Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why amd is cheaper ?

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • AMD
  • Socket
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
November 24, 2012 7:36:20 AM

hey guys i have now a Motherbord:
Asus p5ld2-vm/s and a intel core duo 2 E4500 @2.20GHz

i want to buy some new equipment
like ASRock N68-VS3 UCC it support Overclocking in bios what my moetherbord doesnt

the problem is if i buy a amd Motheroard. my e4500 LGA 775 cant go in that motherbord.
i want a AMD Athlon II X2 250 / 3 GHz - Socket AM3

The AMD Athlon II X2 250 / 3 GHz - Socket AM3 Kost €45,00 euros
the motherbord kost €35,44

its like a nice deal. i think. but is the AMD Athlon II X2 250 / 3 GHz - Socket AM3 better than the intel core duo 2 E4500 @2.20GHz?
The motherbord im pretty happy white it. (i dont have it) but planning to buy it now soon santa claus is comming. maybe i can get soem moeny p and but those 2 items. problem is

than i need to collect more money for a new PSU because mine is 300Watt Peak 350Wat and i have a ati radeon HD 4350 512MB From Club 3d. if i want a better grapichs card i need a better Power supply because the hd4350 is already using 300 watts.


but will my pc be better if but the AMD motherbord. and than the AMD Athlon II X2 250 / 3 GHz - Socket AM3?

More about : amd cheaper

November 24, 2012 7:45:51 AM

Well I think bang for buck the Athlon II is great, if you want to and can spend the extra cash intel is a great option but with no upgrade path, you can upgrade later to a Phenom II with the AM3 board but LGA 775 for the price you would not get a really worthy upgrade.
November 24, 2012 8:08:39 AM

hmm my english is not very good but. my computer is made 5-6 years ago by a family member. that have bought a pc for me.(whiteout the HD4350) i payed 900 Euro for the pc including

Asus p5ld2-vm/s
E4500
PSU 300Watt
Hdd 500Gb
Card reader
and a 18 Inch Screen

pretty expensive.
i have Regret about it because its way to expensive.
now i know Intel it very expensive. and for the same price you can buy a new e4500 you can buy a much better Processor from AMD

so yea now im stuck at home i want to play games. Like Euro Truck simulator 2012
but my pc cant handle it. i waited 1 year for the release. first the release was like juli than august than oktober.

but i want to sell my asus p5ld2-vm/s Because. i cant overclock in bios. so my Processor will be 2.20GHZ and i want to sell me E4500 because i cant fit the E4500 on a amd Motherbord white socket AMD3

but is the AMD Athlon II X2 250 / 3 GHz - Socket AM3 better versus E4500 from intel ?

the motherbord i need some questions about it.
ASRock N68-VS3
Does amd motherbords need a other pin for motherbord power ?
or any different wireing ?
does de ASRock N68-VS3 support high grapichs cards ?

because here in the description i read this


Grapich Controller
NVIDIA GEforece 7025

Memory Allocation Technology
Shared Video Memory (UMA)

Maximum RAM- 256MB

does it support grapich card above the 256MB or not im bit confused. because it can be a cheap motherbord but if it dont support grapich card above 256MB i dont think im gonna buy that one.
Related resources
November 24, 2012 8:13:45 AM

ooh wait i understand the onboard grapichs card is the NVIDEA Geforce 7025 white max 256 MB am i right
November 24, 2012 8:15:57 AM

the processor i have changed to AMD Athlon II X2 270 - 3.4 GHz because its only 2 euros expensiver is it a good deal still same socket.
November 25, 2012 8:57:22 PM

Amd is cheaper because Intel have slightly better performance but not that much
November 25, 2012 9:38:02 PM

+1 on that e_X. AMD vs Intel performance is really in real world applications not that different, only the sticker and synthetic benchmarks are different.
November 25, 2012 10:25:46 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Take a look at some benchmarks to get an idea of real world performance in games and applications you use.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/fx-8350-vishera-review,re...

You can see a major advantage in some games with an Intel processor, whereas other games are unaffected.

On average you will only see a 10 fps difference in games which isn't that bad if you have a good gpu
November 26, 2012 7:40:10 AM

e_X said:
On average you will only see a 10 fps difference in games which isn't that bad if you have a good gpu


It's really dependent on the particular benchmark and settings. You should be looking at % gains anyway - treating differences as a constant is very benchmark-specific and can have very different effects in different situations. Going from 20fps up to 30fps for example is a pretty awesome performance boost. From 130fps to 140fps is not so worthwhile.
November 26, 2012 8:32:36 PM

sam_p_lay said:
It's really dependent on the particular benchmark and settings. You should be looking at % gains anyway - treating differences as a constant is very benchmark-specific and can have very different effects in different situations. Going from 20fps up to 30fps for example is a pretty awesome performance boost. From 130fps to 140fps is not so worthwhile.

That's why I said if you have a good gpu it won't make a difference
November 26, 2012 8:34:49 PM

e_X said:
That's why I said if you have a good gpu it won't make a difference


Most people would consider a GTX690 a good GPU, but that drops to 20fps in Metro 2033 at 5760x1080. There are games and settings that can bring anything to its knees. That's why relative (%) comparisons are more useful.
November 26, 2012 8:36:22 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Most people would consider a GTX690 a good GPU, but that drops to 20fps in Metro 2033 at 5760x1080. There are games and settings that can bring anything to its knees. That's why relative (%) comparisons are more useful.

I understand what you are saying.
December 1, 2012 2:13:37 PM

Just my 2 cents but after around 50FPS it really does not matter simply because your eyes can not tell the difference between 120 and 60 just because both are going too fast already for the eye to see individual frames and it is all fluid motion. IF you have hit anywhere from 50-60 fps you are fine
December 1, 2012 2:18:04 PM

Agreed - like I say, going from 20fps up to 30fps is a good performance boost. From 130fps to 140fps is not. There has been talk lately though of frames/second being an inaccurate measure of smoothness in games, since 30 frames per second doesn't mean each frame takes 1/30th of a second to draw, it means it takes on average 1/30th of a second. But within the second, it can be quite inconsistent. Then there's microstuttering - framerate can be high, but it still doesn't look smooth. Also dropped frames - not sure exactly what it means, but I'll open a thread on it soon and maybe talk to the THG guys about it. If fps isn't a good measure then we need to start using something better!
!