Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
AMD Hardware

AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh 209

MojoKid writes "AMD has again launched a bevy of new processors targeted squarely at budget-conscious consumers. Though Intel may be leading the market handily in the high-performance arena, AMD still provides a competitive offering from a price/performance perspective for the mainstream. HotHardware has a performance quick-take of the new 3.2GHz Phenom II X2 555 and 2.9GHz Athlon II X4 635. For $100 or less, bang for the buck with AMD is still relatively high."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Launches Budget Processor Refresh

Comments Filter:
  • by Cryacin ( 657549 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @08:28PM (#30912112)
    The standard whitegood market, where everything is cheap and disposable.

    The standard pleb doesn't really give a damn whether it can crunch a billion petaflops in under a nanosecond, or heat a cup of water standing on the desk by its sheer awesomeness.

    All they care about is whether they can chat to their friends, write a letter, browse the intert00bs and lose the last bit of their privacy by posting everything on facebook.
  • by Korin43 ( 881732 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:00PM (#30912364) Homepage
    I too refuse to use AMD processors anymore, but I can see why someone would want one of these. It's a processor fast enough to do anything you're likely to want to do for less than you can get any Intel processor for. I didn't look too closely at the benchmark results, but it looks like the Intel processors win every time, but not by enough to be noticeable unless you're running benchmarks or playing this year's Crysis.
  • by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:06PM (#30912414) Homepage

    Intel processors in lower-end price brackets might often score a win, but only if you consider the price of CPU alone. Intel GFX is crappy. There's Nvidia integrated GFX available...but for some reason the motherboards with them are usually quite a bit more expensive than AMD ones. Cheap AMD CPU with cheap integrated GFX offers best all-around performance - as good as any other setup for "daily" tasks, definatelly more 3D oomph than comparatively priced alternatives.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:12PM (#30912476)

    Um, of course you are entitles to your opinion. However, if you want to air your opinion in the public square and are not willing to share any details to back it up, you're no better then the crazy dude on the corner talking about the faeries that visit him at night..

  • by vxice ( 1690200 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:17PM (#30912522)
    and Ford backwards is Driver Returns On Foot. congratulations you have invented a backronym that happens to support your prejudice, don't do too big dance in celebration it is only slightly harder than inventing the acronym in the first place. FUCK Fornication Under Consent of the King
  • by TikiTDO ( 759782 ) <> on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:35PM (#30912654)

    Also, if the majority of the public has these slower CPUs, what sane game maker is going to make games that do not at least run on these machines? That sounds like a good way to lose 90% of your profit.

  • by TikiTDO ( 759782 ) <> on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:50PM (#30912738)

    Just to join in the fun; if you post your opinions on a public forum you are expected to back up your claims with examples and logic. If you cannot do so, either because of personal beliefs, or other restrictions such as NDAs, then do not post them.

    Of course, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that alone worth little on a discussion board. The merit of this system comes from the fact that others may examine your arguments, and either adjust their own beliefs, or reply to your data with their own data. Saying you believe something and not backing it up adds little to the discussion; none of us know you, so we cannot judge if your opinion really has merit. And do not be too surprised when people start trying to interpret your post and "putting words in your mouth." That just means you didn't explain things well enough, so they had to draw their own conclusions.

    While I do not believe you are trolling, I do think you completely missed the point of the comment system, at least for this topic.

  • by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @09:59PM (#30912782) Homepage

    I would also be glad to see the term "console port" go away. It's nonsensical, implies there was some amount of "porting" being done...while that's not really true nowadays, not after efforts of MS. Same dev tools, same team, same engine, similar art assets; there's no porting taking place, only two parallel and largely common efforts. Not exploiting the strenghts of both platforms (do you think console side of such game is really optimised for hardware?)

    But the term must be convenient for publishers, with players pointing fingers at those "evil consoles" instead of pointing them at...publishers.

  • by TikiTDO ( 759782 ) <> on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @10:01PM (#30912794)

    Are you honestly arguing that a poster's choice of "an" vs "some" disqualifies his entire argument? Getting into semantics much? The point still stands that he tried a very small number of CPUs, and by virtue of that small number, his opinion is not likely to be worth much.

    Perhaps if the original poster said he ran a cluster of a thousand AMD CPUs, or even just tried several different generations of AMD CPUs your point would have merit. However, a person is not a fanboi for pointing out obvious inconsistencies, regardless if he mis-remembered a not particularly significant number.

  • by Gerzel ( 240421 ) * <> on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @10:24PM (#30912896) Journal

    You don't *have* to justify your opinion, but no one *has* to listen to it or give it any relevance.

    By posting here it can be assumed that you want your opinion to be heard and considered and thus probably do care about people listening to it. Thus it would be assumed that you would justify your opinion and not respond in like a flaming mule.

  • by poopdeville ( 841677 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @10:40PM (#30913002)

    And the person who asked for more information said please! Imagine that. He was pleasant, and Blappo or whatever was rude in response.

  • by plague911 ( 1292006 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @11:19PM (#30913214)
    You are right you don't have to justify anything you say on here. But unless your a complete moron you realize that you are on a website and seemingly engaging in some kind of conversation. During conversations you explain things.
  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday January 26, 2010 @11:33PM (#30913290)
    There are less "garbage processors" from AMD. Less intentionally crippled varieties that are missing little bits of this and little bits of that compared to what Intel offers. With Intel I always have to read the fine print on every processor to see if it supports virtualization extensions, for only one example.
  • Well if all you can come up with is variations of "IT SUX!" then don't be surprised if most of us out here think you are full of shit, okay?

    After building a couple of budget AMD boxes for customers this lifelong Intel+Nvidia man couldn't be happier when he switched. For less than $750 after rebate I got a 925 Quad with 8Mb of total cache, 8Gb of DDR2 800MHz RAM, a nice 780V board that supports up to 32Gb, 1Tb of HDD, a 4650HD 1Gb, and dual DVD burners along with Windows 7 HP X64. And you know what? I could NOT be happier! This bitch chews through video transcoding like nothing, World in Conflict, Bioshock, HL2, Far Cry 2, all play nice and pretty with nary a slowdown, Windows 7 plays really nice with the new AMD quads and my boot and shutdown times are lightning quick, the quad is only 95watts and doesn't turn my apartment into a space heater, in fact it rarely gets over 105f and that is under full load for hours with stock cooling, under normal use it sits right at 83f, yeah this baby is nice and didn't break my wallet.

    So I don't know what your problem with AMD chips was/is, especially since you won't actually bother to elaborate other than "IT SUX!" but I can say my customers can't be happier with the new AMD line. The bang for the buck is incredible, with $50 duals, $70 triples, and $99 quads, the new IGPs support just about every format for hardware acceleration out of the box so video is nice and smooth no matter how big a monitor they buy, much lower heat and power usage which helps keep the electric bills down, motherboards for AMD are less expensive for really good boards, all around it is just a really good buy.

    So unless you are one of those that just has to have the largest ePeen, which in that case you shouldn't have been looking at anything less than a $1000 Core I7 chip anyway, I just don't see what the problem could be. I could add an AMD 5xxx to my PC and play any game I want with out a problem, and for a PC that cost less than $750 that is saying a lot. I could easily see myself still using this machine 5 years from now simply because it has room to grow if I need to, but frankly everything I have thrown at the 925 has just gone off without a hitch, so I really don't see the need for any bigger. And many of my customers are "Joe Average" and are quite happy with their new AMD duals and Triples, and just rave to their friends about "how fast" everything is and how nice it all runs.

    Lets be honest here-for most folks PCs passed "good enough" quite a few miles back and with $99 quads anybody can have ludicrous speed at their fingertips. Even my 67 year old dad is running AMD quad right now, and couldn't be happier. While he didn't really need all that power I figured at that price it was better to give him room to grow, and with this he can watch videos and chat and do whatever he wants and never even hit the chips hard. All that for a PC that cost less than $600 after rebate. Man you just can't beat that!

  • by jandrese ( 485 ) <> on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @12:44AM (#30913658) Homepage Journal
    This sort of thinking creates PC games that tell the player to hit the "X" button to do something, only it actually means the left mouse button because it was X on the console. It also results in FPS games with horrible console-like auto-aim on devices using a mouse and keyboard, and games that needlessly reuse keys because the original controller was too limited for all of the functions the devs wanted to do.

    Console ports require more thought than "recompile with a different target".
  • AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yoshi_mon ( 172895 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @01:02AM (#30913760)

    If nothing else AMD serves to counterpoint Intel from being a monopoly. Further they actually make some pretty good chips.

    I support AMD because they keep Intel in check. And as a bonus their chips aren't that bad.

  • You're modded up, so I'll just add a +1 comment to your observation on the case. For the last decade or so, the most expensive part of my systems has usually been the case. Of course, there were only about 3 of them in that decade. A good case is a must.
    So far, I've been a loyal Antec fan. Roomy, rolled edges, rails for everything, good ventilation...I have no complaints about their cases. They are damn well built.

  • by keeboo ( 724305 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @02:55AM (#30914288)
    Again this silly fight between AMD vs Intel.
    When people are going to learn performance _depends_ on what you're going to process?

    I remember, few years ago, having a server we had with an Athlon XP 2600 (its real clock was 2.1GHz AFAIR). A perfectly speedy machine for desktop usage, but as a server (pure CPU-load in that case, no I/O bottleneck) it was having a real hard time. We eventually replaced that machine and old 4x Xeon (P3-based, 500MHz), and things went to normal.
    I already suspected what the problem could be, so I've decided to make a test replacing - temporarily - the Xeon-based server with a Sun Ultra 30 (1xUltrasparc II @ 300MHz).
    Well, the Sparc not only survived the test, but also kicked hard the Athlon's ass. Still, as a desktop machine, the Sparc was mediocre.
    The difference was that the Sparc had 2MB L2 cache, while the Athlon had only 256kB (even with 2x bandwidth and lower-latency RAM). In _that_ case the L2 cache made all the difference. Per MHz, the Sparc also won, by large margin, the Xeon machine (1MB L2 for each processor).

    Athlon's (pre-64) performance compared to P4 (sorry, I don't have an i7 to compare against a X4) varies. For desktop usage the Athlons felt snappier in general, but with some performance "hiccups" when you started to tax the machine more. The P4s felt slower overall, but the performance seemed to be more homogeneous.
    Which one was better then? Well, that's a good question. I personally preferred the "slower but smoother" P4, but Athlons were fine and I could recommend both processors for home usage,

    You know what really, really suck?
    Those benchmarks they publish around.

    I mean "XYZ fps in Crysis"? mp3 lame encoding time? Synthetic benchmarks?
    Those say nothing to me. Run some database benchmark, or measure the time it takes to compile the Linux kernel using all cores at once... Or move GBs of data in the memory N times etc. Then it might be interesting.
  • by nyctopterus ( 717502 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @05:20AM (#30914794) Homepage

    Wow, tell us more about the stupid sheeple, oh insightful one!

  • by GreatBunzinni ( 642500 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @07:24AM (#30915310)

    I can't say anything about your comments on the use patterns of the "standard pleb" but I do quite a lot of structural engineering work, which involves extensively using commercial structural analysis software on a daily basis and even developing my own programs, and I do all that on a "cheap and disposable" Athlon X2 4000+ system which cost me around 250 euros three years ago.

    The thing is, you may have far more powerful CPUs in the market but the truth is that, although they can cost huge amounts of money, the only benefit that they bring you is that instead of you having to wait 6 minutes for your stuff to finish instead it only takes about 4, and that is a sporadic workload. More to the point, today's "cheap and disposable" processors are pretty much on par with your top of the line gear from, say, 6 years ago. And you know what? Those processors from 6 years ago were already far more powerful than whatever you needed.

    And besides that, nowadays if someone needs more power under their computing hood then that person won't spend thousands of dollars on an entire system. It will spend at most hundreds of euros on a brand new graphics card, which not only will fully take care of your recreation needs but also computation needs.

  • by ThePhilips ( 752041 ) on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @11:09AM (#30917498) Homepage Journal

    but AMD64 is a very minor extension to x86 and leverages SSE.

    Load of [].

    Intel had a 64-bit extension in the 90s ...

    Do you mean PAE []? Then it's totally different story and btw it is still supported and used when 32 OS has to access more than 4GB RAM (in a limited way).

    ... poor feedback from server venders that disliked x86 in the enterprise ...

    Interesting. To what then you would attribute Linux uprising then? It was precisely because enterprises got tired of *nix vendor lock-in into expensive hardware - which already in 90s was underperforming compared to x86. Linux allowed to move many legacy *nix applications to cheap OTS hardware and that actually how it (Linux) made the first inroads in enterprise.

    I wouldn't give AMD much engineering credit, but rather blame the piss poor management at Intel.

    If anything, credit should go to AMD for (1st) creating AMD64 and (2nd) properly communicating with vendors and users what/how they going to do in the new architecture.

    Without AMD taking the initiative back then, many who need more than 4GB RAM would have to buy the $8K+ Itanic boxes now.

Loose bits sink chips.