AMD Athlon 64 x2 5400+ BLACK EDITION

[fuddle36767]

Wow, AMD rolled this out without much fanfare...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103289

I had been looking for a 5000BE to tide me over until the 45nm quad cores rolled out.  Most retailers, however, were out of stock or had deactivated them, so I thought I had missed the boat until I came across this yesterday.  Usually, hardware review sites know about things and have something about it before retailers start carrying them.

[nstgc]

Too little cache.

[bellx]

decent price. and usually amd motherboard are cheaper! cant go wrong with low prices!

[Nikran]

I used to have an amd processor ages ago. How do they measure up to intel atm?

[xShadow]

I think someone said that the fastest AMD processors out at the moment are slightly faster than the fastest Intel processors, but that the Intel processors tend to be more stable (but more expensive).

... So, really, there's not much of a correct choice as to what you should get, I guess. I think it's almost always like that, in the computer hardware world. One company's gonna be slightly better than another one for a while, then the other one manages to come ahead. Rinse and repeat.

Just get whatever has the best deal.


Anyway, this ain't the fastest thing AMD's released to date, so I'm guessing you're mostly pointing out the price tag on this?

[nstgc]

I used to have an amd processor ages ago. How do they measure up to intel atm?

They don't compare at all.

The fastest AMD can't keep up with a mid-grade Intel.

[mgz]

ever since the conroe chips came out intel has been taking the market share amd had gained over the years back and raming it down their throat with a complete 180 degree turn in their performance, heat, power consumption, and pricing over old intel products.

AMD has had their latest processors steadily outperformed by the now older original conroe chips and still cant compete with intels high end chips and while their prices are cheaper the margins of cost are getting much closer IE a really nice intel chip is 200$ now and amd is only a little cheaper but with a noticeable loss in performance.

and i dont think the black edition is very new, and i dont think it performs any different then the non black edition its just black which is stupid since the heatsink would be covering it anyway

[sunweb]

and i dont think the black edition is very new, and i dont think it performs any different then the non black edition its just black which is stupid since the heatsink would be covering it anyway

I lol'd heartily (I'm not sure you were joking or not, though).

The Black edition line up has unlocked multipliers, so you can overclock pretty easily without touching the other settings. Too bad that even if you overclock this to it's maximum stable frequency, it's still worse than an OC'ed E2160 at 15% lower clock...

[mgz]

meh i havent really read up much on amds as of late knowing how poorly they perform and how easily the intel chips OC i really dont fuckin care

[nstgc]

Wow, the multipliers unlocked...with a higher tick for tock, you would have to do some series (as in exotic cooling) OC'ing to catch up with a moderately over clocked Intel. Also, note the cache. It has 512k L2 per core...thats not much. The 1M I'm using isn't much and 1M is twice 512k.

[mgz]

on a completely off topic post though
for somereason unknown to me sunwebs avatar really makes me want to fucking strangle an infant it just inspires hatred in me for some reason

[sunweb]

on a completely off topic post though
for somereason unknown to me sunwebs avatar really makes me want to fucking strangle an infant it just inspires hatred in me for some reason

Don't worry, I don't have any Koss headphones, only PX100 and eH150 Sennheisers... Although I like the looks of the 4AA (the one in the sig)...

But yeah, I wouldn't buy anything AMD unless I already have an AM2 mobo, and even then, I'd need better Phenom CPUs to think about that.

[Proin Drakenzol]

I think someone said that the fastest AMD processors out at the moment are slightly faster than the fastest Intel processors, but that the Intel processors tend to be more stable (but more expensive).

... So, really, there's not much of a correct choice as to what you should get, I guess. I think it's almost always like that, in the computer hardware world. One company's gonna be slightly better than another one for a while, then the other one manages to come ahead. Rinse and repeat.

Just get whatever has the best deal.


Anyway, this ain't the fastest thing AMD's released to date, so I'm guessing you're mostly pointing out the price tag on this?

Your information is EPIC FAIL.

Intel is kicking AMD's ass up and down the block. And Intel isn't even trying

[fuddle36767]

In terms of overall performance, the top of the line Intel quads kick the shit out of AMD's top line offering.  However, in terms of price, AMD isn't that bad.  The AMD 9950BE goes at $235, and the Intel QX9775 is $1,550, almost 7x the price.  Even if performance is over that ratio (I don't think it is however), most people don't need to calculate pi to 1 billion places in under 10 seconds.  Besides, other hardware is much more the limiting factor (hard drives, memory, video) to performance.

Sure, you get what you pay for, but even similarly performing intel's proc price is slightly higher.

[Proin Drakenzol]

In terms of overall performance, the top of the line Intel quads kick the shit out of AMD's top line offering.  However, in terms of price, AMD isn't that bad.  The AMD 9950BE goes at $235, and the Intel QX9775 is $1,550, almost 7x the price.  Even if performance is over that ratio (I don't think it is however), most people don't need to calculate pi to 1 billion places in under 10 seconds.  Besides, other hardware is much more the limiting factor (hard drives, memory, video) to performance.

Sure, you get what you pay for, but even similarly performing intel's proc price is slightly higher.

not last time I checked, Intel price vs performance comparison was better than AMD's still.

[mgz]

In terms of overall performance, the top of the line Intel quads kick the shit out of AMD's top line offering.  However, in terms of price, AMD isn't that bad.  The AMD 9950BE goes at $235, and the Intel QX9775 is $1,550, almost 7x the price.  Even if performance is over that ratio (I don't think it is however), most people don't need to calculate pi to 1 billion places in under 10 seconds.  Besides, other hardware is much more the limiting factor (hard drives, memory, video) to performance.

Sure, you get what you pay for, but even similarly performing intel's proc price is slightly higher.

pretty sure the q9300 outperforms it easily as well and isnt a 140w processor and is 45nm chip so it has less heat still and overclocks well like most other newer intel chips

[xShadow]

I think someone said that the fastest AMD processors out at the moment are slightly faster than the fastest Intel processors, but that the Intel processors tend to be more stable (but more expensive).

... So, really, there's not much of a correct choice as to what you should get, I guess. I think it's almost always like that, in the computer hardware world. One company's gonna be slightly better than another one for a while, then the other one manages to come ahead. Rinse and repeat.

Just get whatever has the best deal.


Anyway, this ain't the fastest thing AMD's released to date, so I'm guessing you're mostly pointing out the price tag on this?

Your information is EPIC FAIL.

Intel is kicking AMD's ass up and down the block. And Intel isn't even trying

... I wouldn't say it's that epic, but fine. I don't really give much of a shit about computer hardware any more, or keeping up with those changes; I'm just repeating what I heard some time way back. I guess that information's a bit outdated now.

Anyway... yeah... get an Intel, I guess... >_>

[mgz]

back in the hayday of the FX processors they were destroying intels numbers on benchmarks price and heat/power

but as previously state intel fixed all of their problems at once with the release of the conroe chips

[nstgc]

The low end (under $150) AMDs do have a higher performance/cost ratio. The AMD Quad cores, while kinda nifty, are a joke. AMD should stop trying to fight Intel and stick with servers and low end.

[xShadow]

Well, no, in terms of future performance, I think AMD's probably gonna roll something outta their sleeve at one point or another. After all, they've got all the time they need; it's not like they're losing huge amounts of money, and Intel can't have a monopoly on processors anyway...