Prev: DDR2 1250 and 1333
Next: Multi-core lag for Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 and Quake 4 on AMD X2 3800+ processor... why ?
From: geoff on 29 Mar 2010 14:52
The better question is, what kind of system gives better performance per
dollar.

Tomshardware periodically builds low, mid-range, and high end systems. They
always discover the same thing, the higher end the system, the less
performance you get for the dollar and also, spending twice as much does not
give you twice the performance. The law of diminishing returns kicks in
real fast.

For myself, I go low end, $600 to $800, and the combination of AMD + MB has,
to date, been cheaper than Intel + MB.

--g


From: Manuel on 29 Mar 2010 16:44
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:52:55 -0400, "geoff" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

>
>For myself, I go low end, $600 to $800, and the combination of AMD + MB has,
>to date, been cheaper than Intel + MB.
>
>--g
>

Yes, exactly... I've been able to get a 500gb hard disk and an 8 cell
battery with my notebook, while the same model (same price) but with
an Intel was having a 320gb hard disk with a 6 cell battery.

I am talking about the M300 AMD cpu and I love it... I consider it
fast enough for my work.

Anyway, I've got a desktop with Intel and it is super fast, so...
really it's all about money.

--
Arts, Music, Technology - http://manuelmarino.com

Has technology impoverished the actual experience
of listening to music? - http://manuelmarino.com/forum
From: Charlie Wilkes on 29 Mar 2010 21:14
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:52:55 -0400, geoff wrote:

> The better question is, what kind of system gives better performance per
> dollar.
>
> Tomshardware periodically builds low, mid-range, and high end systems. They
> always discover the same thing, the higher end the system, the less
> performance you get for the dollar and also, spending twice as much does not
> give you twice the performance. The law of diminishing returns kicks in
> real fast.
>
> For myself, I go low end, $600 to $800, and the combination of AMD + MB has,
> to date, been cheaper than Intel + MB.
>
> --g

This is certainly how it looks to me after reading extensively about the
latest motherboards and CPUs. I started out thinking I was going to want an
Intel quad, but I can't see that it is worth the money and I am going with
AMD.

Also, the low-end system I assembled four years ago has done a great job,
and I am only replacing it because it can't quite handle full HD.
From: Bug Dout on 30 Mar 2010 13:06
Charlie Wilkes <usexpedition(a)gmail.com> writes:

> I am scoping a cheap system, and the information I have come across
> suggests that AMD can't compete with Intel at the high end of the CPU
> market, so they are relegated to the low end and have to sell their CPUs at
> a discount.

Well, this is such a generic assertion it's meaningless. All CPUs have
topped out at around 3 GHz clock speed. So what does "high end" mean
anymore? I've seen people say that AMD cpus return better interactive
performance while Intel return better program running speed. It really
depends on your usage of the computer. My guess is peripherals have far
greater affect on performance than brand of CPU. For instance a RAID 0
setup instead of a single drive, or a SSD instead of a HDD...A dedicated
vector processor (e.g. Tesla) instead of using the cpu for
numerics...&etc.

--
The most painful household incident is wearing socks and stepping on
an upturned plug.
--Peter Kay
From: Charlie Wilkes on 1 Apr 2010 00:21
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:06:31 -0700, Bug Dout wrote:

> Charlie Wilkes <usexpedition(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I am scoping a cheap system, and the information I have come across
>> suggests that AMD can't compete with Intel at the high end of the CPU
>> market, so they are relegated to the low end and have to sell their CPUs at
>> a discount.
>
> Well, this is such a generic assertion it's meaningless. All CPUs have
> topped out at around 3 GHz clock speed. So what does "high end" mean
> anymore? I've seen people say that AMD cpus return better interactive
> performance while Intel return better program running speed. It really
> depends on your usage of the computer. My guess is peripherals have far
> greater affect on performance than brand of CPU. For instance a RAID 0
> setup instead of a single drive, or a SSD instead of a HDD...A dedicated
> vector processor (e.g. Tesla) instead of using the cpu for
> numerics...&etc.

To me high-end means any CPU that costs more than $200. Mainly I want
something that can play blu ray smoothly and can rip and transcode video
reasonably fast. Almost any new CPU can do all that, but I don't have to
get the cheapest of everything. Someone steered me toward the AMD 955, a
quad-core CPU costing $160. According to some benchmarking tests, it
renders video as fast as an Intel CPU costing around $200. I can't see that
Intel has anything for less than $200 that offers comparable value. If I'm
missing something, clue me in. That is why I'm here.

Charlie
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: DDR2 1250 and 1333
Next: Multi-core lag for Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 and Quake 4 on AMD X2 3800+ processor... why ?