Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E8600

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 26, 2009 10:54:54 PM

Alright, so, I'm buying a new computer, and I'm a little stuck between these two processors.

The computer will have a very powerful ATI (the second highest they offer) graphics card and a liquid cooling system, so the graphics card isn't a problem. I'm also running DDR3 with each rig, with equal motherboards, and four gigs of memory each.

And neither is the processor, obviously, but I want to know which will run my needs better.

I will be playing Aion, which is a brand new MMORPG, and this is about all I'll be doing. No multi-tasking, no double-boxing, nothin'. Just playing Aion. The problem? Aion is a graphical masterpiece and I'm looking to be running it on graphics maxed, and still get extremely good framerate even in crowded cities and crowded raids.

So, for my needs, which processor should I go for?
a b à CPUs
August 26, 2009 10:59:13 PM

the amd would kill a e8600
August 26, 2009 11:24:40 PM

obsidian86 said:
the amd would kill a e8600


Even for just running one program at a time?
Related resources
a c 83 à CPUs
August 27, 2009 1:23:55 AM

The 2 processors are generally similar in performance on single threaded tasks, without benchmarks of this particular program it would be hard to say which it runs better on. However you'll most likely experience a gpu bottleneck anyways, either processor should run the game within a few fps of each other.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 1:26:59 AM

But the 965 is a no-brainer....quad, overclocks to 4.0Ghz easy (unlocked multi), more futureproof... etc......

if we were talkin i7 920 vs the 965 then that would be another story.....
August 27, 2009 1:45:16 AM

Alright, well, the 965 it is then...

The last question... DDR2 or DDR3?
August 27, 2009 2:07:13 AM

vyrzek said:
Alright, well, the 965 it is then...

The last question... DDR2 or DDR3?


DDR3, you'll be more future proof and plus hypertransports for AM3 cpus are a tad slower on AM2+ motherboards, which means slightly slower memory speeds.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 2:21:03 AM

yannifb said:
DDR3, you'll be more future proof and plus hypertransports for AM3 cpus are a tad slower on AM2+ motherboards, which means slightly slower memory speeds.


+1 yannifb .............

This board really shines with the 965 :

1. GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P AM3 DDR3 AMD 790X ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or just go all out and get this :


August 27, 2009 3:05:27 AM

^ what is that board, looks nice, some asus board i can see.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 3:59:33 AM

OvrClkr said:
But the 965 is a no-brainer....quad, overclocks to 4.0Ghz easy (unlocked multi), more futureproof... etc......

if we were talkin i7 920 vs the 965 then that would be another story.....



Rubbish. The e8600 also overclocks to 4ghz easy. More future proof is rubbish. Saying if the we were talking about the i7 920 is also rubbish.


This entire comparision is rubbish. A quad core AMD to a Dual Core Intel. Both of which are way overpriced.

DDR3 on a Core2 system is a waste of money.

Building a new Core2 system at this time is a waste of money.


A water cooling set up is a waste of money.


August 27, 2009 4:41:18 AM

OvrClkr said:
+1 yannifb .............

This board really shines with the 965 :

1. GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P AM3 DDR3 AMD 790X ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or just go all out and get this :


I heard good things about that board, but i use the MSI 790fx GD70 with my 955 BE, it is in my opinion very good looking and has the best performance i've seen so far with am3 mobo's. Great features too.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 4:20:29 PM

O.P., in the single app you'll be using there will be no discernable difference between the two setups (unless you benchmark). Both will be more than capable. If you are absolutely certain this PC will only be used for Aion in the foreseeable future it doesn't matter which of the two CPUs you buy. If in the future you have any possibility of using it for other apps that may support a quad, you might as well get the AMD to be on the safe side. Price is about the same regardless.
August 27, 2009 5:50:48 PM

someguy7 said:
Rubbish. The e8600 also overclocks to 4ghz easy. More future proof is rubbish. Saying if the we were talking about the i7 920 is also rubbish.


This entire comparision is rubbish. A quad core AMD to a Dual Core Intel. Both of which are way overpriced.

DDR3 on a Core2 system is a waste of money.

Building a new Core2 system at this time is a waste of money.


A water cooling set up is a waste of money.


Overpriced, uhh, maybe the dual core but in no way the quad.

Let me ask you a question.
Could you build a quad core CPU for even 10,000 dollars?
Didn't think so, and since that is one of the cheapest, fastest, quads around, you have no room to complain. (if they were charging 400$ then maybe)
a c 108 à CPUs
August 27, 2009 7:28:41 PM

Man ... that Crosshair sure is purdy :love: 

But I think the GA-MA790XT-UD4P with a Phenom 945 would work just dandy, OC dang good and save a bunch of money that can be spent elsewhere without sacrificing hardly any performance.


edit: While lusting after that Asus board I realized I made a big mistake --- I have changed my link to the Phenom 945 95w

Please forgive my indiscretion :kaola: 
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 7:36:57 PM

Yea, I agree..... The 790XT is a hell of a board.....the only issue I have is the colors..... that baby blue is kinda wack....... if you dont have a side window then it wont matter.....
August 27, 2009 8:44:07 PM

Vyrzek, have you decided your configuration yet? And also, AMD phenom II 965 definatey, that configuration doesn't cost much more, and intel have stopped making more core 2 processors, plus the lg775 motherboards are ddr2. With phenom ii they are ddr3 and they will be using the am3 board for sometime so you can upgrade to a more powerful processor when they come out. With phenom 965 you will actually get a lot more performance, because it is clocked higher. Also if you have a quad core rated the same frequency as a dual core, the quad will always do better because the extra cores can deal with background applications, including hidden applications and just general windows files. Remember AMD phenom II x3, did better than their counter parts core 2 duo, eventhough phenom II has an inferior architecture to core 2, because of the extra core to take care of other tasks it was able to play games nicely.
August 27, 2009 8:46:53 PM

To be honest i wouldn't settle for anything less than a PII 965 or 955, because of the new i7s that are out, i would want at least closest performance.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 9:02:52 PM

i would get the 955 and raise the multiplier one... and save 50 bucks.
August 27, 2009 9:09:50 PM

yeah i'm starting to agree, and might not buy a 965 but 955 instead. If you overclock the 955 to 3.4ghz does it also consume 140 watts like the 965 to make it stable? Are they both relatively similar in overclocking, if they were to be both overclocked to 3.8ghz or whatever would they have exactly the same performance. Maybe can the 965 overclock 200 mhz more?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 9:17:34 PM

The 965 and 955 are the exact same chips, the only diff is that the 965 is 200MHZ faster.... everything else is the same.....IMO the 200Mhz is not worth the extra 40.00$ .....
August 27, 2009 9:22:31 PM

if you have the money for a top end-card and watercooling solution,why dont you go for an i7 920?It has

(slightly) better performance core to core compared with phenom II 965,wont ever memory bottleneck,OC's like hell(especially with D0 stepping),and is certainly more futureproof.

If you dont have the money for the i7,i say drop the watercooling.A big,nice scythe will do the trick just fine
August 27, 2009 9:24:10 PM

you've missed out that the 955 consumes 125 watts of power and for 200mhz more the 965 consumes 140 watts of power check that out on AMDs website. I'm asking, if i overclock the 955 to 200 mhz more to make it 3.4ghz will it also need to consume 140 watts to become stable. Or not really, but it won't be as good as the 965 at stock performance wise?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 9:43:10 PM

Reagardless of the wattage, they are basically the same....

The 955 @ 3.4Ghz will not consume 140w.... it will consume the same wattage as if it were on stock settings.... suposedly the 965's are binned to a higher degree and that is one of the reason's they have a high TDP.... still not worth the extra 40 bucks IMO.....

I can understand someone spending 200.00$ on a decent AMD quad but if AMD wants 240.00$ for a 3.4Ghz quad I will pass, Id rather spend 212.00$ on a i7 920 (micro-center).....
August 27, 2009 9:51:22 PM

could i then overclock the 965 more than the 955. Using third party air cooling? Asus Triton 81?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 9:54:32 PM

lets take these numbers into account:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...[2608]=on&prod[2632]=on

the 8600 wins some, loses some. the architecture is better IMO. having said this, it will overclock a hell of a lot farther than an AMD quad will, being able to push past 4.2 easily.

another thing to take into account is the phenom 2's use A LOT and i cant stress this enough - a LOT more power when they are overclocked past their stock settings. this is one of the main reasons i will not be purchasing an AMD chip in the future. overclocking these things turns them into power hungry whores. being green is not easy with AMD. if you leave it stock, however, it would be a decent chip. i would say ditch both and wait for 32nm to come out.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 9:55:01 PM

Maybe by a few hundred MHZ but thats about it...... on air both will overclock beyond 4GHZ......don't expect anything over 4.3Ghz on air.....
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:00:22 PM

Go with a 955 BE. It's cheaper and exactly the same as the 965 BE, though admittedly with the 965 the thermal diode finally works right. Anyway the 965 isn't any better at overclocking than the 955, it just has a higher starting multiplier and a properly calibrated monitoring thermal diode.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:06:39 PM

werxen said:
lets take these numbers into account:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...[2608]=on&prod[2632]=on

the 8600 wins some, loses some. the architecture is better IMO. having said this, it will overclock a hell of a lot farther than an AMD quad will, being able to push past 4.2 easily.

another thing to take into account is the phenom 2's use A LOT and i cant stress this enough - a LOT more power when they are overclocked past their stock settings. this is one of the main reasons i will not be purchasing an AMD chip in the future. overclocking these things turns them into power hungry whores. being green is not easy with AMD. if you leave it stock, however, it would be a decent chip. i would say ditch both and wait for 32nm to come out.


Son, i think it is time you go back to the books..... the 8600 does not win anything.... yes it is a superb overclocker hands down.... but to this date there is NO Core 2 Duo that can out-clock an AMD quad (940be or 955be).....

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Phenom-II-Overcloc...

The ONLY chip to surpass 7.1GHZ is the pentium 4 @ 8.1Ghz

On a side note: when you overclock to extreme speeds the last thing on your mind is the word "GREEN".....
August 27, 2009 10:13:57 PM

werxen said:
lets take these numbers into account:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-cha...[2608]=on&prod[2632]=on

the 8600 wins some, loses some. the architecture is better IMO. having said this, it will overclock a hell of a lot farther than an AMD quad will, being able to push past 4.2 easily.

another thing to take into account is the phenom 2's use A LOT and i cant stress this enough - a LOT more power when they are overclocked past their stock settings. this is one of the main reasons i will not be purchasing an AMD chip in the future. overclocking these things turns them into power hungry whores. being green is not easy with AMD. if you leave it stock, however, it would be a decent chip. i would say ditch both and wait for 32nm to come out.


Waiting for the new 32 core i5's and such to come out is a good idea if he is considering a dual core. An i7 920 is also a good idea. (but that wasn't in his specified options).

As for AMD being power hungry for overclocking, while somewhat true, you can overclock a amd proc (even a black edition) and keep QnC enabled which helps when doing menial tasks, such as posting answers on a forum for a person who doesn't seem to be responding to the answers.
August 27, 2009 10:41:07 PM

wow overclocked to 8.1ghz lol. So AMD havn't really been particularly good overclockers then? As in how far they can overclock compared to their Intel counterparts. More power consuming, less performance for frequency, not as high overclocking. Lol rubbish, it would at least made sense if they consumed slightly less power or the same at least.
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:43:13 PM

As far as quads go AMD has the record.... on dual or single core Intel has the record....
August 27, 2009 10:51:59 PM

AMD quads overclock to the highest frequency? What is the difference range then in frequency. But the i7 975 or whatever it is lol must be able to overclock higher than the phenom II best possible processor for the overclock. You mean PII 965s can overclock higher than core 2 quads?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 10:59:35 PM

Yes the AMD quads can overclock much higher than the Core 2 Quads....The i7's are not considered high overclockers but they do not need it....the 975 is much faster than the 955 (AMD) at stocks speeds... but of course the 975 is 750.00$ more expensive.....

The 920 is bar far the best bang for buck CPU you can buy... at 4.0Ghz it will kill anything in its path... you can get a 920 for 215.00$, so basically if you are going to spend lets say 240.00$ on a 965(AMD), you will save more by buying the 920 and you end up with a superior chip.....
August 27, 2009 11:05:09 PM

I can't imagine how much faster the i7 975 would be when overclocked to it's highest ability. I can't imagine how much faster it is than the phenom 965 full stop, it would be soo fast. When i will be getting my gaming computer, it will be a massive step up from the fasted computer i had before which was an Athlon X2 5000+ lol. But then the i7 975 is an extreme with unlocked multiplier or is meant to have overclocking advantages so i would expect it to overclock better than the i7 920?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2009 11:16:21 PM

The 975 is a waste of cash period.... after 4.0Ghz you cannot see a difference in speed unless you are benchmarking or trying to break a record.....

I am using a dual core at 4.0Ghz and it is to fast for my needs.. soo fast I downclocked to 3.65Ghz.....

For everyday normal use, gaming, burning cd's, surfing the net, etc... you do not need more than 4Ghz......

Yes the 975 is superior than the 920 as far as overclocking goes but that speed does not compensate for the ridiculous 1k price tag........

Don't get me wrong here, the 975 is in a league of its own...... the fastest chip period.... but not 1k fast...... :pfff: 



August 28, 2009 4:10:38 AM

Yeah once you get a i7 975 the bottneck becomes your GPU (which is what you should have spent part of the one grand), and other components, computers work on this philosophy
A team is only as strong as it's weakest player.
August 28, 2009 4:15:01 AM

If it is for gaming the logical choice to me is not either of these CPU's the AMD 720X3 in gaming clock for clock matches or exceeds both and will OC as high or higher than the 965(due to less heat)and costs $155 less than the 965 here are some benchies http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii_720_81...
August 28, 2009 4:29:11 AM

if you have a good enough cooler, i think the 965 will overclock farther, or you could get the 95 watt 945 3.0 ghz phenom II, same heat wattage as the 720 yet higher clock and a 4 core, and cheaper, than the 965.
August 28, 2009 4:45:04 AM

tkgclimb said:
if you have a good enough cooler, i think the 965 will overclock farther, or you could get the 95 watt 945 3.0 ghz phenom II, same heat wattage as the 720 yet higher clock and a 4 core, and cheaper.

The 720X3 is three of the same cores used in the 965 and will clock higher most of the time because 3cores produce less heat and use less power making for a bigger OC in fact all the phenom II cpu from the 810 to the 965 all OC to the same speeds but only the black editions do it by simply upping the multiplier.You are wrong ussually the 720X3 will overclock bigger than the 965X4
August 28, 2009 4:48:03 AM

tkgclimb said:
if you have a good enough cooler, i think the 965 will overclock farther, or you could get the 95 watt 945 3.0 ghz phenom II, same heat wattage as the 720 yet higher clock and a 4 core, and cheaper.

Oh and where do you get cheaper the 945 isnt a black edition so tough to OC and it goes for $160 on newegg vs $119 for the 720X3 and equal or better gaming performance.Im trying to save this guy money go away if you don't know what your saying.
August 28, 2009 5:06:09 AM

yes the 945 is harder to OC, but not that much ( I actually OC my black edition, by using the reference clock not the multi, so that I can have CnQ enabled)

As for being cheaper, I meant cheaper than the 965. the 720 is off course cheaper especially if you can unlock the 4th core

As for the OC, i've seen 965's at 4.0
but no 720's there, It could be done, just haven't seen it.
Yes both processors are denebs, but there is a reason that one is at 3.4 and the other is at 2.8.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 5:14:28 AM

OvrClkr said:
Son, i think it is time you go back to the books..... the 8600 does not win anything.... yes it is a superb overclocker hands down.... but to this date there is NO Core 2 Duo that can out-clock an AMD quad (940be or 955be).....

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Phenom-II-Overcloc...

The ONLY chip to surpass 7.1GHZ is the pentium 4 @ 8.1Ghz

On a side note: when you overclock to extreme speeds the last thing on your mind is the word "GREEN".....



*sigh* jesus i hate having to own little noobs on toms...

here we go:

1) the charts clearly show the E8600 does infact beat the AMD quad in SEVERAL instances - INCLUDING RENDERING.... *hint hint* RENDERING. yes RENDERING. sorry can i say that again - RENDERING. what does this mean? 2 possible solutions:

rendering programs are not multithreaded
or
intel has a better architecture

both can be true.

2) the only AMD chips to reach that frequency were cherry picked amd chips under LIQUID HELIUM which is a few dregres above absolute zero - the temperature at which molecules stop moving. good luck acquiring some.

3) frequency does NOT matter at all. i would rather have an C2D single core architecture than a P4 running at the same frequencies - get your facts straight.

and when i mentioned the overclock and 'greenness' of AMD chips I MEANT A LITTLE OVERCLOCK - NOT A LOT. a TINY overclock above the stock frequency turns the phenom2's into power hungry whores EVEN WITH COOL AND QUIET.

maybe next time before you start being a fanboy on an enthusiast website you should ask www.google.com before coming on here and posting your rhetoric.

go E8600 just to piss this noob amd fanboy off.
August 28, 2009 5:35:29 AM

I,ll say 1 thing, and it applies to multi threading in game performance, and any link to C2D with out my hint is pointless, its the 9.8 Cat drivers, done for MT, and does little for duals, and since this is mainly a gaming rig, and 1 has a dual, the other a quad, its a nobrainer.
How long have we waited for better MT? Well, some has just arrived for gaming
August 28, 2009 7:21:47 AM

A poster above made the very wide generalization that with an i7-975, the GPU becomes the bottleneck. Without knowing how many GPUs, what type, what resolution, and other factors, one cannot make such a wide claim without further stating information to elaborate on the claim. The more GPUs are added, the more the limitation moves to the CPU. This also depends on what GPU you are using. Obviously, 2 4770s will not create a CPU limitation with an i7-975, but when you add more powerful GPUs, the limitation moves to the CPU.
August 28, 2009 7:40:31 AM

Itll be interesting with the new cards coming out, being as theyre liely twice as fast, emaning, with a cf/sli setup, itll be like a quad setup, but not needing those evtra drivers. So, this gen cards puts another myth to bed
August 28, 2009 10:25:43 AM

werxen said:
*sigh* jesus i hate having to own little noobs on toms...

here we go:

1) the charts clearly show the E8600 does infact beat the AMD quad in SEVERAL instances - INCLUDING RENDERING.... *hint hint* RENDERING. yes RENDERING. sorry can i say that again - RENDERING. what does this mean? 2 possible solutions:

rendering programs are not multithreaded
or
intel has a better architecture

both can be true.

2) the only AMD chips to reach that frequency were cherry picked amd chips under LIQUID HELIUM which is a few dregres above absolute zero - the temperature at which molecules stop moving. good luck acquiring some.

3) frequency does NOT matter at all. i would rather have an C2D single core architecture than a P4 running at the same frequencies - get your facts straight.

and when i mentioned the overclock and 'greenness' of AMD chips I MEANT A LITTLE OVERCLOCK - NOT A LOT. a TINY overclock above the stock frequency turns the phenom2's into power hungry whores EVEN WITH COOL AND QUIET.

maybe next time before you start being a fanboy on an enthusiast website you should ask www.google.com before coming on here and posting your rhetoric.

go E8600 just to piss this noob amd fanboy off.




Do we have to be soo aggressive with each other. If someone maybe wrong don't penalise them, just try and politely prove them wrong.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2009 11:48:13 AM

werxen said:
*sigh* jesus i hate having to own little noobs on toms...

here we go:

1) the charts clearly show the E8600 does infact beat the AMD quad in SEVERAL instances - INCLUDING RENDERING.... *hint hint* RENDERING. yes RENDERING. sorry can i say that again - RENDERING. what does this mean? 2 possible solutions:

rendering programs are not multithreaded
or
intel has a better architecture

both can be true.

2) the only AMD chips to reach that frequency were cherry picked amd chips under LIQUID HELIUM which is a few dregres above absolute zero - the temperature at which molecules stop moving. good luck acquiring some.

3) frequency does NOT matter at all. i would rather have an C2D single core architecture than a P4 running at the same frequencies - get your facts straight.

and when i mentioned the overclock and 'greenness' of AMD chips I MEANT A LITTLE OVERCLOCK - NOT A LOT. a TINY overclock above the stock frequency turns the phenom2's into power hungry whores EVEN WITH COOL AND QUIET.

maybe next time before you start being a fanboy on an enthusiast website you should ask www.google.com before coming on here and posting your rhetoric.

go E8600 just to piss this noob amd fanboy off.


Hey, you want me to buy you a Phenom II? Will you stop posting then? What is it, are you jealous of those who have PII over your outdated dual? You call other people who just post their non biased and honest opinion about the two CPUs fanboys because they don't say your CPU is the best. Really, you need to ease off a little. For the thread, PII 965 is a no brainer over that overpriced dual. Between it and I7 however, I would suggest that you get an I7 if you do advanced tasks or compression, and PII 965 for gaming because of the higher minimum fps and overall more stable experience.
August 28, 2009 12:03:37 PM

hmm i thought i7 had a higher minimum fps than the pii 965 in gaming. But i agree with the other points.
!