$300 CPU beats $1000?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Sachankara Jul 15, 2006 11:52 AM EDT |
Sure, perhaps it does (in 3DMark06 that is), but who cares? Most people still does not buy that expensive CPU:s anyway. It's the cheap ones that sell the most and give most "bang for buck". It's quite hard to beat AMD's $60, 64 bit 3000+ Sempron. The only ones that spend +$300 on a CPU are crazy entusiast or companies that need powerful servers. All in all - I've yet to see many people choosing Intel over AMD as most just want cheap stuff (unless we're talking laptops). |
| sbergman27 Jul 15, 2006 12:14 PM EDT |
> The only ones that spend +$300 on a CPU are crazy entusiast or companies that need powerful servers. Or developers who do a lot of compiling. AMD is talking about slashing prices to retain their price/performance lead. So the dual core FX-62 would have to be well under $300. I'm interested. BTW, the Semprons are 32bit only. But I agree that they are an excellent deal. |
| TPuffin Jul 15, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
According to Tom's, the high-end AMD is supposedly still ahead in some synthetic benchmarks but the Intel wins in "real-world" tests. Impressive, since those FX-64 suckers have been "teh hawt" for a while now. Plenty of gamers who couldn't afford to drop several grand on an Alienware system with those AMD chips will be happy to buy/build one (or have one built) with this $300 CPU. A lot of them already pay more than that for a graphics card. Yes, I realize these are the crazy enthusiasts as you say, but when you drop the cost of the package by $700, you significantly lower a primary barrier for entry to the category. Also, the aforementioned Alienware and several other similar companies have made quite a bit of money selling systems to this enthusiast market, so it may not be quite as marginal a group as you think. I've bought exactly one Intel CPU since my AMD 486. I do so love competition in the marketplace... |
| dtfinch Jul 15, 2006 7:07 PM EDT |
Newer (since 2nd half of 2005) Semprons support 64 bit. |
| wjl Jul 16, 2006 1:47 AM EDT |
Yes, the Sempr0ns are 64 bit since a while. They *don't* support hardware virtualization; in other aspects of functionality, they're almost the same as Athlon64 now (the older ones on Socket 754 don't have dual channel memory as well). I *do* hope that AMD survives this, since 1. I have relatives (of my wife) working there (AMD Malaysia, where still most of the stuff is assembled/produced), and 2. Competiton is always good. cheers, wjl |
| hkwint Jul 17, 2006 4:36 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's quite hard to beat AMD's $60, 64 bit 3000+ Darn swindle. In my country they are 74 Euros, which equals $85. Quoting:or developers who do a lot of compiling. Or stupid Gentoo users like myself. |
| Teron Jul 17, 2006 5:22 AM EDT |
I recall reading something about a newish Intel chip beating much more pricy AMD's because it was tailored to pass the tests usually used to measure the CPU. It had something like double the normal amount of cache or something, so that it could store the whole test in incredibly fast, built-in memory. As soon as the load's size exceeded the cache size, performance dropped like a rat's tail. |
| dinotrac Jul 17, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
Teron -- Don't know if there was an Intel chip specifically designed to jigger benchmarks, but large caches have been a large part of the Xeon strategy all along. |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 9:33 AM EDT |
Large caches are a solid performance strategy. IIRC, the Core Duo's have a single 2MB L2 shared between the 2 cores, while the AMD FX-62 has 2 seperate 1MB L2 caches. Different types of real world apps respond differently to changes in L2 cache config. Here is a very good article which goes into detail. It's a bit old, but still quite good: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/caching.ars I am an AMD fan. But I fear they are in trouble. At least for now. I don't think their 4x4 strategy is going to work that well. Only some workloads can take good advantage of 2 cores. Fewer can take advantage of 4. (4x4 should really be called 2x2, but that's marketing for you!) |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 9:59 AM EDT |
> I am an AMD fan. But I fear they are in trouble. Many Linux users are, though for what reason I'm not sure. Neither Company has done any great favor specifically for Linux. What the benchmarks are saying is that Intel clearly has the high ground for the moment. While that may change at some point in the future, don't let your AMD fan status get in the way of a superior deal. That makes no sense. |
| NoDough Jul 17, 2006 10:02 AM EDT |
>...don't let your AMD fan status get in the way of a superior deal. I don't get it. What has the CPU cooler got to do with it? ;-) |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
I'm expecting AMD to become a better deal for me again on the 27th. My MB is a socket 939. I disagree about just going with the best deal, though. Even with all its technical advantages, AMD was just making headway on servers due to Intel's grip on that market. Going with the best deal at the moment is short term thinking and not necessarily the best way to preserve competition. If MS came out with a really great OS and distributed it for free next week, would you switch? |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
> I don't get it. What has the CPU cooler got to do with it? ;-) :P |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 10:31 AM EDT |
> Going with the best deal at the moment is short term thinking and not necessarily the best way to preserve competition. I don't see how going for better price / performance defeats competition? Actually quite the contrary. The gap appears to be a year or more before AMD makes up the slack, and may involve some rework of the architecture. That's hardly short term thinking. > If MS came out with a really great OS and distributed it for free next week, would you switch? Free as in GPL'd? well, I might just try it, and I suspect you would too :D In reality, I don't think we'll have to worry about that one. I don't think the comparison between MS and Intel is valid though. |
| grouch Jul 17, 2006 11:22 AM EDT |
I've been looking at going to 64 bit for a while, but haven't bought system components in so long I don't know what works and doesn't. This thread looks like a good place to ask for advice. As jimf said, "[n]either Company has done any great favor specifically for Linux", so I'm not partial. I'm just interested in getting a mobo, cpu, power supply and RAM that gets me into a good 64 bit system able to run free software and not dependent on binary drivers. Sound level of the fan is a factor, too. Any recommendations? |
| SFN Jul 17, 2006 11:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:dropped like a rat's tail That's a new one one me. I take it that's fast. |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
I believe that AMD is still fighting some barrier to entry issues. Things are certainly better than they used to be. And the playing field may well be level for desktops and gaming systems. But I don't see a level playing field for servers, despite Opteron having been the superior chip for so long. And then there is brand loyalty. I've never been sorry I went with an AMD. Plus, there is more to selecting a processor than just buying the chip. There is an investment in MB and memory that work with that chip, and an implicit commitment to going with the same brand on one's next chip upgrade. And I'm grateful to AMD for saving us from Intel's "we've got you all now" IA-64 vision of the future. All of this is a matter of opinion. But I'd as soon run Vista than buy an Intel processor at this time. |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 12:48 PM EDT |
> I believe that AMD is still fighting some barrier to entry issues Lol Steve, after 10 years or so ya think maybe they can survive on their own real attributes? Frankly, I'd love to run an Opteron (or 4) for my desktop. Same with a xeon. Just make them cheap as dirt :). > grateful to AMD for saving us from Intel's "we've got you all now" It's great that Intel has serious competition, I'll agree with that one. But these are just big Corporations that put out sophisticated chunks of silicone, not your local football team. AMD is far from the underdog anymore. I'm not saying it needs to be one or the other, but, let's make our decision based on merit, not on misplaced fanboy allegiance. |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 12:50 PM EDT |
> not on misplaced fanboy allegiance. I'm disappointed in you for this last bit. |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
I could have said 'fan', but then NoDough would have us talking about air movement again. If misplaced allegiance works, that's fine. As I said, we aren't talking about a football team, a cheby, a furd, or a harley davidson. |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 1:46 PM EDT |
No fanboyism involved. I've enjoyed the benefits of having competition in this market. And I want to help ensure that it continues. You say that AMD is not the underdog. And yet, by market cap (a non-optimal metric, admittedly, but easy to look up) they are only a little over twice RedHat's size while Intel is ten times AMD's size. Opteron has been a superior processor for a long time. But show me where I can buy an Opteron, or any AMD based server from Dell. I still feel that it is in our best long term interest to give preference to AMD. And it is not about paying a lot of money to get something inferior. The Core Duos aren't out yet. They won't be out until later this month. AMD is expected to adjust its pricing scheme on the high end to maintain a price performance advantage. And yes, that's competition working for us the consumers. But even if the AMD were still a little more money per MIP or MFLOP, I'd still go with it. It's not love for AMD. It's interest in continued competition. I can't comment on the football thing since I've never understood that whole sports fan bit. I can, however, comment on silicone vs silicon. Pet peeve of mine. Silicone is for breast implants and caulking window jams. Silicon... is not. ;-) |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
I never said that AMD didn't put out a good chip, and you are perfectly welcome to favor AMD. I personally think your tilting at windmills, but, that's your right too. > server from Dell. And you gripe about Intel??? That's not a horse I'd ever want to ride.... > I can't comment on the football thing since I've never understood that whole sports fan bit. I understand it. Just never could get into it :). Silicon... is not. ;-) Well now, Silicon is a lot more versatile than ya think... Amazing stuff really :D |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 3:35 PM EDT |
Jim, I think we are not communicating well. Of course you never said that AMD did not put out a good chip and it never occurred to me that you did. I'm not griping about Intel. I don't love Intel, AMD, or Dell. You are reading *far* more into my original statement, and also into my subsequent clarifications, than is warranted. Just read the words without reading extra meaning into them, please. For reference, here is my original post pointing out the Ars article: =================== Large caches are a solid performance strategy. IIRC, the Core Duo's have a single 2MB L2 shared between the 2 cores, while the AMD FX-62 has 2 separate 1MB L2 caches. Different types of real world apps respond differently to changes in L2 cache config. Here is a very good article which goes into detail. It's a bit old, but still quite good: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/caching.ars I am an AMD fan. But I fear they are in trouble. At least for now. I don't think their 4x4 strategy is going to work that well. Only some workloads can take good advantage of 2 cores. Fewer can take advantage of 4. (4x4 should really be called 2x2, but that's marketing for you!) ================== |
| jimf Jul 17, 2006 3:40 PM EDT |
Don't fret about it Steve. I'm just gonna chalk it up the the heat here. 106F heat index :D |
| sbergman27 Jul 17, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
Well, I think that somehow we can get past the whole ugly affair and still be friends... :-) It's 104F here, BTW. -Steve |
| wjl Jul 17, 2006 8:23 PM EDT |
grouch: >I'm just interested in getting a mobo, cpu, power supply and RAM that gets me into a good 64 bit system able to run free software and not dependent on binary drivers. Sound level of the fan is a factor, too. Any recommendations? Well grouch, my recommendation is at http://wolfgang.lonien.de/?p=115 - or for laptops and really low power at http://wolfgang.lonien.de/?p=123 To sum it up shortly: I'd go with the new AM2 socket boards & processors if I want virtualization capabilities in hardware (plus 64 bit plus eventually dual core and so on and so forth). My mainboard of choice would be an Asus M2NPV-VM, since integrated graphics are enough for me (it should have both VGA and DVI out like it's predecessor, the 939-socket A8N-VM CSM), and if you don't want the integrated graphics, switch it off and plug in any graphics card you may have already. The graphics are based upon a nVidia chipset, but you can still use the free nv driver if you don't need 3D. A cooler which is quite popular around here would be the Arctic Cooling Freezer 64. Make sure that it fit's in your case - these babies are a bit bulky. My CPU of choice? Well it depends on price, but the Athlon64 X2 3800+ already dropped to und 200 Euro around here. At the moment, they're still available in both Socket AM2 and 939 formats. The latter takes DDR, the former DDR2 RAM. This is dual channel RAM, so you need two memory bars. I would go with companies like Infineon or Samsung here, because if you want to ad more memory later, you can be sure to get the exact same ones with the same timings and so on - no need for hand-selected "kits". Power supply? In the company where I work, we have the best experiences with Enermax. For an integrated solution, the smallest one you find would be ok - so it's between 300 and 400 Watts. A baby like that would take some 65 Watts when idle (they're mostly idling around and waiting for *us*), which is easy to cool, and reasonably quiet. If you want to go any lower, you sacrifice speed and pay more money, so the systems mentioned above seem like the "sweet spot". That is before Conroe, but still - if we want AMD to survive, we should support them. Intel? They're simply everywhere - in your mobile phone, probably your car, your GPS - that is *not* just your typical PC chip maker... |
| grouch Jul 17, 2006 9:27 PM EDT |
wjl: Thanks! I appreciate the level of detail you gave, too. My son's 1.2 GHz Athlon is still the best game machine in my house. I use a 2.4 GHz P4. It's ok, but when it warms up the cpu fan is irritating. The Athlon has a big Zalman fan hanging over it and the only fan that is audible is the power supply. That "ultimate home box" looks like it fits what I need. |
| wjl Jul 17, 2006 9:40 PM EDT |
Glad if I could help. Oh, and please don't mind the typos - our 18-months-old daughter "helped" me with the companies' laptop a bit while I was typing that one... ;-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!