When will AM3 stuff be on the market?

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

Actually, in those days, not many games use the FPU. That's why I bought many Cyrix 6x86 processors in those days. I had no problem playing games with them.

They do offer a significant boost in performance over the Pentium MMX then. That's why Cyrix and IBM chose to use PR ratings.

Yeah, that's the thing. Intel has had to drop the prices of their Core 2 Duo and Pentium Dual-Core processors to keep sales up, so they are dirt cheap (esp the lower end models).

Not sure about the games not using the FPU, but at that time (97-99), newer 3D games like those FPS requires them a lot. Those graphics card were either only 4-8MB and only PCI or early AGP, and without a full-fledged GPU yet. Try finding reports on Cyrix 6x86 and MIIs, you will know how much the reviewers will complain. Of course, the major praise will be the cheap price and the PR and some more performance boost, but that's about it.

For your info, I still have my Cyrix MII-300 in my drawer. Yes, I admit it has some advantages over the Pentiums, but the drawbacks are sometimes severe. I'm not against the Cyrix btw.
There are also other clones of those Cyrix too - IDT Winchip and IBM ones (I heard IBM got Cyrix and then remanufacture those chips as IBM MII and 6x86).

Also, not only they slashed the prices for the C2D and PDC, but they also probably did the same thing on these newer Atom solutions they provide. Those Atom are very nice too.

[Adrian Wong]

Haha.. Maybe that's why. I was not really into FPS those days. I was playing strategy games like Civilizations, flight sims like TIE Fighter and adventure games like Monkey Island.

Coming back to topic... I think as far as AMD is concerned, it might be best to go with the AM2+ platform for now. No idea when the AM3 CPUs and chipsets will actually hit the market... and even more importantly - their price points. Plus DDR2 is dirt cheap now.

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

Haha.. Maybe that's why. I was not really into FPS those days. I was playing strategy games like Civilizations, flight sims like TIE Fighter and adventure games like Monkey Island.

Coming back to topic... I think as far as AMD is concerned, it might be best to go with the AM2+ platform for now. No idea when the AM3 CPUs and chipsets will actually hit the market... and even more importantly - their price points. Plus DDR2 is dirt cheap now.

I did play these games too. FPS at those days weren't truly 100% polygon based yet as it's still sprite-based (Doom 1 and 2 series are 2.5D) but the levels are purely 3D. Only Quake and Tomb Raider managed to have models directly modelled from pure polygons at that time, and they needed more power from the GFX cards and some CPU.

For the AM2+ systems I agree with you. I actually like the onboard ATi/nVidia chipsets on these motherboards - the onboard gfx solutions are really great. I didn't even know they have AM3 right now...

[Chai]

That's why I went for Pentium chips. They were not really that expensive.

[1031982]

As far as a CPU is concerned, I tend to go with whatever has the best performance for my needs at the lowest cost. I had a 486 system run by AMD, then a Pentium system, an Athlon XP system (had 3 CPU's with that through upgrading.), and am not on an Intel C2D. Honestly, the C2D surprised me. It has a lot of power for a small price, and the stock HSF is actually quiet.

At one point, I was like you Motoman, no Intel because they are big enough and AMD is just fine. After a while though, I realised neither company is going anywhere. I am sure Intel is doing what MS does for Apple as Adrian said. MS invests in Apple, a lot. So much so that there is MS code in the MAC OS. I am sure that there is something similar going on between AMD and Intel.

If I were you, I would either get an AM2/AM2+ based board, or simply get a Intel C2D. Depending on what you can afford and needs, I would say get the Q9400. That has 2.66GHz speeds, a nice 6MB cache, and it's not too costly.

[Chai]

Same for me too. I used to be a big fan on 3dfx, and since Nvidia was one of the main cause of 3dfx downfall.

But now I really don't care. Consumer will always be the winner because we determine their income. If they make crap products, why should they deserve my money. I buy what ever that's best for me.

That's why I used to own both brands of processor, from K6-2, Celeron, P3, Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and back to C2D. C2D is easily the best processor now.

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by 1031982

As far as a CPU is concerned, I tend to go with whatever has the best performance for my needs at the lowest cost. I had a 486 system run by AMD, then a Pentium system, an Athlon XP system (had 3 CPU's with that through upgrading.), and am not on an Intel C2D. Honestly, the C2D surprised me. It has a lot of power for a small price, and the stock HSF is actually quiet.

At one point, I was like you Motoman, no Intel because they are big enough and AMD is just fine. After a while though, I realised neither company is going anywhere. I am sure Intel is doing what MS does for Apple as Adrian said. MS invests in Apple, a lot. So much so that there is MS code in the MAC OS. I am sure that there is something similar going on between AMD and Intel.

If I were you, I would either get an AM2/AM2+ based board, or simply get a Intel C2D. Depending on what you can afford and needs, I would say get the Q9400. That has 2.66GHz speeds, a nice 6MB cache, and it's not too costly.

I agree with ya - I love the E1200/E5200s for the price/performance ratio. So far, I just enjoyed using the S.775 platform. It's not that I'm abandoning AM2/+ but they have advantages and drawbacks too.

They are those little gems!

[Motoman]

In the vast majority of things, I have the same attitude as many of you. Which is to say, just get whatever the best bang for the buck is at that time. So I flutter back-and-forth between ATI and Nvidia video cards, don't have any particular brand of motherboards I prefer, don't have any particular preference for hard drives, so on and so forth.

However, I will not willingly support Intel for more reasons than just "I like AMD." Intel is not worthy of my dollars because of the illegal abuses they served on the market as the reigning monopoly. Because of their illegal tactics to keep AMD (and others) out of major manufacturers for so long, they are not eligible for my practice of "bang for the buck at the moment."

I would, in a very real sense, feel dirty if I bought an Intel CPU. Would absolutely be ashamed of myself.

[1031982]

Well, that's your choice.
As far as a video card goes, I just ordered a Radeon HD 4850 made by HIS with a 2 slot cooler. I'll let you know how that is noise wise, but it is a longer card as any high performance card is these days.
But why not get a board with support for the AM3?
I would look into getting the fallowing things for the video.
Video card
Slot cooler
Sure it's taking 3 slots, but it will VERY be quiet.

If you are going for a micro case, it makes things more interesting.

[Chai]

Just to let you know Nvidia was also using dirty tactics to kill off competition like creating a reference guide to 'promote' Nvidia products and condemn incorrect facts about competitors.

This is competition, and that's life. It took me a long time to accept Nvidia again. 8800GTS is my first and my only Nvidia card I bought. I learn to accept the fact that, at the end of the day, fanboism is silly. We are consumers, and we have the choice of buying what's best for us.

Of course, it's your choice.