The New AMD Building Thread

Sam,
Now you are getting the general idea. It's not that people don't seem to care about getting as much, or more performance these days. They just don't have the extra money it takes at the moment! BTW, the price difference is 32%, not 20%! My cost for MB, Ram and CPU was $125 less than what you quoted for an i5 750 platform. Even with the 630 it's still $113 less, a 29% difference.

I never said that people would only buy AMD, but two low cost Quads, with no real competition from Intel, makes the incentive pretty good to buy one. It's not that CPUs are fast enough already, but rather how fast is fast! Other than for games, which I'll concede are far better with the i5 750, what does it do so much better as to induce people to spend $100 extra, or more for it if they are not into games? Time differences running Apps is not going to show any earth shattering difference. percentage wise it will, but the gap that percentage difference covers is slight in terms of actual time spent, because the difference today is measured in minutes, not hours like it was in the P4/Athlon days. I do a lot of video conversions and video encoding, so my question would be how much faster will my encode be with an i5 compared to what I have. The difference, if any, would be slight, in terms of real time consumed to do the job. Hypothetically, do you really think I would be fussed if someone could do their encode 2 or 3 minutes faster than I can. To me that time difference would be meaningless because it's not worth spending the extra 29% to 32% just for a couple of minutes difference.

I do understand that with games, it's a completely different thing. The performance has to be there in terms of FPS, eye candy, etc. If it's not there, the game may well be unplayable. There, a slower CPU playing a game is right in your face, and you can see the difference, visually. Apps don't become un-playable, and don't hurt anything because they might run slightly slower!

Your last line just goes to prove that even at AD, many cannot afford the latest and greatest, Your remark, "fine proponents for technological advance we are".... is really meaningless, as we are governed by the same economy as everyone else. Given the number of builds this past year, the economy has impacted almost all of us! It's great that you can afford a high end gamer, but you are also a single guy. You have no real responsibilities like most of us married folks here on AD have. We have to worry about our family first, then the bills, Mortgage payments, Car Insurance, utilities and so on. A family man today, has to consider these things first, because they are far more important than any computer! Very few of us were able to build what we really wanted to build this past year. I know I deliberately overbuilt mine because I wanted to take advantage of the upgrade paths available to me in the future, So I spent the money on the best motherboard I could afford, and AMD hasn't disappointed me, by offering a couple of low price quads that have made upgrading to one a no brainer, and cheap! I have no doubt that when the economy gets better, I will eventually get an MA-790XT-UD4P motherboard, which is the DDR3 version of the motherboard I have now. It wasn't available when I did my build, or I may have considered one then. I still have plenty of upgrade options with what I have now, so I don't feel that I'm being left behind. I'm sure we will see more low cost quads from AMD, and I should be able to run any of them I choose to buy, so I should be in pretty good shape for the next year at least!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

No, it really is that some people don't care. You still seem to think nobody can afford anything over $300 for the CPU/Motherboard/RAM combo. I'm flat out telling you, that just isn't true. Of course, fewer people can afford such systems, but fewer people can afford to upgrade their systems at all, it just doesn't make that much difference. Where i5s are losing sales, so are low-end AMDs.
Also, I was comparing an X4 940 to the i5, not the 630, as that's a hell of a lot more than 20% performance difference, it's closer to 50.
You can't use me as an example of what people can/can't afford - I place PC hardware about as high as it can be on the priorities list. Most other people have PC hardware much further down on their list of priorities. That goes for all CPUs, not just AMDs.

 

hell a fast C2Q can keep up with games aswell (albeit possibly not at 2560x1600).

i5 is just a good future proof upgrade (if there is such a thing) for dual core users who are looking to upgrade a mother baord aswell. infact, yes, if anyone is upgrading their mobo, then i5 seems most reasonable, if not, then pop in the best what yuo mobo can do. but the thing is, about the whole, i5 needs a new mobo agrument is that, alot of people upgrade their mobo witht he same CPU alot of the time. from P965 to P35 > P45, or from the SB700 > SB750 > sb800 etc etc etc.

 

Resolution has almost no effect on the CPU's requirement at all. It's more that if you game at 2560x1600 you WILL have the settings turned up, and high settings = high CPU demand, not to mention there's more CPU overhead when you use more than one graphics card.
People just don't seem to get that the CPU makes that much of a difference to games though, just because of the average frame rates. Look at the minimums...
As for the needing a new motherboard argument, it never makes any sense as people very rarely can get away without a new board when they need to upgrade. That goes for all systems.

 

As Computers mature to the need and speeds required by today's technology . I honestly feel more people will upgrade ,but not the way U Guys do hear. They will stick to the common consumer levels [E-Machines, Compaq, etc].The average Family is content if it does what it's intended to do, and a price they feel is adequate.They do not have the knowledge nor the time to build. The way advancement is going you almost have to upgrade .
Especially if your a Movie BUFF like me [but I build]. Most families use TV's as babysitters, If they can get something more convenient then going to Blockbusters, also letting the kids do it and sit their and wait on the Movie to D/L they R Damn sure gonna do-it
Let's face it Electronic Science is making tremendous Advancements
YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, you have to upgrade. But at that consumer level machine and price tag . Ive seen Some really nice Computers [Dual & Quad] between 3 & 500 bucks. Just what the average Joe or Josephine can afford, and willing to settle for

 

Sam,
Just stop with the BS, and quit trying to put words in my mouth all the time. I never said that no one could afford an i5 platform. I said that most people in the US can't. You claimed a price of $390 for the MB, Ram and CPU, and I countered with $265 for the AMD. You were the one who came up with the 20% price difference, not me, so where did this 20% performance thing suddenly come from? And if you think that the difference between the 940 and the 630, is that much, you haven't been paying attention. There is very little difference in what the 630 can do compared to the 940. The 630 even beats the 940 at certain things in testing. Functionally, it's about 95% of the 940!

As far as that other BS goes, People here where I live, and that includes LA, do not have the extra $100 to $125, nor the desire to spend it if they did! Yes fewer people can afford to upgrade as well as build new, but the ones that can will be doing CPU upgrades, whether from AMD or Intel! If you have a socket 775, or an AM2+, your cheapest track to better performance is to stick an appropriately faster CPU in it! Perhaps even some more memory!

You keep saying, "To say people can't afford i5s is utter crap, AMD systems don't cost a penny less". I've shown two AMD Quad platforms, the 620 and the 630 that cost far less! $125 and $113 less respectively! Now you want to use the 940 for comparison because it costs more? Even then the Phenom II 940 in the same setup is still $75 cheaper than the i5 750! $75 may not mean very much to you, but $75 here is two tanks of gas or more!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471

Since I've got a CPU that is about 95% of the 940's performance, why would I want to spend the additional $38 when I don't have to? I'm already thrilled with it's performance, and the lack of L3 cache, doesn't seem to hurt the performance much at all, so I have no idea where you are coming up with this 50% bit! For all intents and purposes, the 630 is just below the 940 in overall performance! That makes the Athlon II x4 630 the Quad core Champ for most Bang for the Buck! Consider, I have a Quad that overclocks well, and scales better than the Ph-II 940. I'm getting better performance with the 630 at 3.510GHz, than Oman7 was getting at 3.93GHz with his Ph-II 940. This in spite of being a total newbie when it comes to overclocking a locked multiplier AMD CPU. I've never done one before, and know nothing about doing it, yet it still performs very well! The way it scales, and if I can get it stable at 3.7-3.8GHz, it should register about 60,000+ MIPS in Sandra.

I look for a flock of 620s and 630s to be sold over the Christmas Holidays! All of the Pre-Builts like Dell, Compaq, HP, Gateway and eMachines will all have low cost quads from AMD for the Christmas rush! They've even hedged their bets a bit by offering Dual and Triple core AMDs at even lower prices. They have some Intels as well, but the big push is on AMD and low cost Quads or Triples! It should be a very Happy New Year at AMD!

Russ

 

The way things are going, in my opinion, everyone should be required to take at least one semester of basic computing in high school. I think it should be required learning. For in the not so distant future, there will be a computer around every corner, in every office, in every home, in every job, etc etc. For the people who find it intimidating, perhaps they simply need it laid out in a more fun filled approach (better teachers). I didn't always like science. But my freshman and sophomore science teachers had this way of grabbing my attention. Its like they knew how my mind works Now im filled with all sorts of useless information LOL! Kidding

I suppose most parents could be teaching their kids how to build. For believe it or not, it is NOT that difficult. People are simply intimidated by complex pieces of equipment. And the best time to learn is when we're really young believe it or not.

 

PS russ from what i am hearing MSI has a new BIOS on their mobos, which im sure other manufacturers will use aswell that unlocks thats L3 cache

your sentece there is perfect though:

"If you have a socket 775, or an AM2+, your cheapest track to better performance is to stick an appropriately faster CPU in it!"

its what i have been saying all along!

 

Shaff,
The L3 only applies to the very few Deneb examples out there. The Propus core has no on chip L3 cache at all! Just empty space! Given that PH-IIs with a failed L3 cache would probably become 630s, the numbers won't be high enough to try and get lucky and get a Deneb! besides, the Propus architecture is better!

Russ

 

Shaff,
I forgot to mention that the 630 was designed to be a 940 without the L3 cache. I suspect based on seeing what mine can do, that the Propus will become the Phenom IIs core of the future. It also would explain why there is still empty space on the die. Add appropriate L3 Cache, and you have the better scaling architecture and reduced instruction set of the 630 in an all new Phenom II! So far the Propus has been bullet proof, so I'm assuming that AMD got it right! I know it's handled everything I've thrown at it and come up smiling! If someone has an AM2+ motherboard that can handle 95w, buy one! You won't regret it. Even my games have improved! Hey! AMD did give us something to talk about, right? LOL!!

Happy Holidays,
Russ

 

Rick: The average joe comment is one of the things I'm trying to highlight. They won't be buying an i5, but I doubt they'll be buying Athlon II X4s either, they're more likely going to be going for the Athlon dual cores, low-end Pentium dual cores, or heck, quite possibly semprons and celerons... Perish the thought, but it's true.
Russ: Putting words in your mouth..... right. What is actually happening here, is what you're saying, you interpret in a different way to how we do. It's incredibly difficult to keep track of a conversation because every time I try and highlight something I disagree with, or something I think is wrong, 3 extra paragraphs of unnnecessary text appear in the middle, repeating what you said in your last half a dozen posts. Keep it clear and simple and maybe you'd be misunderstood a lot less.
Percentages appeared. They were to compare the X4 940 since Jeff was actually in this discussion too, though you may not have noticed to the i5 750. Choosing an X4 940, the cheapest Gigabyte 790GX board and 4GB of the cheapest Corsair DDR2 PC8500 comes to $356 before rebates. I originally compared with a 770 board, but I think considering what the i5 boards can all be used for, using a 790 is fairer. Using an i5 750, the cheapest full-ATX board and the cheapest 4GB of Corsair PC12800 comes to $420 (since the removal of the US3L board from newegg). $420 from $356 is 18%, so actually slightly less than 20. The performance gains on this switch are in the majority of cases substantially more than 20%.
If you keep up with the PC industry as a whole you'll know that getting more % extra performance for a given % extra cost is something to welcome, and not something that comes by very often.

Sure don't think they're going to appreciate you putting words in their mouths any more than you like me "putting" them in yours. Also, I quite frankly don't believe that. That you can categorically state that an entire city would never spend any more than $265 on a CPU/board/RAM is utterly absurd.
I like the use of the quote there. Do you consider the X4 620 and 630 equivalent to an i5? If you do, it's clear why this discussion isn't going anywhere. Let's find an equivalent AMD CPU to the Core i5. Well, there isn't one, but we take the closest AMD have got, which is the X4 965BE. Now put that in an appropriately comparable system, I'm pretty sure it won't cost any less than a Core i5 system does.
There's no point arguing that something slower costs less, to a substantial proportion of PC users, you could take that down to the Athlon II X2 250 level, that'd still be more than enough.
Also, please don't use the tank of gas argument. $75 isn't one tank for more than half the cars on the road in the UK. Whining about how much fuel costs in the US is just laughable, the country practically burns the stuff for giggles. </Politics>
You claim your X4 630 is 95% of a 940. I'd like to see some benchmarks showing that to be the case please. There aren't really any competent benchmarks comparing the 630 and 940, the 955 is about as close as you can get, so including how the 630 and 620 compare for clock speed differences estimates have to be drawn.
Anandtech
Photoshop CS4: i5 100% 955 81.1% 630 69.1% 620 65.8%
DiVX/Xmpeg Transcode: i5 100% 955 90.2% 630 74.8% 620 71.5%
x264HD Transcode Pass1:i5 100% 955 101.5% 630 88.2% 620 82.9%
x264HD Transcode Pass2:i5 100% 955 91% 630 78.6% 620 73.3%
WME9 x64 AP Transcode: i5 100% 955 100% 630 88.2% 620 81.1%
3DSMax9 SPECapC CPU: i5 100% 955 84.3% 630 71.6% 620 66.4%
Cinebench R10 Single: i5 100% 955 86.7% 630 71.8% 620 67.1%
Cinebench R10 Multi: i5 100% 955 93.6% 630 75.8% 620 71.9%
POV-Ray 3.73b23 SMP: i5 100% 955 93.8% 630 82.2% 620 76.4%
Blender 2.48a CRender: i5 100% 955 83.4% 630 71.1% 620 69.6%
Excel2007SP1-M.C.S.: i5 100% 955 80.7% 630 56.0% 620 53.6%
SonyVegasPro8 BRD-C: i5 100% 955 85.3% 630 76.4% 620 73.4%
Sorenson Squeeze FLV: i5 100% 955 89.5% 630 77.2% 620 72.9%
PAR2 Archive Recovery: i5 100% 955 83.7% 630 69.6% 620 67.3%
WinRAR Archive Create: i5 100% 955 86.0% 630 71.8% 620 65.0%

As per the discussion, games results omitted.
Total Score:
i5 750: 1500 [141.75%] CPU Cost: 200 Architecture Cost: 420 [138.16%]
X4 955BE: 1330.8 [125.76%] CPU Cost: 166 Architecture Cost: 371 [122.04%]
X4 630: 1122.4 [106.07%] CPU Cost: 113 Architecture Cost: 318 [104.61%]
X4 620: 1058.2 [100.00%] CPU Cost: 99 Architecture Cost: 304 [100.00%]

Right, having turned a discussion that had almost nothing to do with performance into a benchmark, time to move on.

But if people are too poor to buy new PCs, surely there won't be a flock sold?

 

I follow this discussion because I am currently looking to help a friend build something to replace his AMD939 system he's giving away for Xmas.
He's (we are) not even one of those in the USA thats worrying about if an I5 build is $50-100 more than an AMD X4.
What do you guys think about futureproofing? AMD has used the AM2,AM2+, AM3 architecture for roughly 5 years since we built his 939, will they sustain it another 5?
Wasnt it discussed the I5 is just a quick stop between the 775 and whatever is next?
For all the banter over which is the superior value ATM the sustainability aspect I believe may have been overlooked.
Any opinions on this? (Like I need to ask LOL)

 

The AM2 platform replaced Socket 939 in summer 2006, similar to the time the Core 2 Duo systems came out. Socket 775 had been established prior to the Core 2's released, launching with the release of the Prescott Pentium 4 chips in early 2004. Thus, the fact that you can still buy Intel CPUs on Socket 775 even now means the socket has lasted almost six years, and although is in the early phases of being withdrawn, is not going away just yet. Considering how much AMD have achieved migrating AM2 to AM3 I don't see that socket disappearing any time soon either.
However, I don't really consider the socket type much of a 'generation' of technology. You certainly can't put any of the current AM2+/AM3 crop in one of the original AM2 X2 boards, nor can you put even the earlier Core 2 Quads, let alone the current ones, into a board designed for the P4s. Realistically, the socket types are actually moving 'production lines' if you will for CPUs, new chipsets supporting new CPUs come and go with the same socket. The real question you have to ask about AMD's current AM3 longevity in that sense is actually - how long will the 790X, GX and FX chipsets last, in terms of supporting new CPUs? The original 780G is already looking a bit dated, in much the same way as the P31/P35/X38 chipsets are for Intel - yet, both of them support all the CPUs that are available on that socket type today, so far. - for Intel, it's very unlikely there'll be any new CPUs on 775, so the P30 series is safe, but for AMD? There's no LGA1156/1366 replacement for AM3, the socket carries all their current chips.

No, but you're on the right lines. The i7 top-end was the stop-gap between the Core 2 systems and the Next generation platform, which manifests itself as i7, i5, and i3. The i5 750 and i7 860/870 are the first of the new generation which will spawn a large number of other chips. Consider the ones we have now on LGA1156 the midrange. The i3 low-end will be appearing in the next few months, and around the same time, the original i7s (920/940/950/965/975) on LGA1366 will be ousted for the new 32nm chips which will include 6-core CPUs.

 

Interesting points. I'm sure I will lurk for awhile (as usual) and when its time to order, I will rear my head much like Nessie in the Loch and ask the community for competing parts/price list between AMD and i5.

 

Well to be honest, if you can afford an i5, it's pretty simple, you buy the i5. There isn't anything from AMD that can compete with the i5 yet. However, if you're considering it from purely a value perspective and you only run single-pass x264 video encodes, then a Phenom II might work out better value. Other than that, at this end of the market, it's i5 or nothing, at the moment.

 

Also don't forget that some people, like myself, just prefer a particular brand over another. Given a good enough deal, I would definitely make the switch to i5. But I like the OCing and tweaking better on the AMDs than on the Intels and I have been a long time AMD user.

As far as value goes I think AMD has it wrapped up. Loads of noteworthy mid-range chips, my favorites being the Phenom II X3 720 BE and the Athlon II X4 630. But I can't argue that Intel i5 is the top dog right now for the high end.

 

Estuansis,
Here's Besy Buy's lowest prices on Quad cores. There are 5 below the "Magic Number" $699. All are AMD! Out of the 7, 6 are AMD. I'm pretty sure Best Buy has researched this market to death, and have responded to what people have been asking for! Mainly sub $699 Quad cores





Contrast that with the lowest price Core i5 they sell!



People looking for a Quad Core for under $700, won't be ponying up an additional $249.99, to be buying them! I would guess that Best Buy plans to sell a lot of Sub $699 computers this Holiday Season! I think they have every chance of success!

Happy Holidays,
Russ

 

Jeff: As far as value is concerned, AMD have the lower end of the market (and granted, where most of the sales are) sewn up. However, the i5 keeps continuously being brought into the discussion (not often by myself) for a ritual bashing just because it costs more than CPUs that are far inferior to it for performance. It's clear that both you and Russ are AMD fans and that's fine, but not a word can be said about AMD's chips seemingly without flogging the i5 for being "too expensive" even though it's every bit as good value, just higher in price because it's so much higher in performance.

 

Sam,
You were the one that brought the i5 into the discussion in the first place. We weren't discussing i5s, we were discussing AMDs. This is the AMD Building thread. You were the one that brought up the $390 price tag, not me. Everyone here knows that the Core i5 is the better system! Just because we are AMD fans doesn't mean we are stupid! It means that we aren't interested in Intel, we are interested in discussing AMDs. Something you sidetrack every time you come here! You sound like a God damn Intel salesman!

Russ

 

Actually, an otherwise-AMD discussion was brought into an i5 discussion by yourself at least once, I'm pretty sure several times, but I won't comb through dozens of pages to find proof. If it's the AMD building thread, surely the same old copy+paste of "people can't afford i5s" is no more relevant than discussing its merits.