Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amd athlon 64 x2 7750? What do you think.....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 21, 2008 6:09:06 PM

New one from amd...better performance compared to teh 6400+? Also, what would be a compatible part to keep it cool? Links please, from the egg if ya can.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Doesnt look to shabby ^^ and very affordable. Was considering the 6400+ but after reading reviews on this....think I found a new love :) 

now finding something to keep it cool thats compatible without causing serious injury from failed attempts to install, due to the "D'oh!" and *head/desk, head/desk* or the dreaded *oopsies?* X)

Any and all opinions welcome. (concerning the actual questions posted lol)..this is not a intel versus amd, this is comparing the amd 6000 series and the 7750, thats all =)

so 6400+ versus 7750, lets hear it!

ty for your time, happy holidays!

More about : amd athlon 7750

December 21, 2008 6:24:30 PM

Well it is a quad that 2 of the cores failed on, not worth crap in my opinion. AMD is just selling them to try and wring out a profit somehow. Buying an already broken chip is a bad Idea to me.
December 21, 2008 6:33:02 PM

They perform much better clock for clock then the older X2's out there (2.7Ghz>3.2Ghz), have unlocked multipliers, are very cheap, run much cooler then the old Winsor black editions (6400 BE), and overclock a lot better then the other Phenoms. I would say if AMD started taking the default clock speeds up to 3.2Ghz with this one, we would have a chip that performs in the realm of the E8xxx series.

Any cooler that works with a Phenom should work with this one.
Related resources
December 21, 2008 7:07:51 PM

rochin said:
Well it is a quad that 2 of the cores failed on, not worth crap in my opinion. AMD is just selling them to try and wring out a profit somehow. Buying an already broken chip is a bad Idea to me.


Who cares? The defective parts are disabled. Intel, ATI and Nvidia have also sold products with certain parts disabled and will continue to do so.
December 21, 2008 7:14:13 PM

rochin said:
Well it is a quad that 2 of the cores failed on, not worth crap in my opinion. AMD is just selling them to try and wring out a profit somehow. Buying an already broken chip is a bad Idea to me.


You are clueless. Basically every chip made by both Intel and AMD have errors. These bad "areas" are disabled/laser cut so they do not cause problems. Intel does the same.
December 21, 2008 9:18:06 PM

Compared to the 6400+ the new one wins hands down.
If you're locking for overclocking, also.

This is basically a Phenom, which is a newer architecture than the Athlons.
There is no reason to go with the 6400+ over this one, especially not if you can overclock the 7750.
December 21, 2008 9:30:27 PM

Although "newer" by definition it appears to be more of the same. Low L2 cache(3MB), high wattage rating 95W for a 2.7 2core vs 65W for a 3.0 2core from Intel(E8400) w/ a 6MB L2 cache, and it's still 65nm. As for the 6400+, yes it's better than it.
December 21, 2008 9:58:16 PM

It really depends on if your motherboard supports the 7750. It is far better then the 6400+ with the 2mb L3 Cache. The newegg listing is wrong this processor is based on current Phenom's and has 2X512kb L2 Cache and the 2mb L3 Cache and requires a AM2+ board. As with all K-10s it also can use Advanced Clock Calibration (750SB). This isn't your old Athlon X2 anymore. So if you have a AM2+ board its by far a better processor then the X2 6400+
December 21, 2008 11:01:29 PM

spathotan said:
You are clueless. Basically every chip made by both Intel and AMD have errors. These bad "areas" are disabled/laser cut so they do not cause problems. Intel does the same.



Half of the chip is faulty, sure the good cores work good and such. It is like buying a brand new car that had a v6 in it, then having the company replace it before you buy it with a 4 cylinder that has half the performance. Sure its cheaper and it may be pretty good, that is still no the point. It is not old news that AMD has had bad luck with yeilds on their newer chips and hiccups with the quads. I just have no trust in them any longer.
December 22, 2008 12:43:09 AM

rochin said:
Half of the chip is faulty, sure the good cores work good and such. It is like buying a brand new car that had a v6 in it, then having the company replace it before you buy it with a 4 cylinder that has half the performance. Sure its cheaper and it may be pretty good, that is still no the point. It is not old news that AMD has had bad luck with yeilds on their newer chips and hiccups with the quads. I just have no trust in them any longer.



What? I dont see any marketing claiming these are any more than a dual core. You sir, are an idiot.
December 22, 2008 1:06:55 AM

rochin said:
Half of the chip is faulty, sure the good cores work good and such. It is like buying a brand new car that had a v6 in it, then having the company replace it before you buy it with a 4 cylinder that has half the performance. Sure its cheaper and it may be pretty good, that is still[bold] no the point. [/bold] It is not old news that AMD has had bad luck with yeilds on their newer chips and hiccups with the quads. I just have no trust in them any longer.


You don't actually *make* a point. Nvidia, ATI, and Intel have long used the idea of cutting off parts of a bad die. You pay less, you get less, and in this case you're getting more than half the performance, because most things are only using 2 cores, anyway. Besides, we're just comparing the 6400+ and the 7750. And last I checked, you didn't order a Phenom 9950 then have them chop off two cores and send it to you. They already did it, and cut the price accordingly.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2008 3:07:58 AM

brendano257 said:
Although "newer" by definition it appears to be more of the same. Low L2 cache(3MB), high wattage rating 95W for a 2.7 2core vs 65W for a 3.0 2core from Intel(E8400) w/ a 6MB L2 cache, and it's still 65nm. As for the 6400+, yes it's better than it.


Did you not read the OP. He stated DO NOT COMPARE this with an INTEL chip. A 7750 is $80 and E8400 is $165. You get what you paid for.
December 22, 2008 3:48:04 AM

The new Athlons are pretty good for the money especially if you don't care about power consumption (since they tend to require at least 20 more watts than the previous generation).
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 22, 2008 3:53:38 AM

brendano257 said:
Although "newer" by definition it appears to be more of the same. Low L2 cache(3MB), high wattage rating 95W for a 2.7 2core vs 65W for a 3.0 2core from Intel(E8400) w/ a 6MB L2 cache, and it's still 65nm. As for the 6400+, yes it's better than it.



L2 cache isnt required by the AMD architecture . With the memory controller built in to the chip instead of on the northbridge chipset as intel has previously done a large L2 cache is not needed . Intel needed one because the memory access of their chips was slow and the cache helped compensate .

And yes this new AMD chip is a Phenom with two active cores . Who cares ?
Is it the same people who are worried that all C2D and pentium dual core chips are identical and all intel does is grade them and turn parts of the chips off to make the cheaper models?
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2008 3:58:21 AM

At stock clocks it's generally slower than the 6400. It's only worth it if you overclock it and it seems to overclock decently. Many reviewers are hitting 3.2Ghz with the stock cooler which is really good for a phenom so I'm sure you could hit a little higher with a good cooler. While I do think that AMD should have released these like last year, I think that they have been binning Phenoms with 2 defective cores for a while since they didn't want to throw them out, but they didn't want to create a demand that would cause them to dissable a core on a CPU that would otherwise have been an X3. Well that and they needed to clear out the inventory of their older chips.
December 22, 2008 8:06:51 AM

rochin said:
Half of the chip is faulty, sure the good cores work good and such. It is like buying a brand new car that had a v6 in it, then having the company replace it before you buy it with a 4 cylinder that has half the performance. Sure its cheaper and it may be pretty good, that is still no the point. It is not old news that AMD has had bad luck with yeilds on their newer chips and hiccups with the quads. I just have no trust in them any longer.


In that case I guess you have no trust in any CPU or GPU manufacturer because they all do the same thing. Maybe you should stop using computers altogether if it bothers you that much.
December 23, 2008 8:48:52 PM

On some reviews I have read the 7750 does not have 3mb of L2 cache but its configured like this L1 256kb, L2 1mb and L3 2mb. The sources may be wrong but either way this processor seems like a winner so far. Waiting on reviews from newegg currently from someone that has actually bought the processor. Not the biased non owners.
December 24, 2008 12:04:07 AM

"3mb of L2 cache" was a sloppy statement. Those other reviews are correct. Each K10 core has 64K data L1 cache, 64K instruction L1 cache, and 512K L2 cache, just like on a K8 Brisbane core. There are two K10 cores in a 7750. Additionally, for the whole chip there is a 2 MB L3 cache. The "3mb" came from adding L2 and L3 and is inaccurate because L1 is also cache. "3mb" is also imprecise because not all 3 MB are at the same latency.

Quote:
L2 cache isnt required by the AMD architecture . With the memory controller built in to the chip instead of on the northbridge chipset as intel has previously done a large L2 cache is not needed . Intel needed one because the memory access of their chips was slow and the cache helped compensate .

This doesn't tell the whole story. How much cache you "need" depends on how fast your cores are and how many of them you have for the amount of memory bandwidth you've got. It also depends slightly on how you use the cache - there are ways to use more cache to boost speed further, or to conserve cache by optimizing utilization.

As an example, the i7 has an extremely fast integrated memory controller (by comparison with K10 or K8), but it still has over 9 MB of cache. That's because (1) it's trying to feed 4 cores that were not only fast to begin with, but accelerated further with HT and (2) the inclusive cache hierarchy is one way of speeding up the cache at the cost of using more of it.
April 17, 2009 9:39:24 AM

I have been wrestling with whether to buy a 6400+ or a 7750. I think im gonna take the 7750 now, but one question. Should i really make the effort to find the black edition or is the regular one fine? what is the difference, if there is one.... Im a bit confused. Thanks for the other reviews and comments guys. So far the best info I could find on this processor.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 4, 2009 11:23:19 AM

2 cores broken? Naha! I'd take a two wheel BMW over a four wheel Skoda any day :D 

Wroom wroom
!