TechSpot

AMD processors - what would people recommend these days?

By pyromaster114
Jun 2, 2009
  1. Okay, so I have a friend that decided they were gonna build a new computer, and of course asked for my help.

    They want to go with an AMD processor, but I said I'd rather go with an Intel... as I've seen that Intel's lately perform much better on average, put out less heat, and seem to have bigger L2 caches from what I've seen looking around.

    Anyways, as I'm not familiar with AMD's latest lineup of processors, I thought I'd ask everyone here what they'd recommend. (Last time I even bought an AMD was about 3 years ago...) Anyone had any experience with AMD's more recent processors?
     
  2. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,370   +125

    Depends on budget, AMD is marginally cheaper, and they have quite competative processors with lots of L3 cache. Budget?
     
  3. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    For the whole thing, excluding mouse/keyboard/monitor, we're talking $1000.00 max.
     
  4. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,370   +125

    Um...well actually I just gave an obscure answer because I was a bit busy and was hoping you posted your thread and left instead of staying at your computer xD. I'm pretty sure I would lean with an AMD triple core, I don't think a quad core intel is necessary at $1000 and LGA 775 is getting quite old and outdated compared to the new AM3, better upgrade options later I think. Preferably a triple core with lots of L3 cache.

    AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHz Socket AM3 95W Triple-Core Black Processor Model HDZ720WFGIBOX - Retail, you can go with the 710, but I think the 720 sounds cooler, and its a black edition at $20 more. Obviously, you will want a nice AM3 socket motherboard, probably 4gb of DDR3 1066, 1333, or even 1600 if you really want, maybe a little unnecessary.
     
  5. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,286   +24

    Here's what $1k would get you:
    Grand Total = $800 approximately, not counting rebates or shipping, which is free on all but two items.

    A great PC that can handle anything you throw at it without breaking a sweat. You can play any game with all the image quality options maxed out, all the way upto 2560x1600. If you want, you can get a good cooler like the Xigmatek HDT-S1283, the Sunbeam Core Contact Freezer or the Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme and overclock the CPU to 4GHz and beyond very easily, without worrying about it overheating.
     
  6. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,370   +125

    I like the triple core ^^, even the name sounds cooler.
     
  7. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    Thanks to Rage_3K_Moiz for the awesome suggestions.
    Hopefully I can convince my friend to NOT buy a pre-built desktop from some terribly annoying company like emachines.

    Oh, question about the triple-core CPU, isn't that the same essentially as one of the quad-cores that not all the cores are functional? (I suppose as long as it works well, and I assume the triplecore saves money over the expensive quad-core, my friend won't care and neither will I.)
     
  8. OLBY

    OLBY TS Enthusiast Posts: 108

    hi
    i prefer intel,i use one and its heavy duty
    trust intel
    you have to upgrade your pc too
     
  9. pdyckman@comcas

    pdyckman@comcas TS Rookie Posts: 718

    I have not read all the responses above: but I would encourage you to go Intel. I have studied cpu's since AMD was "on top". Since the 'core 2 duo' and everything thereafter, Intel has been a much better performer.
     
  10. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,370   +125

    Yes...now have you bothered to study price too?
     
  11. Technochicken

    Technochicken TechSpot Paladin Posts: 903

     
  12. hellokitty[hk]

    hellokitty[hk] Hello, nice to meet you! Posts: 4,370   +125

    Yes, I believe it is because the AMD cache is superior.
     
  13. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

    the AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz is akin to the intel E8400 performance wise (actually edges it out) and retails for $100.00
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680

    The Intel E8400 retails for $170.00
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037

    here is a review for your perusal :http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii550/

    and while Intel has been on top performance wise for some time, why ignore the current trend and excellence of the current crop of AMD processors and price/value status? and get the same performance or better for %40 less? unless Pyromaster has developed a way to put instant coffee in the microwave and go back in time, AMD's latest offerings are very competitive performers, and leave some change in your pocket for lets say....upgrading your graphic card.
     
  14. Technochicken

    Technochicken TechSpot Paladin Posts: 903

    Wow, that's surprising. I thought the e8400 would be faster by a gairly large margin. Then wouldn't that mean that the e8400 and the e7400 were very close in performance?
     
  15. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

    surprised me as well when I read the review from neo seeker, i will try and find that review but it seems to me (going from memory here) that the 8400 bested the 7400 by 9%.
     
  16. Technochicken

    Technochicken TechSpot Paladin Posts: 903

    I would assume the e8400 is the newer of the two, due to the 45 nm process, and the higher fsb , right? If so, then intel went backwards. That's a 25 percent click increase with only a 9 percent performance boost.
     
  17. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,286   +24

    The performance increase is far more noticeable in games IMO due to the larger cache. Games are extremely sensitive to cache size.
     
  18. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

  19. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    My concern with all the AMD processors is that they seem to have like 1 - 2 MB cache, vs. the smallest Intel cache I've seen lately is around 4 MB.

    Why is AMD making their processors so low on cache? That's bad in my opinion, because that was one of the problems with processors as long as I can remember. As far back as Intel's Celeron-crap-processor, anything with low cache seems to have performed worse than ones with a higher cache amount.

    I have trouble believing that AMD has solved the problem of needing much of an onboard L2 cache...

    I guess they do it cause it's cheaper that way?
     
  20. Rage_3K_Moiz

    Rage_3K_Moiz Sith Lord Posts: 7,286   +24

    The Phenoms were cache-starved, which resulted in miserable performance compared to the Core 2 CPUs. The Phenom IIs have a lot of cache memory in comparison. The X2 550 has 6MB of L3 cache memory; one of the principal reasons it is able to compete with the E8400 that has the same amount of L2 cache memory.
     
  21. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    Unless I'm going slightly crazy, L3 cache IS slightly slower than L2 cache, right?

    Hmmm... so many things to take into consideration. While the you can get the nice hyper transport on the AMD processors for cheap, their L2 cache is lower than the Intels in the same price range... however they don't have the nice fast hyper transport.

    I'd personally go with the Intel, but I'm still trying to figure out which is actually better...
     
  22. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

    pyromaster, i think your hung up on cache imo. there are a plethora of items in cpu architecture that can be taken into account, cache,frequency,instruction sets, etc. but doesn't it make sense (unless you do not trust every group that has conducted tests) to let the results guide you? I assume that what is really important to you is your real world computing experience and not that you have x amount of cache. here are some more results on the x2 550
    http://www.hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/742-amd-phenom-ii-x2-550-black-edition?start=15
    http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=834&p=3
    http://www.techspot.com/review/171-amd-phenomx2-athlonx2/page11.html
    http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2x2_athlon2x2/17.htm
     
  23. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    red1776, you have a point. I am somewhat hung up on it I guess, as I've had bad experiences with processors with lower cache in the past.

    I suppose that since the AMD processors have quite a bit of L3 cache it should work fine.

    Oh, and what do the numbers on the chart (the numbers on the right after the bars) mean here:?
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
     
  24. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,906   +90

    Hi Pyro,
    the passmark score is a compilation of their own making, it covers six test suites and takes into account and gives more wight to areas that they deem more important to computer performance. so its a overall rating. look at it in a relative fashion to compare the performance. I hope i didn't come across a an ******* in my last post, definitely not what i was trying to do.



    hey i found the link, you can get a more detailed explanation if your interested http://www.passmark.com/baselines/index.php
     
  25. pyromaster114

    pyromaster114 TS Maniac Topic Starter Posts: 395

    Not at all red1776, I understand the point you were trying to make, and you were right that I am being too hung up on the L2 cache as opposed to the overall performance and other aspects of the processors.

    The link you posted http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html is useful for an overall view of the processor's performance. It would appear (in that respect) that Intel is farther ahead currently.

    I think it's basically between these 3 processors right now:

    My first choice, as it's intel and all nice and new:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

    OR

    The two other choices I'm considering:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471

    OR

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680

    The Intel I have no doubt would be a great processor, and it's reviews and performance ratings are awesome.

    The AMDs are cheaper, but they seem to be a lot lower rated in terms of performance...

    I have to see what we can afford, but in the mean time, anyone got a recommendation for a motherboard to use for that Intel processor? Newegg's got a lot of mixed opinions it seems about the boards... so does everywhere else I look.
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.