Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom X3 710 or E8400?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2009 1:24:01 AM

Alright, I'm upgrading from an S939 Athlon 64 x2 4800+, and am looking very closely at the Phenom X3 710 and the E8400. I mainly use this system for games, primarily RTS/RPG/Flight Simulator games(mainly IL2 1946, but will get Storm of War:BoB when it comes out).

I mainly play stuff made by Blizzard, Valve, and Company of Heroes/Dawn of War stuff, although I do like FPSs as well.

The thing about my build is, I want the best guarenteed performance(just in case I have bad luck OCing), along with the most longevity/"future-proofedness", and I want all of that for the cheapest i can get.

So far, I've got a potential E8400, 4 gig G.skill ram, and this mobo:

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

For around $317.

On the X3 710 side, I've got the same 4 gigs of ram, the 710, and this mobo:

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

For $256 shipped.

So which of those should i get? Or should i consider something else?

More about : phenom 710 e8400

February 16, 2009 1:44:56 AM

I would personally say this. The Phenom II X3 710 is about $20-$30 cheaper than the E8400. And being that the Phenom II X3 has three cores where the E8400 has only 2 cores makes the Phenom II X3 a much better buy as of right now. Get an AM2+ motherboard for the X3 sence it can be backwards compatible with it. Make sure though the BIOS is up to date before buying. Like make sure it has somthing like AM3 support ready.
February 16, 2009 1:59:43 AM

Alright, so i'll go the AMD route. Should i stick with the 710 X3 or should i get a quad?
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 2:04:02 AM

are u guys kidding me...? the 8400 will blow that thing out of the water - especially overclocked...

get the 8400 bro. you can hit 3.6 on stock voltage and 4.2 within safe limits. it will eat the x3 up in anything..


btw: stop saying more cores = more performance. dumbest thing ever.
February 16, 2009 2:05:21 AM

Ok werxen, dont turn yet another thread into one about you pumping up your E8400. The chip has been around for awhile, everybody already knows its numbers and vitals.
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 2:09:53 AM

oh sorry i thought this was another one of YOUR threads where you stupidly say more cores = better. spath i didnt buy a wolfdale to brag about having it. i got it because it performs, k? dont get the 2 confused.


LW07, dont take our word for it - go look at benchmarks and see which processor out performs. the quad core fanboys will always say theirs does better but get dumbfounded when real numbers are brought up. its almost within the same realm as the PS3 vs. xbox 360 debate. all the ps3 fanboys said its ok, it will get better when developers learn to code with the cell yadda yadda but all the while the 360 guys have been enjoying the games. by the time developers learn to code the cell, the ps4 etc. will be out. stick to the 8400 dude.
February 16, 2009 2:21:55 AM

Have you read? The X3 710 and 720 are hitting very impressive mid 3Ghz overclocks also on stock voltages. Either way, at ~3.5Ghz he'll be GPU limited until more cores are utilized.

Forgot to mention, you might want to spend a little more and grab the X3 720, it has an unlocked multiplier so overclocking is VERY simple, and should still be cheaper than the E8400.
February 16, 2009 2:23:01 AM

I didnt say more cores = better. Its commonplace for you to have selective reading on these forums werxen.

BTW, we wont be discussing this over PM's so you can make a thread about it. QQ
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 2:47:25 AM

blah blah blah. more of the same. gpu limited my ass. why is it the more i overclock the higher frame rates i get even past 3.5. blah blah blah more of the same unlocked multiplier = better yet still limited overclock. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. all i heard. sorry what?

LW07 do not listen to these fools, go look at the benchmark numbers yourself and decide. this forum is too heavily dependent on bias and situational advice.
a c 86 à CPUs
February 16, 2009 6:52:02 AM

First, I don't know what the two of you have a problem with, but the OPs thread is NOT the place to air out your problems. Go the F away, no body cares about your issues.

So the question is, E8400 or 710/720? Lets start looking at benchies.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

Look at the L4D benchmark seeing as you play steam. 8400 gets 117, the 720 gets 112, and the 710 gets 107. The 8400 gets 10 extra FPS, or about 10% faster then the 710. All chips are over 60FPS, its not like either gets you that much more. The other game reviews from this site show the same 10% faster, except for Farcry 2 which is only 2FPS faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

If you do any kind of encoding/video work, the 710/720 is faster with the exception of encoding to WMV. Windows media encoder 9 only recognizes even numbers of cores, so the extra core that the 710/720 has isn't used. Using other programs however show the 710/720 is faster then the 8400.

So what does all this mean? The 8400 is a bit faster for gaming, and a bit slower in other tasks. None of these chips are so much better then the others that one MUST purchase it above all others. I would get which ever is cheaper, spending your money on better GPUs or drives.
February 16, 2009 7:01:46 AM

also consider cost 4745454b. I'm not a fanboy but I say as of right now the X3 710 and 720 are a better deal. look at the prices. The Phenom II 710 is $125.99 and the 720 is $165.99 where the E8400 is $164.99 and the E8500 is $187.99. But he said 710 vs E8400. Figure that out. He'll save $40 going the 710 and can spend that on somthing else. Also the 710 is not a quad it's a triple core. let's not get started on motherboards next. Plus when newer games takes advantage of more cores (ex. GTA IV) the E8400 would look like a Celeron compared to quads. but right now game codes are now just going into multithreading coding.

PS. I have a Q9650 and a E8400 and right behind my I have a Phenom 9850.
February 16, 2009 8:42:53 AM

Get a 720 x3, you'll get the extra few mhz, it's cheaper and you have the bonus of an unlocked multiplier.

Wow there's a big price difference in between the 720 and 710 in the USA, over here in the UK it's only about £18 ($29), there's also a £15 price difference in between the 720 and E8400 with the latter being the most expensive.
February 16, 2009 10:28:09 AM

At $125 its hard to pass up the X3 710. Like I said above, the use "money saved" in the AMD build to change the motherboard to something with the 750SB for overclocking, like gigabytes new 790X.
February 16, 2009 1:06:58 PM

spathotan said:
At $125 its hard to pass up the X3 710. Like I said above, the use "money saved" in the AMD build to change the motherboard to something with the 750SB for overclocking, like gigabytes new 790X.


I'm totally looking at the 790X right now.

Anyone else got any issues or wanna pump this up?

It seems like a really affordable 790 chipset board :D  Without all the other crap...

Edit: Damn it... I was on newegg.COM I hate Canada's high priced parts...
a c 159 à CPUs
February 16, 2009 1:14:26 PM

Newegg has the 9600 phenom for $85 after promo code, posted at slickdeals.net. A good price for a quad core.
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 1:26:08 PM

Get which ever can you can get for cheaper. The intel seems to do slightly better in most games right now. But its like 10fps at over a 100fps. So it doesnt matter.

Also as somebody else stated. You should get a AMD board with the sb750. That will drive up your price a lil bit. But its worth it. Even if you dont overclock right away or only a modest one. With the better overclocking southbridge you can get a longer life out the system by being able to overclock it higher.
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 1:27:29 PM

Yeah, Cause all that matters in a system is that worthless super pi benchmark.
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 1:44:24 PM

4745454b said:
First, I don't know what the two of you have a problem with, but the OPs thread is NOT the place to air out your problems. Go the F away, no body cares about your issues.

So the question is, E8400 or 710/720? Lets start looking at benchies.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

Look at the L4D benchmark seeing as you play steam. 8400 gets 117, the 720 gets 112, and the 710 gets 107. The 8400 gets 10 extra FPS, or about 10% faster then the 710. All chips are over 60FPS, its not like either gets you that much more. The other game reviews from this site show the same 10% faster, except for Farcry 2 which is only 2FPS faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

If you do any kind of encoding/video work, the 710/720 is faster with the exception of encoding to WMV. Windows media encoder 9 only recognizes even numbers of cores, so the extra core that the 710/720 has isn't used. Using other programs however show the 710/720 is faster then the 8400.

So what does all this mean? The 8400 is a bit faster for gaming, and a bit slower in other tasks. None of these chips are so much better then the others that one MUST purchase it above all others. I would get which ever is cheaper, spending your money on better GPUs or drives.


hey dude maybe YOU should READ the ops thread. hes looking for something that is EZ to overclock. those benchmark #'s u got are stock - lets see em overclocked next time, k? its gonna be more than 10 extra fps.

edit: im done, i have done too many of these threads with links and benchmarks n such:

bottom line is if you game the intel dual core is a superior choice. if you video encode the AMD is a superior choice. thats that.
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 4:32:17 PM

^+1
February 16, 2009 4:44:12 PM

werxen, stop being such a fanboy

If the game has quad core optimization then even if they are both overclocked to the max with the 720 at 3.8/3.9 and the '8400 at 4.4 if you get a good chip then the 720 will pull ahead because of the extra core that the game can use. Sure if you're on a dual optimized or single optimized game then yes the '8400 will pull ahead but we're just coming into the quad-core optimized games and you'll notice the difference with that extra core.
February 16, 2009 4:47:27 PM

it doesn't get much easier than overclocking a Core2. you can go almost 600 Mhz overclock on stock cooling and invest 40 bucks in a Xigmatech 1283 and be humming along at 3.8-4 Ghz 24/7.
that being said, i would trade my e8400 in a minute for one of those X3 720's if i could find a good SLI board. that is one amazing CPU. i am more impressed with it than the 940 to be honest.
a c 86 à CPUs
February 16, 2009 4:59:04 PM

Quote:
The thing about my build is, I want the best guarenteed performance(just in case I have bad luck OCing),


Are you sure he's into OCing? Seems to me he's into stock numbers as well. Unlike you, I'm not going down this road with you. Panther, I did consider cost, thats why I said to get whichever is cheaper. Doesn't anyone read?
February 16, 2009 5:18:58 PM

I cant help think that LWO7 is prob still confused about which to go for after reading all these opinons, this just turned into a argument for some people instead of a diplomatic solution, the 8400 really is a good cpu I will not dispute that, but I think the AMD option is a bit more future proof, the only thing putting me off the AMD is finding a good motherboard, I know a few people that have had trouble with GIGABYTE motherboards so thats put me off them, so it looks like its a waiting game for me.
February 16, 2009 5:58:43 PM

get cheapest setup, + A 4870 or 4870x2 LOL
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 6:16:52 PM

No Physcho I do not own a AMD. That benchmark means obsulelty nothing in real life or even pretend life usage. Its just a bench that Intel fanboys use. I take that back. The bench is usefull for one thing. Only to make sure if your CPU is actually performing as it should. Example. A 3 ghz c2d should perform it in so and so seconds. If yours is way off.....
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2009 6:18:39 PM

Helloworld_98 said:
werxen, stop being such a fanboy

If the game has quad core optimization then even if they are both overclocked to the max with the 720 at 3.8/3.9 and the '8400 at 4.4 if you get a good chip then the 720 will pull ahead because of the extra core that the game can use. Sure if you're on a dual optimized or single optimized game then yes the '8400 will pull ahead but we're just coming into the quad-core optimized games and you'll notice the difference with that extra core.


wtf about me makes me a fan boy? i am a gamer at heart and im trying to help this guy out. if you ever read my threads instead of assuming things you will see i always go back and forth between AMD and Intel depending on the situation.

another stupid thing you said is IF. thats right, IF. IF a game is quad core optimized. how many games are quad core optimized so far? gta 4, far cry 2. how many more plan to be quad core optimized? who knows. but what I do know is that there is a greater market for dual core games because thats where the vast majority of gaming computers lie. its not quad core... only 2 of my friends that are gamers have quads and they are avid computer enthusiasts.

i mean REALLY dude do you ever think outside of the box? how long is he gonna have a tri core CPU when by the time it is mainstream to code multi threaded games there is going to be 6-8 core processors out. jeez... THINK a little bit. let the info swirl in your head before making assumptions.
February 16, 2009 6:56:37 PM

Quote:
Original Phenom's are garbage.

Here's a sad fact. My 3.8Ghz Phenom 2 X4 did Super Pi 1M in 19 Seconds. My 3.15ghz C2D does that same feat in 14.828 seconds. The Phenom's might have come a long way but i'd still buy a C2D over it in a heartbeat.



Quads do worse on super pi across the board. Core 2 Quads do worse on super pi than Core 2 Duos, even when the quad is exactly two of the same core 2 duos.

http://www.ripping.org/benchmarks.php?act=scores&superp...

February 16, 2009 7:14:35 PM

Erm... Look at no_name's 7.437 seconds using a QX9650 @ 6121mhz vs ryba's 7.422 seconds using an E8600 @ 6250mhz. Close enough to say that the top are neck in neck at the same speed.

The only reason the dual cores hold the top spot is that its easier to clock them to higher speeds and even then OC Team LATVIA's QX9650 @ 6045mhz managed to beat higher clocked E8600 and QX9650 chips...

No insult intended but please chose a better source to prove your point in future. :) 
February 16, 2009 8:06:04 PM

Since the OP mainly uses his rig for gaming, unless theres a fast super pi or die in 1 of the games hes playing, super pi wont mean squat, just another bungholio mark is all it is, just like 3DMark
February 16, 2009 8:44:31 PM

I would still get the cheaper X3 710 becuase you never know what lies ahead down the road. But it is totaly up to you OP. We can't tell you to get this if you don't want it. Only sugestions.
February 16, 2009 9:04:29 PM

You cant go wrong with the X3 710 and that Gigabyte 790X OP. Probably THE best bang for buck CPU/mobo combo on the market right now. A E8400 and solid P45 will cost $80-$150 more, with similar performance.
February 16, 2009 9:05:33 PM

roofus said:
it doesn't get much easier than overclocking a Core2. you can go almost 600 Mhz overclock on stock cooling and invest 40 bucks in a Xigmatech 1283 and be humming along at 3.8-4 Ghz 24/7.
that being said, i would trade my e8400 in a minute for one of those X3 720's if i could find a good SLI board. that is one amazing CPU. i am more impressed with it than the 940 to be honest.


What happened to the Foxconn Destroyer?
February 16, 2009 10:13:14 PM

sitting in a friends tower with a 6000 on it. i was too impulsive, then waited too long to send it back so i lost a few dollars but hooked up a friend. really is a nice board! i may revisit the idea of building a system in the near future but the mrs had kittens about it.
February 16, 2009 10:14:29 PM

So it was wasted for a 6000+ X2? :( 
February 16, 2009 10:16:12 PM

well he is happy so it isn't a total waste. he is looking at a Phenom2 in the near future but has little time to use his pc lately.
February 17, 2009 3:02:20 AM

caskachan said:
get cheapest setup, + A 4870 or 4870x2 LOL


I already have a GTX 260 192-core
a c 86 à CPUs
February 17, 2009 3:40:43 AM

Have you decided on the rest of the setup? The AMD setup is $60 less, I'd move up to a 790 northbridge and 750SB. Here is a good one.

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

It will support even the 140W Phenoms, is AM2+/AM3 ready, and even has 2 PCIe 16x slots. Best of all its only $30 more then the one you picked. (and no rebate.) I personally would get the cheaper of the two seeing as the performance is so close, but $30 isn't much of a difference... I wouldn't mind hearing which you get.
February 17, 2009 7:15:22 AM

4745454b said:
Have you decided on the rest of the setup? The AMD setup is $60 less, I'd move up to a 790 northbridge and 750SB. Here is a good one.

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

It will support even the 140W Phenoms, is AM2+/AM3 ready, and even has 2 PCIe 16x slots. Best of all its only $30 more then the one you picked. (and no rebate.) I personally would get the cheaper of the two seeing as the performance is so close, but $30 isn't much of a difference... I wouldn't mind hearing which you get.


What do you think about this mobo?

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

I don't really trust ASRock, haven't experienced them but don't really know if they're a good brand or bad like ECS is.

Paired with 4 gigs of G.skill ram and an X3 710(or I may splurge $100 more for an X4 940).
a c 86 à CPUs
February 17, 2009 7:35:59 AM

AsRock is Asus's value brand. They are ok. That board is fine as well, just a bit more. You should still be ~$20 or so less then the intel system, but with an extra core and a slightly better motherboard.

Double check that the extra $100 doesn't get you something better in Intel land. The more money you spend, the better Intel looks. Remember, Intel has the better chips, you WILL reach the point where AMD can't compete.
February 18, 2009 2:31:16 AM

4745454b said:
AsRock is Asus's value brand. They are ok. That board is fine as well, just a bit more. You should still be ~$20 or so less then the intel system, but with an extra core and a slightly better motherboard.

Double check that the extra $100 doesn't get you something better in Intel land. The more money you spend, the better Intel looks. Remember, Intel has the better chips, you WILL reach the point where AMD can't compete.


I've heard that the X4 940 and its competitor in its price range(the Q9400) trade blows with each other.

So is the 4th core worth the extra ~$80-100 or should i stick with a triple core?
a c 86 à CPUs
February 18, 2009 11:11:13 AM

Will you have to sacrifice anything to get it? You said you play RTS/sim games, and those are the ones that need CPU power. The quad might make sense, but not if you have to give up something that you might need.
February 18, 2009 12:44:34 PM

4745454b said:
First, I don't know what the two of you have a problem with, but the OPs thread is NOT the place to air out your problems. Go the F away, no body cares about your issues.

So the question is, E8400 or 710/720? Lets start looking at benchies.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

Look at the L4D benchmark seeing as you play steam. 8400 gets 117, the 720 gets 112, and the 710 gets 107. The 8400 gets 10 extra FPS, or about 10% faster then the 710. All chips are over 60FPS, its not like either gets you that much more. The other game reviews from this site show the same 10% faster, except for Farcry 2 which is only 2FPS faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=351...

If you do any kind of encoding/video work, the 710/720 is faster with the exception of encoding to WMV. Windows media encoder 9 only recognizes even numbers of cores, so the extra core that the 710/720 has isn't used. Using other programs however show the 710/720 is faster then the 8400.

So what does all this mean? The 8400 is a bit faster for gaming, and a bit slower in other tasks. None of these chips are so much better then the others that one MUST purchase it above all others. I would get which ever is cheaper, spending your money on better GPUs or drives.


Good post overall. Some people just play games and other people do stuff that benefits from more cores. I expect we'll see games using more cores be much more common over the next year, but then triple cores still have the slightly less IPC than Intel duos.

Me, I'm upgrading to a Phenom II triple core, if not a quad, but I'm not sure when. Right now, the old triple cripple is enough. I get fantastic ultrahigh settings with triple buffering for extra framerates @ 1920 x 1080 in LOTRO and that suits me just fine.


o1die said:
Newegg has the 9600 phenom for $85 after promo code, posted at slickdeals.net. A good price for a quad core.


Not worth it. A B2 Phenom 9600 isn't really any faster than a B3 Phenom 8750, which is slower than a Phenom II X3 720. Now that many AM2 boards have bios' that support Toliman Phenom triple cores, the B2's are a waste of money at that price point.

LW07 said:
I've heard that the X4 940 and its competitor in its price range(the Q9400) trade blows with each other.

So is the 4th core worth the extra ~$80-100 or should i stick with a triple core?


IMHO, quad cores are future proofing, but so are triple cores. If you plan on keeping the PC for four years without upgrading, then the quad's worth it. If you don't mind upgrading in two years, then the Phenom II triple is a good deal.

If money were no object, I'd recommend an i7 920, but when Phenom II's go head to head vs. Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads, I think AMD has more bang for the buck.

roofus said:
sitting in a friends tower with a 6000 on it. i was too impulsive, then waited too long to send it back so i lost a few dollars but hooked up a friend. really is a nice board! i may revisit the idea of building a system in the near future but the mrs had kittens about it.


My sympathies. My wife would have kittens if I didn't upgrade her PC to at least as close a level as mine.

She plays LOTRO too, mods for Morrowind and Oblivion and does graphics plus video editing. She wants my monitor, but I gave her the choice, an LCD or a new In-Win GD case to replace the old barebones case she had. Plus she got a Corsair 650watt PSU and a 4830 (until new cards arrive in June). At least she doesn't want a 4870x2 (wasted with LOTRO), but she'll get the same monitor. With two PC's to upgrade, couldn't swing a 24" but this is nice enough at 21.5" 1920 x 1080.
August 14, 2009 6:28:26 AM

I ran into this Thread even though its been since Feb. IMO however since I am an owner of a 710, and 790gx , and a 4870 1gb running at 1680*1050. I gota tell ya I love this setup. Along with 4gigs of 1066 ddr. I currently have it on 3.2ghz on stock fan and funs crysis on enthusiast with AA off. AOC and WOW play awsome as well. I couldnt be happier with my setup.
!