Foo - Anybody here is up-to-date with AMD CPUs?

Last machines I built were based around the AMD Phenom II X6 1090t (black edition). You can still find it in some places but is getting expensive. Looks like AMD is not focusing on it anymore (shrugs, is a great CPU). The ones out there, I really have no idea how they compare against the 1090t. Anybody can give me some clues?

PS: Yeah I know I can google, but I'm bored and wanna chat/post.

It seems that the Phenom series is being replaces bt the A & FX. WIth the A series being the CPU+GPU Frankenstein, and the FX series being the new CPU line. Am I correct? FXs come in 4/6/8 cores.

I know this is a longshot... this place is a refuge for apple wuusies and intel brainwashed betherens.

I like my amd fx series i have the 8 core fx darn thing can overclock to like 4400 mhz if i recall thats stable can go to 5000 but that was not stable the intel cpus seem to be beter unless u do video editing i got a great deal on mine is why i got it

My netbook has a dual-core AMD C-50 in it, it is also CPU+GPU. It's the first AMD I've had since I got rid of my Shuttle box (which was an Athlon XP of some sort) back in '09.

My netbook has a dual-core AMD C-50 in it, it is also CPU+GPU. It's the first AMD I've had since I got rid of my Shuttle box (which was an Athlon XP of some sort) back in '09.o i recall them aint they the ones u can crush the cpu?

o i recall them aint they the ones u can crush the cpu?

The Athlon? I did burn one up once by trying a new super-quiet fan that didn't speed up fast enough to match the CPU heating up. But I have never crushed a CPU.

AMD has evolved themselves into a niche market- that of very low prices. If you have a very low budget then you can go with AMD. If you have a low budget and you have software that benefits from a lot of cores then you can go with AMD. Otherwise go with AMD.

When my company started 11 years ago we bought new computers with AMD processors. Running Win98SE and Autocad 2000i they were very fast. 7 years ago we replaced them with new machines but still with AMD processors. Running WinXP and Autocad 2004 they were fast but not quite as fast. We ran them for 4 years and they were not keeping up with our newer software so I did more research and bought some new machines. I got interested in the latest Intel cpu's and built a new machine with a dual core intel processor. It was incredibly fast compared to the 4 year old AMD machine so I decided I had had my share of AMD cpu's.

Here is an article that recommends different processor models depending on your budget and use:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Why go second tier?

As long as the queries run and the browser browses I don't pay attention to the chip its run on.
Sorry

Here is the gaming CPU hierarcy chart. Glad to see my Core i7 2600 is still top tier.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

And here is another where you can choose the CPU
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Both of those sites are great for research.

Why go second tier?

I agree with that. There are a few small niches where an AMD processor might make sense but other than that Intel processors are usually the better choice.

AMD has had a lot of fans over the years, maybe they like AMD or maybe they just hate Intel I don't know. I read toms hardware a lot and people are continually bashing Intel and talking about how the next AMD processor will be so much better. Toms builds test machines periodically and benchmarks them against each other. Due to all of the AMD fans that write to them occasionally they will include AMD chips in their test machines. I don't recall an instance in the past few years where the AMD machines performed anywhere close to the Intel machines. A person interested in AMD chips could go to that site and look up all of their old test builds and compare the benchmarks.

Here is the gaming CPU hierarcy chart. Glad to see my Core i7 2600 is still top tier.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

And here is another where you can choose the CPU
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

Both of those sites are great for research.

that's actually a bit dated.

i5-3570k and i7-3770k are #3 and #2, respectively.
i7-3930k is #1

AMD brings up the rear and has NOTHING to compete against i5-3570k and higher.

The only reason to buy AMD, is if you have no money to buy a i5-3570k.

Speaking of which, A10-5800k is quite competitive when compared to the similarly priced i3-3225, both of which are around $130~140 mark.

There is a new Piledriver/Vishera FX series is coming out in a few days.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20120920130859_AMD_FX_Series_Vishera_Microprocessors_Available_for_Pre_Order_Online.html
But it's unlikely that any of them will offer any competition to i5-3570k, when both are overclocked, at least, when it comes to games, if AMD's 2nd gen APU's overclocking potential are any indication.

I agree with that. There are a few small niches where an AMD processor might make sense but other than that Intel processors are usually the better choice.

AMD has had a lot of fans over the years, maybe they like AMD or maybe they just hate Intel I don't know. I read toms hardware a lot and people are continually bashing Intel and talking about how the next AMD processor will be so much better. Toms builds test machines periodically and benchmarks them against each other. Due to all of the AMD fans that write to them occasionally they will include AMD chips in their test machines. I don't recall an instance in the past few years where the AMD machines performed anywhere close to the Intel machines. A person interested in AMD chips could go to that site and look up all of their old test builds and compare the benchmarks.

I got into computers right around 1999/2000 when the first Athlons had come out, and were absolutely spanking Intel. I've been a bit of an AMD fanboy, since then. I don't much keep up on tech anymore, so when I build a new computer, I usually just go towards the fastest AMD CPU my budget will allow. That said, I usually build upper mid-range, not top end machines.

2 years ago I ditched my athlon fx60 for an I7. all the research I did told me to do this. I also abandoned the nivida video cards for the radeons based on current (at the time) performance comparisons.

Ever since 'outgrowing' my 8086 Packard Hell, I have built every one on my PCs. Not certain what the 286 was but most have been on an AMD chip. Wife's still is, as is my laptop. My last build I switched to an i7 with high end Nvida GTX video card. Not that I am a gamer, but to handle video rendering with Adobe Premiere. AMD just wasn't up to the task, nor were their Radeon graphics, however, they do make good non-critical gaming machines. Video development puts whole different demands and Premier's Mercury playback engine is built around the Nvida chipset, GTX and higher, although you can fake it with lesser GT and GTS cards by editing a text file in the program.

Replacing my 2 AMD computers? The jury is still out on Windows 8, and frankly the big square block interface turns me off. I may seriously consider Apple which I haven't owned since my original Apple II before the Packard Hell until my iPad last year. Time will tell there if Windows 8 will push me to Apple.

Back in the day, AMD used to have the best price/performance ratio. Now, not so much.

I miss my K6-III/400. :)

I got into computers right around 1999/2000 when the first Athlons had come out, and were absolutely spanking Intel.

Those were the days when AMD was doing real well in the performance race. We bought new AMD machines for our office in 2000 or 2001 and I remember them being real fast. We replaced them 4 years later and the replacements weren't so good compared to Intel. It was sometime right after that that Intel took off in performance and passed AMD. AMD has not been able to keep up. I'm not an AMD fan anymore but I would like to see AMD do better so that they would provide reasonable competition for Intel.

I remember the days when there were other companies with good competition for Intel, such as Cyrix. AMD was also a good competitor to Intel back then. Our office was using AMD 386DX-40 chips instead of Intel 386DX-33 chips.

Those were the days when AMD was doing real well in the performance race. We bought new AMD machines for our office in 2000 or 2001 and I remember them being real fast. We replaced them 4 years later and the replacements weren't so good compared to Intel. It was sometime right after that that Intel took off in performance and passed AMD. AMD has not been able to keep up. I'm not an AMD fan anymore but I would like to see AMD do better so that they would provide reasonable competition for Intel.

I remember the days when there were other companies with good competition for Intel, such as Cyrix. AMD was also a good competitor to Intel back then. Our office was using AMD 386DX-40 chips instead of Intel 386DX-33 chips.

I still remember their add on Computer Shopper.... "386DX-40, where no one has gone before".

I still remember their add on Computer Shopper.... "386DX-40, where no one has gone before".

In some ways those were the good old days. We were running MS-DOS which is extremely crude compared to Windows 7 but it ran very fast on a 386-DX40. The guys in my office were playing with Descent at lunch and it ran pretty well on the 386-DX40. That makes me laugh when I read about people needing quad core cpu's at 4GHz and $500 video cards in order to run current games that look barely better than Descent.

And don't anybody give me any Apple crap- I was running Unix before I was running MS-DOS and to paraphrase my computer supplier- "Apple OS is just Unix with a clown suit on it".

I am pretty happy with my new old box... Asus P5Q motherboard with an Intel quad core Q8200 running at 2.33ghz with 4 gigs of ram. Video is a 210 GeForce / 512 which replaced a faulty 1G video card and it's all good for what I do with the computer and I think the 1TB drive and 1TB external should cover my storage needs.

I am pretty happy with my new old box... Asus P5Q motherboard with an Intel quad core Q8200 running at 2.33ghz with 4 gigs of ram

I'm running a Q9400 at 3.4GHz. When I built it I was able to get it to run stable at 3.8GHz. This was at the limit of my ram so I stopped right there. It might have gone higher but I don't think that chip should go much higher. I picked 3.4 as a good everyday number to run at. My work computer is a dual core E8500 and it has run 24/7 for over 3 years at 3.8GHz. What I do at home doesn't need nearly as much speed as I have. What I do at work sometimes needs 5 times the speed that I have. I will replace that machine as soon as economic conditions allow. Current Intel CPU's will achieve about twice the actual throughput as my E8500 at 3.8GHz. I think I can run an i7 at right at 5GHz and the chips' internal architectures are much more efficient too. I'm not running games so I have cheap video on the home machine and professional video on the work machine.

I have a laptop that runs a dual core pentium at 1.6GHz and it is not really slow for most of what I do. I put an SSD in it and that helps a lot with its perceived speed.

My new old box was one of my nephew's old work machines but what he does (workwise) warrants computer power on a scale that most people would never need... the 64G was not fast enough so he doubled down and now runs 128.