When will AM3 stuff be on the market?

[Motoman]

...anybody have any good reads on when AM3 stuff will be available? I want to build myself a high-end HTPC which will also be used for gaming on the big screen...but want to wait until I can build an AM3 system to do it.

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by Motoman

...anybody have any good reads on when AM3 stuff will be available? I want to build myself a high-end HTPC which will also be used for gaming on the big screen...but want to wait until I can build an AM3 system to do it.

Why wait for AM3? Why not just go for an Intel Core 2 system instead?

[Motoman]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

Why wait for AM3? Why not just go for an Intel Core 2 system instead?

Because I don't like Intel.

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by Motoman

Because I don't like Intel.

Oh, I see, but why though?

I'm neither for or against Intel, but their Core 2 processors currently offer the best bang for the buck. AMD, unfortunately, has nothing close.

[Motoman]

I just don't want to support them...if for no other reason than the fact that they're an overbearing, borish, near-monopoly that I'd feel dirty about siding with.

I want competition in this market, and AMD is the only competition left (back in the day, I built a bunch of PCs with Cyrix processors even). From my standpoint, I can play WoW on my Athlon 64 6000+ and ATI Radeon 3870 at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed and it's like butter...so you can tell me that a Core 2 is however much "better" - but my computing experience is already as good as it can get, so I would see no point. I'm not a benchmark junkie, and as such am perfectly aware that there is no perceptible difference between 85FPS and 150FPS, even if the benchmark graph looks sufficiently more impressive.

On the other hand, I see no point in building a new machine with current product, knowing that the next generation is imminent...so to get the best longevity from my next machine, I'll wait for AMD to get the AM3 stuff to market.

[Chai]

There's nothing special about AM3 other than DDR3 support.

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by Motoman

I just don't want to support them...if for no other reason than the fact that they're an overbearing, borish, near-monopoly that I'd feel dirty about siding with.

I want competition in this market, and AMD is the only competition left (back in the day, I built a bunch of PCs with Cyrix processors even). From my standpoint, I can play WoW on my Athlon 64 6000+ and ATI Radeon 3870 at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed and it's like butter...so you can tell me that a Core 2 is however much "better" - but my computing experience is already as good as it can get, so I would see no point. I'm not a benchmark junkie, and as such am perfectly aware that there is no perceptible difference between 85FPS and 150FPS, even if the benchmark graph looks sufficiently more impressive.

On the other hand, I see no point in building a new machine with current product, knowing that the next generation is imminent...so to get the best longevity from my next machine, I'll wait for AMD to get the AM3 stuff to market.

Well, I don't think they can help it. Their Core 2 processor is just that much better than AMD's Phenoms. AMD did have a great advantage with their Athlon 64s but they have since lagged behind.

TBH, it is in Intel's best interest NOT to be a monopoly. It's the same thing with Microsoft. Both companies actually invest in their rivals to ensure there's some competition. Getting classified as a monopoly is a sure way to get dismembered.

Hehe.. I remember the Cyrix / IBM days. I was a major supporter of Cyrix, assembling many, many systems around the 6x86, 6x86L and 6x86MX processors. But of course, they did offer much better price-performance ratios than the Intel Pentiums at that time.

Anyway back to the topic....

If extra CPU performance is not the issue, why not go for an AMD AM2+ system now? The only difference between AM2/2+ and AM3 is the support for DDR3.

AMD is expected to launch AM3 sometime this year. Some claim early 2009 but it could be as late as middle of 2009.

In any case, you can use AM3 processors with AM2+ motherboards. You just can't use AM2/2+ processors in AM3 motherboards. So there is still an upgrade path left.

[The_YongGrand]

Originally Posted by Adrian Wong

Well, I don't think they can help it. Their Core 2 processor is just that much better than AMD's Phenoms. AMD did have a great advantage with their Athlon 64s but they have since lagged behind.

TBH, it is in Intel's best interest NOT to be a monopoly. It's the same thing with Microsoft. Both companies actually invest in their rivals to ensure there's some competition. Getting classified as a monopoly is a sure way to get dismembered.

Hehe.. I remember the Cyrix / IBM days. I was a major supporter of Cyrix, assembling many, many systems around the 6x86, 6x86L and 6x86MX processors. But of course, they did offer much better price-performance ratios than the Intel Pentiums at that time.

Anyway back to the topic....

If extra CPU performance is not the issue, why not go for an AMD AM2+ system now? The only difference between AM2/2+ and AM3 is the support for DDR3.

AMD is expected to launch AM3 sometime this year. Some claim early 2009 but it could be as late as middle of 2009.

In any case, you can use AM3 processors with AM2+ motherboards. You just can't use AM2/2+ processors in AM3 motherboards. So there is still an upgrade path left.

I don't really bother about which brand, but I prefer to see it in a price/performance ratio.

Right now, C2D is really okay for my limited budget. Even the Pentium Dual-Cores are great stuff for low-end gaming systems. Plus, these LGA775 platforms do almost cover a wide range of
processors, depending on the model of the board itself. I find it more easy to upgrade a 775 platform than that of the AM2/3. Ok, just my humble opinion. Those might change later, who knows? Whatever fits my needs, my range of usage and my budget, I'll choose that particular processor, whether it's Intel or AMD.

Cyrix 6x86? They have very poor floating point performance. And sometimes, they reported poor compatibilities. But I heard that these 6x86 ones are the first processors IIMNM not to use the clock speed as performance measure (I mean, Pentium Rating). The PR233 for example, it's not 233MHz, but it's 166MHz (From Cyrix MII). Cyrix claimed that the performance of MII is as good as the Pentium MMX 233MHz (or PII if they are exaggerating), but we just don't think so. I have found out that even in many instances, the Pentium MMX 166MHz is just better than the Cyrix ones. Worst, they are hotter, and thermally impractical.

Of course - these Cyrix ones are cheaper. Some people used it for the simple Internet and a uh.. a full fledged 'electronic typewriter'. Games? Don't ever try that. It wouldn't work that well. Because of the poor FPU, why bother?

Even in 1999, Cyrix processors are still sold in cheap Socket 7 solutions. In fact, many very cheap computer sets back in 98-00 are using a combination of Cyrix MII-300 (or any Cyrix 6x86) with PCChips M598 (infamous motherboard with dud-onboard-cache = non-existant cache on motherboard). Of course, I used to have that PC some close friend of mine which he dumped it to me. And too bad, the motheboard died before I ever have to investigate it further.

Oooh I'm going OT here. But anyway thank the goodness, PC solutions are getting cheaper and cheaper. Even simple Pentium Dual-Core systems can do a lot more compared to those low-end PCs back in the days of Pentium 1.

[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).

[Zenphic]

Originally Posted by Chai

There's nothing special about AM3 other than DDR3 support.

True that. Might as well just get an AM2 board that supports AM3. Don't know if DDR3 will ever be as cheap as DDR2, so you might save a few pennies going AM2+DDR2 than AM3+DDR3