AMD, doesn't suck. Right?

[63083]

I would say you made a decent choice. And no, AMD doesn't suck. They not meant to gaming porcessors, except Phenoms. They are a good cheap alterative for gaming if you can't afford intel. Bet yes, if you could, get an 7300 Core 2 Duo and you will be much more satisfied. The E7300 hundred uses 45nm tech instead of 90nm, which mean less power usage and cooler temps even when OCed. It also has 3mb of shared L2 chache where as the 6000+ has only 1MB per core of the CPU which means multitasking heavily loads the CPU even with the faster clock speed. Basically, even if you don't OC the E7300, it will still be faster and more effeciant than your current AMD 6000+.

 

[Bartmasta]

thanks for the reply

well theres no going back to intel for now, my motherboard will support am2+ so I will get a phenom, maybe one of the denebs if i can find a nice deal, they look promising

 

[zomgjerry]

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]

 

[63083]

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]

If you're giving these kinds of comments, you should not be taken seriously. I used to use 5800+ 90nm which is JUST a step down from from the 6000+ and my upgrade to the E7300 was phenominal. Not so much in multitasking but in boot up time and gaming performance. If you are not a gamer but use your desktop from basic office apps. and the internet, AMD is by far the better choice cost wise. But I play advanced games and do video encoding and the E7300 was such an upgrade for the things I do.

 

[lovely?]

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]

i don't think i'll ever be able to take you seriously again. EVER.

 

[Intel_man]

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]

It's easy to tell that you've never gone blue yet.

 

[Dystopia]

Left.

Good one

AMD does not SUCK. They over clock awesome (at least the one I have) and are a lot cheaper then Intel. With the prices here, any AMD for 60 bucks smokes an Intel for 60 bucks. However, Intel is still overall better, they just cost more. I say, if you can afford it, go intel. Obviously I can't afford it.

 

[StrangleHold]

http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254

 

[ducis]

amd is still kicking if you want a Q6600 priced proc a 9950 is a worthy competator

 

[Intel_man]

http://www.crn.com/hardware/212101254

Well they used Liquid Nitrogen... People have been OC'ing P4's to like 5.6GHz with Liquid Nitrogen so I don't see that as a really big step in OC'ing.

 

[TrainTrackHack]

The E7300 hundred uses 45nm tech instead of 90nm, which mean less power usage and cooler temps even when OCed.

Except most AMD CPUs on the market are 65nm and (AFAIK) they've already stopped manufacturing of 90nm CPUs some time ago, and AMD is now transitioning to 45nm process node. However, 45nm is still better than 65nm as far as power consumption is concerned, so what you said is correct, though not in such a large scale as you made it out to be...

 

[StrangleHold]

Well they used Liquid Nitrogen... People have been OC'ing P4's to like 5.6GHz with Liquid Nitrogen so I don't see that as a really big step in OC'ing.

Was that suppost to inform (me) of something. Or a spout of general knowledge. Who cares what a P4 did on N. Are you wanting to compare clock speed of a P4 to a Phenom II.

So your saying 4.5 for a Phenom on air is not a improvement.

 

[MrBucket]

ya kno. intel actually is not bettr than amd in anyway.
amd is more efficient and is cheaper and just faster. if u oc rite ;]

there's alot of things wrong with this statement. Intel is way way more efficeint at the moment, but i mean i guess you could still throw out your opinion, but your facts are. . . wrong. Intel and AMD used to be battle buddies but who woulda guessed that the company with way more funds behind them would end up making better more powerful processors? They used to be up to preference when they were very close but now its all about how much money ya got and what you'll be doing with it

 

[laznz1]

AMD don't suck it all depends on what you use it for over the last couple of years Intel seem to be better in most ways but that dont mean AMD sucks

 

[Twist86]

Sadly dual-core and quad-core era AMD has gotten its ass whooooooped. Whats worse is even on overclock have they lost.

I use to be a AMD fan my first X2 4400+ I loved but after failing to overclock it (due to being locked I imagine) went to Q6600 since I got a good deal on one. HUGE difference. Even though games only use 2 cores I still saw a HUGE differnce from a 2.3ghz to a 2.4ghz even more @ 3.2ghz and 3.0ghz but wanted a 1:1 with ram so went 2.8ghz due to 400x8 being to hot.


I have high hopes for the Deneb though.....I think AMD is bringing back the fight for top dawg.

 

[maroon1]

the Denebs are first-ever AMD CPUs to actually beat Yorkfield clock-for-clock, but Nehalems still give them a thrashing...

This questionable

It is not a fact that Deneb are faster than Yorkfield clock-for-clock. Did you see any review that compares Deneb to Yorkfield ?

I know many people who said that Agena was supposed to be better than Kentsfield but that didn't happen

 

[TrainTrackHack]

Did you see any review that compares Deneb to Yorkfield ?

No, I haven't. I have, however, seen Agena-Yorkfield as well as Agena-Deneb Sample benchies, and while I've only seen a few of them, general trend seems to be that Agenas are outperformed by these samples by as big margin as they are outperformed by Yorkfields. However, these benchies are for early engineering samples and the final product certainly will be better... I'm not claiming this is a 100% true fact, but I'm betting that Phenom IIs will outperform Yorkfields.

 

[63083]

Except most AMD CPUs on the market are 65nm and (AFAIK) they've already stopped manufacturing of 90nm CPUs some time ago, and AMD is now transitioning to 45nm process node. However, 45nm is still better than 65nm as far as power consumption is concerned, so what you said is correct, though not in such a large scale as you made it out to be...

Yes, I do understand that the VAST majority of AMD cpu's are 65nm but I was comparing that guys older Athlon 64x2 6000+ 90nm CPU to the E7200 Core 2 Duo. In that case, the difference between 90nm and 45nm would be (and for me, it was) a phenominal difference in both speed and power consuption, especially when overclocked and even when not overclocked. That difference would, however be greatly lessened with the use of an AMD 65nm based chip even though there still would be a difference when compared to the new 45nm Core 2 Duo's.

 

[StrangleHold]

That difference would, however be greatly lessened with the use of an AMD 65nm based chip even though there still would be a difference when compared to the new 45nm Core 2 Duo's.

No, because the 90nm. F3 stepping Windsors core are faster clock for clock than the 65nm. Brisbane core. Dropping to a lower nm. does not mean a faster core by itself.

 

[63083]

No, because the 90nm. F3 stepping Windsors core are faster clock for clock than the 65nm. Brisbane core. Dropping to a lower nm. does not mean a faster core by itself.

I didn't say faster, I said cooler and less power consumption.