Server motherboards tend to have horrible overclocking capacity, I mean a relatively inexpensive gaming motherboard with good performance and oc'ing capabilities.
Furthermore, I'm simply stateing the prospect of a dual socket AMD board for the sake of showing Intel's relatively poor performance to price ratio. 4 CPUs for the price of one, with around 1/2 the performance (?, not sure of new CPU capabilities honestly. Not enough good benchmarks or applications wig good support) sounds alright to me.
[editline]02:48PM[/editline]
Hell, given the scope of the price difference, you could invest in one hell of a peltier/water cooling system.
Oh and there are dual socket boards for the i7s made for gaming already.
I have never seen an intel cpu @7GHz Edit: Now I have...
I have seen an AMD cpu @ over 7GHz
AMD owns
[QUOTE=Trillan;21614216]I have never seen an intel cpu @7GHz
I have seen an AMD cpu @ over 7GHz
AMD owns[/QUOTE]
There was a celeron at 8ghz
[editline]10:02PM[/editline]
argument invalid
[editline]10:02PM[/editline]
[url]http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=571442[/url]
If only they could find/make a material capable of superconducting at room temp...
[QUOTE=rampageturke;21614388]There was a celeron at 8ghz
[editline]10:02PM[/editline]
argument invalid
[editline]10:02PM[/editline]
[url]http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=571442[/url][/QUOTE]
A single core
I'm pretty sure a Quad core Phenom II X4 955 at 7.1 ghz will crush that.
[QUOTE=ShaRose_;21586062]Shame AES was partially broken.[/QUOTE]
What is AES and SHA?
[QUOTE=Within;21615015]What is AES and SHA?[/QUOTE]
File encryption algorithms.
Good for hiding porno.
reading those benchmarks, a i7 930 is faster than it? uh no thanks, but on a budget i guess it would be...... duno. I would get an i5 instead.
[editline]03:30AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=anikilol;21614844]A single core
I'm pretty sure a Quad core Phenom II X4 955 at 7.1 ghz will crush that.[/QUOTE]
no shit, but trillians post wasn't specific, so he didn't need a specific answer.
either way,
[img]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4336/928132.png[/img]
[url]http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=928132[/url]
and 7.1 here (+?) [url]http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/cpu-z/rankings[/url]
[editline]03:33AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trillan;21614216]I have never seen an intel cpu @7GHz Edit: Now I have...
I have seen an AMD cpu @ over 7GHz
AMD owns[/QUOTE]
now you've seen many
[editline]03:34AM[/editline]
you edited in "now I have" and you still kept AMD owns.
ha.
dumb argument anyway
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;21591240]Patches for the game.[/QUOTE]
You don't just patch in massive optimizations for a specific line of new CPUs.
[editline]11:35PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trillan;21616059]File encryption algorithms.
Good for hiding porno.[/QUOTE]
SHA is not an encryption algorithm at all.
They dropped the price on the 955 Black by 50 bucks too :buddy:
The real question is to get that or one of the fancy Hexacores.
hmm
I have a 955 black, is it worth the upgrade now?
The answer is always yes.
[QUOTE=Tools;21585759][IMG]http://plaza.fi/s/f/editor/images/X-2010042620575574896.png[/IMG]
If only I could read the text, I'd be able to tell if it's incredible awesome, or incredible slow. :geno:[/QUOTE]
It's the new AES-NI support in the CPU. It makes AES encryption shitloads faster and makes your encrypted driver works as fast (or faster) than unencrypted drives.
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21621804]and 7.1 here (+?) [url]http://hwbot.org/rankings/benchmark/cpu-z/rankings[/url][/QUOTE]
[code]
Score Member Hardware Cooling
3. 8179.89 mhz ThuG OC Intel Pentium 4 631 @8179.9MHz Stock
[/code]
8179mhz on stock?
[QUOTE=Luuper;21622549]hmm
I have a 955 black, is it worth the upgrade now?[/QUOTE]
What do you hope to gain?
There are certain things, right now, that two more cores will help with. Upgrading to a six core is going to cost from $200 to $300. Is there any software you run that is going to show you $200 worth of improved performance? Chances are if you are a typical Facepunch member the answer is no.
For someone running a slower, older dual core(or worse)- a six core upgrade can look tempting. But someone coming from a quad or fast dual core(like a Calisto)- I don't see the value.
Once again UNLESS you are running apps that can actually get full use out of six cores.
Future proofing? Not a good reason. One, you are gambling that significant >quad core software comes out in the usable lifetime of these AMDs(next 2 or 3 years). Second, you are gambling that when that software does come out, these first gen six cores are going to be powerful enough to run it well.
The point is if you are counting on buying this six core now to be ready for the software coming out in two years, you are probably going to want the six core made two years from now to run it.
[QUOTE=johanz;21597545]Do they also include 2 disabled cores?[/QUOTE]
Only one way to find out
[QUOTE=rampageturke;21626804][code]
Score Member Hardware Cooling
3. 8179.89 mhz ThuG OC Intel Pentium 4 631 @8179.9MHz Stock
[/code]
8179mhz on stock?[/QUOTE]
plausible
I must get one of these
now where is the closest bank?
judging by the benchmarks you'd be better off with an i5.
[QUOTE=rampageturke;21593786]there has been a replacement out for months, its called the i5 750, captain slow[/QUOTE]
I know. I've just been waiting on the release of these x6 cores first to see how they fare.
and they're worse than an i5,
[editline]07:32PM[/editline]
it's like the Q6600. It's cheap, it's a six-core, but it's not fast.
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;21602308]Um... Crysis can run on max settings with a single 1GB 5870, 6GB DDR3, and a Phenom II X4 955.[/QUOTE]
depends on your definition of max settings
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;21628899]What do you hope to gain?
There are certain things, right now, that two more cores will help with. Upgrading to a six core is going to cost from $200 to $300. Is there any software you run that is going to show you $200 worth of improved performance? Chances are if you are a typical Facepunch member the answer is no.
For someone running a slower, older dual core(or worse)- a six core upgrade can look tempting. But someone coming from a quad or fast dual core(like a Calisto)- I don't see the value.
Once again UNLESS you are running apps that can actually get full use out of six cores.
Future proofing? Not a good reason. One, you are gambling that significant >quad core software comes out in the usable lifetime of these AMDs(next 2 or 3 years). Second, you are gambling that when that software does come out, these first gen six cores are going to be powerful enough to run it well.
The point is if you are counting on buying this six core now to be ready for the software coming out in two years, you are probably going to want the six core made two years from now to run it.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't certain types of rendering, like converting or repackaging movies, use as many cores as you have?
AMD fails again, and I actually thought they were going to get competitive with Intel. I guess not. Their hexa cores can barely keep up with the i5 750, a chip that is priced lower at this time. Just goes to show that Intel is, clock for clock AND core for core, faster than AMD.
[editline]04:23AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=whatnow V2;21632499]and they're worse than an i5,
[editline]07:32PM[/editline]
it's like the Q6600. It's cheap, it's a six-core, but it's not fast.[/QUOTE]
Truth.
[editline]05:13AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trillan;21614216]I have never seen an intel cpu @7GHz Edit: Now I have...
I have seen an AMD cpu @ over 7GHz
AMD owns[/QUOTE]
You do realize that those were engineering samples that AMD gave to the OCing teams, right? I've never seen a regular Joe get a Phenom II past 4.2GHz on air. On the other hand, I've seen them get 4.5GHz easily on the i5.
Refer to this thread: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=901890[/url]
AMD has been shit ever since C2D was released.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21642898]AMD fails again, and I actually thought they were going to get competitive with Intel. I guess not. Their hexa cores can barely keep up with the i5 750, a chip that is priced lower at this time. Just goes to show that Intel is, clock for clock AND core for core, faster than AMD.
[editline]04:23AM[/editline]
Truth.
[editline]05:13AM[/editline]
You do realize that those were engineering samples that AMD gave to the OCing teams, right? I've never seen a regular Joe get a Phenom II past 4.2GHz on air. On the other hand, I've seen them get 4.5GHz easily on the i5.
Refer to this thread: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=901890[/url]
AMD has been shit ever since C2D was released.[/QUOTE]
Not really, the performance of hexa-cores usually compare to a low i7, and at $200, it's an excellent deal, because if you want to upgrade to an i5 or an i7, at least to make the upgrade worthwhile, you are probably upgrading from a Core 2 series or lower. So that means you have to not only buy the CPU, but upgrade the motherboard, and usually the RAM, also. When with AMD, the hexa-cores are already compatible with most AM3 and AM2+ motherboards.
AMD is not shit, they just don't have enough money for CPU development, because they spent it all on GPU development. But in the future, when programs will start using 6-cores it will perform well, maybe even better than Intel. It will defenetly perform better than i5 750. I'm using AMD because it's cheap and efficient and because my i5 750 recently "blew up".
[QUOTE=Jaehead;21647430]Not really, the performance of hexa-cores usually compare to a low i7, and at $200, it's an excellent deal, because if you want to upgrade to an i5 or an i7, at least to make the upgrade worthwhile, you are probably upgrading from a Core 2 series or lower. So that means you have to not only buy the CPU, but upgrade the motherboard, and usually the RAM, also. When with AMD, the hexa-cores are already compatible with most AM3 and AM2+ motherboards.[/QUOTE]
Programs aren't even fully optimized for quad cores and the 980X is already dominating the charts. Your argument is irrelevant. Don't even think of playing the price:performance card, since an i5 can be easily overclocked to such levels on air. I can't say the same for anything AMD has put out.
Why would you want to stick with DDR2 anyway? I'd rather make the move to an 1156 or 1366 platform where I can use 2000+MHz RAM stably, unlike AMD. Just because they have better backwards compatibility doesn't mean it's better, especially when it's not much of a hassle to sell your old parts on eBay or Craigslist, which is what my OCN friends do all the time.
[editline]03:07PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=QuAtT;21647894]AMD is not shit, they just don't have enough money for CPU development, because they spent it all on GPU development.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't this show that AMD has poor management and leadership?
[QUOTE=QuAtT;21647894]But in the future, when programs will start using 6-cores it will perform well, [b]maybe even better than Intel.[/b] [/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHA. You wish.
[QUOTE=QuAtT;21647894]It will defenetly perform better than i5 750.[/QUOTE]
Can you back this up with reliable statistics or reports?
[QUOTE=QuAtT;21647894]I'm using AMD because it's cheap and efficient and because my i5 750 recently "blew up".[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you haven't a clue of what you're doing.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254]Programs aren't even fully optimized for quad cores and the 980X is already dominating the charts.[/QUOTE]
Programs are optimized for quad cores, and the 980X is a $1000 CPU.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254] I can't say the same for anything AMD has put out.[/QUOTE]
I admit that Intel is better for overclocking, but AMD's CPUs, especially black editions, overclock nicely.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254]Why would you want to stick with DDR2 anyway? I'd rather make the move to an 1156 or 1366 platform where I can use 2000+MHz RAM stably, unlike AMD.[/QUOTE]
You stick with DDR2 because that's what you originally had, and you don't want to spend $100 to get new RAM. Also, there are AMD motherboards that have 2000+MHz RAM standard. Like these motherboards.
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200022+1070946178+1387947006&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&Subcategory=22&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=[/url]
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254]Just because they have better backwards compatibility doesn't mean it's better, especially when it's not much of a hassle to sell your old parts on eBay or Craigslist, which is what my OCN friends do all the time.[/QUOTE]
OK, so I bought my AM3 motherboard for $60, and my RAM for $100. Even if I can sell them for 1/2 price (which is pretty lucky) I almost have enough money to buy new RAM.
Also, if you want to sell your parts on eBay, you know that you have to pay like $10 to even have your item enlisted, and even then, there is a slim chance that someone's going to buy your item.
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254]HAHAHAHA. You wish.[/QUOTE]
Ok so you just proved to everyone that you are a fanboy
[QUOTE=ph0ne;21649254]Can you back this up with reliable statistics or reports?[/QUOTE]
It is already performing better than the i5 750, check the article in OP
You are just blindingly insulting AMD wihtout proper research. You're just like the people who go into ATi/nVidia threads just to say that they suck.
ps, I'm not saying these CPUs are rubbish, I'm just saying if an i5 preforms better it's probably smarter to get an i5 if you are building from scratch. If you already have an AMD system.... well, I'd wait for bulldozer or whatever.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
