Here comes Propus

[alyarb]

what kind of machine were you using before you bought the atom?

 

[21stHermit]

Dell E1505 Core Duo laptop connected to a 22" LCD. I'm off-the-grid with a 3KWH daily power budget, so I have to compromise.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
Dell E1505 Core Duo laptop connected to a 22" LCD. I'm off-the-grid with a 3KWH daily power budget, so I have to compromise.

Are there women out in your neck of the woods?

 

[drizek]

Originally posted by: alyarb
the low power of the atom is hardly worth the increased cost and compromised performance except in only the most niche cases. you cannot play HD video on an atom, let alone high-def flash video, nor can you have background apps running during the playback of SD video. that should be a deal breaker for a lot of otherwise simple multimedia systems.

i think you might be trying to stretch the barebones comparison too far, as the systems are totally different and really can't be compared based on cost. also, that 740G motherboard probably won't support AM3 chips without a BIOS update, and I doubt ECS has gone through that trouble. There is a $55 foxconn that will do it, though. one things is for sure, and i think this is what you were getting at, is that saving ~$60 on an Atom+945 system is not worth it except for only the most basic computing tasks like word processing, file/print serving small workgroups, and web browsing/comms/, and you had better be certain that the PC's "mission" has no chance of changing over the course of it's life, because if there's one thing an Atom cannot do, it would be upgrade.

Surprisingly enough, I just went to their site and the board does support AM3 CPUs, with a BIOS update from 3 weeks ago.

Even if you add some money for a case and power supply, you can get a quad core system for comfortably under $200. I personally wouldn't, but if you are really budget constrained then the option is there.

The nice thing about the A2X4 is that it is also going to be quite comfortable in a mainstream system with a good board, nice case and power supply, high end video card, etc. It won't really hold you back, and if you are using apps that require lots of cache or are single threaded, get a Phenom II X2/X3 for about the same price.

@21st Hermit, what kind of maps do you make? I would have thought that you would want as many cores as possible so you can run analysis.


So how long until we see a $99 Athlon II X8?

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Still, I think that the Q8200 at Microcenter for $99.99 was a far better deal. Overclock that sucker to 3.125Ghz @ 450FSB, and it was a screamer, with far better performance than an Athlon II X4, at nearly any clock speed.

No doubt except most of us don't live any where near a Microcenter or Fry's. For the majority of us the X4 620 is the better bargain if you are in the market for a budget quad.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: nyker96
to be honest at $99 a pop, there's absolutely no reason why any new OEM systems shouldn't all be quad core based. I think AMD had forced the market move into quad cores with this cpu.

Wasn't the Phenom X4 9150 selling for something like $90 on Newegg? OEMs did pick up on these, but they end up using quad core as an excuse to rape people on the cost. Why get a crappy 3ghz dual core Phenom II when you could get this super awesome 1.8ghz quad core Phenom I? The same thing will happen to this processor as well. The newegg price for the quad core will be $50 more than a single core Sempron, but the HP desktop computer with the quad will cost $200 more.

HP's website is horrible so I need to use Best Buy instead.
$530 Phenom 9150e
$430 Athlon X2 7750 (this one has more memory and a bigger hard drive but it's still cheaper by $100)
I also love how that el cheapo AMD quad is listed as "original price: $760". So it was originally several hundred dollars more even though it sucks? This is why I hate HP. Bunch of bastards.

edit:
My mistake. HP and Gateway are not the same company. I'm thinking of HP and Compaq. Point still stands, OEM computers with this new AMD quad will be disgustingly overpriced and it will be an OEM market failure.

 

[Engineer]

Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

 

[Ben90]

Im really not that sure because ive worked with more intel systems then AMDs, but i think unless you are doing really memory intensive stuff that uses all 4 cores, there shouldn't be a performance hit maybe like ~2%... There may not even be any difference... i remember running my HT @ like 600 on my A64 and it really didnt make a difference vs 1050

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

HT MT/s is just your speed to the I/O hub. 2 GT/s hypertransport is equivalent to a PCIe 1.0 x16 slot. if you need more than 4 GB/s of bandwidth to the CPU, then 4 GT/s HT would be faster. But if you don't, then it won't. depends on what applications you're running.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alyarb

Originally posted by: Engineer
Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

HT MT/s is just your speed to the I/O hub. 2 GT/s hypertransport is equivalent to a PCIe 1.0 x16 slot. if you need more than 4 GB/s of bandwidth to the CPU, then 4 GT/s HT would be faster. But if you don't, then it won't. depends on what applications you're running.

Question then: If I had a board that would run with this CPU at 2,000HT (4,000 MT/s), would it lower the latency to the devices (PCIe 16X, for example) even if it didn't use the full bandwidth of the 4,000 MT/s because of the higher frequency?

 

[alyarb]

i don't think it would lower the latency. it would probably be about the same.

 

[Jesusthewererabbit]

I think I'm gonna order one tomorrow to replace my old 6000+. I've got almost 200 dvds to back up, and it's annoying that I can't really do anything else while encoding. And my room should be at least a little cooler.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alyarb
i don't think it would lower the latency. it would probably be about the same.

Thanks. From what I get, it will run, but if enough I/O hits at once, it will saturate and possibly slow down.

I'm not even sure the old board will work, but it does list the 605e CPU and the board is rated for 95W so I don't see why it would not work.

AMD Athlon? II Quad-Core Processor 605e (C2) (45W) 2300 MHz (512KB X 4,4000,Socket AM3)
YES
AMD Athlon? II Quad-Core Processor 600e (C2) (45W) 2200 MHz (512KB X 4,4000,Socket AM3)
YES

It also lists the Phonom II Quad cores in the CPU compatable list. I may just wait to see if a BIOS upgrade pops up just to make sure. I don't need to upgrade but it would be nice. Then again, that 605e sure does look good at 45W!

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: 21stHermit
I would then ask how can Microsoft justify a $200 OS with hardware prices declining so fast?

:thumbsup:

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

I guess -10% in mem intensive cases.
You can check the web for more details, there are some reviews with 690G (HT 2.0) /780G (HT 3.0)/790FX (HT 3.0).

Here is one with AMD Phenom 9600 (3,600 MT's/s)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/657/1/

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Jesusthewererabbit
I think I'm gonna order one tomorrow to replace my old 6000+. I've got almost 200 dvds to back up, and it's annoying that I can't really do anything else while encoding. And my room should be at least a little cooler.

Sounds like your system doesn't have enough memory.

 

[alyarb]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: Engineer
Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

I guess -10% in mem intensive cases.
You can check the web for more details, there are some reviews with 690G (HT 2.0) /780G (HT 3.0)/790FX (HT 3.0).

Here is one with AMD Phenom 9600 (3,600 MT's/s)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/657/1/

HT connects PCIe and the southbridge to the CPU. memory intensive programs will stress the memory bus while games and other peripheral I/O-intensive stuff will use the HT bus. in the legitreviews article, the 690G system had better integer and memory scores than the faster FX chipset, but it really took a beating in games.

so basically, you don't seem need the fast HT unless you plan to run games.

 

[Jesusthewererabbit]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Jesusthewererabbit
I think I'm gonna order one tomorrow to replace my old 6000+. I've got almost 200 dvds to back up, and it's annoying that I can't really do anything else while encoding. And my room should be at least a little cooler.

Sounds like your system doesn't have enough memory.

I think four gigs is enough. I've got some motherboard issues that I need to address at the same time. Don't try to squash my upgrade bug!

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: alyarb

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: Engineer
Alright AT experts, help me out here. If I have an older AM2+ board that has a 1,000 HT (2,000 MT's) with a BIOS update to support this chip, will it slow down since this chip is rated 2,000HT with 4,000 MT's/s. I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around the HyperTransport thing. (Damnit, don't you guys laugh at me! )

I guess -10% in mem intensive cases.
You can check the web for more details, there are some reviews with 690G (HT 2.0) /780G (HT 3.0)/790FX (HT 3.0).

Here is one with AMD Phenom 9600 (3,600 MT's/s)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/657/1/

HT connects PCIe and the southbridge to the CPU. memory intensive programs will stress the memory bus while games and other peripheral I/O-intensive stuff will use the HT bus. in the legitreviews article, the 690G system had better integer and memory scores than the faster FX chipset, but it really took a beating in games.

so basically, you don't seem need the fast HT unless you plan to run games.

It had better memory and integer scores in Sandra (or Everest), what about Vantage PCMark & memory scores?

Depending on the benchmark (and on the version of the bench.) the results can be different (in a side note, it is very easy today for a reviewer to fix a little bit the numbers as he likes using the applications/benchmarks that he likes)

Also it is not only games, check Vantage music, communication, productivity suit.
The difference that i suggested (10%) is small anyway...

EDIT*
Also don't forget that in this test the 690G is a mature platform...

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Jesusthewererabbit

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Jesusthewererabbit
I think I'm gonna order one tomorrow to replace my old 6000+. I've got almost 200 dvds to back up, and it's annoying that I can't really do anything else while encoding. And my room should be at least a little cooler.

Sounds like your system doesn't have enough memory.

I think four gigs is enough. I've got some motherboard issues that I need to address at the same time. Don't try to squash my upgrade bug!

Is the motherboard broken or something? I can encode stuff and play WoW at normal speed at the same time. CPU is an E6600
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5302/encodingwow.jpg

 

[alyarb]

that's because you're using auto gk, and jesusthewererabbit is using a different program that will swallow up the whole CPU.

 

[Jesusthewererabbit]

It's a cheap ECS that came out of a HP system that I bought about three years ago. The BIOS sucks, and I couldn't overclock this chip if I wanted to. I can't use a double slot video card along with my TV tuner, so my upgrade options there are severely limited. I've had sporadic BSOD's the entire time. Everything except the DVD writer, motherboard, and CPU has been upgraded. It's not that I can't use my system while encoding. Firefox works just fine, and I can watch video files fine. I get a random blue screen, and I'm pretty sure it's heat related, so I'm gonna do this and see if it fixes it.

 

[alyarb]

don't merely speculate about it being heat related. set up an encode with a core temperature monitor and watch what happens to your temps. if they are so high that you routinely experience system failures, you need to clear a path for an air current in your case, and keep it clear of cables as well as you can. going from a 90nm dual core to a 45nm quad core isn't going to solve your heat problem, it's only going to give you more encoding speed per watt, but when you do, consider a $20 heatsink to go with it.

if your crashes aren't heat related, i would consider replacing the motherboard. and how do you even know that these Athlon X4's will work in that HP motherboard of yours?

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: alyarb
that's because you're using auto gk, and jesusthewererabbit is using a different program that will swallow up the whole CPU.

I can run other stuff as well. Me playing World of Warcraft while running Prime95 and OCCT

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Jesusthewererabbit
I think I'm gonna order one tomorrow to replace my old 6000+. I've got almost 200 dvds to back up, and it's annoying that I can't really do anything else while encoding. And my room should be at least a little cooler.

yes I'm also thinking about building a 3.5ghz 620 machine just for encoding tasks. my main computer I usually like to use for other purposes, this machine can queue encoding jobs and other file server duties.