Advice on Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 vs MSI 970A-G46 (hands on experiences preferred) - Page 2

Well, they were the cards which more probably that not didn't worth to SLI, not the SLI in itself (or the CrossFireX). IMO, of course.
While, if you are a gamer-on-a-budget, SLI may be really worthwhile.

Not to mention CUDA or GPGPU (which, to be fair, don't require a SLI/CFX bridge, just the multiple x16 slots with enough lanes).


If you're looking for something cost-effective and somewhat future-proof (or a tad more future proof than AM3+), maybe you should wait a couple of weeks for an Ivy Bridge platform. IMHO.

I would add that at least here in Italy, 990X and 970 platform cost almost the same, so the 970 doesn't worth at all: the GB 990XA and the ASUS M5A99X are priced a mere 5-7 bucks more than their 970 cousins.

Thanks for your thought: unfortunately shipping is at least 40 USD, not to mention customs, nullifying any advantage (over street price and currency exchange).

However, that Crosshair IV looks really cute.

I respectfully but firmly disagree: it's not true at all that price-performance wise AMD retains the crown, and it should also depend at which sweet spot you're looking at (not to mention how much time lower end AM3 CPUs supply will last, with reference to FM1 line-up).

Just for example, you might give a look to this comparison between two about 85 USD chips: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/202?vs=404
A not so much different scenario is the about 125 USD mark: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289
Obviously it's not the whole story but they can give some clues.

The only reasons I see for choosing AMD nowadays - I mean for a brand new rig - is overclocking, or some very specific task as video encoding, as an Intel overclockable CPU (the so called -K series) starts from an high price, while in video encoding cores counting still does matter (at least a tad, with reference to single-thread efficiency).

Due to the notorious FX design problems, the AM3+ platform is a not-so-smart choice in the next two years, IMO.

Maybe you should point out which are those technologies and needs, 'cause without doing so these assumptions look like somewhat groundless.


And this is the point: we could better judge your states if you could clarify what you're looking for, because from common benchmarks a price/performance advantage by AMD does not seem apparent at all.


As far as I know it's not true that Intel has nothing to offer: using NewEgg references, the 110USD AsRock Extreme4 may have its Intel counterparts in the AsRock Z68 Extreme3, or Z68Pro3 (105 to 122USD and it comes even in mATX flavour, which can be handy)
The 120USD Gigabyte 990XA may have its Intel counterpart in the Gigabyte Z68 D3H or UD3 (115 to 135USD).

You may obviously rather any AMD platform you may like, but it's not true that AMD has a unique competitive advantage due to the mobo offerings (or lack of).


I think it doesn't matter.
Piledriver is far to come, completely untested and besides many sources guess it won't be able to improve performance significantly due to the inehent FX design flaws.
Ivy Bridge (1155 flavour) will be out next two weeks, with dual cores coming in late may or june, and it's previewed to improve current Intel performance advantage noticeably, some current mobos will accept them, while series-7 mobo shouldn't be so expensive, as their series-6 sisters (for what quoted above) actually aren't.

Again, you may have your own preference, and you'll buy your 990XA (as I will buy an AMD board at any rate), but there are also some facts: generally speaking AMD doesn't seem to offer more performance per dollar than Intel, and it doesn't offer a path to improve this scenario.
And, IMO, these are sad facts for all of us.
Edited by marc1 - 3/30/12 at 4:05am