AMD's $100 quad core...

[deadrats]

well folks, as has been rumored amd has released 2 extremely affordable quad core cpu's, the X4 620 and the X4 630, and here are some encoding benchmarks to see just what 100 clams gets you:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-ii-propus,2414-9.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1073/5/

http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-Athlon-II-X4-Processor-Debut/?page=5

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon-ii-x4-630_7.html#sect0

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3638&p=4

not bad at all, sure it won't hand a i5 750 it's ass (if a 750 actually had an ass that is) and yes it lacks an L3 and has a locked multiplier (so no easy overclocking) but for $100 you can't go wrong.

[johns0]

Helps keeping intel from charging what they would like to,amd would do the same if intel weren't around,just glad to have competition to keep the prices down.

[rallynavvie]

Helps keeping intel from charging what they would like to,amd would do the same if intel weren't around,just glad to have competition to keep the prices down.

No. I guarantee that if AMD were the only player in the desktop CPU market their prices would creep up significantly. They are both businesses and they are both in it to make money. We need both of them around to compete with each other, not let one or the other become a clear winner.

That said I'm glad to see AMD still coming out with economical performance chips like this because there is plenty of share for them in the enthusiast market. I've not seen a lot of AMD chips on OEMs lately though, what's up with that?

[Noahtuck]

Helps keeping intel from charging what they would like to,amd would do the same if intel weren't around,just glad to have competition to keep the prices down.

No. I guarantee that if AMD were the only player in the desktop CPU market their prices would creep up significantly.

Read what he wrote again 8)

[jagabo]

It's too bad AMD can't compete at the high end desktop anymore. Intel has AMD exactly where it wants them. Big enough to point at them and say "See, we're not a monopoly", and small enough that they're no threat to their profitability.

[usually_quiet]

AMD is competative on the low and midrange end, which serves the need of most consumers, including me.

I am finally putting together my own computer to replace a Dell that I have used for nearly eight years. I was working within a small budget, and I wanted something that would not consume a lot of power or generate a lot of heat, since I don't have air conditioning. I chose AMD's Regor 250 CPU and an MSI motherboard with onboard graphics supplied by AMD's 785 chip. It will be a bit better than the AMD-based home systems Dell is offering, and won't cost much more.

[rallynavvie]

Read what he wrote again 8)

I was reading the reverse: that AMD would continue to release competitively-priced chips if Intel were not around. We need to end comma splicing on this planet

[Noahtuck]

Read what he wrote again 8)

I was reading the reverse: that AMD would continue to release competitively-priced chips if Intel were not around. We need to end comma splicing on this planet

Yeah i figured you just missed it by skimming to fast or something

I'm gonna have to look those CPU's up seeing as their are no links to the actual CPU specs 8)

EDIT:

X4 630 - $125.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704&Tpk=AMD%20X4%20630

X4 620 - $99.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103706&cm_re=AMD_X4_620-_-19-...-706-_-Product

[RLT69]

It's too bad AMD can't compete at the high end desktop anymore

Compete is in the eye of the beholder:

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield
Operating Frequency 3.33GHz
QPI 6.4GT/s
L2 Cache 4 x 256KB
L3 Cache 8MB
Manufacturing Tech 45 nm
Thermal Design Power 130W
$999.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115212

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
Operating Frequency 3.4GHz
Hyper Transports 4000MHz
L2 Cache 4 x 512KB
L3 Cache 6MB
Manufacturing Tech 45 nm
Thermal Design Power 140W
$245.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692

Is the Intel processor worth 4 times the cost of the AMD processor? Is the Intel processor 4 times better than the AMD processor and worth 4 times the cost?

I think not. These assertions are asinine. We've reached the point where ANY processor will do the job. Unless you are in a highly specialized field, needing to do highly complex calculations, it won't matter if you use Intel or AMD.

[jagabo]

Unless you are in a highly specialized field, needing to do highly complex calculations...

Like... encoding video?

[rallynavvie]

Is the Intel processor worth 4 times the cost of the AMD processor? Is the Intel processor 4 times better than the AMD processor and worth 4 times the cost?

I think not. These assertions are asinine. We've reached the point where ANY processor will do the job. Unless you are in a highly specialized field, needing to do highly complex calculations, it won't matter if you use Intel or AMD.

I don't buy the price/performance thing and haven't for years. When I built my first dual-socket machine nearly 10 years ago I knew it wouldn't offer twice the performance of a single socket machine even though it cost nearly 4 times as much. What I do know is that every one of those extra dollars made up for themselves over time due to that increased productivity. While I could have built two reasonably quick desktops for the price of the one I could not have encoded video across both simultaneously which made a big difference on large projects.

You're going to notice diminishing returns on your investment in hardware, yet those that need any little bit of extra power they can from a single system are going to pay those premiums.

[creamyhorror]

I don't buy the price/performance thing and haven't for years. When I built my first dual-socket machine nearly 10 years ago I knew it wouldn't offer twice the performance of a single socket machine even though it cost nearly 4 times as much. What I do know is that every one of those extra dollars made up for themselves over time due to that increased productivity. While I could have built two reasonably quick desktops for the price of the one I could not have encoded video across both simultaneously which made a big difference on large projects.

That's certainly a fair argument if the same performance isn't offered by both sides of the competition. In the case of AMD and Intel, there's a good range at which both have offerings of similar performance. That range is where the price/performance ratio makes the most sense.

Also, if you had 2 desktops, you could have encoded two different videos at once :P

I wish I had an AM3 board to support that $100 quadcore...

[Noahtuck]

I wish I had an AM3 board to support that $100 quadcore...

Yep, me too!

The system i put together for my son a couple of weeks back has a GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H AM3/AM2+/AM2 motherboard,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128394&Tpk=Gigabyte%20MA785GM-US2H
and when i showed him those he was seriously eyeballing the X4 630 - $125.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103704&a

He has an AMD Athlon II X2 240 Dual Core Processor - 2.80GHz, Socket AM3, 2MB Cache, 2000MHz (4000 MT/s) right now.

So all he has to do is drop in the new CPU.

But i am already thinking about upping my mobo even though my current one is maybe 4-6 weeks old

[rallynavvie]

Also, if you had 2 desktops, you could have encoded two different videos at once :P

Yeah I thought of that too but since it was only me running that business I was doing single projects and the single project encode times were more important. And most of the actual work was done on AE, Premiere, and Encore and using a KVM to switch back and forth would probably cut down that 2x productivity of two boxes back down to the range of 1.6x like the SMP machine could handle. And by the time I did have a need for a second box I had enough to build another dual-socket machine

[ocgw]

I don't buy the price/performance thing and haven't for years. When I built my first dual-socket machine nearly 10 years ago I knew it wouldn't offer twice the performance of a single socket machine even though it cost nearly 4 times as much. What I do know is that every one of those extra dollars made up for themselves over time due to that increased productivity. While I could have built two reasonably quick desktops for the price of the one I could not have encoded video across both simultaneously which made a big difference on large projects.

That's certainly a fair argument if the same performance isn't offered by both sides of the competition. In the case of AMD and Intel, there's a good range at which both have offerings of similar performance. That range is where the price/performance ratio makes the most sense.

Exactly, I know AMD can't compete w/ Intel in the $250-$1000USD range, but am amused by dudes that say they are going to buy an Intel cpu because AMD cpus are crap and then go buy a sub $200USD Intel budget cpu

ocgw

peace

[wulf109]

I hadn't used an AMD in years. I just bought a Gigabyte 785 AMD motherboard and a Sargus 140 chip because people on newegg said it could be unlocked to dual-core. I had no luck unlocking it but it would overclock to 3.5Ghz. Which seemed good until I compered it to my CeleronL Core CPU also running at 3.5Ghz. The intel Core is 15-20% faster than the AMD chip both running at 3.5Ghz. It would appear there not competive at the bottom of market either.

[Noahtuck]

I hadn't used an AMD in years. I just bought a Gigabyte 785 AMD motherboard and a Sargus 140 chip because people on newegg said it could be unlocked to dual-core. I had no luck unlocking it but it would overclock to 3.5Ghz. Which seemed good until I compered it to my CeleronL Core CPU also running at 3.5Ghz. The intel Core is 15-20% faster than the AMD chip both running at 3.5Ghz. It would appear there not competive at the bottom of market either.