Why are people buying AM2?

[Trey22]

Personally I didn't have a rig and wanted to build a budget rig for some occasional video encoding/gaming.

I spent a little over $500 on an AM2 (Sempron 3000+) rig that will do everything I need it to. The RAM is resusable and who knows, might upgrade to an X2 down the road. The X2 I'd buy off FS/FT for +/- $125 in a couple of months.

For as long as I keep my PC's dropping in a K8L chip down the road is a real possibility.

I eventually will build a Conroe setup, but only when budget, overclockable micro ATX boards are out.

 

[Baked]

Because I can.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
idiots buy AM2 at thius point of time ... E6300 can be OC to 3GHz easily, and 3.5GHz max on air ...

it smokes anything AMD has to offer, and also AMD cpu arent so good with OCing...

E6300's OC'd to 3Ghz easily?

I didn't realize Conroe boards were hitting 430FSB left and right. Oh wait. They aren't. Most 965 chipsets only get to 380-400FSB, and it takes the Asus 975x board to hit 420-430 FSB, which costs $250.

That is unless you get the Gigabyte DS3 and get lucky, but not everyone with that board is hitting a high FSB.

So sorry, but that doesn't define "easy".

I think the reason people are getting AM2 boards is because they plan on getting 65nm CPUs or K8Ls in the future, and hope to just drop the chips in these current AM2 boards.

Plus, they just want to have the latest tech. I'm probably going to upgrade from s939 to AM2 myself if/when the X2 3600+ is released, because I want to go dual core and I've got some DDR2-667 memory laying around. That is, unless of course, they release it for 939. Either way, it's just a way to tide me over until the E4200/E4300.

 

[OBCT]

Meh, I wouldn't gotten high quality RAM if I went with s939 too. For the record, I got 2x1GB DDR2 800 Ballistix (4-4-4-12). $285 at ZZF. The memory I would've gotten for s939 was around $225 or so.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since AMD slashed prices I see everyone buying AM2 socket who's now interested in AMD.. I don't get it.

Not only is it (DDR2) slower than 939 (DDR)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page34.html

You will most likly be running slower yet with cheap DDR2 - 533 or DDR- 667 and not buy expensive DDR2-800 which cheap Ballistix $99 a gig DDR can beat all three, all day.

Second issue is mobos' I see no $60 full atx mobos like the sky high clocker Asrock 939 Sata2 out there for AM2. The boards cost more.

Slower and more money?

BTW, THG isn't exactly reliable. Almost every other AM2 vs s939 comparison shows the AM2 platform to be 5% to 10% faster than s939. Plus, as other's have mentioned, AM2 has an upgrade path, s939 does not.

Edit - 1 more thing, you can buy AM2 now. You can't buy Core 2 now, and probably won't be able to until 1Q 07.

Hogwash. No reviewer ran 2-2-2 1T DDR except Tom and they ran overclocked DDR2 usually. They wanted to show AM2 in positive light and did all they could to do so. Toms shows what normal cheap LL ram like 2-2-2 Ballistix does to DDR2-800, beats it, not to mention if you start OCing that ballistix or Bh5 to say 240 -300Mhz, destroys it.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since AMD slashed prices I see everyone buying AM2 socket who's now interested in AMD.. I don't get it.

Not only is it (DDR2) slower than 939 (DDR)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page34.html

You will most likly be running slower yet with cheap DDR2 - 533 or DDR- 667 and not buy expensive DDR2-800 which cheap Ballistix $99 a gig DDR can beat all three, all day.

Second issue is mobos' I see no $60 full atx mobos like the sky high clocker Asrock 939 Sata2 out there for AM2. The boards cost more.

Slower and more money?

BTW, THG isn't exactly reliable. Almost every other AM2 vs s939 comparison shows the AM2 platform to be 5% to 10% faster than s939. Plus, as other's have mentioned, AM2 has an upgrade path, s939 does not.

Edit - 1 more thing, you can buy AM2 now. You can't buy Core 2 now, and probably won't be able to until 1Q 07.

Hogwash. No reviewer ran 2-2-2 1T DDR except Tom and they ran overclocked DDR2 usually. They wanted to show AM2 in positive light and did all they could to do so. Toms shows what normal cheap LL ram like 2-2-2 Ballistix does to DDR2-800, beats it, not to mention if you start OCing that ballistix or Bh5 to say 240 -300Mhz, destroys it.

Xbit Labs' AM2 article compared several DDR2 and DDR1 speeds, including DDR 1 at 2-2-2 speeds to DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12. DDR2 came out ahead.

Its not up for debate whether or not AM2 outperforms s939, we already know it does. Just as we know that the Core 2 outperforms the AM2 platform almost across the board.
We also know that the s939 platform is losing its viability. Buying s939 know is foolish, you lose your upgrade path. Buying a Core 2 platform or an AM2 platform ensures upgradeability, for about a year anways.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since AMD slashed prices I see everyone buying AM2 socket who's now interested in AMD.. I don't get it.

Not only is it (DDR2) slower than 939 (DDR)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page34.html

You will most likly be running slower yet with cheap DDR2 - 533 or DDR- 667 and not buy expensive DDR2-800 which cheap Ballistix $99 a gig DDR can beat all three, all day.

Second issue is mobos' I see no $60 full atx mobos like the sky high clocker Asrock 939 Sata2 out there for AM2. The boards cost more.

Slower and more money?

BTW, THG isn't exactly reliable. Almost every other AM2 vs s939 comparison shows the AM2 platform to be 5% to 10% faster than s939. Plus, as other's have mentioned, AM2 has an upgrade path, s939 does not.

Edit - 1 more thing, you can buy AM2 now. You can't buy Core 2 now, and probably won't be able to until 1Q 07.

Hogwash. No reviewer ran 2-2-2 1T DDR except Tom and they ran overclocked DDR2 usually. They wanted to show AM2 in positive light and did all they could to do so. Toms shows what normal cheap LL ram like 2-2-2 Ballistix does to DDR2-800, beats it, not to mention if you start OCing that ballistix or Bh5 to say 240 -300Mhz, destroys it.

Xbit Labs' AM2 article compared several DDR2 and DDR1 speeds, including DDR 1 at 2-2-2 speeds to DDR2-800 at 4-4-4-12. DDR2 came out ahead.

Its not up for debate whether or not AM2 outperforms s939, we already know it does. Just as we know that the Core 2 outperforms the AM2 platform almost across the board.
We also know that the s939 platform is losing its viability. Buying s939 know is foolish, you lose your upgrade path. Buying a Core 2 platform or an AM2 platform ensures upgradeability, for about a year anways.

Again BS,, Xbit don't even say what Command rate they used and it's obiviously 2 since when Toms used CMD of 1 DDR beat DDR2 accross the board.

If you really think DDR2 is faster then why has a AMD DDR2 system never topped the hall of fame at futruemark... no istead it's LL DDR, all of them.

If you want to believe DDR2 is faster with cherry picked and incompete reviews fine with me but stop spreading that FUD around.

Conroe is a poor analogy, better is when Prescott was released and Old northwood still whupped it just like DDR beats DDR2.

Edit another thing besides using a 2 CMD is xbit used a tras of 10, everyone who knows A64 knows that's crap, need 6-7 or 8 to shine. Almost like they were paid to say AM2 was faster.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Hogwash. No reviewer ran 2-2-2 1T DDR except Tom and they ran overclocked DDR2 usually. They wanted to show AM2 in positive light and did all they could to do so. Toms shows what normal cheap LL ram like 2-2-2 Ballistix does to DDR2-800, beats it, not to mention if you start OCing that ballistix or Bh5 to say 240 -300Mhz, destroys it.

If you really think DDR2 is faster then why has a AMD DDR2 system never topped the hall of fame at futruemark... no istead it's LL DDR, all of them.

If you want to believe DDR2 is faster with cherry picked and incompete reviews fine with me but stop spreading that FUD around.

Incidentally, you just called every other review of AM2 ever done hogwash, because THG is the only one that shows s939 ahead. People should stop linking to that site, unless its to laugh at them.

When I set 1T and 2T cmd rates on my AM2 system, it results in a negligable performance boost in Sandra tests, 3dMark 2k1 through 2k6, Crystal Mark, SuperPi, and Sciecemark.

Those Futuremark scores you mentioned were all done on highly mature motherboards, BIOSs and drivers. AM2 is still a yong platform, and will undoubtably experience many performance improvements over its lifetime.

You need to get off your DDR1 infatuation. AM2 is a faster platform than s939, not by much, but it is. Intel retired DDR1 a long time ago (relatively, and now AMD has followed suit.

I am not spreading FUD around, as you call it. Its a counter balance to the overwhelming Core 2 praise and the constant threads about AMD's death because of it.

If you're shopping for a new system now, the only real options are C2D and AM2 A64X2, at the high end anyway. Low end is a different story. Buying s939 over AM2 is a really poor choice, you lose any future A64(x2) upgrade path, you lose the option of AM3 based A64s next year, you lose K8L, you lose the Energy Efficient AMD chips due anytime, etc.

No one should be buying s939 right now unless they are on a constrained budget. Technically, anyone buying a high end system right now should be buying AM2 because C2D isn't available to the end user yet. (Unless you buy through Dell)

 

[tcG]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
also people who buy conroe and not OC .... are idiots , too

Yes, because no one would EVER want a quiet PC or quiet SFF or low power quiet SFF type machines.

Scythe Ninja/MINE 3 + 120MM's + Passive Video card = Quiet Overclockability

AM2 only becomes viable at price points below $1000.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
why would u get AMD ??? also people who buy conroe and not OC .... are idiots , too

Probably the same idiots that bought the overheating, power sucking POS Pentium D cpu's when the A64 was clearly superior.

No accounting for some people's stupidity eh?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Hogwash. No reviewer ran 2-2-2 1T DDR except Tom and they ran overclocked DDR2 usually. They wanted to show AM2 in positive light and did all they could to do so. Toms shows what normal cheap LL ram like 2-2-2 Ballistix does to DDR2-800, beats it, not to mention if you start OCing that ballistix or Bh5 to say 240 -300Mhz, destroys it.

Zebo...the problem is that you are taking THG at their word on the review. They have been posting everything from massive spin to flat out BS (and lies) for so long, that you may want to re-think this. JMHO...I don't even read their reviews anymore as they have long ago lost all credibility IMO.

 

[jlbenedict]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
E6400 at stock > FX 62

E6400 can be OC to 3.2GHz minmum 3.8GHz maximum .... X6800 stock is 2.93Ghz ....


why would u get AMD ??? also people who buy conroe and not OC .... are idiots , too

Hey.. *pst*.. I'll let you in on a little secret. You are the small minority.. You do realize not everyone overclocks.

The differences in overclocking today are not like yesterday (Celeron 366 @ 550 or more) where you could possibly see double the performance.

 

[Kur]

If it Ain't broke, don't fix it.

Why bother spending a few EXTRA hundred dollars for a switch to intel when I could spend 1/4 of a CPU upgrade and memory upgrade. For me I'm sticking with AMD because of the price drop, unlike all the C2D people here I don't have an extra $600 to spend on all the new stuff. Hey I won't have the 10-30% increased performance but I could really care less about maybe 10-15 FPS, or a few seconds off my encoding.

 

[IdaGno]

most importantly: BECAUSE THEY CAN

Conroe = not yet readily available

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You bastages need a different perspective. There are far less equitable things these guys could be spending their money on, than an AM2 system. You can blow that much bank on a night of bar hoppin' or a nice dinner out with the SO, and have nothing to show for it but a headache or prodigious bowel movement


Of course, there are far wiser things to do with the cash than indulging a hobby too. But hey, we all alot a certain amount for fun money, members occupy different income brackets, and we all have our own priorities, even where hobbies are concerned. I do agree with the comments that some do it, to come off like big swingin' d!cks though. A futile endeavor, but the extremes some go to to feed the ego, or obtain external validation, is another discussion.


Anywho, I understand what Zeb was gettin'@, he just likes to use provocative titles, and acerbic style to make his points. You get more thread views and replies that way.

 

[996GT2]

I love my AM2 system; yes, conroe is faster, but one day in about 2 years I'll get Merom so I could care less for now. What I wanted was a system to game on during the summer, and AM2 suits that need perfectly. Yes, I might have had a faster computer with conroe, but I don't really care about a few extra FPS since my Dell 1905FP is maxed at 1280*1024 anyway...and I didn't want to waste away half the summer waiting for a processor that might not be available at all...

Also AM2 seems to overclock better than Socket 939. My Computer is rock solid at 2.66 GHz on stock voltage (Prime stable, memtest stable, SuperPi 32M, you name it) and can OC well past 3 GHz. Many others on this forum seem to have gotten the same results with their AM2 systems, so I would have to conclude that it's more consistent at r eaching higher overclocks. Also an AM2 system with DDR2-667 or above is equivalent to or faster than a 939 system with DDR400, and with DDR2-800 AM2 has about a 5% advantage.

 

[River Side]

i really don't see any price benefits from going 939 right now.. I'm in the market.. actively looking.. and am very open to 939.. IF it's a bargain.. it's not.. CPU prices are the same for both.. mobo prices are the same for the better boards too.. why should I adopt 939 if I can get AM2 and at lease be assured of plugging in AM3 CPU's of the future AND have DDR2 cuz in some months DDR would get rare and expensive!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: River Side
i really don't see any price benefits from going 939 right now.. I'm in the market.. actively looking.. and am very open to 939.. IF it's a bargain.. it's not.. CPU prices are the same for both.. mobo prices are the same for the better boards too.. why should I adopt 939 if I can get AM2 and at lease be assured of plugging in AM3 CPU's of the future AND have DDR2 cuz in some months DDR would get rare and expensive!

I agree if looking new, but used 939 setups will be flooding the FS/FT forum as the junkies migrate to Conroe. I never look at the socket as a factor when buying, because by the time you want a new chip, the new chipsets are usually too enticing in features and performance, to stick with the old one you have.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i love all the amd fanboys that say they dont need conroe even tho its ALOT faster than amd considering they are fanboys cause amd was a little faster for a while.

 

[River Side]

not fanboys.. realists.. i run Intel and I like what the Conroe is offering but i'm loathe to paying over retail anything!!! i want a good deal.. so i'll wait till Conroe becomes generally available to see if AMD blinks and lowers AM2 prices or offers combo deals or rebates etc.. if not.. I'll definitely give Conroe a long hard look again.. I think it's time AMD realizes they are in some trouble.. at least X2 4200+ upwards they seriously are..

 

[jgigz]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: jgigz
I went from a s754 to am2 and i regret every minute of it. my 3000+ ran so much smoother and better than the 3800+. I even got good mushkin ddr2 800 ram @ 4-4-3-10 and the perfomance is still lack luster. I wish i would have went to 939 and have a system i could optimize and not something Im trying to get it to perform equal to a processor thats that much older than it.

Maybe just me, but I don't believe you.

Yeah I found it hard to believe at first myself but seeing as a fresh install of xp home takes 1:30 (yes I timmed it) to load and CS:S stress test i got 10 less fps and when I isolate my cpu by lowering the resolution my fps continues to drop. The reason why I upgraded from s754 in the first place was because of the same testing I did with the CS:S stress test i found i was limited by my cpu. It may not be the cpu because im reading alot of reviews about my motherboard and it seems to have problems but no BIOS revisions to fix it. Dunno Ill just have to wait and see.

 

[delsvr]

I really don't think it's a question of which is faster, AM2 or 939. The benchmarks are a bit vague and changing platforms for anything less than a 10% performance gain seems pointless to me. AM2 and 939 are more like standards, in the way that CSS 2.0 and XHTML are standards.

AMD is anticipating an influx of demand for upgrade or new machine purchases with the arrival of Windows Vista. Piggybacking on Microsoft's own marketing, AMD hopes that consumers turn to their product line, AM2 processors, when upgrading and purchasing new Vista-capable desktops. That's why they're trying so hard to push out AM2s and expunge their 939s before the Vista release. This way, in 3 or 4 years when consumer Joe wants to upgrade his machine, AM3 processors are there for him, and he won't have to spend a huge sum for a faster system (the whole CPU+Mobo+Ram shebang). He'll have the option of purchasing AMD's newest AM3 processor. Not having to buy a new mobo and ram also lets Joe sidestep the decision of whether he might want to move to Intel (Just how 754 and 939 consumers today might move to Conroe because they'd have to buy a new mobo and ram anyway for AM2). Now expand that idea from consumer Joe to manufacturer Dell.

So I like to think of AM2 as just the latest standard for CPU development. Fact is, AMD doesn't care as much about hardware enthusiasts as they do about average consumers, so most of their moves won't reflect a latest-and-greatest-bleeding-edge decision. Instead, AMD will ask themselves: what can we do to grab more of the market share?

 

[sdsdv10]

Originally posted by: River Side
i really don't see any price benefits from going 939 right now.. I'm in the market.. actively looking.. and am very open to 939.. IF it's a bargain.. it's not.. CPU prices are the same for both.. mobo prices are the same for the better boards too.. why should I adopt 939 if I can get AM2 and at lease be assured of plugging in AM3 CPU's of the future AND have DDR2 cuz in some months DDR would get rare and expensive!

Let me tell you why I am looking at a 939 unit. My dad has a 2 year old socket A system. I can upgrade him with a A64 4000+ @ 2.4GHz and new Asus MB for right around $200 total. I can reuse RAM, case, optical drives, etc. This will easy last him 2 or 3 years, at which time we can look into getting something new. At 73 years old he is not interested in overclocking or breaking the system down and selling on the forums or ebay. Notheless, I little more performance in his favorite RC Plane flight sim is a good thing, and worth $200 to me. I don't think I could upgrade to AM2 for $200 total. If this is possible, please let me know.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Since AMD slashed prices I see everyone buying AM2 socket who's now interested in AMD.. I don't get it.

Not only is it (DDR2) slower than 939 (DDR)
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/23/amd_reinvents_itself/page34.html

You will most likly be running slower yet with cheap DDR2 - 533 or DDR- 667 and not buy expensive DDR2-800 which cheap Ballistix $99 a gig DDR can beat all three, all day.

Second issue is mobos' I see no $60 full atx mobos like the sky high clocker Asrock 939 Sata2 out there for AM2. The boards cost more.

Slower and more money?

I'll take a stab at this. First AM2's posted modest performance gains, but they certainly didn't lose ground in the benches I've seen. To call the platform 'slower' isn't fair, imo. DDR2 does have a higher latency, but more bandwidth.

You're right on in saying that you really don't get any gains out of DDR2 until you hit the 800 MHz flavor. That being said, 800 MHz DDR2 isn't that expensive. I just picked up a 2 x 512 MB Dual Channel kit from Corsair for $103 shipped. I think that as the software can be built around DDR2, it will become more useful.

Also, DDR is dying. Memory Manufacturers are ecstatic (sp?) that they can now concentrate on making just one flavor of memory - less overhead. So, I'd expect, over the next 12 - 18 months, you will see the price of DDR rise above the price of DDR2.

Personally, I went AM2 for the upgrade path. Yes, the mobo was more expensive, but most of the other stuff was fairly comparable.

It's a good question. Like I said, the AM2 performance gains are near-negligible.

 

[996GT2]

Just to add something there is a GREAT deal in the hot deals section: 2*1GB OCZ Platinum DDR2-800 for $139 After Rebate