CPUs next year

ok there is a lot of chatter about the new CPUs AMD is making come next year. what are the next line up for CPUs? i know theres going to be the new socket type AM3+ and what will the CPUs be? like will they be 4 core 6 cores, 8 cores?

also what is the difference of CPU and APU? will it be worth getting a APU instead of a CPU in my next build in a few years?

Amd Bulldozeris amd's new chips design, it will be the first big major revision on their chips since 2003, and is rumored to be around 16 cores. And an APU is basically something that combines the graphics processing and normal stuff into one chip

Amd Bulldozeris amd's new chips design, it will be the first big major revision on their chips since 2003, and is rumored to be around 16 cores. And an APU is basically something that combines the graphics processing and normal stuff into one chip

ferret-gamer

holy crap 16 cores!? so we are looking at maybe $500-$1000 for that Bulldozer CPU ( or APU)

and do you think a APU will cost a lot? maybe $1000 for one APU?

if thats the case then i should just get a 6 core CPU and wait years down the road to get a bulldozer or a APU.

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

GTR12

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

acsam12304

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

BluRayHiDef

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

BluRayHiDef

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

yeah i know but so far with my Athlon II x4 it rips thorugh everythign i throw at it

it can play Crysis very high AA-4 1920x1080 like nothing

and Metro 2033 Dx-11 very high with advance shaders on in 1920x1080 like nothing too.

heck with my new heatsink i can buy a x6 core if i wanted and save cuz i will just buy the CPU only.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

BluRayHiDef

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

ferret-gamer

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

I'll believe it when you show me some proof.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

BluRayHiDef

I'll believe it when you show me some proof.

Okay then:http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2407.html?prod[4446]=on&prod[4417]=on You have to copy, link wont work.

Athlon x4 640 wins in 17 tests, costs $100

Intel q8300 wins in 13 tests. Costs $150

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

BluRayHiDef

I'll believe it when you show me some proof.

him or me? right now like i said im playing Metro 2033 DX-11 advance DX-11 setting on very high and other settings on very high, Crysis on very high, the new COD Black Ops on very high, Arma 2 all on very high, all on 1920x1080 res. with no lag.

and i can minimize the games, and i can get on teh web open a lot of tabs. i can open Photoshop with a game minimzed. i can rip a DVD and burn a DVD in teh same time when im playing a game with no lag what so ever. all this with my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.19GHz

I've used both Intel and AMD CPUs. Both companies make great products.. but I have to go with AMD because their price/performance is way more practical for me (and most other people, whether they realize it or not).

The Athlon II X4's perform better than the lower-end Intel Core 2 Quads, and cost significantly less. The Phenom II X4's have always been a great value, as are the X6's.

As far as lower-end stuff goes, the Athlon II X2's and X3's are great values. Not to mention that it's cheaper to build on an AM3 platform. For $160 you can get a 3ghz AMD quad-core and an AM3 motherboard with 4 RAM slots and multiple PCI-E slots. Intel can't touch that.

trust me if i had the money to spend that much ill get a i7 CPU

trust me if i had the money to spend that much ill get a i7 CPU

acsam12304

I would love to have been able to justify buying an i7, an LGA 1366 mobo, and a 6gb RAM kit. I just couldn't justify it based on my usage requirements and the high level of performance from AMD's current lineup for such a low price.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

trust me if i had the money to spend that much ill get a i7 CPU

hartsickdiscipl

I would love to have been able to justify buying an i7, an LGA 1366 mobo, and a 6gb RAM kit. I just couldn't justify it based on my usage requirements and the high level of performance from AMD's current lineup for such a low price.

i knwo what u mean and imt hinking ot getting a 6 core some time next year when the new AMD CPUs comes out

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

trust me if i had the money to spend that much ill get a i7 CPU

acsam12304

I would love to have been able to justify buying an i7, an LGA 1366 mobo, and a 6gb RAM kit. I just couldn't justify it based on my usage requirements and the high level of performance from AMD's current lineup for such a low price.

i knwo what u mean and imt hinking ot getting a 6 core some time next year when the new AMD CPUs comes out

I won't upgrade until my current setup doesn't get it done anymore.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

Theres also Intel's line of Sandy Bridge coming, don't rule that out.

BluRayHiDef

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

"Intel CPUs cost more because they run better." I've got a problem with that sentence. To me that reads, "Intels are better because I said so." "Run better" is a broad term, you should probably clarify what you mean. Also, at half the price of your "better running" intel one could obtain an AMD that will still conquer any game thrown at it. Lastly, when AMD released the Athlon64 line it mopped the floor with the intel's offerings, which, ironically, were less efficient, not true 64 bit, ran hot, and STILL cost more than the AMD processors, but I guess since the intels cost more than means they're better. Intels cost more for the same reason Apple hardware costs more. Household brand names.tequilasunriser

Not neccessarily, one example of a great Intel CPU is the Q6600/Q6700, specifically the G0 stepping, these are both 3 yrs old, and incredible OC'ers, if the Phenom II 955/965 can match it in 2 yrs time (think its been out for a yr), then I would say, its a hell of a CPU.

You can almost always pay more and get more. The trick is to pay the least you can and still get enough performance for your needs.

You can almost always pay more and get more. The trick is to pay the least you can and still get enough performance for your needs.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"] "Intel CPUs cost more because they run better." I've got a problem with that sentence. To me that reads, "Intels are better because I said so." "Run better" is a broad term, you should probably clarify what you mean. Also, at half the price of your "better running" intel one could obtain an AMD that will still conquer any game thrown at it. Lastly, when AMD released the Athlon64 line it mopped the floor with the intel's offerings, which, ironically, were less efficient, not true 64 bit, ran hot, and STILL cost more than the AMD processors, but I guess since the intels cost more than means they're better. Intels cost more for the same reason Apple hardware costs more. Household brand names.GTR12

Not neccessarily, one example of a great Intel CPU is the Q6600/Q6700, specifically the G0 stepping, these are both 3 yrs old, and incredible OC'ers, if the Phenom II 955/965 can match it in 2 yrs time (think its been out for a yr), then I would say, its a hell of a CPU.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You can almost always pay more and get more. The trick is to pay the least you can and still get enough performance for your needs.

tequilasunriser

thats right. as of now i threw at my CPU all the new games at it and it all the games maxed out at very high with no lag or anything. im happy with my Athlon II x4 CPU. :)

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Erm.. considering the $100 amd quad outperforms the $150 intel quad.....acsam12304

I'll believe it when you show me some proof.

him or me? right now like i said im playing Metro 2033 DX-11 advance DX-11 setting on very high and other settings on very high, Crysis on very high, the new COD Black Ops on very high, Arma 2 all on very high, all on 1920x1080 res. with no lag.

and i can minimize the games, and i can get on teh web open a lot of tabs. i can open Photoshop with a game minimzed. i can rip a DVD and burn a DVD in teh same time when im playing a game with no lag what so ever. all this with my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.19GHz

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I'll believe it when you show me some proof.

sn4k3_64

him or me? right now like i said im playing Metro 2033 DX-11 advance DX-11 setting on very high and other settings on very high, Crysis on very high, the new COD Black Ops on very high, Arma 2 all on very high, all on 1920x1080 res. with no lag.

and i can minimize the games, and i can get on teh web open a lot of tabs. i can open Photoshop with a game minimzed. i can rip a DVD and burn a DVD in teh same time when im playing a game with no lag what so ever. all this with my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.19GHz

at first i did OC with my stock cooler. but at idle my temp was 48*F-51*F and under load it was 68*C-74*C

so i got the Cooler Master hyper 212 cooler and man its great it brought my temps back down to 25*C-31*C on idle and under load 38*C-44*C

Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm actually quite excited to see what AMD will unleash next year. The Bulldozer architecture seems to be creating a lot of buzz, in a good way. Unlike Sandy Bridge, which has also been creating a lot of buzz lately, but probably not good buzz. From what I know, it isn't OC friendly? Like, you have to shell out sweet Benjamins for the OC-friendly Extreme Edition.

Anyone care to shed more light?

Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm actually quite excited to see what AMD will unleash next year. The Bulldozer architecture seems to be creating a lot of buzz, in a good way. Unlike Sandy Bridge, which has also been creating a lot of buzz lately, but probably not good buzz. From what I know, it isn't OC friendly? Like, you have to shell out sweet Benjamins for the OC-friendly Extreme Edition.

Anyone care to shed more light?

oobermensch

[QUOTE="sn4k3_64"][QUOTE="acsam12304"]

him or me? right now like i said im playing Metro 2033 DX-11 advance DX-11 setting on very high and other settings on very high, Crysis on very high, the new COD Black Ops on very high, Arma 2 all on very high, all on 1920x1080 res. with no lag.

and i can minimize the games, and i can get on teh web open a lot of tabs. i can open Photoshop with a game minimzed. i can rip a DVD and burn a DVD in teh same time when im playing a game with no lag what so ever. all this with my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.19GHz

acsam12304

at first i did OC with my stock cooler. but at idle my temp was 48*F-51*F and under load it was 68*C-74*C

so i got the Cooler Master hyper 212 cooler and man its great it brought my temps back down to 25*C-31*C on idle and under load 38*C-44*C

[QUOTE="sn4k3_64"][QUOTE="acsam12304"]

him or me? right now like i said im playing Metro 2033 DX-11 advance DX-11 setting on very high and other settings on very high, Crysis on very high, the new COD Black Ops on very high, Arma 2 all on very high, all on 1920x1080 res. with no lag.

and i can minimize the games, and i can get on teh web open a lot of tabs. i can open Photoshop with a game minimzed. i can rip a DVD and burn a DVD in teh same time when im playing a game with no lag what so ever. all this with my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.19GHz

acsam12304

at first i did OC with my stock cooler. but at idle my temp was 48*F-51*F and under load it was 68*C-74*C

so i got the Cooler Master hyper 212 cooler and man its great it brought my temps back down to 25*C-31*C on idle and under load 38*C-44*C

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

i know. i do love intel but the problem with them is the price. i got a my Athlon II x4 Quad core for $99 compare to the cheapest intel Quad core CPU $150.

i love intel i always used them but its hard to go with intel if the price of a AMD is really good and AMD makes some pretty damn good CPUs

acsam12304

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

yeah i know but so far with my Athlon II x4 it rips thorugh everythign i throw at it

it can play Crysis very high AA-4 1920x1080 like nothing

and Metro 2033 Dx-11 very high with advance shaders on in 1920x1080 like nothing too.

heck with my new heatsink i can buy a x6 core if i wanted and save cuz i will just buy the CPU only.

[QUOTE="acsam12304"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You get what you pay for. Intel CPUs cost more because they run better.

yellosnolvr

yeah i know but so far with my Athlon II x4 it rips thorugh everythign i throw at it

it can play Crysis very high AA-4 1920x1080 like nothing

and Metro 2033 Dx-11 very high with advance shaders on in 1920x1080 like nothing too.

heck with my new heatsink i can buy a x6 core if i wanted and save cuz i will just buy the CPU only.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="acsam12304"]

yeah i know but so far with my Athlon II x4 it rips thorugh everythign i throw at it

it can play Crysis very high AA-4 1920x1080 like nothing

and Metro 2033 Dx-11 very high with advance shaders on in 1920x1080 like nothing too.

heck with my new heatsink i can buy a x6 core if i wanted and save cuz i will just buy the CPU only.

Limp_Laky

I do a combination and still went with AMD (price/performance).

If a video takes 20 mins to render on an intel maybe I'll wait 25 mins on my AMD, big deal, 5 mins difference. I usually do something else while videos encode anyway.

Maybe a file takes 13 seconds to compress in winrar with an intel while it takes 19 seconds on an AMD.Big deal, it's 6 seconds.

The performance 'hits' are not significant enough to warrant the more expensive purchase when both companies products can complete the same tasks. At least that's my opinion.

If money was no option and I wasn't ******' around (i.e. SRS BSNS) then I'd probably build an intel rig. Price is almost always a factor, however, so that's why there is so much support for what AMD is offering.

[QUOTE="Limp_Laky"][QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]you'll only notice a real difference doing editing or anything of that type. games usually dont have large performance gaps.tequilasunriser

I do a combination and still went with AMD (price/performance).

If a video takes 20 mins to render on an intel maybe I'll wait 25 mins on my AMD, big deal, 5 mins difference. I usually do something else while videos encode anyway.

Maybe a file takes 13 seconds to compress in winrar with an intel while it takes 19 seconds on an AMD.Big deal, it's 6 seconds.

The performance 'hits' are not significant enough to warrant the more expensive purchase when both companies products can complete the same tasks. At least that's my opinion.

If money was no option and I wasn't ******' around (i.e. SRS BSNS) then I'd probably build an intel rig. Price is almost always a factor, however, so that's why there is so much support for what AMD is offering.

I'm with you all the way here. I do HD video conversion and editing all the time on my computer, and it's plenty fast.

When the althon 64 first came out, it beat the pentium 4 soundly for a much cheaper price.

lololol northwood and prescott

I was just looking over some old articles. When the original Athlon came out, it smacked the pentium 3 around also.

I was just looking over some old articles. When the original Athlon came out, it smacked the pentium 3 around also.

NailedGR

Yep. AMD had the best performers for a few years. The Athlon 64 x2 mopped the floor with the Pentium D.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

I was just looking over some old articles. When the original Athlon came out, it smacked the pentium 3 around also.

hartsickdiscipl

Yep. AMD had the best performers for a few years. The Athlon 64 x2 mopped the floor with the Pentium D.

Yeah, after looking through all these articles, from the athlon on, AMD pretty much owned until basically the p4 hit 2.4GHz and then AMD retook everything with the Athlon 64s. Then intel retook the lead again with Core.