A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I've a pain in the between a plus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 2nd 17, 07:12 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

AMD2, AMD2+, AMD3, and AMD+

I like this MB
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16813128565

Only I'm then out of my present CPU ...
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2 GHz Quad-Core HD9550WCJ4BGH
if I get it. By a hair's width -- the Big Plus difference between a
socket 2+ and 3.

I can't believe how well that 9550 still stacks up on Dollar Cost
Averaging clock cycles. Wish I could sit tight on that, with the
newer MB for addressing somewhat higher MB temps, I'm getting, as an
excuse to update to another GB MB;...sit and wait for even possibly an
8-core Vishnu to drop to what the 9550 cost me used on Ebay - $29US.

(The higher MB temps can range from 130F, average, to 150F on higher
quality encodes, or similarly with all cores engaged balls-to-the-wall
batched, say, and streamed to processing vast quantities of MP3s.)

Excepting cake and icing don't apparently mix well in the Plus scheme
of socket recipes. And a damned good CPU I'd want, (aside from
drooling over the next best thing to a Ryzen, a Bulldozer 3+ Vishnu
8-core, so effectively another quad), probably isn't $30 cheapo at
all, but more like $50+ bucks (Ebay used/pulls).

Oh woe and for suffering and a fancy case of ants in pants. Aside
from MB temps, where push comes to shove, even with a Ryzen I might
only gain anywhere from a 4 to 8 factor of improved computational
force - in a worst case scenario on an 65-watt (Bulldozer) octal
platform.
  #2  
Old April 2nd 17, 05:05 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

Flasherly wrote:
AMD2, AMD2+, AMD3, and AMD+

I like this MB
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16813128565

Only I'm then out of my present CPU ...
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2 GHz Quad-Core HD9550WCJ4BGH
if I get it. By a hair's width -- the Big Plus difference between a
socket 2+ and 3.

I can't believe how well that 9550 still stacks up on Dollar Cost
Averaging clock cycles. Wish I could sit tight on that, with the
newer MB for addressing somewhat higher MB temps, I'm getting, as an
excuse to update to another GB MB;...sit and wait for even possibly an
8-core Vishnu to drop to what the 9550 cost me used on Ebay - $29US.

(The higher MB temps can range from 130F, average, to 150F on higher
quality encodes, or similarly with all cores engaged balls-to-the-wall
batched, say, and streamed to processing vast quantities of MP3s.)

Excepting cake and icing don't apparently mix well in the Plus scheme
of socket recipes. And a damned good CPU I'd want, (aside from
drooling over the next best thing to a Ryzen, a Bulldozer 3+ Vishnu
8-core, so effectively another quad), probably isn't $30 cheapo at
all, but more like $50+ bucks (Ebay used/pulls).

Oh woe and for suffering and a fancy case of ants in pants. Aside
from MB temps, where push comes to shove, even with a Ryzen I might
only gain anywhere from a 4 to 8 factor of improved computational
force - in a worst case scenario on an 65-watt (Bulldozer) octal
platform.


A newer part could have a lower power consumption.

The AMD parts aren't particularly cheap, so it doesn't
look like they're interested in "volume sales".

The Ryzen 1700 made the list here, which is amazing. The
price shown in the details is over $300 USD.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

Ryzen 5 will be out April 11, and maybe a suitable
period after that, the CPUbenchmark chart will be updated
with some new entries.

Ryzen 7 1800X 8/16 3.6/4.0 +100 16 MB 95 W $499 -
Ryzen 7 1700X 8/16 3.4/3.8 +100 16 MB 95 W $399 -
Ryzen 7 1700 8/16 3.0/3.7 +50 16 MB 65 W $329 Spire RGB

Ryzen 5 1600X 6/12 3.6/4.0 +100 16 MB 95 W $249 -
Ryzen 5 1600 6/12 3.2/3.6 +100 16 MB 65 W $219 Spire
Ryzen 5 1500X 4/8 3.5/3.7 +200 16 MB 65 W $189 Spire
Ryzen 5 1400 4/8 3.2/3.4 +50 8 MB 65 W $169 Stealth

HTH,
Paul
  #3  
Old April 28th 17, 01:41 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Diesel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

Flasherly
Sun, 02 Apr 2017
06:12:30 GMT in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, wrote:

AMD2, AMD2+, AMD3, and AMD+

I like this MB
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16813128565

Only I'm then out of my present CPU ...
AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2 GHz Quad-Core HD9550WCJ4BGH
if I get it. By a hair's width -- the Big Plus difference between
a socket 2+ and 3.


Can I ask why you're an AMD fan vs an Intel, or both?



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
  #4  
Old April 28th 17, 02:35 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:41:48 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Can I ask why you're an AMD fan vs an Intel, or both?


Used to AMD or Cyrix or Texas Instruments. Having held a grudge
against Intel from how they positioned pricing on a 386 (two or maybe
four years) until alternatives arrived for EMS. That changed, after a
decade more, when came back again to buy Intel's Duron (an early
single core P4 model), which Intel positioned with my name on it for a
budget price in direct line of competition with AMD offerings. (I'd
since have again drifted away from Intel were it not for an
exceptional value on used Ebay microprocessor pulls;...a tentative
realization for a limited time that has since changed into something
else: Dollar cost averaging for GHz flipflops on newer used
microprocessors is a costlier affair, at least the quad market.)

Intel's hyperthreading presently holds domination, as usual, over the
quadcore market, as pricing is apt to reflect. AMD is also offset and
skewed: its quadcores are overpriced comparatively to their FX series
Vishnu technology 8-core processing -- recently market value shifts
due to the release of Ryzen AMD4 models.

Paying $30 for the AMD Phenom X4 9550 2.2 GHz Quad-Core HD9550WCJ4BGH
means, for small-fry money, basically I either spend twice over again
to get a rough 2x-4x performance improvement with a stopover AMD3+
used quad (not by my standards cheap). Necessitating a MB rebuild is
as much to any further allure, than altogether dispensing with mincing
with another quadcore and stepping over into the "wild side" with an
FX octal core, (E series lower energy draw), also very well positioned
and discounted because of Ryzen marketing dynamics.

All of that AMD icing for juggling around would melt down to next to
nothing in the present Intel camp, where I'd be looking at dualcores
for that kind of money.

Not to mention its a bit of a stretch on my imagination regarding
exactly what in the hell am I going to do eight cores. Least to
mention...down to the bottom of the chart for model 8320E,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icroprocessors
265-watts draw in a "scorch" test with all cores stressed (and
overclocked?, which it also does like a scalded dog). Must be I''ve
mellowed down into more a cool-and-quiet guy. ;
  #5  
Old April 29th 17, 01:23 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Diesel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

Flasherly
Fri, 28 Apr 2017
13:35:00 GMT in alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt, wrote:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:41:48 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Can I ask why you're an AMD fan vs an Intel, or both?


Used to AMD or Cyrix or Texas Instruments. Having held a grudge
against Intel from how they positioned pricing on a 386 (two or
maybe four years) until alternatives arrived for EMS. That
changed, after a decade more, when came back again to buy Intel's
Duron (an early single core P4 model), which Intel positioned with
my name on it for a budget price in direct line of competition
with AMD offerings. (I'd since have again drifted away from Intel
were it not for an exceptional value on used Ebay microprocessor
pulls;...a tentative realization for a limited time that has since
changed into something else: Dollar cost averaging for GHz
flipflops on newer used microprocessors is a costlier affair, at
least the quad market.)


AMD built the Duron. It was a stripped down Athlon. You're thinking
of the Intel Celeron; aka, the celery stick.

I've got experience with Texas Instruments 486 clone as well as Cyrix
486clone, the DLC40. For comparison purposes, a 386DX40 would kick
their asses. It was much more like running a 486SX25/33 performance
wise, and, not completely following the Intel x86 code specification
either, so you could run into an occasional problem when using them,
ie: non functional software.

All of that AMD icing for juggling around would melt down to next
to nothing in the present Intel camp, where I'd be looking at
dualcores for that kind of money.


I've got a couple of dualcores here, and one Intel Quadcore. There's
just no comparison between the two, performance wise. The quad isn't
even a desktop cpu, it's for laptops. I really *like* it.

Not to mention its a bit of a stretch on my imagination regarding
exactly what in the hell am I going to do eight cores. Least to
mention...down to the bottom of the chart for model 8320E,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...icroprocessors
265-watts draw in a "scorch" test with all cores stressed (and
overclocked?, which it also does like a scalded dog). Must be
I''ve mellowed down into more a cool-and-quiet guy. ;


A snappy machine, running a pile of smaller apps and/or video
encoding/major digital photographic work. Not even including gaming
performance. If you're into gaming. I'm not, myself.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
  #6  
Old April 29th 17, 08:42 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:23:36 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

I've got experience with Texas Instruments 486 clone as well as Cyrix
486clone, the DLC40. For comparison purposes, a 386DX40 would kick
their asses. It was much more like running a 486SX25/33 performance
wise, and, not completely following the Intel x86 code specification
either, so you could run into an occasional problem when using them,
ie: non functional software.


Right, I meant Celeron. Except it was a departure from the normal
Celeron and actually closer to Pentium-class performance: the Celeron
D -- D being a better overall performer than prior Northwood and
Willamette Celerons (and a direct aim, taken by Intel, on the AMD
market).

That's when I came back...

Quite a long time, actually, while I also kicked around with all of
them, past an Intel 386SX and the bad feeling it left me with once I
saw the competitive pricing for technology had caught up for every man
to address memory concurrently for swapping multiple program code
above the first meg of memory.

I've got a couple of dualcores here, and one Intel Quadcore. There's
just no comparison between the two, performance wise. The quad isn't
even a desktop cpu, it's for laptops. I really *like* it.


It would be a stretch to consider going back to a dualcore. No doubt
they've better efficiency and are faster -- Intel I-series notably.
Still it would going to the whipping-post for a flogging. Getting my
top-performing quadcores (rather "last generation" quads -- half-ish
today's comparable speeds), both for under $30ea. for used pulls,
makes duals somewhat nonsensical.

A snappy machine, running a pile of smaller apps and/or video
encoding/major digital photographic work. Not even including gaming
performance. If you're into gaming. I'm not, myself.


That and the FX series support chipsets are geared old school;- the MB
I like: GIGABYTE GA-78LMT-USB3 (rev. 6.0) is probably among the fewer
from the last generation (it's all about reasonable, video-chipped and
a budget-minded MB), even with drivers for Windows XP. Not bad for
(I'd suspect a still-popular) board based on 5-yr-old technology and
an unheard of eight cores available and recently discounted because of
the Zen/Ryzen thingamajing. (Nasty ol' Microsoft then to say of AMD,
that Ryzens can only be allowed to run on the Windows 10 platform.)

AMD's main fault these days is their power draw. Dunno what a newer
MB would be, hopefully better than when updating the 95-watt Phenom X4
9550, in my present Gigabyte, and my jaw dropped on what the temp
sensors then reported back in order to supply it to do what it does.
Could be localized. Everything else, CPU temps runs great with a
modestly-sized copper heat-wick setup, half the grapefruit size of a
basic CoolerMaster for common AMD 95-125W processors.

No games either. Audio processing is about as demanding as it gets --
less now from experience that has been scaled back to multiple
compression/expansion stages. Not really octal core territory or even
near (nor a sound justification for what I can't match to
dollar-cost-average into an updated AMD3+ quad). Guess that leaves me
holding a rant, stoking it over being in a tizzy since AMD dropped the
bomb on FX series prices when they released Ryzen. (Welcome to
homebuilt: the well to stand over with a wish to stare down before
dropping boatloads mo' money into it.)
  #7  
Old May 2nd 17, 12:15 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 3:42:03 PM UTC+8, Flasherly wrote:

Right, I meant Celeron. Except it was a departure from the normal
Celeron and actually closer to Pentium-class performance: the Celeron
D -- D being a better overall performer than prior Northwood and
Willamette Celerons (and a direct aim, taken by Intel, on the AMD
market).


If you are talking about the Cedar Mill (65 nm) Celeron D, yes they were
quite good. They had more L2 than old Celery. I don't think many people got
one, prabably were waiting for Core 2 in those days.
  #8  
Old May 2nd 17, 03:20 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

On Tue, 2 May 2017 04:15:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If you are talking about the Cedar Mill (65 nm) Celeron D, yes they were
quite good. They had more L2 than old Celery. I don't think many people got
one, prabably were waiting for Core 2 in those days.


I briefly noted two production models of the Celeron D listed on the
wiki link. Mine would be a socket 478 model with a reputation for
strong overclocking capabilities. Yes, a Celeron and alternatives of a
likes for AMD K6-s, which had already some miles and time established
when I got into the D model. Still a good choice at around $50, what
I'd consider it cost me, for the added Intel stability, discounted in
that particular model and poised so directly with an aim at a
counterpoint to AMD's price offerings. The ASUS board I ran it with
eventually went south when I switched to my present Gigabyte, updating
over a course of three processors to a Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33 GHz LGA
775 95W ... also now present in a "maxed out" capacity for Gigabyte
supported processors.

It's been quite a good run and by far above personal prior norms,
these last two Gigabyte builds (I've also a comparable Phenom X4 9550
2.2 GHz Quad-Core). Now that I can't fault either essentially for
much reason, least of all for their continued structural integrity, if
to average for better values across a present range of updates
available to me. AMD prices are of course now much higher, overall,
even in the used and pulled models off Ebay. (I bought both these
quads as used pulls at or under $30 each.) Most of all they're
noticeably off-kilter when placed against the recent AMD price drop,
to a $100 E-series Vishnu octal core, due to a Ryzen release.

And, once more, "the heat" is again on Intel: dropping $100 across
especially their I-series flagship quadcores, also almost to the day
of the Ryzen release.
  #9  
Old May 2nd 17, 07:12 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill[_36_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 167
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

Flasherly wrote:
And, once more, "the heat" is again on Intel: dropping $100 across
especially their I-series flagship quadcores, also almost to the day
of the Ryzen release.


Don't fool yourself into thinking that was a coincidence! ; )
  #10  
Old May 2nd 17, 09:02 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default I've a pain in the between a plus

On Tue, 2 May 2017 14:12:26 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Don't fool yourself into thinking that was a coincidence! ; )


No more than their placement across all else at the top of benchmarks.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kingdom of Pain - Tron Ati Videocards 0 April 22nd 05 07:29 PM
AIW 9600XT pain in the ass bob Ati Videocards 1 January 16th 05 01:13 AM
I've been such a pain No_ONE_Here Overclocking 0 January 10th 05 07:26 AM
end of pain, it was the mobo (mofo) F r e e Nvidia Videocards 1 April 2nd 04 08:25 AM
DVI and DDC pain please dont Ati Videocards 0 August 10th 03 10:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.