Although I still have an AMD3 Phenom II system (it's next to my time-machine for recording the video footage and encoding), I only recommend Intel + Nvidia at the moment.

I wouldn't go for the X79 either, a basic S1155 board with an unlocked i5 and a SSD drive is all you need and gives you 99% of the performance X79 does.

What really saddens me with AMD is that now you can't even buy decent AM3 boards and the chips are also gone. It's just Bulldozer or Llano and neither of them are great.

We have performance in abundance at the moment, what Intel is focusing on now is performance per watt and improving their graphics. This mostly matters for mobile applications.

AMD at the moment is all about graphics, graphics and more graphics because their CPUs are average.

Ivy Bridge should be good, very reliable and stable like everything from Intel, around 10-20% faster compared to Sandy Bridge and also using less power.

Nvidia is next with 22nm chips and then we have Windows 8. All in all an interesting year. Just wish SSD drives would drop in price, we still get shafted IMO.

Core i7 kills Phenom II in performance but you pay a higher price for both the CPU and the motherboards so it really comes down to how much money you have to spend.

There's no question that anything Core i7 and higher kills anything from AMD. The performance delta between Intel and AMD's high end stuff has become almost rediculous. Not only that, but the performance of Bulldozer was well lower than expected, especially when their joke marketing deparment is pushing the Quad core as a 8 core, Dual core as a 4 core, etc, just because each core has two CPUs in it (to one FPU).

However, because of this, Intel charges a huge premium on these parts, whereas AMD has gone for the more cost-effective side of the mainstream market. End result is that today you can build a 6 core Phenom II (which is still available here) or 8 core machine formuch less than you would fork out for a similarly spec'd system from Intel. Plus all AM3+ boards work with AM3 chips, and theres some decent ones. So they still make a good budget system. And I'll always recommend an AMD Radeon Videocard.

The Markets where AMD really stands up with Intel though (and why they're even still alive/successful) is the Server and Home system market. In servers, they have drop-in upgrades for existing Opteron servers that feature 12-16 cores per CPU, and that's still using K10 archetecture, there will probably be bigger CPUs later this year once the 2nd Generation Bulldozer hits. Also, in Home systems, their Integrated Graphics offer far better performance than the Intel GMA series, and especially with their Fusion processors, a simple drop-in upgrade to a newer Socket F1 chip will upgrade the onboard video as well. But those markets don't really matter to the mainstream PC gamer who would never want to run anything on Onboard video.

Still, as long as you don't care about bleeding edge performance, AMD is still somewhat relevant. Thats why a couple of months ago I bought an upgrade to a Phenom II X6, 16GB RAM and an Asus AM3+ board to be sure I can run a Bulldozer once the technology improves (which it's supposed to, but not holding my breath). I'm happy with it.

I disagree with the "Intel is premium", because I can get a Intel mainboard for 50 bucks and an i5 for 200.

At least here in Australia a Bulldozer board with Octacore CPU costs more than an Intel board with an i5.

The GPU is now on the chip, yet FM1 boards cost more compared to entry level AM2/AM3 boards did.

PC hardware is cheap as chips and the days were you could save real money seem to be gone. So I just recommend Intel.

And people seem to forget that Intel has cheaper CPUs as well. There is not just the i7, there are heaps of other models, all offering very good performance.

Hell even their dual cores give AMDs Athlon II Quad-Cores a good fight.

Well - I am so far behind the times - I my next build is going to be a second Athlon system

I don't know what could demand those fast things. PCem AM5x86 133 emulation maybe, but what, really?

Makes you wonder if AMD is going to be around. Better hope they are, because they are the only reason Inetl's prices are reasonable....

I loved my 1090T system and I had sellers remorse when I sold it last year for an i7 2600K system but I rebuilt my HTPC into mATX beast, just wish the 125W Phenom II X6's worked with my MB which is odd they don't since a few other 125W cpu's do... Other than that, no regrets really. Before that I had a Phenom 940 and I kinda missed it but didn't really have much sellers remorse (it sat abandoned for a good while and was really a cluster but it was fast enough I suppose). It was a nice system and the guy I sold it to I think killed it, the 1090T that is.

Maybe tax return time I'll upgrade (new PSU as I bought the wrong one and it's modular setup is wierd, Ivy Bridge cpu, and new video card) and I'll be set for maybe years. I'm not kidding. I just mainly emulate and I only play at 1080p and barely play. I don't even think I'd really need a new graphics card (GTX 560TI) but I'd go 1155 over X79 also.

Stick with whatever you think you'll enjoy, there are no winners and losers right now as far as I'm concerned.

First I'd like to say that Intel has a greater lead on AMD when comparing benchmarks, but don't put too much stock in those published marks this time.

Now to explain why I say that:
You said that most AMD rigs look like they've been assembled by a 9 year old. That right there is the problem. People are assembling AMD rigs without proper research and not getting the results that they should because of one major mistake. The motherboard. My brother built a proper AMD 8 core and has gone toe to toe with Intel's latest. I'm not here to say that Intel or AMD are better than each other, I'm saying that you should fulfill the research and make the decision based on what you are looking for and what will satisfy you.

Remember: "Build what you like. You're the one that's going to have to live with it."

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I'm not going to be building a new system until one or the other have something to offer that will impress me at least a little.

An interesting article on the subject of AMD and "what went wrong"

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/372859/amd-what-went-wrong

Thanks. A very interesting if somewhat depressing article. AMD is certainly looking like it's in the pits now, at least in the desktop processor market. Don't know about the diehards buying AMD part. I'm pretty diehard, I mean I sat out C2D and stuck to Athlon 64s, then Phenom 1 and 2 during the whole era....and even I'm not rushing out to buy BD. Though from what I've seen, they're some benchmarkers and overclockers building FX systems just for shits and giggles cause they're complaining that it's too easy to overclock Intel. 😜 That market is admittedly tiny though.

I just built my brother an upgrade from his old and failing Intel D945GTP + Pentium D, 3.4GHz machine.

I was hoping it would last awhile longer as I just upgraded his GPU to an nVidia 550 Ti but sadly something is failing on the mobo.

The other issue is that this is his gaming/lanbox so i was limited to what I could do and install into the box.

I opted for the Asus 880G chipset, AM3+ board with the AMD FX 4100.

Seems to be running quite well under Windows 7 Pro, x64-bit too.

He likes the speed and snapiness of the OS, but then again it is a fresh and clean install with my system tweaks for gaming.

I got this for less then a comporable i3 + Mobo so at least here in the states there is a price difference, not a whole lot but pricing was a factor for him so I had to get the best bang for the buck.

The best part is that RAM is freaking dirt cheap, installed 8GB of ram into his box for $55.00 USD.

My stance on this is, don't be concerned with what the others are doing for their high end systems, do what feels right for yourself. If you feel Intel is going to give you what you need more then AMD can right now, then go with that. Ive stuck with AMD since the K6, and I'm not about to give up on them now. I think Bulldozer was a product they should have developed more and waited to release at Windows 8 launch. Until then they should have focused on Phenom II and Athlon II more. When Windows 8 hits I think things will pick up for them. Till then they have more then enough tech out there on multiple fronts that they are in no way down and out or defeated by any means.

It is always going to be a back and forth battle, which is good. There should never be just one solid victor for more then a couple/few years at a time really. When the competition stops, the will and desire to innovate stops also. As is, I am perfectly happy with my unlocked Phenom II X2 550 Crossfire system (unlocked to 4 cores) and my Athlon II X4 SLI system. Once you hit higher resolutions like 1920x1080 it doesn't really matter much what cpu you have anyway in games right now as long as it is modern, because performance gaps start to close. Games are mainly what I use my systems for, so Intel doesn't really have anything to offer me that AMD hasn't already given me for a lot less price.

ProfessorProfessorson wrote:

My stance on this is, don't be concerned with what the others are doing for their high end systems, do what feels right for yourself.

ProfessorProfessorson wrote:

Ive stuck with AMD since the K6, and I'm not about to give up on them now.

Professor, thank you. Your post struck a chord with me. I realize now that building an Intel would be something that pleases others, but deep in me an AMD is what I want.

This year's build will be a Bulldozer FX8120 then.

Honestly? I don't see what the problem is. Sure, the bulldozer itself is not so great, but we've been here before - the K6 is a good example, so is the slot A athon. The thing most people seem to not realize (including you from your first post) is that a good overclocked phenom II is incredibly price-performance oriented.

My current system and latest build happens to be a phenom II, replacing a q6600 based system, and I couldn't be happier. For $110 I got a retail zosma x4 3ghz black edition (actuality a thuban 6 core black edition), $135 gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 motherboard, $80 four pack of kingston ddr3-1600 hyperx 4gb sticks (16gb total), $50 evga 120mm heatpipe hsf, and a gigabyte hd6850 1gb oc edition for $150.

Total price? $525, using my old case, dvd drive, and hard drive.
Result? 6 core 3.4ghz system with low latency pc1600 ddr3, without real overclocking tricks (no raising the ht bus, no raising the voltage, none of that gobbledegack, just change multi, unlock cores, set turbocore off). The performance I get out of these parts is more or less the same as if I had spent that much on an intel CPU alone.

Top end? go intel, and pay for it. performance per dollar? go AMD.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+P … enom+II+X4+960T

Notice something?
It's right there in cpumark shaking hands with the Intel Core i7 950 @ 3.07GHz.
And I'm not even pushing this cpu. If I wanted, I could get 3.6 without a voltage bump, I'm pretty sure. With some extra voltage, I could hit 3.8 almost guaranteed, what most are saying about this cpu, with watercooling I could topple 4GHz.... and take a look at the performance numbers I posted. Not shabby... for $110? insanely good.

Sad state of affairs? HARDLY! Right now AMD is playing catch up in the cpu arena, but kicking serious in the video card arena, they know it and are pricing and working accordingly. This company hasn't been around this long by being stupid.

AMD fangirl? Hardly. My previous systems which I totally adored were a core 2 duo 65nm forgot which. a core 2 duo wolfdale e3300, then core 2 quad Q6600 yonah. The video cards I had in that system were a geforce 7900gs, geforce 9800gt, amd hd4850, geforce gts250. I have more intel P3 systems in my place than anything else, some dual some single cpu.

I hope mine doesn't look like it was put together by a 9 year old. 😉

😀 I can tell that you like your AMD and no, it doesn't look like it was built by a 9 y.o.

Maybe I should give you a bit of background here....The Phenom II project I talked about in my first post is really a rebuild of my current Phenom II system, which is so old that it uses DDR2. This consists of a Phenom 955BE, Asus M4A78Pro, 4gb DDR2 800, MSI GTX460 768mb. The 955BE was clocked to 3.8ghz with a 2700mhz NB while the GTX460 was at 880/4200. At those speeds, which I might add were 24/7 super stable and low voltage, this combination could match an i7 + 5850. Still have the rig but it's been lying in parts the last few months. Before that, I was using Phenom 1, and before that, a boatload of Athlon 64s and A64 X2s, both 939 and AM2. Along the way, I've owned plenty of P3s, P4s, and C2Ds. But AMD first in my heart all along.

I have to disagree though on the easy overclocking part. Despite the unlocked multiplier, taking a K10 to the max can be tricky due to HT, NB, voltage and temps. If you ask me, A64s are easiest to oc, followed by P4s, then C2D, then Ph2, lastly Ph 1.

So I think you could say I'm familiar with the price-performance ratio of AMD vs Intel systems.

My dilemma was that I was considering an upgrade consisting of my old 955BE, water-cooling, Asus Crosshair V / Sabretooth 990 / Asrock Fatality, 8gbs of fast DDR3, either SLI'ed GTX570s or CF 6950s/ 6870s, SSD, 850w psu etc. With a newer board, 4+ ghz was my aim, which I think is easy with water cooling and one of them new boards.

Ok, now at the same time all this was going on, X79 came out, and I must admit I was quite attracted to building a high-end rig using this. And seeing the state of AMD rig-building currently also left me quite disheartened I must admit. But alas, we live in the real world, and I can't be wasting that much money building 2 high-end rigs, so I have to choose.

At the end, after much deliberation, reading some newer benchmarks showing BD in a better light against SB, a reminder from my better half that AMD is the reason I got into this hobby in the first place, the fact that apps and games will only get more multithreaded over time and a desire to build a fucking high-end AMD rig to show how it's done, I've decided to put together my old Ph2 rig, with some improvements and for a new build, get an FX8120 or maybe Piledriver if this is out by the time I start building.

I see. I actually believe core2 series (depending on model) is the easiest overclock ever, followed by the black edition cpus.... but I never take mine to the limit, I just take them high prime-stable on default voltage and within spec of the series, it could be argued I re speedbin my cpus, not truly overclock. Anyways, you may want to take a good long hard look at the motherboard I used, it has proven to be my favorite motherboard ever, and I am insanely picky about my motherboards. I like it so much that I sold some of my other hardware and bought another for my secondary system.

I also have an s939 system - was my first dual core ever - the first consumer dual core ever... athlon64 x2 3800+ and foxconn/winfast nforce4 based mobo nf4uk-8kers if I recall the model correctly.

sgt76 wrote:

At the end, after much deliberation, reading some newer benchmarks showing BD in a better light against SB, a reminder from my better half that AMD is the reason I got into this hobby in the first place

I gotta say I agree with that. I'm not gonna be so fanboy as to say "OMG, AMD iz teh better than Intel" but that I disagree with anyone saying AMD is dead as of yet. They still have quite a bit of success in the Server and Video card markets, really at this point, they need yo get their CPU sH!# together and produce something a little less lackluster. One thing for sure is that when it comes to an economical brand name desktop or laptop, you'll get the best gaming performance off of AMD's intregrated graphics thanks to their Radeon cores.

I've been a fan of AMD since the K6-1, and I've got in my collection processors and boards from each generation dating back to the 286, and my PC/XT even has an AMD 8088. My main gaming machine has been AMD based since 1998, I'm not gonna just give up on them because Intel's marginally faster, and currently I'm quite happy and impressed with the performance of my PII X6 1090T. Athlon and Athlon 64 were great time frames to be a fan and those days are long gone by now, but there's been bad times before and we got through them.

I my opinion a bit of the blame of Bulldozers failure so far goes to their marketing department. If you take a look at the Core design, it's not hard to see what the engineers were really going for with the Bulldozer, as AMD's ultimate solution to Hyperthreading. The FX-81xx series has 4 processing cores each containing 2 CPUs and 1 FPU, which makes it look like they were going for a Quad-core with 2 threads-per-core, rather than an 8-core, and the performance based on a Quad-core is a much fairer comparison. Sadly, some moron in a Suit decided they'd make more money if they called it a true 8-core. If they had a 6-core/12 thread processor ready for launch, it might have been a different story.

Personally, I've been telling people to avoid Bulldozer as of yet and stick with PhenomII X6 (or the 960T Zosma and a board with core-unlocking like Jaqie has!), and wait for the next generation of FX chips which are due out in late summer according to the last roadmaps I read. That's what I'm doing.

Jaqie,I love that case you have there. I could swear I have seen it on New Egg before on sale, wish I had nabbed one. I love the case I am using for my Crossfire system, but it does have its drawbacks. It is not very spacy in the cable management areas at all, but it does not use a side window or anything, so it doesn't matter much as far as being a eye sore is concerned.

It wouldn't be a big deal for a single card, single dvd drive, single hard drive config though at all though due to less cables being used. Basically the thing was built to run cool and feel like a tank, GMC did not think much past that I don't think. Reviewers of the case had the same issues as I did, and I knew about the pros and cons ahead of purchase. Either way, 22 degrees Celsius system temp on air at idle, 26 at load with both cards going, I cant complain.

default 1920x1080

4x AA 16x Anisotropy 1920x1080

Basically I cant complain, I am where I should be at performance wise with no overclocking.