Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Price vs. Performance for AMD?

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 8, 2012 12:24:25 AM

I'm specifically referring to the AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. What do you guys think?

More about : price performance amd

January 8, 2012 12:28:59 AM

Most people opt to spend a tiny bit more and get a 2500k from Intel instead.

AMD processors tend not to be worth it when you get into the 150+ range. Their bread and butter is the sub $150 range. In that space, they provide a lot of computing power per dollar spent, usually.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 12:57:55 AM

Raiddinn said:
Most people opt to spend a tiny bit more and get a 2500k from Intel instead.

AMD processors tend not to be worth it when you get into the 150+ range. Their bread and butter is the sub $150 range. In that space, they provide a lot of computing power per dollar spent, usually.


So, if I were making a rig around $500, an AMD processor would be best? I'm thinking of the AMD Phenom X4 970 BE according to what you told me.
Score
0
Related resources
January 8, 2012 12:59:56 AM

Yes, at anything less than $700 total budget, IMO, AMD is better priced for its performance.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 1:15:26 AM

Do you have a good AMD processor in mind?
Score
0
January 8, 2012 1:19:53 AM

I am not an expert on this, but I believe an AMD3+ Socket CPU should be good.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 1:54:05 AM

My computer is worth about $700 and I have an Athalon 2 x4 840 Propus (mislabeled as Phenom). It is not like a 2500k by any stretch, but it is cheap and it holds its own in speed tests.

I think I got it for about $80, which is why I don't really expect it to keep up with a $210 2500k. It did, however, save the other $130 for other parts.

Anything 955+ is also good, though, if you can get it cheap enough. Just stay well below $200 if you are going to get one because otherwise you should just take the 2500k instead. The 2400 processor is also just a tad under $200 and outperforms similar priced AMD chips.

Anything you can get in the 955+ range with a cost of 120 - 150 is OK except don't get the FX processors (unless you can get an 8150 for that cost). A 960T Zosma might be nice if you have a motherboard with UCC capable of unlocking disabled cores. I would definitely try to stick with something that is x4 or better, though.
Score
0
a c 128 À AMD
January 8, 2012 1:57:58 AM

Not to disuade you from a Phenom II X4 system, but for less money you can get a faster "gaming" machine by going to a Intel i3-2100 dual core w/hyperthreading system. See the hierarchy chart for comparisons:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...

And a gaming review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-...

Here is the processor still on sale for a couple days at Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Here's a list of Sandy Bridge motherboards listed by price:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

I've built several systems with this Sandy Bridge processor and an HD 6850 graphics card. It makes one heck of a fast budget gaming machine at 1680x1050 resolution (or less).
Score
0
January 8, 2012 2:23:23 AM

clutchc said:
Not to disuade you from a Phenom II X4 system, but for less money you can get a faster "gaming" machine by going to a Intel i3-2100 dual core w/hyperthreading system. See the hierarchy chart for comparisons:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc...

And a gaming review: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/01/intel-...

Here is the processor still on sale for a couple days at Newegg:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Here's a list of Sandy Bridge motherboards listed by price:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

I've built several systems with this Sandy Bridge processor and an HD 6850 graphics card. It makes one heck of a fast budget gaming machine at 1680x1050 resolution (or less).


Thank you for your input, sir. I want to build a cheap system right now (not focused on gaming, but possible if needed). This post gives me my current setup intention:

AMD Based System

You seem like a person that knows a lot about builds. Can I get you to look at my current build and rate it?
Score
0
a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 2:35:03 AM

For a pure gaming machine the 2100 and above from Intel is the way to go. I would argue that a gaming machine with an AMD CPU makes sense not at $150, but at <$100.

The problem is an OC'd 955 will be faster then the 2100 at other then gaming tasks. So pure gaming get the 2100 or better, if you'll be doing other things like transcoding video then get the 955.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 2:42:03 AM

4745454b said:
For a pure gaming machine the 2100 and above from Intel is the way to go. I would argue that a gaming machine with an AMD CPU makes sense not at $150, but at <$100.

The problem is an OC'd 955 will be faster then the 2100 at other then gaming tasks. So pure gaming get the 2100 or better, if you'll be doing other things like transcoding video then get the 955.


I'm looking at a X6 1090T BE now. I'm not going for gaming, so that's why I'm sticking to AMD. Would you take a peek at my build? The link is the post above yours.

EDIT: AMD Build
Score
0
January 8, 2012 2:44:48 AM

If you can get a Deneb Phenom II x4 955 those CPU offer great Price/Performance ratio and offer quad core architecture compared to Intel's competing Dual Core.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 3:04:18 AM

At this link

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/187?vs=288

you can put most any two processors head to head in about 40 benchmarks.

Pick the benchmark that is closest to what you think you will be doing commonly and compare a few processors in your price range.

In the i3 2100 series vs 1090T battle, the 2100 barely beats the 1090T on some things and gets absolutely killed by the 1090T in others (music encoding, h.264 encoding, 3dsmax, cinebench, pov-ray, 7zip). The i3 does, however, require much less power than the 1090T which is noteworthy.
Score
0
January 8, 2012 3:09:49 AM

Cybernetic said:
I'm looking at a X6 1090T BE now. I'm not going for gaming, so that's why I'm sticking to AMD. Would you take a peek at my build? The link is the post above yours.

EDIT: AMD Build


I'M running a 1090T in my system that has a Gigabyte motherboard (GA 870a-USB3), and 16 GB Gskill memory. Also with radeon graphic. So, that system is almost identical to yours.

Now, is it fast? yes. Is it stable? rock stable. Is it smoth running? yes. To be honest, every CPU above 2.8 GHz is fast enough for non high end gaming and the more core you have, the smoothest the ride. I have cool and quiet enabled and most of the time, it is running at low MHz (800-1600 MHz) unless I'm doing some kind on encoding or rendering or any CPU intensive apps. which is not very often.


oh.. depending of the video card, you'd better get a more powerful PSU. I had a 500W in mine and It started to whine when the systen was loaded. a 600W fixed it.

I'm pretty sure you'll be happy with it and it can even overclock nicely. I did not overclock mine thou. Plenty enough for now.

With application now starting to use graphic card for some rendering, that will help to unload the CPU of demanding task.
Score
0
a c 128 À AMD
January 8, 2012 2:12:01 PM

Cybernetic said:
Thank you for your input, sir. I want to build a cheap system right now (not focused on gaming, but possible if needed). This post gives me my current setup intention:

AMD Based System

You seem like a person that knows a lot about builds. Can I get you to look at my current build and rate it?

Considering gaming isn't an issue with you and photo editing is, the 6 core processor will be a better choice than any 2 or 4 core processor. The build looks like a good one for your stated purpose without going overboard in cost. Use the link Raiddinn sent to model the processors side by side. But I think your selection is solid for your purpose.
I would recommend going with a bit larger PSU, though, for future proofing. (In case you want to upgrade to a mid range gaming card later) Use this PSU calculator to get an idea of what you will need. Bigger won't hurt a thing other than your wallet.
http://www.thermaltake.outervision.com/
Score
0

Best solution

a b À AMD
January 8, 2012 3:17:27 PM

The video encoding the OP wants to do is the justification for the x6 1090T. An AMD x4 or hyperthreaded Intel i3 are not on the table for this task. I think it would be worth comparing the faster-per-core core Intel i5 CPUs for it, but this may be that very rare case where the AMD x6 makes sense. Look for specific benchmarks of the program(s) you will be using, if available. You might even contact the software vendor if you're not able to find any online.

Edit: This is more or less what clutchc just said, although I'm less concerned about the PSU. If you are considering the 380W Antec Earthwatts, the only reason to look any higher is if you're certain that you will get into playing games, and will want something stronger than a HD6850; the 380W Earthwatts is very solid, and well able to output what's on its label. If you're not going to play games, and/or will get something like a HD6670 or HD6770, you'll be fine.
Share
January 8, 2012 3:30:04 PM

I would suggest the 960T but its luck if you get all 6 cores working. The one thing I can say for sure the 960T as a quad will overclock on the stock heat sink way better than Deneb quads. The larger die dissipates heat better.

If you get the 6 cores unlocked the CM hyper 212+ gets me 3.7GHz at 45c on 1.385 volts stable.
Score
0
January 9, 2012 11:43:45 PM

Best answer selected by Cybernetic.nnThanks for the help, jtt. I've broken down and decided that a i5-2500k would be the best for my "future-proofing." For those of you looking at this post for help, the X4 would probably be the best choice on a tight budget. If you can shell out the extra $40 bucks from a X6, the i5-2500k will perform better than the X6 and most likely the new Piledrivers set to release Q2/Q3 2012.
Score
0
a b À AMD
January 10, 2012 12:13:45 AM

Thanks. I suspect when you consider power use, the i5 comes out ahead there too.

...as to Piledriver, I am cautiously optimistic; BD sucked so hard that perhaps there are some obvious and/or straightforward fixes. Come on AMD, I risked getting a 990FX, but that's the last chance you'll get from me; and I'm not holding my breath.
Score
0
!