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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
I've a pain in the between a plus
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |