Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

amd gaming cpu

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2008 4:07:13 AM

im pretty well set on the type of cpu, amd 64 X2 5600+(2.9Ghz), or possibly a slower one in the same group. What would some advantages be of having a quad/tri core in a game like Crysis over the dual? I realize games dont really take advantage of them well, but i also saw something where a mobo might run faster with the X2+ processor. Am i interpreting this correctly at all or would the dual core be all i need?

**Note: i haven't purchased any parts yet.

More about : amd gaming cpu

a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 4:17:16 AM

^ Is this an upgrade? What is your graphics card?
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 4:19:23 AM

If you don't already have a motherboard, the best current gaming CPU would be an Intel E8xxx series (or a Q9xxx series if you want quad, which will be faster in some games and slower in others).
Related resources
July 10, 2008 4:58:05 AM

sorry for not posting the whole system.**none of this has been purchased yet

Amd 64 X2 5600+ Brisbane (2.9GHz)
DFI LANPARTY DK 790FX-M2RS 790FX ATX AMD mobo
Corsair (2 X 2Gb) 240 pin 800 DDR2
Seagate Barracuda 250Gb 7200 rpm 3Gb/s SATA
Pioneer 20X DVD+-R DVD Burner
2 X Ati Radeon 4850 Pci ex 2.0X16
COOLER MASTER Centurion 5
CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W Power Supply

I'm pretty well set on going with AMD. I pretty much started the research with the graphics cards, then went from there. I noticed less arguing over which mobo's were best for crossfire with amd, and the amd 64 X2's seem to do pretty well with games, and with them i can get a pretty solid, low power card for $100. Im just having second thoughts as to whether using a phenom with AM2+ makes a difference since the 64 X2's only use AM2. I have a feeling the difference doesn't affect the performance, but that's what im here to find out.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 6:48:53 AM

If you haven't bought it yet, go for an Intel P45 based system (make sure the PCIE slots are PCIE 2.0 8x/8x when used for multiple cards if you want crossfire), or an X48. Trust me, there is nothing AMD has out right now that's even close to an E8400 in gaming, especially if you overclock the 8400 (3.6 is almost effortless, 4.0 should be quite achievable).

Here's a decent motherboard for crossfire for example - 2 PCIE 2.0 slots, both at X16 at all times: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Add an E8400 to that, and you will have an amazing gaming system with the crossfired 4850's.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 7:04:16 AM

I am in total agreement with the last poster.

I wanted to support AMD/ATI 21 months ago and I severely regret not getting an Intel Core2Duo.

I have a 5000 Black Edition clocked to 2.9 GHz which is basically a 5600. The performance is nothing to get excited about.

You would be much better off getting an e8400 or some other type of Core2Duo.
July 10, 2008 7:35:23 AM

go with 5000+ black edition and 4850

overclock it
July 10, 2008 10:45:58 AM

phenoms stink !
July 10, 2008 1:03:33 PM

i own a 5600+ with a radeon 3850 and i agree with every thing cjl says.

i would recommend something like an e8400. i think you will feel the 5600+ to be quite underpowered compared to your gfx solution even when gaming.

if it REALLY must be amd then i'd head for a high end phenom or athlon

p.s. ocing my 5600+ to just 3.1Ghz shows quite an increase in fps with some games such as supreme commander forged alliance and all source games (and probably alot more games if i had a better gfx card or 2).
July 10, 2008 1:24:53 PM

"amd gaming cpu"

title made me lol
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 10, 2008 1:31:12 PM

Quote:
where does phenom come into this? oh wait it doesn't.


Actually the OP did ask about a quad/tri core. Only quad/tri core I know of from AMD is Phenom.

To the OP, a quad/tri core will not do you much better in a game like Crysis. It would help as there would be 1 or 2 more free threads for other apps to use and Crysis is more dual core optimized than tri/quad. But since dual cores can OC to higher speeds a dual is a better option.

And what you have is at the high end of the spectrum really. Only thing you could do to go higher is get a Intel mobo and a E8400 since those can OC to 4GHz on air.

But as it is if you want to keep your current setup then what you have is one of your best options.
July 10, 2008 1:33:08 PM

+1 for jeb1517
July 10, 2008 1:40:43 PM

I think your CPU will be a bottleneck soon, you should go for a 6000+ Black Edition, with unlocked multiplier you can overclock it pretty well and this is probably the best AMD you can have for gaming. I personally have a 5000+ BE and pushed to 3.5GHz it can run everything pretty well, so i supose that the 6000+BE can make it better.
Don't forget to get a CPU cooler, as they are not supplied with BE CPU!
July 10, 2008 1:47:49 PM

Newegg has a good deal right now on Phenom 9600 with a 4850 combo. I just picked it up and installed it. Comes to under $300 for both after rebate. I was going to go with an E7200 but decided this was a better deal. Plus I got a 780g board so when I'm done with it as a gaming computer, I can convert it to a HTPC.
July 10, 2008 2:30:47 PM

If you want to play advanced games or on high res monitors then AMD is better than Intel. It isn't that important how fast the processor is though. phenom 9550, 9750, 9850, 9950 is going to rock.

Intel has problems with advanced graphics because the FSB can't handle the traffic between processor and video card. The performance will be a bit slower because of that
July 10, 2008 2:40:10 PM

790fx is a good chipset. I think i read something about crysis actually scaling pretty decently (for several cores). and don't listen to these people. I have a 5000+ dual core and a gigabyte 3870 and can hit over 10k in 3dmark06 all on standard settings. The down side to buying an amd x2 cpu right now is that newegg is sold out of BOTH black editions. And for all intensive purposes most software doesn't really take full advantage of quad cores yet. and for all practical purposes intel has "quad" but it's not technically quad. The only cpu's i would recommend if you're looking for more high end would be the 6400+ black if you can find it, or either the 9850 black or the 9950 black... seems to be what you're aiming for. Both have been reported to easily hit 3.0ghz... and possibly higher if you do some more intensive mods a little later on. anyway, that's my 2 cents. Not to mention at that price point, it's a quad core and goes neck and neck with the q6600 or whatever that turd is... making it a good buy at 205 9850 and 235 9950 on newegg. (price as of today). If you can find the 6400+dual core black... that will perform just as well until things really kick up with multithreading. oh, and both quad black editions have super fast memory controllers... so that's a plus.

ps: 3850 isn't really that great of a card. and 5000+ brisbane 100 bucks or less and hits 3.2ghz if you want to cheap out on the proc and still get good performance.
July 10, 2008 2:43:46 PM

also, th_username pretty much just mentioned the best bang/buck combo you're going to find.
July 10, 2008 2:53:25 PM

I'd like to know how the OP came to the conclusion that an AMD processor is ideal for his new gaming rig. If it's just some sort of random personal preference... buy it. It's not my money! If you actually care about value and performance, well you should be in the Intel camp. As far as video cards goes... you're definitely on the right track with the new ATI cards.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 2:53:32 PM

kassler said:
If you want to play advanced games or on high res monitors then AMD is better than Intel. It isn't that important how fast the processor is though. phenom 9550, 9750, 9850, 9950 is going to rock.

Intel has problems with advanced graphics because the FSB can't handle the traffic between processor and video card. The performance will be a bit slower because of that

This is complete garbage. The FSB is not a limiting factor on games, and at high resolutions, the graphics are the limitation. Plus, if you look at any gaming benchmarks out there, the E8400 wipes the floor with most other CPU's (quads included) in most games, aside from the few that are optimized for >2 cores (FSX, Supreme Commander)
July 10, 2008 2:55:29 PM

kassler said:
If you want to play advanced games or on high res monitors then AMD is better than Intel. It isn't that important how fast the processor is though. phenom 9550, 9750, 9850, 9950 is going to rock.

Intel has problems with advanced graphics because the FSB can't handle the traffic between processor and video card. The performance will be a bit slower because of that


Can you link some Reviews to show this.

Seems that Reviews at Tomshardware.Com, XBitLabs, AnandTech, and others I have read show the opposite where the AMD chips can't come close to competing.

July 10, 2008 2:58:14 PM

if you really want the fastest AMD processor, you can wait for the Deneb, which is AMD's 45nm processor. It is rumored that it will have a base clock of 3.0 GHz. The only downfall is that it has a really high voltage (~1.6!). And there will be two kinds released, one has 6MB of L3 cache, the other has none. Eliminating the cache apparently improves thermal, and is compatible with the AM2/+ socket. (Even tho it is AM3)
Right now I'm running an AMD system, and for my next CPU upgrade, I was gonna grab the Deneb, but it appears that the Deneb is slated for a launch around christmas. So that means I may pick up a 9850 for $200 before then.
July 10, 2008 3:09:38 PM

zenmaster said:
Can you link some Reviews to show this.

Seems that Reviews at Tomshardware.Com, XBitLabs, AnandTech, and others I have read show the opposite where the AMD chips can't come close to competing.


They never test on high res with AMD. What they should test is the most powerfull GPU’s on the most demanding games. And also use one AMD and one Intel. AMD gains some from fast memory also, using slow memory hurts AMD more than intel.
Two reviews here where slower AMD processors win over Intel on high res
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320536,00.a...
July 10, 2008 3:33:49 PM

At stock speeds the low to mid price intel and amd offerings are pretty close in performance on games and desktop applications, and you probably will not notice much of a difference either way.

If you overclock then the intel chips will be quite a bit faster because they have more overclocking headroom.

If you go for a high end chip then intel is really your only choice because amd doesn't really have a high end chip.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 3:37:25 PM

kassler said:
They never test on high res with AMD. What they should test is the most powerfull GPU%u2019s on the most demanding games. And also use one AMD and one Intel. AMD gains some from fast memory also, using slow memory hurts AMD more than intel.
Two reviews here where slower AMD processors win over Intel on high res
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320536,00.a...

In the first one, the Intel chip beats the AMD in almost every test (the CoH numbers look strange - I'd be curious to hear more detail about that one), and in the second one, it's comparing a dual to a quad. Also notice the OC Q9450 numbers in the first one - that is another thing that Intel has right now that AMD does not: overclocking headroom.
July 10, 2008 3:40:18 PM

cjl said:
In the first one, the Intel chip beats the AMD in almost every test (the CoH numbers look strange - I'd be curious to hear more detail about that one), and in the second one, it's comparing a dual to a quad.

Yes, if you are going to play at low res then Intel is better. But if you want to play on high res or want to uses fast video cards at max speed then amd is better
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 3:55:50 PM

Is that why the OC'd 9450 cleans up in almost every test?

Let's look at the numbers for 1920x1200:
Crysis:
Q9450: 20fps
Q9450OC: 20fps
Phenom: 21fps

Ooohh, 1 frame per second. Could it possibly be that something other than the CPU is the limiting factor here? Let's continue:

PT boats: Knights of the Sea:
Q9450: 38fps
Q9450OC: 38fps
Phenom: 28fps

Bioshock:
Q9450: 55fps
Q9450OC: 55fps
Phenom: 49fps

CoD 4:
Q9450: 66fps
Q9450OC: 92fps :bounce: 
Phenom: 71fps

World in Conflict:
Q9450: 25fps
Q9450OC: 25fps
Phenom: 28fps

Call of Juarez:
Q9450: 12fps
Q9450OC: 12fps
Phenom: 14fps

Company of Heroes:
Q9450: 23fps
Q9450OC: 23fps
Phenom: 38fps
(As I said, this one seems like a funny result, especially as there is no reported difference between a Q6600 and a QX9770 on this chart)

What this clearly shows is that in most cases, the differences are small at high resolutions, because the frame rates are limited not by the CPU, but by the graphics card. In the cases that large differences exist, they are almost always in favor of the Intel CPU, with the exception of Company of Heroes, in which something funny appears to have happened. Also, an easy way to tell if the FSB is a bottleneck is to simply look at the Q9450 vs the Q9450OC. The Q9450 runs on a 1333FSB, while the overclocked one had an 1852FSB. This is almost a 40% bump in bus speed, so if there is little difference between the overclocked and non overclocked 9450 (as seen in most of the benchmarks in which the Phenom has an advantage), the FSB is definitely not the bottleneck. Note that if there is a significant bump (as seen on CoD 4), it doesn't mean the FSB was a bottleneck, just that the CPU was in some way a bottleneck.
July 10, 2008 3:59:16 PM

cjl said:
Is that why the OC'd 9450 cleans up in almost every test?

read about the internal hardware then you will understand. now you just se numbers and don't really understand what they are saying.
July 10, 2008 4:02:28 PM

in those 2 pages provided, one thing is clearly evident in the OCC review. When the resolutions are increased, AMD consistenly decrease by 2-5 FPS, sometimes a little more. If you look at the Intel's, the FPS decreases consistently of 7-15. THAT IS A BIG AMOUNT. Going from 1024x768, AMD maintains 28 FPS, but Intel drops from 40 to 25 FPS. the 3.8GHz OC 9450 couldnt keep up to the 9600 in this case.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/13....
I love the last sentence. "This just goes to show that CPU speed is not everything in gaming." SO TRUE. Who cares if the processor is setting a GHz record, the ability to process data and transfer data fast is important. Intel fans take note: This is why Intel is getting rid of the FSB in the Nehalem processors; they are switching to basically AMD's HyperTransport 3.0. Because it is a superior technology.
July 10, 2008 4:04:43 PM

I'm not sure about any major differences, but i would prefer a Quad Core simply b/c that's where the apps are moving towards and that includes games. your best choice on AMD side would be to stay with a Black Edition CPU that will let you overclock some to squeeze more juice for a more future-proof setup.

to ppl who blindly suggest to go with Intel please at least show some respect to the poster's intent and offer your choice from the AMD side prior to the Intel advertising. WE KNOW intel is better than amd clock for clock, but the guy already 'OWNS' AMD board and he made up his mind about amd. When someone ask you which way is North you don't tell them where East, South, and West are then tell them North sux do ya?
July 10, 2008 4:09:02 PM

AND, right now Intel's advertising piece is that 2 > 3. Not true according to extremetech. Is the difference huge? No, but the difference is there. Thats what matters.
I think its time for Intel people to get pushed off the hill of pretentiousness, and the AMD people will go sit on the hill of superiority.
Its a war guys, and its not going to end. As long as Intel and AMD are companies, there will be fighting and debates about who is better. I'll just sit back and enjoy my quantum computer, and laugh when noone can touch the speed of my computer, because they are all still believing in Intel.
July 10, 2008 4:21:56 PM

I'm really tired of all the Intel Fanboyism. What if he doesn't plan on OCing the processor? Price performance in that respect is pretty good. I'm not planning on OCing when I upgrade from the 3800+ to the 6000+ in my rig. Guess what, people are still telling me to scrap the entire system for an intel system.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 10, 2008 4:26:08 PM

kassler said:
If you want to play advanced games or on high res monitors then AMD is better than Intel. It isn't that important how fast the processor is though. phenom 9550, 9750, 9850, 9950 is going to rock.

Intel has problems with advanced graphics because the FSB can't handle the traffic between processor and video card. The performance will be a bit slower because of that


kassler said:
(can't edit messages...)

phenom is best because hypertransport 3.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport


kassler said:
They never test on high res with AMD. What they should test is the most powerfull GPU’s on the most demanding games. And also use one AMD and one Intel. AMD gains some from fast memory also, using slow memory hurts AMD more than intel.
Two reviews here where slower AMD processors win over Intel on high res
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320536,00.a...


kassler said:
Yes, if you are going to play at low res then Intel is better. But if you want to play on high res or want to uses fast video cards at max speed then amd is better


This is what TC is talking about. Posting irrelavent information that is not true. Even the link he provided showed that there are other limiting factors there other than the CPU.

Seriously kassler just stop being a flame starter. This thread was fine until you busted in with your BS.

the last resort said:
in those 2 pages provided, one thing is clearly evident in the OCC review. When the resolutions are increased, AMD consistenly decrease by 2-5 FPS, sometimes a little more. If you look at the Intel's, the FPS decreases consistently of 7-15. THAT IS A BIG AMOUNT. Going from 1024x768, AMD maintains 28 FPS, but Intel drops from 40 to 25 FPS. the 3.8GHz OC 9450 couldnt keep up to the 9600 in this case.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/13....
I love the last sentence. "This just goes to show that CPU speed is not everything in gaming." SO TRUE. Who cares if the processor is setting a GHz record, the ability to process data and transfer data fast is important. Intel fans take note: This is why Intel is getting rid of the FSB in the Nehalem processors; they are switching to basically AMD's HyperTransport 3.0. Because it is a superior technology.


the last resort said:
AND, right now Intel's advertising piece is that 2 > 3. Not true according to extremetech. Is the difference huge? No, but the difference is there. Thats what matters.
I think its time for Intel people to get pushed off the hill of pretentiousness, and the AMD people will go sit on the hill of superiority.
Its a war guys, and its not going to end. As long as Intel and AMD are companies, there will be fighting and debates about who is better. I'll just sit back and enjoy my quantum computer, and laugh when noone can touch the speed of my computer, because they are all still believing in Intel.


What the hell did you smoke? Seriously? So at a lower res where the CPU is the most important factor Intel has higher FPS, even on the old FSB. When in higher res its either neck to neck or AMD has a bit of a lead (biggest was 3FPS) or Intel has a lead. And this is where the GPU matters most.

Intel is mainly moving from the FSB for the server arena. It just so happens that what happens in the server arena trickles down to us in the desktop market. For Nehalem the IMC will not increase the FPS. What will is the IPC of the chip.

The ability to transfer data faster is not the only reason for the switch. There are other factors such as the fact that it will allow them to gain market share in the server arena where AMD does better.
July 10, 2008 4:28:18 PM

dmacfour said:
I'm really tired of all the Intel Fanboyism. What if he doesn't plan on OCing the processor? Price performance in that respect is pretty good. I'm not planning on OCing when I upgrade from the 3800+ to the 6000+ in my rig. Guess what, people are still telling me to scrap the entire system for an intel system.


As I stated above, if you're not planning on overclocking and you're not looking for a pricy high end chip then it doesn't make a huge difference whether you go with an intel or amd processor.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 4:30:45 PM

gaiden said:
I'm not sure about any major differences, but i would prefer a Quad Core simply b/c that's where the apps are moving towards and that includes games. your best choice on AMD side would be to stay with a Black Edition CPU that will let you overclock some to squeeze more juice for a more future-proof setup.

to ppl who blindly suggest to go with Intel please at least show some respect to the poster's intent and offer your choice from the AMD side prior to the Intel advertising. WE KNOW intel is better than amd clock for clock, but the guy already 'OWNS' AMD board and he made up his mind about amd. When someone ask you which way is North you don't tell them where East, South, and West are then tell them North sux do ya?

I'm not sure if he already has the board or not. If he does, then AMD is absolutely the better choice. Even though Intel performs quite a bit better, the cost of a new motherboard must be factored in, which tips the value in AMD's favor. That's why I made sure to state "if you don't already have the motherboard" before my Intel recommendation.
July 10, 2008 4:31:16 PM

wow, didnt think id get this big of a response... I know i could get the same price/quality out of intel for a "mid-range" processor but i dont know as much about intel chips, so i figured id just go with amd. The reason i was asking about phenom was whether the ht 3.0 would add to the phenom's performance over a dual core. I already know that most games dont need quad core. Ill probably go with the AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ Windsor 3.2GHz. Good thing about the mobo is that it can run a high end phenom if i ever feel like upgrading. I know the Phenoms arent "the best" atm, but theyre getting better.

**note:nothing has been purchased yet and nothing is final
July 10, 2008 4:32:46 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Seriously kassler just stop being a flame starter. This thread was fine until you busted in with your BS.


I think you should listen to your own words…
July 10, 2008 4:32:48 PM

jimmysmitty said:
This is what TC is talking about. Posting irrelavent information that is not true. Even the link he provided showed that there are other limiting factors there other than the CPU.

Seriously kassler just stop being a flame starter. This thread was fine until you busted in with your BS.





What the hell did you smoke? Seriously? So at a lower res where the CPU is the most important factor Intel has higher FPS, even on the old FSB. When in higher res its either neck to neck or AMD has a bit of a lead (biggest was 3FPS) or Intel has a lead. And this is where the GPU matters most.

Intel is mainly moving from the FSB for the server arena. It just so happens that what happens in the server arena trickles down to us in the desktop market. For Nehalem the IMC will not increase the FPS. What will is the IPC of the chip.

The ability to transfer data faster is not the only reason for the switch. There are other factors such as the fact that it will allow them to gain market share in the server arena where AMD does better.


Seriously dude, you don't need to defend intel. People don't buy high end CPUs and GPUs to game at low resolutions. The fact that Intel does good at low resolutions in useless. Looking at the facts, there is no reason to recommend Intel over AMD unless you will OC, which only a small percentage of people do.
July 10, 2008 4:33:33 PM

Thx to OP for posting this thread. I find myself in the same boat. I too have decided on AMD for next system.

I like your rig - good mobo - lots of pow supply - so no issues there.

My research has brought me to similar question. My thinking keeps returning to the idea of a 5000BE cpu. Yes it's AM2. And cheap. And I wonder how the Phenom situation will MOVE - where is it going??
I just heard of DENEB - will that still be using AM2+ ?? Is so, I would 5000BE JUST FOR NOW - cos it's enough. And upgrade when DENEB comes out.

I have read repeatedly that CRYSIS is written for QUAD - is this true? If so, that pushes the choice to a quad core cpu.

The mobo and psu you choose have lots of power handling capability. The other background issue is the south bridge and near future changes - will that be a significant improvement?

SO yeh, I hear you, and I am with you. More posts directly relevant to this specific request for info - would be nice - the choice for AMD has been made - for OP and me. The info re ntel is not requested here.

So again:
- what socket will DENEB use?
- what changes in FXmobo re south bridge are coming, if any
- is it good thinking to perhaps go with a simple dualcore FOR NOW?
- does Crysis really prefer quadcore?

Good thread.
Thank you.
a c 110 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 10, 2008 4:37:49 PM

i sea said:
im pretty well set on the type of cpu, amd 64 X2 5600+(2.9Ghz), or possibly a slower one in the same group. What would some advantages be of having a quad/tri core in a game like Crysis over the dual? I realize games dont really take advantage of them well, but i also saw something where a mobo might run faster with the X2+ processor. Am i interpreting this correctly at all or would the dual core be all i need?


AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ Brisbane 2.8GHz 65W: $87
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

MSI K9A2 CF-F V2 AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X ATX: $104
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The X2 5400+ will clock to 3.1-3.2GHz with stock cooling and maybe a slight bump in voltage.

I would recommend that you not purchase a 790fx board today because the 790gx quad-Crossfire with sb750 will most likely be available in the next few months.

The Phenom 9950BE is said to run at 3GHz at stock cpu freq 200MHz and 1.3v on the upcoming 790gx sb750 south bridges.

Gaming at 16x12 and up is the great equalizer. Lookee here ...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...

Consider a quad core cpu only if you anticipate using software which will run parallel threads across 4 cores (primarily video transcoding)
a c 110 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 10, 2008 4:39:22 PM

zenmaster said:
Can you link some Reviews to show this.

Seems that Reviews at Tomshardware.Com, XBitLabs, AnandTech, and others I have read show the opposite where the AMD chips can't come close to competing.


CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...
a c 110 à CPUs
a b À AMD
July 10, 2008 4:43:02 PM

I forgot to mention ....

with the money I saved you buy a Raptor hard drive for $150
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 4:45:20 PM

Wisecracker said:
CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...

Thanks very much for linking to that article, and it shows what I mean about something being a little funny about the one Kassler keeps linking to. Note that the higher the resolution, typically, the less the CPU matters. The phenom does not take the lead, but neither do any of the others, unlike in the one that Kassler seems to like.

Oh, and I would go with an Athlon rather than a Phenom - the older, proven architecture will be just as fast for single threads, and is not nearly as power hungry.
July 10, 2008 4:48:50 PM

That article shows that the $1000 doesn't have a big advantage over anything else. It shows that AMD holds it's own very well against the intel monster.
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 4:54:41 PM

Or, more accurately, it shows that no CPU that's at all reasonably modern will be a limitation in highly GPU bound games at high resolutions.

There are some games that will require a fast CPU though - typically strategy games, plus FSX pounds insufficient CPU's into the ground. If your main games are fast paced shooters, or something similar, and you play at high resolution, it's true, all CPU's will in essence be equal (so spend the money on graphics, where the real bottleneck is).

It doesn't show that the AMD is as fast as the Intel (actually, it shows the opposite - look at the lower resolutions). What it shows is that at high resolutions, both the AMD and Intel CPUs are faster than the graphics card, so they are no longer holding the system back at all.
July 10, 2008 5:01:14 PM

Wisecracker said:
CPU scaling in games with dual & quad core processors
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...


Isn't that test done with 8800GTX ? it's one older card and hasn't the same bandwith as the new cards. I think that 8800GT has more bandwidth compared to 8800GTX. 8800GTX is a very fast card but I think that the FSB handles the bandwidth that that card is able to use
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2008 5:02:23 PM

You people are hopeless and appearantly you are going to buy AMD no matter what. Most of the people on this thread are trying to save you from this mistake.

You have already had 2 people on this forum who already own a AMD 64x2 5000BE Overclocked and a 5600 and we are both telling you that is is not a good gaming processor and it is not as fast as you think it is in your mind.

Forget about being tired of the Intel Fanboyism. And forget about getting an AMD chipset that has 4 PCI express slots. The effectivess of X-Fire dramatically goes down when more than 2 cards are added to the mix.

You are not buying the name of the company you are buying a chip.

You would be far better off with with an E7200 or a E8400.

Reviews on the 5000BE on tom's hardware shows that an Intel Core2 Duo E6550 at 2.33 MHZ runs at the same speed as an AMD 64x2 6000 clocked at 3.0 GHz using twice the amount of wattage and producing twice the amount of heat.

You would have to overclock an AMD 64x2 5000BE to 3.3 GHZ in hopes of exceding the stock level of Intel Core2Duo CPUs clocked at 2.33GHz and below. And you have to hope the overclock remains stable.

SEE THE LINK HERE PROVING THIS:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-overclocker,...

Every Intel Core2Duo chip clocked at 2.4GHz and above no AMD 64x2 chip will be able to match.

There is a guy on this forum 'CHEDRZ' who could only get a stable OC on his 5000 by leaving it at 2.7GHz. He had it up to 3.0 GHz but it did not hold. His system kept crashing. It is very dependent on your motherboard. Needless to say he was very disappointed with his purchase as I was with mine.
July 10, 2008 5:03:42 PM

kassler said:
Isn't that test done with 8800GTX ? it's one older card and hasn't the same bandwith as the new cards. I think that 8800GT has more bandwidth compared to 8800GTX. 8800GTX is a very fast card but I think that the FSB handles the bandwidth that that card is able to use


Err, can't you read? Its a 8800 Ultra, which is significantly faster than a 8800GT. The 8800GT doesn't have 'more bandwith', it has a 256bit memory bus, the 8800 Ultra (and GTX) has a 384bit memory bus.

8800 Ultra memory bandwith: 103.7 GB/s
8800 GTX memory bandiwith: 86.4 GB/s
8800 GT memory bandwith: 57.6 GB/s

You just owned yourself.
July 10, 2008 5:05:43 PM

Well it would seem that he's already bought the rest of the system. So it makes no sense to try and pound it into the person to buy an intel rig. Thats like the people on the graphics forums trying to pound people into still buying Nvidia when ATi currently has the better product. Well not quite the same, since intel has an advantage over amd at the moment.

I also agree that very likely the FSB is becoming a bottleneck on some of the more recent benchmarks. I noticed many more or less flat performance lines on a few of the benchmarks regardless of the res used, especially with the 4850 and 4870, indicating that they were capped on the amount of data they were receiving.

If you don't already have the board, and are set on AMD/ATI I'd wait for the sb750 variants of the 790fx/gx boards. The 9850be or 9950 be should actually do you quite well. Won't be as fast as a 6000+ in single threaded apps, but will do quite well with anything multithreaded.
!