Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Reviews/benchmarking AMD Phenom II 4x 925, 2.8 ghz?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Reviews
  • Phenom
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 17, 2010 10:43:13 AM

I'm looking to have a new computer built for me. A friend just got the above mentioned but I was looking towards i5-i7 intels.

Any information would be helpful.


More about : reviews benchmarking amd phenom 925 ghz

a c 131 à CPUs
January 17, 2010 1:02:50 PM

I'm really not sure what you are trying to ask.
For your actual question:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Phenom+II+x4+925+review

The i5 and i7s are in a different league than the Phenom IIx4 925. If you want us to tell you which processor is better for you, you really need to tell us the rest of your computer spec and what your intended uses are...
m
0
l
January 17, 2010 1:48:02 PM

I presume an entirely new build.

My main and most important use is mass multi tabling poker online. Previously, I generally played 12-16, sometimes 18-20 tables. Now I need to be able to play 24 tables, full time, with tracking software (tracks in real time by reading current hand histories, and archiving, numerous statistical data on players I see often. my database is 300k players long and by years end I will have played 2.6 million hands)

Currently at 24 tables my system lags out BADLY! This freezes the screen for 3-12 secs where I cant even act on hands..

My current system is:
Velocity micro brand,
Intel core 2 cpu 6400 @ 2.13 ghz
4gb ram
Nvidia GeForce 8800gt
Vista OS

So I guess to answer with a question, upgrade new motherboard, Processor, OS (Windows 7)? Or build new, and if so with what?

*I use dual monitors 24" High resolution

Thanks for your guidance.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
January 17, 2010 3:40:14 PM

I assume they are flash games so they don't utilize the graphics card at all. Considering your use, a quad core is definitely needed because you are doing a large amount of multi-tasking. Perhaps you should consider waiting for AMDs Phenom IIx6 which will come out sometime second quarter of this year. You could take more advantage of the extra 2 real cores than you could of a quad core i7.
If you can't wait for it though, a Phenom II quad core would probably be fine if that is within your range. For you I can't see the benefit of the core i5 vs the Phenom II. However the core i7's hyperthreading would be an advantage because it would act as 8 cores. 4 "real" and 4 "virtual" for better multi-tasking.

If I were you, I would get a core i7 920 (about $300) with a socket 1366 motherboard and 6GB of ram. Still use the 8800GT.

For a cheaper new build, a phenom II x4 955 (about $180) would perform admirably with a socket AM3 motherboard and 6GB of ram.

The cheapest is about a $200 upgrade to a core 2 quad. and an increase in ram to 6GB.

All prices are the CPU only.

If you plan to purchase windows 7, hardware upgrades would show better performance for the price it would cost you.

What browser do you use to play?
Do you have any objections to overclocking?

It could also help if you were to post a printscreen of the task manager both processors tab and the performance tab while you are playing all these hands.
m
0
l
January 17, 2010 7:29:50 PM

I cant afford to wait. Gotta do something as it just costs me too much money not to.


Quote:
If I were you, I would get a core i7 920 (about $300) with a socket 1366 motherboard and 6GB of ram. Still use the 8800GT.


Are you saying upgrade my existing system then? ** I was thinking about dual hard drives -0 raid?

Quote:
What browser do you use to play?
Do you have any objections to overclocking?


uh? look at the screenshot. It isnt a browser I'm using to play. Least doesnt look like it to me! (I dunno diddly about computers really)

No objections to overclocking.

Here is the screenshot you were asking about:

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2010 7:36:21 PM

That screen actually tells us that you do not a cpu upgrade at all. 11 percent load on the cpu. 2 percent load from pokerstars.exe According to your screenshot the cpu is a not a bottleneck at all. At least when the shot was taking it wasnt.
m
0
l
January 17, 2010 7:37:49 PM

at time of screenshot I was playing 25% fewer tables than normal and optimal. But sounds like good news still yes?
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
January 17, 2010 8:10:05 PM

Yep after looking at that it looks to me like simple ram upgrade would likely boost performance a lot. You say you have 4GB in your system. What is the setup of that 4GB? How many sticks. You could find this by opening you case or using a program called CPU-z.
If you have 2 free slots I'd say add 4 more GB of ram (2x2GB sticks). No need for any expensive upgrades. Should come to under $100.
m
0
l
January 17, 2010 8:15:11 PM

enzo matrix said:
Yep after looking at that it looks to me like simple ram upgrade would likely boost performance a lot. You say you have 4GB in your system. What is the setup of that 4GB? How many sticks. You could find this by opening you case or using a program called CPU-z.
If you have 2 free slots I'd say add 4 more GB of ram (2x2GB sticks). No need for any expensive upgrades. Should come to under $100.



However I'm using vista 32 bit so 4gb is max no?
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
January 17, 2010 8:18:41 PM

Yes. You would need to upgrade to a 64 bit operating system.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2010 8:23:08 PM

enzo matrix said:
Yep after looking at that it looks to me like simple ram upgrade would likely boost performance a lot. You say you have 4GB in your system. What is the setup of that 4GB? How many sticks. You could find this by opening you case or using a program called CPU-z.
If you have 2 free slots I'd say add 4 more GB of ram (2x2GB sticks). No need for any expensive upgrades. Should come to under $100.



+1 on the ram, I was thinking the same thing. Your dual should suffice for those basic flash graphics though a simple overclock and an addition of an extra 2-4 gigs of ram should be able to play those games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2010 8:56:21 PM

Your E6400 Overclocks fairly well, I've been operating mine at 3.2 GHz; However, I do not think your Mother board may limit you. I would not upgrade the MB just to OC your E6400, You would be better off with a New I5-750 which easily OC's to 3.2 -> 3.6 GHz.

Here again you are caught in a catch 22, while I agree a memory Upgrade would help - If you are still not happy and decide to upgrade MB/CPU, you will not be able to reuse the memory.

PS - good luck with the poker. My son plays a lot, He won $27K two years ago in Vegas (World Poker Tournament), Not so luckly last year.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2010 9:08:16 PM

What type of internet connection are you on ?? for the online poker that is probably more important than the system you are on ! - though if trying to run 24 tables I would suggest getting a 5xxx video card and another monitor - the new 5xxx series cards support eyefinity so that you can use 3 monitors at a resolution of up to 2560x1600 each so you will not have so many overlapping windows. (if the monitors support 1920x1080 resolution you could put 8 tables per monitor in 480x512 windows without any overlapping)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2010 9:37:07 PM

RetiredChief said:
Your E6400 Overclocks fairly well, I've been operating mine at 3.2 GHz; However, I do not think your Mother board may limit you. I would not upgrade the MB just to OC your E6400, You would be better off with a New I5-750 which easily OC's to 3.2 -> 3.6 GHz.

Here again you are caught in a catch 22, while I agree a memory Upgrade would help - If you are still not happy and decide to upgrade MB/CPU, you will not be able to reuse the memory.

PS - good luck with the poker. My son plays a lot, He won $27K two years ago in Vegas (World Poker Tournament), Not so luckly last year.



Yeah +1 on the catch-22. You do not want to really invest in the 775 socket anymore. It ultimately comes down to money and how much you want to invest by how long you plan on keeping your current system. Tricky situation indeed.
m
0
l
January 17, 2010 11:57:34 PM

JDFan said:
What type of internet connection are you on ?? for the online poker that is probably more important than the system you are on ! - though if trying to run 24 tables I would suggest getting a 5xxx video card and another monitor - the new 5xxx series cards support eyefinity so that you can use 3 monitors at a resolution of up to 2560x1600 each so you will not have so many overlapping windows. (if the monitors support 1920x1080 resolution you could put 8 tables per monitor in 480x512 windows without any overlapping)


Thats just a waste of money, a 5 series card just to play an online poker game, his 8800gt can easily handle 2 moniters at 1920x1200 and run these flash games no problem at all. To think you would suggest investing even the slightest thought on purchasing 3 30inch monsters and a 5 series card is unbelievable.

anyhow, +1 on increasing the amount of ram, if you really need more monitors, if your motherboard has more then 1 PCI-E slot, you could just pop in another low-end video card and run extra monitors off that sure as hell cheaper then what JDFan suggested.
m
0
l
a c 131 à CPUs
January 18, 2010 12:09:13 AM

Depending on the motherboard, you might even be able to use the onboard video for a third monitor while having your current 2 on the 8800
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2010 12:25:16 AM

evolve60 said:
Thats just a waste of money, a 5 series card just to play an online poker game, his 8800gt can easily handle 2 moniters at 1920x1200 and run these flash games no problem at all. To think you would suggest investing even the slightest thought on purchasing 3 30inch monsters and a 5 series card is unbelievable.

anyhow, +1 on increasing the amount of ram, if you really need more monitors, if your motherboard has more then 1 PCI-E slot, you could just pop in another low-end video card and run extra monitors off that sure as hell cheaper then what JDFan suggested.


IF he were playing fewer tables then I would not suggest it but 24 tables is alot of overlapping on 2 displays and since each table will pop to the front anytime an action is required awaiting your response adding a $99 5670 and a 3rd $200 24 inch monitor is not that much of a outlay ( I never said to buy 3 30 inch monsters esp since he has 2 24" monitors already !!) - Esp since he is playing 24 games of $1 - $2 No limit holdem so having to deal with tables popping up over each other can become very time consuming to deal with vs. having each table have it own permenant space on the screen !
m
0
l
January 18, 2010 2:45:15 AM

My problems appear to be solved guys. A poker friend has a room mate that has built systems that handled 30 monitors and 250 security cameras. So he could certainly handle my lil problem. Within about an hour he turned off all the vista stuff that hogs memory, boosted the cache(I think thats the correct term?), and basically optimized my system.

We ran up a test running 24 tables in one stack on monitor 1 (my normal setup) and monitor 2 used as my main with toolbar, the poker client, stats program etc.

She ran flawless. He told me it should do fine for a long time to come. And gave me some guidance on upgrade or new build options for the future.

To JDFan; I stack all 24 on one stack, hotkeying only to move them if I want to see the action of a particular hand. When playing 2.8 million hands per year it's far less eye/neck/wrist strain than 3 monitors. While I understand your thoughts, my way is much better for my use. Thanks for the thoughts though.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2010 7:10:26 AM

Off topic but 2.8 million hands a year? thats like 7671 hands a day. or 320 hands per hr if you played nonstop for year. Yikes.
m
0
l
January 18, 2010 7:39:30 AM

i believe he needs a gpu upgrade, something that can do eyefinity for endless amount of virtual poker tables.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2010 11:55:39 AM

someguy7 said:
Off topic but 2.8 million hands a year? thats like 7671 hands a day. or 320 hands per hr if you played nonstop for year. Yikes.


Figure each table will play about an average of 60 hands per hour so 24 tables x 60 = 1440 hands per hour for 6 hours per day (some days a bit more some less) = 8640 hands per day x 6 days oer week = 51,840 hands per week (figure at least one day off per week) for 52 weeks per year = 2,695,680 hands per year give or take so that sounds about right !! - this is why you see so many of the younger players at events like the world series being able to compete with the more experienced players that have played in live action (1 table @ 40 avg. hands per hour) for years - they get as many hands in a few months as the live player would see in a lifetime !!
m
0
l
!