Intel or AMD?

[Soleron]

Slimebeast said:

 

Well yeah maybe there was more Phenom II's but they weren't listed in the "AM2+" column, they were listed in the AM3 column.

I can't get up the page either at the moment cos it's in NZ or something.

But let's say they would fit into my AM2+ mobo, what drawbacks would that have for say a Phenom II X4 955. Would the CPU be constrained by something, run at a lower bus speed or something? And does the memory speed matter with Phenom II's since I only have DDR2 6400 RAMs?

I think Squill went to bed. It must be late in NZ.

Soleron, your input?

Assuming you have the exact motherboard the page you linked to suggested, then all AM2+ and AM3 CPUs should work. All Phenom IIs.

The bus speed would be slightly lower, yes, but that would have no noticeable effect. The memory speed would have at most a 5% effect, but probably not noticeable either.

Do you actually need a new CPU, though? Are you finding programs slow, and do you know it's the CPU at fault?

EDIT: what ones in green? Page won't load for me.

--

@haxxiy/dobby985

Because Intel used illegal deals with OEMs to exclude AMD for years, constraining their ability to compete. AMD had better processors (cooler, faster and cheaper) for most of 2000 - 2006, yet their market share did not increase, while Intel's demonstrably inferior Pentium 4s gained huge sales. Because of the deals.

If AMD had gained the revenue they legally deserved, they could have developed better CPUs (they have 1/10 of the R&D staff of Intel, how can you expect them to be better with that?), they could have had more fab capacity when they were constrained, they could have reached 65nm or 45nm or 32nm sooner (they are a year behind Intel on process tech because they can't afford it). They would probably be competing effectively.

If it was a level playing field, there would be no point 'supporting' one company over the other.