Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

You get what you pay for with AMD?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 6, 2009 3:59:07 PM

Do you rekon that when you buy an AMD phenom ii processor, you get what you pay for and that the cpu is worth every bit of the money. But whereas with Intel, you have to pay a bit more? Could i buy an AMD processor that is just as good as an Intel but say about £10 or more cheaper. Excluding i7 processors. Although Intel have other benefits, i was looking at their quad cores, and it's embarasing, they are much more energy efficient than AMD's phenoms. On micro atx more intel processors are compatible with their lga 755 sockets, than there are cpus compatible with amd. It's because most micro atx boards are 95 watt only cpu intake, and so you could get something up to a q9550. You couldn't get that on an am2 micro atx since most of the high end processors are power guzzling and inefficent for clock for clock, they take up 120watts.

More about : pay amd

a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 4:11:27 PM

Intel is a bit more expensive right now.

There are many matx boards that support over 95W TDP of CPUs. Trust me on this tho, you don't want to buy CPUs with more than 95W TDP.

TDP is not a measure of power consumption. It a measure of thermal output.

Some higher end AMD boards can take up to 140W and still retain the matx form factor.

Tell me, what was the question again?
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 4:30:37 PM

Cheaper chips are 'more worth it'. Cpu's costing half as much do not perform half as badly, more like 25% worse.

The x4 620 costing $99 is a helluva lot more impressive on bang for buck than an i7 920 is.
Related resources
October 6, 2009 4:35:53 PM

I have a phenom ii 720 and i wonder if you could argue if it was better than a core 2 duo e8400. In terms of price to performance. I bought mine for £109 and the e8400 is £122. I know the e8400 is slightly better for games, but then the phenom ii 720 is a three core and is future safe. Did i make a better choice going for the pii 720?
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 4:42:55 PM

jennyh said:
Cheaper chips are 'more worth it'. Cpu's costing half as much do not perform half as badly, more like 25% worse.

The x4 620 costing $99 is a helluva lot more impressive on bang for buck than an i7 920 is.


Agreed.

As we all know.

The best chip of them all is the Sempron 140.


The Phenom II X4 almost costs twice as much and, clock for clock are only 6% or so faster than the 620.
October 6, 2009 5:00:22 PM

620? never heard of them, are they i7 processors? My knowledge only knows about core 2, all amd athlon x2 and phenom ii processors, and i7 920 upwards. But that's it lol.
October 6, 2009 5:01:20 PM

lol sempron 140.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 5:09:07 PM

Nashsafc said:
I have a phenom ii 720 and i wonder if you could argue if it was better than a core 2 duo e8400. In terms of price to performance. I bought mine for £109 and the e8400 is £122. I know the e8400 is slightly better for games, but then the phenom ii 720 is a three core and is future safe. Did i make a better choice going for the pii 720?


They are pretty similar. the 8400 is a slightly better gamer as you said, and the 720 BE has an extra core that helps in a lot of apps, and probably in future games.

You would never buy an e8400 instead of a 720 BE, in fact all of intels dual cores look a bit obsolete now, or just overpriced.
October 6, 2009 5:12:22 PM

Nashsafc said:
620? never heard of them, are they i7 processors? My knowledge only knows about core 2, all amd athlon x2 and phenom ii processors, and i7 920 upwards. But that's it lol.



the 620 is the athlon II x 4 620 which is a quad core minus the l3 cache it runs at 2.6 Ghz and performance about 10% slower than its phenom II x4 2.6ghz counter part but at its price point the 620 is a huge amount of power for price and more than enough for anything other than top end gaming or workstations
October 6, 2009 5:25:29 PM

do you think that my phenom ii x3 will last me for a long time. I play with a 19 inch monitor at a 1280 x1024 resolution and i'm happy for a long time. The screen is very good quality as it ias a Dell Ultra Sharp monitor. 1 st person shooters may never really be quad core optimised, is that true to some extent. As long as my graphics card is top notch my cpu can still play high end? Maybe in the long run if amd relelase another attractive 95 watt cpu i will buy it.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 5:35:55 PM

jennyh said:
Cheaper chips are 'more worth it'. Cpu's costing half as much do not perform half as badly, more like 25% worse.

The x4 620 costing $99 is a helluva lot more impressive on bang for buck than an i7 920 is.


Esp. if you're easily impressed! :D 

Microwave ovens, anyone?? I hear they magically sizzle stuff! [:rocket_sauce:1]
a c 113 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 6, 2009 6:29:50 PM

Nashsafc said:
lol sempron 140.


:bounce: 

October 6, 2009 6:53:14 PM

At stock clocks yes. But Intel chips gain a lot from an overclock.
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2009 7:05:10 PM

For my part i was decived when bought AMD to save money while i always enjoyed paying a few bucks more for intel witch never deceived me so far....

but that prolly just luck because most riggs my friends got are pretty good (amd) while i have a more expensive (intel) sytem.

October 7, 2009 1:34:13 AM

jennyh said:
They are pretty similar. the 8400 is a slightly better gamer as you said, and the 720 BE has an extra core that helps in a lot of apps, and probably in future games.

You would never buy an e8400 instead of a 720 BE, in fact all of intels dual cores look a bit obsolete now, or just overpriced.



I agree that the Core 2 Duo chips (E8xxx series, and the insanely high price of the E8600 in particular) are high for what you can get an AMD for. The E8600 is higher than the Phenom 2 965 on Newegg at least.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2009 1:39:45 AM

TonyLee said:
I agree that the Core 2 Duo chips (E8xxx series, and the insanely high price of the E8600 in particular) are high for what you can get an AMD for. The E8600 is higher than the Phenom 2 965 on Newegg at least.



That's just absurd. I think the E8600 can beat a 940 BE in dual core gaming but I'd be surprised if it can beat a 965 BE in anything at all, even single threads I'd take the 965 BE over it.

People must still be buying them however. They were great cpu's a year and a bit ago, but now they are pointless and overpriced. It's ok to own one still, but it's not ok to buy one these days.
October 7, 2009 6:58:02 AM

Here's my take. Don't get me wrong, Intel makes good chips, no question there at all. But when I can pay less for the AMD chip for example and get a more balanced system, why not? Here's the value for example say in my case. I've got an AM2 board that with a bios upgrade supports some of the newer AM3 phenom 2 chips. So for example, in a few months, I'll probably be able to simply drop in a 720 BE for 120 bucks, use the unlocked multiplier to get a modest OC if I wish, and bump my memory to 4 gigs. Right now, I'm using at Athlon x2 5200+ and 2 gb of memory. At that point, if I decide I want to upgrade to say a 5750 or 5770 from my 9600gt, I've got the option. But you figure for a rig that's going on 2 years old, I can drop say 300-350 counting a new video card and the thing goes from aging to a beast, that's the value here with AMD right now. With intel, for a decent chip, you are probably looking at 150-200 bucks for the chip alone.

My point is, I'd rather get a chip that's cheaper and almost as good that will do what I want, and still have money left for other things, like a better gfx card and more memory that will balance my system more. If you have money to burn, intel is great and you will be happy. But for what I do, and considering I want to spend money on more than just my pc, AMD is the better option right now for price vs performance imo.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 7, 2009 9:08:18 AM

While I agree that the Phenom II X3 720 is a better deal than a E8400 I kinda find it funny how everyone says it having three cores makes it future proof while less than a year ago (before the tri cores arrived) people said you were crazy to buy a quad core when a dual core could OC higher for stuff.

Guess times change/
October 7, 2009 11:14:32 AM

is it true that AM2+ motherboards are actually cheaper generally than lga775 motherboards? However with a mid end micro atx, more intel chips are compatible than amd chips for matx? I mean seeing how there are more intel chips that work at 95watts rather than AMD working at 95 watts because AMD chips are cheap and power wasting. Such as you could get a 9550 for a micro atx,you couldn't get a phenom quad core over 2.5 ghz on a micro atx with a maximum TDP requirement of 95 watts. That's why i got phenom ii 720 because it has more than 2 cores and it is clocked higher. I'd much rather have a faster clocked processor than a slower clocked quad core.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2009 11:27:39 AM

ohiou_grad_06 said:
But you figure for a rig that's going on 2 years old, I can drop say 300-350 counting a new video card and the thing goes from aging to a beast, that's the value here with AMD right now.


AMD has been the king when it comes to CPU + mobo value, they usually choose to support older sockets when they could just do what intel does. Intel on the other hand also produces their own motherboards which AMD does not, so it makes economical sense to make people buy new boards from time to time (for Intel anyway).

I do also agree with the value of the 720 over the E8xxx. Previously people were simply pointing out that E8xxx was just plain faster, but now the tune changed when people realized that the 720 is fast enough. The trend towards multithreading apps to more cores would benefit the 720 in the long run, and would rub-in the age of dual-cores.
October 7, 2009 1:07:01 PM

ohiou_grad_06 said:
Here's my take. Don't get me wrong, Intel makes good chips, no question there at all. But when I can pay less for the AMD chip for example and get a more balanced system, why not? Here's the value for example say in my case. I've got an AM2 board that with a bios upgrade supports some of the newer AM3 phenom 2 chips. So for example, in a few months, I'll probably be able to simply drop in a 720 BE for 120 bucks, use the unlocked multiplier to get a modest OC if I wish, and bump my memory to 4 gigs. Right now, I'm using at Athlon x2 5200+ and 2 gb of memory. At that point, if I decide I want to upgrade to say a 5750 or 5770 from my 9600gt, I've got the option. But you figure for a rig that's going on 2 years old, I can drop say 300-350 counting a new video card and the thing goes from aging to a beast, that's the value here with AMD right now. With intel, for a decent chip, you are probably looking at 150-200 bucks for the chip alone.

My point is, I'd rather get a chip that's cheaper and almost as good that will do what I want, and still have money left for other things, like a better gfx card and more memory that will balance my system more. If you have money to burn, intel is great and you will be happy. But for what I do, and considering I want to spend money on more than just my pc, AMD is the better option right now for price vs performance imo.

October 7, 2009 1:09:23 PM

Hypothetically would it say be woth upgading my Athlon 5000 to Phenom chipset even though the MTS on the board is 2000 would the performance increase I'm getting a bit lost here.Board is ECS 7050M-M V2 95 watt TDP
October 7, 2009 6:03:03 PM

If you are referring to the HT link speed, because I've got the same limitation on my board, but some sources say that the performance loss is not great as long as your not doing raid or sli or something to that effect.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2009 6:08:06 PM

ohiou_grad_06 said:
Here's my take. Don't get me wrong, Intel makes good chips, no question there at all. But when I can pay less for the AMD chip for example and get a more balanced system, why not? Here's the value for example say in my case. I've got an AM2 board that with a bios upgrade supports some of the newer AM3 phenom 2 chips. So for example, in a few months, I'll probably be able to simply drop in a 720 BE for 120 bucks, use the unlocked multiplier to get a modest OC if I wish, and bump my memory to 4 gigs. Right now, I'm using at Athlon x2 5200+ and 2 gb of memory. At that point, if I decide I want to upgrade to say a 5750 or 5770 from my 9600gt, I've got the option. But you figure for a rig that's going on 2 years old, I can drop say 300-350 counting a new video card and the thing goes from aging to a beast, that's the value here with AMD right now. With intel, for a decent chip, you are probably looking at 150-200 bucks for the chip alone.

My point is, I'd rather get a chip that's cheaper and almost as good that will do what I want, and still have money left for other things, like a better gfx card and more memory that will balance my system more. If you have money to burn, intel is great and you will be happy. But for what I do, and considering I want to spend money on more than just my pc, AMD is the better option right now for price vs performance imo.


I totally agree!
I've also got an Athlon X2 5200+. I bought it last year and, though at first I was sure I'd get a Core 2 Duo E4600, prices, in my country, were: $100 for the Athlon X2 and like $180 for the C2D. I have also got a GeForce 8600 GT (which was a boost compared to my old's system GF 6600) and I'll get a 5770 or 5750 and a Phenom II next year. I also chose AMD for value and upgradeability but unfortunately my ASUS board, while supporting Phenom I, does not support Phenom II..... but well, it's ASUS to blame for lousy support. And I've considered the Core i5 for an upgrade, but boards are not cheap enough, and I think that a 720 or 945 will do just fine, especially since I won't be using an uber-high-end GPU.
Recently I've also been building AMD based budget PCs for my friends, with very good results, one with an Athlon X2 7750 (which was at the moment cheaper than comparable Pentiums), one Phenom II 720 (which was just a tad more expensive than the E7400) and one with Athlon II X2 (very sweet price-performance).
October 7, 2009 10:45:39 PM

Well, like you said you can only go phenom 1, but maybe a 9850 or 9950 might do allright. Or you can always pick up a cheap am2+ board, grab the 720, reuse your ram, and still be ahead.
October 8, 2009 8:27:06 AM

ohiou_grad_06 said:
Well, like you said you can only go phenom 1, but maybe a 9850 or 9950 might do allright. Or you can always pick up a cheap am2+ board, grab the 720, reuse your ram, and still be ahead.


Hi What board would you recommend, the ECS is AM2+ but seems to be geared towards Dual Core systems in addition I have 3GB Ram and Empire total war is still a bit jerky I am wondering if it because the ram isn't matched 1GB of Kingston 2GB Samsung both 800MHZ DDR2, many thanks
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2009 9:00:30 AM

johnbaetke said:
Hi What board would you recommend, the ECS is AM2+ but seems to be geared towards Dual Core systems in addition I have 3GB Ram and Empire total war is still a bit jerky I am wondering if it because the ram isn't matched 1GB of Kingston 2GB Samsung both 800MHZ DDR2, many thanks


What's your video card? Non dual-channel mode shouldn't really affect performance unless either your cpu or gpu isn't capable enough in the first place.
October 8, 2009 9:03:16 AM

amnotanoobie said:
What's your video card? Non dual-channel mode shouldn't really affect performance unless either your cpu or gpu isn't capable enough in the first place.

Hi graphics card is 512K 9600GT Nvidia PCI
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2009 9:36:26 AM

johnbaetke said:
Hi graphics card is 512K 9600GT Nvidia PCI


Not quite sure here, but have you tried dialing the setting down?

I believe Empire Total War is quite demanding when you turn up the options. I haven't personally tried Empire yet, so I really couldn't say concretely on what you need to do.
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2009 9:39:32 AM

Not really. Fairly moderate game.
October 8, 2009 9:39:33 AM

Yeah I appreciate your help this is only a problem with all the settings turned up high but in reply I personally don't think you are missing much apart from some of the battles are awesome but steam is a nightmare and has undoubtedly put off huge amounts of people.Anyway thanks for your help.
October 10, 2009 6:19:58 PM

For gaming what would the best 95 watt amd processor be? I'm guessing that it is the pii 720? Do you rekon AMD will make anymore 95 watt processors as opposed to their power guzzling 140 watt and 120 watt processors? with high speed frequencies
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2009 12:28:09 AM

The Phenom II 945 at 3.0 GHz is a 95w CPU
Before the end of the year, a newer version of the Phenom II 965 (3.4 GHz) with 125w TDP will be released. And by next year (Q1), a 95w version of the 955 (3.2GHz) will be released.
All in all, I don't get why people get THAT concerned with TDP. Hey, 140w is 15w higher than 125w. And it's not like the CPU will be sucking 140w constantly. That's the rated peak consumption. And like 80% of the time it will be idling, and Cool n' quiet makes all Phenom II's idle at the same low wattages.
An even when you ARE using 4 cores, they won't probably be maxed, but most likely settle at 80% usage, which still means the CPU's consumption is likely yo be be something like 80-100w.
It'd be interesting to see some testing on this subject. Something on "average power consumption".
October 11, 2009 3:56:55 AM

I say, wait till the holidays, see what's announced Q1, see price changes then make theories. AMD is due to release a new chip and I think they will announce something soon. Talking to one of their senior reps at comic con he stated that they are planning to add a new cpu shortly after the ii x4. Knowing amd their price will be better than intel's. That's just my opinion though, if you need an upgrade now get the x3 be or if you got the money shoot for the i5 or i7
October 20, 2009 11:47:36 AM

i got an xfx 8300 motherboard on ebuyer for £50. i bought it because it was in my price budget, and i didn't think the other matx boards were as good in this price range; this one came with 4 ram slots, 5.1audio, and didn't seem cheap like someothers. Unfortunately i am limited to a 95 watt processor. The 9300 for intel sockets also accepts 95 watt cpus but then intel have more 95 watt cpus. I want to know peoples opinion on this motherboard that i got. I know i can't use AMD overdrive, but then doesn't the bios give me all the overclocking features i would have on amd overdrive, if not more?. Is Bios overclocking also concidered to be safer than in windows overclocking? nvidia performance is rubbish which i have, it doesn't give options for voltages or cpu multiplier but my bios seems to be quite easy to understand and convenient to overclock the processor. Is it actually possible to buy motherboards for £50 am2 or am3 that accept 125 watt processors? it's just that i feel i made a poor buy, although my graphics card that i have is from xfx also. Any advantages of the board i have?
!