|
MeramJert posted:There is absolutely no way getting a 2500k will only cost you $50-$100 more than an Athlon II x4 system At Newegg, the 2500k is $125 dollars more than the cheapest Athlon II x4, and $85 dollars more than the most expensive.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
MeramJert posted:There is absolutely no way getting a 2500k will only cost you $50-$100 more than an Athlon II x4 system Parts that are the same:
Athlon II x4 system (Though, for  +  , you should go to a 965 instead if you must stick to AMD.)Total cost: $988.91 2500k system
Total cost for system: $1,093.91 Cost difference from Athlon to 2500k: Chance of MeramJert still talking out his rear end: Well, mate, I think $105 ≈ $100. Sinestro fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 09:23
|
|
|
The motherboard choice is a LITTLE disingenuous on the AMD side. A more appropriate choice would be a ASUS M4A87TD/USB3 AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 AMD Motherboard for $92.99, that's $202.98 for the AMD CPU+mobo, $354.98 for the Intel CPU+mobo, a difference of $152.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
I build systems on the side, so I was just copying from my log. 
Sinestro fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 10:25
|
|
|
Universe Master posted:At Newegg, the 2500k is $125 dollars more than the cheapest Athlon II x4, and $85 dollars more than the most expensive. Yeah, but you're not going to be dropping $175 on a motherboard for an Athlon II system like that guy up there. e: so basically no, I wasn't talking out of my rear end. That's one of the most expensive AM3 motherboards you can possibly buy on newegg, like in terms of place in the market you'd be going for a >$250 motherboard for the Intel processor fart simpson fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
Updated, and you still are in the buttspeak range. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 10:51
|
|
|
You are some pretty upset nerds right now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
Look at the forum name! Hardware is serious business. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 11:36
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:There is absolutely no way getting a 2500k will only cost you $50-$100 more than an Athlon II x4 system It'll get you the processor, at least. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
If I'm building an AMD budget gaming system, I'm not buying a 6950 or $130 worth of RAM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
Gunjin posted:If I'm building an AMD budget gaming system, I'm not buying a 6950 or $130 worth of RAM. Especially considering you can get 2 sticks of G.Skill for ~$80 or, if Corsair is so bloody important, 4 sticks for $90. I quit following prices for a while but it's good to see that DDR3 has finally come down quit a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
Ok, I shouldn't have said "absolutely", but I still wasn't talking out of my rear end. An Athlon II system will very likely be more than $100 cheaper than a 2500k system. I mean, you picked a more expensive motherboard for the AMD system than you did for the Intel system. That's straight up dishonest. e: with your updated parts, you're not even correct about the final cost. Add up the numbers again, with the parts you've picked out the AMD system is $152 cheaper, not $105. fart simpson fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:Ok, I shouldn't have said "absolutely", but I still wasn't talking out of my rear end. An Athlon II system will very likely be more than $100 cheaper than a 2500k system. Does it really matter? The AMD Athlon X4 system is going to be substantially slower. You'd only buy it if you can't afford the Intel. It's not even a "bang-for-your-buck" solution. It's just what you buy if you can't afford better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
Or if you are an irrational fanboy who doesn't understand that performance per core is more important than more cores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Or if you are an irrational fanboy who doesn't understand that performance per core is more important than more cores. Except for very few workloads. I found a few systems where a much faster (in 90% of stuff) 2-core system was a bit slower than a 4-core system in parallelizable stuff, like compiling a big project.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Does it really matter? That depends entirely on what you're doing. For most common desktop work, processor performance is close to irrelevant. An i3 or Athlon II will run Word, Powerpoint, and sane Excel just as well as an i7 or Xeon hexcore. And, as far as games are concerned, there aren't that many games which bottleneck on the CPU. If you drop the resolution to CRT-circa-1994 levels, or have some ridiculous $1500 3-GPU setup, you might shift the bottleneck back to the processor, but it's simply not a huge concern for the vast majority of users. Most people don't encode video or run CFD simulations on their desktop all day long. Yes, the i5 quad is a substantially faster processor in benchmarks and CPU-heavy tasks. If you had an unlimited budget and simply wanted the best value-for-money on a general-purpose system, it would be a great choice. However, for a lot of users the Athlon II X4 will do just as well for less money. Given that budget almost always is of some concern, why not go for the option that effectively performs just as well for less money? Powercrazy posted:Or if you are an irrational fanboy who doesn't understand that performance per core is more important than more cores. How do you figure? Sure, there are exceptions, but most stuff that leans hard on the CPU is written to take advantage of multiple cores these days. At that point, of course, both performance per core and number of cores play an important role in overall performance. Typical office crap is lightly threaded - but again, that's the stuff where even a $60-100 bargain basement CPU is more than enough to handle everything with flying colors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 19:28
|
|
|
Some people want the very best and most powerful available, and that's cool because those high dollar sales help drive processor development. I'm on a tight budget when it comes to computer expenditures and I find the performance to price ratio more favorable with AMD based systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Does it really matter? So wrong. So very wrong. Tech Report has covered this very subject in more thorough detail and Athalon x4 is a great system to build around on a budget. Edit: Hey here's a link! http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448/17 Ownage. Edit 2: Hmmm. Techreport hasn't done their recommended system builds with Sandy Bridge... I may be talking a little out of my rear end. But the Athalon still gets the nod on their budget builds. http://techreport.com/articles.x/19868/2 Budget... Can't afford Intel... Ahh dammit all to hell I'm going home. Coredump fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Dammit quote is not edit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Coredump posted:So wrong. So very wrong. Tech Report has covered this very subject in more thorough detail and Athalon x4 is a great system to build around on a budget. I mean, obviously if you can't afford $350 for your motherboard and CPU then AMD is going to give you compellingly better value than Intel will, and of course when I built a computer for my grandma I used an Athlon II X4 and the onboard video because she's barely going to use that CPU and the higher performance would have been wasted. If you do notice performance though, and you have the money, it's a little silly to say an i5 2500 wouldn't be worth it. Alereon fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Apr 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
Alereon posted:That article is a year old, doesn't include the current generation of Intel processors, and STILL shows the Intel Core i5 750 as having the best performance/dollar when total system cost is factored in. Those "performance per dollar" numbers can be misleading, though. If you want to express things as a simple ratio, you have to distill "performance" into a single number, and that's always going to have issues. For instance, a lot of people don't give the slightest of shits about Folding@Home, but it's factored into the results. There are very few situations in which it matters whether it takes 16 or 20 seconds to encode a 10 minute MP3, but again, that's factored into the "performance" number. Ultimately, it comes down to one question: what does the extra $100-150 over the minimum acceptable option get the user? For a whole lot of people, the answer is, "not much." Hell, probably half of the first world would be just fine with a wimpy little single-core ARM in an iPad 1 for their home computing needs. Most of the rest could get by just fine with a cheap dual-core/integrated-graphics laptop - and many of them do. Even gamers, and people who occasionally do things that require a fair amount of CPU power (like, say, video encoding) will for the most part be perfectly happy with an inexpensive quad core. There are certainly exceptions, but for the vast majority of the world and even a significant chunk of SH/SC types, "good enough, fast enough, and dirt cheap" wins out over "MAXIMUM X-TREME PERFORMANCE."
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
An SSD for the OS drive is going to make a much more user perceivable difference in performance than the jump from an AMD chip to an Intel one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
I was typing up a post but then I decided that instead we should all have a group hug and agree that if you wanna spend >$350 on your CPU and motherboard you should buy Intel, and if you don't you should buy AMD, and everyone can decide for themselves which group they fall into for their own reasons. Also I want to see an Intel Cedar Trail Aton and a 28nm die-shrunk AMD E-series duke it out for low-power x86 supremacy later this year or maybe next. My money is on the E-series because I still think Intel has no loving clue about the Atom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2011 23:58
|
|
|
Group hugs and bulldozer news ITT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I was typing up a post but then I decided that instead we should all have a group hug and agree that if you wanna spend >$350 on your CPU and motherboard you should buy Intel, and if you don't you should buy AMD, and everyone can decide for themselves which group they fall into for their own reasons. Also I want to see an Intel Cedar Trail Aton and a 28nm die-shrunk AMD E-series duke it out for low-power x86 supremacy later this year or maybe next. My money is on the E-series because I still think Intel has no loving clue about the Atom. I'm sorry but I must inform you that if your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well. kidding of course
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
madprocess posted:I'm sorry but I must inform you that if your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are never sold in stores, and you will most likely be told that you have to order them from internet sites. Do not buy this chip! This is one request that you must refuse your son, if you are to have any hope of raising him well. Is this a reference to something? If so, do tell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
pienipple posted:An SSD for the OS drive is going to make a much more user perceivable difference in performance than the jump from an AMD chip to an Intel one. Yeah, I'd take the AMD system with an SSD over the Intel system without an SSD for the same price if I had a budget limit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Nonpython posted:Is this a reference to something? If so, do tell. Oh it's a decade old slashdot troll or something parodying both the AMD/Intel rivalry and your standard fear mongering reporting about computers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
Nonpython posted:Is this a reference to something? If so, do tell. http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html Man, that poo poo's old. Edit: AOL 
KillHour fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Nonpython posted:Is this a reference to something? If so, do tell. Sounded like most computer stores before the K7 cpus from amd. Sure you could buy amd if you wished your system to catch fire and kill your dog or any such helpful hints.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
conntrack posted:Sounded like most computer stores before the K7 cpus from amd. Sure you could buy amd if you wished your system to catch fire and kill your dog or any such helpful hints. Instead I spent money that I didn't have as a High Schooler on a P3 w/ a BX chipset because I was tired of messing with poo poo and just wanted a computer that worked well without crashing or being a bitch about installing a new piece of hardware. Right now I have a new i7 2600, but I'm really looking forward to see what AMD has with Bulldozer and other things. I want to see them be awesome. TreFitty fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Couldn't you get a SiS chipset (lol) too, or did they come out after nforce?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:Couldn't you get a SiS chipset (lol) too, or did they come out after nforce?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
conntrack posted:Sounded like most computer stores before the K7 cpus from amd. Sure you could buy amd if you wished your system to catch fire and kill your dog or any such helpful hints. Some computer users too. I remember a heated argument I had with one guy back in the Maximum PC Delphi Forums back circa 1999 about how he swore AMD processors was incompatible with some part of x86. He would post something as proof and I would post a screenshot with it running along with the win98 system properties screen running to show the processor. This went on at least 7-8 times and he still swore that I was doing something to make it work. The time before K7 was interesting indeed when people swore that anything that wasn't Intel sucked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
TreFitty posted:Yea, SiS was always around and always horrible. They were around even pre-K7. AMD even had their own chipset for the first-gen K7's to fill the void which was also bad for I forgot what reasons. If I recall correctly, it did not support 4x AGP, and they tended to burn out, especially on systems past 1ghz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
The AMD750 (Irongate) chipset was horribly unstable, mostly because it was the first generation chipset and the first one for the platform. People were still in the habit of using the same generic low-draw 250W power supply and generic PC100 RAM they would in a Pentium II system, which didn't work because AMD systems were a lot more sensitive. The Via KX133 was actually an improvement over Irongate, though it didn't support the "SuperBypass" tech AMD used to improve performance. By the time of the KT133A the Via chipsets actually made for a pretty reasonable platform, as long as you didn't have a Soundblaster Live! card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
Basically every AMD chipset up until the nForce 2 kind of sucked in its own way. Most of VIA's chipsets had lovely memory controller peformance, and most SiS stuff was terrifically unstable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
rscott posted:most SiS stuff was terrifically unstable. Counterpoint: ECS K7S5A 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 08:40
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:Counterpoint: ECS K7S5A
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Oct 8, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
I had an ECS L7S7A2 back then that I got for dirt cheap and it lasted me 5 years with no stability problems. The audio in port on the back failed after 2 years but other than that it was perfect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:09
|
|