Phenom X4 9950 vs Pentium E5200

So i'm purchasing a new motherboard, ram, and cpu relatively soon, and I have around $300 to spend. 2 gigs of ram is pretty much what i'm going ram-wise, and that's around 40 bucks. so my question is what build would i see more improvements on?
My current system is an ASROCK dual vsta mobo, an E2160 oc'd to 2.4ghz, and 2 gigs of ram. My two build ideas:

AMD quad build:
AMD Phenom 9950 BLACK EDITION 2.6GHz Socket AM2+ 140W Quad-Core Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103273
BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX A2+ AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813138128

Intel dual build:
BIOSTAR TForce TP45D2-A7 LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813138127
Intel Pentium E5200 Wolfdale 2.5GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819116072

I do plan on overclocking whichever one i get, since the E5200 has a high multiplier and the phenom has an unlocked multiplier.

The rest of my system:
600w rosewill powersupply (2 12v rails)
BFG 9600gt OC
22" widescreen monitor (1680x1050)

I'm a high schooler and I'll use this machine mostly for gaming, but i do multitask alot. I mostly play source games and cod4.
So what do you think? I plan on upgrading to a 4850 in the future, but do you think i'll really see that much of a boost from the quad core any time soon? If i go with the dual core which i'm kinda leaning toward, i'll probably upgrade to nehalem and ddr3 in a couple years when it's affordable.
Thanks for your help, any suggestions are awesome :]

Will that board even support the AMD CPU? I'm pretty sure a lot of AMD boards had issues with supporting the higher TDP processors... and well, you picked the highest one they make! I'd definitely verify that the board you chose is rated to handle all of that heat.

yeah, @jimmy, i've been thinking that too, and i'll probably upgrade in a few years when more programs use multiple cores (more than 2).

@rodney, the amd motherboard was in a combo deal with the 9950, so it's most likely unless newegg messed up, the cpu is compatible with it. I've also read that the 9850 might be a better choice because of it's lower heat output

i would say you don't need to buy the highest-end phenom there is. even a 9550 would be good enough. but if you dont want to spend too much, consider waiting a few weeks until the core i7's come out. that should significantly reduce the cost of the core 2 cpu's because they'll become "last gen".

Even though the E5200 should be able to reach astronomical frequencies, I can't get off my mind the nagging feeling that the Ph-9950 with that board should be able to give you a nice 3Ghz quad. However if you're planning on getting a nehalem build in a 1-1.5 years down the road, then I would lean towards a nice 3.5 - 4Ghz E5200 for the time being.

Hey emp, I like your sig.... pre-planned build huh.

I still say go with the dual core Intel since you will game more than anything.

Yup I already got my eye on unreleased stuff...

I'm pretty much leaning toward the E5200 rig since i do game more than anything, so overclocking wise, would ddr2 1066 show that much of an advantage over ddr2-800? i've heard bad things about factory overclocked ram.

The only advantage that factory OCed RAm does give is it will normally be better for OCing.

I have 4GB of the Corsair XMS2 DDR2 1066 and its run fine for me. Very stable and happy. Ran Memtest86 overnight once and was 100% error free.

So it'd be worth the extra 5 bucks to go for 1066?

Personally id go for the Pentim Dual core, they seem to preform like 90% as well as a C2D

and most games are made for dual core not quad

and the Pentium dula is 45-nm and will easily clock to 3.5 possible 4 ghz

also the FSB is so low at 800 Hmz almost any MB will be able to OC the high using the FSB as normally multipliers are locked

for example i can get my EVGA 680i to easily 1500 FSB giving a core speed of around 4.7 ghz so the limit will be due to the CPU being to hot and not the motherbaord


given a CPU of 3.5-4ghz dual agaisnt say a 2.6-2.9Ghz quad most games will run faster under the pentium dual

However if you are not gonna over clcok go for the quad, also the quads are almost 100% faster for certain applications so keep in mind what u use it for as for gaming and overclocking use the pentium

more and more games in the future r going to use multicore so u would benefit over a oc dual core. 2.6ghz is enough and u could probably oc a little more.

Have to agree there i went out and got a q6600 and 8800 ultra like a year and half ago and spent quite a bit,

preformance and money wise it would have been better to buy cheaper and more frequent getting high mid range componets.

RAM that is rated for higher clockspeeds is required for 45nm OCing. Since you can't use a divider lower that 1:1 you'll start to strain your ram as you go past 400 fsb. If you want to hit 500+ then it's simply mandatory.

However bear in mind that 4GB of DDR2 800 will be better in gaming than 2GB of DDR1066 so choose wisely.

At first I was phenom all the way, because the proc, mobo and ram were much cheaper and it has decent performance for the money relative to the core i7 920 2.66Mhz ($285). The benchmarks clearly suggest that the core i7 is the better proc. Phenoms just don't overclock very much at all. As for the 920, you can achieve 3.66Mhz stable on air (after market cpu cooler of course). Don't expect to get this in the summer, but you can then bring it down to much closer to stock. It runs at about 80 deg. C, but a more modest 3.4Mhz should be easy and cool enough. I read this in the April issue of Maximum PC, you can check it out on their website. They said that its wise to keep it lower than 80 C and probably in the 70 C range. I'm rather new to overclocking, so I'm not really sure if this temp. is acceptable or not. The i7s recommend that you don't exceed 67.9 C. If anyone has thoughts on this please share.

With all this being said I feel like the future is bright for core i7 especially when the prices of DDR3 and X58 mobos drops along with the price of the proc. Certainly this can't fit into every ones budget right away. It seems like Intel's procs drop at a much slower rate or maybe I'm just recovering from some of their insane prices. I hope that AMD can trump Intel, but I don't put much faith in the Phenoms. I feel like its not wise to invest in an old technology at AMDs prices that will likely be replaced sooner than later.
I say go with the more budget system build and save for the future. the $72.99 E5200 can OC to 4Ghz on air, which blows the Athlon 64 x2 7750 (AM2+/Phenom) OC out of the water. I am thinking about upgrading to this setup from my 939 system. I should be able to strip down and e-bay the old one and use the money to build a new system and get a 4850 or 9800 GTX+

I'm not really sure which would win the E5200 @ 4Ghz or a Phenom x4 in a performance test, the only way to know for sure is to benchmark them. It would be interesting to see the two go at it. I have not found such a benchmark yet, but I'll keep looking and try to find it. But know this you are saving green and even if the phenom out preforms the E5200 it can't be by a lot.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2008/12/22/athlon-x2-7750-vs-intel-e5200-oc-review/1

Good luck on the build.

The 9950BE all the way. From Anand:




If you are looking to purchase now: Phenomn 9950BE / Gigabyte 790x: $200

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Comb [...] mbo.182489

I agree. The Phenom I's are best to be avoided. Only the Phenom I based X2 7750BE is all that worthwhile and comparable to a low end wolfdale.

That chart is useless and what video card was used ? no one buys an e5200 to run at stock speed and the key is the mobo used which i think Gigabyte makes the best overclockers for the money and you will need a good heat sink.. the cheaper you buy the less you fall in the investment as we all know hardware is a changing thing and buying a top of the line platform like i7 is a true waste of money..

Now where would my e5200 be at on that chart running at 3.87Ghz on a 965P chipset with a 260GTX @756/1512/1250 ?

thats a horrible game to benchmark... especially considering the lowest CPU gets 52 FPS... what a dumbass.