The New AMD Building Thread

the onyl problem with quad cores and above nowadays is not much software supports it

give me a 550BE or a core i5 dual core 680 anyday.

 

LOL! Indeed. In fact, Only 2 programs seem capable of utilizing my full quad. And it would appear, that ONE of those programs can utilize 8 threads!!! :O

 

Yeah but if you're a gamer a quad is still a worthy upgrade. I've seen a lot of current and even some older-ish games utilizing all 4 cores of my CPU. Not saying they fully use it but they are using 4 cores.

Off the top of my head:

Far Cry 2
Crysis and Warhead
Resident Evil 5
Red Faction Guerrilla(CPU is extremely important here)
Mass Effect(UE3)
Gears of War(UE3)(pretty much anything unreal based really)
FEAR 2
GTA4(~90% on all cores)
Call of Duty 4(~80% on all cores)
Company of Heroes
World in Conflict
Anything Source based so all of HL2+L4D+TF2 and Portal

That's probably not even half of the games using quad. Most still don't use it very effectively but you will see activity on cores 2 and 3. It's being adopted slowly but surely.

 

id bet that more due to CF than the games, though yes they are starting to more and more use quads.

 

Hmm, seems like I was wrong about the overclocking. That's a shame as that could have been a seriously potent budget overclocking chip. That award remains with the Q8200 it seems. The anandtech reviews is considerably more favourable to the AMD CPU than others I've seen though, which is why benchmarking CPUs is so tricky these days. Even in the same benchmarks you see completely different results depending on who ran the tests.

Shaff: He's going by CPU usage, not performance, which is no different for crossfire or single GPU. If a game supports quad cores, there'll be some CPU usage there, even if it is GPU limited down to low levels.

 

Estuansis,
A $99 Quad Core is a good place for AMD to build a foundation, especially when money is scarce. The higher end's sales have slowed, and people are shopping more and more by price! Even sales of single cores have gone up. With Intel, Quad sales have dropped about 5-7%, and even Dual Cores have dropped 2-3%!
http://www.canardpc.com/statscpuz-cpu-en.html

It's an ideal position for AMD to be in! You own an AM2+ or and AM3 motherboard, and with many, you're in for $99 and a bios flash. That's what it is for me if I go that route! These are not Black Edition CPUs with unlocked multipliers, you have to raise the fsb to overclock, and they seem to overclock pretty good on a good motherboard. I still think that the Phenom IIx3 720 would be my best choice for the money. I think that the 630 will compete with the Q8200. I just don't see any way that Intel can drop the price of the Q8400 enough to compete head to head with the 630. The 620 will be a success no matter what! Like the first article said, OEMs are going to lap them up, as there's really no competition for it at $99! It lets Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway and eMachines, have entry level quads for cheap! They all have to be drooling over the possibilities!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Mmm, I remember what AMD's last 'entry level quad' offering was like. I don't care if I never see another PC with one of those again, it was like using my parents' sempron laptop.
AMD are really pushing for the 'ooh, a quad core, what's that then?' customers more than anything else with this and good on them I suppose, marketing has never been their strongest point. For vast the majority of users buying a $99 CPU I think a dual or maybe tri-core CPU would work out better for them.

 

Sam,
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. While Anandtech used the same motherboard as firingsquad, they used different memory. Even then the Athloh IIx4 620 performed quite well against the Q8200. Both AMD quads shadowed the Q8200 throughout most of the tests. Firingsquad's overclocked game results were pretty good, as was their overclock! Anandtech used cas 7 memory, while firingsquad used cas 9. They even used different video cards. I don't see a thing that is disapointing in either review. in many instances the 620 is faster than the Q8200. The majority of the tests show just how competitive the 620 and the Q8200 are. On balance they are quite close in performance.

Why Anandtech was unable to do a better job with the overclocking, I don't know. firingsquad got 25MHz more out of the fsb than Anandtech did, overclocking. FiringSquad was able to OC the 630, 39%! Given more time I will bet that in capable hands, it will OC to 40% and higher without overvolting on air! Doesn't look like you were wrong about anything!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Possibly, but you have to consider that the X4 620 they only got to 3.38Ghz from 2.60, a 30% overclock. I would like to think that Anandtech would have a better chance at overclocking hardware than the average person who might buy a $99 CPU. The 25% overclock on stock voltage is pretty reasonable, which if anything, highlights just how crippling AMD CPUs not having unlocked multipliers is.

 

Oh for sure I don't disagree there. The OEMs must be lapping it up.

I'd say get the 720 myself. It has noticeably higher per-core performance and basically HAS to overclock better. And at pretty much the same price give or take I'd see no reason not to get the fully featured Phenom II chip. Of course the average joe won't see it that way. The wide market of consumers is going to see a quad core vs a tri core and that's it.

If you are referring to Phenom then I am insulted. I loved my Sempron 3100+ and it was a much better chip

If not the Phenom which specific model are you referring to? Because Phenom never really had an entry level. They were all terribly overpriced.

You seem to forget one important factor. When OCing AMDs with the FSB you are more likely to meet the limits of your other hardware. I fully believe that the 630 can hit 3.7GHz, but only with the right board and memory. Likewise a Black Edition CPU will hit the limit of the chip as nothing else is really adjusted but the multi.

Actually most review sites only do a quick OC to test. They hardly push the limit of the chip nor do they do any extensive tweaking. The OC is usually only for a more even comparison to higher clocked chips. Plus they might just not have the right hardware to OC that particular chip. A lot of the time the reviewers themselves will even admit this. I've seen this in several articles now.

 

There's no originality in this forum any more...

It does, not insignificantly either.

Overpriced for what they were, the 9350s and 9550s were still even cheaper than the X4 620 currently is[/b]

The board Anand were using wasn't that bad was it? I like to think the Am2+/AM3 boards have been out long enough to have reasonably good overclocking abilities outside the multiplier by now, if they are ever going to.

One of the reasons why I'm so critical of review sites - some bother, some don't. Even so, a simple attempt is somewhat reflective of what people who aren't real enthusiasts like us are likely to achieve.

 

Haha it was the first thing that came to mind gimme a break

Well considering that the 720BE can AVERAGE 3.6 and I've seen a few at 3.8+...

I wouldn't call a 9350 slow, perse, but considering they were barely any faster than the Athlon 64 X2s they "replaced" I can see where you're coming from. A 2GHz Phenom, even a quad, is pretty piss poor compared to what Intel was doing at the time. I wasn't surprised to see a LOT of people cling to their X2s until Phenom II released.

Oh no I don't think the board was the issue. More likely the RAM I think or just plain laziness on the part of the reviewer.

Well anyone worth their salt in OCing will put more effort into it than that. I firmly believe you could do 3.6 easy on that chip with a little tweaking. And considering anyone truely wanting to OC it is likely a budget limited enthusiast...

 

Sam,
I don't think it has that much to do with the skills involved, I think it more a matter of time available before their deadline than anything else. FiringSquad may have made a better choice in memory and video card, or they just got lucky. Either way, they clearly demonstrate that the potential is there. I know if I was trying to decide, I would consider the components that FiringSquad used, because they got the better results! The CPUs will also improve in performance as production yields improve for the wafers.

After taking a more careful look at the differences between the Phenom II x3 720 and the Athlon IIx4 630 in the tests and reviews, the 720 x3 would be a better choice for a gamer, but for everyone else, including me, the 630 is the better choice. I stand corrected! People are going to buy them anyway, just for the prestige of having a Quad Core, at least in this country, anyway! You know that emachines and gateway will have out sub $500 Quad systems. The current rumor has the price at around $459 to $469 for the Emachine Quad system. The real oddity out if all of this is that all the low end manufacturers are going to benefit too! Again, people are buying price! People I know that work at WalMart tell me they are selling a lot of eMachines and Compaqs. Best buy right now, is this, no pun intended! LOL!!
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9999116700050007&type=product&id=pcmprd116800050007

It's a pretty sweet deal for the price! We wouldn't buy it, but a lot of people would!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Only if you use quad-core applications. It stands to reason that a quad core is going to be faster than a tri-core, but if you're still using 1 or 2 threaded applications it doesn't really make much of a difference to using a PC.
I like the sneaky T&Cs on those bundle systems. Also, ouch at how slow that PC is... You're basically buying a monitor for $400! lol!

 

Sam,
LOL!! I was only trying to illustrate what type of computers on the bottom rung, are available now! Like I said, you and I wouldn't buy one, but thousands of people will. Good for home or school, and the 7450 x2 is a decent enough chip. On a decent motherboard there's no problem overclocking one to 3.4 to 3.5GHz (better than a 40% OC), so it's not all that slow. Not a good choice for games, but I sent my kids to school to get an education, not play video games! Education before Recreation! The bottom line is that the Acer is more than enough computer for school needs.

Both my girls started school with "State of the Art" computers for the day. I built my oldest a 66MHz Intel 486DX2, when she started college in 92, and my youngest had a 100MHz Intel 486DX2, 2 years later. Both were computer literate since we got them Atari 800 computers for Christmas, when they were 4 and 6 years old. My youngest still uses hers. She has it set up for the little kids to play simple games with. Fisher Price, Disney and Sesame Street games, seem to be very popular! Keeps them out of the older kids hair! LOL!! She quit college after the first year, because she never wanted to be anything but a good Wife and Mom. She projected that into a very successful Day Care/Pre School business and career with 7 locations, all run by the same simple rules! Teach and Learn! If you aren't willing to get down on the floor with the kids, and play games with them, she won't hire you! She got that from me, I'm proud to say!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Tragic though it is, you speak the truth. That bag of rubbish will sell like hot cakes.
I don't recall people getting anywhere near 3.2Ghz out of 7450s when I last looked, but that's kind of irrelevant, you won't be doing any overclocking with the motherboard such a system would ship with, and you wouldn't buy a new one because the Athlon II X2s are so much better.

 

Yeah the Athlon II X2 250 Regor is a much better chip than Kuma ever was. At 3.2GHz Kuma is pretty zippy, but what's that one, 2.3GHz? And with no OCing Kuma basically has no value at all. Their only real strength was that they OCd semi decently and were highly tweakable. I never thought Kuma was actually that fast, just a good budget chip.

Sad though it may be I bet those cheapo PCs sell very well.

 

Sam,
Lets be fair here. It's not really a bag of rubbish. It's comparable (but cheaper) to the HP SlimLine, and are fairly speedy computers to use. I've always been impressed with the SlimLines. They cram a lot into that tiny case and it runs cool too! Unfortunately they stick a proprietary half height modem in it, and you can't find drivers for it! Only by our standards are they junk!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I think sometimes techies forget about the real world around them, the techies are a small fraction when it comes to really knowing whats out there when it comes to these pc's, to most the pc Russ pointed out to the general public thats a big time computer, they will sell a hundred thousand of them vs. a techie building just one.

To you guys it's a piece of crap because you know better, even I know it, well it still would not be a piece if crap to me, I'm never gonna get as far as you guys but I have learned to know better thru the years and finally building one, but for the general public, you can't argue Russ's point, not a bad pc for the price especially if you can't build one or have no interest in doing so.

 

It's a 2.3Ghz Kuma, which means it's roughly equivalent to a 2.1Ghz Wolfdale, it's essentially an old E2200 and with no overclocking, which is what gave those chips their value. The speed between those CPUs stock and overclocked is night and day. AMD-wise it's roughly going to be like a 4800+, which while not too bad with a speedy hard disk, with cheap basic components is going to be pretty slow in XP, let alone the Vista or 7 it'll come with. A slimline PC has yet to impress me with performance.
It's only not a piece of crap to the public because to the uninitiated, even a P4 2.4Ghz wouldn't be a piece of crap either, unless we told them.