Amd X2 Cpu, Need Advice On Motherboard

[DamianMavis]

Hey there, I'm considering buying the Amd Athlon x2 5200 cpu (advice on whether this is a good choice compared to the other amd x2's appreciated) and want to know what slot 940 motherboard I should get. If anyone has a clue, please share, thanks.

Damian

[monty]

Any particular reason for choosing the AMD cpu?

Although I've always been a big supporter of AMD, they are at the moment heavily outclassed by intel on pretty much every level.

Currently the best/fastest cpu range is the intel core2duo range, you're getting more bang for the buck!

[cdnvic]

I have to put in a good word for the x2 AMDs. So far with me they've been flawless and I couldn't be happier with them.

[DamianMavis]

Im not particularly loyal to one or the other, is intel around the same price range for the same speed?

In either case, can anyone suggest a motherboard to go with either cpu?

Damian

[Tywais]

Im not particularly loyal to one or the other, is intel around the same price range for the same speed?

In either case, can anyone suggest a motherboard to go with either cpu?

Damian

I myself go with the best technology at the moment. Last time was AMD dual-core, this time Intel core2duo and like both brands. I would say core2duo is the most cost effective now in terms of price/performance. AMD duo-core are actually becoming harder to find in shops now. One issue is that if you plan on using your existing memory in a core2duo mainboard it won't work (assuming you have DDR memory and the new boards use DDR2). I have a P5BE-plus so most of the ASUS P5B series boards are good choices for core2duo.

[Phil Conners]

I just happened to check prices on CPU's in Tukcom last week:

Intel Core2Duo:

1.8 4,790

2.13 7,450

2.4 9,100

AMD X2

3.6 2,800

3.8 3,400

5.2 9,200

Please let me know how Intel can be said to be better price/performance than AMD with these figures ....

PS. They had plenty Intel in stock, no AMD's ... so you might have to buy Intel if you MUST buy now ... but that's another issue ...

Edited May 27, 2007 by Phil Conners

[autonomous_unit]

It's a mistake to look at the AMD model number such as "5200" and think that means 5.2 GHz! My AMD X2 4200 has two 2.2 GHz cores and is definitely slower than my Intel Core 2 Duo machine that has two 2.4 GHz cores. In this case, both systems are using DDR2 memory.

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

As for recommending a motherboard, it really depends on your other goals and requirements. In recent years, I've given up on the idea of "ugprading" computers much. Each time I buy a new CPU, it tends to be a different socket and require a new motherboard. I usually get the ones that cost less than $100 US, with everything integrated so I just need to add RAM and disks to have a functioning system. Sometimes I can move RAM between systems and sometimes I have to upgrade it too, such as when I went from AMD socket 754 with DDR memory to socket AM2 with DDR2 memory. I am not a gamer, so I do not need a high powered graphics card...

[pgs]

It's a mistake to look at the AMD model number such as "5200" and think that means 5.2 GHz! My AMD X2 4200 has two 2.2 GHz cores and is definitely slower than my Intel Core 2 Duo machine that has two 2.4 GHz cores. In this case, both systems are using DDR2 memory.

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

As for recommending a motherboard, it really depends on your other goals and requirements. In recent years, I've given up on the idea of "ugprading" computers much. Each time I buy a new CPU, it tends to be a different socket and require a new motherboard. I usually get the ones that cost less than $100 US, with everything integrated so I just need to add RAM and disks to have a functioning system. Sometimes I can move RAM between systems and sometimes I have to upgrade it too, such as when I went from AMD socket 754 with DDR memory to socket AM2 with DDR2 memory. I am not a gamer, so I do not need a high powered graphics card...

Consider also that AMD have the Quad core either coming soon or released. They claim a true quad core as opposed to Intel's dual dual core.

What are you using the system for? Just internet & letters? Heavy games? Photo & movie editing? Which version of Windows (or Linux?)? That dictates more what is required.

[dave_boo]

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

Overall good advice, but please stop spreading the misinformation about Intel consuming less power. Without a qualifier, it's just wrong. It's been proven that overall AMD uses LESS energy. Only time it uses more is when you manage to run it at full power.

[Phil Conners]

It's a mistake to look at the AMD model number such as "5200" and think that means 5.2 GHz! My AMD X2 4200 has two 2.2 GHz cores and is definitely slower than my Intel Core 2 Duo machine that has two 2.4 GHz cores. In this case, both systems are using DDR2 memory.

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

I know AMD uses much higher 'values' for their CPU's but by your own admission, an Intel DC2 1.8 @ 4,790B and AMD X2 3.6 @ 2,800B are about same performance so that's almost 100% more "bang for the buck" buying AMD.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Phil Conners

[Guest Reimar]

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

Overall good advice, but please stop spreading the misinformation about Intel consuming less power. Without a qualifier, it's just wrong. It's been proven that overall AMD uses LESS energy. Only time it uses more is when you manage to run it at full power.

And when you use overclocking!! What the most Gamers doing!!

[dave_boo]

I have found that the AMD X2 and the Intel Core 2 Duo compare pretty well at the same clock speeds, e.g. their relative performance on my own favorite benchmarks come out pretty close to what you would expect by comparing the real clock rates. I'd say that the Intel parts perform a little better on 32 bit code than the AMD parts a the same clock speed, while the AMD parts are faster if you run in 64-bit mode. The Intel parts also consume less power than a comparable AMD part.

Overall good advice, but please stop spreading the misinformation about Intel consuming less power. Without a qualifier, it's just wrong. It's been proven that overall AMD uses LESS energy. Only time it uses more is when you manage to run it at full power.

And when you use overclocking!! What the most Gamers doing!!

Touche, but that's another caveat. By locking the frequency and or multipler, you're disabling Cool -n- quiet.

[autonomous_unit]

Yes, I think they are both fine CPUs and if I were buying a new system today, I would probably compare current prices for equal clock rates and equal motherboards and buy the cheaper whole system.

As for power consumption, my only experience is the practical system consumption I get from similarly configured systems: a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo and a 2.2 GHz Athlon X2. Both have 1024 MB RAM, onboard NVIDIA Quadro NVS graphics, onboard SATA controllers, etc. and I have logged some power consumption metrics from my UPSs. My Intel machine, despite a higher clock rate, draws about 90% the power when idle (roughly 70 vs 80 watts), and about 60% the power at full load (125 vs 200 watts). This is running Linux with the same dynamic clock scaling services enabled. I cannot be sure how accurate these figures are as absolute watt measures, but I trust that the UPS is giving reasonable relative measures... I attached each system to the same UPS, one at a time, to get comparable values.

Of course, if you really care about power, you'd probably start with an embedded/laptop style system. For comparison, my three year old laptop (with only one core and a slower 1.7 GHz clock) draws around 11 watts idle and 32 watts at full load (13% and 17% of the AMD system consumption)... this is taken from the internal ACPI battery monitoring, and so should be taken with a grain of salt when comparing to the above UPS measurements.

[DamianMavis]

I would be using the computer for just about everything.... web updating, games, ms office, video editing.... Basically I just really want to know if there are really good mainboards I should be looking at to go with whichever cpu I go with, or some I should absolutely stay away from. Does the mainboard make that much of a difference?

Oh, Phil, Tuckom in Pattaya? Sounds like they have higher prices than Pantip, I went looking around Pantip yesterday and you can compare these amd x2 prices. I did have to look at alot of shops to find these prices though.

TUCKOM

AMD X2

3.6 2,800

3.8 3,400

5.2 9,200

PANTIP

AMD X2

3.6 2,500

3.8 2,900

5.2 7,600

Damian

[Tywais]

I know AMD uses much higher 'values' for their CPU's but by your own admission, an Intel DC2 1.8 @ 4,790B and AMD X2 3.6 @ 2,800B are about same performance so that's almost 100% more "bang for the buck" buying AMD.

You can look at this table to check performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...?i=2795&p=8

Performance charts

At near price parity comparing an AMD X2 5000+ (7350 Baht) and an Intel core2duo E6420 (7090 Baht), the core2duo outperforms the AMD.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/displ...up_8.html#sect0

You are correct in the lower end models that price/performance for AMD is better but as you go up the line that switches to Intel's favor.

[pumper]

the difference in 'benchmarks' is pretty minor except specialty apps.

unless you are a professional video editor or hard core gamer the fastest is an expense waste .. as is the high end video card.

without gaming the most basic CPU & 21st century video card are over kill.

IMHO, the best measure of actual processor speed is .mp3 ripping .. results are directly related to processor speed, clock cycles..

processor speed is interesting but not as relevant today as it once was.

toms has a may 4 article comparing the latest & greatest from both, these are the current high end processors that would be way out of MY budget.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/04/whi..._cpu/page9.html

the more affordable processors were benchmarked here, last year:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg...est/page11.html

I have an MSI mother board that does dynamic over clocking .. putts along a 'factory bus speed' til the processor is 'straining' then it over clocks the bus automatically until the high load is over.

all i did was set up in the bios & forget .. bios settings determine processor load & proper OCing.

30% over clocking.

toms has some good articles on OCing the latest processors.