E8500 or AMD Phenom II X4 955?

[mikeyt113]

Hi am about to build a gaming system budget around 1200$ not sure if i should go with the e8500 or the AMD Phenom II X4 955 any thoughts?

 

[shaundwm]

I think the Phenom would generally win in games here here, but you could also consider the C2Q'S or even the i7 920 with that budget. You pumping that money into a monster graphics setup?

 

[armi]

What games do you play? $1200 is a lot of money and there's no point in buying a great CPU and a great GPU when you're playing games that don't even utilize it.

But between the E8500 and X4 955, i'd choose the 955. Most games utilize most of its cores and in my opinion, later on, quad cores will be utilized better.

 

[_orbital_]

go for 955, i will explain why. well a lot of games still use 2 cores, it's true, but don't forget that phenom runs with 8MB cache where e8500 with 6MB, yes i know that's withall 4 cores, but L3 cache shares memory with L2 cache so you will be as fast as e8500 in 2 core games, but when it comes to 4 cores like GTA IV e8500 will strugle... if i were you i would go 955 without a doubt. but it's your choice ;]

p.s. 955 -> ddr3 ;p

 

[jitpublisher]

I would too would opt for the 955. Would give you a better upgrade path later I believe.

 

[werxen]

dual cores are optimal for games now and for the future. the rhetoric used in posts above only work for 'if then' and 'possible' scenarios. stick with the dual core - by the time games are mainstream multithreaded there will be 6-8 core processors that will render a quad obsolete. E8400 + overclock + good video card = destroys games. though some quads can keep up with dual cores, the difference in the ones that cannot is drastic. get the dual.

 

[_orbital_]

dual cores are optimal for games now and for the future. the rhetoric used in posts above only work for 'if then' and 'possible' scenarios. stick with the dual core - by the time games are mainstream multithreaded there will be 6-8 core processors that will render a quad obsolete. E8400 + overclock + good video card = destroys games. though some quads can keep up with dual cores, the difference in the ones that cannot is drastic. get the dual.

E8500 is awesome CPU.. i would say the best intel made. because it is really fast onpowerfull, but AMD came with bunch of quads so if you are playing games and rendering so go with 955

 

[inglburt]

4 core Phenom. I don't care what anybody without personal experience says, I have already played games that run all 4 cores at 60 to 70% on my quad core at 3.5 ghz.

 

[cjl]

E8500 is awesome CPU.. i would say the best intel made. because it is really fast onpowerfull, but AMD came with bunch of quads so if you are playing games and rendering so go with 955

The best intel made?

Ever tried a Q9650? An i7 (of any flavor)? Don't get me wrong, the E8500 is great, but it is nowhere near Intel's best. As for the question in the OP? I'd get the 955 for sure.

 

[gkay09]

+1 for the X4 955 no doubt...

 

[hundredislandsboy]

My vote goes to the 955 also. In terms of brute CPU power, it easily kicks butt om an e8500.

 

[Summer Leigh Castle]

$1200 is a lot of money. You can easily build a i7 with that kind of money... also it'll help with the e-penis factor too. Quad + hyperthreading for gaming is massive epic win.

On a more serious note: Given the choices, I'll stick with the 955 for the 2 extra cores. Games tend to be GPU limited and besides, can we really tell the difference in gaming from a quad 3.2ghz versus dual 4ghz?

 

[mi1ez]

Phenom II

 

[witcherx]

Phenom II

 

[werxen]

you guys are seriously recommending a p2 over an e8500 for gaming? wow. just wow. i love how the bandwagon fallacy is implemented so often here.

edit: mikey do yourself a favor and just lookup the CPU chart benchmarks for gaming here on TOMS. its a huge article a lot of the 'professional gaming system builders' here don't ever seem to look at. it really pisses me off to be honest.

 

[3dhoc]

Seriously, this is laughable.

The ONLY reason not to get a quad is that you're dedicating yourself on just one/two apps at a time...

You have to consider that the OS consists of A LOT of services that would run on the free cores, dedicating the other cores completely for the game.

How 'bout that?
Or you live in a cave and use Windows 2000 that knows nothing of threaded optimisation?

 

[armi]

you guys are seriously recommending a p2 over an e8500 for gaming? wow. just wow. i love how the bandwagon fallacy is implemented so often here.

edit: mikey do yourself a favor and just lookup the CPU chart benchmarks for gaming here on TOMS. its a huge article a lot of the 'professional gaming system builders' here don't ever seem to look at. it really pisses me off to be honest.

On those benchmark tests, they dedicate the CPU power to one application.

 

[someguy7]

Seriously, this is laughable.

The ONLY reason not to get a quad is that you're dedicating yourself on just one/two apps at a time...

You have to consider that the OS consists of A LOT of services that would run on the free cores, dedicating the other cores completely for the game.

How 'bout that?
Or you live in a cave and use Windows 2000 that knows nothing of threaded optimisation?

This logic is BS. Sure the OS consists of alot of services that are running. But NONE of them are actually cpu intensive. If the game in ? doesnt actually scale to 4 cores itself then the extra cores for OS stuff means nothing.

The more cores the actually game/app can use is what makes if perform better. Not extra cores for the OS to run svhost.exe on.


You also dont need a quad just because you only run one or two apps at a time. You can run 30 apps at a time easy on a dual core. It just depends on what the apps are. For example. I will have a brower or two open sometimes(no not tabs but opera/firefox at the same time), winamp, itunes, mirc, google earth, use winrar to extract some files, VLC, pidgin... Now is this multitasking? NO. The only things out of those that are going to use some cpu resources are winrar and vlc with hd content. If you wanted to use winrar+video encode+antivirus scan+audio rip/encode and play WoW then a Quad would be very usefull.


I would still get the quad at this point in time myself though. I would save some money and get a x4 940 black edition though. I wouldnt pay the extra money for the 200mhz+ddr3

 

[mountie]

Can anyone point me in the right direction for some Benchmarks for the new PII AM3 processors? The only ones I can find are out dated...

I'm sure it will help the OP compare the 2 processors for apps he uses...

BTW: OP, If you have the money for i7 do it! If you think you know enough about all the processors out there and you have narrowed it down, between these 2... Why wouldn't you want double the cores for only $55?

 

[_orbital_]

The best intel made?

Ever tried a Q9650? An i7 (of any flavor)? Don't get me wrong, the E8500 is great, but it is nowhere near Intel's best. As for the question in the OP? I'd get the 955 for sure.

i meant how easily you can overclock and how stable it is.. it is really greatcpu, butnot as great asphenom 2 955

 

[cjl]

I'd still consider the 9650 or the i7 to be ahead in that area. The Q9650 (from what I hear) will pretty effortlessly hit 4GHz, and most of the i7s will go at least 1GHz over stock pretty easily.

 

[dnickells]

OK - If you are seriously looking to spend about $1,200 and it sounds like you're leaning toward the PII X4 955, then you would be silly not to spend slightly more and go with the i7 920. Read this Tom's Hardware article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360.html) and you will see that the OC'd Intel chip (even with slower GPU's) is even with or beats the AMD in most test and when you add in other multi-thread applications you may use in the future, it's a no brainer.

Let us know what you decide...