I am building a computer. I haven't decided if it will be for my son or for me. So far I bought an AMD 965 and 4 GB of high speed DDR3 memory. Now I need a motherboard. I am wondering if I should wait a while. I have an old SLI-enabled motherboard I could use for now. I am looking to get something with the 990FX chip set, fast enough for gaming and video encoding, but still low budget.

absolutely not

I haven't looked at the benchmarks, but I would think that with the graphics cards becoming more important than the CPU, it could make sense for someone looking for a budget system.  I.e., the money you save by using an AMD CPU/motherboard could be used towards a better graphics card.  For example, the 965 BE CPU I bought is probably equivalent to a $200+ CPU from Intel, especially since it can be overclocked, which would basically allow one to bump up to the next level up for the graphics card.  I am guessing the CPU would need to be much, much faster to make the same difference in performance that a better graphics card would.  And with the 990FX chip set now supporting SLI, it could make sense for EVGA to make a motherboard using it.

see the main problem would be there would be double LAG time for release if we added AMD to the game too :P lolz

All companies have two separate markets they sell all their products towards:

1. non-loyal (the pool of everyone shared with other companies)
2. loyal (their audiences per product types).

While EVGA like any company likes growth and more customers, they for the most part cater to a certain type of user, those are the ones that make up their demographic, i.e. members of this forum.  These people are willing to pay more and don't really hesitate, so they end up willing to pay for Intel most of the time. 
 
Most who have wanted, prefered or only afford AMD eventually left EVGA's user base if only to stay for the graphics cards or forum community.
 
In other words, subtract Bulldozer, in the past five years AMD has not commanded the type of audience member that demands AMD and EVGA.  Hence why it hasn't happened yet.  I'm not about to assume it is obvious just because it hasn't happened to mean it won't, that is false logic.  Is there a chance EVGA will ever make higher-end AMD boards, sure; when?  No clue.
 
AMD has to do what they did 6 years ago again, to catch Intel off gaurd technologically, but that's only happening in the more lucrative on-die integrated GPU front.  Lack of X58 competitor already says they can't afford to compete high-end with Intel, but since EVGA has been selling their X58's forever...that is their customer demographic.
 

Hey Zeus
Its going to take Amd 8 cores to match the performance that intel has with just 4.

Rather strange logic, don't you think?  The programs we run that determine multi-core usefulness, not however many cores a CPU company throws on.  People have used this logic to claim a Gulftown isn't worth it [compared to Sandy Bridge DT] because most people won't use it's capabilites, disregarding the minority the CPU is meant for.
 
So, in the mainstream consumer space where the majority of uses don't multi-thread beyond four at once, if an AMD 8-core performs like an Intel 4-core, wouldn't that tell you that if not all of the 8-cores are in use, that only those in use are competing?  Suddenly we have an AMD 4 of 8 cores functioning like Intel 4 of 4 cores, but AMD has more cores while Intel has HT in some models for >4 thread use -- which isn't common.
 
If anyone else wants to slam AMD for having quads perform like Intel duals, you have to remember, the vast majority of everyone aren't performance junkies, all they see is a quad priced like a dual, what are they going to pick?  Unless they never heard of AMD, they will choose the cheaper brand because budget is more important.
 
Add in we don't have a gun to our head to buy Intel, that is out choice, i.e. not AMD's fault they don't have better because we aren't funding their researching by purchasing their products.  It is a catch 22, but responsibility goes to us.

lehpron

All companies have two separate markets they sell all their products towards:

1. non-loyal (the pool of everyone shared with other companies)
2. loyal (their audiences per product types).

While EVGA like any company likes growth and more customers, they for the most part cater to a certain type of user, those are the ones that make up their demographic, i.e. members of this forum.  These people are willing to pay more and don't really hesitate, so they end up willing to pay for Intel most of the time. 

Most who have wanted, prefered or only afford AMD eventually left EVGA's user base if only to stay for the graphics cards or forum community.

In other words, subtract Bulldozer, in the past five years AMD has not commanded the type of audience member that demands AMD and EVGA.  Hence why it hasn't happened yet.  I'm not about to assume it is obvious just because it hasn't happened to mean it won't, that is false logic.  Is there a chance EVGA will ever make higher-end AMD boards, sure; when?  No clue.

AMD has to do what they did 6 years ago again, to catch Intel off gaurd technologically, but that's only happening in the more lucrative on-die integrated GPU front.  Lack of X58 competitor already says they can't afford to compete high-end with Intel, but since EVGA has been selling their X58's forever...that is their customer demographic.

Hey Zeus
Its going to take Amd 8 cores to match the performance that intel has with just 4.

Rather strange logic, don't you think?  The programs we run that determine multi-core usefulness, not however many cores a CPU company throws on.  People have used this logic to claim a Gulftown isn't worth it [compared to Sandy Bridge DT] because most people won't use it's capabilites, disregarding the minority the CPU is meant for.

So, in the mainstream consumer space where the majority of uses don't multi-thread beyond four at once, if an AMD 8-core performs like an Intel 4-core, wouldn't that tell you that if not all of the 8-cores are in use, that only those in use are competing?  Suddenly we have an AMD 4 of 8 cores functioning like Intel 4 of 4 cores, but AMD has more cores while Intel has HT in some models for >4 thread use -- which isn't common.

If anyone else wants to slam AMD for having quads perform like Intel duals, you have to remember, the vast majority of everyone aren't performance junkies, all they see is a quad priced like a dual, what are they going to pick?  Unless they never heard of AMD, they will choose the cheaper brand because budget is more important.

Add in we don't have a gun to our head to buy Intel, that is out choice, i.e. not AMD's fault they don't have better because we aren't funding their researching by purchasing their products.  It is a catch 22, but responsibility goes to us.

 
Your a very deep man aren't you lehp? 

howdy2u2

Well they used to....... It would be nice if they did again, Id definitely purchase one. Bash AMD all you like, (looks at systems) hmmm all my systems are AMD besides 1 and it folds. I have the same MOBO and updated CPUs 4x, smells like cost effectiveness to me. Since AMD went red with video they shot down Green offering Tri-Sli. Just holding on to some hope someone, anyone offers a AMD/Nvidia Tri-Sli solution My MOBO is getting a little outdated to say the least 

 
Considering the fact that with the higher end AM3+ motherboards now supporting SLI then there MIGHT be a chance tri-SLI will happen soon. Currently the 900-Series chipsets support SLI.
 
Edit: Here ya go Howdy. By the way Gigabyte has been becoming a big name player as of late. I am looking at the 2-Way option though if I go AMD instead of Intel. Oh another thing I love now is that GB is no longer doing that weird PCIx crap like they did with the AM3 and P55 series motherboards. I am talking about where anytime you use more than one slot it makes the other ones become 1X speed.
 
http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16813128508 (4-Way)
http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16813128509 (3-Way)
http://www.newegg.com/Pro...x?Item=N82E16813128514 (2-Way)

Dude I just updated my post above yours with some nice choices.

You're welcome. As for the PCIx I was referring to the standard PCIx 2.0 setup. Many of the offerings GB had for both AM3 and P55 motherboards and I believe a few X58s as well had a real odd setup. If you added 2 video cards to the system for instance then any X4 slots that it had were downgraded to X1 speeds. I am just glad they learned NOT to do that with their P67\Z68 and AM3+ offerings.

i wish evga would make amd mobos. 
 

Hey Zeus

If that were only the case Samuel. Amd is so far behind its not even funny. The 955 x4 is alittle slower then the sandy bridge i3 2105 and the 2500k puts a beating on the 1100t.

Amds approach is to throw more cores at users to catch intel in the ipc department. Its going to take Amd 8 cores to match the performance that intel has with just 4.

Actually, for gaming purposes some of the latest benchmarks have shown that even the i3-2100 is strong competition for the AMD 1090T. The Sandy Bridge quads are already on top compared to the rest of the AMD lineup and with the unlocked models (i5-2500k and i7-2600k) it just widens the gap. For AMD's sake I truly hope that these new Zambezi CPU's are strong competitors to Sandy Bridge.
 
I will say that the new AMD Llano CPU's are really slick and they should market it like crazy as it's probably the best choice for mainstream users. Intel's integrated graphics just cant compete. That being said if Llano does catch on, I could see EVGA considering an AMD board again.

it would definitely be nice to see evga make amd boards, but I am not sure whats involved in getting rights to making them; maybe that is an issue, IDk
 
Intel has been reigning for quite a few yrs, but nobody can win forever. AMD still hits a certain market and I hope that they can figure out a way to come back strong,  soon
 
I am with others as I will go for the best price/performance. Since I am very dedicated in Distributed computing; I have to stick with Intel. I tried a 1055T but did not do to well. for a general daily use machine; they are great; just not for my needs

"AMD is not worth it at this point" not true what so ever, from a price view nothing is better, and they still give great gaming performance. If all you want is gaming then amd is a great choice.