Ah, yeah, I was wrong about the monitor resolution.
"A rather insane amount of airflow goes straight through them and straight out the top of the case. They also have a slot between them so they aren't sitting right on top of one another. Right now the room temp is 25 degrees celsius and after 15 minutes of 100% load on both cards the top card is bouncing between 82/83 and the lower is 79/80, that's with a 1.025 voltage across the core (Max temp is 105 degrees if memory serves me right)."
At best, you manage to make it so that they overclock as well as if you only had one. And one GTX 460 at 875 MHz isn't that likely to be stable long-term on air cooling without some sort of premium cooler that EVGA doesn't offer. Or even with some sort of premium cooler. Now, maybe you got really lucky with the cards you got, or maybe you bumped the voltage and will likely fry it.
The 105 degree temperature is not "the card can safely run at 105 C forever". Rather, it's "if the card touches 105 C, it will think something has gone horribly awry and clock down severely to avoid imminent death". TSMC's 40 nm process node doesn't handle high temperatures as well as their 55 nm process node did, which is why everyone suddenly decided that they had to put better coolers on the card than they had in previous generations.
"And I did mean 1950 for the memory sorry,"
There is absolutely no way that you're getting memory to 1950 MHz. The stock clock speed is only 900 MHz, so you'd be more than doubling that. It's likely that the memory chips are binned for 1 GHz. At best, EVGA might have paid extra to get memory binned for 1.25 GHz. But pushing that to 1.95 GHz even under extreme cooling is unlikely. And even if the memory chips could handle it, there is no way that Nvidia's disastrously bad GDDR5 memory controller could do so. AMD has a far better GDDR5 memory controller than Nvidia and says that the limitation of how fast the card can transfer data between the GPU chip and the memory chips is far less than that.
You're probably (likely unknowingly) playing Nvidia's game of multiplying the memory clock speeds by 2 for marketing reasons, even though there is no plausible technical reason for it. Memory manufacturers have long done that with the various double data rate memory types, as sending two bits per clock cycle at 800 MHz is equivalent to one bit per cycle at 1600 MHz, so they'll call it 1600 MHz. But GDDR5 isn't double data rate memory, in spite of the name. It's quad data rate. If you're going to multiply the real clock speed by something to get an number equivalent to sending one bit per cycle, you multiply by four, not two.
As I said, Nvidia multiplied by two for marketing reasons, not technical ones. AMD had cards with memory at 1.2 GHz on the market. The best that Nvidia could do was around 900 MHz for the top bin, and slower for lower bins, because their GDDR5 memory controller was such a failure. Rather than marketing memory clock speeds for their high end cards that are less than the 1 GHz that AMD uses on low end cards (because that's the cheapest bin of GDDR5 memory chips, so they don't save any money by clocking it lower), Nvidia decided to multiply by two to make it look like they had the higher clock speeds. I guess they figured that multiplying by four would make it too obvious that they were cheating on their claimed specs.
1800 is stock, 1900 on this particular model I have. I increased it up to 1950. I thought I reffered to it as shader on my post but I didn't. I just stated 875/1950 which would be the normal way for stating an OC on the 460 since aside from Vcore is the only things you can change, at least in Afterburner.
1800 is stock, 1900 on this particular model I have. I increased it up to 1950. I thought I reffered to it as shader on my post but I didn't. I just stated 875/1950 which would be the normal way for stating an OC on the 460 since aside from Vcore is the only things you can change, at least in Afterburner.
No, no, no. It's not double data rate memory. GDDR5 is quad data rate. Multiplying the real clock speed by two makes no technical sense whatsoever.
There isn't commercially available GDDR5 memory binned high enough for the stock speed to be 1.8 GHz. It simply doesn't exist. Or rather, if it does, then it's very recent. Even to get the 1.5 GHz GDDR5 memory that a Radeon HD 6970 uses, they have to overvolt it.
You're just passing on Nvidia's marketing nonsense and don't know any better. The real memory clock speed for a GTX 460 at stock settings is 900 MHz.
Intel are expensive cause the processor can do a lot then Amd can do such are gaming, extreme programming and more.
Anything that one processor can do, the other processor can do, too. That's a necessary consequence of x86 compliance. At worst, one processor takes longer than another.
Well I'm planning on building a nice gaming computer. So would it be smart to go with an i7? Would I really be gaining enough speed to make it worth the extra money? The price difference is huge.
The i7s are the top of the line right now. If you want top of the line and performance, then i7 is the way to go. They are so much better than anything AMD can currently offer. They aren't cheap however.
It depends on the kind of game the PC builder wants to play. Not all games use the CPU intensive enough to mandate an i7. For the same amount of money, a better GPU, more RAM and better cooling, maybe raid stack of multiple HDD would bring in more noticeable gains than an upgrade to i7. i7 means more expensive CPU and most likely a more expensive board.
Look at it this way, it is not the raw maximum power of the CPU that matters, it is the average rate of utilization of CPU that matters. Buying an i7 and finding that 99% of the times, the CPU is underutilized/idle would mean the i7 is not contributing much.
They're cheaper because they're not as good. That could change within a few weeks, with the launch of Zambezi. The top bin there should go for over $300.
Phenom II X4 or X2 processors are basically bins of something that launched in early 2009. Athlon II processors are cut down Phenom II processors. A Phenom II X6 is a little newer, but basically the Phenom II X4 with six cores instead of four, which doesn't help with programs that don't scale well to more than four cores. Llano (A-series) for desktops is basically failed laptop processors that can't go in a laptop because they take too much power.
i have amd computer and so does my brother good builds i must say we both play all the games out there np with out intel I7 :P.
i been using amd np and i still play all the good games fine no lag. so amd is good just need to buy the right stuff intel is expensive i bet amd can do the same job as I7 over clocked cpu all depends . I never used intel i like amd i got good setup and i can play just about any game out there and i am going cross fire mode so yep all set up :P. Amd is good you just saying it sucks because you think buying cheap, you get wack stuff not true buying cheap you get the same benefits just cheaper and more affordable. plus you dont have to break a leg and still get good computer. so i dont go around completeing with cpus they all do the same job no big deal.
AMD believe in Price/Performace whilst Intel charge as much as they can because they can. Intel believe in quality and the human mind interprates costly=good. IMO AMD are better for budget builds but if you want a powerhouse I suggest you go with Intel.
P.S. IF YOU WANT A GAMING COMPUTER THEN GO WITH "AMD" IF YOU WANT PERFORMANCE NOT ONLY IN GAMING BUT ALSO PROGRAMMING GO WITH "INTEL"
You don't want to just get something that is barely good enough today, and then have to replace it in six months. You want something that will be good enough for quite some time to come. Even if an Phenom II X4 955 is good enough for all games on the market today, the time when it isn't will probably come substantially sooner than for a Core i5 2500K.
That's not to say that a Phenom II X4 955 will need to be replaced immediately. You'll probably get a few years out of it. It's a perfectly viable option on an appropriate budget. My point is that you'll probably get more good years out of a Core i5 2500K.
There is also a difference in standards of how good is good enough. Maybe four years from now, you'll pick up a game where a Phenom II X4 955 can deliver 30 frames per second, and a Core i5 2500K can do 40 frames per second. Is that good enough? You could say yes to the latter processor and no to the former. Or you could say yes to both, or no to both. But surely the Core i5 does better there.
You don't want to just get something that is barely good enough today, and then have to replace it in six months. You want something that will be good enough for quite some time to come. Even if an Phenom II X4 955 is good enough for all games on the market today, the time when it isn't will probably come substantially sooner than for a Core i5 2500K.
That's not to say that a Phenom II X4 955 will need to be replaced immediately. You'll probably get a few years out of it. It's a perfectly viable option on an appropriate budget. My point is that you'll probably get more good years out of a Core i5 2500K.
There is also a difference in standards of how good is good enough. Maybe four years from now, you'll pick up a game where a Phenom II X4 955 can deliver 30 frames per second, and a Core i5 2500K can do 40 frames per second. Is that good enough? You could say yes to the latter processor and no to the former. Or you could say yes to both, or no to both. But surely the Core i5 does better there.
that is true but amd is coming out with new proccers soon all the time and if you upgrade right you dont need ot worry about 5 6 months down the drain beleave me .i been building cpus for along time i never have to replace or build again for awhile because i build right and i got amd. plus amd is just came out with FM1 and they releaseing better proccers. but that dont mean my computer cant play games it can still i have the power in my computer and my build if you build right then you dont need to worry :P. 6870 cross fire mode i can handle any game two video cards in on and nice 965 proccer. it handles fine and my ram is only 40 bucks but its good so yeah cheap is good i got awsome computer.
If AMD were as far ahead of Intel in desktop processors as Intel is ahead of AMD today, AMD would have a top bin for $1000, too.
nice thats for sever computers O_O dude its not all about price its about how you build your rig................for desent price i bet with amd you can build awsome mechine that plays all the good stuff and bag of chips.... just saying because thats how i build my stuff to last. then i replace later if i have to.
I'm planning on building a new computer and was looking around on Newegg for some CPUs. My buddy told me how much cheaper AMD was compared to Intel. I head over to Newegg and he was right. The most expensive AMD CPU I could find was around $190. What's the deal with this? How come Intel is so much more expensive?
I have worked in IT for 12 years, in that time I have only ever seen 1 Intel CPU actually die between work, family & friends and that was a cheaper Celeron. On the other hand I have known of 4 AMD CPU's that died in the same ammount of time amongst the same group of people and ontop of that I still hear stories of AMD chips cooking now and then.
AMD have always been known to run hot so in any country where you get hot summers I would not advise purchasing one.
People are saying you pay Intel more for the name but IMHO you pay Intel more for the reliability.
Anyone remember Cyrix CPU's ? cheap and very nasty.....
I'm planning on building a new computer and was looking around on Newegg for some CPUs. My buddy told me how much cheaper AMD was compared to Intel. I head over to Newegg and he was right. The most expensive AMD CPU I could find was around $190. What's the deal with this? How come Intel is so much more expensive?
I have worked in IT for 12 years, in that time I have only ever seen 1 Intel CPU actually die between work, family & friends and that was a cheaper Celeron. On the other hand I have known of 4 AMD CPU's that died in the same ammount of time amongst the same group of people and ontop of that I still hear stories of AMD chips cooking now and then.
AMD have always been known to run hot so in any country where you get hot summers I would not advise purchasing one.
People are saying you pay Intel more for the name but IMHO you pay Intel more for the reliability.
Anyone remember Cyrix CPU's ? cheap and very nasty.....
i got amd and it runs fine and can you rub my crystal ball and tell me why that never happend to me ? 965 black edition...
1800 is stock, 1900 on this particular model I have. I increased it up to 1950. I thought I reffered to it as shader on my post but I didn't. I just stated 875/1950 which would be the normal way for stating an OC on the 460 since aside from Vcore is the only things you can change, at least in Afterburner.
No, no, no. It's not double data rate memory. GDDR5 is quad data rate. Multiplying the real clock speed by two makes no technical sense whatsoever.
There isn't commercially available GDDR5 memory binned high enough for the stock speed to be 1.8 GHz. It simply doesn't exist. Or rather, if it does, then it's very recent. Even to get the 1.5 GHz GDDR5 memory that a Radeon HD 6970 uses, they have to overvolt it.
You're just passing on Nvidia's marketing nonsense and don't know any better. The real memory clock speed for a GTX 460 at stock settings is 900 MHz.
Yes, I know that 1800 isn't it's actual clock rate but absolutely every single thing talking about the memory speed refers to it as double It's real clock. It's just being awkward and will lead to more confusion than anything else when you insist on using the actual speed, unless you want to write some sort of qualifier in brackets each and every single time. Especially when you are referring to overclocks when you're comparing more than stating a particular speed.
Like I said, I stated the overclock the standard way. There's no problem in that at all.
I'm planning on building a new computer and was looking around on Newegg for some CPUs. My buddy told me how much cheaper AMD was compared to Intel. I head over to Newegg and he was right. The most expensive AMD CPU I could find was around $190. What's the deal with this? How come Intel is so much more expensive?
I have worked in IT for 12 years, in that time I have only ever seen 1 Intel CPU actually die between work, family & friends and that was a cheaper Celeron. On the other hand I have known of 4 AMD CPU's that died in the same ammount of time amongst the same group of people and ontop of that I still hear stories of AMD chips cooking now and then.
AMD have always been known to run hot so in any country where you get hot summers I would not advise purchasing one.
People are saying you pay Intel more for the name but IMHO you pay Intel more for the reliability.
Anyone remember Cyrix CPU's ? cheap and very nasty.....
i got amd and it runs fine and can you rub my crystal ball and tell me why that never happend to me ? 965 black edition...
I think you are missing the point. I see a lot of hardware, we are talking 1 failed intel out of thousands and 4 failed AMD's out of several hundred I have come accross. You are talking about 1 CPU you own.
My point was that in my experience AMD do have a higher fail rate than Intel.
I can make the same observation about different brands of RAM & Video cards too but this discussion is about processors.
I think you are missing the point. I see a lot of hardware, we are talking 1 failed intel out of thousands and 4 failed AMD's out of several hundred I have come accross. You are talking about 1 CPU you own.
My point was they do have a higher fail rate than Intel.
I would take a different point from the same data: processors are very resilient if you don't overclock them too far. Hard drives don't have a 1% lifetime failure rate the way that AMD processors do in your experience.
Its true at the moment the Intel I series processors are awesome.. but the main reason why AMD is so cheap is because they came to a market ages ago now where Intel was already the biggest player so AMD needed to try and get a foot in a compete.. So they have usually been cheaper than intel equivalents.. Also through out the years AMD has had some awesome chips that ahve pounded Intel and of course the same oes for intel.. but Intel still remain a much bigger company due to a lot of OEM builders using intel and only intel.
AS for people saying AMD processors fail a lot, that is not the case at all well at least through the almost 20 years I have been messing around with PCs. I suppose during that time I have owned more AMD chips but have had more intel chips fail on me so go figure... I have been an I.T. tech for well over 10 years and have seen the same thing, in my jobs i have had I cant actualyl remember coming accross an AMD chip that has failed.
At the moment the intel i5 and i7 processors are kings, thats not to say the AMD 6 core processors are not very good, I currently run an AMD 1055t @3.5, 4gb ram, 2 x ATI 6850s not a game out there that taxes my system really... well other than darkfall but thats just bad coding..
So if money is an issue go AMD if its not at the moment I would say intel is the way to go.. But AMD are going to release their new processor range pretty soon so we will ahve to see how that competes with the Intel I series processors.
I think you are missing the point. I see a lot of hardware, we are talking 1 failed intel out of thousands and 4 failed AMD's out of several hundred I have come accross. You are talking about 1 CPU you own.
My point was they do have a higher fail rate than Intel.
I would take a different point from the same data: processors are very resilient if you don't overclock them too far. Hard drives don't have a 1% lifetime failure rate the way that AMD processors do in your experience.
Umm yeah dont get me started on Hard Drives..... I just rebuilt a huge storage RAID over the weekend after a critical failure WTF ? whats the good of redundancy when it fails too ?
Also dunno where you get the 1% thing from ?
Its really each to their own, when someone asks me what CPU to buy I tell them my experience & let them make up their own mind.
I'm planning on building a new computer and was looking around on Newegg for some CPUs. My buddy told me how much cheaper AMD was compared to Intel. I head over to Newegg and he was right. The most expensive AMD CPU I could find was around $190. What's the deal with this? How come Intel is so much more expensive?
I have worked in IT for 12 years, in that time I have only ever seen 1 Intel CPU actually die between work, family & friends and that was a cheaper Celeron. On the other hand I have known of 4 AMD CPU's that died in the same ammount of time amongst the same group of people and ontop of that I still hear stories of AMD chips cooking now and then.
AMD have always been known to run hot so in any country where you get hot summers I would not advise purchasing one.
People are saying you pay Intel more for the name but IMHO you pay Intel more for the reliability.
Anyone remember Cyrix CPU's ? cheap and very nasty.....
CPUs these days seldom die, if you keep them cool enough and clean. They usually live long enough for them to die of techical obsolesence.
I do not pretend to say they never fail. I would say, the odds are so small, your sample of dead CPUs are likely to be unrepresentative estimate. Purely from the point of statistical estimation. Rare events (low probability in a binomial distribution, to be exact) suffers from poor precision of estimates from a small sample.
I have tons of old CPUs somewhere in the backyard of my old home. Hack I am pretty sure my Apple II was fully functional when I wrap it up.
On the topic, I think, in terms of cost-efficiency, for game applications, AMD will do. The extra money can be better spent on GPUs, SSD, extra hard disk for raid 0, or extra RAM. These will help game performance better than swapping from AMD to Intel.
Four out of several hundred is somewhere in the ballpark of 1%. Now, maybe it's 0.5% or 1.2%. But my point is, it's much lower than the failure rates of a lot of other computer components.
-----
FirePro is AMD's professional graphics line. It's not really meant for servers. The FirePro V9800 is AMD's top of the line, and the only option if you want to run six monitors off of a single, high performance professional graphics card. But my point is, if AMD has something that they can charge a fortune for and get people to pay it, they'll do it.
Four out of several hundred is somewhere in the ballpark of 1%. Now, maybe it's 0.5% or 1.2%. But my point is, it's much lower than the failure rates of a lot of other computer components.
-----
FirePro is AMD's professional graphics line. It's not really meant for servers. The FirePro V9800 is AMD's top of the line, and the only option if you want to run six monitors off of a single, high performance professional graphics card. But my point is, if AMD has something that they can charge a fortune for and get people to pay it, they'll do it.
Well they are just trynig to compete in the market.
So a lot more expensive.. ok i think i selected the top of the range business cards there not 100% sure as I dont keep up with the business class graphics cards.
ATI/AMD always tend to be a bit cheaper as thats how they manage to keep their market share, even if its only a tiny bit cheaper.. its very rare for them to have somthing that is a lot more expensive than their main rivals but it has happened in the past..
Amd are cheaper then intel cause it build suitable for gaming only and little program.
Intel are expensive cause the processor can do a lot then Amd can do such are gaming, extreme programming and more.
WRONG...
I use my PC for programs like AutoCAD, Pro-E, Catia, SolidWorks. I run fluid and thermo simulations as well, and gaming is really just a minor job my pc has to do since I don't play that much... And guess what, I'm using AMD phenom II x6 processor and it's a beast. Extreme programming isn't the heavyest thing you can do on your PC.
The fact that Intel is more advertised than AMD doesn't mean it's always better. Once you start running real heavy programms on PC besides games you'll see the differences between AMD and Intel, and lemme tell you it's not that big difference at all... Specially with new AMD Zambezi coming out soon, which is supposed to be faster and better than any other intel proc.
It's like asking a random guy without any mechanical engineering knowledge which car is better, Mercedes or BMW ?
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
i've used AMD and had no problems just take care of your hardware clean it etc and youll be fine alot of people say AMD sucks but there just abusing it prob
Comments
Ah, yeah, I was wrong about the monitor resolution.
"A rather insane amount of airflow goes straight through them and straight out the top of the case. They also have a slot between them so they aren't sitting right on top of one another. Right now the room temp is 25 degrees celsius and after 15 minutes of 100% load on both cards the top card is bouncing between 82/83 and the lower is 79/80, that's with a 1.025 voltage across the core (Max temp is 105 degrees if memory serves me right)."
At best, you manage to make it so that they overclock as well as if you only had one. And one GTX 460 at 875 MHz isn't that likely to be stable long-term on air cooling without some sort of premium cooler that EVGA doesn't offer. Or even with some sort of premium cooler. Now, maybe you got really lucky with the cards you got, or maybe you bumped the voltage and will likely fry it.
The 105 degree temperature is not "the card can safely run at 105 C forever". Rather, it's "if the card touches 105 C, it will think something has gone horribly awry and clock down severely to avoid imminent death". TSMC's 40 nm process node doesn't handle high temperatures as well as their 55 nm process node did, which is why everyone suddenly decided that they had to put better coolers on the card than they had in previous generations.
"And I did mean 1950 for the memory sorry,"
There is absolutely no way that you're getting memory to 1950 MHz. The stock clock speed is only 900 MHz, so you'd be more than doubling that. It's likely that the memory chips are binned for 1 GHz. At best, EVGA might have paid extra to get memory binned for 1.25 GHz. But pushing that to 1.95 GHz even under extreme cooling is unlikely. And even if the memory chips could handle it, there is no way that Nvidia's disastrously bad GDDR5 memory controller could do so. AMD has a far better GDDR5 memory controller than Nvidia and says that the limitation of how fast the card can transfer data between the GPU chip and the memory chips is far less than that.
You're probably (likely unknowingly) playing Nvidia's game of multiplying the memory clock speeds by 2 for marketing reasons, even though there is no plausible technical reason for it. Memory manufacturers have long done that with the various double data rate memory types, as sending two bits per clock cycle at 800 MHz is equivalent to one bit per cycle at 1600 MHz, so they'll call it 1600 MHz. But GDDR5 isn't double data rate memory, in spite of the name. It's quad data rate. If you're going to multiply the real clock speed by something to get an number equivalent to sending one bit per cycle, you multiply by four, not two.
As I said, Nvidia multiplied by two for marketing reasons, not technical ones. AMD had cards with memory at 1.2 GHz on the market. The best that Nvidia could do was around 900 MHz for the top bin, and slower for lower bins, because their GDDR5 memory controller was such a failure. Rather than marketing memory clock speeds for their high end cards that are less than the 1 GHz that AMD uses on low end cards (because that's the cheapest bin of GDDR5 memory chips, so they don't save any money by clocking it lower), Nvidia decided to multiply by two to make it look like they had the higher clock speeds. I guess they figured that multiplying by four would make it too obvious that they were cheating on their claimed specs.
His number for memory speed on the 460 will be correct, mine is sitting at 1972mhz on an MSI Cyclone 460 just now. Stock speed is 1800 mhz for it or 3600 if you go by the double data rate figure. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-092-MS&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1830
Yup, this.
1800 is stock, 1900 on this particular model I have. I increased it up to 1950. I thought I reffered to it as shader on my post but I didn't. I just stated 875/1950 which would be the normal way for stating an OC on the 460 since aside from Vcore is the only things you can change, at least in Afterburner.
Well... What i learn and have knowledge.
Amd are cheaper then intel cause it build suitable for gaming only and little program.
Intel are expensive cause the processor can do a lot then Amd can do such are gaming, extreme programming and more.
Both are good and best depend all your budget and use....
No, no, no. It's not double data rate memory. GDDR5 is quad data rate. Multiplying the real clock speed by two makes no technical sense whatsoever.
There isn't commercially available GDDR5 memory binned high enough for the stock speed to be 1.8 GHz. It simply doesn't exist. Or rather, if it does, then it's very recent. Even to get the 1.5 GHz GDDR5 memory that a Radeon HD 6970 uses, they have to overvolt it.
You're just passing on Nvidia's marketing nonsense and don't know any better. The real memory clock speed for a GTX 460 at stock settings is 900 MHz.
Anything that one processor can do, the other processor can do, too. That's a necessary consequence of x86 compliance. At worst, one processor takes longer than another.
It depends on the kind of game the PC builder wants to play. Not all games use the CPU intensive enough to mandate an i7. For the same amount of money, a better GPU, more RAM and better cooling, maybe raid stack of multiple HDD would bring in more noticeable gains than an upgrade to i7. i7 means more expensive CPU and most likely a more expensive board.
Look at it this way, it is not the raw maximum power of the CPU that matters, it is the average rate of utilization of CPU that matters. Buying an i7 and finding that 99% of the times, the CPU is underutilized/idle would mean the i7 is not contributing much.
i have amd computer and so does my brother good builds i must say we both play all the games out there np with out intel I7 :P.
i been using amd np and i still play all the good games fine no lag. so amd is good just need to buy the right stuff intel is expensive i bet amd can do the same job as I7 over clocked cpu all depends . I never used intel i like amd i got good setup and i can play just about any game out there and i am going cross fire mode so yep all set up :P. Amd is good you just saying it sucks because you think buying cheap, you get wack stuff not true buying cheap you get the same benefits just cheaper and more affordable. plus you dont have to break a leg and still get good computer. so i dont go around completeing with cpus they all do the same job no big deal.
.....
AMD believe in Price/Performace whilst Intel charge as much as they can because they can. Intel believe in quality and the human mind interprates costly=good. IMO AMD are better for budget builds but if you want a powerhouse I suggest you go with Intel.
P.S. IF YOU WANT A GAMING COMPUTER THEN GO WITH "AMD" IF YOU WANT PERFORMANCE NOT ONLY IN GAMING BUT ALSO PROGRAMMING GO WITH "INTEL"
You don't want to just get something that is barely good enough today, and then have to replace it in six months. You want something that will be good enough for quite some time to come. Even if an Phenom II X4 955 is good enough for all games on the market today, the time when it isn't will probably come substantially sooner than for a Core i5 2500K.
That's not to say that a Phenom II X4 955 will need to be replaced immediately. You'll probably get a few years out of it. It's a perfectly viable option on an appropriate budget. My point is that you'll probably get more good years out of a Core i5 2500K.
There is also a difference in standards of how good is good enough. Maybe four years from now, you'll pick up a game where a Phenom II X4 955 can deliver 30 frames per second, and a Core i5 2500K can do 40 frames per second. Is that good enough? You could say yes to the latter processor and no to the former. Or you could say yes to both, or no to both. But surely the Core i5 does better there.
that is true but amd is coming out with new proccers soon all the time and if you upgrade right you dont need ot worry about 5 6 months down the drain beleave me .i been building cpus for along time i never have to replace or build again for awhile because i build right and i got amd. plus amd is just came out with FM1 and they releaseing better proccers. but that dont mean my computer cant play games it can still i have the power in my computer and my build if you build right then you dont need to worry :P. 6870 cross fire mode i can handle any game two video cards in on and nice 965 proccer. it handles fine and my ram is only 40 bucks but its good so yeah cheap is good i got awsome computer.
.....
You know who else charges as much as they can, because they can? AMD.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105272
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195102
Actually, basically all companies do that.
If AMD were as far ahead of Intel in desktop processors as Intel is ahead of AMD today, AMD would have a top bin for $1000, too.
nice thats for sever computers O_O dude its not all about price its about how you build your rig................for desent price i bet with amd you can build awsome mechine that plays all the good stuff and bag of chips.... just saying because thats how i build my stuff to last. then i replace later if i have to.
.....
I have worked in IT for 12 years, in that time I have only ever seen 1 Intel CPU actually die between work, family & friends and that was a cheaper Celeron. On the other hand I have known of 4 AMD CPU's that died in the same ammount of time amongst the same group of people and ontop of that I still hear stories of AMD chips cooking now and then.
AMD have always been known to run hot so in any country where you get hot summers I would not advise purchasing one.
People are saying you pay Intel more for the name but IMHO you pay Intel more for the reliability.
Anyone remember Cyrix CPU's ? cheap and very nasty.....
i got amd and it runs fine and can you rub my crystal ball and tell me why that never happend to me ? 965 black edition...
.....
Yes, I know that 1800 isn't it's actual clock rate but absolutely every single thing talking about the memory speed refers to it as double It's real clock. It's just being awkward and will lead to more confusion than anything else when you insist on using the actual speed, unless you want to write some sort of qualifier in brackets each and every single time. Especially when you are referring to overclocks when you're comparing more than stating a particular speed.
Like I said, I stated the overclock the standard way. There's no problem in that at all.
I think you are missing the point. I see a lot of hardware, we are talking 1 failed intel out of thousands and 4 failed AMD's out of several hundred I have come accross. You are talking about 1 CPU you own.
My point was that in my experience AMD do have a higher fail rate than Intel.
I can make the same observation about different brands of RAM & Video cards too but this discussion is about processors.
I would take a different point from the same data: processors are very resilient if you don't overclock them too far. Hard drives don't have a 1% lifetime failure rate the way that AMD processors do in your experience.
Its true at the moment the Intel I series processors are awesome.. but the main reason why AMD is so cheap is because they came to a market ages ago now where Intel was already the biggest player so AMD needed to try and get a foot in a compete.. So they have usually been cheaper than intel equivalents.. Also through out the years AMD has had some awesome chips that ahve pounded Intel and of course the same oes for intel.. but Intel still remain a much bigger company due to a lot of OEM builders using intel and only intel.
AS for people saying AMD processors fail a lot, that is not the case at all well at least through the almost 20 years I have been messing around with PCs. I suppose during that time I have owned more AMD chips but have had more intel chips fail on me so go figure... I have been an I.T. tech for well over 10 years and have seen the same thing, in my jobs i have had I cant actualyl remember coming accross an AMD chip that has failed.
At the moment the intel i5 and i7 processors are kings, thats not to say the AMD 6 core processors are not very good, I currently run an AMD 1055t @3.5, 4gb ram, 2 x ATI 6850s not a game out there that taxes my system really... well other than darkfall but thats just bad coding..
So if money is an issue go AMD if its not at the moment I would say intel is the way to go.. But AMD are going to release their new processor range pretty soon so we will ahve to see how that competes with the Intel I series processors.
Umm yeah dont get me started on Hard Drives..... I just rebuilt a huge storage RAID over the weekend after a critical failure WTF ? whats the good of redundancy when it fails too ?
Also dunno where you get the 1% thing from ?
Its really each to their own, when someone asks me what CPU to buy I tell them my experience & let them make up their own mind.
CPUs these days seldom die, if you keep them cool enough and clean. They usually live long enough for them to die of techical obsolesence.
I do not pretend to say they never fail. I would say, the odds are so small, your sample of dead CPUs are likely to be unrepresentative estimate. Purely from the point of statistical estimation. Rare events (low probability in a binomial distribution, to be exact) suffers from poor precision of estimates from a small sample.
I have tons of old CPUs somewhere in the backyard of my old home. Hack I am pretty sure my Apple II was fully functional when I wrap it up.
On the topic, I think, in terms of cost-efficiency, for game applications, AMD will do. The extra money can be better spent on GPUs, SSD, extra hard disk for raid 0, or extra RAM. These will help game performance better than swapping from AMD to Intel.
Four out of several hundred is somewhere in the ballpark of 1%. Now, maybe it's 0.5% or 1.2%. But my point is, it's much lower than the failure rates of a lot of other computer components.
-----
FirePro is AMD's professional graphics line. It's not really meant for servers. The FirePro V9800 is AMD's top of the line, and the only option if you want to run six monitors off of a single, high performance professional graphics card. But my point is, if AMD has something that they can charge a fortune for and get people to pay it, they'll do it.
Well they are just trynig to compete in the market.
AMDs v9800 http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/productpresentation/index.php?alert=categoryresults&product_id=ATOA07PPY is £2348 here in the UK
but Nvidias Quadro 6000 http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/productinfo/graphics-cards/PNYOG6000 is £3589
So a lot more expensive.. ok i think i selected the top of the range business cards there not 100% sure as I dont keep up with the business class graphics cards.
ATI/AMD always tend to be a bit cheaper as thats how they manage to keep their market share, even if its only a tiny bit cheaper.. its very rare for them to have somthing that is a lot more expensive than their main rivals but it has happened in the past..
WRONG...
I use my PC for programs like AutoCAD, Pro-E, Catia, SolidWorks. I run fluid and thermo simulations as well, and gaming is really just a minor job my pc has to do since I don't play that much... And guess what, I'm using AMD phenom II x6 processor and it's a beast. Extreme programming isn't the heavyest thing you can do on your PC.
The fact that Intel is more advertised than AMD doesn't mean it's always better. Once you start running real heavy programms on PC besides games you'll see the differences between AMD and Intel, and lemme tell you it's not that big difference at all... Specially with new AMD Zambezi coming out soon, which is supposed to be faster and better than any other intel proc.
It's like asking a random guy without any mechanical engineering knowledge which car is better, Mercedes or BMW ?
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
i've used AMD and had no problems just take care of your hardware clean it etc and youll be fine alot of people say AMD sucks but there just abusing it prob
EVGA FTW-3 MOBO X58
EVGA GTX 580
G.SKILL RIPJAW 12GB
INTEL I7 950
CORSAIR H70 CPU COOLER
CORSAIR 1200W 80+GOLD