new AMD Phenom Quad core + ATI system looks like a good deal

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:27 pm

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... nom-system

I'm glad I waited to upgrade, lots more options now

oodmb · Post by **oodmb** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:46 pm

amd does not have nearly the same quality of technology that intel does. check out dell's small buisness deal vostros for some nice bang for your buck. plus, if you go intel+ nvidia, you get the option of using cuda which will accelerate many renderers in the future.

zsouthboy · Post by **zsouthboy** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:30 pm

Nonsense, oodmb.

AMD's chips are fine. Judge them on their merits, not "company technology" - speaking as someone with a core 2 quad box that i love, and a few core 2 dualies for slaves.

Also note that DAMMIT's CTTM (Close To The Metal) is similar in scope to CUDA (though I know little about either) - however open sourced graphics drivers might be an interesting wrench in those spokes - we'll have to see.

eman7613 · Post by **eman7613** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:02 am

yup, pluss teh benchmarks for Barcelona look goooood! while they only have a 2ghz one to test right now, it performs right up there with the top of the line cor 2 duos & they are eventually going to realse 3.0ghz Barcelona's.

oodmb · Post by **oodmb** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:08 am

problem with amd is not there speed, its the actual technology that goes into them. amd doesnt have the same fan control and heat control that intel does and while it starts out faster, it looses speed over time do to frequent overheating.

CoolColJ · Post by **CoolColJ** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:11 pm

well Penryn is coming out soon and is faster than the C2D at the same clock speed but they also clock up higher due to the die shrink

AMD CPU do tend to run on the bleeding edge, that's why you can't overclock them much. Whereas stock speed for C2D is actually underclocked

zsouthboy · Post by **zsouthboy** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:56 am

oodmb wrote:problem with amd is not there speed, its the actual technology that goes into them. amd doesnt have the same fan control and heat control that intel does and while it starts out faster, it looses speed over time do to frequent overheating.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

I can't even begin to fathom how you got this idea.

No - processors don't magically "overheat and slow down over time"

No - AMD's "fan and heat control" is exactly the same as Intel's - there are several thermistors on the CPU die itself, which the motherboard reads.

WytRaven · Post by **WytRaven** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:00 am

Can't resist....

My supposedly inferior tech AMD Althon64 FX62 water cooled dual core processor has been at 100% on both cores for over a week now. During that week it might have had at most about 10 minutes total of 'rest' as I loaded up a new scene for indigo to eat.

It hasn't skipped a beat and certainly hasn't slowed down.

dogfin · Post by **dogfin** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:07 am

zsouthboy wrote:
oodmb wrote:problem with amd is not there speed, its the actual technology that goes into them. amd doesnt have the same fan control and heat control that intel does and while it starts out faster, it looses speed over time do to frequent overheating.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

I can't even begin to fathom how you got this idea.

No - processors don't magically "overheat and slow down over time"

No - AMD's "fan and heat control" is exactly the same as Intel's - there are several thermistors on the CPU die itself, which the motherboard reads.

I'm gonna agree with zsouthboy. I remember when this USED to be true though. When I built my computer in 2003, I didn't go AMD because I couldn't find a single board with thermal controls for AMD, they were still considered "hobbiest" if you didn't get opterons. Not true anymore. I'm gonna try to make my next computer AMD, it should haul the lama's a--.

dogfin -

Zom-B · Post by **Zom-B** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:06 pm

nice to see you around again dogfin!

Price vs. Power thats all about (and future fitness of your mainboard & M. architecture).
AMD is cheaper and will always try to stay cheaper than Intel stuff.... thats what defines AMD in the CPU business... some how (keep it in mind: Price vs. Power !)

WytRaven · Post by **WytRaven** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:29 pm

I dissagree ZomB, not with you statement that AMD is always cheaper, but with your statement that that is what defines AMD in the business. What defines AMD in the business is innovation. Intel, despite it's massive financial resources, fails to be at all innovative . AMD has consistenly come up with great new ideas and designs for processors. Don't forget that the reason AMD was kick Intel's a$$ for years was because they decided to start from scratch and redesign their processors instead of just cloning what Intel was doing. They have done that again with the Barcelona core. This is why ATI and AMD are such a good match, thy both share that pioneering spirit, just look at what ATI has done with their unified shader architecture, they have come up with a completely new way of doing things. Intel and nVidia on theother hand also perfectly suit eachother; don't bother comming up with better designs just figure out how to make the old crappy design go faster. The only area that Intel really leads in is manufacturing process and that is to be expected, they have far more cash and have been in the business far longer. AMD vs Intel really is the proverbial David vs Goliath conflict.

I reckon this would be a pretty good analogy:

Intel/nVidia = Big, dumb, muscle man = Brute force approach
AMD/ATI = Lean, mean, martial artist = Skill and Finesse approach

Well that's my opinion anyway

lycium · Post by **lycium** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:29 pm

zsouthboy wrote:
oodmb wrote:problem with amd is not there speed, its the actual technology that goes into them. amd doesnt have the same fan control and heat control that intel does and while it starts out faster, it looses speed over time do to frequent overheating.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

I can't even begin to fathom how you got this idea.

agreed, what nonsense. what's bias like this doing in an indigo thread? ;)

zsouthboy wrote:No - AMD's "fan and heat control" is exactly the same as Intel's - there are several thermistors on the CPU die itself, which the motherboard reads.

i think oodmb is still sold on the tom's hardware video from the athlon xp days, before amd integrated this. it was very sensationalist, and stuck in the minds of many.

Gog · Post by **Gog** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:02 pm

All that said and done though for bang for buck you can't beat an overclocked core 2 e2160, £40 for a chip that is extremely overclockable it's a bargain.

I may rethink that when Phenom actually hits the market and we can play with it...

zsouthboy · Post by **zsouthboy** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:35 am

Oh, I completely agree Gog - no way am I an AMD only man. That chip is great - people getting like, what, 3.4 ghz out of it?

I'm definitely bang for the buck man. Which means I have some lovely Core 2 Duos and Quad boxen too. (And they're faster than my AMD boxen)

Zom-B · Post by **Zom-B** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:56 am

WytRaven wrote:I dissagree ZomB, not with you statement that AMD is always cheaper, but with your statement that that is what defines AMD in the business.

Actually you are totally right... my statement should sound: "thats what AMD defines on the MARKET". Amd is in Fact innovative, but the AMD Chef also told that his biggest mistake ever was to build a Quad Core from Scratch and not doing it the Intel way by recycling. But doing this "financial mistake" Intel staretd a Price War to hit AMD even harder, and so the consumer gets CPU's for small money ^^

Personally I'm an AMD + NVIDIA guy

new AMD Phenom Quad core + ATI system looks like a good deal

new AMD Phenom Quad core + ATI system looks like a good deal

Who is online