# 13 years of AMD loyalty being questioned



## xvi (Nov 26, 2011)

K6-2 450, Athlon XP 2000+, Sempron 3000+, Sempron 64 3400+, AMD Athlon X2 4400+, AMD Phenom II X2 550. That is my AMD heritage and this is an over-analyzed review of the i7s.

I've been wanting to give sig rig to my father (Socket A Athlon XP 3000+) and move up to the 8150. Despite the lackluster results, I figured the new instruction sets, thread optimizations (Win 8) and overclockability would make up for it. I truly wanted to believe and tried to justify the purchase any way I could. The most helpful review I found was one I found on Hardcoreware.net, specifically the page on OpenCL performance and on Audio/Video Performance since those are two little extras I feel that I'd like to have available.

Important features to me are gaming performance, folding/crunching, video editing and encoding, file compression/decompression, having all the fancy features/instruction sets, being "future-proof" and a having a generally nice price/performance (value) in all categories.

Just so I didn't feel like I was missing anything, I started comparing features to similarly priced Intel products. I was surprised to find the Z68 boards were about the same price as 990FX boards and that they featured things like PCIe 3.0 and UEFI (which satisfies "future-proof" and geeky bragging).

*General questions:*
Is there any difference between the 2600k and the 2700k besides 100Mhz and a price bump?
Is overclocking generally pretty straightforward like it is for AMD?
The difference between the 2500k and 2600k is HyperThreading (and MHz), correct? Will I see any more than 20-30% increase per clock than I've found in the charts below? If the 2600k isn't that much better than the 2500k, am I an idiot for wanting one anyways? It feels more future-proof and appeals to my wanting as many cores as possible (even if they're just HT).
Any tips and tricks I should know before buying?
Should I go for the 1100t and wait for Ivy Bridge?

*Price options:*
*X6 1100t and mid-range AM3 board: ~$250*
Would give me a processor that should sell easily if I decide to upgrade later, but makes me uncomfortable in the sense that it's a rather temporary fix. Fits in to my lackluster budget.

*FX 8150 and 990FX: ~$445*
The processor I wish was either faster or cheaper. Features are mostly there, price/performance (value) isn't. If the 6GHz average OC is true, this would give the best performance out of the bunch. Reviewers are saying 5GHz on water. That's enough to make the FX a bit competitive.

*2500k and Z68: ~$400*
Cheaper than the FX 8150, generally faster, but lacks the future-proof comfort I get from the 2600k's HyperThreading.

*2600k and Z68: ~$510*
Feels like it would last longer. Feels more "comfortable" from a hardware standpoint, but it's a bit more than I want to spend. I would expect closer to $450. The processor alone costs 53% more for 30% more performance, but if you include the motherboard in the price, it only costs 28% more (which sits right with the 20-30% performance increase).

I've made a rough chart comparing price/performance, efficiency, etc. I should note that most 2700k benchmarks are estimates based off of a 100MHz bump and that the price/performance for the 1100T is based off of an $80 motherboard since I would most likely reuse my 790FX and buy a cheap mobo for my X2.






*Sources:*
PassMark CPU, CPUbenchmark.net
OpenCL and x264, Hardcoreware.net
7-zip, AnandTech.com
Average OC, HWBot.org (I will adjust with some slightly more confirmed/typical OC results later.)

*Estimated motherboard prices:*
X6 1100t: $80 (Mid-range board)
FX 8150: $175 (Asus something-or-other)
2500k: $190 (Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3)
2600k: $190 (Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3)

*To-Do:*
Add $100 to total price in overclocked section (for cheap watercooling kit).


----------



## Outback Bronze (Nov 26, 2011)

13 years ey. I havent gone 1 day! Only amd cards i suppose. Anyway id go the i7 2600k mate. Just the best cpu youll get for all your gaming, encoding or crunching needs at a fair price(2700k debatable). Overclocking them is a simple multiplyer and v/core adjustment. If u mainly game then id suggest the 2500k.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 26, 2011)

The MSRP for FX8150 is $225. If you want to be in AMD's camp you could wait until the retail channel gets stuffed. Or you could go for an FX8120 and overclock to FX8150 speeds and beyond.

I'd say the 2500K is enough for now unless you have a workload that takes advantage of the extra threads given by the 2600K/2700K.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 26, 2011)

imo be loyal to price/performance. i appreciate the underdog status amd has held, but that alone is not enough. don't be loyal to a name when they don't even know you


----------



## Senupe (Nov 26, 2011)

I think the best sweet spot for gaming, video editing, file compression/decompression, nice instructions and value it's the deal Z68 Board with PCIe-3 and a 2500k since you can overclock this guys at ~4.4GHz on air and ~5.0GHz on water cooling (tewaking BaseCLk and Multiplier).
That will give you a really shining computer for everthing you need, and even with the posibility to upgrade to Ivy Bridge you'll be able to buy the new i7 set in the future so there's no worry about that, plus the 1155 platform allows you to use QuickSync wich is incredibly fast for video work.
Hope it helps.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 26, 2011)

If you want pretty much guaranteed overclockablility, go with a 2600K. 2500K chips are a mixed bag, some only do 4.3, others can do more. The difference between the 2 is HyperThreading, 2MB L3 cache, and possibly getting a terrible chip, so it's up to you.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 26, 2011)

I bought my 1100T X6 as it gives almost all the performance on everything that is threaded, and fit right into my board and runs 3.7Ghz/4.1Turbo on stock volts.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Nov 26, 2011)

simple answer, 2600K , no doubt for what you need it for


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 26, 2011)

I understand your loyalty towards AMD and to be honest your previous builds have all been based on mid range CPU's so I can see why only now you are contemplating switching as you are going for a higher end build. 

If you really want to stick with AMD why not grab a 990fx board and the 1100t as you will still be able to  BD should they manage to improve the IPC/per core performance with a newer revision and the Thubans clock well and perform quite well. 

If you go Intel then unless you are going to be a lot of heavily multithreaded work/encoding etc the 2500k is the best bang for the buck by a country mile, the HT and extra 100mhz/cache on the 2600k is not worth the extra $100 or so otherwise. 

Though I haven't said anything more than what you already know yourself so really it is just down to your preference and or budget.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Nov 26, 2011)

digibucc said:


> imo be loyal to price/performance. i appreciate the underdog status amd has held, but that alone is not enough. don't be loyal to a name when they don't even know you



I get rooting for the underdog and all but, yeah, people here are disdainful of Apple fanboys, for example, but AMD is understandable and somehow different and ok? Yes we want AMD to succeed for better competition and the benefits such brings to the consumer and it's cool to be passionate about great products but at the end of the day they are all just corporations most concerned with their bottom line.

The funniest shit is the giant Nike swoosh stickers I see on the back windows of some cars around the city. Way to provide tacky, free advertising for a company as if it is somehow a personal status symbol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 26, 2011)

xvi said:


> Is there any difference between the 2600k and the 2700k besides 100Mhz and a price bump?



Nope, no difference.  Go for the 2600K and bump the multiplier up one notch yourself.



xvi said:


> Is overclocking generally pretty straightforward like it is for AMD?



Well...not exactly.  If you get a 2700K/2600K/2500K(the "K-Series" Processors), then overclocking is as simple as raising the CPU multiplier, because they have an unlocked CPU multiplier.  You want 4.0GHz, you set the multiplier to 40, it is that simple.  Essentially just like overclocking a Black Edition or FX series processor on AMD's side.

_However_, if you don't get a "K-Series" processor.  You can't just adjust the BCLK/FSB speed like you can with locked AMD CPUs.  While the BCLK is technically unlocked, so you can change it, it controls every clock speed in the system.  So raising it also raises PCI-E clock speed, SATA port clock speed, etc.  And very bad things start to happen when you start raising clock speeds on things like SATA ports.  The non-K-Series processors have a semi-unlocked CPU multiplier.   That means you can still overclock them by raising the multiplier, but it is very limited.  You can over raise the multiplier 8 notches over the stock multiplier.  So if you get a 3.0GHz processor, the multiplier would be 30, so you can only go up to 38 to get 3.8GHz as the maximum clock speed.  This is, IMO, where AMD is still superior to Intel if you are building a low cost rig.



xvi said:


> The difference between the 2500k and 2600k is HyperThreading (and MHz), correct? Will I see any more than 20-30% increase per clock than I've found in the charts below? If the 2600k isn't that much better than the 2500k, am I an idiot for wanting one anyways? It feels more future-proof and appeals to my wanting as many cores as possible (even if they're just HT).



In gaming HyperThreading doesn't really help all that much.  However, you mentioned you fold/crunch.  The hyperthreading on the 2600K allows you to accept bigadv units when folding, which gives a very substantial points boost.  However, they also require that you pretty much fold 24/7 with your CPU.  If you don't plan to do that, I wouldn't worry about it.



xvi said:


> Any tips and tricks I should know before buying?
> Should I go for the 1100t and wait for Ivy Bridge?



Well, I would suggest you do what I did.  Go with a 990X board, which is cheaper than a 990FX board, and really all you loose is the x16/x16 slots, but you still get x8/x6 for crossfire/SLi, which is plenty.

Then as the processor go with a 1090T.  I haven't found a think yet that the Phenom x6 doesn't do extremely well.  Honestly, I don't really think the FX processors are with it right now, the Phenom X6 performs almost exactly the same as the FX 6 core, so go with the cheaper Phenoms.


----------



## johnspack (Nov 27, 2011)

Yep,  go for an i7,  you won't regret it.  I was as devout to amd as you,  since my amd286-20mhz (oced 4mhz!) system all the way up to my athlon64 x2 5600.  I now only run intel,  and don't feel bad about it one bit!


----------



## Neuromancer (Nov 27, 2011)

2700K and Z68.

Currently 2700Ks seemed to be a slightly better revision, allowing farther clocks on less volts. 

Z68 is a great bit of architecture, I found the SRT performing very poorly. However, the AVX encoding for video work is great if you do a lot of reducing HD video to ipod type. If you are transcoding or reducing 1080P input to 720P for archiving, then I would just use  the 2600K and handbrake conversion software. More control and just as fast as AVX at that point (1080P to 320P via AVX is 50% faster though!!)

HD 3000 GFX is good enough for general desktop usage as well even multi monitor. But I would still go discrete GFX for best performance and gaming

PCIE3 is going to be a boon when Ivy Bridge drops in 4-5 months as well.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 27, 2011)

2700Ks are still D2; they might be cherry picked but aren't a new revision. 

But yeah, they have the potential to overclock better than the 2600K.


----------



## Neuromancer (Nov 27, 2011)

TRWOV said:


> 2700Ks are still D2; they might be cherry picked but aren't a new revision.
> 
> But yeah, they have the potential to overclock better than the 2600K.




LOL I meant version, but thank you for the correction


----------



## qubit (Nov 27, 2011)

@xvi

A well thought out question. 

You're questioning that loyalty and you should. You should only give your money to the company that gives you the most and today that is Intel.

I say get a 2700K with a Z68 mobo - just make sure it's a UEFI model. This is what I will be buying shortly.

The 2700K is supposed to be identical in every way apart from the 2600K apart from the multiplier value that's programmed into it. However, it looks like there might be very small improvements since it's later silicon. I asked just this question in  Get the 2600K or the 2700K, that is the question? Have a look at the poll and the responses and see what you think.

The main differences between a 2500K and the 2600K/2700K are HyperThreading and extra cache. Look up comparative benchmarks and you'll see that the 2600K/2700K are noticeably faster in games. Plus, you can gaze at 8 threads in Task Manager...

SB with an unlocked multiplier is extremely easy to overclock, as you can just change one multiplier value to achieve it. If you want to gain extra memory bandwidth or find the exact highest frequency it will manage, then of course, more complexity and skill comes into it, but that's the sort of thing us enthusiasts can handle. 

Ivy Bridge is gonna be out around March/April, so it's quite a long way away. Also, by the looks of it, it's more optimised for power efficiency and a great IGP, than out and out single thread performance, so unless you really want these things, I'd say don't bother waiting. Also, it will fit into your current S1155 mobo (needs UEFI I believe) so you can always upgrade to it if you want to.

If you want to get an FX-8150 because it overclocks like a banshee (but doesn't perform...) then feel free to do that too; there's no right or wrong here. erocker started a thread for people that wanted to post about their Bulldozer overclocking exploits. Just remember that whatever you do with a Bulldozer chip, Sandy Bridge is just plain all-round better.


----------



## kyussgr (Nov 28, 2011)

Hi,

First of all, a word of warning about PCI Express 3.0. The Z68 mobos have PCIe 3.0 slots but they don't have a PCIe 3.0 Controller !!!!  (they are PCIe 3.0 capable)
The PCIe 3.0 controller will be embedded on the new Intel Ivy Bridge processors which will come out around April 2012. This means that if you buy a Z68 PCIe 3.0 mobo and an i5-2500k or an i7-2600K you will not have support for PCIe 3.0.

About the loyalty argument.... I respect it, but at this point in time it makes no sense in choosing AMD over INTEL. Intel better and cheaper. Hi-end Intel mobos are much cheaper than the AMD ones and Intel processors are way better than AMD ones.

If you want (or can) wait till around March or April 2012. Christmas is traditionally the worst time to buy future-proof products. All new techs come out at around March - April.

This is what I am going to do anyway. Got a nice gtx570 in order to play Battlefield 3 and I will stick to my overclocked Core2duo for a few more months...


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2011)

@kyussgr

Great advice and welcome to TPU!


----------



## murdog (Nov 29, 2011)

qubit said:


> Ivy Bridge is gonna be out around March/April, so it's quite a long way away. Also, by the looks of it, it's more optimised for power efficiency and a great IGP, than out and out single thread performance, so unless you really want these things, I'd say don't bother waiting. Also, it will fit into your current S1155 mobo (needs UEFI I believe) so you can always upgrade to it if you want to.



Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what is 'IGP'?  Just learnin all this...


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 29, 2011)

Integrated Graphics Processor


----------



## murdog (Nov 29, 2011)

As in not really needing on-board GPU?


----------



## xvi (Dec 8, 2011)

X6 Pros: Cheap, price/performance, should sell well when I'm done with it
X6 Cons: Lack of newer instruction sets, lack of raw performance, mediocre overclock

FX Pros: Price/performance overclocked, overclock potential, new instruction sets, 8-core, 7-zip performance
FX Cons: Price/performance stock, power draw overclocked, terrible 8-core implementation

2500k Pros: Price/performance, overclockability, instruction sets
2500k Cons: Lack of HT, smaller cache

2600k Pros: HyperThreading, Instruction sets, increased overclockability
2600k Cons: Price

2700k Pros: HyperThreading, Instruction sets, further increased overclockability
2700k Cons: PRICE, price/performance

I am currently considering the i7-2600k and the Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3 (unless the non-"GEN3" one is Gen4?)

Why doesn't Intel have anything between the $370 i7-2700k and the $600 i7-3930k? Are they not worried since AMD has nothing in that segment for them to compete against?



newtekie1 said:


> Nope, no difference.  Go for the 2600K and bump the multiplier up one notch yourself.
> 
> In gaming HyperThreading doesn't really help all that much.  However, you mentioned you fold/crunch.  The hyperthreading on the 2600K allows you to accept bigadv units when folding, which gives a very substantial points boost.  However, they also require that you pretty much fold 24/7 with your CPU.  If you don't plan to do that, I wouldn't worry about it.


Threads "feel" important to me. I know the extra threads are just due to HyperThreading, but it seems like it would help in most aspects. Somehow. Magically.
Some people are saying 5GHz on good air with the higher binned 2700k, but I don't know if that's worth $50-75. I guess it might be considering $200 in water cooling would probably net me a similar marginal increase.

One thing I don't understand is how the FX has problem with the thread scheduler, but HyperThreading doesn't. Back in the P4 days, HyperThreading would net you about a 30% gain (for 100% more threads). How does Windows know not to schedule two threads on one core for HyperThreading, but not for the FX?



newtekie1 said:


> Well, I would suggest you do what I did. Go with a 990X board, which is cheaper than a 990FX board, and really all you loose is the x16/x16 slots, but you still get x8/x6 for crossfire/SLi, which is plenty.
> 
> I haven't found a think yet that the Phenom x6 doesn't do extremely well.  Honestly, I don't really think the FX processors are with it right now, the Phenom X6 performs almost exactly the same as the FX 6 core, so go with the cheaper Phenoms.


I've seen the 1090T and 1100T keep up with the FX 8150 in a lot of tests. If I go the X6 route, I'd expect about three times the performance as what I have now. I don't know why, but the X6 just doesn't get me excited for some reason. It did when I first started looking at processors, but it doesn't now. I think it's the new instruction sets. I'm quite interested in AVX, for example.
About the only favorable long-term thing about the X6 is that it would be one of the best AM3 processors made (as AM3 is about to be end-of-life). In the future, it should sell easily.



qubit said:


> I say get a 2700K with a Z68 mobo - just make sure it's a UEFI model. This is what I will be buying shortly.


UEFI is one of the reasons why I'd like to upgrade. It's obvious that we're moving in that direction and I'm happy to switch. I'm leaning towards the 2600k just because the 2600k is already stretching over how much I want to spend, but it seems to come out better in value after overclocking.


> The 2700K is supposed to be identical in every way apart from the 2600K apart from the multiplier value that's programmed into it. However, it looks like there might be very small improvements since it's later silicon. I asked just this question in  Get the 2600K or the 2700K, that is the question? Have a look at the poll and the responses and see what you think.
> 
> The main differences between a 2500K and the 2600K/2700K are HyperThreading and extra cache. Look up comparative benchmarks and you'll see that the 2600K/2700K are noticeably faster in games. Plus, you can gaze at 8 threads in Task Manager...
> 
> SB with an unlocked multiplier is extremely easy to overclock, as you can just change one multiplier value to achieve it. If you want to gain extra memory bandwidth or find the exact highest frequency it will manage, then of course, more complexity and skill comes into it, but that's the sort of thing us enthusiasts can handle.


I'm no expert, but I'm fairly comfortable with most settings I've run across in the BIOS. While things won't directly translate from AMD to Intel, I'm sure I could pick it up without too much trouble.


> Ivy Bridge is gonna be out around March/April, so it's quite a long way away. Also, by the looks of it, it's more optimised for power efficiency and a great IGP, than out and out single thread performance, so unless you really want these things, I'd say don't bother waiting. Also, it will fit into your current S1155 mobo (needs UEFI I believe) so you can always upgrade to it if you want to.


The ability to update to Ivy might be nice. It's certainly helping me justify buying the i7.


> If you want to get an FX-8150 because it overclocks like a banshee (but doesn't perform...) then feel free to do that too; there's no right or wrong here. erocker started a thread for people that wanted to post about their Bulldozer overclocking exploits. Just remember that whatever you do with a Bulldozer chip, Sandy Bridge is just plain all-round better.


That's the conclusion that I'm starting to come to. As estimated, the 8150 has to fight to stay with the 2600k when overclocked. Even 7-zip performance, where the 8150 does well at stock speeds, only (theoretically) ties the 2600k when overclocked to average levels.



kyussgr said:


> First of all, a word of warning about PCI Express 3.0. The Z68 mobos have PCIe 3.0 slots but they don't have a PCIe 3.0 Controller !!!!  (they are PCIe 3.0 capable)
> The PCIe 3.0 controller will be embedded on the new Intel Ivy Bridge processors which will come out around April 2012. This means that if you buy a Z68 PCIe 3.0 mobo and an i5-2500k or an i7-2600K you will not have support for PCIe 3.0.


It sounds like it will be available if you drop in an Ivy Bridge processor later though. Regardless, PCIe 3.0 isn't something I'm too terribly concerned about at the moment. It seems like it would be nice to have (future-proofing), but not a huge requirement to me.


> About the loyalty argument.... I respect it, but at this point in time it makes no sense in choosing AMD over INTEL. Intel better and cheaper. Hi-end Intel mobos are much cheaper than the AMD ones and Intel processors are way better than AMD ones.


AMD motherboards seem to top out around $200-250 where as Intel boards can reach up in to the $500 range (X78).


> If you want (or can) wait till around March or April 2012. Christmas is traditionally the worst time to buy future-proof products. All new techs come out at around March - April.


The reason why I'd like to buy some time about now is that my current computer will be changing owners. I have the option of keeping my motherboard at the expense of buying a new one for the old processor.



TRWOV said:


> 2700Ks are still D2; they might be cherry picked but aren't a new revision. But yeah, they have the potential to overclock better than the 2600K.





Neuromancer said:


> Currently 2700Ks seemed to be a slightly better revision, allowing farther clocks on less volts.


While I overclock nearly *everything* and having a higher-binned processor sounds quite nice, I'm having a little trouble fitting the 2600k in to my budget as it is. Tough decision.



johnspack said:


> Yep,  go for an i7,  you won't regret it.  I was as devout to amd as you,  since my amd286-20mhz (oced 4mhz!) system all the way up to my athlon64 x2 5600.  I now only run intel,  and don't feel bad about it one bit!


I don't want to give up on them though. Even after the Core 2 hit, AMD at least offered an attractive, well rounded processor for the entry-level and mid-range segments. That made sense. The FX just.. doesn't.



NdMk2o1o said:


> I understand your loyalty towards AMD and to be honest your previous builds have all been based on mid range CPU's so I can see why only now you are contemplating switching as you are going for a higher end build.


High*er* end, yeah. I don't want to go too crazy here.


NdMk2o1o said:


> If you really want to stick with AMD why not grab a 990fx board and the 1100t as you will still be able to  BD should they manage to improve the IPC/per core performance with a newer revision and the Thubans clock well and perform quite well.


I.. I.. I just don't know. I like the new instruction sets, I like the performance per clock.. The X6 is just... old. For $160, it does have terribly good value though.


NdMk2o1o said:


> If you go Intel then unless you are going to be a lot of heavily multithreaded work/encoding etc the 2500k is the best bang for the buck by a country mile, the HT and extra 100mhz/cache on the 2600k is not worth the extra $100 or so otherwise.
> 
> Though I haven't said anything more than what you already know yourself so really it is just down to your preference and or budget.


Folding, 7-zip, media editing, gaming while recording with FRAPS (the X2 struggles to record anything at 2048x1152).. I'd say I do more multi-threaded work than your average user.


(FIH) The Don said:


> simple answer, 2600K , no doubt for what you need it for


As I said above, yeah. The extra threads would be nice, even if they're "fake" cores, it's still a performance gain. The performance loss from AMD's FX two-modules-per-core malarkey basically seems to.. just.. I don't know. It makes it feel more like a quad-core with HyperThreading more than a true 8-core. It seems that the i7 benefits from HyperThreading about as much as the FX benefits from the extra modules.


Jstn7477 said:


> If you want pretty much guaranteed overclockablility, go with a 2600K. 2500K chips are a mixed bag, some only do 4.3, others can do more. The difference between the 2 is HyperThreading, 2MB L3 cache, and possibly getting a terrible chip, so it's up to you.


I'm a sucker for technical specs. The 2600k sounds better and better the more I look in to it.


Senupe said:


> I think the best sweet spot for gaming, video editing, file compression/decompression, nice instructions and value it's the deal Z68 Board with PCIe-3 and a 2500k since you can overclock this guys at ~4.4GHz on air and ~5.0GHz on water cooling (tewaking BaseCLk and Multiplier).
> That will give you a really shining computer for everthing you need, and even with the posibility to upgrade to Ivy Bridge you'll be able to buy the new i7 set in the future so there's no worry about that, plus the 1155 platform allows you to use QuickSync wich is incredibly fast for video work.
> Hope it helps.


It does. The ability to upgrade to Ivy is comforting. I hear QuickSync is buggy if used with dedicated graphics (how could it be _that hard_ to switch between the two?), but the multimedia feature I'm excited about is AVX. I would very much like to move to water cooling in the future and I feel that the i7 would have the most "potential" to unlock. The FX would too, I suppose, but the wattage it would demand is just way too insane.


digibucc said:


> imo be loyal to price/performance. i appreciate the underdog status amd has held, but that alone is not enough. don't be loyal to a name when they don't even know you


To quote Metalica, sad but true. Price/performance, AMD still does well (especially the X6), but I need to find the balance between value and raw performance.


TRWOV said:


> The MSRP for FX8150 is $225. If you want to be in AMD's camp you could wait until the retail channel gets stuffed. Or you could go for an FX8120 and overclock to FX8150 speeds and beyond.
> 
> I'd say the 2500K is enough for now unless you have a workload that takes advantage of the extra threads given by the 2600K/2700K.


I noticed that. MSRP on the FX is lower than what's out there. I'm hoping Intel prices will drop when the 8150 does. The buy-in for Intel is a bit steep, imo. It looks like the 8150 dropped $10 on Dec 11. We're getting there.



Outback Bronze said:


> 13 years ey. I havent gone 1 day! Only amd cards i suppose. Anyway id go the i7 2600k mate. Just the best cpu youll get for all your gaming, encoding or crunching needs at a fair price(2700k debatable). Overclocking them is a simple multiplyer and v/core adjustment. If u mainly game then id suggest the 2500k.


It's hard to see the "fair price" part when you're coming from $120-160 AMD processors, but when you lay it out on the spreadsheet, the performance is there. It's still a relatively big pill to swallow.



Neuromancer said:


> Z68 is a great bit of architecture, I found the SRT performing very poorly. However, the AVX encoding for video work is great if you do a lot of reducing HD video to ipod type. If you are transcoding or reducing 1080P input to 720P for archiving, then I would just use  the 2600K and handbrake conversion software. More control and just as fast as AVX at that point (1080P to 320P via AVX is 50% faster though!!)


I was looking forward to experimenting with SRT. Some reviews give it favor, some give it scorn. If it doesn't work, I could always try Seagate's Barracuda XT. I mainly transcode (basically) uncompressed FRAPS recordings to equal size (2048x1152) H264 and then edit them, scale to 720p/1080p for YouTube/Photobucket/etc. Additionally, FRAPS does NOT like sharing on a dual-core.

I very much like to keep my options open, so I'd desire AVX (and other features) even if I don't plan on using it immediately. Intel satisfies this desire well.


----------



## Super XP (Dec 8, 2011)

You should get an award for so many quotes 


xvi said:


> I noticed that. MSRP on the FX is lower than what's out there. I'm hoping Intel prices will drop when the 8150 does. The buy-in for Intel is a bit steep, imo. It looks like the 8150 dropped $10 on Dec 11. We're getting there.


That is wishfull thinking, it seems Intel CPU's are going up.

I have the FX-8120 clocked at 4.40 GHz with a CPU vCore of 1.375v, and NO it's not sucking back power as everybody likes to claim, though I do admit taking her past the 4.50 GHz mark along a vCore higher than my stable 1.375v, the heat starts pumping out like mad. 

So for me 4.40 GHz and even 4.50-4.60GHz is the sweet spot. That's a wopping 1.30GHz to 1.50GHz speed boost over stock clock  Also if you just want to stick with 3.60GHz, just up the multi and that's it. No vCore increase, no nothing, easily turn your FX-8120 into a FX-8150.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 8, 2011)

meh... AMD will come back... thing to remember is, processors for gaming (what else do we need a 4.5GHZ CPU for?) are Robin, where as GFX cards are Batman... Maybe in AMD's case they are spider man and Nvidia is the green goblin...

Either way, processors are the queens and the GFX cards the prime ministers... they are the whip cream to the banans... 

I think the BD is a step in the right direction, they are taking the ATI approach to processors IMO... more cores, simpler cores (a reduced complexity core - a RISC to CISC approach) but massive potential.

Dont forget that before the 4870, 5870 and the 6970 there was the 2900XT.  That was by all accounts an epic fail, and in some cases the 1950XTX beat it, an older gen, while consuming less power.  But now, Nvidia is releasing Kepler in maybe 2012 and AMD is already shrinkwrapping the pallets of the 7xxx series to slap some 580 around.

AMD is down, but its definitely not out IMO.


----------



## xvi (Dec 8, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> Dont forget that before the 4870, 5870 and the 6970 there was the 2900XT. That was by all accounts an epic fail, and in some cases the 1950XTX beat it, an older gen, while consuming less power. But now, Nvidia is releasing Kepler in maybe 2012 and AMD is already shrinkwrapping the pallets of the 7xxx series to slap some 580 around.



Did someone say ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT?





It's sitting on my geek shelf. Memory artifacts when run.



phanbuey said:


> AMD is down, but its definitely not out IMO.



Oh, I agree. I think all AMD needs to do is learn from this experience and refine the FX (FX II?). It's the Phenom all over again (only worse this time). The potential is there, but hopes and dreams don't fold proteins.

Edit: Sorry, phanbuey! I highlighted it, pressed "Quote" and it autofilled out to newtekie.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 8, 2011)

xvi said:


> Did someone say ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT?
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-...VVEvTFPQsjs/s1024/2011-12-07_20-44-19_297.jpg
> 
> It's sitting on my geek shelf. Memory artifacts when run.



Someone did say that... but I dont think it was newtekie


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 8, 2011)

AMD is the vitcum of mismanagement and poor direction I was a AMD fan for as long as you where and then I got my hands on a 2500k ... yea intel for life now


----------



## puma99dk| (Dec 8, 2011)

xvi said:


> I am currently considering the i7-2600k and the Asus P8Z68-V/GEN3 (unless the non-"GEN3" one is Gen4?)



Gen4 u kidding? it's not only one untagged with any Gen is just Gen2 and the one with Gen3 has it's first x16 slot at Gen3 mode when u put in a Ivy Bridge CPU if u put in a Sandy Bridge with will only do Gen2....


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 8, 2011)

K7 was more RISC than CISC



phanbuey said:


> meh... AMD will come back... thing to remember is, processors for gaming (what else do we need a 4.5GHZ CPU for?) are Robin, where as GFX cards are Batman... Maybe in AMD's case they are spider man and Nvidia is the green goblin...
> 
> Either way, processors are the queens and the GFX cards the prime ministers... they are the whip cream to the banans...
> 
> ...


----------



## xvi (Dec 8, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You should get an award for so many quotes


Thanks! 


> That is wishfull thinking, it seems Intel CPU's are going up.


The prices on Newegg are moving around a bit. The processors used to be cheaper on Amazon, surprisingly. I'm not sure if I really want to order from there though.
These should update automagically:

*Newegg
i5 2500k



Spoiler











i7 2600k



Spoiler










i7 2700k



Spoiler










Amazon
i5 2500k



Spoiler










i7 2600k



Spoiler










i7 2700k



Spoiler










*


> I have the FX-8120 clocked at 4.40 GHz with a CPU vCore of 1.375v, and NO it's not sucking back power as everybody likes to claim, though I do admit taking her past the 4.50 GHz mark along a vCore higher than my stable 1.375v, the heat starts pumping out like mad.


I hear power usage is decent as long as you're not pushing it. I might push if I move to water (especially since AMD seems to be endorsing it now).


> So for me 4.40 GHz and even 4.50-4.60GHz is the sweet spot. That's a wopping 1.30GHz to 1.50GHz speed boost over stock clock  Also if you just want to stick with 3.60GHz, just up the multi and that's it. No vCore increase, no nothing, easily turn your FX-8120 into a FX-8150.


..but the FX-8120, in theory, wouldn't clock up as high as a FX-8150 would. The only reason why one would is if they binned a FX-8150 to fill demand for the FX-8120. Seeing as how the 8150 is constantly sold out, I doubt that'll be the case.

I have trouble with the ol' "overclocking a lesser processor to match the speed of a greater processor" debate. Why would I overclock an inexpensive one and not a higher-end one? Granted 4.5GHz is pretty decent for binned, I've heard tales of 5+Ghz on the 8150.


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 8, 2011)

xvi said:


> It sounds like it will be available if you drop in an Ivy Bridge processor later though. Regardless, PCIe 3.0 isn't something I'm too terribly concerned about at the moment. It seems like it would be nice to have (future-proofing), but not a huge requirement to me.
> 
> AMD motherboards seem to top out around $200-250 where as Intel boards can reach up in to the $500 range (X78).



Yes PCIe 3.0 will be available if you drop in an Ivy Bridge, but have you ever changed the processor using the same platform? I have never done it as it doesn't make sense spending 500 Euros or so for processors and still have the same platform. Thats why I recommended waiting 3-4 months so that you make the expenditure once. 

I have done quite a bit of research (in the Greek market) and you can't really built a quality AMD system cheaper than an quality Intel system (P67 vs AM3+). I am not talking about X79 systems... (I wonder who is going to buy one of those - crazy) 

If the machine is going to change hands in the future why don't you wait till that time to buy a new motherboard (there will be better products later on).

Don't get me wrong I also want very very much to change my system but I try to restrain myself and be sensible. I don't know if I am going to last for 3-4 months though.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 8, 2011)

Well in response to the OP i recommend the 2500k and Z68 chipset. The HT is not really worth the extra money unless you need it. The future upgrade-ability is there if you get an Ivy Bridge compatible board.

Get a 2500k on special or even go for a second hand one. Clock it to 4.5ghz and forget worrying about any other choices. Supposed to be good for SLi and Crossfire setups.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 8, 2011)

xvi said:


> I have trouble with the ol' "overclocking a lesser processor to match the speed of a greater processor" debate. Why would I overclock an inexpensive one and not a higher-end one? Granted 4.5GHz is pretty decent for binned, I've heard tales of 5+Ghz on the 8150.



Because slower processors are usually the same processor but binned at a lower speed

Plus buying the lesser processor can save you anywhere upto $60 or even more. so youre getting more for less.


----------



## xvi (Dec 10, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> Yes PCIe 3.0 will be available if you drop in an Ivy Bridge, but have you ever changed the processor using the same platform? I have never done it as it doesn't make sense spending 500 Euros or so for processors and still have the same platform. Thats why I recommended waiting 3-4 months so that you make the expenditure once.
> 
> I have done quite a bit of research (in the Greek market) and you can't really built a quality AMD system cheaper than an quality Intel system (P67 vs AM3+). I am not talking about X79 systems... (I wonder who is going to buy one of those - crazy)
> 
> If the machine is going to change hands in the future why don't you wait till that time to buy a new motherboard (there will be better products later on).


The computer that this would replace is a Socket A Athlon XP 3000+ and I'd like to replace that for Christmas (or at least close to it). They're looking at buying new parts for themselves. What I have is better than what they'd most likely purchase, so handing this one down would be win/win.



FreedomEclipse said:


> Because slower processors are usually the same processor but binned at a lower speed
> 
> Plus buying the lesser processor can save you anywhere upto $60 or even more. so youre getting more for less.


..but typically that processor is binned because of manufacturing defects that either prevent it from running at the higher speed, cause one (or more) cores to fail, etc..

Even if there is some defect, AMD is going to leave some headroom for stability's sake, naturally. I'm sure that nearly every 8120 out there has more than enough headroom to go up to 8150 speeds (especially if you bump voltage), but I'm not going to buy an 8150 and just leave it stock. Logic would dictate that an 8150 would be more likely to clock higher than an 8120. While an 8120 at 5GHz isn't impossible, it should be more likely and/or easier on a 8150, no?

On the contrary, HWbot.org says the average OC for the 8150 and the 8120 are nearly incidental on water.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 10, 2011)

xvi said:


> ..but typically that processor is binned because of manufacturing defects that either prevent it from running at the higher speed, cause one (or more) cores to fail, etc..



Its always the luck of the draw my friend - thats how it works, thats how its always worked.

Back in the day I had an FX-55 that wouldnt clock for shit. the clocks tested stable. but when i ran benchmarks i tend to loose a chunk of points so i just didnt bother.

the early batches of SB chips had no problem hitting 4.8-5Ghz, but im hearing even getting to 4.8Ghz is slowly becoming increasingly difficult due to some unknown changes.

just because they are binned at a lower speed doesnt meant that they didnt fit the bill to be the next model up. 

This is similar to the whole AMD X3 to X4 core unlocking and 6950 to 6970 unlocking getups.

some 6970s are binned as 6950s probably to meet stock requirements, (or it could be just a PR/marketing stunt by AMD to grab more market share) afaik there have been loads of 6950s that can be successfully unlocked. the AMD X3 was abit tricky i admit and unlocking the extra core never guaranteed stability at even stock clocks.

so you are half right if you know what i mean.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 10, 2011)

2600K man and never look back.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 10, 2011)

For the price id go the 1100T thats a HUGE difference in price, compared to not that much in performance difference, going by your benchmarks does the 2600K twice as fast as the 1100T? answer is no, simple.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 10, 2011)

Melvis said:


> For the price id go the 1100T thats a HUGE difference in price, compared to not that much in performance difference, going by your benchmarks does the 2600K twice as fast as the 1100T? answer is no, simple.



:shadedshu


----------



## twicksisted (Dec 10, 2011)

> 13 years of AMD loyalty being questioned



I've never understood this. 
Do you owe them something for using their products and is the brand loyal to you? 
Its your money at the end of the day but I cant see the reason in buying something just because you have built up some imaginary idea of loyalty in your mind to something like a brand name regardless of its actual value and performance.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 10, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> :shadedshu



:shadedshu


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 10, 2011)

Melvis said:


> :shadedshu



Why would he buy old out dated hardware thats just , If he goes for 2600K then last he has room to upgrade.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 10, 2011)

Super XP said:


> You should get an award for so many quotes
> 
> That is wishfull thinking, it seems Intel CPU's are going up.
> 
> ...


 I dont know what the real difference between the 8150 and 8120 really is but your wrong on the power issue. These BD chips are power pigs and I got the proof...
around 4.5 on the 8150 under full system load..






Besides stop fooling your self... the BD is a piece of shit! I dropped back in my 1090T yesterday and what a difference in performance.... At stock speeds its still faster then the BD @ 4.5ghz and draws a heck of a lot less power...


----------



## trickson (Dec 10, 2011)

Personally blind loyalty is not a good thing . After all do you think they know who you are ? 
I would go with what best fits your needs and you wants not just blind loyalty .


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 10, 2011)

trickson said:


> Personally blind loyalty is not a good thing . After all do you think they know who you are ?
> I would go with what best fits your needs and you wants not just blind loyalty .


I myself have been loyal but not no more... after amd said they are not making the cpu's for the enthusiast anymore I thought they can go fuck themselves excuse my french. My 1090T runs like butter at what ever I toss at it and plus I love the mobo... its going to be 1155 or 2011 for me but I havent seen any 1155 mobos that look good like the CHV and the 2011 are bloody crazy dollar wise.


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 10, 2011)

In Australia, the 1100t is $200, while the 2500k is $230. And z68 is similar price to 990 fx. No brainer.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 12, 2011)

Live OR Die said:


> Why would he buy old out dated hardware thats just , If he goes for 2600K then last he has room to upgrade.



Thats not the point, why would you spend twice as much on something that wont give you twice the performance?  Who says he wont have room to upgrade from that combo?


----------

