bit-tech.net

How AMD Core Unlocking Works

Comments 1 to 13 of 13

Reply
rickysio 4th May 2010, 11:31 Quote
Glad to see that AMD'd get an advantage in the low end arena, but then it's unlikely that much people will buy it - even my more technologically inclined (admittedly they bow down in front of me, kekeke!) friends confess that even if they're heavily budget-ed, they'd still rather go for Intel.

Considering that, how many Average Joes will be willing to go for AMD...?
EvilRusk 4th May 2010, 14:50 Quote
I can't see much of an incentive to this. Sure it was a great gimmick when Intel had the Q6600 (old) then the i7 (too pricey) and nothing between. Then you had a reason to choose an AMD system, but with the i3, i5 etc what's the point?
mi1ez 4th May 2010, 15:12 Quote
Damn there are some clever people at these motherboard companies!
Sifter3000 4th May 2010, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilRusk
I can't see much of an incentive to this. Sure it was a great gimmick when Intel had the Q6600 (old) then the i7 (too pricey) and nothing between. Then you had a reason to choose an AMD system, but with the i3, i5 etc what's the point?

I guess the issue from the mobo companies' POV is, "has the audience got used to having this" and if yes, they'd be worried they'll suffer from not having it.
rickysio 4th May 2010, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilRusk
I can't see much of an incentive to this. Sure it was a great gimmick when Intel had the Q6600 (old) then the i7 (too pricey) and nothing between. Then you had a reason to choose an AMD system, but with the i3, i5 etc what's the point?

With the X4's being able to be unlocked to X6's, those home movie aficionados will probably snap up these products.
Farfalho 4th May 2010, 16:42 Quote
I was thinking somewhere between the lines of the new Phenoms X4 being X6 with 2 disabled cores, that would be sweet to the costumers because they would have the chance to own an hexa core cpu for the cost of a quad one. Also AMD would profit from these because the six core option from intel it's more expensive and having a six core costing less than a i7 quad-core it's a gem.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 4th May 2010, 20:45 Quote
It's a nice caveat for mid range users but for serious geeks AMD in no longer making any sense as Intel's overwhelming superiority is leaving AMD lover's (like myself) jumping ship for Intel's blue waters of superior performance. Unlock some extra AMD cores, overclock and still be light years behind Intel's Core i7 or i5 750.

I unlocked my Phenom 550 x2 to a 4 core b4, the extra performance was nice but was still out done by Intels core i5 and i3.
isaac12345 7th May 2010, 16:09 Quote
Nice article. Thanks for the insight :)
bricks1997 29th November 2010, 13:42 Quote
I had a Phenom 550BE and managed to get on extra core. The other one was unstable. I used the ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO motherboard.
JrHottspitta 31st March 2011, 02:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysio
Glad to see that AMD'd get an advantage in the low end arena, but then it's unlikely that much people will buy it - even my more technologically inclined (admittedly they bow down in front of me, kekeke!) friends confess that even if they're heavily budget-ed, they'd still rather go for Intel.

Considering that, how many Average Joes will be willing to go for AMD...?

It's about preference. No one chooses because of the money value.

In fact your more likely to use something your used to then try a new product. Most people start with a computer containing intel so there used to the idea. Which makes intel have more revenue to research designs.

I used to think that way till the simplicity of identifying intel products threw me off so I went AMD.
No1Spank 11th December 2016, 22:41 Quote
Gen 1 i3 can't even match an Athlon x4 and is totally outclassed by a quad core Phenom.

Even my work computer which was an early i3 would get tied in knots back in the day, the current quad core Athlon desktop I've been running for 4 years is faster, might lock up once a year max and is clocked a lot slower.

The original i5 was only marginally quicker than the Phenom II but cost twice as much. My Phenom x2 unlocked to quad and cost a mere £65 which was super cheap for a cpu in 2010.

That said the Intel duals of the time did beat the dual core AMD's hands down but again they cost about twice as much and you could have bought a triple or quad AMD for the same price.

I've run most things at the low to medium end from the Pentium 1 onwards over the years for gaming, office work, media and overclocking. So far I'd say that AMD generally has always offered more performance for the pound since year 2000.

I listened to the Intel fanboys when I upgraded my FX6300 system to an i5 4670K 3 years ago and was royally pis##d off at how little extra performance I got for the amount of money I spent. When I overclock now the FX6300 still beats the i5 on some benchmarks like Firestrike Ultra with two cards due to the crappy 8x PCI speed on the Intel.

If the Zen gives a decent amount of bang for the buck that will be my next rig upgrade, talk of quad cores & 8 threads for 150 notes sounds good as long as it will beat a Kaby Lake i5.

£200 quid for the current i5 k series sucks!!
Isitari 11th December 2016, 22:52 Quote
Holy Necro thread batman! Only half a decade...

Sent from my SM-N915FY using Tapatalk
TheMadDutchDude 12th December 2016, 01:11 Quote
Also a massive troll with little knowledge, it seems.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums