Who says AMDs are that bad?

Alright, I'm sick and tired of everyone saying amds are horrible beyond belief just because conroes are winning in the benchmarks. So lets look at overclocking since that's what everyone keeps raving on about. So I have a low end amd x2 4000 90nm, so I'll compare overclocking capabilities to the 6300. In general, most people are getting their conroes to 400fsb or so, and then holding them there, or taking them slightly higher to 3ghz, 3.3ghz tops on air. So I decided to see how high I can take up my am2 without a simple voltage bump. As you can see with cpuz validation, I got my 90nm amd to amd's fx-62 speeds with stock voltage, which in my opinion, is actually a fairly good overclock considering it is a 90nm which makes it run hotter than the newer brisbanes, and considering this is on a piece o' shiite (my religion ) zalman 9500 I am using to cool my cpu, I again think it actually a pretty good overclock.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=176316

Now I have not even begun to push this cpu lately, I have burned it in for about 4 months now (I was able to push it to beyond 3ghz on stock voltage earlier, I haven't tried recently), and it is sitting here at 2.8ghz running prime95 and it is only at 46c on a crappy zalman 9500. I shall continue pushing it in a tad just to show that getting an amd cpu for only $85 (brisbane 3600) is not always a bad thing. In my setup I'm using 2gb of super talent t800ux2gc4 (planned on doing a review on it, but never got the time to publish it) with an asus crosshair, temps are taken from the latest version of speedfan, which is more accurate than core temp is due to how it measures the temps, I am sure that computronix would be glad to explain that if anyone wanted. I will also add benchmarks comparing the cpu to both the amd 6000 (when I take it up to 3ghz) and either the e6600 or e6300 (comparing simularly price or performance wise).

Anyone that is in the market for buying a new computer, I would say before you even buy anything, ask yourself, what are you going to use the computer for, how much money, and what you need to buy. I would say if you need a cheap computer, either go for an amd or even a sempron or celeron, no need for the top speed computers, also same for people that are only going to use their computers for web use or office work (word, exel, etc). But if you need top performance, or are going to be seriously using your computer, then I would go for a conroe, I'm tired of people instantly assuming that amd's are horrible for any purpose, especially after reading some of the threads on them. Enjoy

Any questions?

I don't think anyone is disputing AMD's have a role at this moment in the low end. What everyone should do is price a complete system. In general you can get a quality AMD Mobo for less and get a nice 65nm Brisabase for $105 or so.

For those on an extreme budget, you can build a good AMD system.

It's only the AMD Cpus that start running into C2D prices that they start losing ground for enthusiasts who will push a system to the limit. They may still have a role for those who run everything on stock.

Contrary to what Toms was able to do in the $300 PC article, I put together a hypothetical AMD system that was quite powerful. Any comparile Intel system would not have been able to really compete.

I would presume a $100-$125 Premium at the moment for a base Conroe System over a nice Brisbae system when counting CPU and MOBO differences. (This is based on system pricing about 2-3wks ago so flucuations may have happened.)

Until your budget gets to $600-$700 or more, I see the AMD as being a nicer complete system since squeezing a C2Duo into that budget means using questionable components in the full system.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that trust has been lost in AMD. There's really nothing wrong with 939 or AM2 cpu's, expect both are running on old designs that limit their performance. What they do, they do good, but they are no longer leading the pack and the top cpu examples are high priced in compared to the C2D cpus.

But trust in AMD? For the past several months, all AMD has been able to produce has been a failed FX70-74 series, lots of promises concerning release dates of the R600 video card, with delays, new release dates, more delays, and so on. The same has occured with the cpus, announced release dates and then delays. I think it would have been better if they never announced a release date at all, but simply said that they were working on a product and when they had it ready, they would show it to us and release it for sale. As it is, the next promised release date for the R600 is June from last I read. But can I trust that it will not be delayed yet again?

On top of that has been their lawsuit against Intel and continual claims that Intel isn't playing fair. This resembles the negative campaigning done by so many politicians in this country. Instead of telling us about their strengths, they want to show the other's weaknesses. That leaves many thinking fine, the other company has a weakness, but you haven't given me any reason to buy your product.

I don't know how a K10 will perform, nobody seems to know. I don't know when it may be out, I don't even know if its real beyond a few drawings and claims. For all I really know, it could be a figment of the imagination. I would like to know, I would like to have answers, but I no longer trust AMD for those answers, or lack thereof.

AMD chips aren't really that bad, whether my 4400+ machine or my FX60 machine. They just aren't the top end like they used to be.

I'm not saying it's one of my best oc's or anything, nor saying it will beat a conroe at 3.4ghz, but what I am saying, is to look at is how much performance will be lost for a significant drop in price

And I'd have to say sailer, that was an excellent statement there, 5 stars from me, that is a major problem with trust of amd, especially from investors, so that will be a big determining factor in whether they will survive or not

hmm, I have been to I think 5 major flame war threads, and in all of them there were a bunch of intel rocks amd can't ever do anything, which is why I created this thread, I wasn't looking for a flame war, just to get those newbs to shut up

For the upgrade path, lga775 will probably last longer, but am2+ and am3 will be backwards compatible with am2, and all the new intel cpus almost always require a new northbridge anyways, so you need a new mobo anywho

Actually, the 65w 3800 (90nm) has lower energy consumption than any other the conroes, and the fx-62 has lower load consumption, but the x6800 has lower idle consumption. AMD did a nice job with their 65w and their 65nm cpus power consumption wise

Well, since amd doesn't really use a northbridge to connect the cpu to memory due to the integrated mem controller and hyper transport, that will bring energy consumption down even more

wow, I never thought amd would stopp so low that they would put up false benchmarks like they were complaining intel did. According to that, the 6400 is tied with the 3800, the fx-62 killed the e6700, and the 6300 was a failure 8O

That actually may be an excellent point, I never thought of that

Tacos, very nice topic, you did a nice job showing that AMD dominates low-end.

x2 3600 OEM for $85 is jsut amazing.

thanks, I have just gotten really annoyed at all the people the people who have been trashing down amd for no apparent reason just because conroes bench higher

I think that once amd releases its native quad, multi threaded games like supreme commander will finally be playable, so we can only wait, I don't know how many times I have said that am kinda getting annoyed at amd for it, but that's our only choice

same with me, my original build was a sckt 939 athlon 3000 venice build that rocked, but I started running into mobo problems and one day something sparked on my mobo, so I had to upgrade my whole system to am2 in order to keep upgradeablility in the window. Opty's go far higher than regular x2's though, I have seen many people doing 3ghz easy on air with opty's, they just are the highest binned of the crop, I'm considering to buy a k10 opty down the road to upgrade my current 4000 (hoping they will work on my crosshair anyways)

Interesting name you got there, anyways, most people would not bench those types of things, but things such as photoshop where a top gpu is not always necessary I have seen very powerful cpus with tons of ram and integrated gfx, I have also seen the same with quadro gfx cards, which are absolutely horrible for gaming, and very pricey, but good for what they are designed at, video editing

That's true, and I said that it's kinda hypocritical of them to complain about intel doing some bad benchmarking

What is really telling is that even fan sites such as AMDZONE now just benchmark new AMD chips against only AMD chips.

Back in the day they were all too willing to include Intel Benchmarks.

Even when biased testers can't get decent results you know you have issues on the top side.

But AMD can still but used to build a nice budget concious system.

They are not BAD chips.
It's just that Intel's new chips are very good.

From my point of view, if you want a budget system, AMD, media pc, AMD, mid range pc, AMD, mid high end pc AMD, High end, INTEL.

I want a new server, what comes from Intel thats cheap, cold and efficent?

No Pentium 4 or Celeron is efficent, AMD sure it - the Sempron 2800 blows away most Northwood P4's and puts out ~30w of heat (AM2) - thats all my server needs, and then theres the x2 3600 and 3800 for an extra few dollars! and the option for that system to be upgraded to something like a X2 6000 or the next gen AMDs - AMD sure aint crap thats for sure.

Were talking about the cpus that threatend to destroy Intel and owned for 2 years and caught Intel with its pants down!

They didnt get slower or crappier cause core 2 duo was here, they finally got competition

i hate customers like that, and whats worse, for every 100 computers in my area, only about 5 are about AMD

lol core 2 duo's are tough to sell at times when people want to upgrade from a 2.8ghz pentium 4 and think an e6300 (1.86ghz) is a "downgrade" to them, had one tell me an E4300 was "outdated" ROFLMAO, mind you the same person was also why we were using a gigabyte motherboard rather then an intel branded motherboard (even when the gigabyte motherboard featured an Intel chipset) etc - some people are ignorant morons bla

And that is why Intel can still sell the Pentium Ds for as much as some of the C2Duos.

It is sad.

This is a strange statement, imo. CPU performance is relative to what else is on the market. I loved my P3 700, and when I got it the performance was close to the world's best (P3 1GHz at the time). But I wouldn't advise someone to use it now.

If you're using a 50mpg car, it's pretty efficient. If someone then mass-markets a 500mpg car, your car is still more efficient than older cars. But is it "efficient"? I'd say no.
actually, I would ahve to say that is correct, people are acting as is amds got slower when conroe came out, while that never happened nor will anything of that sort happen, all that happened is that amd got some tough competition after years of easy winning. So while the amd's are by no means slow, conroes bench higher and have far better super pi times, and so people are treating the amds as if they got worse, but if you compare a conroe to a netburst, you would start crying at how bad the netburst compares

I didn't say that, I said conroes bench higher in many areas, and have killing super pi scores, I never said that was all, no way am I going to try to convince you an amd chip can beat a conroe performance wise, but what I am going to say is that they are being way too underrated by some people recently, and that for a cheap build, there's nothing wrong with buying one

I don't have any problems recommending c2d, my problem is for one thing, there was a thread started by a mislead newb "are amd's really that bad?" making it sound like they are the worst possible choice, then there's pope constantly talking about their demise and death in 2008, I really just wanted to start something to shut them up. And if you hadn't noticed, once dell and othe major vendors started taking in amd cpus, the prices of entire systems dropped down significantly, sub $400 pcs became possible according to PC World

True, it was because of conroe that amd cut their prices, but they still cut their prices and that's what counts. But I am getting worried with the q6600 at $266, is that a 45nm q6600? I would assume that, as that would be the only way intel could make some profit off a dual die cpu. I personally don't care for the e6850 though, my friend has a 6600, and his goes to 3.4ghz on a striker with some nice air cooling, I see no point to it unless they give it unlocked mults

No it's the same Kintsfield out now. Yorksfield should be a substantial improvement. We may see it in Q4.

What makes it even more of a wonder was what we were getting charged just a few years ago for cpus that didn't have even half the performance of the current ones. That was one of the reasons that I turned to AMD in the first place. I was tired of feeling ripped of by Intel, paying a lot more for less performance. Also makes me wonder; if Intel wins this war, will their chips quadrouple in price?

I sure Intel is cutting a profit, other wise it would be a illegal business tactic This is what AMD asked for with a law suit. This is all 100% on the up and up.