Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

X4 955BE $105 ON NEWeGG 24HRS ONLY

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 12:23:37 AM

$119.99

PROMO CODE: 24HRSALE824E

for an additional $15 off

More about : 955be 105 newegg 24hrs

August 25, 2011 1:26:28 AM

125w, 119 is still affordable but... a bit too much power consumption for me XD
August 25, 2011 2:05:13 AM

Yeah saving 30-50 watts is a build breaker :pt1cable: 
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 2:27:36 AM

He is right 140w samples are not always the best choice for some boards that are less likely to handle the load of a fully overclocked sample. 140w stock is very bad but at least not as bad as one of the Itanium 2 cpu-s out there that is stock at 260w :ouch: 

Best solution

a c 79 à CPUs
August 25, 2011 2:56:12 AM
Share

That cpu should be no more than $100 IMO. Its 3 generations behind intel......
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 4:51:36 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
That cpu should be no more than $100 IMO. Its 3 generations behind intel......


Its one generation behind intel. Two if you count a die shrink, which I don't.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 5:52:21 AM

If there is one thing AMD are unbeatable at, it is the pricing. A clockable quad for $100 is good value.

a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 2:38:14 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
That cpu should be no more than $100 IMO. Its 3 generations behind intel......


Maybe, but Intel cant produce a processor with those capabilities at that price. The i3-2100 isn't even fathomable when the 955BE, which is overclockable to 4ghz is only $105.

How did I know all the little fanboys would troll this thread. Maybe you should upgrade your E6600 C2D? LOL
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 2:57:55 PM

I see you have a 2100, question is; would you trade up your 2100 for a 955 BE?

It seems like everyone's purpose for buying a CPU is to overclock, why not just buy a stock cpu that cannot be clocked and beats the living crud out of another that can be clocked to melting point.

Anyways, bar the mildness of the trolling the point is simple, buying a X4 955 is like buying a C2 Duo/Quad, not feasible and the knock offs may see short term gains but the long term (3-4yrs) will mean upgrading componants, which is stupid anyways considering that new tech will likely come out.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 3:07:43 PM

Wait, you your saying that you'll keep the SB for more than 4 years?

Now that's like buying a C2D.

Also, though not marginal, the i3 is more expensive than a Phenom II 955 BE, and the the 955 and is clocked it 4-4.2Ghz, it equals/beats the i3-2100.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 3:45:37 PM

That is not impressive needing to oc by over a ghz to match a stock low end processor. Not to mention the damage to the componants.

You really should get 5 years at the very least out of a 2500K and if anything processors will become more energy and clock efficient than clockspeed faster.

a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 9:13:18 PM

sarinaide said:
That is not impressive needing to oc by over a ghz to match a stock low end processor. Not to mention the damage to the componants.

You really should get 5 years at the very least out of a 2500K and if anything processors will become more energy and clock efficient than clockspeed faster.


The X4 955 doesn't need overclocking to match the i3 2100. I don't know who said that. But they were wrong.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 9:19:12 PM

sarinaide said:
I see you have a 2100, question is; would you trade up your 2100 for a 955 BE?

It seems like everyone's purpose for buying a CPU is to overclock, why not just buy a stock cpu that cannot be clocked and beats the living crud out of another that can be clocked to melting point.

Anyways, bar the mildness of the trolling the point is simple, buying a X4 955 is like buying a C2 Duo/Quad, not feasible and the knock offs may see short term gains but the long term (3-4yrs) will mean upgrading componants, which is stupid anyways considering that new tech will likely come out.


No I wouldn't replace a 2100 with a 955. Nor would I replace the 955 with a 2100. They are too closely matched.

No, buying a 955 IS NOT like buying a core 2 quad/duo. Those chips and sockets are no longer supported in any way. The 955 is, as is its socket.

If core 2 chips were currently supported and the price was right, they would still be a viable option.
a c 79 à CPUs
August 25, 2011 9:43:36 PM

geekapproved said:
Maybe, but Intel cant produce a processor with those capabilities at that price. The i3-2100 isn't even fathomable when the 955BE, which is overclockable to 4ghz is only $105.

How did I know all the little fanboys would troll this thread. Maybe you should upgrade your E6600 C2D? LOL

hahaha, your a comedian. im not a fanboy FYI, this C2D is the first intel processor i have bought, and its performance is on par with a phenom 2 clock for clock, so phenom 2 tech = core 2 tech. ill be upgrading as soon as i see what bulldozer has to offer, but its likely ill be going with an i5 2500k.
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2011 11:44:49 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
hahaha, your a comedian. im not a fanboy FYI, this C2D is the first intel processor i have bought, and its performance is on par with a phenom 2 clock for clock, so phenom 2 tech = core 2 tech. ill be upgrading as soon as i see what bulldozer has to offer, but its likely ill be going with an i5 2500k.



All of which has nothing to do with the question of an i3 2100 vs a X4 955. A core 2 quad 9770 is still a better choice than a i3 2100 in most applications. Just as the X4 955 is.

This isn't a theoretical argument over which chip uses superior technology. Its was about performance. Geekapproved overstates things a bit, but the X4 holds up just fine against the i3 2100.

a c 79 à CPUs
August 26, 2011 2:26:06 AM

FALC0N said:
All of which has nothing to do with the question of an i3 2100 vs a X4 955. A core 2 quad 9770 is still a better choice than a i3 2100 in most applications. Just as the X4 955 is.

This isn't a theoretical argument over which chip uses superior technology. Its was about performance. Geekapproved overstates things a bit, but the X4 holds up just fine against the i3 2100.

actually the initial statement was just the fact that the 955 is now at a lower price....if you want to get technical...... either way, i wouldn't invest in an AMD setup without knowing what bulldozer will be like, as you may just get yourself into a dead end platform. If you want a one-off buy then yes i3 2100 is better for the majority of games for a few dollars more and upgradeable to proven i5/i7 SB chips, the 955 better at multitasking and can be overclocked and uses much more power and has questionable upgrade potential.
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2011 4:52:57 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
either way, i wouldn't invest in an AMD setup without knowing what bulldozer will be like, as you may just get yourself into a dead end platform. If you want a one-off buy then yes i3 2100 is better for the majority of games for a few dollars more and upgradeable to proven i5/i7 SB chips, the 955 better at multitasking and can be overclocked and uses much more power and has questionable upgrade potential.


The 2100 gaming advantage is extremely marginal a few frames per second in some games. The 955 is slightly faster and much more overclockable. Yes, it does use more power. The 955 is a more powerful chip, the 2100 more efficient.

The "questionable upgrade potential" belongs to Intel. Not only do they have socket compatibility issues, but price issues as well. They are not an upgrade friendly platform.

One or two years from now, you will be in a better upgrade situation with AMD than with the comparable intel platform.

For example, want to upgrade your core 2 duo setup? Maybe with some used chip off ebay. Yet, the equivalent AMD board of the time Supports the current X4 chips. If you have an AM2+ from 2007, it likely supports the X6. Which is faster than any socket 775 chip ever was.










a b à CPUs
August 26, 2011 5:11:29 AM

Just recieved and installed a PH II X4 965 ($115) to upgrade my unlocked oced 3.6 ghz 555 (B55). I'll take third generation any day if this is what I get.
4.0 ghz out of the box. My TIM hasn't even set. On a second generation 890GX board, I'll game with anybody. No issues with Ph II chips at all.
If the price drop shows again, my advice would be to jump on it. 965 or 955, doesn't matter. Great system components.
Edit:
With the money I saved going AMD, I'm gonna go out right now and have two...
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2011 6:01:37 AM

FALC0N said:
The 2100 gaming advantage is extremely marginal a few frames per second in some games. The 955 is slightly faster and much more overclockable. Yes, it does use more power. The 955 is a more powerful chip, the 2100 more efficient.

The "questionable upgrade potential" belongs to Intel. Not only do they have socket compatibility issues, but price issues as well. They are not an upgrade friendly platform.

One or two years from now, you will be in a better upgrade situation with AMD than with the comparable intel platform.

For example, want to upgrade your core 2 duo setup? Maybe with some used chip off ebay. Yet, the equivalent AMD board of the time Supports the current X4 chips. If you have an AM2+ from 2007, it likely supports the X6. Which is faster than any socket 775 chip ever was.


I think where this is getting lost is we are comparing a QUAD to a DUAL core processor, props to a Dual Core being able to mix it up with the Quads, but it is still unfair to decide on just the premise of performance what to take. If you were to take a i5 2300 or 2400 vs a Phenom2 X 4 the degree of margin and difference starts to get very wide. Sure the Black Editions can overclock while the 2300 and 2400 only have Turbo Boost, but again that is tech which the processor is designed to handle, while overclocking does diminish any processor over time. In the same way that NOS destroys an engine, overclocking destroys a processor and/or motherboard. I still prefer a CPU that can perform better on stock than one that needs to be oc'ed highly.

On monetary reasons only the X4's are economically viable solutions to the i5 and i7, while not offering nearly as good top end performance but sufficient enough to keep enthusiasts and builders satisfied. And of the lot, all are good processors.
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2011 6:13:41 AM

Well said, Sarinaide, and with few words.
My choice to upgrade to a true quad was based on my inability to monitor my system specs with an unlocked X2. An additional factor was when OCing thru bios, voltage to the CPU does increase. My unlocked X2 went from 95W to 173.4W. Huge increase for a small (price wise) gain. Although I was happy, initially, to get a performance boost, I realized it wouldn't last long, thus a true quad.
Clocked the 965 to stock speed, stock voltage, still impressed. I recommend AMD for budget builds, and Intel for all else.
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2011 6:44:30 AM

Intel unfortunately are high priced but you pay for the performance, while I don't believe that a 2500K vs X 4 970 in say Formula One 2010 will go from 70FPS with a 2500K to something like 50FPS for the Phenom, I still believe that it will give reasonably comparible results.

I will though expect the real world processing speeds to be very big, encoding, pre and post processing, fetching and the like should be way better on the 2500K, no surprises as it is a newer generation CPU, so again apples and pears.
!