Posted: 12/17/2011 3:47:26 PM EDT
|
I have been saving up parts for an AMD computer. All I have left to buy are the video card and the main CPU chip. Here's my problem/question. Do I wait for the next AMD chip (Piledriver) to be released in the first quarter of 2012 or buy the current, slightly defective, Bulldozer chip? A bird in the hand is great but what if it's a defective bird? |
|
Quoted:
I have been saving up parts for an AMD computer. All I have left to buy are the video card and the main CPU chip. Here's my problem/question. Do I wait for the next AMD chip (Piledriver) to be released in the first quarter of 2012 or buy the current, slightly defective, Bulldozer chip? A bird in the hand is great but what if it's a defective bird? Piledriver doesn't replace bulldozer. Piledriver is part of their fusion desktop stuff. Meant for cheap alternatives to discreet CPU/GPU configurations. |
| Assuming you've already got a socket AM3 board, I'm currently running the fastest Phenom made (older CPU, but capable). It's 6-core, 3.3 GHz (IIRC), and it works fast enough for me to do lots of very sophisticated mechanical finite element simulations relatively quickly. Most importantly, I paid a lot less for it than I would have for an Intel of equal power at the time. What are you planning to do with the machine? |
|
Clicked on thread because i'm replacing a single core amdx64
I have seen benckmarks where an 8 core AMD was clearly beat with a 4 core i7, but I didn't realize they were "slightly defective"? .....my last few comps have been AMD but I am currently hunting/filling a shopping cart. seems to keep getting filled with a LGA1366 board (x58 sabretooth) & intel i7 which i believe is the best bang/buck thing out there now |
|
Quoted:
I have a Sabertooth AMD motherboard so I can't go with Intel. Okay. I thought Piledriver was going to be an improved Bulldozer. So what will the fixed Bulldozer be called and when should we see it? I actually got it kind of wrong. Piledriver is the successor to bulldozer. You are right. What I don't think is known (google might be able to tell you) is if piledriver will use am3+ sockets. The other question is when does piledriver come out? Could be 2h of 2012, in which case you will wait for a long time. If piledriver uses am3+, I'd probably upgrade now, and upgrade then (you'd only have to replace the cpu at that point) |
|
Quoted:
I have been saving up parts for an AMD computer. All I have left to buy are the video card and the main CPU chip. Here's my problem/question. Do I wait for the next AMD chip (Piledriver) to be released in the first quarter of 2012 or buy the current, slightly defective, Bulldozer chip? A bird in the hand is great but what if it's a defective bird? wait |
|
Quoted:
Clicked on thread because i'm replacing a single core amdx64 I have seen benckmarks where an 8 core AMD was clearly beat with a 4 core i7, but I didn't realize they were "slightly defective"? .....my last few comps have been AMD but I am currently hunting/filling a shopping cart. seems to keep getting filled with a LGA1366 board (x58 sabretooth) & intel i7 which i believe is the best bang/buck thing out there now Gotta be careful about comparing multiple core benchmarks - straight numerical calculation marks will favor faster cores as opposed to more threads. I've seen a number of benchmarks fail in this regard, unfortunately. The performance of a given program on multiple cores vs. faster, fewer cores is heavily dependent on how said benchmark was programmed. This is why it's important to know what the end application of the machine is. |
|
+1, thats what Im running, and love it!
Quoted:
Assuming you've already got a socket AM3 board, I'm currently running the fastest Phenom made (older CPU, but capable). It's 6-core, 3.3 GHz (IIRC), and it works fast enough for me to do lots of very sophisticated mechanical finite element simulations relatively quickly. Most importantly, I paid a lot less for it than I would have for an Intel of equal power at the time. What are you planning to do with the machine? |
|
Waiting on piledriver and having your board collect dust is fail. If you want the system running now, get a 1090 or 1100T cheap and run with that until piledriver is released. On the video card, get a reference 6950 and flash the firmware to 6970 specs. Like the above poster said, a six core AMD is still plenty fast enough for most folks. (No bias here, BTW; I have both AMD and Intel...) m
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clicked on thread because i'm replacing a single core amdx64 I have seen benckmarks where an 8 core AMD was clearly beat with a 4 core i7, but I didn't realize they were "slightly defective"? .....my last few comps have been AMD but I am currently hunting/filling a shopping cart. seems to keep getting filled with a LGA1366 board (x58 sabretooth) & intel i7 which i believe is the best bang/buck thing out there now Gotta be careful about comparing multiple core benchmarks - straight numerical calculation marks will favor faster cores as opposed to more threads. I've seen a number of benchmarks fail in this regard, unfortunately. The performance of a given program on multiple cores vs. faster, fewer cores is heavily dependent on how said benchmark was programmed. This is why it's important to know what the end application of the machine is. well to be honest, this mach is an 75% internet/gamer 25% home video/audio/photo battlestation thread hijack: now what about going 100% SSD 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Clicked on thread because i'm replacing a single core amdx64 I have seen benckmarks where an 8 core AMD was clearly beat with a 4 core i7, but I didn't realize they were "slightly defective"? .....my last few comps have been AMD but I am currently hunting/filling a shopping cart. seems to keep getting filled with a LGA1366 board (x58 sabretooth) & intel i7 which i believe is the best bang/buck thing out there now Gotta be careful about comparing multiple core benchmarks - straight numerical calculation marks will favor faster cores as opposed to more threads. I've seen a number of benchmarks fail in this regard, unfortunately. The performance of a given program on multiple cores vs. faster, fewer cores is heavily dependent on how said benchmark was programmed. This is why it's important to know what the end application of the machine is. well to be honest, this mach is an 75% internet/gamer 25% home video/audio/photo battlestation thread hijack: now what about going 100% SSD Unless you are doing a huge amount of random disk reads, SSD isn't really going to help out a great deal. Sure, you'll boot faster, but you'll have far less storage available, and it will be quite a bit pricier per GB. So, one SSD for boot, and a pair of 1 or 2TB disks in RAID1 (mirroring) for storage. m ETA: Get an 1155 board with an i7-2600K. The chips run cooler and OC better. (My 2600K runs 4..4gHz on air.) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clicked on thread because i'm replacing a single core amdx64 I have seen benckmarks where an 8 core AMD was clearly beat with a 4 core i7, but I didn't realize they were "slightly defective"? .....my last few comps have been AMD but I am currently hunting/filling a shopping cart. seems to keep getting filled with a LGA1366 board (x58 sabretooth) & intel i7 which i believe is the best bang/buck thing out there now Gotta be careful about comparing multiple core benchmarks - straight numerical calculation marks will favor faster cores as opposed to more threads. I've seen a number of benchmarks fail in this regard, unfortunately. The performance of a given program on multiple cores vs. faster, fewer cores is heavily dependent on how said benchmark was programmed. This is why it's important to know what the end application of the machine is. well to be honest, this mach is an 75% internet/gamer 25% home video/audio/photo battlestation thread hijack: now what about going 100% SSD
I haven't seen a game yet that's been able to bog down my system, but I don't play the latest and greatest (I won't pay more than $20 for a game that's going to do nothing but cost me time in the end anyway). MW2 and the like are silky smooth. Handbrake decodes video relatively quickly (quick enough for my taste, and I'm impatient). I do have a shload of RAM though (16GB). SSD is fine, if you don't mind counting rewrites  . In that regard, remember that Win7 defrags your hdd once a week in the background by default. I don't see much of an advantage to it myself, although I beat the ever-living hell out of my EEE PC in Africa, and it just keeps on ticking.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: it turns out that Bulldozer is actually not defective. its a Windows problem that has been causing poor performance. Microsoft just released an update to correct this... Do you think MS will release an update just for the new AMD chip? looks like it was released early so they pulled it: http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Was-Surprised-by-Microsoft-Bulldozer-Update-for-Windows-241357.shtml |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
it turns out that Bulldozer is actually not defective. its a Windows problem that has been causing poor performance. Microsoft just released an update to correct this... Do you think MS will release an update just for the new AMD chip? looks like it was released early so they pulled it: http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Was-Surprised-by-Microsoft-Bulldozer-Update-for-Windows-241357.shtml Without knowing how much the MS patch will help the 8 core Bulldozer chip I guess I'm back to waiting a couple months. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: buy an Intel CPU Yeah, I was a AMD fan, but I've seen the light over the past few years. Haters. I will only say this much more: If you absolutely need every last percent of performance and chip X offers that advantage at a price point you can afford, no problem. For most people, this won't matter though and they'd be served well by most offerings by either company. Buying Intel-only and shunning AMD due to slight performance gap (currently) will signal a return to the days of $2,000 CPUs released when Intel feels like it, with features they decide you should have. I don't know how many people remember the days of the 486 and such. This is not an appeal for charity, mind you. |