Socket 939 Club--what to do if you have one of these turkeys

[zeus]

Didn't mean to say that they ran at the same clock speed. In fact, I believe that Intel is now more efficient than AMD. The pedulum has swung the other way.

You can't even compare clock speeds amoungst manufacturers. The only time you can compare is between chip families. And even then it can get dicey. For instance an E6600 is faster than a E6300. Plus it has more cache. But a E6300 is easier to overclock. And one of the reasons is because of the less cache. You can get the E6300 to OC and be a bigger bang for the buck. But, if you are going to stick to stock, then the E6600 is obviously faster.

The new C2D with the faster bus speed has shown to be marginally faster if anything, as in 1%. And the bus speeds of the low end ones are running at 800.

What I was saying however, is that you can go purchase an $80 intel chip and the odds are that you can OC it to perform like a $300 chip. I don't think that AMD has anything that can match that at this point.

However, if you are not going to OC, than go with whatever you want. But, one of the reasons that AMD became such a hot item with gamers the last 3-5 years is because you could purchase an Opty and then overclock it cheaper than a P4.

Like I said, the pendulum has swung the other way. And the AMD camp is extremely quiet right now. I guess we will see on the 10th what Barcelona can do. I hope they put a fight. But Intel already went for the jugular and they have been bleeding cash for about a year now.

[KillaDEATH]

The whole reason AMD started using the "performance rating" was because you can't compare clock for clock. They no longer call it that because of the shift from Intel away from clock speed naming. Today I would buy price. I own several of both AMD and Intel. Because one is faster doesn't make the other worthless. Depending on your intended use you could buy a higher performing AMD chip for less money. The other issue AMD has always had trouble to compete in is when Intel decides to lower the boom on price in the end. Intel can afford to lower it's prices on older chips beyond cost and take the hit for one because they have already recoup their cost in numbers and two to eliminate competition. The problem I see with this type of discussion is that people read this and say AMD sucks and Intel is the only thing to buy. Intel is faster and I have the hardware to prove it to myself. But it doesn't make the AMDs any slower. The last three chips I've bought in order were the E6300, E6600, then the 5600+ X2 AMD. If I run UT2004 on all those you wont be able to tell the difference between those and even a few older Athlon 64s I have here.

Whip,
The RAM situation with AMD has been that way from the beginning of the Athlon 64. Might have even been like that with the XP processors but I can't remember and I don't have any of those left here to test. The socket 754s would drop down with the third slot populated although I think a few motherboards got around that with a tweaked BIOS. The 939 introduced the Dual Channel memory controller to the Athlon 64 and would allow for 4 slots for memory but still drop down with the forth slot populated. I can't speak from experience about the AM2 because I have only one board with that socket and it only has 2 slots or I would go test it right now. lol As for the game I can remember that Unreal wouldn't like my machine when it was pushed faster. UT didn't like it either while every other game I played was fine. I found in several forums that many people had the same issue while others did not. Some people were overclocking and could put up with the minor glitches in the game for a few more frames. I haven't tried UT2004 on a OCed machine so I can't say it does the same but I wouldn't be suprised. Just remember that any overclocking is still overclocking. I would try it at stock speeds and even lower to see what happens. But I'm just like that...

[DW_ACY]

I know what you mean Zeus, and I'm just a little frustrated with the whole idea of buying a new PC. I really wanted AMD to be there and offer a competetive product, but that may not be the case and we will be doomed to pay Intel prices for the next 5-10 years.... :ky:
AMD to me has alway's been the great equalizer in regards to price v. performance. Now I will have to wait and see!

[DW_Snaggle]

You can't deny that Intel picked up its game when AMD spanked them with the X2 range. Even though AMD is languishing right now it has done a good job of making Intel perform and the C2D is the result. Yes, Barcelona/Phenom/.... would be nice, but it looks like Intel holds the flowers right now with no real hint as to when AMD's suitor will be ready *and* affordable.

Snaggle.

[DW_Hornet]

axp>p4 (northwood+)>A64>c2d > (phenom or penryn)

Every Processor has a different IPC (instruction per clock). Architecture is where it's at and clock speed only makes up for those deficiencies or provide a performance advantage over the competition.

[DW_ACY]

Wooot! We have a challenger :cheers: :mumum: Looks like AMD is back in the game I really hope the numbers are correct. Thanks Hornet for the article! :headbang:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... p?t=156940

[KillaDEATH]

Early silicon looked this promising and AMD has always been confident about their upcoming Quad Core. The report was that they were having trouble getting the clock speed up. "IF" this is true then AMD is very much back in the game. The problem is the source. The Inquirer is hardly a reputable site and can be considered just a Rumor Mill. The auther either doesn't speak good english or is just making it up from known facts and witness. Not saying it isn't possible.

Killa[DEATH]

[zeus]

Compare authors: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32589

[zeus]

Of course, it could be a tri-fire system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EZmYth6TM

[DW_Hornet]

Well I'm a bit skeptical on that article, It sounds a bit too good to be true. Keep in mind if thats true it bested out a core2quad? clocked in at 5.1Ghz.