When will AM3 stuff be on the market?

...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.

 

Because I don't like Intel.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.