$200 to upgrade my computer....

87dtna

Active Member
I look at it like this.

The Athlon II 240/245 are really good deals.

If you just want to jump up 10 more bucks, the Phenom II 545.

Other then that just spend the 119 and go for the 720BE.

The 550 just reminds me of the dog on TV with no back legs using a cart to get around. You cant just throw away or shoot the dog.

I really don't understand your obsession with the 545 being just as good as the 550. The difference between the 545 and 550 is ten dollars. The difference is 30 dollars more for the 240 VS 545. The 545 is $90, the 240 is $60. The 550 is $100, and for that you get an unlocked multiplier. Way worth it over a 545.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
This is the reason.

The 240/245 are really good deals and overclock well.

The 250 is to close to the price of the 545.

Not for sure, but I would bet the 545 overclocks and unlocks just as well as the 550.

The 550 is to close to the price of the X3 710 or 720. But I'm not the one pushing the 710. I would not buy the 550 or 710.

If some one had a budget of between 70/120 bucks, my picks would be first the Athlon II 245 - Phenom II 545 then the Phenom II 720BE.

AMD yields rates are pretty good, so (most) of them will all clock about the same with a good motherboard. So the ones that land between my picks like the 240 ( just 7 bucks more for the 245) The 250 ( just 10 bucks more for the 545) The 550 ( same price as the 710 or just 16 bucks more gets you the 720BE)

I'm not really beating any of them down. AMD has just released to many processor to close in performance to shed inventory and make a few more bucks. Its one thing to compete with Intel but they have there own processor competing with each other. To many to close together.
 
Last edited:

87dtna

Active Member
This is the reason.

The 240/245 are really good deals and overclock well.

The 250 is to close to the price of the 545.

Not for sure, but I would bet the 545 overclocks and unlocks just as well as the 550.


I definitely agree about the 240/245, and also what you say about the 250.

But, overclocking with a multiplier is way easier and produces better results than overclocking via the FSB.
 

bomberboysk

Active Member
Im going with the latter idea. Makes more sense to be patient right and in the long wrong it will be a better decision.

Thanks a lot for the help guys!

and much appreciated for the suggestions stranglehold!

lol and as for all the 550-720 talk.. that was just kind of over my head.

I havnt kept up on AMD processors for a while, so im kind of out of the loop.

It would be nice if they made some performance chart like a list of 20 processors (Fastest to least Fastest)
Plus, by the time you save up a few more bucks, you may be able to afford a quad cpu(Athlon II X4's are just around the corner) or get faster ddr3, or get a crossfire motherboard(since prices will probably drop somewhat).
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
But, overclocking with a multiplier is way easier and produces better results than overclocking via the FSB.

AMD doesnt have a FSB. True its easier using the X. But with a good board the same processor you can clock it just as high using the Bus.
 

87dtna

Active Member
AMD doesnt have a FSB. True its easier using the X. But with a good board the same processor you can clock it just as high using the Bus.

Yes I know it's just bus speed, but just putting FSB is easier. I've seen it say front side bus in some bios'.

I'd rather have easier overclocking for $10 more.
 

bomberboysk

Active Member
Yes I know it's just bus speed, but just putting FSB is easier. I've seen it say front side bus in some bios'.

I'd rather have easier overclocking for $10 more.
As stranglehold said, its no easier to overclock with a multi really. A quality board will handle the increase in base clock, plus also you can overclock memory and bus speeds at the same time, increasing throughput and overall performance.
 

bomberboysk

Active Member
Not talking timings, ive gotten 800mhz mushkin to over 900mhz 4-4-4-12 before.

Btw, What i meant was its easier to oc with multi, but its better to use the base clock.
 

87dtna

Active Member
My CPU benchmarks were higher using the multiplier than with the bus speed overclocking. I've tried both ways. AMD setups like higher multipliers rather than bus speeds.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
:rolleyes:


What if your ram is maxxed out and can't be overclocked? ddr2-800 ram at 4-4-4-12 can't really be overclocked much. Same with 1066 at 5-5-5-15.

You just bump it back to 667 or 800 before you start raising your Bus. As you up your Bus the memory starts getting back to its default speed. Same with the Hypertransport.

My CPU benchmarks were higher using the multiplier than with the bus speed overclocking. I've tried both ways. AMD setups like higher multipliers rather than bus speeds.

Not true, it doesnt care which way you do it. If your using the Bus you can overclock your memory and HT which will increase the overall performance ( but saying that, raising the HT doesnt increase the performance by much on a AMD because it isnt flooding the bandwidth anyway) but both together will bump your score up some.


The difference today then just like 4 or 5 years ago is the yield rates are so much higher on a wafer. Back then on a wafer you would have cores that would run stable from like (example) 2.0ghz to 3.0ghz. So they were sold at the ghz. they were stable at. The upper ones got unlocked and sold at a higher price.

Now with the yield rates so high on the Core 2/Phenom II, other then a few dud cores about all of them will clock high, to get lower models they have to underclock them. Thats why it seems no matter which one they review it seem to overclock pretty close the same. Like most all of the Athlon II/Phenom II can hit pretty close to between 3.7/4.0 ghz unlocked or not.

It comes down to this, To me the 550 just falls in a bad spot. Building one for myself or a customer you can get the 245 for 35 bucks less or the 720BE for 16 bucks more. I think the 250s are not bad processors but priced to close to the 545.

I have nothing against any of them. AMD just has to many processors priced to close together that will all overclock about the same. Now pretty soon they are going to throw a Athlon II X4 in the mix. Before long there will be a Athlon II X2/X3/X4 and a Phenom II X2/X3/X4, might even throw a Sempron in there somewhere:D. My God how do you price processors like that when the benchmarks will be all over the place
 

87dtna

Active Member
Yeah supposedly the sempron 140 is a locked dual core down to a single, so you can unlock them too. Of course it's always a chance you may get one that doesn't unlock, but $40 for an athlon II would be a sweet deal.
 

StrangleHold

Moderator
Staff member
Havent paid much attention to the 45nm. Sempron. But it does seem like they can be unlocked. Yeah, that would be a sweet deal for 40 bucks.
 

2048Megabytes

Active Member
It would stink to be stuck with a single core processor if it wouldn't unlock though.

I agree. I noticed a major increase in processing power when I upgraded my system from a single-core to a dual-core processor. I would never want to go back.
 

bomberboysk

Active Member
It would stink to be stuck with a single core if it wouldn't unlock though.
Even if they dont unlock...they have enough power once you overclock them to do what they were meant for, and that is common tasks like browsing the internet and such.
 

87dtna

Active Member
Even if they dont unlock...they have enough power once you overclock them to do what they were meant for, and that is common tasks like browsing the internet and such.

Ehh, somewhat but not really. I have an LE-1640 Athlon, which is 2.6ghz and 1mb of L2 cache, very similar just the older version of the sempron 140. Even with it overclocked to 3.0ghz, a 4200+ dual core was noticeably faster browsing the internet at stock speed and it's only 2.2ghz.
I also tried gaming (I know it's not it's purpose but at the time it was pretty much the most powerful amd single core), and with everything else being the same the 1640 at 3.0ghz had mad lag playing COD WAW, the 4200+ at stock speeds had no issues.
Single cores are poop, no way I would ever go back to one either, even just for an internet browser.
 
Top