Bang per buck

Brucifer · 2006-09-27, 15:21

@Chino:

Thank you for the PM on your e6400 speeds, and for also posting them here. So after looking at that I headed for the Outpost and NewEgg web sites to start pricing stuff out. Well what I ended up learning was that X2-3800's run at $150 for the regular one (not the energy efficient model) and an Asus board runs $72 with onboard video, which is good for a cruncher, and then a $100 for a couple 512 sticks of DDR400. The e6400 chip was listed around $249, then the motherboards were hitting $100+ for the core 2 duo compatibles, and again $100 for memory.

So it looks like I could stuff together an X2-3800, and a single amd-64/3700 for close to the same price as an e6400 system. So from that perspective there would be more kps per dollar.......... until intel drops the price a bit. :) But then over the longer haul, the electrical operating costs would be cheaper for the intel.

Getting up in price on the X2's to the comparible cost of the core 2 duo's then the performance evens out on combined sieving.

What the real kicker is though is that the core 2 duo kicks the X2's butts on llrnet. So the bottom line is that you can do both llr and sieving quite decently with the core 2 duo. With the X2 you can only sieve decently cause llrnet sucks in comparisson to the intel. Bottom line is that for me or anyone else that is only concerned with sieving, it is still wiser to buy amd for total kps/dollar. But most are into doing the llr/PRP thing for which the intel is the way to go, and can still do a very respectable job sieving also.

But that's what I wanted to know and why I asked you for your performance figures. Thank you! :)

Chino112 · 2006-09-28, 09:17

cool.

I ran a range of 211000-211100 or something like that. For the default refresh to screen iteration count I was getting about 900kp/s. But I somehow either deleted or lost the folder with the results in. So I am running again. I think my wife may have accidentally deleted it. :(

I am finding the processor very fast. I am currently running both a LLR range and resieving. Also I bought the new machine for game playing, which these days takes very little processor power as its all about the GPU. When running a game such as Dawn Of War or Titan Quest which I have been playing, I still get a combined 600-700kp/s. Thats pretty cool.

The price will drop more when the quads come out at the end of the year. The plus side is supposedly you can drop a quad core on a core2 duo motherboard. As it is just 2 core 2duos side by side. Now I need a good excuse to buy one of them.

Chino

Mystwalker · 2006-09-28, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chino112

Now I need a good excuse to buy one of them.

It's cheaper than buying a second system.

Biggles · 2006-09-28, 16:19

It's also worth remembering that AMDs next chip will be a native quad-core design, unlike Intel's which is a bit of a hack. There's a bunch of other architectural changes as well which should make it at least as good as Core 2 Duo. Intel's problem will be a lack of memory bandwidth with four cores - something not likely to be a problem for AMD.

But it also happens to be backward compatible with Socket AM2 and can use either DDR2 memory or DDR3 memory.

Brucifer · 2006-09-28, 21:51

So are there any reports in the wild as to if amd's new chip is being tested out in the world anywhere or is it still in the lab only? Or is it even in the lab yet?

Biggles · 2006-09-29, 09:53

It's not in the wild yet. It has been taped out, which basically means that they've made some pre-production prototypes.

If what we've heard has been true, it should be an absolute floating point monster.

Chino112 · 2006-09-29, 10:31

the problem for AMD is they will be 1/2 year behind on the quad cores. As intel will have them out by year end and AMD is planning a mid-2007 launch. Whether Intel has a quad core which is 2 dual cores side by side or not, they will have a quad core out. And this way should ensure by the time AMD comes out with a pure 4 core chipset, Intel will have a second gen quad core chipset out and the inital release will be cheaper.

Just nice to see intel get back on top for a while. Good for competition = good for us.

There was an article on how Intel expects 32 core processors by 2010. But the individual core clock speed will now remain in the 2-3Ghz range.

I think by the end of next year, when Quad cores will be freely available and getting cheap, we will see a big increase in throughput. But this will be offset by the fact that PRPing will take longer by then.

Brucifer · 2006-09-29, 14:55

I don't really think it will hurt AMD. If the memory pipeline turns out to be a problem on the intel and the amd's is better, then people/corporations will buy the better performing chip assuming some price parity.

2006-09-27, 15:21	#1
Brucifer Dec 2005 313 Posts	Bang per buck @Chino: Thank you for the PM on your e6400 speeds, and for also posting them here. So after looking at that I headed for the Outpost and NewEgg web sites to start pricing stuff out. Well what I ended up learning was that X2-3800's run at $150 for the regular one (not the energy efficient model) and an Asus board runs $72 with onboard video, which is good for a cruncher, and then a $100 for a couple 512 sticks of DDR400. The e6400 chip was listed around $249, then the motherboards were hitting $100+ for the core 2 duo compatibles, and again $100 for memory. So it looks like I could stuff together an X2-3800, and a single amd-64/3700 for close to the same price as an e6400 system. So from that perspective there would be more kps per dollar.......... until intel drops the price a bit. :) But then over the longer haul, the electrical operating costs would be cheaper for the intel. Getting up in price on the X2's to the comparible cost of the core 2 duo's then the performance evens out on combined sieving. What the real kicker is though is that the core 2 duo kicks the X2's butts on llrnet. So the bottom line is that you can do both llr and sieving quite decently with the core 2 duo. With the X2 you can only sieve decently cause llrnet sucks in comparisson to the intel. Bottom line is that for me or anyone else that is only concerned with sieving, it is still wiser to buy amd for total kps/dollar. But most are into doing the llr/PRP thing for which the intel is the way to go, and can still do a very respectable job sieving also. But that's what I wanted to know and why I asked you for your performance figures. Thank you! :) Last fiddled with by Brucifer on 2006-09-27 at 15:22

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best Prime95 bang for my bucks?	joblack	Hardware	21	2012-04-01 00:40
1 buck an hour	crash893	Hardware	6	2009-06-18 01:45
best bang for the buck?	crash893	Software	6	2007-06-06 07:10
Best bang for buck	IronBits	Hardware	29	2005-01-21 01:28
Best bang for the buck? Athlon XP vs. P4	dans	Hardware	9	2003-09-10 11:18

2006-09-28, 09:17	#2
Chino112 Mar 2006 19₁₀ Posts	cool. I ran a range of 211000-211100 or something like that. For the default refresh to screen iteration count I was getting about 900kp/s. But I somehow either deleted or lost the folder with the results in. So I am running again. I think my wife may have accidentally deleted it. :( I am finding the processor very fast. I am currently running both a LLR range and resieving. Also I bought the new machine for game playing, which these days takes very little processor power as its all about the GPU. When running a game such as Dawn Of War or Titan Quest which I have been playing, I still get a combined 600-700kp/s. Thats pretty cool. The price will drop more when the quads come out at the end of the year. The plus side is supposedly you can drop a quad core on a core2 duo motherboard. As it is just 2 core 2duos side by side. Now I need a good excuse to buy one of them. Chino

2006-09-28, 16:19	#4
Biggles Jan 2006 2×3 Posts	It's also worth remembering that AMDs next chip will be a native quad-core design, unlike Intel's which is a bit of a hack. There's a bunch of other architectural changes as well which should make it at least as good as Core 2 Duo. Intel's problem will be a lack of memory bandwidth with four cores - something not likely to be a problem for AMD. But it also happens to be backward compatible with Socket AM2 and can use either DDR2 memory or DDR3 memory.

2006-09-28, 21:51	#5
Brucifer Dec 2005 313 Posts	So are there any reports in the wild as to if amd's new chip is being tested out in the world anywhere or is it still in the lab only? Or is it even in the lab yet?

2006-09-29, 09:53	#6
Biggles Jan 2006 2·3 Posts	It's not in the wild yet. It has been taped out, which basically means that they've made some pre-production prototypes. If what we've heard has been true, it should be an absolute floating point monster.

2006-09-29, 10:31	#7
Chino112 Mar 2006 19 Posts	the problem for AMD is they will be 1/2 year behind on the quad cores. As intel will have them out by year end and AMD is planning a mid-2007 launch. Whether Intel has a quad core which is 2 dual cores side by side or not, they will have a quad core out. And this way should ensure by the time AMD comes out with a pure 4 core chipset, Intel will have a second gen quad core chipset out and the inital release will be cheaper. Just nice to see intel get back on top for a while. Good for competition = good for us. There was an article on how Intel expects 32 core processors by 2010. But the individual core clock speed will now remain in the 2-3Ghz range. I think by the end of next year, when Quad cores will be freely available and getting cheap, we will see a big increase in throughput. But this will be offset by the fact that PRPing will take longer by then.

2006-09-29, 14:55	#8
Brucifer Dec 2005 471₈ Posts	I don't really think it will hurt AMD. If the memory pipeline turns out to be a problem on the intel and the amd's is better, then people/corporations will buy the better performing chip assuming some price parity.