Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Upgrades

AMD Undercuts Intel With Six-Core Phenom IIs 361

Posted by timothy
from the crave-7-and-11-core-options dept.
EconolineCrush writes "As Slashdot readers are no doubt aware, Intel's latest 'Gulftown' Core i7-980X is an absolute beast of a CPU. But its six cores don't come cheap; the 980X sells for over a grand, which is more than it would cost to build an entire system based on one of AMD's new six-core CPUs. The Phenom II X6 line starts at just $200 and includes a new Turbo capability that can opportunistically raise the clock speed of up to three cores when the others are idle. Although not as fast as the 980X, the new X6s are quick enough to offer compelling value versus even like-priced Intel CPUs. And the kicker: the X6s will work in a good number of older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Undercuts Intel With Six-Core Phenom IIs

Comments Filter:
  • by plague911 (1292006) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:02PM (#32119820)
    But anyhow. I like AMD they are a good brand but to be honest their 6 core dose not undercut intel's 6 core. It maybe undercuts intel's 4core . But even than they only trade blows in quantitative analysis.

    In short this posting is old and not very accurate. So doubly pointless

    • Serioulsy ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dnamaners (770001) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:18PM (#32120014) Journal
      There are more than a few things that AMD besides gaming and over clocking (Intel strong points) that make an AMD a good choice. I don't want to start holy war here but there is not much real gap here 10-5% in my tests at best. The price * power use thing shows AMD is a good choice in many places. Price alone makes me deploy more than a few AMD clusters. Don't just look at the max value on the "speedometer" to see how good a car is, we mostly drive at the speed limit. Take from it what you will.
    • by dimeglio (456244) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:40PM (#32120254)

      Although not as fast as the 980X, the the new X6s are quick enough to offer compelling value versus even like-priced Intel CPUs. And the kicker: the X6s will work in a good number of older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update.

      So doubly pointless

      Indeed as this is the "the" new X6s.

      I still like the underdog and hope they do well. The latest and greatest is often overkill.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by petermgreen (876956)

        Unfortunately for AMD there is little money in being the underdog of PC processors. Intels better process technology and income from high end chips like the 6-core i7* means they can set prices on the low-midrange stuff at a level that is comfortable enough for them while being extremely painful for AMD.

        *Which unlike most extreme edition chips (which tend to cost a shitload of extra money for a marginal improvement over thier regular counterparts) doesn't seem that bad a deal to me. Afaict it will get you t

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gstoddart (321705)

      But anyhow. I like AMD they are a good brand but to be honest their 6 core dose not undercut intel's 6 core.

      If I R'd TFS correctly, by about $800 dollars. But you mean purely based on dick-swinging numbers I assume. :-P

      See, for a lot of people (ie. non gamers and people not doing CPU intensive stuff) being CPU bound is rarely something they'll encounter. Multiple cores have the benefit of making the operating system more responsive since a busy app doesn't make the whole system crawl. My current Quad cor

  • all these cores and benchmarks...

    i still run computer with one core and no modern graphics card

    • by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:19PM (#32120038) Homepage
      Rest assured that most of the 1337 h4xx0rZ who will soon spew reams of artificial benchmark trivia are just demonstrating that what they really use their Maibatsu Monstrosity XP9000 system for is running a web browser.
      • by Sepiraph (1162995)
        That's true, how much computing power does an average, non-gaming, non-power user need? Even if you throw in multi-media, including voip and video, I doubt your average user will be able to use all that computing power (also the later depends more on the GPU, which will become more and more important in the future). I suppose with the cost of cpu power getting lower and lower, it may not matter as much and we will see more hardware comes with some sort of computer (e.g. your entire house).

        Recently, I bu
        • by DrYak (748999) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @10:51PM (#32121416) Homepage

          Even if you throw in multi-media, including voip and video, I doubt your average user will be able to use all that computing power

          ...but once you thow into the mix all the dozens of viruses, trojans, spywares and phising systems which the clueless user has collected by clicking open every single e-mail attachment, suddenly you realise that Average Joe's computer has even problems keeping up with simply sitting idle (and spitting tons of SPAM, coordinating DDNS attacks, etc) let alone have enough processing power to run even a browsing session in addition to the rest.

    • by InlawBiker (1124825) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:44PM (#32120296)

      It gives us VM's - lots and lots of VM's. I can reproduce a production app environment entirely on one quiet little box, including the load-balancer, firewall and name servers. It used to take a half a rack of loud, expensive servers all with disks and other stuff that breaks and needs monitoring and replacing. I can't wait for the 8-core chips to become affordable.

    • by skam240 (789197) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @09:45PM (#32120918)

      So why on earth are you even bothering to comment on this article? You clearly have no need for a top of the line system. Good for you! You're just like my mom! Does it make you feel superior to brag about your single core? Are you the computer ascetic of our generation?

  • re AMD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by freddieb (537771) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:12PM (#32119930)
    We all should hope AMD does well. I use AMD chips in about 90% of my systems. Value is the main reason. Intel makes excellent products however you invariably have to upgrade the motherboard to use a new chip. AMD has been kinder in this regard recently. I go with a middle of the pack system anyhow and I really appreciate the value AMD provides.
    • Intel's kind of funny like that.

      LGA775 was kicking around for like, 5 years before LGA1156, but, Socket 478 was around for about 3 years before *that*.

      of course, there's also Socket 7, who can forget those days?

      • Personally, I miss Slot 1. So easy to upgrade/replace processors. Just a little bit too bulky, though...
        • Not only that, but all that stuff off die is quite frankly, slower.

          Although I wish they'd go back to some sort of riser so we can not worry about destroying the motherboard when installing fans onto Core series processors.

    • I certainly hope they do well. Many of my systems run AMD too. They do represent great value. Plus, I would hate to see Intel as the only desktop CPU manufacturer.
    • And yet I still hope they do well. Competition is good for everyone. The better AMD's offerings, the better Intel's response has to be if they wish to compete.

      You can really see that back in the Athlon era. Suddenly AMD launched to the top performance wise, they had a chip that was powerful and relatively cheap compared to the P3. What happened? Intel cut prices, but also released a huge speed bump. Whereas previously it was in the realm of 600MHz the P3s topped out at, they started shipping 933MHZ P3s in r

      • by sznupi (719324) on Friday May 07, 2010 @12:09AM (#32122138) Homepage

        Intel started doing a bit more than "cut prices, but also released a huge speed bump" (BTW, remember P3 Coppermine 1.13GHz? ;p ), as shown by recent record-breaking fine from the EU and settlement with AMD (both almost $3 billion total? Supposedly Intel cheated the market for at least that much...imagine what AMD could've done with R&D and fabs if they would have the funds which were otherwise illegally funelled to Intel). The company for which you presumably do care about doesn't really share your enthusiasm for competition...the way they fought, it kept costs higher and quality lower on AMD side.

        BTW, "Ok but they were still plenty good chips, they performed well enough for what most people used" in regards to P4 wasn't quite the case with first versions, which were much more expensive and slower than P3s they replaced. Plus lots of unsuspecting people of "CPU must be from Intel" type got Willamette Celerons, which were very castrated, cache-starved (as far as Netburst was concerned)...making them very slow, and a horrible deal.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:12PM (#32119940)
    The problem is AMD is using an outdated architecture. More cores != more speed for general use. Yeah, if you are compiling your own software you can get things to work really fast with 6 cores but how many applications really take advantage of multiple cores? Very, very few. A single fast core can outperform a few slow cores in general usage and AMD seems only concerned with getting more and more cores on a single CPU die which really doesn't translate to great performance in the real world for general use.
    • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:16PM (#32119996)

      Try transcoding some video one time kiddo.

      Hell if I could get 24 atoms in one socket that would be fantastic for me.

    • Depends what you do. (Score:2, Informative)

      by FatSean (18753)

      I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores. Then there is my bit-torrent app and...

      Seems like you can easily use all those cores.

      • I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores.

        The app server uses a core only when someone is using the app. And what does the IDE do for you between keystrokes?

        Then there is my bit-torrent app

        Network bound, probably sleeping much of the time. Or what am I missing?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by crazycheetah (1416001)

          I've noticed some IDEs are annoyingly more CPU hogging than a lot of other applications I run. Code::Blocks, for example, seems to start eating up CPU usage after being kept open with not even a very large amount of files open. It gets worse with more files open, but I've seen it happen with relatively small projects. I've seen the same with other IDEs, also--I've just been using Code::Blocks with one project I've got going lately, so it's most fresh in my mind. I'm not quite sure what it's doing, but some

      • by forkazoo (138186)

        I have four cores. I run an IDE and an AppServer at all times, which uses up at least two cores. Then there is my bit-torrent app and...

        Seems like you can easily use all those cores.

        Stop using Azureus for your bit torrent client, and downloading a file will no longer require a fill core with of CPU time.

        Or, if you are using a sane torrent client, what the hell kind of internet connection are you using that you are still CPU bound on a file transfer?!?!

    • This was common wisdom 5 years ago. Nowadays, there's a shitload of CPU-intensive applications making good use of additional cores. And the trend is towards more and more such applications. This, in turn, means that the architecture that allows for easier multi-core CPUs will win out.

    • The more cores the better for me. I run a couple of home servers, which each run several VMs under KVM. Sure, this isn't general use, but I don't care about that. For all my "general use" tasks, the MacBook works just fine.
    • by ld a,b (1207022) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @09:42PM (#32120894) Journal

      Your real-world usage is what exactly? Playing badly designed games?

      I want to play badly designed games *while* I am compiling, listening to some music and possibly leaving my browser on with some badly written JavaScript running. I also want my CPU not to melt.

      You would need at least a 5GHz CPU to match a current dual-core CPU in this area. The ongoing trend is to have more and more things running and getting updated in real time. An it has been for a long time.

      Files getting indexed, illegal files getting downloaded, stupid GUIs getting rendered, music getting played, Interpreted languages getting JIT-compiled ...

      Gamers are still stuck in the microcomputer era. The real world isn't. And there isn't really a choice in the first place, the choice is more cores and a better experience or getting stuck at XGHz and having to pipe liquid Hydrogen into your home.

      I think we will see more CPUs with more cores and likely more storage units to avoid resource starvation. More speed is just not possible.

    • by seifried (12921) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @09:44PM (#32120914) Homepage
      For all us virtualization types more cheaper cores = more better. The future is in virtualization and I think AMD gets this.
    • More cores? Imagine how many 8051s you could put on a Phenom die, then imagine what you could do with it. You have an incredible imagination!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by phantomfive (622387)
      I am amazed at the shifts that happen sometimes here on slashdot. A few years ago, multiple cores were the cat's meow and were going to change the world, and all the programmers who didn't learn Haskell or other non-parallel languages would be left behind. If you tried to post a comment saying that a parallel algorithm doesn't always make things better, you would get modded down or ignored, or laughed at.

      Now it's gone to the other extreme, you've said multiple cores are essentially useless for the avera
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Yeah, if you are compiling your own software you can get things to work really fast with 6 cores

      Compiling doesn't provide a multithreading advantage. You have to be writing your own software, too.

      but how many applications really take advantage of multiple cores?

      Practically all complex games are multithreaded today. Essentially all multimedia applications are multithreaded. Or in other words, any application which needs to be specially coded to take advantage of multiple cores probably is already.

      A single fast core can outperform a few slow cores in general usage

      Only for legacy or other non-threaded applications. Both groups are dwindling. In addition most of the heaviest lifters have been multithreaded for a very long time, i.e. Ph

  • by w0mprat (1317953) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:13PM (#32119958)
    On a price performance basis AMDs Phenom IIs have consistenly been a better buy for some time now. To the point it's hard to suggest anyone buying intel at all, unless money is no object. (I don't know why I bought Intel anyway :S). Honest hardware review sites (that aren't far up the ass of vendors) are at the point of recommend AMD CPUs on a price/performance basis.

    http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31857.html [tomshardware.co.uk]

    It seems Intel doesn't get even a "honorable mention" until page 3. At $120 price point, Core i3 gets a look in. Oh, they also don't recommend anything above about $160 to quote Tom's: "Best gaming CPU for $190: None".

    To add further insult, money saved from AMD motherboards being cheaper (in particular SLI/xfire AMD boards are a good whack cheaper) will let you put money towards more storage, a SSD or a step up in CPU speed.
    • by sznupi (719324)

      Plus the integrated GFX on most AMD boards is a bit more sensible than Intel one, meaning separate card can be more often ignored (or at the least the initial configuration not including it, and the machine will be still sensibly nice)

      (yes, there's integrated Nvidia - not with latest Intel arch though; previously not so readily available...and for some reason motherboards for Intel with Nv GFX were consistently more expensive than for AMP CPUs with Nv GFX, at least where I am)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Nadaka (224565)

        I am running an M4A78T-E with ATI HD 3300 integrated graphics. It does surprisingly well. I have not doled out any money for new high end games for a while, but it easily handles games that brought my previous graphics card to its knees (it was top of the line in 04). I am eventually going to get a modern graphics card so I can play around with OpenCL, but I really have not felt a pressing need for it with my gaming habits.

    • by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @09:19PM (#32120686) Journal

      It seems Intel doesn't get even a "honorable mention" until page 3. At $120 price point, Core i3 gets a look in. Oh, they also don't recommend anything above about $160 to quote Tom's: "Best gaming CPU for $190: None

      and then... you stopped reading.

      Best gaming CPU for $200:

      Core i5-750

      The new Core i5 brings top-of-the-line Nehalem-class performance at a $200 price point. We recently awarded it our Recommended Buy honor after seeing it stand up to more expensive CPUs in games and other demanding apps.

      They don't recommend spending more than $200, though.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elashish14 (1302231)

      There's another reason that I would consider Intel: in every benchmark/testing suite that I've seen, it almost always has lower power consumed. It probably amounts to little cost in the short run, but idle power draw actually is significant over long scales (roughly $1 for each watt over the course of a year of on-time). So after say a year of use, you can save about $15 choosing a i3 instead of an Athlon X4. It could be significant, especially if you plan on using your machine for a long time or with a lot

  • ECC Support (Score:5, Informative)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:15PM (#32119974) Journal
    And additional benefit of AMD processors is that they all support ECC RAM.
    • Re:ECC Support (Score:5, Informative)

      by pslam (97660) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:46PM (#32120318) Homepage Journal
      This is a big reason I picked an AMD Phenom II over a Core i7 recently. To get ECC support from Intel, you need to buy a Xeon, at which point they charge you an extra $800-$1000 for the gates to be enabled. Screw that, I'll go with a chip 80% cheaper and 10% slower.
      • by gullevek (174152)

        Yeah, but do you really need ECC RAM on a home machine?

        • Re:ECC Support (Score:4, Informative)

          by DigiShaman (671371) on Friday May 07, 2010 @12:37AM (#32122326) Homepage

          You don't need ECC for home usage, but both personally and professionally, I highly recommend it.

          With the stability of modern OSs such a OSX and Windows 7, people tend to leave their computer on 24/7. Eventually, a bit flip will take place. Question is, where? It might happen in an area which is about to be flushed out anyways. It could also happen where the kernel resides causing the OS to panic. Worse yet, having a bit flip could corrupt a file making data recovery that much more troublesome.

      • Re:ECC Support (Score:4, Informative)

        by nabsltd (1313397) on Friday May 07, 2010 @12:08AM (#32122126)

        To get ECC support from Intel, you need to buy a Xeon, at which point they charge you an extra $800-$1000 for the gates to be enabled.

        Boy, when you make up numbers, you really reach deep into your ass, don't you?

        Core i7-920 [newegg.com] for $280 and the same-socket, indentical spec Xeon W3520 [newegg.com] for $310.

        The only issue might be that you need a motherboard that supports ECC, but $270 for this one [newegg.com] isn't a lot more than the $200 or so you'd pay for a non-server board with equivalent build quality. Unless things have changed drastically since the last time I looked at AMD motherboards, not all of them support ECC, either.

        • Re:ECC Support (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DigiShaman (671371) on Friday May 07, 2010 @01:16AM (#32122572) Homepage

          ECC support is disabled on all non-Xeon chips. There isn't a technical reason, it was purposeful market segmentation.

          Per Intel FAQ

          Does either the Intel® Core i7 processor or the Intel® Core i5 processor family support Error Correction Code (ECC) memory?
          Neither family of desktop processors supports ECC memory. Typically ECC memory is used on servers and workstations rather than on desktop platforms. This is due to the price premium and extremely low likelihood of a data error occurring even on memory not utilizing ECC.

          Knowing this before hand, that's why opted to build a new AMD based computer that has ECC enabled. The parts I used includes current prices below from Newegg.com and Crucial.com

          Motherboard: Asus Crosshair III Formula = $199
          CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition = $159
          RAM: Crucial 4GB kit (2GBx2) ECC DDR3-1333 (P/N: CT2KIT25672BA1339) = $149

          Total (minus shipping) = $507

          It's damn cheap for a fast performing ECC workstation.

  • Does anyone think for a minute they will update the BIOS on a board when they can sell you a new one?

    • Re:BIOS Update.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by DDLKermit007 (911046) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:42PM (#32120280)
      Yes actually...I've worked with so many boards that were made for AM2 that were made long before Phenom came out that work phenomenally with Phenom chips after a quick bios update. Now if your talking a prebuilt HP special POS, well that's your own fault.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by D J Horn (1561451)

      Yes. This is far from the first time a new CPU has been supported on older boards by updating BIOS.

    • by Yaa 101 (664725)

      ASUS/AMD certainly does, they have the most friendly system to upgrade your BIOS, just burn a firmware image on an empty CD, restart and let the computer startup from that cd and all goes automatically.
      Don't forget to make a backup of your current bios and burn that on a separate CD.

  • AMD (Score:5, Funny)

    by Antisyzygy (1495469) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @08:22PM (#32120068)
    AMD basically has a processor that has a high performance/price ratio for any budget. I will be loyal to AMD for quite some time. Im seriously considering tattooing AMD on myself.


  • older Socket AM2+ and AM3 motherboards with only a BIOS update.

    Isn't that an oxymoron?!? A BIOS update on and older AM2+ mobo?

    Seth
  • includes a new Turbo capability that can opportunistically raise the clock speed

    Does this mean I can get my turbo button back on my computer?

  • If you act now, we'll throw in this brand new nose hair trimmer for FREE!!!! Get rid of those pesky nose hairs with our patented root-ripper design that leaves your nose feeling clean for months. Also, if you order within 24 hours we'll include a 29 foot garden hose!

    Certain restrictions apply. $19.95 shipping & handling, delivery within continental US and Canada only. ...I love AMD, but COME ON man. Make it a LITTLE less obvious.

  • Anandtech managed to get a stable 4.0 GHz overclock [anandtech.com] with air cooling. It makes an already great deal all that much better in my opinion.
  • by pankajmay (1559865) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @09:19PM (#32120684)
    I have been wondering for quite some time - do regular joe consumers really need all those cores? OR is everyone buying into the marketing hype of processor manufacturers without thinking whether we would actually need that many cores??

    First of all, any computer organization text will inform you that as the number of cores increase - scheduling amongst those cores becomes an exponentially costly issue in itself. This scheduling/load balancing of course has to be ultra low latency to maintain a reasonable throughput.
    Not to mention the fact, that on software side managing threading and choosing instructions to parallelize is a big headache. Many decent programmers cannot get it right so that in itself defeats the presence of different cores.

    Secondly - unless you are continuously doing protein folding, calculating eigen values of huge matrices, or are acting as a node for traffic in your part of the world -- most people's processor cores will spend a majority of their time idling or spin-lock. Is it any surprise then that both Intel and AMD are advertising technologies to power down three cores, boosting the power for the other three?? Simply because most end-users will rarely utilize all six of their cores simultaneously. Yes, that is even true no matter if you are doing heavy video transcoding or running multiple servers, and playing games simultaneously - you will still leave your cores without any task simply because unless the bandwidth of the memory bus catches up, your cores will be waiting for data to process.
    This is why Intel's i-series architecture is superior to AMDs and likely the fact their processors cost more, because they have addressed the memory bus issue.

    You have to realize your computer acts like a chain and it is only as fast as its weakest link.

    I have been advising people that any new dual or quad processor will suffice - they should instead spend that extra money on buying a better motherboard, speedier RAM, and of course high-speed HDD.

    Trust me when I say that just that approach above will yield systems that are actually much faster than coupling an i7/Mega-core behemoth with an old hard-disk and crappy RAM.

    It is an altogether different matter that computers are already so speedy that most users cannot for the love of God discern between the speeds of any recent dual-core and a top-of-the-line processor - and it is not their fault -- the advantages now we are talking about are incremental. The power is present but cannot be harnessed. So any gloating is moot.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2010 @10:17PM (#32121126)

      Don't know about average joes, but for work, a quad core drops compile jobs from 17 mins to 3.
      For home use, I usually pull 40-80% load on 4 cores, so I would say I get good use out it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbIII (701233)
      "Regular Joe" users play with home videos and photo editing - two embarrassingly parallel situations right there where you can always find something to do with as many CPU cores as you can get.
      Four is a relative large number though.
  • This is what I love about AMD, other than the price and ability to overclock. I can upgrade the BIOS and pop this CPU in my system without throwing out the MOBO and having to reload the O/S. If this were Intel, I would have to buy a new motherboard to support the slightly new CPU.

    Thank you AMD for not playing socket-a-paloozo like Intel!

    Oh, BTW, my 3.2Ghz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition runs stable at 3.8Ghz for $160. :) If I ever win the lotto I will buy an an i7, until then, GO AMD!
  • by strstr (539330) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @10:04PM (#32121042)

    For less than the price of Intel's top desktop chip, you can get an uber-1337 AMD Opteron with 12-cores. Beat that, Intel...

    Prices start at $750.

  • Cores and AMD (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yoshi_mon (172895) on Friday May 07, 2010 @01:13AM (#32122548)

    To me the new AMD six core is a little bit of "me too!" from AMD. Not that there won't be people who won't find practical uses, and no buying one to OC it so that you can get a higher folding score does not count imo, for them but it's still as many have pointed out hard to find real world scenarios where people need that type of a CPU on their desktop.

    AMD not only has to compete with Intel on the technology front but marketing as well. And again I don't want to take anything away from AMD and the idea behind pushing the envelope on new tech. But when it comes to end users they really don't know and or care what is driving what they do with their computer. I see people's eyes glaze over when I even start to talk about what type of hardware I'm going to set them up with. They simply do not care.

    However I have seen where people have been brainwashed by the marketing. People have asked me if their system is Intel Inside. I try to explain to them that at most price points AMD is a better buy and the more brainwashed come back to me with some very clueless lines like, "But if I don't have and Intel I won't be able to run what I need to." I even remember back in the early 2000's walking into a local computer shop, I needed a mobo asap, and one of the sales reps told me that AMD CPU's were, "Garbage. We don't even stock any AMD parts."

    I asked if he knew about the, at the time very high end, computing array that was I think setup at GT that was using AMDs and he started to sputter. "Well, I don't know about that." Of course you don't you idiot I felt like saying, but I just left and have since made it a point to make sure that people that I know and do work for look out to be wary of that place.

    My main point is that AMD serves many purposes in what our modern computing landscape is. I personally do like them a lot but as someone who deals with many systems I deal with Intel plenty too. And hell I like a lot of Intel's products. They have top notch R&D and blah blah blah. But we would be a poorer group of computer users without AMD even without all of the other reasons to like them.

    • Re:Cores and AMD (Score:4, Informative)

      by Vectormatic (1759674) on Friday May 07, 2010 @05:09AM (#32123810)

      I even remember back in the early 2000's walking into a local computer shop, I needed a mobo asap, and one of the sales reps told me that AMD CPU's were, "Garbage. We don't even stock any AMD parts."

      back in 2003 i ordered a custom built machine at a local shop, they favored intel, but since the northwood 3.0 GHz (only intel chip i cared about at the time) was WAY out of my budget (700 euro cpu, 300 euro mobo), i insisted on an athlon XP. The guy tried to convince me that amd makes unreliable shit and overclocks their own stuff and such, but i insisted.

      I got my system, and was happy, but after i while i found out it was running at 100 mhz FSB (as opposed to the specced 166 mhz), they had just upped the multiplier to have the core clock match the specs (yes, my athlon XP 2600+ does not have a multi-lock, none of those chips did until the barton core came about). I asked the guy who built it about this and he claimed that he could not get the system stable at 166 mhz (implicitly blaming AMD). A few years later i found out the stick of ram he had used has errors in it, and doesnt run stable at 166 mhz, causing the instability. Just last weekend i swapped some different ram in there, upped the FSB to spec, and the system is solid as a rock.

      moral of the story, people slagging off AMD for stability and such are tools and dont know what they are talking about

  • by foxalopex (522681) on Friday May 07, 2010 @11:55AM (#32128006)
    For anyone that plans on using this CPU as a workstation or light server chip, this is the best way to go. I recently priced an Asus M4A785TD-V EVO motherboard and it's only an amazing $120. (Comes complete with a built in low powered graphics card too) Pair that with this Phenom X6 and ECC ram and you have an amazingly great value Virtualization or Parallel rendering system. This chip is probably overkill for consumers and gamers but for the folks who can use it, it's an amazing steal. :) In any event, I work for a small company and so far AMD's proven to be the best value for light servers. Intel's primary best designs and strengths are in the Laptop market where they make advanced chips but on the Desktop I still find AMD to be great.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"

Working...