Why AMD? No flames plz - honest question - Page 3 - Overclock.net

TEntel · 02-04-09

I dunno.

I love my X3.

With both at stock clocks, it beats an e8400 at gaming.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2320536,00.asp (according to this review at least).

However, it really can't OC well.

Slappa · 02-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgdude

not really. the 920 is in the q6600 price range
and the 7750 x2 costs more than the e5200

Yeah, but then add the motherboard and DDR3 onto that. It is much cheaper for something other than i7.

Blameless · 02-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slappa

Yeah, but then add the motherboard and DDR3 onto that. It is much cheaper for something other than i7.

He was talking about the Phenom II 920, not the i7, which is considerably more expensive.

Sabzi · 02-04-09

I feel like you're saying OCN is about performance in that you need to buy the best stuff and get the best performance.... but that's absolutely horrid imo

When i first started OCing i wanted to get the best performance out of my crappy system. What brought me to OCN is buying cheap stuff and OCing them to totally dominate more expensive system. The few people who have money to throw around every 3 months and buy bleeding edge technology as often as they can ruin what I believe OCN is all about

but thats my opinion!

Edit: in fact lmao every part of my computer is used... i even got the Win7 beta to avoid paying OS... maybe im on the penny-pincher spectrum hahaha... but i am in college

xXkeyboardkowboyXx · 02-04-09

I bought my first amd dual core at a very important virging point that i could have seen but didn't due to ignorance. I felt sorry for the people who bought a phenom I instead of an intel equivilant.

But now to get a decent overclocking quad you either go q9550 for (279.99) a q9650 (339.99) or a phII 940 for (239.99). you will say no you have another option go buy a q6600, if i did that then i would be lucky to get past 3.2 and to me, thats silly when i could go searching on ebay for one with a low enough vid to go to 3.6 but still im on the aged platform of 65nm, and i don't like used stuff.

In my eyes there are 2 types of overclockers, bench markers who by the latest and greatest for a good score. and budget minded overclockers who by the best price v performance processor and overclock the crap out of it. And sometimes that budget happens too be the processor with the cheapest price tag.

nemesis82 · 02-04-09

this is really asking to be flamed lol... but seriously atleast once a week there is a question about why amd why is amd so cheap... as of right now self preference and who cares if you run the fastest computer in the whole world... one thing people forget with over powered computer, you spend so much in a computer that you forget what is the real purpose of your PC... with just a few dollars i can upgrade from a 4600 to 6000 and still use my 590 motherboard... i had this pc for 4 years now and i bought the 590 board for 80 and 4600 for 59.99 :P now im upgrading to a 7750be + biostar gx3 or foxconn or DFI 790GX but im still waiting for the new mobo for am3 to come out for better compatibility in the future... so what can your i7 pc do that any other dual core amd cant do in online gaming?

I AM TEH LAW GIVAH · 02-04-09

Ok.. if it weren't for AMD/ATI everyone would be Intel/Nvidia.. and because of no competition.. Their prices are going to cost more than my life

Xecuter2 · 02-04-09

AMD is good for budget builds only in my opinion at this point... also, to the poster that stated the low end amd > low end intel, check up on the reality of it please... The amd x2 is not vs the celery.. it is vs the dual core pentium, which guess what, owns it hard core because it is a core 2 duo with cut cache. Also guess what, the sempron LE which IS directly against the celery.. gets owned by the celery, because it is a single core core 2 duo with cut cache. So intel wins in all aspects minus maybe mid range desktops which have amd tri cores vs say a dual core pentium (same price range since you can't quite get a c2d for the price of a tri core amd which makes them very nice for the price). I would still rather have a q6600 which is cheaper than all amd quads and performs the same if not better, and with dual cores, core 2 duo's are cheap(e7200/e7300) and are faster. Also, in laptops, intel is a godsend compared to amd. If you have ever worked retail in a tech store and have used both platforms on many, many laptops you will know what I mean. AMD laptops are VERY slow, hot, and overall sluggish, though in budget form they have better onboard video, so they do get credit for that (I rec AMD lappy's for WOW gamers that have to get cheap laptops). Core 2 duo laptops with centrino/centrino2 run so cool, use less power, run faster, last FAR longer, yea.. i have more but I will leave it where it stands. I just don't see a point in getting AMD unless they want to make a cpu that can compete, since that is what I will be interested in purchasing. On a side note, why do AMD lappys seem to get very laggy once you start doing multiple read writes, where as centrino laptops remain ready for more multitasking? If anyone knows what I mean and has an answer, please let me k now, I deal with both brands daily and it is quite noticeable.

NrGx · 02-04-09

Only AMD HTPC platforms are ownage. I was going to go with a Phenom platform but I had a motherboard already so I picked up a Q9550 which can easily match any AMD CPU.

TEntel · 02-04-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xecuter2

AMD is good for budget builds only in my opinion at this point... also, to the poster that stated the low end amd > low end intel, check up on the reality of it please... The amd x2 is not vs the celery.. it is vs the dual core pentium, which guess what, owns it hard core because it is a core 2 duo with cut cache. Also guess what, the sempron LE which IS directly against the celery.. gets owned by the celery, because it is a single core core 2 duo with cut cache. So intel wins in all aspects minus maybe mid range desktops which have amd tri cores vs say a dual core pentium (same price range since you can't quite get a c2d for the price of a tri core amd which makes them very nice for the price). I would still rather have a q6600 which is cheaper than all amd quads and performs the same if not better, and with dual cores, core 2 duo's are cheap(e7200/e7300) and are faster. Also, in laptops, intel is a godsend compared to amd. If you have ever worked retail in a tech store and have used both platforms on many, many laptops you will know what I mean. AMD laptops are VERY slow, hot, and overall sluggish, though in budget form they have better onboard video, so they do get credit for that (I rec AMD lappy's for WOW gamers that have to get cheap laptops). Core 2 duo laptops with centrino/centrino2 run so cool, use less power, run faster, last FAR longer, yea.. i have more but I will leave it where it stands. I just don't see a point in getting AMD unless they want to make a cpu that can compete, since that is what I will be interested in purchasing. On a side note, why do AMD lappys seem to get very laggy once you start doing multiple read writes, where as centrino laptops remain ready for more multitasking? If anyone knows what I mean and has an answer, please let me k now, I deal with both brands daily and it is quite noticeable.

It is cheaper than the PHII 940.

That is it.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
Why AMD? No flames plz - honest question

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)