i3,i5 or 965BE......

I run my undervolted 955 at 965 clocks, but ya, get either one. The difference is minimal if you'll just be gaming.
 
Archer said:
Justify? One liners are not very useful to anyone. Intel has already said its going to replace LGA1366 in Q3 2011, whereas AMD has a firm history of trying to keep CPU's backward compatible if possible. The AMD route sounds alot more future proof to me.
Click to expand...

An Intel "top of the range" socket will filter down into the midstream, next-gen within the next processor cycle.

Granted, AMD have held their socket platforms for longer than Intel but this argument is no longer valid since Intel is clearly dominating the performance sector. I have always been an AMD fanbooi right up until the release of the Core 2 range of processors from Intel when I was forced by simple mathematical practicality to jump ship. I'd love AMD to come back.

I bought a 2 core CPU in 2007. I then upgraded to a Quad core in 2008. Both on the same platform. My platform is still relevant - I can upgrade further. We're looking at 3 years on the same platform. I really like AMD, so much so that if I thought I could have this kind of longevity with them I'd be wearing their brand right now.

My platform needs an upgrade - I have a GTX285 display card & it won't need an upgrade for at least two years. So, you're looking at 5 years with a platform? I'm into the online games way before people with better systems than me. What is it? Proper combination of components springs to mind.
 
Archer said:
Justify? One liners are not very useful to anyone. Intel has already said its going to replace LGA1366 in Q3 2011, whereas AMD has a firm history of trying to keep CPU's backward compatible if possible. The AMD route sounds alot more future proof to me.
Click to expand...

This is true but AMD are so far behind the ball game and have been for 4 years or more. I definitely don't see them making any serious inroads into Intel market share anytime soon. The only really profitable end of their business is ATI.

I wouldn't touch an AMD setup with a 10 foot barge pole and I swore by AMD for many years.
 
How is AMD so far behind? As far as gamers are concerned AMD is not behind at all. All games run the same, the need for a strong GPU far outweighs the CPU. So why spend more money to get the same results? Now if you require the CPU for work related purposes then yes, Intel wins hands down.
 
Archer said:
How is AMD so far behind? As far as gamers are concerned AMD is not behind at all. All games run the same, the need for a strong GPU far outweighs the CPU. So why spend more money to get the same results? Now if you require the CPU for work related purposes then yes, Intel wins hands down.
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to phenom, amd got well and truly smashed for a long time after core2's release. They have yet to recover but keeping the socket helped them big time. Amd did not know what hit them when intel released core2, smashed anything they had a mile and took long to recover and they are still behind.

I also stopped using amd after core2's release, have never touched intel before then.
 
The 965 Phenom BE is a good processor at the price, no doubt about that. The only problem is that it is solidly trounced by the Intel i7 range in video decoding and other benchmarks.

I'd rather pay a little extra for the i7 than skimp on a Phenom. I used AMD all the way from 1999 until 2006. The Intel "Core" range made AMD redundant & until AMD comes back with a market leader I can't see that changing.

Look at the benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/benchmarks,60.html
 
FlatspinZA said:
The 965 Phenom BE is a good processor at the price, no doubt about that. The only problem is that it is solidly trounced by the Intel i7 range in video decoding and other benchmarks.

I'd rather pay a little extra for the i7 than skimp on a Phenom. I used AMD all the way from 1999 until 2006. The Intel "Core" range made AMD redundant & until AMD comes back with a market leader I can't see that changing.

Look at the benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/benchmarks,60.html
Click to expand...
But for the money, the 965BE is a fantastic performer. In fact AMD's entire lineup is totally competitive with Intel's, in terms of bang for buck.

Sure the fastest Core i7 is faster but it costs more.
 
Last edited:
Yea the i7 is more expensive, the cheapest i7 board is what 2k minimum more like 2.4k plus the cpu 2.4k where as the 965 is like 2k and a decent mobo is about 1.2k, the extra change can be used to get a better vga card which will outperfom the i7 system with a lesser vga card.
 
Rebeltech is selling the 965 for about R1800 i think, cheapest price as every where else its over R2000
 
I actually believe that the i7 920 was perhaps the best value for money chip ever produced - if you had bought at the time it was released you would have been able to future proof for maybe 4 years. It was faster than the fastest quad core - which cost r10k at the time. Ok you would have needed a very expensive motherboard and at the time cutting edge ram, but the mobo would have given you sli/xfire with pci-e 16/16x capability - which you still will struggle to find on AM3 boards and which even P55 still doesn't offer. But it's older now - I have a feeling AMD will catch up to it with the 6-cores. And they haven't done anything to bring prices into the mainstream bracket.

On the other hand AMD has a difficult time ahead. Everyone who buys AM3 with the hope of future compatibility might be in for a shock come 2011 when they finally get out of the door with their 32nm production. Meh - it's up to you. AMD/Intel you can't really lose either way. I have a 965be and it cost a fraction of what I would have paid for an i5 750, and offers nearly the same amount of power. I'm pretty happy with it.
 
A fraction of the i5 750? The i5 is roughly the same price though so what do you mean you bought the 965 at a fraction of the cost of a i5 750?
 
Well, I bought it 2ndhand for r1500 + a cheap am2+ Asus board for r300 or so, then used my own ddr2 ram. So yeah...cost me r2000 in total for the 965 upgrade whereas I would have paid... I guess r3500 for an i5 750 upgrade including mobo and ram.
 
killadoob said:
Yea the i7 is more expensive, the cheapest i7 board is what 2k minimum more like 2.4k plus the cpu 2.4k where as the 965 is like 2k and a decent mobo is about 1.2k, the extra change can be used to get a better vga card which will outperfom the i7 system with a lesser vga card.
Click to expand...

H55-MXS Foxconn H55MX-S Socket LGA1156, Intel H55 chipset, Support Intel socket 1156 Core i7 / i5 / i3 CPU, Dual channel DDR3 1333/1066 x 2 DIMMs, Max. 8GB , 1x PCIE2.0 x16, 1x PCIE2.0 x1, 2x PCI, 6 x SATAII, Gigabit LAN, 5.1 channel HD Audio, Up to 9x USB 2.0, Micro ATX Form Factor.3-year Manufact. R 699 excl. R 796 incl.

Core i5-860 Core LGA1156 2.8GHz 8Mb Cache R 2,295 excl. R 2,616 incl.

3.2k vs 3.5k

I'd go i7 however for GAMING the AMD is better

Wait for the new X4s, they should be around 1-1.5k and you can unlock 2 cores
 
Core I-7 2.8Ghz 930 LGA 1366(1600FSB 8MB) R 2,359 excl. R 2,689 incl.

How would that fit on the mobo? Rather stupid to label i7 1156 and then label i7 1366 in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X