IDE SSDs for old computers

[ch_123]

Oh wait, you're new here... See EIBM's post backlog.

[instantkamera]

Nonsense, we don't need any real understanding of this stuff. Just but **** with lavender on it.

?

allow me to clarify:



+



+



=

All EIBM cares about.

like so:

[Konrad]

To paraphrase something I recently read:
 
Only IBM would release a 300 page document to explain how a 150 page document works.
 
One way to avoid all the little bull**** is to go big.

[Konrad]

I said the SiS 741 is better than it's Intel/VIA counterparts (back in the P4/AthlonXP era).
 
It is a piece of **** compared to Intel/VIA's current offerings. X58 with i7-980X (i7-990X in Q3-4/2010) is teh pwnage right now, and the X68 (PCIe 3.0!) with P65 is scheduled for Q2/2011.
 
I see now that my wording could've been a little less ambiguous.  Corrected.

[ch_123]

I'm sure if Intel made a chipset for the Athlon XP, it would be pretty bad...

Decent, sure, but your wording suggests it's competitive today.

AFAIK, the market for Athlon XP mobos is a bit stagnant right now. All the cool kids are sticking to the proven classics =P

[Konrad]

lmao

[instantkamera]

AFAIK, the market for Athlon XP mobos is a bit stagnant right now. All the cool kids are sticking to the proven classics =P

such as IBM-era Cyrix 6x86 procs?


talk about ****, and no lavender to make it smell nice.

edit:

I guess the ceramic is kinda lavender. Still **** though.

[Konrad]

Oh my. I didn't know they'd actually made any of those, I thought AMD absorbed Cyrix before anything hit the market.
 
My best junk CPUs are an AMD 486DX4/120 and Intel Pentium-MMX/233.  Your Cyrix part is da bomb, though.

[ch_123]

Only IBM chip I have is an older version of one of these -



I have a SLC2, that is the SLC3. The one I have doesn't have a heatsink on the CPU, and runs at 20MHz vs 60.

[Konrad]

Anybody got one of those soviet IBM-clone CPUs with metric pin spacing and gold-plated legs? (Before you ask, no I don't have one, my oldest CPUs are a dead 4004 and a pile of 65xxs and Z80s)

[instantkamera]

Oh my. I didn't know they'd actually made any of those, I thought AMD absorbed Cyrix before anything hit the market.
 
My best junk CPUs are an AMD 486DX4/120 and Intel Pentium-MMX/233.  Your Cyrix part is da bomb, though.

I don't actually own one, I was just saying that seems like the kinda **** some other forum troll(s) might collect. These would be the very same "cool kids" who ch_123 was referring to, They have made their desire to run old hardware known, as running new hardware generally means learning something new.

AMD did not acquire Cyrix, by the way. That was ultimately VIA (oddly enough "VIA" National Semiconductor)

VIA had the obvious intention of creating the complete technological antithesis to a musical "supergroup" by combining the aforementioned crappy processor manufacturer, themselves, and S3 GRAPHICS into one giant ****ty company. I believe they are publicly traded under stock exchange symbol 'FAIL'.

[Konrad]

Aha, I've just done a lot of reading about Cyrix, VIA, and National.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to declare VIA = FAIL. They still make $billions.
 
Of course VIA doesn't actually do any foundry, just fabless design work, but it's pretty obvious that VIA is Intel's main competitor in the mobo chipset market. (Admittedly, their #2 position is peanuts but it's still there.)
 
Since Intel does not ever design AMD-compatible chipsets (for rather obvious reasons, I think), VIA clearly dominates the entire AMD-processor chipset market on all platforms. VIA's offerings for Intel-processor chipsets tend to generally be inferior to Intel chipsets (which are designed in tandem with Intel processors), but every now and then VIA designs a chipset which takes first place. Every now and then.
 
Of course Intel's iCore processors, especially their i7 architecture, has taken such a mighty lead in the race that AMD and VIA are so far behind they might never catch up. Of course AMD is a hugely recognized brand but the numbers show that AMD (like VIA) only commands peanuts when compared to Intel's manly dominance.
 
VIA's S3 products (including all their graphic technology acquisitions) do indeed suck when compared to ATI and nVidia, but are still better than Intel's graphics. AMD owns ATI (actually they've recently discontinued the ATI brand entirely so [strike]ATI Radeon CrossFireX[/strike] AMD Radeon HavoX cards are arguably positioned as the leader, ahead of Intel (and nVidia) in the high-end GPU market. (nVidia, like Intel and VIA, makes most of it's GPU income on ****ty mobo-integrated graphics.) If VIA works closely with AMD (as they always have in the past) then future AMD/AMD/VIA machines have a lot of potential. Assuming they can catch up before Intel makes too many more innovative leaps.
 
And yeah, there's all the little silicon losers in the computer industry, too - Gateway/SiS, Acer (ALi, ULi), Matrox, etc - but they're not really innovators, their best stuff is usually older-generation stuff licensed from one of the big boys. Intel is just now becoming wary of emerging silicon threats who are starting to muscle into the desktop and server markets, companies like Tilera*, Cray**, SGI***, Sun, and (believe it or not) IBM, among others.
 
* Tilera has a 100-core 750GFLOP processor and even though it doesn't sell as well as their 64-core and 32-core processors they're already working on a newer 200-core version.
** Cray currently sells a nice little 64-core/4TB desktop
*** SGI makes disgustingly awesome powerful graphic workstations and servers for serious high-end users

[instantkamera]

Aha, I've just done a lot of reading about Cyrix, VIA, and National.
 
I wouldn't go so far as to declare VIA = FAIL. They still make $billions.

So do Microsoft and BP. Still tons of fail there.

 VIA is Intel's main competitor in the mobo chipset market. (Admittedly, their #2 position is peanuts but it's still there.)
 
Since Intel does not ever design AMD-compatible chipsets (for rather obvious reasons, I think) VIA clearly dominates the AMD-processor chipset market.

What year are you from?

[Phaedrus2129]

I haven't seen a VIA chipset since the Pentium 4 days. Intel and AMD both make their own chipsets, Nvidia left the chipset business after nForce 7, and Via just kinda... exists? That's about all you can say for their market presence, that they're there. Kinda sad. Reminds me of S3 and Matrox.





This thread is now about graphics.

Did you know that Matrox is still alive and kicking? They've got two main lineups that actually move product right now, their big multi-output M lineup, and some low power stuff for servers or I guess HTPCs. I kind of want one of their 8-output M9188 cards, except I don't have that many monitors, or $500. Plus they're **** for gaming, no Direct3D support, just OpenGL, and not much horsepower either. Still pretty neat though.



Last I heard S3 was only providing a couple of integrated server chips, and most of those were 2D only. A shame, they had potential. Not much potential, but hey even the special kids can make a pretty macaroni painting sometimes.

[bhtooefr]

S3's stuff is in VIA's chipsets, which are now pretty much exclusively used with VIA's CPUs, which are designed by their Centaur team, previously owned by IDT, and they designed the WinChip line (and later the C3, C7, and Nano.)

VIA got the Cyrix design team, NatSemi (and later AMD) got the actual Cyrix designs. VIA ended up firing the Cyrix design team after Centaur finished the design that ultimately became the C3 ahead of schedule, performing better than expected, and the Cyrix team was years behind on the Cyrix III and they were performing far worse than even a 266 Celeron (which was what Centaur's chips were supposed to compete with, the Cyrix III was intended to go up against the P3.)

Anyway, in 2010, Intel makes chipsets for Intel CPUs (nobody else is allowed to any more,) AMD('s ATI division) makes chipsets for AMD CPUs, nVidia got banned from making Intel chipsets and the market chose ATI chipsets for AMD, and VIA makes chipsets for VIA CPUs. SiS makes chipsets for the poor suckers that still put Geode NXs into designs, when there's far better CPUs (like the Atom) available. Oh, and they licensed the Rise mP6 to the company making the Vortex86.

And, finally, as for putting an SSD of some kind in an old computer... there are benefits other than performance. A 10 year old spinning platter drive isn't the most trustworthy of things. Given a choice between, say, a 4 gig 3.5" HDD and a 4 gig CF card, I'll take the CF card any day - it'll be more reliable, far lower power, no noise, etc., etc.

[Konrad]

What year are you from?

circa-2005, it looks like :pout:
 
Awful and embarassing ... I searched for what I "know" so I found sites and studied information that confirmed exactly what I expected to find in great detail.
 
As you can guess, I'm an Intel fanboy; the last AMD I ever owned was an Athlon (Barton). I've hardly bothered to follow up on AMD mobos much since then because every time I became interested in buying more computer I saw that the AMD product was somehow inferior. I thought that AMD had abandoned that market (after making their gutless 750, 760 chipsets) ... You really have no idea how ****ing surprised I was to discover (yesterday) that AMD's been making all their own chipsets for half a decade. Wow. Didn't see that coming. Total fail.
 
Aha ... well my mistake. ****, sorry, I couldn't be much wronger. A little (more careful) digging affirms VIA=FAIL. All the market share summaries I was reading were for around about 2003-2004. VIA was indeed well positioned to become Number Two ... and they somehow lost it all and became another high tech loser without any products. Epic fail.

[Lanx]

I don't actually own one, I was just saying that seems like the kinda **** some other forum troll(s) might collect. These would be the very same "cool kids" who ch_123 was referring to, They have made their desire to run old hardware known, as running new hardware generally means learning something new.

AMD did not acquire Cyrix, by the way. That was ultimately VIA (oddly enough "VIA" National Semiconductor)

VIA had the obvious intention of creating the complete technological antithesis to a musical "supergroup" by combining the aforementioned crappy processor manufacturer, themselves, and S3 GRAPHICS into one giant ****ty company. I believe they are publicly traded under stock exchange symbol 'FAIL'.

I'd take that back, from what i heard via is set to produce the first quad core atom chips, which won't be as useful for netbook/light laptop use but rather would go in these new servers that use dual core atom chips (where 12 atom chips = 1 regular quad core in terms of power).

[instantkamera]

Did you know that Matrox is still alive and kicking? They've got two main lineups that actually move product right now, their big multi-output M lineup, and some low power stuff for servers or I guess HTPCs. I kind of want one of their 8-output M9188 cards, except I don't have that many monitors, or $500. Plus they're **** for gaming, no Direct3D support, just OpenGL, and not much horsepower either. Still pretty neat though.

Show Image

I did, I used to drive by there all the time (they are based in MTL).

They are used quite a bit in the medical field(s).

circa-2005, it looks like :pout:
 
Awful and embarassing :eek: ... I searched for what I "know" so I found sites and studied information that confirmed exactly what I expected to find in great detail.
 
As you can guess, I'm an Intel fanboy; the last AMD I ever owned was an Athlon (Barton). I've hardly bothered to follow up on AMD mobos much since then because every time I became interested in buying more computer I saw that the AMD product was somehow inferior. I thought that AMD had abandoned that market (after making their gutless 750, 760 chipsets) ... You really have no idea how ****ing surprised I was to discover (yesterday) that AMD's been making all their own chipsets for half a decade. Wow. Didn't see that coming. Total fail.
 
Aha ... well my mistake. ****, sorry, I couldn't be much wronger. A little (more careful) digging affirms VIA=FAIL. All the market share summaries I was reading were for around about 2003-2004. VIA was indeed well positioned to become Number Two ... and they somehow lost it all and became another high tech loser without any products. Epic fail.

It's ok, you almost had me thinking I was crazy though ...

I'd take that back, from what i heard via is set to produce the first quad core atom chips, which won't be as useful for netbook/light laptop use but rather would go in these new servers that use dual core atom chips (where 12 atom chips = 1 regular quad core in terms of power).

Atom is an intel product line, I doubt VIA will be producing them. I think you mean to Nano. Since the original Nano and the "even better nano" (that supposedly outperforms the atom) has been out for a bit and still no one is buying them... I'm going to have to stick with my original assessment. I would love to be wrong though, as I do like competition...

[Konrad]

Atom is an Intel product, no? I'd be surprised if anybody else fabs them. These bull****ters notwithstanding.
 
They say the VIA Nano outperforms the Atom, but also is not as power efficient.  The classic tradeoff for mobile electronics.
 
The Atom was originally designed for "MIDs" (Mobile Internet Devices), back before iPhones when everybody thought PDAs and pdf/internet tablets had a real future. I suppose Atoms could be used in UMPCs, minibooks (whatever the official term for puny laptop is these days). Dunno personally ... it's just not a "real" computer unless it's built into a rack or tower.

[instantkamera]

Atom is an Intel product, no? I'd be surprised if anybody else fabs them. These bull****ters notwithstanding.

exactly.

minibooks (whatever the official term for puny laptop is these days). Dunno personally ... it's just not a "real" computer unless it's built into a rack or tower.

Netbooks? They pretty much exclusively are...

[Phaedrus2129]

Dell has been screwing a lot of schools over by selling them Atom-based machines on claims of better power efficiency. That's as may be, but I've heard of at least one case where one year old E6300 systems were replaced with Atoms that my Athlon XP can outperform, let alone the 2.0-3.2GHz Pentium 4s most schools use. Atoms belong in netbooks, not school desktops.

[Konrad]

I'd guess that desktop Atoms were designed to run the crippled Windows Starter Editions ... cheapest **** possible, meant for loser third world countries and such.
 
That doesn't include Canada. We have P4s. :canada::second:

[Phaedrus2129]

Windows Starter Edition is sadistic. The only reason not to sell Home Premium in those areas for cheaper is because they don't want people buying cheap HP copies from India and selling them in the US. So they deliberately cripple their operating system and sell it at the price point the people can afford, which inherently limits the capabilities of computers in those regions.

adglahdgoirhjf;flkdxd

[ch_123]

As you can guess, I'm an Intel fanboy

[itlnstln]

adglahdgoirhjf;flkdxd

Keyboard malfunction?

[Konrad]

No argument.  Intel costs $$$.
 
But there aren't any alternatives worth buying.

[Phaedrus2129]

Keyboard malfunction?

My Windows starter edition. It only allows 500 keypresses per minute, then it scrambles the message and kicks you in the nuts.

[Phaedrus2129]

No argument.  Intel costs $$$.
 
But there aren't any alternatives worth buying.

So you'd pass up on Athlon II quad cores for $120? 10% slower than an i5 750 and 60% of the price?

Or you'd go for the $1000 980X vs. a $300 1090T? 10% slower for 30% of the price?



Fanboys are both amusing and frustrating.

[Konrad]

Windows Starter Edition is sadistic ... So they deliberately cripple their operating system and sell it at the price point the people can afford, which inherently limits the capabilities of computers...

I feel the same way about the Ultimate Edition.  It's criminal to release a half dozen crippled versions of the product just so you can inflate the price of the complete package.  Bastards.

[itlnstln]

Fortunately, I still qualify for Student prices on MS products ($30 for Win 7 Pro, $80 for Office 2010).  I would go broke otherwise;  I have 5 Windows 7 licenses and only one computer.

[Phaedrus2129]

Fortunately, I still qualify for Student prices on MS products ($30 for Win 7 Pro, $80 for Office 2010).  I would go broke otherwise;  I have 5 Windows 7 licenses and only one computer.

Yeah I probably qualify too, where do you go to pay that price?

EDIT: Nevermind, googled it.

[Konrad]

Fanboys are both amusing and frustrating.

lol, show me the benchmark numbers.
 
Yeah, I'd pay Intel's fixed price of $1000 for their latest/greatest proc and I'd drop a few hundred more on the matching mobo (Intel chipset, almost any top-tier brand).
 
If I were interested in anything less than best then I'd be looking at the midrange performers and weighing against maximum bang for the buck.
 
Probably same logic of people who buy Porsche instead of the far more economical bang-for-buck return of a Honda (or even five Hondas). It's because they don't want to waste time with anything that's not the best.
 
Once another brand (be it AMD or not) manages to consistently take 1st place (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) year after year then I'll shift allegiance.

[instantkamera]

If I were interested in anything less than best then I'd be looking at the midrange performers and weighing against maximum bang for the buck.
 

then you would be looking at a lot of AMD offerings.

Once another brand (be it AMD or not) manages to consistently take 1st place (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) year after year then I'll shift allegiance.

Well 1st place, as already mentioned, is Intel's ONLY 6core offering. It is prohibitively expensive (1000 bucks). Even if you can afford it (I could), it doesnt make ANY sense from a value (price v. performance) standpoint.

The car analogy my be right in some ways, but not in others. Even if you need the fastest machine evar, there are so many other variables (disk, mem, graphics) that will make a system with a "lesser" CPU perform on par or better than a system with just the best CPU. Spending wisely means getting a solid performing CPU and coupling it with good I/O, mem, etc.
 
So, in that category of 2nd - Nth place, AMD easily wins, especially when you compare price to performance (that too has already been basically pointed out).

It's not really rocket science, AMD is a strong performer and helps you keep your cash where it should be (either in your pocket, or upgrading sub-systems that will show better real-world performace boost).

[EverythingIBM]

allow me to clarify:

Show Image

+

Show Image

+

Show Image

=

All EIBM cares about.

like so:

Show Image

Actually those are the wrong cases, I don't like those models.

I only like model 6562:

It's characterized by the stripes going all the way to the back, the front media panel on the lavender strip (which was what it was originally for), EDO DIMMs, pentium 1, crystal audio, & MGA Matrox.
No other "300PLs" have that (except crystal audio on some, most of them moved to ESS Allegro or whatever it's called).

[ch_123]

lol, show me the benchmark numbers.
 
Yeah, I'd pay Intel's fixed price of $1000 for their latest/greatest proc and I'd drop a few hundred more on the matching mobo (Intel chipset, almost any top-tier brand).
 
If I were interested in anything less than best then I'd be looking at the midrange performers and weighing against maximum bang for the buck.

You spend a grand on the latest Intel "Extreme" chip, and suddenly its performance is matched by mainstream chips within 12-18 months, and then its performance is effectively obsolete and matched by low end chips within about three years. Car analogies don't really apply here because good cars are good cars for a long long time, and definitely longer than lesser cars. With CPUs, the timeline by which the CPU is a good CPU is about equal to that of midrange chips. Next generations of CPUs introduce (well, usually) either brand new features, or dramatic performance increases. Having a chip that's a little bit faster than chips that were about 1/5 its price doesn't count for much.

I have an AMD Phenom II in my system, which I picked because it offered the best value for money at the time I purchased it. If money was not an object, I still would have bought it. Well, maybe I might have got some high end chip like one of those 12-core Opterons, but definitely not a slightly faster i7 with an "Extreme" name stuck on to it.

[Phaedrus2129]

The 980X at least makes a shred of sense, since it's Intel's only 6-core chip. But the i7 975 which was $1000 for a long time, that was just stupid. It was just a higher-binned i7 920. You could get an i7 920, good overclocking board, and high-end cooling for half the price of the 975, and get an even higher clock speed.
EDIT: It still costs over $1000 on Newegg. Stupid.

[ch_123]

Isn't there some Intel 6-core part in the $700-800 region?

[Phaedrus2129]

Nope. There was rumored to be like a 970X or 990X, but they haven't surfaced yet and it's unlikely with Sandy Bridge so close to release.

[ch_123]

Ok, a bit more than $800, but here you go -Link

[Phaedrus2129]

Yeah. It's just the lower binned version of the same chip.

[Konrad]

... Intel's ONLY 6core offering. It is prohibitively expensive (1000 bucks). Even if you can afford it (I could), it doesnt make ANY sense from a value (price v. performance) standpoint.

Intel's (Core i7, Gulftown) hex-cores:
i7-960, i7-965X, i7-970, i7-980X; samples of i7-990X are already distributed and will market Q1/2011.
 
AMD's (Phenom II X6, Thuban) hex-cores:
X6-1055T (2 versions), X6-1075T, X6-1090T; possibly also X6-1035T, X6-1045T, X6-1065T, and X6-1080T (but I can't confirm). AMD has not announced any future X6's (their focus is on the next gen "Fusion" APUs expected to market Q3/2011; these will require a new socket, sometimes called "AM3+").
 
(Bold indicates Extreme Edition or Black Edition parts with unlocked multipliers.)
 
Due to Intel's regulated price structures, I'll pay ~CDN$1275-$1350 for an Extreme i7 (whichever version).
AMD's prices seem to be looser and vary largely among vendors. I'll pay ~CDN$400-$550 for a Black X6 (when available, which they currently aren't).
The price gap widens when mobos are also considered; 1st-tier X58 boards would cost me ~CDN$400-$600 while 1st-tier 890FX boards cost ~CDN$200-$350.
 
"Prohibitively expensive" is a personal decision. :wof:
i7's are disgustingly expensive, and the Extreme i7's are blatant ass-raping robbery. But if you *absolutely must have* the ultimate computer then you'll pay the premium.
 

then you would be looking at a lot of AMD offerings ...
... there are so many other variables (disk, mem, graphics) that will make a system with a "lesser" CPU perform on par or better than a system with just the best CPU.

This thread has brought my (unthinkingly dismissive i7-onwards) fanboy dedication into question. My next major processor upgrade (Q3-4/2010, lol) might just be an AMD. Even having to suddenly also buy a new mobo and cooling block might still cost less overall. AMD might even turn out to be the best possible upgrade, not just the most cost-effective one. I might still choose pure Intel, but at least it'd be an informed choice instead of a religious one.
 
My comparison of performance-critical specs:
 
i7-X and X58
QPI (@6.4GT/s), 16GB triple-channel DDR3-1066 (@25.6GB/s) with Turbo Cache, PCIe 2.0 (16/16/4 lanes as dual-16 or quad-8 @32GB/s), NB-SB bus shares QPI, SATA2 (3Gb/s).
X58 supports eSATA and FireWire (lacking on some 890FX boards).
 
Most i7 overclocks exceed 4GHz and a few achieve 5Ghz.
 
X6 and 890FX
HT3.0 (@2x2.0GT/s), 16GB/24GB dual-channel DDR3-1333 (@21GB/s), PCIe 2.0 (16/16/4/1 lanes as dual-16 or quad-8 @32GB/s, plus 5 more single lanes @4GB/s), NB-SB bus across AL3X (@4GB/s), SATA3 (6Gb/s), hardware virtualization IOMMU.
890FX supports IDE, USB1 ports, and legacy peripherals (X58 doesn't); great for compatibility with old devices. Also supports more USB2 ports, extra GbLAN, added PCI slots, and better audio.
Almost every 890FX board adds USB3 controllers. I don't know why the hell people need 14 or more USB2 ports, but having even a few that can operate as USB3 is essential.
 
The i7/X6 processors support basically equivalent special instruction capabilities: 64-bit, NX bit, Virtualization, power saving, and multimedia SIMDs (SSE4.2 vs SSE4a+3DNow! ... six of one, half-dozen of the other).
 
Momentary off-topic retrogression to OP - a performance SSD or two would certainly be required equipment to get the most out of SATA3 6Gb/s, with or without RAID stripes. :nod:
 
There's a huge number of AM3/890FX mobos which collectively offer a ****load more features and variety than X58 boards. It appears that AMD isn't very heavy-handed about controlling their standards so the mobo makers have generous leeway in their designs and all try to stuff in all the extra features they can to compete in the "PC enthusiast" market. Sophisticated overclock-friendly options are the norm instead of the exception.
 
I just can't quite make sense of the (to me) confusing PCIe configuration. I doubt it'd be an issue for me since I rarely plug in more than a PCIe-16+16 SLI or CFX combo. Sometimes a PCIe-4 drive controller or sound or Gb card (already integrated and therefore not necessary on these boards).
 
Of course direct comparisons are sort of impossible because of some major differences in architecture and design philosophy. I know X58 well, I can hardly make sense of the way AMD does things (it's just a lot of information all at once for a guy who's a decade outdated). Still reading benchmarks and reviews. I've got a lot of catching up to do (and system build pricing to figure out) before I can decide whether Intel is worth the extra $$$. Thanks for the reminder of how rapidly the value of PC tech gets obsoleted (the accountants at work say computers depreciate -25% annually, ie after 4 years they're essentially worthless).

[instantkamera]

Intel's (Core i7, Gulftown) hex-cores:
i7-960, i7-965X, i7-970, i7-980X; samples of i7-990X are already distributed and will market Q1/2011.
 

Im (hypothetically) building now. Where do I buy these magical processors?

AMD's (Phenom II X6, Thuban) hex-cores:
X6-1055T (2 versions), X6-1075T, X6-1090T; possibly also X6-1035T, X6-1045T, X6-1065T, and X6-1080T (but I can't confirm). AMD has not announced any future X6's (their focus is on the next gen "Fusion" APUs expected to market Q3/2011; these will require a new socket, sometimes called "AM3+").

Some of those are not out yet, but the 1055T and 1090T are and have been available at ROCK bottom prices for ages.

 

Due to Intel's regulated price structures, I'll pay ~CDN$1275-$1350 for an Extreme i7 (whichever version).

ridiculous. <- that's a period

 

AMD's prices seem to be looser and vary largely among vendors. I'll pay ~CDN$400-$550 for a Black X6 (when available, which they currently aren't).

Bull poo. I live in canada dude, I know what is available.

1090T (black edish) - 334.99CAD
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=52067&vpn=HDT90ZFBGRBOX&manufacture=AMD

and this has been on-sale at 300 bucks so many times I can't even count. In stock. There are cheaper places too.

Likewise for the 1055T, it's like 200 bucks man.

 

"Prohibitively expensive" is a personal decision. :wof:

i7's are disgustingly expensive, and the Extreme i7's are blatant ass-raping robbery. But if you *absolutely must have* the ultimate computer then you'll pay the premium.
 

I don't buy it. It will be the "ultimate" computer for all of 3 months. And most guys who buy that, probably pair it with 4-8 gigs of ram and a 7200rpm HDD. Hardly "ultimate". I wont argue that SOME can use the proc(s) to it's full potential, but even still those people still might be better served by tailoring their stuff to AMDs offerings. Squeeze extra performance out for a specific application.

 

This thread has brought my (unthinkingly dismissive i7-onwards) fanboy dedication into question. My next major processor upgrade (Q3-4/2010, lol) might just be an AMD. Even having to suddenly also buy a new mobo and cooling block might still cost less overall. AMD might even turn out to be the best possible upgrade, not just the most cost-effective one. I might still choose pure Intel, but at least it'd be an informed choice instead of a religious one.

Good to hear. use what you want, but even intel has better offerings than their "extreme" highest priced items. With the realistic pricing on AVAILABLE AMD procs I have given you, maybe you are even closer...

[Konrad]

Im (hypothetically) building now. Where do I buy these magical [i7] processors?

Wherever you normally buy processors. Some have been discontinued as Intel replaced them with newer/faster versions, just as they will do with the i7-980X once their 990X is in production.
You might be able to find them used if you look around, though I think it seems unlikely simply because (in their time) they cost nearly $1K each and not too many sane people would pop out another $1K for such a miniscule upgrade on a newer part, even if they could resell their old part for "only" ~$600-$800. Besides, people never sell i7's alone unless they're unloading OC lemons that Intel won't RMA.
 

Bull poo. I live in canada dude, I know what is available.
 
1090T (black edish) - 334.99CAD
Likewise for the 1055T, it's like 200 bucks man.

Holy crap NCIX rocks!
 
I was (wasting my time) looking at local shops, eBay, etc.
 
A small (but not exaggerated) part of the inflation in my prices is due to unavoidable shipping costs (most of the vendors I've wasted my time looking at are USA). Those the best prices I could find ... until NCIX. :hail:
 

... even intel has better offerings than their "extreme" highest priced items.

wtf?
 
You're not talking about Xeons are you? (Technically better, I suppose, with a terrifyingly expensive multiprocessor server board bulging with RAM ... except that Xeons don't use QMI, just slow old DMI.)

[instantkamera]

Holy crap NCIX rocks!
 
I was (wasting my time) looking at local shops, eBay, etc.
 
A small (but not exaggerated) part of the inflation in my prices is due to unavoidable shipping costs (most of the vendors I've wasted my time looking at are USA). Those the best prices I could find ... until NCIX. :hail:
 

wtf?
 
You're not talking about Xeons are you? (Technically better, I suppose, with a terrifyingly expensive multiprocessor server board bulging with RAM ... except that Xeons don't use QMI, just slow old DMI.)

NCIX does, for the most part rock. There's also tigerDirect.ca (not as cool, but they do have a store near me). CanadaComputers has low prices too, and bewawa.com is dope if you live in the GTA, they hand deliver with debit at the door (like pizza) for free.

RE Intels better offerings, Im just referring to value. If I was going to buy intel, it still wouldn't be a hexa-core as they are just insanely priced for the performance.

the i7-930 is well priced right now, for example. It provides good performance at a good price.

[HaaTa]

When I lived in Ottawa PC Cyber was good, as well as RB Computing. Compunation had lots of POS and wierd stuff though. Bought stuff from all of them.

[Phaedrus2129]

990X is in production. It's the same thing as the 980X, just priced higher. Intel just figures they can get more sales of a lower priced X6, and more money off a higher priced X6, so instead of binning all their Gulftowns as either 980X desktop chips or Xeons, they'll bin two different desktop versions, one priced at $800 (970X), the other at $1200 (990X), and leave the current 980X labeled ones until they've all been sold. They're all the same, the future 990X chips would have been labeled 980X, only this way Intel gets more money off them.




AMD's kind of neat in that many of their Athlon II/Phenom II processors came off the same die. See, all processor fabs have a certain failure rate of chips that don't make the cut or don't function at all. Intel has dozens of fabs and one or two dedicated to each given line of processors. Going back to LGA775 days, there's a fab for Q9000/Q8000 series chips, one for E8000/E7000/E6000 chips, one for E6000/E4000/E2000 chips, etc. If a chip comes off the line with some of the L2 cache faulty they just disable the faulty cache and sell it as a lower tier CPU, and if it isn't stable at higher clock speeds they label it as a lower clock speed. If a core is busted they send it back for repair, or just recycle it.

AMD, however, doesn't have the cash and facilities Intel has. They're forced to be more economical. Many (not all, but many) of their Athlon II/Phenom II X4/X3/X2 CPUs all came off the same die. The Athlon II X2 240 came off the same fab as the Phenom II X4 965. See, AMD has their fab and it makes chips laid out for the 965 chip. However, say it comes out and it's faulty. A core not working right? Label it an X3. Some of the L3 cache not working? Disable some of that and call it an Athlon. Not stable at 3.4GHz? Mark it for 2.8GHz. And so on.

However, there's more demand for low-end chips than there is for high-end chips. And AMD's fab process is good enough that the vast majority of their chips come out good enough to be mid-range or higher. So AMD has to deliberately take good chips and mark them as lower-end chips, just disabling cores and cache and lowering the clock speed. There have been "golden batches" where they've had such a good haul they had to label chips that could have been Phenom II x4 chips as Athlon II X2 chips. But when the extra parts on these chips are deactivated they aren't laser cut, they're just deactivated through some voltage sensor thing. Certain motherboards have an adjustment that lets you change voltage settings to the CPU that reactivate disabled parts. There have been cases where someone buys an Athlon II X2 240 and "unlocks" it to the equivalent of a Phenom II x4 955 and still has room to overclock.

Only downside is that sometimes the cores are disabled because they really are faulty, or the chip really can't run at a given clock speed. Also the voltage thing messes up the per-core temperature monitoring, so you have to go by total chip temperature. Still, it can be a great way to get "free" performance out of a cheap CPU.

[Konrad]

I was going to ask about that above, but forgot.
 
AMD appears to have low yields, judging by the large variety of flawed X6 chips which are de-rated as lower-priced X4. I'd be surprised if they deliberately rebin any full-spec X6 chips because there's (apparently) an abundant supply of X4 but an intermittent shortage of X6. Vendors just can't restock as fast as they sell.
 
(Even mighty NCIX - Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, and Langley stores all within 20 minutes drive!  How could I not know? - is currently completely out of stock.)
 
I would expect Intel, having larger resources and run volumes, might have slightly better yields (though they might not). Hex i7's get binned down to lesser hex i7's when necessary ... but then what? No doubt many parts have bad cores or bad cache, and they can't be turned into i5's. Are they just discarded?
 
It seems evident that Intel is greedy. Likely they don't mind having a carefully strangled supply because their profits are still floated by *coughfanboyscough* who are willing to pay the premium for i7-X parts. Higher demand just makes the commodity more desirable. And yet AMD can still afford to sell their X6's for ~$300 ...

[Phaedrus2129]

Thuban X6 chips aren't rebinned often. There's one quad core model that's a disabled X6, all other quad cores and lower come off two different fab sets, one for AM3 CPUs (PII 965 derivatives) and the other for AM2+ (PII 940 derivatives) (being phased out). I haven't noticed any major shortage of X6 chips; if there is one it's probably more due to demand exceeding expectations, or they only have one fab, than to lower-than-average yields. I could be wrong though.


When Intel has a chip with a bad core they either try to repair it, or salvage the usable bits and melt down or pitch the rest. Repair costs significant money, which Intel can afford but AMD can't. Salvaging can help recover some cost from a borked chip, but compare $20 saved by salvaging cache and such, to $60 from selling it as a lower-binned chip. And melting it down saves pennies, so the former applies as well. Salvage and melting down are common practice for Intel since they have deep coffers and can eat the loss for higher yields, while AMD needs *any* cashflow more than it needs the couple extra high-end parts sold by repairing bad chips.

[Phaedrus2129]

I hope I'm not coming off as an AMD fanboy or anything. My last two CPUs have been a Core 2 Duo E2200 and Core 2 Quad Q9550. Last AMD CPU was an Athlon64 something or other. Well, latest in terms of acquisition would be my AthlonXP Barton, or the Neo X2 in my netbook. But I don't count those.

However, though I have no loyalty to any one brand, I am currently rooting for AMD. I believe that the best thing for the market, and for the consumer, at the moment would be for AMD to stomp Intel in the next generation and grow market share by 5-15%, get a billion or so in revenue, and invest that in R&D. This would allow them to continue putting out improved Bulldozer products and force Intel to innovate more beyond adding more cores, and if Bulldozer is good enough it might force Intel to lower prices on its CPUs, even sell at cost for a time (as AMD is currently forcing Nvidia to do).

I think AMD even has a chance to accomplish this, assuming Bulldozer performs at or above the level of current-gen Intel chips. One of the big things going for AMD is their socket strategy. Intel's Sandy Bridge chips will come in two socket flavors, LGA1155 and LGA2011. This will bite them in two ways. First this will piss in the face of the enthusiast, enterprise, and OEM markets in that these companies were given the impression that they'd get several years of use out of their LGA1366 and LGA1156 platforms, which have been around for 2 and 1 years respectively. They're already being replaced. This is going to alienate many users. Second it will split their market, forcing enthusiasts to pay more in two ways: 1.) LGA1155 will be incapable of overclocking due to it being a single clock system, so enthusiasts who want to OC on LGA1155 will have to buy expensive K series CPUs; and 2.) LGA2011 will be hellishly expensive, requiring an even larger socket than the already large LGA1366.

If AMD's Bulldozer presents anything like a decent bang for the buck the enthusiast market will come running rather than go with a K series CPU, or pay for an LGA2011 motherboard and CPU. It'll be a case of 90% of the performance for 50% of the price. And while the enthusiast market may only make up 1% of the total sales in the industry, it makes up as much as 5% of the revenue since enthusiasts buy more expensive parts, more often than the average consumer or OEM. Add that to people who go with AMD to avoid having to change sockets again in one or two years and you have a not-insignificant chunk of the market migrating to AMD.

Assuming performance lives up to expectations.



So I'm rooting for AMD for the moment. Them doing better will be good for everyone.

[Konrad]

Raw dies can be repaired?  I don't doubt it's possible but it amazes me.  It must be a (close to) fully automated process.  Sounds ****ing awesome, I'll look it up, wanna learn more.  Salvaging working large cache modules especially (for reuse on cheapy MCUs or even DRAM maybe?) does seem quite reasonable.  I'm unsure if they can "Cut&Paste" lithographed modules between dies.
 
And silicon dies are remelted?  Wouldn't the silicon be contaminated with all (carefully added) semiconductor and metal traces?
 
I do understand the manufacturing process (well, I did 5 years ago anyhow).  Bad dies (and wafer bits) would have to be thrown into arc-furnace with the (<0.1% impure) "metallurgical-grade" silicon prior to crucible distilling/deposition onto (<10ppb impure) "semiconductor-grade" seed rods, then into the electric crystal pulling ovens, etc etc ... unless Intel's yield is really low or waste is really high, I just can't see it being worth more than pennies.  Silicon (artificial/mined quartz crystals) is - literally - dirt cheap.  They'd make more money grinding this uber-refined silicon waste into dust and selling to other industries for making alloys or something, I'd think.