mule.
"Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? "
Nope, he's arging that gp is lying about the situation, and thus is not credible.
Gp's claim is in direct opposition with OP's post, so he's either lying or ignorant, and neither makes him credible.
However, specifically op said he had TWO AMD 64 processors, which he used in a professional capacity,thud belying the assumptions made in gp's reply.
"However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number."
No, but their credibility suffers when OP says "I had two different systems, both of which I used in a professional capacity" which is what he DID say, versus GP's lie that he is" someone who tried an AMD CPU once, didn't do due their due dilligence, and just assumed all AMD procs were broken because their system was."
THAT difference IS significant, despite your clearly incorrect assertion that it isn't.
In short, you replied to something you didn't bother to totally understand and got it wrong.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Nice try, Blappo.
And the person who asked for more information said please! Imagine that. He was pleasant, and Blappo or whatever was rude in response.
After all, I am strangely colored.
After a tirade like that where you basically tell everyone to fuck off and let you live in ignorance, I'd say it was a well deserved mod. In fact, next time I get mod points, I'll keep an eye out for you...
I build new boxes every 6-8 months or so and rotate them into production boxes to make room for the next set. Until recently the Intel chipsets were ahead of the game vs the AMD chipsets with regards to things like E-SATA, AHCI, and PCI-e. AMD has caught up in the last 8 months, though. High-end Intel cpus tend to be a bit faster than high-end AMD cpus and you can also stuff more memory into small form-factor Intel boxes vs small form-factor AMD boxes.
On the flip-side, AMD boxes tend to be cheaper all-around and aren't quite so gimicky when it comes to managing cpu speed vs heat dissipation. Whole systems based on AMD seem to eat less power and from a cost standpoint when running systems 24x7. Power is getting to be quite important.
If you are trying to create the fastest, highest-performance box in the world Intel is probably your game (and for graphics you are going to be buying a 16x PCI-e card anyway with that sort of setup).
If you ratchet down your expectations just a bit, however, you can slap together a very good box with AMD at its core for half the price and 85% of the performance, and that is going to be plenty good enough for just about anything considering how overpowered machines have gotten in the last few years vs what people actually run on them.
Personally speaking I see no point purchasing the absolute bleeding edge when it is just going to become non-bleeding edge in 8-months when I can instead purchase two of something just slightly behind the bleeding edge at a much lower price.
These are just my observations.
-Matt
Flash is supposed to be hardware-accelerated but I have to say from first-hand experience, I just retired by AMD Athlon XP 2600+ / GeForce 4 Ti4200 128MB, with an Intel i7 920/6GBRAM/2GBGTX285 and now I can actually play Flash in HD or even HQ for that matter!
Yay, you're a total douche. Surprise surprise.
All those background proceeses really clog things up.
My Athon X2 3800+ beats the shit out of every Intel core2 whatever processor PC I've used, simply because the average Dick, Tom or Harry is ignorant in regards the gazillion startup processes running in the background clogging up their computers. Or they don't know how 2 turn off Limewire &/or their security setup's grinding thing down, etc.
If U R getting poor performance from a contemporary AMD proccesor U must B doing something wrong or have bugger all memory.
You are right you don't have to justify anything you say on here. But unless your a complete moron you realize that you are on a website and seemingly engaging in some kind of conversation. During conversations you explain things.
I never said the OP was such a person. I'm leaving it to the OP to clarify the details, if he cares to post more; the OP could probably add a lot of useful info for readers, like 'details of the slowness', observations, etc, which would increase the usefulness of the anecdotal info.
As it stands the OP hasn't chosen to provide better details that could be useful, but instead made a vague remark about trying AMD64 procs once (or twice).
To be clear: trying two AMD64 processors twice or once is _NOT_ significantly different from trying just one AMD64 processor once, the sample size is still very low, especially if the two procs were of the same generation, stepping, or batch of CPUs.
Or if the CPU was not fully singled out... Trying one AMD64 proc in a system, deciding it's too slow, then getting another AMD64 proc, doesn't identify the proc itself as an issue, if the choice of cooling, PSU/bus/MB/dip switch settings/etc was at issue.
Another observation would be that it's unfair to compare a 1st gen AMD64 proc vs a 2nd gen or later Intel EM64T proc. Even if the GHz happen to be the same. There were also some times when the most comparable CPU (at the high end) was not brought to market by both vendors at the same time.
Many procs of even the same Ghz and cores have different performance characteristics. Many purchasers of CPUs forget things other than GHz that are important, such as L1, L2, L3 cache sizes, FSB, and certain features such as Hyperthreading.
Parts. The ccurent
Please visit the OSx86project wiki page to have those questions answered. I'll tell you off the bat that you will have to patch the kernel, which already puts you at risk for a world of hurt if your other components don't play nicely either.
There are less "garbage processors" from AMD. Less intentionally crippled varieties that are missing little bits of this and little bits of that compared to what Intel offers. With Intel I always have to read the fine print on every processor to see if it supports virtualization extensions, for only one example.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yet suck Inte£'s tiny corporate dick even after 3 convictions for monopoly abuse.
Dumb hypocritical dipshits.
Remember... WIntel?
They were anti-competitive from way back in the 80's and 90's... talk to some OEMs and resellers... they were the microsoft of the chip world yet they got free pass after pass back then and it's even worse now.
Do the right thing... stop supporting monopolist scum!
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
How about in 3 months?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's a pretty decent/entertaining review. He also speaks about over clocking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNcE3GND3sQ&feature=sub
You know, 1 core, 2 cores, 3 cores, 1,000000 cores I have realize means exactly jack if the data they need to crunch is still sitting on frigen hard drive.
My processors and I would do flips and flops, if we could just get some dam data off our drives. Come on? We have basically not had a real leap in hardrive speeds or technology in how many years?
I mean solid states and all are great, but they still have a long way to go. What happens when we need to start pushing terabytes like megabytes?
We got a ram and catch arms race going on because, the hard drives suck and no one seems to be doing anything about it.
The best we can do are raid tricks to get any more performance (or reliability for that matter), and that has well known limits and problems.
Living in Chile
Well if all you can come up with is variations of "IT SUX!" then don't be surprised if most of us out here think you are full of shit, okay?
After building a couple of budget AMD boxes for customers this lifelong Intel+Nvidia man couldn't be happier when he switched. For less than $750 after rebate I got a 925 Quad with 8Mb of total cache, 8Gb of DDR2 800MHz RAM, a nice 780V board that supports up to 32Gb, 1Tb of HDD, a 4650HD 1Gb, and dual DVD burners along with Windows 7 HP X64. And you know what? I could NOT be happier! This bitch chews through video transcoding like nothing, World in Conflict, Bioshock, HL2, Far Cry 2, all play nice and pretty with nary a slowdown, Windows 7 plays really nice with the new AMD quads and my boot and shutdown times are lightning quick, the quad is only 95watts and doesn't turn my apartment into a space heater, in fact it rarely gets over 105f and that is under full load for hours with stock cooling, under normal use it sits right at 83f, yeah this baby is nice and didn't break my wallet.
So I don't know what your problem with AMD chips was/is, especially since you won't actually bother to elaborate other than "IT SUX!" but I can say my customers can't be happier with the new AMD line. The bang for the buck is incredible, with $50 duals, $70 triples, and $99 quads, the new IGPs support just about every format for hardware acceleration out of the box so video is nice and smooth no matter how big a monitor they buy, much lower heat and power usage which helps keep the electric bills down, motherboards for AMD are less expensive for really good boards, all around it is just a really good buy.
So unless you are one of those that just has to have the largest ePeen, which in that case you shouldn't have been looking at anything less than a $1000 Core I7 chip anyway, I just don't see what the problem could be. I could add an AMD 5xxx to my PC and play any game I want with out a problem, and for a PC that cost less than $750 that is saying a lot. I could easily see myself still using this machine 5 years from now simply because it has room to grow if I need to, but frankly everything I have thrown at the 925 has just gone off without a hitch, so I really don't see the need for any bigger. And many of my customers are "Joe Average" and are quite happy with their new AMD duals and Triples, and just rave to their friends about "how fast" everything is and how nice it all runs.
Lets be honest here-for most folks PCs passed "good enough" quite a few miles back and with $99 quads anybody can have ludicrous speed at their fingertips. Even my 67 year old dad is running AMD quad right now, and couldn't be happier. While he didn't really need all that power I figured at that price it was better to give him room to grow, and with this he can watch videos and chat and do whatever he wants and never even hit the chips hard. All that for a PC that cost less than $600 after rebate. Man you just can't beat that!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you can't back up your trash talk, then the rest of us can just assume it's mindless noise.
If you make a claim, then expect to be called out it.
Your complete inability to articulate why exactly the AMD gear isn't fast enough is a pretty good indication that any objective speed difference is moot. ...and yes there is an objective difference. Some of us can even give firsthand accounts of those differences and actual numbers. However, I don't think it matters so much for the vast vast majority of consumers. The cheaper AMD gear is going to an equally effective choice.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Hackintosh has to look as much like a real Mac as you can manage.
Of course that means Intel only for the CPU.
An alternate ATI or Nvidia GPU (beyond what's in actual shipping Macs) might even be a problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
3 is a bit optimistic if you're calling it bleeding-edge.
High-end, sure, heck even ultra high-end, but as soon as a slightly better version comes out you're not bleeding-edge any more, and that often happens in less than 3 months.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Is that AMD chipsets have been buggy in my experience. Well, for the most part it seems like there haven't been actual chipsets made by AMD, they've always been third party like nVidia, VIA or ATi. At any rate they seem to have bugs, sometimes minor, sometimes severe. The worst was back with the original Athlons, I got one and could not make it work with my GeForce 256. I found out this was because the AGP bus was out of spec and didn't work the GFs at all.
That is one of the main reasons I've stuck with Intel. I find that Intel chips on Intel chipsets, and particularly with both on an Intel board are rock solid. To me, that's extremely important. I spend all day fixing computer problems of one sort or another, I want mine to just work.
At some point I'll have to give AMD another look, though probably at work not with my own money initially.
Also I've got to disagree on the power/heat thing. Modern Intel CPUs are really efficient and throttle very well. They also do quite a bit of work per watt when run to full power. Their 45nm Core 2s are quite amazing and their 32nm Core i7s are supposedly 50% better.
Intel graphics seem to have three major advantages for Media Center PCs: power consumption, L5.1 h264 is possible, and open source drivers. I didn't check but AMD graphics might be faster with non-realtime low level h264 decoding on Windows, which is a bit of a stretch. So I don't quite understand your assertion that AMD graphics are superior for this situation, especially since performance is all but irrelevant for media playback (assuming it meets the minimum required).
If nothing else AMD serves to counterpoint Intel from being a monopoly. Further they actually make some pretty good chips.
I support AMD because they keep Intel in check. And as a bonus their chips aren't that bad.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I would add that many of us here, including myself have repeated asked WHAT exactly was "wrong" with the AMD CPUs. As you say there are many factors: Were they the same rev? were the chips used in the same board? what kind of work were they doing? What were the problems you encountered?
All of these are legitimate questions, which have been asked politely repeatedly only to get "It is MY opinion which is all that counts!" to which I say bullshit. If you post to /., you expect to be in a conversation-that is how this place works after all. Just saying "IT SUX!" is worth less than nothing, as it tells us diddly squat about WHY it sux for him. Maybe he was doing the wrong job with the wrong CPU? (DP floating point is better on Intel than AMD) Maybe he had a bad board? Maybe he got a couple of bad chips? (I build both Intel and AMD PCs and this happens more than most folks know) Maybe he was trying to OC and went too high for his system?
As you can see there are a myriad (I so rarely get to use that word in a sentence) of questions that those of us here that work with CPUs all day would like to know, and his "nya nya, they suk!" tell us exactly jack shit and is less than useless. To use a standard /. car analogy, if I came on here and said "The new Chevy trucks suck!" I would fully expect to get asked what exactly was wrong with them, what my experiences were with them, what my attempts at resolution were, etc. These should NOT be difficult questions, unless of course he is just trolling. But giving him the benefit of the doubt he should be able to answer these questions quite simply and easily, and refusing to answer simple questions such as this merely makes him look like a troll or an asshat, neither of which we need more of here, thanks anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If you don't want to be modded down, then why won't you answer even the simplest of questions? The WHOLE POINT of /. and why many of us come here is for the discussions, and while you are surely entitled to your opinion simply saying "IT SUX!" over and over is less than useless and makes you sound like a troll.
Now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming your are NOT a troll, but if that is the case then these questions should only take you a few moments to answer: What make/model (if you remember) CPUs were they? Were they used in the same board? With the same RAM,HDD,etc? What kind of jobs were these CPUs expected to perform? Did you OC them, or crank up the voltage? What type of machine? Gamer? Business? Server? What OS? Windows XP? WinServer? Linux? What were the problems you encountered, and what made the Intel solution better for the job?
Looking at my clock that took me all of 4 minutes to type, and I am a two fingered typist. If you have even the tiniest amount of typing skills it should take you less than 5 minutes, 10 if you go into detail, to answer these simple questions. If you want to participate here at /. and not have mods drive your posts into the basement, a little courtesy is all that is required. You stated you had a bad problem with AMD chips that caused you to switch, many of us (including myself who builds both Intel and AMD boxes for a living) have not had any problems and wish to know more. That is Not "being a fan troll" (WTF is a fan troll?) or anyone picking on you, that is simply how it works here, and with an under 1 million UserID you should know this by now. show a little courtesy and courtesy will be shown to you.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Their benchmarks seem decent. The Athlon II X4 620 is a solid performer.
And the Athlon II X4 630 2.8Ghz 4-core processor is getting great reviews at newegg with good potential for overclocking, even with the stock cooler.
br> There's a few great motherboard/CPU combo deals going on right now at newegg. QuadCore for $170 and dual-core for $90.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
This comment needs to be modded insightful and troll.
Again this silly fight between AMD vs Intel.
When people are going to learn performance _depends_ on what you're going to process?
I remember, few years ago, having a server we had with an Athlon XP 2600 (its real clock was 2.1GHz AFAIR). A perfectly speedy machine for desktop usage, but as a server (pure CPU-load in that case, no I/O bottleneck) it was having a real hard time. We eventually replaced that machine and old 4x Xeon (P3-based, 500MHz), and things went to normal.
I already suspected what the problem could be, so I've decided to make a test replacing - temporarily - the Xeon-based server with a Sun Ultra 30 (1xUltrasparc II @ 300MHz).
Well, the Sparc not only survived the test, but also kicked hard the Athlon's ass. Still, as a desktop machine, the Sparc was mediocre.
The difference was that the Sparc had 2MB L2 cache, while the Athlon had only 256kB (even with 2x bandwidth and lower-latency RAM). In _that_ case the L2 cache made all the difference. Per MHz, the Sparc also won, by large margin, the Xeon machine (1MB L2 for each processor).
Athlon's (pre-64) performance compared to P4 (sorry, I don't have an i7 to compare against a X4) varies. For desktop usage the Athlons felt snappier in general, but with some performance "hiccups" when you started to tax the machine more. The P4s felt slower overall, but the performance seemed to be more homogeneous.
Which one was better then? Well, that's a good question. I personally preferred the "slower but smoother" P4, but Athlons were fine and I could recommend both processors for home usage,
You know what really, really suck?
Those benchmarks they publish around.
I mean "XYZ fps in Crysis"? mp3 lame encoding time? Synthetic benchmarks?
Those say nothing to me. Run some database benchmark, or measure the time it takes to compile the Linux kernel using all cores at once... Or move GBs of data in the memory N times etc. Then it might be interesting.
Same here. I was just assuming you post that started the thread was poorly worded until I ran into you next - based on nested view not chronological although they may be the same in this case - post http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1525650&cid=30912408 Then it became clear you where a troll.
For everything else, AMD's price/performance ratio can't be beat, Intel's superior marketing notwithstanding. It would cost me twice as much money to get an Intel processor and a decent Intel chipset mobo for the desktop I'm running right now. Quite frankly, I think this price differential is much better spent on a 128GB solid state drive.
I state my honest opinion, and SAY IT'S MY OPINION, and the AMD fan trolls come in here and nuke me into oblivion.
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
You're a troll because your posts are self-contradictory. You first refuse (vehemently) to provide any facts, then demand that posts with factual errors be modded down. There isn't any "honest discussion" in your troll, there is only "Nuh-uh!!!" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
Clearly effective, though, judging from the replies, so nice win.
You've obviously never had an underpowered media center. HD video, especially compressed video, requires at least decent processing power. You get much more bang for your buck with AMD in that regard.
The Institute of Incomplete Research has determined that 9 of out 10
The processor doesn't HAVE to be Intel. You can get patched kernels that will work with AMD processors. Plenty of people have done it. The real question though, is if you're BUYING the hardware for it now, why go with AMD? Intel Hackintoshes are easier to setup and tend to work better. That's not a fault of the AMD chip at all, but a simple reality of the system you're trying to use. I use an AMD chip in my Windows and Linux desktops. My Hackintosh runs Intel. It's just a matter of choosing what's best suited for the particular application.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
No sir, YOU made the assertions, now you're trying to avoid supporting them because you know you can't.
And furthermore:
I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all
But of course... What would one crazy guy on the internets know, right?
Ouch...
The content of your post kind of contradicts with the complaint of your sig, doesn't it? You can't have it both ways.
You have written one of the douchbaggiest comments I have ever read on /. not posted as an AC. If you don't want to explain what you are saying, try shutting the fuck up next time and save us the time.
But unless your a complete moron you realize that you are on a website and seemingly engaging in some kind of conversation.
Arguing on the Net is not a sign of intellect in the first place (myself included, yes).
Why? I don'thave to explain/justify anything, so why would I?
Well, you demanded the same thing from other people, to cite your own words:
"I want youto support your assertions. YOU MADE THEM after all" [sic]
So it's entirely reasonable to ask you of the same thing.
Your posting history clearly identifies you as a troll, so you don't get the benefit of doubt anymore. If it looks trollish, and it comes from you, then it will be considered one.
Using ALL CAPS and calling people idiots doesn't help, either.
Eat shit motherfucker!
Am I right in thinking that you and Blappo are the same person?