End of AMD for me

[time]

I realize that most people here have already given up on AMD CPUs, but up to now I was still prepared to consider them - specifically, the lower-power models. 'Cause when it comes to the CPU speed religion, I'm no longer a believer (I don't fold etc).

It follows that I don't believe in quad-core desktop CPUs either. As a trade-off, higher CPU clocks in dual-core CPUs make a lot more sense to me. So Phenom X3 and X4 never even made it onto my radar.

After a lot of research recently to try to catch up on available hardware, I noticed that the Phenom X2 550 (a disabled Phenom X4) performs quite nicely, in fact comfortably better than Core 2 except for Photoshop et al. Quite a good gaming solution to bear in mind.

But everything else sucks. The L3-cache-less Phenom-inspired 7750 etc use ridiculous amount of power for their quite modest performance. The old 65nm 'Energy Efficient' 45W 2.6GHz Athlons are way too expensive for their extremely modest performance.

And then Intel released the Pentium E6300 (not the same as the model from a couple of years back - stupid Intel). I haven't been able to find out why (apart from a higher FSB), but according to XbitLabs it absolutely skittles its lesser siblings such as the 5300. Never more than a couple of percent adrift of the more expensive 7400, it's faster than the first 2.8GHz Core 2 Duos and cheap as chips (sorry).

And now I can get decently equipped S775 motherboards for reasonable dollars (eg Gigabyte GA-EG41MF-US2H). Okay, so the onboard graphics is less than half as good as the AMD chipset equivalent, but it's way better than it used to be, and have you looked at how cheap decent standalone graphics cards are right now?

So I give up. End of the line for AMD for me. But how good is that E6300 (O/C to 4GHz), and why?

 

[CougTek]

The Pentium Dual Core E6300 has a higher fsb frequency (1066MHz vs 800MHz for the older Pentium Dual Core) and it supports virtualization. There's nothing else differentiating it from the lesser Pentium Dual Core.

The Athlon X2 550 beats it most of the time except that it consumes ~20-30W more under load.

For the motherboards for LGA775 CPUs, I use the Asus P5KPL-CM for the lower end and then I jump right to the G43-based Asus P5QL-CM. The G41-based motherboards share the same ICH7 than the G31-based boards, so I don't see the point. I'm not saying that you don't have a good reason, just that I don't see it.

AMD's platform has better motherboards for the price in the low to maintream range. More features and more advanced chipsets than what's offered for Intel's LGA775 platform. For instance, a board like the Asus M3A76-CM costs the same as most G41-based boards but the AMD760V north bridge is a lot better than the plain G41.

I wouldn't count AMD out because I don't just sell CPUs, I sell whole computers. When you look at the entire solution, AMD is still quite interesting.

Just my opinion.

 

[LiamC]

Have you considered the Athlon II X2 250 (who comes up with these names—up against the wall) in place of the 7750? The 7750 was a stinking pile of... Basically a chopped down Phenom with nothing good to recommend it.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=1

Even xbit seem to like the Athlon II X2 250

 

[Pradeep]

Some interesting under volting results with Phenom IIs.

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14694/40/

 

[Mercutio]

I've sold four AMD systems this year, every one of them on the basis of the better-than-Intel onboard video. That's basically the only niche case where I see the argument going in favor of AMD.

My current opinion, as a person trying to maintain a fleet of identical PCs for classroom use, is that doing so is much easier with Intel, and that I have fewer problems overall with Intel-based motherboards. Even setting aside performance issues, low-end LGA775 boards seem to have at least some solid caps on them, and I'm not losing 1 - 2 motherboards a year like I was with the AMD machines I was using.

 

[time]

The Athlon X2 550 beats it most of the time ...

Have you considered the Athlon II X2 250

XbitLabs used DDR2 for the Intel chips but DDR3 for the two new AMD CPUs. Not sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison ...

I see the Athlon 250 as between the Intel 6300 and 7400, on balance a little closer to the 6300. There's not enough difference between them to worry about most of the time. Unfortunately, there are several applications where the difference is more than 20%, which is noticeable.

I'm quite possibly a little obsessed with power consumption right now, but I see the E6300 as a 45W CPU and the Athlon 250 as a 65W CPU. That's born out by Xbit's measurements (Sorry, I don't believe the LostCircuits figures - his methodology is rather dubious, IMO).

I'd be more receptive if the Athlon 250 was beating the E6300 on price, but it's definitely the other way around. And if you don't need integrated graphics, the AMD motherboards quickly lose appeal.

 

[time]

For the motherboards for LGA775 CPUs, I use the Asus P5KPL-CM for the lower end and then I jump right to the G43-based Asus P5QL-CM. The G41-based motherboards share the same ICH7 than the G31-based boards, so I don't see the point.

I don't see the point in chasing after ICH10 when the older southbridge works just fine (AFAIK?). There seem to be theoretical advantages rather than any improvements meaningful to end users.

Thanks for pointing out the availability of dirt-cheap motherboard solutions - I guess I'm still thinking in IGA terms, but that's irrelevant if you're using a separate graphics card.

Unfortunately, I have a chip on my shoulder regarding Asus motherboards (and video cards). Over time, I have universally regretted buying them, most particularly (but not only) due to capacitor problems. They have caused me significant damage and it will be quite some time before I can bring myself to buy another one.

I see that Gigabyte has an almost identical G31 board, but I probably wouldn't buy an entry-level product from them either. At least G41 models from Gigabyte support more than 4GB of RAM. The one I mentioned also has 4 DIMM slots rather than 2, TI 1394, upgraded components including solid caps and a swap-over replacement warranty.

On the debit side, I notice it doesn't claim to support DDR1066, overclocked or not. Wonder if that impacts performance of the E6300?

 

[CougTek]

On the debit side, I notice it doesn't claim to support DDR1066, overclocked or not. Wonder if that impacts performance of the E6300?

Do not confuse support for memory frequency and support for fsb frequency. The G41 fully supports the fsb frequency of the new E6300. Have no worry in this regard.

 

[Santilli]

Quick cure? Just look at Intel pricing on the SSD's. Also, look at the prices on the highend Xeons. Without AMD, they would be twice or three times the current prices...

 

[time]

Hmmm, suppliers seem to be discontinuing 1GB DDR2 modules, or pricing them to achieve the same effect. So it looks like it isn't worth buying less than 4GB (2x2GB modules) now, assuming you want dual-channel operation.

That helps me see CougTek's view even more clearly. You may as well fully populate a 2-slot board now, because upgrades just aren't going to make economic sense as the world changes to DDR3/5.

In a world of 32-bit OSes, seems kind of crazy, but that's IT for you ...

So if I decide to axe Firewire and not worry about RAM upgrades, there really isn't much point considering anything beyond G31. Is there?

 

[ddrueding]

You are making sense there, Time.

 

[time]

The new E6300 performs pretty much as expected - I don't know that anyone would be able to tell the difference between this and an E7400 (AFAIK the only difference is an increase in L2 from 2MB to 3MB).

On my tests, I don't believe 4GHz is going to be stable, but 3.7GHz definitely is, and 3.8 or 3.9 could well be. Didn't need extra voltage until above 3.5GHz.

I used a 353MHz clock to achieve 1412MHz FSB and 1069MHz RAM. Although I could measure a small advantage, I think DDR2-800 would be just as good for most people.

Interestingly, the GEIL 1066MHz RAM didn't need more than about 1.9V up to this mark, but increasing to 2.2V added barely 3% in frequency. So not much headroom, and IMO why bother?

I actually ended up undervolting the CPU in an effort to keep a lid on the noisy Intel fan. It managed only 2.1GHz at 1V, but 1.15V was good for an even 3.0GHz. That's 11% less voltage or 20% less power, offset by the 7% overclock. Every little bit helps ...