Last message on previous page:

Are you really trying to prove me as a fanboy huh?
 
Take a look at his previous system again.

 
Now go ahead and tell me he doesn't need a new AMD board.
CPU cooler? I'm sure 6000+ needs more cooling than E6750.  
 
It costs him relatively the same to build either way, and I was just merely suggesting him that with Intel, he'll get more performance, and a better upgrade.

 
You have some points in your previous posts but i will disagree with you in some.
1stly quadcore AMD cpus will simply fit into same boards and can go as low as 55w compared to intel spec, it also have better scalability. Intel is planning entirely new systems what measn companies will need to buy whole server instead just upgrade CPU so in this case AMD wins. If you go for low cost servers there will be also probably advantage in AMD as they require less power and are cheaper. On oposite side with huge servers utilizing tens of cpus, AMD will most probably beat crap out of all curent Intel CPUs just because better scalability, lower price and power consumption. For servers in midle Intell is better and probably will get most customers there.
Intell have curently more RAW power compared CPU by CPU, but its not what all customers and entusiasts want.

 
Ok, let's break it down to server side and consumer side, shall we?
 
For sever side, I agree that Barcelona has better scalability. From the recent technical documents, it is possible that AMD Barcelona may clock as high as 2.6~2.8 (not from Fudzilla though). As a result, I agree that on server side, AMD will maintain its dominance on multi-socket configurations (2S~4S). However, on single socket server, or below, scalability is not as essential as on the multi-socket servers. Therefore, it all comes down to raw processing power. It has been clearly shown that Barcelona has excellent FP performance, but it loses out to Intel on clockspeed, and Int performance.  
 
As for upgrade, yes, it is possible to drop Barcelona into existing AM2 socket. However, if you really want to achieve minimum power consumption, you need the newer boards that support split power planes. AT the moment, Barcelona loses out on performance per watt against Xeon.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdo [...] =3091&p=12
 
For price, yes, Barcelona is cheaper than Xeon at the moment. Soon the tide will be turned when AMD releases higher clocked Barcelona, and Intel releases Harpertown. Strictly speaking, the cost of production is significantly (and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY) higher for AMD to churn out Barcelona than Intel to churn out Harpertown. This will give Intel some advantage when it comes to pricing. So at the moment, Barcelona is cheaper, but I'm not sure about in the near future when Intel releases Harpertown.  
 
Now, for consumer side, its a whole different picture. Current AM2 board does offer better upgrade path IF upgrading your computer is all you care about. In terms of performance, its pretty clear that Phenom will not touch Core 2 in terms of performance. Even on quad cores, Phenom will flatly lose to Core 2 clock-for-clock. Strictly for gaming, Core 2 has proven itself to be a gaming monster, breaking every world record. Now, if you factor in both criteria, you'll see that Intel may also be a viable solution. Although Nehalem is due to come out next year, it doesn't mean you'll have to swap out your Penryn immediately. Penryn can still holds its ground by clockspeed against Nehalem. In OP's case, if all he wants is a moderate gaming machine, Intel is a better choice.
 
Hope this clarify things a little bit.

There were no accusations made...and unless the shoe fits, don't wear it.  The motherboard problem is that a nice P35 will also cost more than an AM2 or 3.  
 
I agree that an Intel system has some merit, however there are points in favor of both platforms.

Trying to talk yourself out of the mess you created? Very funny. P35 costs more than AM3? How come I wasn't aware of this? Is there AM3 chipset on the market now?
 
Here is the thing. For gaming P35 spanks 690G, period. Similarly performing 680a also cost a lot more than P35.
 
I agree that if cost is your bigger concern than performance, AMD may be a strong contender. However, if you want a well rounded system (performance / price / upgradeability), Intel is still better.

I do not need to talk myself out of any mess you seem to have fabricated for me.  AM2s are readily available...and if you are not aware of this, then get off the show, obtain more information or be quiet.
 
Here is the thing, what matters is what the customer wants, not what you or I think.  In truth, my comment about fanboys was spurred on by your sig, which at the time seemed humorous....now...somewhat less than that

 
LOL....      
 
I never argued about AM2's availability. However, I argued that current AM2 chipsets cannot perform on par with P35. In the case of 680i, it is at least twice as expensive as P35.
 
On the other hand, you argued that P35 may be more expensive than AM3. Is there any AM3 board on the market?
 
I agree that what the customers want matters the most. In this case, he wants a replacement gaming computer, that will allow him to play Supreme Commander. If he wants to build a computer to do some scientific research, I will definitely recommend him to Barcelona without hesitation, but he's not.
 
For gaming performance, it has been known that Intel is trouncing AMD in this area. With the newer Core 2 and P35, he can have more performance for not much more money. In the future, he can upgrade to Penryn quad core, and still have superior performance than Phenom, for the same amount of money.
 
Please make your arguments clear before you attempt to flame others. Thank you.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear <smile>  There was never an attempt to flame ANYone, and especially not yomamafor1.
 
The rest of what you posted is obvious and factual, so there is nothing further to debate.

 
= =