Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Choosing an AMD Cpu

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 12, 2010 9:00:14 PM

I am building a computer. I have everything already picked out . I am waiting until black friday to make my purchase. I am not a hardcore gamer. I am mainly gonna use it for world of warcraft on my 22 inch vizio. I am also getting the 5770 Ati card. Now, my choice for a CPU are between the Phenom II's and the Athlons. The Athlons have NO L3 Cache. I dont really know if it affects WOW too much because wow isnt that demanding. I will be overclocking the CPU to add roughly 300 Mhz or so. I am stuck between duo, triple or quad cores. I want to be able to run smoothly. I see the athlons are cheaper and I am on a budget. The prices will drop during black friday so thats a plus. Price aside, can someone with experience lend me a hand in choosing a Very good cpu thats good for its price range in comparison to others. Thanks guys. Also, Is there a site out there that has great deals during black friday? I hear Newegg deals are crap at that time

More about : choosing amd cpu

a c 105 à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 12, 2010 9:09:34 PM

as someone who has played WoW with both an Athlon II x3 and Phenom II x4, you will not see a difference. That being said, you need to ask this question a lot closer to black Friday since prices and the market will be different by then.

m
0
l
a c 141 à CPUs
October 12, 2010 11:40:35 PM

Anyone know if there are any system requirement changes for Wow Cataclysm?
Current Wow runs on just about anything :-)
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2010 7:21:05 AM

Forget about dual-cores; get at least an Athlon X3 with a high clock speed. Go for an Athlon X4 if your budget allows.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2010 8:35:59 AM

^+1

It's more future proof that way... :D 
m
0
l
October 13, 2010 5:51:44 PM

I agree with Herr_Koos

I would get a athlon ii x4 3Ghz
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 13, 2010 9:04:13 PM

damasvara said:
^+1

It's more future proof that way... :D 


future proof like the phenom X4 compared to the phenom X3? if i recall the phenom x3 where outdated the day they launched and the phenom x4 where future proofed so well that they where outdated the day after they launched. In fact a current athlon II x3 can run circles around the early phenom CPU in gaming. By the time the athlon II x3 is no longer a feasible CPU, the athlon II x4 will be right there with it.


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2010 11:51:24 PM

ct1615 said:
future proof like the phenom X4 compared to the phenom X3? if i recall the phenom x3 where outdated the day they launched and the phenom x4 where future proofed so well that they where outdated the day after they launched. In fact a current athlon II x3 can run circles around the early phenom CPU in gaming. By the time the athlon II x3 is no longer a feasible CPU, the athlon II x4 will be right there with it.

Not really, I was referring to the concept. In case you're missing the point, this is the opinion that I quoted: "Forget about dual-cores; get at least an Athlon X3 with a high clock speed." Sorry, but I think your counter idea is misaddressed.

Logically speaking, with the current trend of having more cores, game makers would at least consider making games that utilizes those amount of cores instead of speed per core. In this case, single and dual cores. I fact, even now, despite the fact that dual-cores are built with the same architecture as triple-cores, the triple-cores, as you said, will run circles over the duals. I highlighted the number of cores as the subject, not the manufacturing date timeline. And your counter analogy of core numbers wasn't quite well placed. I quoted dual-cores to their triple and quad counterparts from Herr_Koos, not triples to quads.

You may not notice, but we have similar point of view. I don't see the point in arguing. But if you see anything wrong with my statement, then be my guest, please illuminate me.

EDIT: fixed typo... :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2010 12:00:24 AM

Simply put you do not "future proof" a machine thats main purpose it to play WOW period.
m
0
l
a c 105 à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
October 14, 2010 12:12:42 AM

damasvara said:
Not really, I was referring to the concept. In case you're missing the point, this is the opinion that I quoted: "Forget about dual-cores; get at least an Athlon X3 with a high clock speed." Sorry, but I think your counter idea is misaddressed.

Logically speaking, with the current trend of having more cores, game makers would at least consider making games that utilizes those amount of cores instead of speed per core. In this case, single and dual cores. I fact, even now, despite the fact that dual-cores are built with the same architecture as triple-cores, the triple-cores, as you said, will run circles over the duals. I highlighted the number of cores as the subject, not the manufacturing date timeline. And your counter analogy of core numbers wasn't quite well placed. I quoted dual-cores to their triple and quad counterparts from Herr_Koos, not triples to quads.

You may not notice, but we have similar point of view. I don't see the point in arguing. But if you see anything wrong with my statement, then be my guest, please illuminate me.

EDIT: fixed typo... :D 


you used a generic and misleading term "future proof" when discussing basically the exact same CPU. granted the Athlon II x4 has an extra core to its II x3 cousin but in terms gaming, web surfing, watching video, anything non-video encoding, they are the exact same CPU performance wise. they will both become obsolete at the same time just like the phenom x3 & x4.

proof
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/112?vs=122

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2010 12:38:48 AM

ct1615 said:
you used a generic and misleading term "future proof" when discussing basically the exact same CPU. granted the Athlon II x4 has an extra core to its II x3 cousin but in terms gaming, web surfing, watching video, anything non-video encoding, they are the exact same CPU performance wise. they will both become obsolete at the same time just like the phenom x3 & x4.

proof
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/112?vs=122

Well then, I guess the "generic and misleading" term isn't appropriate. Although I'm pretty sure I've already made myself clear that I'm referring to Herr_Koos basic concept, not timeline. That would indirectly put me in the same opinion that a triple-core is a lot better performer than the dual-core, which makes the triple-core more future proof towards future games.

Oh well, my bad then. :na:  Maybe this one will be more well placed: "Get at least a triple-core instead of a dual, since it will run circles on the dual-core in terms of performance due to its extra core". There, fixed that too... I don't like to argue over some misunderstanding under the same point of view. It would be a different story if we have opposite opinions. That will surely trigger my adrenaline rush! :D 

BTW, I don't need to see the link. I'm already well aware of your point. Agreed and Understood.
m
0
l
!