What is Digg?59 Comments
- sfty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30That's what they always say: "Buy the latest and greatest to be able to upgrade.". But after at least two years there always is a new CPU generation that needs new chip sets which are of course incompatible. It was always this way and it always will be. Ergo, buy what you need *now*.
- HelplessSEAL, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24AM2 is the future of AMD cpu's, if you're planning on having an upgradable machine, just dish out the extra money to buy a socket AM2. If you're cheap, then well, it's your choice...
- 5thfreedom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I just want to remind everyone that this article is comparing AMD vs. AMD, not AMD vs. Intel. Regardless of how hot Conroe is right now, some people still prefer the AMD platform.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11yep. AMD has said AM2 will support QuadCore.
- Jeebugorn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11i have heard of the corn row
- mrmorris, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Dumb question. AM2 and the highly effecient X2 CPU's offer the best power pr. watt in the industry, even though Intel zealots won't recognize this fact. I have an AM2 based X2 3800+ and it consumes about 34W max but when its idle (it often is) its all the way down to ~8W. It runs comepletely fanless with 2,5" drives. Core 2 consumes well beyond 20W while idling, due to their brute-force cache design. I buy Intel when they integrate mem ctrl. and a low latency serial bus.
- qbix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I agree. I think you will see new CPU models being released for the AM2 socket in the future. One thing I can tell you is that the AM2 5000 and 4800 chips are nowhere to be found. I ordered from several stores and all of them cancelled my order due to the fact that they were not getting shipments from AMD and apparently didn't count on getting them at all. These CPUs might have been given the axe. So, instead I settled for the 4600 which works fine. I say get AM2.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Considering DDR2 prices vs DDR1 and AM2's upgradability to QuadCore, it would make sense to go AM2 unless you have a good 939MB and a good stash of DDR.
I already had 3GB of DDR and a decent Gigabyte 939 MB so the choice was obvious for me. - smiley2billion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"DDR2 is not going to make that huge a difference"
Exactly. AMD knows this. Here's a quote from the article (where it lost me)
"AMD touts this as a major technological breakthrough."
AMD waited forever to bring out AM2 because they knew DDR2 wasn't worth messing with until know. Sure it has the hardware virtualization, but how many of you even know what thats for? (Hint: Linux + XEN)
I just built a new machine using the 4800 x2 with the 939 chip. I also have a 4400 x2 939 as well. They're both great chips, as I'm sure the AM2's are as well. - Stalks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5When it boils down to it, if I were given 2 identically setup PC's, one ran AMD, one ran Intel and their signifant differences were that AMD consumed less power, and the Intel was a faster machine ... I'd pick the faster machine everytime.
For the sake of 20 watts I'd prefer a more responsive system. - Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8AM2 will support future upgrades to quad core processors.
AM2 supports hardware vitualization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
The new AM2 chipsets are I think all 90nm, so they run cooler and many do not need active cooling.
The newer chipsets have newer features of their own. - MrRockabilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dont know where everyone is calling home, but in my neck of the woods, Fry's Electronics has some great deals on socket AM2 processors with a mobo . . . usually cheaper than the processor itself at places like Newegg. So I usually just go get the deal, return the cheap mobo and dish out the extra cash for a nice mobo. Which doesnt bother me, because I am still making out like a bandit.
- RevEng, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree, this article is horrible. They stated a question, then started listing benchmarks and specs (many of which came straight from AMD) without any actual analysis. Did I miss something, or is there not even a conclusion? I've seen better reports from 12 year old kids.
From my experience, and based on the prices available at local hardware stores, there is no noticable difference between AM2 and S939 in terms of price or performance. Since AM2 is obviously meant to be the successor to S939, might as well use it (if you can even find S939 hardware anymore).
As for "upgradability", face it--by the time you want to upgrade, your current platform won't be of any use, no matter what technology you use. For example, look back two years. AMD was using DDR with S462, AGP, PCI, and ATA, and several of those technologies were considered *new*. Now everything is 939/AM2, DDR2, PCI-E, and SATA. Even the ubiquitous PCI cards aren't going to be usable anymore. Now some of these were atypical (ATA, PCI, and AGP were all very mature), but who is to say that two or three years from now we won't have newer technologies for these areas as well?
You're better off planning to not have to upgrade, rather than being able to upgrade in the near future. - krische, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Has anyone heard any news on AMD's plans for a quad-core processor? I assume it would use AM2.
- dakkon2399, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I just built a new rig recently and I went AM2 without hesitation. Now whether you want to spring the extra bucks for a 5000 versus 4600 ...that's a real question. I personally grabbed the 4600 and it's been running like a champ. Low power consumption, plenty of processing power and the price difference is pretty negligible, what's not to like? I don't see any good reason not to go AM2. Also, as HelplessSEAL points out, you want to be able to upgrade down the line.
- itzac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This article is crap. It's poorly written, and by someone who doesn't really understand the technologies involved. I didn't even read past the first page. Claiming that DDR2 is automatically faster than DDR based strictly on clocks shows only a rudimentary understanding of memory technology.
And frequently AM2 processors are even a little cheaper than 939, so it's really discussing an issue that doesn't exist.
I wasn't sure if I should mark it lame or inaccurate, I went inaccurate.
I'm not usually this venomous, it's just a really dumb article. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I bought a 4200 AM2 just before the price drop ($100 down the tubes) and I'm fairly satisfied. I was upgrading from a 2.2GHz single core so I don't see that much of an increase in desktop performance on XP, though Vista sure runs nice!
To be honest, the one and only time I've enjoyed the benefits of dual core is when I did a mass analysis of my MP3s in my DJ software. As you can see in the image linked below, one core was maxed out for about 9 hours while the other core stayed cool as a cucumber.
http://slyppy.zapto.org/blogpix/0294793f03a1_8E6E/dualcore1.jpg
Except for the hard disk access I noticed absolutely no degredation in performance running web browsing and even some Popcap games on the other core. Highly impressive.
I wrote a little something about this in my blog if anyone cares, which you probalby won't. :)
http://demodulated.blogspot.com/2006/08/two-heads-are-better-than-one.html - loof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This really isn't much of an article. Is the new technology better than old technology? Maybe not in every way but in general yes it's better to get the newer stuff. Conroe is still beating AMD last I checked anyway. Not that AMD is a crappy product it, conroe in my opinion just gives you more bang for the bucks.
- lateralus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Quadcore with hardware virtualization make AM2 pretty sexxay. Imagine running 4 virtual OS sessions simultaneously with little performance hit, just because you could.
- Stalks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Until you mentioned that, I had no idea it even had adverts.
God bless Adblock. - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5According to AMD's roadmap, their quad-core "Barcelona" chips will be released in 2007 for AM2. 939 will not get quad-core. If you will never need quad-core, and you can get a great deal on a 939 system, go for it! You can occasionally find some 939 stuff on clearance, but if AM2 is the same price, which generally it is, get that.
@ qbix
There is no AM2 4800+. That was a 939 w/1MB cache, and AMD isn't making chips with 1MB cache anymore, because the performance increase isn't worth the cost. - ElRayQuieres, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@toby34a
Why's that? Most PC enthusiasts wouldn't subject themselves to an Intel Graphics chip, even the intel fanboys? - dakkon2399, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, indeed we have, but since this article is talking about AMD, so are we. Last I checked it wasn't a debate btwn AM2 and Conroe, it's simply comparing 2 amd's, so take your intel trolling elsewhere or stay on topic.
- JAGUART, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I totally agree. Buy what you can afford now, knowing full well that in 12 months you can go with a vidcard upgrade to keep your system current, and then in 24+ months expect to dump the whole thing for a new one, as even power supplys are becoming obsolete with newfangled connectors.
Its better to go modest and plan for a totally new system, than to go totally high-end thinking its the last thing you'll ever need to buy. - chubbymidget, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3First off I've been an AMD fan-boy since they first came out the old K5 and K6 days. And have used them even every build since -once every 18months or so. The last Intel I owned was a PII 350. But the new Intel Conroe Duos look very very sweet. Sweet enough for me to switch -most likely. But there's too much in flux right now. Intel talking about quads, AMD responding to the Conroe, and a good NVidia SLI board for the Conroes. -I can't subject myself to ATI.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2AMD and NVidia are good buddies too. In my opinion Nforce is the best chipset for the AM2 right now, and SLI support is far better on AMD than Intel.
Also notable is the fact that Intel, in response to the ATI/AMD merger, is limiting ATI cards to a slower bus speed. Consequently, ATI has recently stated that they are no longer interested in supporting Intel whatsoever.
The fairly even religious AMD/Intel debate might turn into a desktop user / gamer debate at this rate. Between its insistance on continuing to support the ancient 775 socket and intentional underclocking of ATI cards Intel is really limiting its future options. - junesix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Fry's has already caught on to this in our neck of the woods. The proc and mobo show up as two separate line items but the proc rings up as full price while the mobo rings up at a discounted price when purchased together. For instance, the 3800+ Orleans combo I bought recently rung up at full price and the ECS mobo was $10 for the full $129. So if you return the mobo, you're left with a normally priced proc.
- BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@pumacub
AMD is cheaper then Intel and AMD processors are very decent.That's budget conscious. - Catalyst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I have a Socket 939 X2 4800+ with DDR400 running at 2,2,2,5. Upgrading to AM2 and DDR2 is not going to make that huge a difference. If you believe DDR2 is so much better, do some research. Here is one interesting site: http://www.behardware.com/art/imprimer/625/ (not my site)
- pugfug90, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Lower power consumption means less heat, more overclockability, and more devices on your current PSU."
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-energy-efficient_4.html
"In other words, our very first experiment indicated clearly that there will hardly be anything special about the overclocking potential of the Energy Efficient processors. However, it is definitely too early to make any conclusions." But AMD's !Energy Efficient! CPUs overclock around the same as the regular parts(not very good). In contrast, the hot Pentium D 805 can get double digit overclocks without problem, and many people with the cooler Core 2s report over 50%. Heat is just one factor of overclocking. - toby34a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, if you can't subject yourself to ATI, with the merge with AMD that's occurring, your fanboyism might have to shift...
- doctorcaligari, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4A Pentium 4 Prescott was used to heat the oil the doughnut was fried in...
- JohntB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm not sure how well the Barcelona will do compared to Intel's processors. By that time, Intel should have quad-core processors as well (AFAIK). Assuming that the ratio of speeds between Intel and AMD's processors remains the same (it might even go in Intel's favor, as they have a newer architecture which probably has more room to grow), then Intel's chips should be faster.
Of course, AMD's switching to 65nm should help them out a bit. - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3i recently built an AM2 system around an Athlon 64 X2 3800+. it is totally worth it if you want to stick with AMD, especially if you want to be future-proofed for AM3.
also the article sucks. buried as lame. - CoolSilver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I'm waiting on K8L chips
- xenuxenuts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3true, but there were people still buying P4s over the last few years, and even though the athlon 64s were a better deal, I'm sure those people were happy with their purchase.
- alucardx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2looks like core duo 2 until AMD's nextgen chip comes out.. K8 i guess.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lower power consumption means less heat, more overclockability, and more devices on your current PSU. I'm very comfortably running an X2 4200 AM2 with a 7900GT (a beast that needs 2 molex power leads), 2 hard disks and a DVDRW on an Antec true 380W PSU. I have a feeling it's a bit of a balancing act but it runs absolutely stable and the CPU and mobo stay nice and cool.
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Homer demonstrated a Donut, not a processor. You didn't even watch your own stupid video.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Mid-2007, "Barcelona" is coming. Modified K8, quad-core, AM2, should be on par with Intel's best. In 2008 they're launching an all new architecture... They plan on this being the Core 2 Killer.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1AMD's quad core will be on par with Intel. Intel's "Kentsfield" will be two dual-core processors in a single package (like a one-socket version of AMD's 4x4), whereas AMD's "Barcelona" will be (what they're calling) native.
Intel is up against a front-side bus wall, and that's going to hurt their performance. Since AMD will have "native" quad core, meaning that all of their cores will share the same cache, which will be be a great help to their performance. It will be very close, and you can be sure that AMD will be less expensive (especially considering you're going to need super-fast RAM for "Kentsfield".) - monkeywizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2At least people can bank on the fact that if they did want to make ***** from ad blogs, all they need to do is post it to digg because people are too stupid to know the difference.
Thanks for this ad-laced crap. - itzac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1AMD does have the advantage of really kick-ass nvidia chipsets sooner than for Intel parts. That's less the case now than it used to be, I suppose. I guess AMD really just needs to get their next gen architecture up to par and out to market to reclaim the value it carried a year ago.
- dmoisan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Xen is not the only product that can use AM2's virtualization: The beta of Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 now does AMD-V and I use it on my (inexpensive) AM2 machine to test Vista. I didn't decide to get AM2 because of this (I didn't even know it did V), but because the CPU and board run faster and cooler than the old Athlon XP they replaced. But virtualization is very cool, and Virtual PC 2007 will probably have the virtualization support when it's released.
- Balberty9, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Just to crush all the intel vs AMD debate now. The companies themeselves took two ENTIRELY different roads. Intel, completely redesigned their dual core architecture for Core 2 Duo. AMD on the other hand, had the market on lock and decided to skip a dual core redesign completely and head straight for quad core (ala K8L/Barcelona). So for everyone thats whining about AMD not keeping up or how Conroe "kicks ass". Just wait until next year when a mere quad core intel (2 core twos slapped together) gets its pants handed to it by a new native quad core AMD. Then we will see whose the "bitch" goat4.
- xevidentx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4although i feel this is a moot argument because of Intel's conroe, AM2 would be worth it if you have much older hardware. It's not worth getting a 939 now that DDR1 will no longer be supported by either intel or amd, is being phased out.
At this point in time the best price/performance you can get is getting an intel conroe system, but for some reason if you must go AMD, you're better off right now getting an AM2 and some nice DDR2 sticks that will be *more* future proof than the 939. sad though, 939 is my favorite platform - dmalai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2there are two 4800+ AM2 chips, both have L2 Cache Size - 1MB x2
ADA4800IAA6CS(ADA4800CSBOX), 89W, 90nm
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADA4800IAA6CS
ADO4800IAA6CS(ADO4800CSBOX), 65W, 90nm
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/details.aspx?opn=ADO4800IAA6CS - kakapu4u, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1For those Fry's deals that are processor and motherboard combos, are they listed as separate line items on your receipt? Or do you find an not very knowledgeable agent to do your return?
- dogshaft, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Hopefully for you, Fry's and Newegg owners don't read digg.
- InsaneMachine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Go AM2, if you want any upgradability, AM3 is compatible with AM2, Besides is the price difference really worth it?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 