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.
i know we're not to rtfa, but you're off by ~100w
for both phenom ii processors in the review
which are 80w and 95w.
Would you please elaborate on the "poor performance". What are/were you doing? Gaming, video encoding, or what? I have a 64-bit X2 dual in a system I built for $300. The only reason I considered a 64-bit processor was so I could stick 4gb of RAM into it, so please further elaborate on how "they burned (you) with their 64 bit processors". What additional benefit were you expecting from 64-bit architecture? I've used this machine for some CPU-heavy statistical/programming work (Natural Language Processing), and it performed adequately. It even handles high-detail Civ4 games well, despite using only onboard video.
The Atom is FAR inferior in terms of performance, so to answer your question, no. The Atom is designed for mobile computing, so it sacrifices performance for power-saving gains. This is meant to compete with intels low priced desktop-orientated CPUs.
hurr durr imma retard
Actually I think with Intel you can get burned more easily. Phenom II X2 3.2GHz tells you really all you have to now. If you are buying higher numbers you get a better CPU.
On the other hand with a Core2 the case is not that clear. Is a Core2 Duo 3000 MHz better than a Core2 Duo 2833 MHz? Nope, the former one is an E6850, the latter an E8300. And even those numbers won't tell you much. Higher model numbers are often better, but not always. For example the Q6xxx models have Intel VT, the Q8xxx don't.
That is not a big problem for us enthusiasts who get and understand every information about that CPU. But to less tech savy people I will always suggest AMD. Even if Intels good chips are better than AMDs chances are they pick a bad one and would be better served with AMD.
What are you talking about? AMD64, also known as x86_64 or EMT64T was invented by AMD.
The performance is absolutely stellar.
AMD did this so well, Intel decided to try to copy them, and came up with Intel 64T.
As a whole, there is barely a noticeable performance difference between the two platforms.
Of course there are some low-performing 64-bit procs for budget users, just like there are slow Intel procs for budget users.
But overall, Intel 64-bit procs are no better than AMD 64-bit procs.
Also, when it comes to hardware virtualization and IOMMU, AMD has a very significant edge.
Don't blame AMD because you bought the wrong proc model for your system, or misconfig'ed it. Processor is definitely not the only thing that impacts performance. There are many other ways you can screw your system's performance in picking hardware components -- not all procs are ideal for all configurations.
Hell, i'm very often getting better performance with Linux and Windows (dual boot) out of my AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Windsor 2.6GHz than with my Intel Core2 Quad Core Q9400 2.66Ghz, and much better benchmarks for certain types of workloads.
Even though the Quad Core machine has 8gb of RAM, and my dual-core machine only has 4gb...
I blame it on the Linux and Windows kernels' poor support for multi-processing and seedy memory management.
Intel processors in lower-end price brackets might often score a win, but only if you consider the price of CPU alone. Intel GFX is crappy. There's Nvidia integrated GFX available...but for some reason the motherboards with them are usually quite a bit more expensive than AMD ones. Cheap AMD CPU with cheap integrated GFX offers best all-around performance - as good as any other setup for "daily" tasks, definatelly more 3D oomph than comparatively priced alternatives.
One that hath name thou can not otter
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..
A couple of years ago I ran two very similar five day long geophysical jobs (pre-stack time migration) on an 8 CPU AMD system and an 8 CPU Xeon system of equivalent speeds. All CPUs were at 100% over that time with the exception of some disk access at the start and disk writes every twelve hours for checkpoints. There was a five minute difference over that week and the margin of error was probably more than twice that.
I haven't been able to tell the difference since then either.
So say you, but can you prove it was an issue with the processor, and that it was a design issue, do you have information backing this up?
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.
It's happened too many times to count that I got a defective Intel processor that had the thermal monitor "broken" in some way that caused the proc to always throttle its clock down.
Chips were replaced under warranty, and then all was well. Every manufacturer had bad batches, that's why you do burn-in testing on CPUs, memory, and motherboards, before deployment.
I've dealt with different systems totalling a few hundred different AMD CPUs, and not run into any defective ones yet, or caveats to 32-bit or 64-bit AMD procs.
I'm not saying Intels are unreliable or anything, and I hope i'm not jinxing myself: but so far, all (perhaps) 10 DoA or otherwise defective CPUs i've seen in my life were Intel processors.
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.
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.
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.
Go with a microATX motherboard (preferably one that only uses heat pipes and no moving fans, like the Asus boards). Use one of the 45W TDP AMD chips - which are dead easy to cool, even in confined spaces and the stock fan runs pretty much silently.
As for the case... I don't have a suggestion for that at the moment.
(Best place to pickup the AMD CPU & MB is over at MWave since they'll bundle it, assemble the CPU and RAM onto the MB, and test it for you. So you're never left holding a bag full of incompatible parts.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Like you I need a Linux machine for work-related computing-intensive work, so I assembled one last fall. I use a decent quality MicroATX case with the Gigabyte MA785GPMT motherboard and the Phenom 2 X4 955. Add 8Gb of memory, a drive and you're set. I was going to add a separate graphics card at one point but so far I actually use the on-board graphics, with the 2d-only free drivers. I don't need speedy graphics for showing terminal output and static graphs after all.
The system came in cheap, it's really quiet and it's surprisingly speedy. True, it's barely half the speed of the 8-core Xeon machine I have at work - but at only an eighth of the cost.
My only advice is, don't go too cheap on the case. That's the single most important part for determining the noise level, and there's nothing so irritating as having a constant high-pitched whine from under your desk all day long.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
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
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.
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.
Games almost never require high end systems. There are a few that come along that won't run on anything less than the latest greatest but it is extremely rare. Most games will run on mid rangish hardware, and not have a problem with things a couple generations out of date. They won't let you max all the detail in that case, but they'll run just fine.
Most people do not have high end systems. Many systems are older, after all not everyone upgrades all the time, and even when they do they often don't buy the high end parts. As such game makers support that. They usually also have higher detail settings for people with higher end systems, since those people often also spend more money, but they don't usually cut out the more mid range market.
Right now most games run quite well on a dual core in the 2GHz+ range with a $100ish current graphics card or a $200ish older graphics card. By well I mean with details turned up a reasonable amount and smooth gameplay.
This sort of thinking creates PC games that tell the player to hit the "X" button to do something, only it actually means the left mouse button because it was X on the console. It also results in FPS games with horrible console-like auto-aim on devices using a mouse and keyboard, and games that needlessly reuse keys because the original controller was too limited for all of the functions the devs wanted to do.
Console ports require more thought than "recompile with a different target".
I read the internet for the articles.
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!
TDP is thermal design power. It is the number that CPU vendors give to system builders to let them know the max power consumption of the processor so that thermal solutions can be properly designed. If the CPU goes beyond the TDP the system will power off unless there is lots of headroom in the thermal solution.
Having worked on these processors at the circuit level(*) I can tell you that your '100W over TDP' number is rubbish.
If you'd like to know more about what happens when chip vendors fudge on this "invalid metric" search for "nvidia bumpgate". If our chips were running at 100W over spec'd TDP we'd have a lot of very unhappy customers.
* yes, I'm an engineer at AMD and I designed major components on the parts discussed ITFA. I did my time at Intel as well.
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
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.
Wow, tell us more about the stupid sheeple, oh insightful one!