Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: AMD Athlon II X3 425 On Linux

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Otus View Post
    A fair comparison would be Core 2 Duo E5400 or Pentium E6500. Both cost a few € more than the Athlon here. Motherboards are also available in the same price range, unlike for the newer Intel sockets.
    The problem there is lack of future upgrades. I mean, you could always upgrade to a core2 QX9770 (if you have $1000 laying around and don't like core i7-980x), but that's it. The future upgrade plan for LGA775 is already set, as with the AM3 platform there will probably be more new compatible cpus coming. The 6-core cpus are already here and I doubt they will be the last ones for AM3. So a comparision of athlon II/phenom II to cpus on the LGA775 platform would be more of a curiosity than something useful IMO. But I agree that including at least on or two core i3 cpus would be a nice addition to the review (although the title is Athlon II X3 425 on linux).

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    437

    Default

    Clock for clock, AMD's aged K10 is no match for Nehalem, they just have to sell it cheaper and cheaper, or offering some un-locking lottery cores to gain market. pathetic but it seems to be the only way

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Parish, NY
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    Clock for clock, AMD's aged K10 is no match for Nehalem, they just have to sell it cheaper and cheaper, or offering some un-locking lottery cores to gain market. pathetic but it seems to be the only way
    Pathetic?

    Some of us don't need to have the highest performing chip on the planet. Some of us just want something better than we had, and don't want to break the bank doing it. Since AMD came out with the Phenom II's and Athlon II's, can Intel compete dollar-for-dollar? Sure, if I had several thousand dollars to spend on a rig, it would be Intel and it would likely make everything else appear to be standing still. That said, I'm pretty sure AMD still owns the $300-800 segment (total system cost).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devius View Post
    The problem there is lack of future upgrades. I mean, you could always upgrade to a core2 QX9770 (if you have $1000 laying around and don't like core i7-980x), but that's it. The future upgrade plan for LGA775 is already set, as with the AM3 platform there will probably be more new compatible cpus coming. The 6-core cpus are already here and I doubt they will be the last ones for AM3. So a comparision of athlon II/phenom II to cpus on the LGA775 platform would be more of a curiosity than something useful IMO. But I agree that including at least on or two core i3 cpus would be a nice addition to the review (although the title is Athlon II X3 425 on linux).
    Sure, Core i3 makes more sense than Core 2 if building a new computer for upgradability, but they are significantly more expensive than Athlon 425. Intel simply doesn't have anything newer than LGA775 processors in the price range of AMD dual and triple cores. The i3 processors should be compared to Athlon II X4 635 or some Phenom II.

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    Clock for clock, AMD's aged K10 is no match for Nehalem, they just have to sell it cheaper and cheaper, or offering some un-locking lottery cores to gain market. pathetic but it seems to be the only way
    Clock for clock doesn't matter, when AMD processors are sold at higher clocks and more cores. Their offerings have better performance at practically every price point up to $200. Once the rest of their Thuban line is out you can probably make that $300.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffro-tull View Post
    Since AMD came out with the Phenom II's and Athlon II's, can Intel compete dollar-for-dollar? Sure, if I had several thousand dollars to spend on a rig, it would be Intel and it would likely make everything else appear to be standing still. That said, I'm pretty sure AMD still owns the $300-800 segment (total system cost).
    I agree. However, if I had several thousands for a computer, I would probably be looking at workstation platforms. There the decision is not that simple, with AMD again offering lots of cores to Intel's otherwise good performance.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,026

    Default

    The Athlon II is actually based on the old K8 core, and the K10 is called Phenom.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    The Athlon II is actually based on the old K8 core, and the K10 is called Phenom.
    No, Athlon II is based on Phenom II. The main difference is the lack of L3 memory. Even the older Athlon X2 Kuma processors (e.g. 7850BE) were K10/10h based.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    Clock for clock, AMD's aged K10 is no match for Nehalem, they just have to sell it cheaper and cheaper, or offering some un-locking lottery cores to gain market. pathetic but it seems to be the only way
    Unfortunately not all cpu makers can have the luxury of having slower cpus clock for clock and still have everybody buying them and dominating the market.

    And it's much better for the consumer to have several brands of cpus to choose from, since we all know what happens when one brand has the monopoly of a market. Lower prices and unlocked cores is not pathetic. It's called marketing. That would be the same as saying "What? That gas station is selling fuel for less than the other stations?? That's pathetic..."

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Otus View Post
    No, Athlon II is based on Phenom II. The main difference is the lack of L3 memory. Even the older Athlon X2 Kuma processors (e.g. 7850BE) were K10/10h based.
    Ah, you're right. I'm not sure why I thought otherwise.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2775
    While the most recent Athlon X2s are derivatives of the original Phenom architecture, the Athlon II is based on the new and improved Phenom II architecture.

    Take two Phenom II cores, increase their L2 caches to 1MB, leave out the L3 and you’ve got an Athlon II.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •