Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q8300 vs Phenom x4 810

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 22, 2009 3:19:16 AM

I'm building an HP budget gaming comp. on their website, and I've stumbled between two choices. I've read the CPU guide on this website and it says that the Phenom 810 is not recommended. I've also read from random forums and reviews that it is a good processor? I will not be overclocking it, and I plan to upgrade the computer with a GTX 260, 550w PSU, and 6gb DDR3. What processor would you recommend I go with? Any help is GREATLY appreciated.

More about : q8300 phenom 810

December 22, 2009 3:49:39 AM

I would go with the Q8300
a c 131 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:07:45 AM

If it were a phenom then I would agree but the 810 is a Phenom II. It's relatively close, but I believe the Q8300 is a better performer

If they are the same price, then I would go for the Q8300. If the Phenom II is $20 or more less then I would jump for it.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:59:22 AM

Heres a comparison between the Q8400 and the X4 810 (Q8300 wasnt on the list):

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=82&p2=89

Bear in mind that the Q8400 is running at 2.66 while the Q8300 runs at 2.5. That being said I'd say they were both pretty even but the Q8300 would probably nudge ahead slightly in some things.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 5:15:30 AM

Q8300 may perform better but the platform is dead, id go with the Phenom rig
a c 131 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 5:42:22 AM

apache_lives said:
Q8300 may perform better but the platform is dead, id go with the Phenom rig

That only really applies if he intends to upgrade.

If you do go for the phenom II with the intention of upgrading down the road, make sure you use an AM3 motherboard. Even then it is not definite that AMD will continue their next line of processors on that socket especially considering Bulldozer was/is being designed from the ground up.
December 22, 2009 12:42:01 PM

And let's be honest... how much upgrading can you do an HP anyways? I don't think the platform matters in this instance.

December 22, 2009 2:39:51 PM

Yeah, it would be nice to know I could upgrade down the future, rather than in pentiums case with the platform being dead. I don't know if HP uses the AM3 motherboard, can't find any information, highly doubt it. I guess the main thing that matters is the ability to upgrade power supply and graphics card, which shouldn't be a problem.

So it comes down to either dead platform, or take a chance on the motherboard and hope I can upgrade the AMD processor?

and thanks for all the responses, GREAT info!
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 3:08:21 PM

HP is notorious for not providing updated BIOS for new cpu support. No upgrade means buying new HP. Oh, and this is all oem's not just HP. So I would buy what performs better now and not count on an upgrade.
December 22, 2009 3:43:11 PM

So HP is pretty much the same as dell, because I was going to try and upgrade my D9150 but came to the conclusion its totally pointless, why not buy an HP for the same amount. Alright, I think I'm leaning towards the Intel Q8300, better reviews, plus i get a free upgrade from 4gb DDR3 to 6gb DDR3! It comes with the GTS 210, I figure I'm just gonna upgrade the PSU and graphics card in a month or two
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 3:45:56 PM

Yeah the free memory upgrade and graphics card definitely would push it over the top.
a c 131 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 4:41:48 PM

Sorry I missed that you were buying from an OEM. If I were you I'd build it myself and not worry too much about platform. I mean, you have at least experience upgrading so...

But if you still want to get a prebuilt from HP, definitely don't worry about platform, expect to not be able to overclock and expect to be more limited overall with an OEM motherboard. But yeah down the road a graphics card upgrade and PSU. Would it not be cheaper to build your own from scratch though considering all those upgrades and wasted parts that you're replacing?
December 22, 2009 6:55:39 PM

Yeah, from what I've heard its always cheaper to build your own computer, I just have never done it myself. Believe me, I'd rather do it that way, but I don't exactly have the confidence to do it. I'd much rather observe someone put one together, then try it myself. I don't exactly trust my friends to do it for me, so this is my only route......once I'm outta college and on my own, then I'll definitely try.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 7:12:57 PM

Are you aware of http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/ , you can choose the parts you want in a build.
That way you don't have to pay for what your essentially not going to use. They have 550 dollar builds. They don't charge all that much more than what the parts cost.
December 22, 2009 7:31:44 PM

I've considered going that route, I was actually about to order a computer from ibuypower.com, but I read mixed reviews and a couple of horror stories that definitely scared me a little. I decided not to go that route b/c of the uncertainty. Believe me, I would love to use one of those sites, the computer would be much more future proof and better all around.
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 9:37:49 PM

Yeah alot of people talk trash about cyberpower/ibuypower (they're pretty much the same company), and im sure alot of the trash talk is founded on truth. I myself bought a pc from ibuypower about 4 years ago and its still chugging along. I upgraded the cpu and video card a while back and it has treated me well.

ecollegepc.com is a pretty good site and they generally have better prices than ibuypower/cyberpower. I would check them out.
December 23, 2009 1:30:55 AM

dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )
December 23, 2009 2:32:41 AM

dualblade said:
dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )


:pfff: 
December 23, 2009 2:43:10 AM

sirheck said:
:pfff: 


and how much are you paid ?
December 23, 2009 2:44:45 AM

Ha.. i have 6 AMD machines and 1 Intel.
December 23, 2009 3:01:37 AM

sirheck said:
Ha.. i have 6 AMD machines and 1 Intel.


aah.. sorry i thought you didnt like my comment because of your logo :D 
December 23, 2009 3:04:15 AM

Actually the i5 is closer to and faster than the 965BE AMD.
December 23, 2009 3:08:01 AM

this is according to the bribed sites reviews not the real world benchmark, which i has tested my self and found all these reviews to be fake, only the core i7 is better than x4 965 and it will come with a motherboard 3 times the cost of the amd motherboard, so stop lying even to yourself.
a c 131 à CPUs
December 23, 2009 3:08:47 AM

dualblade said:
dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )


If the phenom II architecture is equal to the core i5 architecture, why does a 2.66GHz core i5 outperform a Phenom II 955 clocked at 3.2GHz?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=88&p2=109
And in any other review I have read.

The core2 architecture is slightly better than the Phenom II architecture leading to better performance at lower clock rates. I would personally say that a 2.4 core2 quad would perform about the same as a 2.6 phenom IIx4. Although I am a fan of AMD, I prefer an unbiased opinion based on facts. Do not listen to this person. dualblade does not know what he is talking about. I invite him to give me links or show me his benchmarks to prove his theories.

On top of this, I have personally benchmarked two computers using crystalmark, which is very accurate with the CPU scores. One with a core2 quad Q9550 clocked at 3.1GHz and an Athlon II x4 at 3.2GHz (this is based on the phenom II architecture).
Scores:
Core 2 quad:
ALU: 57724
FPU: 58663
Athlon II:
ALU: 50484
FPU: 49101

Yes, this core 2 quad model has more cache and the Athlon II lacks L3 cache, but it would not account for this much difference.
December 23, 2009 3:13:29 AM

sirheck said:
Actually the i5 is closer to and faster than the 965BE AMD.


the only reason i didn't go the i5 route and got a 955 instead is because of the dual x8 bus when using 2 graphics cards and i bought a 5850 and plan to get another one down the road so i didn't want any bottlenecks. The 955 performs better than i5 when using two graphics cards anyways.
December 23, 2009 3:13:49 AM

enzo matrix said:
If the phenom II architecture is equal to the core i5 architecture, why does a 2.66GHz core i5 outperform a Phenom II 955 clocked at 3.2GHz?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=88&p2=109
And in any other review I have read.

The core2 architecture is slightly better than the Phenom II architecture leading to better performance at lower clock rates. I would personally say that a 2.4 core2 quad would perform about the same as a 2.6 phenom IIx4. Although I am a fan of AMD, I prefer an unbiased opinion based on facts. Do not listen to this person. dualblade does not know what he is talking about. I invite him to give me links or show me his benchmarks to prove his theories.

On top of this, I have personally benchmarked two computers using crystalmark, which is very accurate with the CPU scores. One with a core2 quad Q9550 clocked at 3.1GHz and an Athlon II x4 at 3.2GHz (this is based on the phenom II architecture).
Scores:
Core 2 quad:
ALU: 57724
FPU: 58663
Athlon II:
ALU: 50484
FPU: 49101

Yes, this core 2 quad model has more cache and the Athlon II lacks L3 cache, but it would not account for this much difference.


i told you i have tried it myself and i was surprised with the quantity of cheating in the net reviews, and how dishonest they are , and for the fixed benchmarks ( like 3dmark or what you have sent ) a piece of hardware can be optimized to get good score at them but what really matters is the real world unpredictable benchmarks ( coming out every day with no optimization ) only then you can honestly rate the hardware.
December 23, 2009 3:15:46 AM

dualblade said:
this is according to the bribed sites reviews not the real world benchmark, which i has tested my self and found all these reviews to be fake, only the core i7 is better than x4 965 and it will come with a motherboard 3 times the cost of the amd motherboard, so stop lying even to yourself.



Show us some of these test. Oh wait you cant, they dont exist. The OP would be more informed as well.

The only reason i mentioned the Q8*** series is because he is planning on
a retail build, if he were building his own i would recommend the AMD as
775 is an older platform.
December 23, 2009 3:17:06 AM

tacoslave said:
The 955 performs better than i5 when using two graphics cards anyways.



Just how does it do this?
December 23, 2009 3:18:28 AM

enzo matrix said:
If the phenom II architecture is equal to the core i5 architecture, why does a 2.66GHz core i5 outperform a Phenom II 955 clocked at 3.2GHz?
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=88&p2=109
And in any other review I have read.

The core2 architecture is slightly better than the Phenom II architecture leading to better performance at lower clock rates. I would personally say that a 2.4 core2 quad would perform about the same as a 2.6 phenom IIx4. Although I am a fan of AMD, I prefer an unbiased opinion based on facts. Do not listen to this person. dualblade does not know what he is talking about. I invite him to give me links or show me his benchmarks to prove his theories.

On top of this, I have personally benchmarked two computers using crystalmark, which is very accurate with the CPU scores. One with a core2 quad Q9550 clocked at 3.1GHz and an Athlon II x4 at 3.2GHz (this is based on the phenom II architecture).
Scores:
Core 2 quad:
ALU: 57724
FPU: 58663
Athlon II:
ALU: 50484
FPU: 49101

Yes, this core 2 quad model has more cache and the Athlon II lacks L3 cache, but it would not account for this much difference.


I think theres a 20~ % performance difference between a phenomII and athlon II thanks to the l3 cache.
a c 131 à CPUs
December 23, 2009 3:21:22 AM

dualblade said:
i told you i have tried it myself and i was surprised with the quantity of cheating in the net reviews, and how dishonest they are , and for the fixed benchmarks ( like 3dmark or what you have sent ) a piece of hardware can be optimized to get good score at them but what really matters is the real world unpredictable benchmarks ( coming out every day with no optimization ) only then you can honestly rate the hardware.


You've actually peaked my curiosity with your remarks, as you are contradicting everything I have seen, heard and benched personally. My results using the ALU and FPU tests were fair. What I am curious about is the results of your benchmarks, what benchmarking methods you used and what you benchmarked.
December 23, 2009 3:23:00 AM

oh yeah i almost forgot. In the benchmark that you selected the tests that the i5 consistently outperforms the phenom at are the benchmarks and not the real world applications in those the phenom wins most but not all.
December 23, 2009 3:25:27 AM

tacoslave said:
oh yeah i almost forgot. In the benchmark that you selected the tests that the i5 consistently outperforms the phenom at are the benchmarks and not the real world applications in those the phenom wins most but not all.


So people dont really play games or encode movies?
December 23, 2009 3:39:43 AM

sirheck said:
So people dont really play games or encode movies?


dude where it says "mark" at the end of anything means its a synthetic benchmark and by real world application i mean encoding videos and other crap. Look where it says adobe photoshop and below, also exclude cine bench as its also artificial it wins most of the applications and none of the games. Why doesn't it win any games? with a single graphics card i would choose the i5 all the way but since any graphics card equal or greater than the performance of a gtx 280 will get bottlenecked by the x8 bus (and i think x16 by a 5870 or a 5970 but im not sure). So if your going to fo with a powerful multi card setup than go with the 955 or x58. Did i mention you couldn't use more than 2 graphics cards on the p55 not that matters just that i felt the need to put it there.
December 23, 2009 3:52:20 AM

LOL. You really are delusional.

"and by real world application i mean encoding videos and other crap."

Have you actually looked at those results?
On some if the bar is lower it does in fact mean it is faster.

And yes the i5 won every game.

Edit; And dont forget both CPU,s are at stock speeds.
December 23, 2009 3:52:33 AM

sirheck said:
Just how does it do this?

oh yeah almost forgot in crossfire mode it switches to x8 instead of x16 which would bottlenecks some cards i thin gtx 280 and above.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 11:14:04 AM

dualblade said:
i told you i have tried it myself and i was surprised with the quantity of cheating in the net reviews, and how dishonest they are , and for the fixed benchmarks ( like 3dmark or what you have sent ) a piece of hardware can be optimized to get good score at them but what really matters is the real world unpredictable benchmarks ( coming out every day with no optimization ) only then you can honestly rate the hardware.



So everyone is supposed to believe an anonymous poster on a forum that has absolutely 0 reputation over anand one of the most respected names in the industry. Right. :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 3:12:54 PM

dualblade said:
dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )

This has got to be the most ridiculous and ill-informed post I have ever read on this board. It is wrong in so many ways I dont even want to go into it. Honestly, I suggest you sign off right now and never post on this board again. Ridiculous.

710 vs. Q6600
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=84&p2=53

But hey, according to you every site on the internet is bribed by intel, so who knows whats right anymore.
December 23, 2009 3:52:44 PM

bige420 said:
This has got to be the most ridiculous and ill-informed post I have ever read on this board. It is wrong in so many ways I dont even want to go into it. Honestly, I suggest you sign off right now and never post on this board again. Ridiculous.

710 vs. Q6600
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=84&p2=53

But hey, according to you every site on the internet is bribed by intel, so who knows whats right anymore.


you know that x3 720 is little better than x3 710 ( 5 - 7 % )-( 2.6-2.8 ), take a look at these reviews:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,690488/Processor-ben...

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,688240/Prototype-CPU...

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,679029/Tom-Clancys-H...

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,698761/Dragon-Age-Or...

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,689433/ArmA-2-patch-...

and for gta 4 i am playing it at the posted settings in this review ( with only hd 4670 ) and i am getting 25-35 frames:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,669595/GTA-4-PC-CPU-...

so at the worst case x3 710 = e8400 ( 1.5x the cost of x3 710 ) in modern games - not mentioning older engines which are smooth on a fast single core or any dual core.
December 23, 2009 3:54:28 PM

i will be posting the proof of internet sites cheating soon .......
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 4:06:54 PM

In gaming yes, core2 architecture and Phenom II arch is more or less equal. But in everything else core2 is superior, and i5/i7 arch isnt even in the same league. I look forward to seeing this proof of these supposed "cheating" sites.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 23, 2009 4:34:50 PM

tacoslave said:
I think theres a 20~ % performance difference between a phenomII and athlon II thanks to the l3 cache.


Actually if your talking a broad range of applications, the difference of a Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4 is under 10% when they are at the same clock speed. Gaming is one of few situations where there is a large performance drop due to removing the L3 cache, some programs are as little as 3-5%.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 4:39:08 PM

BadTrip said:
So everyone is supposed to believe an anonymous poster on a forum that has absolutely 0 reputation over anand one of the most respected names in the industry. Right. :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 


bige420 said:
This has got to be the most ridiculous and ill-informed post I have ever read on this board. It is wrong in so many ways I dont even want to go into it. Honestly, I suggest you sign off right now and never post on this board again. Ridiculous.

710 vs. Q6600
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=84&p2=53

But hey, according to you every site on the internet is bribed by intel, so who knows whats right anymore.



+1 to both.


Quote:
dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )



You may want to research before commenting any further dualblade. :pfff:  The way this post make you sound, Your an AMD fanboy.

The first problem i see right away,
Quote:
amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 )


AMD current micro architecture is actually more equal to Intel Core architecture (core 2 solo, duo, and quad is on) than the Nehalem (core i5/7's are on).

Also I somehow dont believe the Pii 810 can be close to the same performance when the Phenom II x4 955 BE is nearly in the same performance to the core i5 (depending on what task the cpu is doing.)

Quote:
dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews


So you think toms hardware and Anandtech have been bribed by intel? :lol:  There not bias to any company. They just benchmark these cpu with a wide variety of programs from synthetics to real world everyday apps. After that they say how good these cpus run to others.They never stay with one company, Like back in the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 days. Athlon 64 were better than the P4 and with that all the hardware sites was for the Athlon 64 than the P4
December 23, 2009 5:05:39 PM

warmon6 said:
+1 to both.


Quote:
dont listen to any of them the q8300 ( 4 x 2.5 ) = amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 ) is better than q8300 it is much more q9300-q9400 with much lower price, and dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews, i only have x3 710 ( 3 x 2.6 ) and it is better than q6600 ( 4 x 2.4-lower bus-higher cache than q8300 ) in a lot of applications ( except 3dmark pc score )



You may want to research before commenting any further dualblade. :pfff:  The way this post make you sound, Your an AMD fanboy.

The first problem i see right away,
Quote:
amd phenom II x3 720 ( 3 x 2.8 ) thanks to the L3 shared cache memory and more advanced architecture ( which is equal to the core i5 architecture ), so ( 4 x 2.6 ) phenom 810 ( only a little bit slower than core i5 750 )


AMD current micro architecture is actually more equal to Intel Core architecture (core 2 solo, duo, and quad is on) than the Nehalem (core i5/7's are on).

Also I somehow dont believe the Pii 810 can be close to the same performance when the Phenom II x4 955 BE is nearly in the same performance to the core i5 (depending on what task the cpu is doing.)

Quote:
dont believe the intel bribed sites reviews


So you think toms hardware and Anandtech have been bribed by intel? :lol:  There not bias to any company. They just benchmark these cpu with a wide variety of programs from synthetics to real world everyday apps. After that they say how good these cpus run to others.They never stay with one company, Like back in the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 days. Athlon 64 were better than the P4 and with that all the hardware sites was for the Athlon 64 than the P4


first you have to read before posting any comments.

second phenom 1 and 2 architectures - even the older athlon has advantages, 1rst for both phenom and athlon they dont depend on the bus speed between cpu and motherboard ( hypertransport ) - 2nd for phenom only they have l3 shared cache which are new to intel and firet time to appear is in core i7.

third i am not a fan but when i bought my older e6300 i bought it according to the net reviews saying that it is 1.5 faster than older pentium d 3 ghz and muh cheaper, but when comparing it to a friends system with the same graphics card but lower motherboard ( his 945 and mine 965 ) i found a maximum of 10 % difference - which means that it was on the same level of pentium d 3.2-3.4 ghz ( 65 % the price of e6300 ), and dont tell me 30w difference in power ( 95-65 ) takes 190 - 130 = 60 USD:

so intel bribes the reviews to sell its newer much expensive products ( as core i5 2.66 is equivalent to core 2 quad x6800 2.93 due to effeciency of the l3 shared cache ) not much better than intels product qx9650

and for the cache it is important for most interactive programs ( excet for 3d rendering and 3dmark cpu benchmark ....)
December 23, 2009 5:34:51 PM

a point that i have forgotten ( 2 indeed ), the price of an intel motherboard ( p55 not p58 ) 2x the price of the amd one supporting latest technology from the company ( and not only part of a part of the series ( even you can run phenom 2 x4 - coming x6 125 w ) with a 50 USD motherboard.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 6:11:14 PM

2030517,43,477381 said:
first you have to read before posting any comments.

second phenom 1 and 2 architectures - even the older athlon has advantages, 1rst for both phenom and athlon they dont depend on the bus speed between cpu and motherboard ( hypertransport ) - 2nd for phenom only they have l3 shared cache which are new to intel and firet time to appear is in core i7.
quotemsg]


First you need to research before posting comments noob.

Several old P4 EE had l3 cache starting back in 2003.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20030916165600...
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 6:16:43 PM

dualblade said:
a point that i have forgotten ( 2 indeed ), the price of an intel motherboard ( p55 not p58 ) 2x the price of the amd one supporting latest technology from the company ( and not only part of a part of the series ( even you can run phenom 2 x4 - coming x6 125 w ) with a 50 USD motherboard.
-


what point are you making here? Everyone here thats up to date on computer tech already knew this is possible. If you were talking to the OP then please state that, if your were talking to the rest of us, you're like 3+ month behind.

As for cheap motherboard with cpu upgrade, that all depends on the motherboard manufacture. If your board cheap enough, the Manufactures may or may not make a bios to run a newest AM3 cpu's.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 7:09:19 PM

dualblade said:
first you have to read before posting any comments.

second phenom 1 and 2 architectures - even the older athlon has advantages, 1rst for both phenom and athlon they dont depend on the bus speed between cpu and motherboard ( hypertransport ) - 2nd for phenom only they have l3 shared cache which are new to intel and firet time to appear is in core i7.

third i am not a fan but when i bought my older e6300 i bought it according to the net reviews saying that it is 1.5 faster than older pentium d 3 ghz and muh cheaper, but when comparing it to a friends system with the same graphics card but lower motherboard ( his 945 and mine 965 ) i found a maximum of 10 % difference - which means that it was on the same level of pentium d 3.2-3.4 ghz ( 65 % the price of e6300 ), and dont tell me 30w difference in power ( 95-65 ) takes 190 - 130 = 60 USD:

so intel bribes the reviews to sell its newer much expensive products ( as core i5 2.66 is equivalent to core 2 quad x6800 2.93 due to effeciency of the l3 shared cache ) not much better than intels product qx9650

and for the cache it is important for most interactive programs ( excet for 3d rendering and 3dmark cpu benchmark ....)


As i stated before, research before commenting.

Quote:
first you have to read before posting any comments.


If i didn't read, i wouldn't be commenting.

Quote:
second phenom 1 and 2 architectures - even the older athlon has advantages, 1rst for both phenom and athlon they dont depend on the bus speed between cpu and motherboard ( hypertransport ) - 2nd for phenom only they have l3 shared cache which are new to intel and firet time to appear is in core i7.


Badtrip already mentioned the l3 cache for who had it first so i wont bother with it. Although L3 cache isn't as important as l2 is as toms learned (at least on AMD cpu's). article http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,241...

As for the Hypertransport and FSB, they dont connect the cpu to the Motherboard as the way your putting it. It connects the cpu to most the devices that on the motherboard. Like ram, gpu's, ect.
They both do the same thing. It just how they archived it is different.

Quote:
third i am not a fan but when i bought my older e6300 i bought it according to the net reviews saying that it is 1.5 faster than older pentium d 3 ghz and muh cheaper, but when comparing it to a friends system with the same graphics card but lower motherboard ( his 945 and mine 965 ) i found a maximum of 10 % difference - which means that it was on the same level of pentium d 3.2-3.4 ghz ( 65 % the price of e6300 ), and dont tell me 30w difference in power ( 95-65 ) takes 190 - 130 = 60 USD:

so intel bribes the reviews to sell its newer much expensive products ( as core i5 2.66 is equivalent to core 2 quad x6800 2.93 due to effeciency of the l3 shared cache ) not much better than intels product qx9650

and for the cache it is important for most interactive programs ( excet for 3d rendering and 3dmark cpu benchmark ....)


Well im not sure if you miss read the site you found that info on or the site had it wrong but i (and other people on here) could of told you that c2d e6300 @ 1.86Ghz will not be faster but more equal to a Pentium D @ 3ghz.

if both cpus had equal performance at there stocked speed. Clock for clock, the performance of a Core Microarchitecture vs the Netburst Microarchitecture is about 62% or a little above 1.5x

3000 mhz / 1860 mhz = 1.6129032258064516129032258064516
(Pentium d 3ghz / core 2 duo 1.86 ghz =)

What this means is if you brought the core 2 duo up to 3 GHz you would need a 4.8 GHz Pentium d cpu to get the same performance.
a c 131 à CPUs
December 24, 2009 2:56:40 AM

Quote:
The Phenom II X4 810 is faster than the Q8300. The Q8300 is closer to the Athlon II X4.


Still no answer? And a second person claiming the same thing?
"You've actually peaked my curiosity with your remarks, as you are contradicting everything I have seen, heard and benched personally. My results using the ALU and FPU tests were fair. What I am curious about is the results of your benchmarks, what benchmarking methods you used and what you benchmarked."
December 24, 2009 4:50:30 PM

1- compare 2.5 ghz/4 mb cache ( not shared ) bottlenecked by a motherboard bus , to 2.6 ghz/2 mb cashe not shared - 4mb cache shared and not bottlenecked by a motherboard bus ( directly connected to the ram through hypertranspot ).

2- maybe the manufacturer doesnt update ( by the way manufacturer leaves the motherboard without bios update to increase the sales of the processors without needing a motherboard upgrade - forced by processor manufacturer ) the bios, but you can built any high end phenom on any motherboard ( not every chip with its own expensive board and if the processor fails or the motherboard fails and you cant find the sutaible model to the working part you will have to throw away and cry for the wasted money :) ))

3- you say you wold have told me e6300 = pentium d 920 ( 3 ghz ), so why was it nearly 1.5 the price of the pentium d - and why do i have to pay nearly 1.5 the price of the pentium d motherboard to get it - because the net reviews says so - because it must be sold with higher price it is a new technology and much be more expensive - but tell me arent new technology meant to cost less to give a chance for more features at the same price.

4- for the one who says l3 cache dowsnt matter - so how does phenom defeat athlon by 10-20 % ?

5- for the one who says athlon and phenom dont have advantages, maybe you can change to a new motherboard without changing processor or new processor without changing motherboard - or maybe you will be ready for future bandwidths with hypertransport even with your low processor and not bottlenecking a fast one with an old slow bus, or maybe you are just furure proof, or maybe you dont want to pay a lot for an upgrade, or maybe ... maybe ....

6- and giving games links because they are most noticed when using the processor, it doesnt matter if the file takes 7 minutes not 6 minutes to be zipped and it doesnt matter what the theoritical benchmarks says what really matters is i can get 25 frames instead of 20 when gaming so not to ruin the gameplay.

7- applying the advantage of the phenom over athlon to core i5 over the core 2 quad will give you a boast from 2.66 performance to 2.93 performance ( core 2 quad extreme ) and not 150 % advantage - we want to sell new expensive products and you are stupid and will pay 200 % the price to get the processor and ITS AND ONLY ITS COMPATIBLE motherboard.

- why not pay half the price for 90-95 % the performance , dont you work hard to earn money or you just steel it.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2009 4:57:14 PM

!