Got Ok For New System

[Skuzzy]

Disabling two cores of a quad core CPU and leaving it at the same clock rate is simply not comparing apples to apples.

Let's see.  Spend $190 for a dual core CPU or spend $540 for a quad core to get 10% more performance.  Hmmmm.  AMD does not have a CPU that can come close to the performance of either one of those CPU's.

The dual core E8500 Intel CPU stomps all over the quad core 9850 Phenom in terms of raw performance.

I do agree with one thing.  If you are hell bent to use AMD, then you might as well use the Phenom CPU.

These predictions about needing a quad core CPU is ignorant.  As long as the memory bus restricts access to one CPU at a time, there is little to gain by using a quad core CPU versus a faster dual core CPU.  If you want to believe that marketing rhetoric, go for it.  Nothing to stop you from choosing to do so.

[Getback]

I sure don't know as much as Skuzzy or some others. I will tell you that e8500 is amazing. I love mine.

[drdeathx]

Skuzzy, the quads are close to $200( Q6600 and 8850 AMD 9850 and 9950) and it looks like they are testing them in beta versions of  new games. I do believe it is marketing rhetoric. Since AMD introduced quad cores Intels have dropped in price. The performance vs. the original price was definitely there in duo cores and Intel wanted to maintain the marketshare and dropped prices on quads. Now it seems that the trade off on the Q8850 with price and performance is definitely a factor in ones choice.


Just wanted to add what I have been reading. Its cool stuff and I cannot wait to see what happens in the next year in technology and see if AMD can get back in the game(doubtful)

[TequilaChaser]

The AMD vs Intel VS Dual VS Quad , to me is all what one preferences....... I am required to use INTEL stuff at work and on my laptop, but I choose to use AMD on every home PC ( currently 5 to 6 ) and people argue INTEL is cooler, Intel is more powerful......how more powerful is an Intel running 2.8 ghz than my AMD 3.2 ghz?  the enduser / regular home user will never know the difference.......it is all preference......

I have a perfectly fine AMD X2 6400 running at 3.21 ghz stock, and under full load is 37 degree c  with factory heatsink and fan in my Antec900 case. ( artic5 silver )

I agree, AMD hs always performed better in video, audio and multimedia than Intel.......Intel has held a slight edge in Office business program usage........

edit: The MAIN THING! is to research and make sure everything you order or want, works efficiently well together in the pc case......

A Good Power Supply and WELL Ventilated Case is essential items.......

as for the above post......I would pick Visiontek or ASUS over other Ati card makers, because of warranty......Visiontek is Lifetime ASUS is 3 yrs.... research all the warrantys available on the product choices......

[drdeathx]

True gamers and techs look at the facts. The facts do hold true Intel has a big lead in cpu's no doubt about it but I always had great support with AMD, good performance and after reading a lot about the new technology, I felt comfortable with the 9850. It has been flawless and the write-ups were decent. It could be advertising propaganda but it seems AMD may be back in the race soon.

Intels use less power and do run cooler. I never implied AMD is better than Intel. When AMD came out with the NEW quads, they were priced right and performance/price helped my decision. Intel lowered their prices with the introduction of the new Phenoms. To me this was ripping off the entire computer world as I suppose most would have. AMD has always been priced for "JOE THE PLUMBER"... lol

Most of the people who support the duo core technology look to the present and not the future. Unless I am playing a cpu/graphic intensive game made today like Crysis, the performance gain was not neccesary for me. It seems again that it is the right time to move into this technology seeing 3d  graphic intensive games will be the next wave. I probably can download a movie and play aces high with no gaming performance loss. Remember, AH is not Crysis. And 1 more note: I have not even looked at Windows 7. Does anybody have any information on quads being better with the Microsofts new operating system around the corner. Maybe there is no direct answer to this but I would think Microsoft is programming and planning with new technology around the corner. This would be great information for computer builders helping them in their choices.

The micro-archetecture in the AMD Pheonom processors is quite different than Intel and hopefully the next releases will put AMD back up there! Yes, quad core is not necessary right now, the duos out perform the quads but the performance gain seemed minimal as far as my usage.

Im with ya on this one Tequila!

[drdeathx]

OHHH Tequila, I bought 2 3870's and crossfred em. Nothing but problems so I eexc's for a 4870 x 2 and nothing but problems. It wasn't me it was many many users as I researched forums. The 2 3870's benchmarked higher than the 4870 x 2.Maybe they fixed a lot of issues in the last 2 months but I brought back my card and went Nvidea GTX280. What a card. I would recommend it although the 4870 x 2 outperforms the GTX280/ Just too many user problems with the new ATI cards wheather they were visiontec or diamond or any other. BTW, Visiontec does not have great support. AARON their engineer was supposed to get back with me two times and never did. He was unaware of the heat/bios/driver issues that were present at the time the cards made the shelf. There were litterally hundreds of posts in multiple forums about many issues.

[TequilaChaser]

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor   $164.99   No Hyper-Threading Support     / FSB 1333
VS
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor  $84.00  Hyper Transports     2000MHz

or

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor  $179.99  No Hyper-Threading Support     / FSB 1333
VS
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor  $119.00  Hyper Transports     2000MHz

INTEL PROCESSORS  - Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, EM64T

AMD PROCESSORS -  Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional

please explain to me what the difference is? they all are near the same processor speed as in ghz! only the AMD use very slightly more wattage which theroectically makes them run hotter, although keeping things running cool is easily overcome by proper installation and cooling fans and good cases....

so one cannot really compare the 2 different makes because you are comparing Apples to Oranges  and not TRUE apples to apples

Intel has their way of how they get from A to Z  and AMD has their "different way" of getting from A to Z.......so really any testing software being used to gather performance data, is going to favor the processor type that the code writer or program producer likes....just like any natural humanoid PRocessor type fanboi would do......

it is all irrelavent.......pick what you prefer....


drdeathx,  I am an Ati / AMD FanBoi     I have no problems with my ASUS EAH3870 512 meg DDR4  vidcard

[1701E]

I have used AMD since I got my own computer, only 3 years or so now.  However I have never had troubles with them, and they run games great.
Also, people say AMD uses more power, how much does Intel use?  My current Athlon X2 (not to be confused with Athlon 64 X2), 2.5GHz dual runs at 40 Watts, when I look at Intel I always see higher Wattage.  Am I looking at the wrong thing, or is there another number?


Also TC, I don't know anything about the E8400, but my guess is the L2 Cache is a bit larger than the AMD 64 X2.
I can see the E8500 has an L2 Cache that is 4MB larger than the AMD.

---Also a Side-note for anyone that thinks about getting an AMD, All Brisbane sensors are broken, so if possible get a different model.---


 
  X

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor   $164.99   No Hyper-Threading Support     / FSB 1333
VS
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Windsor 3.0GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor  $84.00  Hyper Transports     2000MHz

or

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor  $179.99  No Hyper-Threading Support     / FSB 1333
VS
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor  $119.00  Hyper Transports     2000MHz

INTEL PROCESSORS  - Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, EM64T

AMD PROCESSORS -  Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional

please explain to me what the difference is? they all are near the same processor speed as in ghz! only the AMD use very slightly more wattage which theroectically makes them run hotter, although keeping things running cool is easily overcome by proper installation and cooling fans and good cases....

so one cannot really compare the 2 different makes because you are comparing Apples to Oranges  and not TRUE apples to apples

Intel has their way of how they get from A to Z  and AMD has their "different way" of getting from A to Z.......so really any testing software being used to gather performance data, is going to favor the processor type that the code writer or program producer likes....just like any natural humanoid PRocessor type fanboi would do......

it is all irrelavent.......pick what you prefer....


drdeathx,  I am an Ati / AMD FanBoi     I have no problems with my ASUS EAH3870 512 meg DDR4  vidcard

You can bump the E8400 to 3.8 Ghz with a setting change in bios. Something the AMD won't do.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I have used AMD since I got my own computer, only 3 years or so now.  However I have never had troubles with them, and they run games great.
Also, people say AMD uses more power, how much does Intel use?  My current Athlon X2 (not to be confused with Athlon 64 X2), 2.5GHz dual runs at 40 Watts, when I look at Intel I always see higher Wattage.  Am I looking at the wrong thing, or is there another number?


Also TC, I don't know anything about the E8400, but my guess is the L2 Cache is a bit larger than the AMD 64 X2.
I can see the E8500 has an L2 Cache that is 4MB larger than the AMD.

---Also a Side-note for anyone that thinks about getting an AMD, All Brisbane sensors are broken, so if possible get a different model.---


 
  X

Hmm how many years old is your cpu? Because AMD hasn't produced anything but 64-bit cpu's for several years now.

[1701E]

Hmm how many years old is your cpu? Because AMD hasn't produced anything but 64-bit cpu's for several years now.

Rather new, released this year.  Bought it about 2 weeks ago, when my other CPU decided to die.

Specs on 'AMD Athlon X2 4850e'

Model: Athlon X2 4850e
Stepping: G2
Frequency: 2500 MHz
Cache L2: 2 x 512 KB
HT: 1000 MHz
Multi: 12.5x
Voltage: 1.15 - 1.25 V
TDP: 45 W
Socket: AM2
Release Date: March 5, 2008
Part Number: ADH4850IAA5DO

[Fulmar]

Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor  $179.99  No Hyper-Threading Support     / FSB 1333
VS
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 125W Dual-Core Processor  $119.00  Hyper Transports     2000MHz

INTEL PROCESSORS  - Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4, EM64T

AMD PROCESSORS -  Multimedia Instruction     MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, 3DNOW! Professional

please explain to me what the difference is? they all are near the same processor speed as in ghz! only the AMD use very slightly more wattage which theroectically makes them run hotter, although keeping things running cool is easily overcome by proper installation and cooling fans and good cases....

so one cannot really compare the 2 different makes because you are comparing Apples to Oranges  and not TRUE apples to apples

Intel has their way of how they get from A to Z  and AMD has their "different way" of getting from A to Z.......so really any testing software being used to gather performance data, is going to favor the processor type that the code writer or program producer likes....just like any natural humanoid PRocessor type fanboi would do......

it is all irrelavent.......pick what you prefer....

drdeathx,  I am an Ati / AMD FanBoi     I have no problems with my ASUS EAH3870 512 meg DDR4  vidcard

Only a matter of time before fanbois came marching into this thread.

Oops...
Tom's Hardware - Benchmark Comparing E8500 and X2 6400+

The only thing that keeps AMD alive is their drastic pricing on their CPUs.  They can't do it forever.  If you want to run the numbers across dozens of applications both games, video, audio, modeling etc.  Tomshardware charts is where you should start.

Ford vs Chevy anyone?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Rather new, released this year.  Bought it about 2 weeks ago, when my other CPU decided to die.

Specs on 'AMD Athlon X2 4850e'

Model: Athlon X2 4850e
Stepping: G2
Frequency: 2500 MHz
Cache L2: 2 x 512 KB
HT: 1000 MHz
Multi: 12.5x
Voltage: 1.15 - 1.25 V
TDP: 45 W
Socket: AM2
Release Date: March 5, 2008
Part Number: ADH4850IAA5DO

Ah right your cpu is just a lower TDP version of the X2 64.

[1701E]

Ah right your cpu is just a lower TDP version of the X2 64.

Yea, it's AMD power-saving CPU line.  Quite nice actually.  Runs the same as the 64 X2's, for the price.
Gone through Athlon single core 2.2GHz 3500+, Athlon 64 X2 2.3GHz 4400+, and now Athlon X2 2.5GHz 4850e.
All of which ran really well, always kept a frame rate in AH of 45 or more, always used 1024 textures.


  X

[TequilaChaser]

Ford vs Chevy anyone?

DODGE