My reason for choosing AMD

shadin said:

You buying it used is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the people bitching at others for getting AMD now, when they built new Intel based systems back when A64 was obviously superior in benchmarks.

Note that last part in benchmarks. I'm sure they got great performance out of their P4s and liked their systems just fine. Real world, probably couldn't tell much of a difference.


I can't even understand what the hell you're talking about here. Giving them credit for what? And I never called anyone a fanboy, I hate the term and think it's retarded. There's lots of reasons someone might choose one brand over another, that doesn't mean their choice is somehow inferior.


Who in the hell stated that it should be considered the top? I said it should be considered viable, in real-world performance. I stated specifically that Intel was in the lead now, as did the OP. There's no question of that, K8 is three years old and Intel's dev cycle hit before AMD's, they're definitely on top right now. But that doesn't make someone a retard for sacrificing 5-15% (depending on the app, sometimes nilch) by going AMD over Conroe. It's their choice.


Depends on the game/app. Games I have a hard time believing, as GPU is where its at. You're going to max frames with even a lower-end A64 if you've got the right card setup.


Which is exactly what I've been saying all along, it comes down to choice, and both Intel and AMD currently have great choices for a plethora of computing needs.

Click to expand...

You never mentioned people complaining, you simply said people are giving huge reasons as to why Conroe is better.

What I am saying is if you want to say someone is funny because they have Intel rig and our pointing out that an Intel CPU is now the top CPU then it's very easy for me to say someone is funny for saying AM2 is the way to go because in 1 year it is possible it may not get stomped in every benchmark.

This whole thread about how AMD is still in the top. (I never said on the top FYI so please stop changing my words) Oh and I also never said anyone was retarded, I simply asked why are you buying a CPU if not for price/performance? For Example the creator of this thread believes AM2 is more future proof, that would be a reason to not choose power/price.

As for games maxing out yeah your right, though this thread is about the future. Still though Conroe does beat any AMD CPU in game benchmarks if you lower the res so it's not GPU limited, it's also hard to say which CPU actually is powerful enough to make the GPU the bottlekneck as almost all reviews so far are Conroe vs the Top FX 62, when you throw in other CPUs the bottleneck seems to go away. I won't argue though that games are not GPU limited with Top CPUs at higher Res because that's been shown over and over.

tenchi86: That your bench was made at Anandtech with Crossfire setup (2 gpu) and they didnt used any AA with their 2 gpu setup...
And most cpus got more than 60fps, so no diference can be seen in real life.... (maybe if u have super mega eyes)

Me:"Still though Conroe does beat any AMD CPU in game benchmarks if you lower the res so it's not GPU limited," I should have put Eye Candy instead of res apperantly. Still though as I said this thread is about the future, oblivion is not a future game or even a new game.

Gautam said:

So now we're fanboys if we don't "believe." Give me a break. Why should I make any purchases based on anything that "isn't set in stone"?

Click to expand...

This seems to be the oppinon expressed

@Molester..4U and 8U servers can have 8-16 cores now, that would explain the FSB limitation more then anything else IMHO. 4 tops should do fine on the FSB.
After 4 they will be moving away from the FSB dependent design.
Have you missed the part about overclocking the FSB anyway??

Putting a AM3 CPU in a AM2 socket isn't any diffent then having to buy an new motherboard IMHO, the past tells you performance will SUK. Future upgradeabilty for AM2 should be looked at as future AM2 cpu's if you really want a fair picture of what your going to get performance wise.

The constant up-playing of what you see out of the green side (optimisic outlook) and then calling C2D buyers now short sided (as in there system won't be worth upgrading without buying a new motherboard or that the processors will be limited by the FSB when dual socket motherboards with the same chip deign do more then fine now) makes the opinons expressed seem VERY one sided.

damarble said:

Nice post Molester, you should have submitted it for the front page. There's some points I agree on, some I hope for, some I doubt, but all in all it's a good post.

I wish people would relax a little about all this Conroe madness and just look at the options, then buy whatever meets your needs. I myself am leaning towards Conroe for the rig I build for X-mas, but I haven't ruled out AMD either. Maybe we'll start seeing problems with the retail Conroes, maybe AMD's 65nm shrink will be a dud, who knows. That's why I say, buy what you want, when you want and stop freaking out.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there. People are way too up tight.

I can honestly say that I could care less about what chip I'm running or who made it. I've been running AMD for over 8 years now, and I've had the same 2600+ rig for the last 3-4, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy AMD just because they've provided me with a great affordable solution all of these years. I don't care about AMD any more than AMD cares about me. It's not like these companies are writing us x-mas cards every year. This is business, and AMD just lost mine.

I just want the best bang for my buck. If I were to build a new machine, right now, I would see absolutely no point in going with AMD, because right now Intel has the goods. If AMD had the goods I would stay with them, but they don't. It's all a matter of who offers me the best solution at the time of my upgrade. I have absolutely no loyalty to either AMD, Intel, Nvidia or ATI (please, someone tell me WHY anyone would). The only thing I have loyalty to is my wallet, which means that I'll be buying Intel this year.

For the life of me I'll never figure out why people take the CPU wars so personally. I think a lot of people need to take a step back and look at things objectively, and ask yourself why you care so much about staying with AMD/Intel. I see it all over the place. People will post vehemently about how they'll never leave AMD/Intel no matter what. It's just rediculous. I see it from both sides and I'll never understand it. In my world the company who offers the better product for the better price gets my business. Why that wouldn't ring true for the rest of the world will be a mystery until the day I die.

A very good writeup.

As a lot of people said, most people just buy whatever has the best performance for its price. Even though I like AMD more than Intel, I'd still buy Intel any day of the week if I was in the need. I'm very excited to see how the 65nm products scale, and how much they'll cost.

dan

There's something off about the upgrade path argument. I can't quite put my finger on it now but I'll think about it today some more.

Nice article! Some really valid points raised there.

Basically, when i feel like i want to upgrade my whole system... i don't want to wait, period.

I'll look at benchmarks, i'll look at everything i can before i make a decision. The decision i make would be what is the highjest performing setup at the time that i can personally afford and not go hungry for a month.

Choosing AMD over intel doesn't make you a fanboy in the slightest, just like me choosing intel over AMD doesn't make me a fanboy out of the gate. Now, if we both got preachy... well than thats a different story.


~ Gos

People should know, as is in my sig, I'm still on athlon xp(well, on p3 right now, that's a diff story in another thread), and i will stay on it(when i get a new mobo).

If you read my article, you'll see where I state the latest news on 4x4 was disappointing, but like I also said, the upgrade path is there. K8L will work on current AM2, and AMD is very strong on AM3 cpu's working on it. That gives me a platform for 4+ years, one that I can make good changes depending on whatever my financial situation allows.

I've built many A64 systems for friends, and each time I told them their upgrade path will be limited to gpu's. But their needs were performance now. I've been quite happy knowing my AXP setup will play their games. I do however wish I could pop an A64 in my socket, but I can't. This is the same with Core2Duo, you can't just pop it in your current(well, now old) generation mobo, you have to buy a new mobo. You will also have to buy a new mobo when their next architecture comes out, with their version of Direct Connect and probably integrated memory controller. With AM2 though, I will be able to pop the next generation CPU's in what will be my old generation hardware, and later upgrade to what will be the current generation mobo/ddr3. And being as hard as it's been to find even a decent socket A mobo, given my current situation, I am using it to get me educated in phase, so I can use it properly on my next system. I've worked hard to get what I got, and can't afford a new system every 2 years. Add to that the next gen. Windows, seeing the games that are coming, and the work I do, and the things I'd like/need my next system to do, I've picked 4x4.

My personal needs are bang for buck, and upgradeability is a part of that. I'm proud I bought a $90 cpu, $130 mobo, and it's lasted me 3+ years now. I'm proud I didn't pay the insane prices that were, and still are really, of A64 s754/s940/s939. I'm proud I didn't pay the insane prices of Intel P4, and yes, while priced well for the market, still too high prices for Core2Duo. While I will have to end up paying those prices, I choose to do so in a way that saves me money the only way that seems possible given the current price wars, upgradeability.

Noone here should have disregarded the title of the thread, in that this is my decision, and a good one I think. Most of my opinions on this site are in this context. I never short-sold anyone, if they asked for best of best, I said Core2Duo, if they asked for advice on a new system, I give my opinion, based on what's known AND what's being said. I've tried very hard to back up statements with links. But this is my thread, not asking for advice. If you should find something wrong in anything I've written here, then YOU post a link, please, I'd love to be proven wrong, so I will know what is right.

Lastly, I appreciate the compliments, but this isn't front-page material, it is filled with what could be front-page material facts, but it is in the context of my opinion, and shouldn't be taken as advice. I can see how it can be helpful for those needing help deciding on building a system though.. but.. it really is geared for my needs, which is likely different from everyone else's needs.

Molester said:

If you should find something wrong in anything I've written here, then YOU post a link, please, I'd love to be proven wrong, so I will know what is right.

Click to expand...

i can't help but feel that this is directed at me because i asked for a link.

i wasn't trying to challenge you and i wasn't saying that i "found something wrong". i was asking a question. you made it sound as though you had read something official that pointed to every am3 cpu being compatible with every am2 mobo available, and if that is the case, i would like to read the same official info. nothing personal, not trying to rain on your parade and discredit you in your own personal thread (on a public forums, where it is common practice for everyone to post their own points of view). don't take any of this personally, as that is one of the warning signs of fanboyism

Ever since using a P3 to game and then switching to an AMD XP, I've been AMD ever since. Loved the Socket A, love my Socket 939, loved upgrading everything on my 939, now I've pretty much hit the top of what this board will achieve. 2x1gb of ddr1 mushkin redlines at 270mhz and low timings, an opteron 170 @ 2.7ghz dual core, and an x1900. This setup will last me a while, just like my previous setups have. If once this system can no longer handle my image quality needs and my speed needs if Intel is king, I'll do a full upgrade to Intel, no problem. I just hope the new design supports games like everyone says it does. Benchmarks don't mean **** to real world performance, not one bit. I laughed at people complaining on the Valve Steam support forums, saying their P4 2.4-3.4ghz couldn't handle CS, and my 2.2ghz AMD was doing just fine. Always trying to tell them it was their computer holding them back, that GHZ dont = power.

If it is really true that Intel has finally designed a chip, that can play games without lag spikes, load problems, with stuff running in the background without causing any kind of game impediment, then it's true, they will be the processor to buy. I completely agree with what xilix said. AMD was the choice to buy because of the superior gaming quality compared to Intel, now if Intel is the king, they would be the choice to buy for a gamer. It's nonsensical to stay AMD just because they were good in the past, if it's CHEAPER and faster to go Intel at the time, why not? If it's cheaper and faster to go AMD, why not?

Same reason for ATI and nvidia. If you want speed go nvidia, if you want image quality go ATI, why be a fanboy and choose one over the other just because of hype, benchmarks, or because "you've always been happy with them in the past".

Ok, I figured out what was off about the upgrade path argument but I need to know one thing: was this post designed to say why you are building an AMD system right now or why you might build one in 6-9+ months?

Honestly I WOULD question Amd's ability to catch up any time in the near future. For quite a while Intel had it's head stuck in a funny place with p4 netburst. Amd was easily able to sit back and bring out great stuff, because intel was behind the times. NO MORE!!! Now it seems to me that intel got caught with their pants down and have something to prove.

So what does this mean in the real world??? It means that there is a good chance that by the time amd gets 65nm properly released, intel will be making a big push for 45nm. Both will initially probably just be dumb shrinks, but i think you can see what i'm getting at.

My opinion, amd dropped the ball on this one. They should have pushed past 939 sooner and had the foresight to acknowledge that intel wouldn't be ignorant forever.

Molester said:

My personal needs are bang for buck, and upgradeability is a part of that. I'm proud I bought a $90 cpu, $130 mobo

Click to expand...

And a $900 phase change unit to go along with that.

little more actually, and i did so for my hobby, and wouldn't want to test it on a new system...and i worked damn hard to be able to get it, thank you, and it will transfer to my next system...in a way

as for when i buy, it will be when 4x4 comes

You say you are proud to have bought a $90 CPU/$130 mobo, and yet you're considering 4x4?

I'll bet my left teste 4x4 would be MUCH more expensive than your previous platform purchase.

People talk about 2 - 3 year upgrade paths and such, but in practise it's often not viable or sensible to put a brand new CPU on an outdated platform. Think Athlon XP + KT133A + SDRAM here. Sure, it'll run, but you're castrating it's performance.

The first rig I built, which was 7 month ago, was an AMD 939 based system. Now.. It works wonderful at whatever I throw at it. I agree that Conroe tops AMD now, but I don't really need to switch to Conroe because my system is satisfactory enough. It does what it needs to do. Also, if I plan to upgrade, it most likely will just be a component. The reason being is that I see no reason for me to invest another 1000+ dollars when I am happy now. Yes, you may call me a fanboy, but that is simply not true. My rig will be fine up until the next year or two.

Molester said:

well, the main reason, which i guess i could have pointed out more, is upgradeability...and i'm not picking amd simply because it is amd

Click to expand...

But your picking AMD based on speculation of what "might" come out and "maybe" perform better then intels offering?

And by this your saying that if one bought Conroe now, they cant upgrade?

I'm saying, if you buy Core2Duo now, later they can buy faster ddr2, they can buy a faster version of current architecture CPU, they can buy a better motherboard for the current architecture CPU.

When Intel releases a new architecture with their version of Direct Connect possibly IMC, most likely lower TDP, most likely better IPC, then you'll have to buy a new motherboard for that CPU. If the new architecture uses DDR3, you'll also have to get a new motherboard for that, which may not be till their architecture after the next, we just don't know. There's alot about Intel we don't know right now, except it will be about 2 years before their next architecture, which they've stated.

When AMD releases their new architecture, K8L, and when they release any AM3 cpu, you can pop it in your AM2 socket motherboard with maybe a bios change. Later, you can upgrade to a socket AM3 motherboard, which is supposed to have DDR3, and buy ram for it. But you don't have to have an AM3 socket motherboard to use the AM3 socket CPU.

Molester said:

But you don't have to have an AM3 socket motherboard to use the AM3 socket CPU.

Click to expand...

i guess we'll just have to wait and see, but do you really think that makes sense? do you really think AMD will give you no incentive to buy a new AM3 mobo?

my guess: AMD will make some "AM3" cpu's that will work with AM2, but they will not be socket compatible. IE; you won't be able to take any am3 cpu and shove it in a am2 socket, i doubt they will even be pin compatible. i bet you will only be able to run some chips in AM2, and they won't perform like they could/should unless you plunk down a few more bills on a new mobo/memory.