Back to Article

  • kmmatney - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    If you need a new MB/cpu combo, Microcenter still has the best deal - I bought a Phenom XII 560 and motherboard for $88, and the cpu easily unlocked to 4 cores.

    It doesn't come anywhere near the Intel 2500K in performance, but its so much cheaper.
  • buildingblock - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    IMHO not a good deal, even at $88. You could have had the GigaByte 1155 GA-H61M-DS2 for $53 and the Intel Sandy Bridge Celeron G530 2.4GHz for $40 Total $93.

    Performance (PC Mark) G530 2374 - Phenom XII 560 2053

    So your 560 does not even come anywhere near the G530. Agreed the AMD CPU is $5 cheaper but for me it's another win for Intel Sandy Bridge.
  • Hubb1e - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    Did you miss the part where he said he unlocked the extra 2 cores? That's the value in his system. The Celeron is a great chip too, but when you can unlock extra cores it certainly adds to the value proposition.

    Now where's the black edition FM1? I hear these things overclock well, but I'm not a fan of messing around too much with the FSB. It makes me worry too much about my settings if I ever have lockups.
  • MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    I did a MC combo as above, and my BE560 unlocked to 4 cores as well. I went with this MSI board: Add the unlocked multi of the 560 and the fact that my combo motherboard has VGA, DVI, and HDMI, 6 SATA slots, 6 USB ports on back, and a PCI slot for legacy cards, and I'd consider it a pretty darn good deal.

    Compare that to the H61 motherboard: VGA only, 4 SATA, 4 USB running that locked-down Celeron. Not to say that is a bad combo, but it depends on what you'd like to do.

    My only rub on the MSI board was that they totally screwed me on the MIR. Damn, I hate MIRs.
  • jabber - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    Yeah not a fan of using Intel in the budget arena either.

    The CPUs are fine, if a little choice limited at the low end. But its the low end Intel motherboards that suck.

    On a cheap AMD MB I can probably get DVI/HDMI and e-SATA which is nice to have. Maybe even USB3.0.

    On the cheap Intel board I still get parallel and serial ports. It's like it's still 2004 for Intel at the low end.

    If I can get the same features on a cheap Intel board as a 880G m-ATX board then we'll talk.
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    That is a good deal on the Sandy Bridge. I bought my upgrade a while back, before that SB was available, and I also had 4 GB of DDR2 that I wanted to re-use, so the AMD deal was the best at the time (and it unlocked to 4 cores, and easily overclocks to 3.6 Ghz). The unlocked multiplier is nice.

    It would REALLY be nice if the Celeron G530 could overclock, then it would be a no-brainer to go SB.
  • kmmatney - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    Also, that GigaByte 1155 GA-H61M-DS2 is really basic. No DVI, e-sata, only 4 USB ports on back. It also has no IDE connectors (I'm still running an IDE Lightscribe DVD) but has COM port and Parallel port headers? Pretty bizaare for a MB supporting the latest processors. Reply
  • EthanW - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Even still - board features aside (which is the case with the entire line of motherboard from both sides - you're paying a lot more for an Intel version of the same board at the top of the market, too.)

    Overclocking. You should be able to push that 560BE close to 4GHz. The Celeron isn't moving past stock speeds. That's before we unlock cores.

    Plus, knowingly using a Celeron will make most people sick in the stomach. At least move up to a Pentium. :P
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    Thankfully some folks have a moral compass and refuse to buy Intel products due to their multiple convictions for anti-trust violations, multiple convictions for U.S. tax fraud and pending prosecutions for more anti-trust violations. It's not just about PC performance, it's about ethical business practices or the lack there of.

    Consumers can control the marketplace if they vote with their wallet.
  • frozentundra123456 - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    I vote with my wallet to buy the best product for the money. I get tired of the picture of AMD as some great white knight in shining armor while Intel is the evil wizard.
    And by the way, didnt you post this exact same thing in the forums earlier??
    Well, I still disagree with you.

  • Beenthere - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    You're free to disagree all you like but denial does not change reality. Intel's convictions are public knowledge as are their pending charges for more anti-trust violations.

    It does not surprise me that you lack moral strength. Many people are that way today. Companies like Intel are the reason why have so many protests going on around the world right now be it Wall Street or any town USA.

    Some people are fed up with criminal corporations and want them held accountable for their crimes. Some people are apathetic because they don't know the price they are paying and will continue to pay for this crime. See Intel's CPU and mobo pricing as a real life example.
  • MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    Well, most of these fine electronics we love are likely built in sweatshops that also likely do a decent amount of polluting. It's not just hardware, as we can hate on Apple and MS with all their patent lawsuits and no-you-can't policies. The whole "moral compass" thing just doesn't apply unless you research where all this stuff comes from and where the money goes. Reply
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    Of course it does. Everyone has the option of voting with their wallet. You can vote for a convicted criminal corporation that continues to illegally try and eliminate consumer choice or you can vote for an ethical company providing good products at fair prices so that consumers have a choice.

    You're the one who has to live with your decision. Saying morality doesn't apply means you're unwilling to make the proper choice.
  • MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    You just miss my point. Here it is:

    I'm not defending Intel, I'm saying many of these other companies you are "voting" for aren't free of greedy behavior either. But hey, believe what you want.
  • JonnyDough - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    It comes down to the lesser of two evils and an actual "need" vs "desire". We don't really NEED computers or cars. But we want them because they make life seemingly easier. Until we're dying of cancer or lack motivation to get off our duffs. Reply
  • Prosthetic Head - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    Your argument appears to be "because we can't achieve perfection or fully quantify things the issues are irrelevant" ?

    Well if that's the case I'd strongly disagree; Making least bad choices based on partial information is something we do all the time.

    Note: I'm not passing comment on the relative ethics of either AMD, Intel anyone's personal decisions since I have almost no knowledge of the issues each person have to balance, just pointing out that even if there isn't a 'right answer' there can still be better or worse options.
  • bigboxes - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    But can you file share with your moral compass? That is the question bubba! Reply
  • TiGr1982 - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    You are an infantile idealist and living in the world of illusions. In my personal opinion, big businesses do not care about such a thing as "moral obligations" internally. Everything is just about money. There are no "moral" big businesses on the planet; just successful and unsuccessful ones.

    Intel is indeed guilty in anti-trust behaviour. But this DOES NOT make AMD any better. I was an AMD customer for last several years, since Athlon 64 single core days, but now I think I'll quit buing AMD. Why? Because recently this year these AMD clowns commited somewhat like an informational fraud with their Bulldozer, being in fact EPIC BRUTAL FAIL for the desktop CPU market. The problem is not with Bulldozer itself, the problem is that they promised it to be a "High-Performance CPU", faster than Thuban 1100T by 50%, and thus persuaded a bunch of people to waste their money on AM3+ motherboards, but failed to deliver the promised performance. To me, morally, this can be considered as a kind of a fraud.

    Summarizing, there are no "good" and "bad" companies, unfortunately. Only good and bad products. Good products bring a lot of money to the business, bad ones do not.

    Few examples:

    - IBM sold punch cards and the relevant equipment to Hitler in 1930's - 1940's to assist in counting european jewish people, thus indirectly helping Nazi to exterminate them. A historical fact, revealed around ten years ago. Google this. Nothing personal, just business and money, IBM thought at that times, I think.

    - Intel is anti-trust, as we know. And Intel is a successful, wealthy and growing business, currently because their CPU's are one of the best in industry.

    - AMD is a bunch of clowns which do not deliver what they promise (see above). And, UNFORTUNATELY, AMD is an unsuccessful, loser-kind business, in comparison with the first two mentioned above.
  • JonnyDough - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    Just because you were let down by AMD's marketing company does not mean the company is as quote "loser-kind business" as you are free to believe. They are a large corporation, full of genius engineers, etc. How are you going to insult an entire corporation full of diverse individuals when you blab on aimlessly and don't even make sense?

    You go on some sort of high moral ground about how Intel has a history of unacceptable and illegal/immoral behavior, and then compare AMD by stating that their marketing company lied to you. You then go on with IBM (not sure of the relevance really) but you want to say "it's just business". Is AMD not also "just doing business" and trying to make a profit? That is what companies do you know. But AMD has not been found guilty like Intel has have they?

    You're an idiot. Please stop posting filth like some sort of twelve year old fanatical fanboy.
  • TiGr1982 - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    I was saying is that everybody is just making business, including AMD, of course, just the way they can - current company at the current moment. The examples provided above just list the non-moral or even offensive behavior during this money-making process. And indeed Intel's behaviour is really ABSOLUTELY non-excusable. This is a crime, of course.

    When I said "loser-kind business", I meant that AMD lost their server market share from around 25% in 2006 to around 5% now (this is a well-known statistics), they sold their crucial Dresden fab, removing the direct in-company link between design and manufacturing, and all the last years AMD is barely profitable.

    Indeed, there is plenty of smart tech people in AMD, absolutely no doubt in that. Technically, AMD are true innovators, first integrating the memory controller into the X86 CPU in 2003 with their Athlon 64 in 2003, first making the true dual core X86 CPU in 2005 (Athlon 64 X2), and first making true quad core X86 CPU with L3 cache in 2007 (Phenom), and first introducing the CMT (Cluster Multi-Threading), instead of Intel's SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading, marketed Hyper-Threading). Also, AMD were the first to integrate the USB 3.0 inside the chipset itself recently (A75, Llano APU).

    But their management and marketing decisions are a real cause for concern, and sometimes spoil all the big technical effort made. Bulldozer is really reasonable in server space, but, unfortunately, not in desktops, as it was hyped to be. See the Web, there are a lot of folks who were disappointed by FX performance in desktop workloads, this is absolutely not only my opinion.

    That 's about AMD CPU business. In contrast, AMD GPU's are MUCH more successful on the market, and are state-of-the art in industry.

    None of the companies discussed is really good from the moral point of view, but due to a different reasons. There is nothing about fanatism here. Just the raw facts. If you are not following these facts, and unable to analyse them, then it is your own problem, not mine.
  • Soulkeeper - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    bummer I almost got excited ... Reply
  • gevorg - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    ... is that AMD needs to slash FX-8150 prices by at least $50. Reply
  • Halnerd - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    This is exactly the chip I have been waiting for to build my Mini-ITX box. I think it is an awesome alternative to Bulldozer/SNB for a smaller comp with a discrete GPU. Can't wait for a full review. Reply
  • Taft12 - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    A 100W TDP CPU is a poor choice for a mini-ITX system.

    I'm an AMD fan, so it pains me to recommend Intel, but Core i3 is the right choice for a SFF system. Better ITX motherboard options too.
  • silverblue - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    I hope you don't really think this 32nm quad core CPU with no L3 cache is going to ever use 100W. :)

    A Core i3 would use less power, definitely.
  • AmdInside - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    Sure miss the Athlon name. Hate Phenom about as much as I hate the name Sempron. Reply
  • Beenthere - Tuesday, November 15, 2011 - link

    It's just a name. I mean really. :) Reply
  • bigboxes - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    How does the Phenom work with file sharing? Reply
  • Kim Leo J - Thursday, November 17, 2011 - link

    bigboxes, I don't get it?

    It is just a name, and Athlon was a competition to Pentium, but Intel now considers Pentium some kind of cheap brand, and therefore AMD needed a new brand. Athlons are still there, but yeah sadly they don't reflect their strong past.
  • jaydee - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    So why would someone buy an FM1 Athlon II? Can it overclock? Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Wednesday, November 16, 2011 - link

    There are some reports of very impressive overclocks, but there just does not seem to be as much interest as there should be given the performance we're seeing. I am building an A4 system and will post my overclocking results on the forums. Reply
  • craigthinks - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    It is nice to see more proccessors for the FM1 socket. There is a rumer that they would stop supporting the FM1 for future designs.

    The Athlon is a slower CPU. The A8- benchmarks at 5,590 and Athlon x4 631 at 2800. Half the processing power. The A6-3650 at $110. is much better deal bench marks at 5100 on the passmark tests. The writer is mixing up the cpu clock with processing power or speed.
    The AMD A8 is top of the CPU power per cost rating. ie: A great deal. Mostly all are AMD's are top in that category. Man, the prices would go way up if AMD was not around. Remember when Intel said we needed slot 1, as CPU could not be put on the mother board. What a joke. Although, Intel is a good place to work, when they are not laying-off.

    much slower processor to the A8, not faster like article says
    "it will deliver slighly faster performance than the 2.9 GHz, ~$140 A8-3850 at a lower cost."
  • craigthinks - Saturday, November 19, 2011 - link

    Opps, the new CPU is 400 Hz faster than the older Athlon x4 631 so should benchmark much faster. Guessing in the upper 3000 to lower to 4000 on passmark. Sill slower than the A8 and A6.

    I am buying 2 computers with the A8 moble and extra graphic card for a laptop and upgrading my 1989 project computer with the A8-3850.

    So Please AMD, don't outdate the FM1 socket next year.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now