Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which AMD Quad-Core CPU should I purchase?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Processors
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which AMD Quad-Core CPU should I purchase?

Total: 86 votes (22 blank votes)

  • FX 4100 Black Edition
  • 33 %
  • Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
  • 49 %
  • Other (Specify AMD only)
  • 19 %
October 14, 2011 6:05:58 AM

Should I get the new FX-4100 or get the 965?

FX-4100 Black Edition
-----------
Price -- $129.99
Black Edition -- Yes
Unlocked Multiplier -- Yes
Core -- Bulldozer
Operating Frequency -- 3.6GHz
Number of Cores -- Quad-Core
Level 2 Cache -- 8MB
Level 3 Cache -- 4MB
Thermal Power -- 95W
Processor Architecture -- 32nm SOI
Processor Data Width -- 64-Bit
Socket Type -- Socket AM3+
HyperTransport -- One 16x16 link @ up to 4000MHz
Memory Types Supported -- DDR3-1866

Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
-----------
Price -- $129.99
Black Edition -- Yes
Unlocked Multiplier -- Yes
Core -- Deneb
Operating Frequency -- 3.4GHz
Number of Cores -- Quad-Core
Level 2 Cache -- 4 x 512KB (2MB)
Level 3 Cache -- 6MB
Thermal Power -- 125W
Processor Architecture -- 45nm
Processor Data Width -- 64-Bit
Socket Type -- Socket AM3
HyperTransport -- One 16x16 link @ up to 4000MHz
Memory Types Supported -- DDR3-1333

I was going to add the X4 975 to the list too but wasn't a difference much other than the operating frequency of 3.6ghz. Not worth the $30 more for 200mhz. Now 955 vs 965 the extra $10 is worth the 200mhz. Anyways be aggressive here guys this is going to be the CPU I use for about 3 years!

More about : amd quad core cpu purchase

a c 103 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 6:21:49 AM

Save the other $10 and get a 955, then clock to match 975, those three are all the same chip, just released with higher base clockspeeds
Moto
October 14, 2011 6:30:34 AM

Motopsychojdn said:
Save the other $10 and get a 955, then clock to match 975, those three are all the same chip, just released with higher base clockspeeds
Moto


So basically your saying that AMD makes all the chips the exact same, sets the default core clocks to 16x (955), 17x (965), and 18x (975)? Charges $40 just for a default setting on an unlocked chip? Sounds a bit far-fetched or absolutely brilliant on AMD's case. Can anyone else confirm this?
Related resources
October 14, 2011 7:00:26 AM

get the FX-4100 Black Edition
a c 96 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:05:26 AM

Centora said:
So basically your saying that AMD makes all the chips the exact same, sets the default core clocks to 16x (955), 17x (965), and 18x (975)? Charges $40 just for a default setting on an unlocked chip? Sounds a bit far-fetched or absolutely brilliant on AMD's case. Can anyone else confirm this?


thats exactly how they do it . Intel too

the slowest and fastest cpu in each family are made identically and then graded
October 14, 2011 7:36:33 AM

Outlander_04 said:
thats exactly how they do it . Intel too

the slowest and fastest cpu in each family are made identically and then graded


I've always known Intel to sell say a 2.4ghz CPU as a 2.2ghz CPU because it failed the standards for a 2.4ghz. Wasn't sure how AMD did theirs because I've always been an Intel guy until Athlon 64's came out.

Also in terms of FX-4100 vs the 955.. wouldn't an 8MB L2 cache & 4MB L3 cache with 1833MHz memory bridge outbeat a 2MB L2 cache & 6MB with 1333MHz memory bridge? Not to mention the bulldozer uses 30-watts less.
October 14, 2011 7:51:32 AM

Better off buying the Phenom X II

Or just sell everything and start a z68 Intel core i5 2500k OC build ;) 
October 14, 2011 8:03:17 AM

just went through this is my other thread. Get the FX-4100 and overclock the heck out of it. I hear it can reach 4.4 on air(Stock fan) with a decent cooler you should be able to reach 4.7-8
October 14, 2011 8:10:02 AM

radium69 said:
Better off buying the Phenom X II

Or just sell everything and start a z68 Intel core i5 2500k OC build ;) 


Pretty much going to keep the case, PSU, and DL burner from my dual core build. That leaves me to sell the dual 250GB sata drives, 2x 1GB GSkill 6400 ram, X2-4100 CPU, and an ALiveN6G-VSTA (with shot audio on board). Than again I might not upgrade to SSD just yet and keep the sata drives. Might have to upgrade the PSU because it's only 430-watt dual +12 lines. Sure enough to run the board + cpu and possibly 1 16x card.. but SLI/Crossfire I'll need 550/650-Watt supply.
October 14, 2011 8:11:46 AM

Dyjon54 said:
just went through this is my other thread. Get the FX-4100 and overclock the heck out of it. I hear it can reach 4.4 on air(Stock fan) with a decent cooler you should be able to reach 4.7-8

Link please. :) 
October 14, 2011 1:51:15 PM

I would go with P II X 4 since it's known what it can do but not so much with FX 4100 BD, and as FX 8150 goes against P II X 4 & 6, the P II platform is a better deal.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 3:38:25 PM

Dyjon54 said:
just went through this is my other thread. Get the FX-4100 and overclock the heck out of it. I hear it can reach 4.4 on air(Stock fan) with a decent cooler you should be able to reach 4.7-8



Max speeds on any BD released FX chip on air was around 4.5GHz, so 4.7 is out of the question. Also, a good cooler is used for this 4.5 OC on them, and can easily reach a proven Phenom IIx4 955BE to 4.2GHz. Point being, nothing is going to show a difference in performance after 3.9GHz in gaming, and if there is, YOU ARE A SNOB! plain and simple. My 955BE is running 4.1GHz ( yes i am a snot) on a mid-high ranged HSF, and was $115 on newegg. Im sorry, but a proven top AMD gaming chip, which the 9xxs for AMD is, sounds much better than unproven benches and figures.

Being said from even AMD themselves, just to add, this BD chip was built for server use and heavy multitasking, NOT gaming. Whatever idiot pre-leaked out gaming chip was just that, an idiot. They wont release a good gaming chip until at least 2nd generation (AMD has always been a server based company). So, you can waste your $140 on a 4100, and HOPE it works as good as their flagship gaming cpu, the Phenom IIx4.
a c 103 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 4:17:07 PM

Sorry for delay in answering op, nightshifts :) 
yes, they grade the chips, good ones make 975 quality, almost as good 965, standard pass is 955, but they are all the same die/wafer whatever you want to call it
one minor correction though to your question, ** sets the default core clocks to 16x (955), 17x (965), and 18x (975)? ** you meant multiplier :p 

I started a build and waited for BD myself but given recent events, defaulted back to a 975 as my base chip, it will work, I can clock it up and its a good choice (I know, i'm advising you to go 955, I don't have the budget restriction)
if Bd comes of age then I have the option of looking at upgrading later, but I wont be looking until next gen comes out, same as casualbuilder just advised
Moto
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 4:27:08 PM

Go with the FX :) 
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 4:29:52 PM

PS, i guess everyone is disapointed about BD so thats why some people still recomend the old platform. It is simple, BD it is better, period. U get more cache, u can OC higher, u have higher DDR3 suport.
October 14, 2011 4:30:32 PM

Using a 980,O/C to 4.4,not at all impressed with the new BD,I would wait to purchase the bd until the next version to se if it improves.


as for all PII chips being equall,there not,they are binned and selected for what they are.the 955 O/C will never get to 980 O/C speeds.but i found for the few extra $ i just went with the 980 and am quite happy with it.
October 14, 2011 4:33:57 PM

Centora said:
I've always known Intel to sell say a 2.4ghz CPU as a 2.2ghz CPU because it failed the standards for a 2.4ghz. Wasn't sure how AMD did theirs because I've always been an Intel guy until Athlon 64's came out.

Also in terms of FX-4100 vs the 955.. wouldn't an 8MB L2 cache & 4MB L3 cache with 1833MHz memory bridge outbeat a 2MB L2 cache & 6MB with 1333MHz memory bridge? Not to mention the bulldozer uses 30-watts less.


Have you been seeing the BD benches? If the 4 modules are any indication, then this 2 modules will blow unless you disable the 2nd core of each module which will only give you 2 cores. Go with the 965BE.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 4:44:41 PM

Not sure whether or not this will perform the same way as the FX 4xxx, but here:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

They tried making the X8 into an X4; look at the bottom results as those are the 'optimal' settings for the processor in windows 7.

They are clock for clock, and Bulldozer can reach about 4.8 compared to Phenom II's 4.2-4.4, so Bulldozer will clock slightly faster. I don't know if the BD X4 is going to use cores 0,2,4,6 instead of cores 0,1,2,3; the first approach would improve performance more, but I don't know if it's possible.

It's hard for me to recommend Bulldozer over Intel or even the old gen Phenom II...
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 4:54:30 PM

Anything over a 4.0 OC on a cpu is almost pointless, especially for gaming. And architecture in a chip has a lot more to do with performance than higher OC, larger cache, and _____ blah blah blah. A 955BE will OC heavy, and WILL perform for gaming. Unless you go with an i5 2500k, you will see no improvement in processor performance in gaming. Benches don't lie, and even AMD flatout said this generation is not a gaming chip.

If you want to give opinions, thats fine, but dont through "technical terminology" around and expect people to oooo and awww about you like you sound intelligent. BD is not a gaming chip. PD might not be a gaming chip. AMD produces server chips for heavy multitasking, which IS a different architecture than gaming chips.

BD's cannot hit 4.8 on air cooling, as not even their own geeks hit it. it was possible to hit 4.9 on water, and we all know that even the Phenom IIs hit over 5 with good loops. OC potential to me is not a selling point, and neither are the benches for gaming.
a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:04:40 PM

I would get the Phenom II X4 965 BE. The new Bulldozer core doesn't really offer many advantages. Also in single threaded applications the Phenom II will perform better.

Bulldozer is a new architecture that AMD needs to tweak a bit in order for it to perform better. They need to focus on increasing the clock speed since that was the original objective of Bulldozer. There should be one more CPU generation that will use socket AM3+ before AMD stops producing CPUs altogether.

Their future lies in the APU architecture which combines the CPU and GPU. Perhaps AMD's expensive acquisition of ATI will finally come to fruition as a way to combat Intel tradition of a power CPU core saddled with a relatively week graphics core.


a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:10:23 PM

There is also speculation that the Asus mobo kit shipped with Bulldozer for benchmark testing purposes is somewhat gimped. Which means Bulldozer's actual performance may turn out to be slightly better than what is reported so far.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:11:48 PM

was that the Crosshair V board?
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:12:54 PM

jaguarskx said:
I would get the Phenom II X4 965 BE. The new Bulldozer core doesn't really offer many advantages. Also in single threaded applications the Phenom II will perform better.

Bulldozer is a new architecture that AMD needs to tweak a bit in order for it to perform better. They need to focus on increasing the clock speed since that was the original objective of Bulldozer. There should be one more CPU generation that will use socket AM3+ before AMD stops producing CPUs altogether.

Their future lies in the APU architecture which combines the CPU and GPU. Perhaps AMD's expensive acquisition of ATI will finally come to fruition as a way to combat Intel tradition of a power CPU core saddled with a relatively week graphics core.

That is all about to change with Haswell.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:15:31 PM

jaguarskx said:
There is also speculation that the Asus mobo kit shipped with Bulldozer for benchmark testing purposes is somewhat gimped. Which means Bulldozer's actual performance may turn out to be slightly better than what is reported so far.

Wasn't AMD the one that sent the reviewers the kit? I don't understand why they would purposefully hurt their own launch unless it's something that all kits have.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 5:16:50 PM

^ +1

Haswell will be the end to AMD's edge with integrated graphics on their cpu's. Why? intel doesn't produce desktop consumer bombs but once in a blue moon. last time i checked, the moon was more of an eggshell color...
October 14, 2011 5:31:40 PM

Centora said:
I've always known Intel to sell say a 2.4ghz CPU as a 2.2ghz CPU because it failed the standards for a 2.4ghz. Wasn't sure how AMD did theirs because I've always been an Intel guy until Athlon 64's came out.

Also in terms of FX-4100 vs the 955.. wouldn't an 8MB L2 cache & 4MB L3 cache with 1833MHz memory bridge outbeat a 2MB L2 cache & 6MB with 1333MHz memory bridge? Not to mention the bulldozer uses 30-watts less.

bulldozer's modules are more like each module is one core so the quad fx4110 will probably perform like or maybe slightly better than the dual core i3 and maybe pretty much the same as the athlon x4 ish
a c 150 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 6:07:29 PM

The Phenom II X4 chips are NOT the same. I chose the 970BE based in part on the power consumption chart over at Anandtech. It uses notably less power than the 965BE, even though it's faster: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/64
Yes, you can OC a 955BE or 965BE, but then it will suck down even MORE power, and produce more heat. I have a mild OC to 3.8GHz, and my 970BE idles around 30C under a 120mm Xigmatek Gaia.
October 14, 2011 6:27:50 PM

Onus said:
The Phenom II X4 chips are NOT the same. I chose the 970BE based in part on the power consumption chart over at Anandtech. It uses notably less power than the 965BE, even though it's faster: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/64
Yes, you can OC a 955BE or 965BE, but then it will suck down even MORE power, and produce more heat. I have a mild OC to 3.8GHz, and my 970BE idles around 30C under a 120mm Xigmatek Gaia.

the 965 draw more power because its probably is the old 140w stepping. the 125w stepping of the 955 and the 965 will draw around the same power as the other 125w parts tho. its because as amd's fabs improve and they get better yield and better chips that can do a higher clock speed while staying in the same tdp range. i think tho, only the cheapest 955/965 is worth buying right now, unless they all drop to around the same price as the 955/965 then in this case just go for the highest clocked chip otherwise the higher clocked models are simply not worth their extra premium. the temps are depending on your cooler and with the money saved getting the cheaper model, you can use that to opt in for a better cooler.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 6:30:31 PM

You might as well buy an AM3+ board and a new FX chip why the heck not ? even the 6100 seems like a good idea to buy new.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 6:38:40 PM

1. Fx 4100 - 95W tdp / Phenom - 125W tdp - = less power consumtion for the FX
2. The FX 4100 has more cache - witch in theory its better for gaming
3. u wont notice any difference @ gaming with the 2 chips, hey you dont notice any difference between the i5 and i7 @ gaming either.
4. When you talk about quad cores theese days the gaming benchmarks should be skiped because every quad core dosent offer you a bottleneck in gaming.
5. go with the FX
October 14, 2011 6:39:02 PM

spentshells said:
You might as well buy an AM3+ board and a new FX chip why the heck not ? even the 6100 seems like a good idea to buy new.

everyone that is getting a amd build now should opt for a am3+ mobo as they arent that much more expensive and guarantees future bulldozer upgrade. but if the fx8150 performance seems awful, the 6100 doesn't seem to be much better
October 14, 2011 6:39:43 PM

the fx-4100 already have its cores locked. Its an 8 core with two of the cores locked. (You can't unlock them this time around.) Its already going to be able to reach a high overclock because its cores are locked.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:00:45 PM

But why not get a fx ? you don't lose frames when gaming the extra price is justified with a lil xtra base clock and additional OC headroom.
Gaming didn't show any losses and threaded apps really seem to like it.But now it put me off to get a new GPU and forget about upgrading CPU for a while
after seeing the gaming benchmarks with the 965 I figured what the heck I can stay with my Q6600 for now
a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:06:02 PM

Haserath said:
That is all about to change with Haswell.


I haven't done any research on Haswell yet since it is not scheduled to be released until sometime in 2013. Perhap it will be able to compete with what AMD will have, perhaps not. At least it is good to know that Intel's Larrabee project has not been a total failure since the Intel HD 3000 is a pretty good integrated graphic solution (coming from Intel).
a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:11:32 PM

Haserath said:
Wasn't AMD the one that sent the reviewers the kit? I don't understand why they would purposefully hurt their own launch unless it's something that all kits have.


I believe there is a contractual agreement that AMD would use Asus motherboards for benchmarking. Breaking such an agreement could result in Asus suing AMD for breach of contract which could be a very expensive for AMD.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:12:31 PM

crisan_tiberiu said:
1. Fx 4100 - 95W tdp / Phenom - 125W tdp - = less power consumtion for the FX
2. The FX 4100 has more cache - witch in theory its better for gaming
3. u wont notice any difference @ gaming with the 2 chips, hey you dont notice any difference between the i5 and i7 @ gaming either.
4. When you talk about quad cores theese days the gaming benchmarks should be skiped because every quad core dosent offer you a bottleneck in gaming.
5. go with the FX

1. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
The FX-8 idles at less power and with just CPU load uses 18W more power against the X4 980, so I don't know how well the 4xxx will do power wise.
2. Cache is nothing. It's the architecture that makes gaming better, and branching software, such as games, is not good with the deeper pipeline.
3. I agree with games today... Down the road I'm not so sure.
4. Battlefield 3- http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer...
The FX-8 actually performs well in it. It looks to be very good as using all the available threads at once

Valve's engine is also very good at using available threads; nobody seems to notice this.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
5. I think he should consider his choices. FX doesn't look like a great gaming CPU as of right now.
a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:14:10 PM

casualbuilder said:
was that the Crosshair V board?


Yep. Perhaps it just needs an updated BIOS.
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:20:59 PM

jaguarskx said:
I haven't done any research on Haswell yet since it is not scheduled to be released until sometime in 2013. Perhap it will be able to compete with what AMD will have, perhaps not. At least it is good to know that Intel's Larrabee project has not been a total failure since the Intel HD 3000 is a pretty good integrated graphic solution (coming from Intel).

Haswell according to Intel is going to be 7x that of Sandy Bridge.

I've heard it will include onboard Ram.

Ivy Bridge is looking to be ~3x that of Sandy Bridge. They doubled the EUs and made substantial improvements to them.
Quote:
I believe there is a contractual agreement that AMD would use Asus motherboards for benchmarking. Breaking such an agreement could result in Asus suing AMD for breach of contract which could be a very expensive for AMD.

Who's idea was it to sign a contract with one company without putting in: "If performance sucks on this board, we can switch to another"?!
a c 487 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 7:29:53 PM

Haserath said:
Ivy Bridge is looking to be ~3x that of Sandy Bridge. They doubled the EUs and made substantial improvements to them.


Hmmm.....

Last time I've checked the graphics core in Ivy Bridge was only going to have about 60% more performance than the Intel HD 3000; at least that's what Anandtech has stated. That would mean the new Intel graphics core should be almost as powerful as a desktop Radeon HD 5570.
October 14, 2011 8:24:29 PM

Motopsychojdn said:
Save the other $10 and get a 955, then clock to match 975, those three are all the same chip, just released with higher base clockspeeds
Moto


Have to ask mate.. how on earth do I clock my 955 to do that? lol!

Also.. stupid random add on question slightly related.. do you know anything of compatibility issues with graphics cards and a 955 setup with a GigaByte 880GM?

I ask as I had a 5750 and it simply would not work for prolonged periods. Mega crashes. Tested everything, nothing to do with my system or owt. Maybe I just got a dodgy GPU but a lot of people had issues?

Of course I'll accept on how to safely OC the 955 :)  I'm told it can run out way over 4.2mhz 'cos its the Black Ed
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2011 9:22:45 PM

Centora said:
So basically your saying that AMD makes all the chips the exact same, sets the default core clocks to 16x (955), 17x (965), and 18x (975)? Charges $40 just for a default setting on an unlocked chip? Sounds a bit far-fetched or absolutely brilliant on AMD's case. Can anyone else confirm this?


That's exactly what they do. The Phenom II line is all about value and a 955BE is more attractive to enthusiasts than a locked 955. AMD couldn't do much else at the time. Anyway, a chip that's rated as a 955BE could be done so either because it couldn't run at 18x or 17x without a little more voltage, or simply to satisfy demand for 955s. Generally 965s should be binned as such because they are slightly better chips, stable at the default voltage without running too hot, but it's also the case that they aren't marked as 975s simply to satisfy demand for 965s
a c 150 à CPUs
October 14, 2011 11:29:48 PM

If the differences between the X4's just come down to a stepping issue (which is certainly believable), then I still think you'd want the latest available.
October 14, 2011 11:31:50 PM

I'd honestly get the 955 Phenom II x4 black edition. I mean.. it's what I have now. It's clockable in the future if you ever need that kinda power any time.. the PC at the moment uses hardly any of the CPU power even when I run epic ammounts of shizzle on full load. Seriously.
October 15, 2011 2:04:35 AM

Okay well I'm going to be using the CPU I choose for about 3 years. In this case I'd fork out the extra and get the 975. But that raises a good question that I will throw at you guys.

Since the X4 975 is $159.99 on an undisclosed website the X6 1075T is listed at the same price. So would it be in my best interest to purchase the 1075 or maybe even the 1055T which is @ $149.99. Sure *most* games today use Quad-Core maximum but what about in 2 years? I plan to use this CPU for 3 years (or 4 depends on whats going on).

Basically.. address my concern above but also take this into consideration.. I'm not quite sure what downgrading a multi-core CPU actually dose but what if I got the X6 and made it into an X4 until I run across a game needing X6?

All opinions welcome. Also since we are on the topic. I've *ALWAYS* purchased older gen boards as it is cost effective. Like for example I bought a halfway decent AM2 board for my X2-4100 when the new FX 64 AM2+ boards came out. Should I do the same with my X4/X6 CPU? I'm not a hardcore gamer looking to get 60FPS on Max settings.. just looking to be able to run the top of the top cards in single 16x mode but also possibly run two lower powerful cards in SLi/Crossfire. So Crossfire V would be out of the question. I'm looking more toward Sabertooth 990x but fear $189.99 is a bit out of my price range/expectancy out of a board. I'd be happy to run a 955 @ 4Ghz even than get a board high-priced but get 4.2Ghz oc same equip. Opinions please. :) 
a c 150 à CPUs
October 15, 2011 2:22:42 AM

Take a look at ASRock's offerings. They use all solid caps and ferrite chokes "just like the big boys," and tend to have a lot of features for the price. Since an Athlon II X3 can play any game today, I'm inclined to believe that a Phenom II X4 will play any game in 3-4 years, maybe more. That being the case, get a good mobo, with good connectivity options (that's where your future-resistance will be). At a minimum, you want USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s. I chose the Asus Sabertooth for all that plus the 5-yr. warranty. I'm disappointed in BD to be sure, but even without a CPU upgrade I expect this system to be solid for a LONG time.
October 15, 2011 3:10:26 AM

Onus said:
Take a look at ASRock's offerings. They use all solid caps and ferrite chokes "just like the big boys," and tend to have a lot of features for the price. Since an Athlon II X3 can play any game today, I'm inclined to believe that a Phenom II X4 will play any game in 3-4 years, maybe more. That being the case, get a good mobo, with good connectivity options (that's where your future-resistance will be). At a minimum, you want USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s. I chose the Asus Sabertooth for all that plus the 5-yr. warranty. I'm disappointed in BD to be sure, but even without a CPU upgrade I expect this system to be solid for a LONG time.


I'll give it a look around but not fond of ASRock. Reason one is they set the maximum vcore voltage on my board to 1.35v and thats around what all X2's need. Fixed that with a vcore mod giving me 1.70v Maximum. Other issue is it runs the ram a 1/6 the speed of the CPU. So with my 2,100MHz CPU the RAM ran at 350MHz. Overclocking the FSB to 229MHz fixed this but what if you just want to run stuff @ stock speeds? And the on-board audio is shot.

@On topic -- Took a quick look at the X6's benchmark wise/overclocking. The 1075T model dosen't have BE so I'd need an 1090T at the minimum. Even still the 965BE crushed the X6 1075T at stock settings and the 1075T only got a mear 3.35GHz (350MHz overclock) while the 965BE got to 4.2GHz (800MHz overclock) out the box. Now of course the reason the X6 1075T didn't overclock well was due to it not being BE. However it seems the 965/975BE CPU's are still out-performing all AMD cpu's around them. So best cost efficent CPU for me would be to get the 965BE and aim for a 4.0GHz overclock on stock CPU. Now the question is which board could achive such an overlock, be future proof, and don't cost more than the $129.99 CPU (lol).

I should just say screw it and go all out on an Core i5-2500k but that isn't cost efficient in my situation as the CPU is just about double the cost of the 965BE and I don't OC Intel's well as they don't really want them to be OC'ed. Rather just buy a "low end" AMD CPU, overclock it, and get it as close to the performance of an i5 I can get.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2011 3:15:48 AM

jaguarskx said:
Hmmm.....

Last time I've checked the graphics core in Ivy Bridge was only going to have about 60% more performance than the Intel HD 3000; at least that's what Anandtech has stated. That would mean the new Intel graphics core should be almost as powerful as a desktop Radeon HD 5570.

Sorry I'm sort of trolling this thread; I'll make this my last comment off topic.

It seems Ivy Bridge will have 60% more performance per clock per EU on Ivy Bridge, but it will double the EUs and increase the clock speed.

Here's Bit-tech's article on Ivy:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/10/all-ab...
Quote:
Okay well I'm going to be using the CPU I choose for about 3 years. In this case I'd fork out the extra and get the 975. But that raises a good question that I will throw at you guys.

Since the X4 975 is $159.99 on an undisclosed website the X6 1075T is listed at the same price. So would it be in my best interest to purchase the 1075 or maybe even the 1055T which is @ $149.99. Sure *most* games today use Quad-Core maximum but what about in 2 years? I plan to use this CPU for 3 years (or 4 depends on whats going on).

Basically.. address my concern above but also take this into consideration.. I'm not quite sure what downgrading a multi-core CPU actually dose but what if I got the X6 and made it into an X4 until I run across a game needing X6?

All opinions welcome. Also since we are on the topic. I've *ALWAYS* purchased older gen boards as it is cost effective. Like for example I bought a halfway decent AM2 board for my X2-4100 when the new FX 64 AM2+ boards came out. Should I do the same with my X4/X6 CPU? I'm not a hardcore gamer looking to get 60FPS on Max settings.. just looking to be able to run the top of the top cards in single 16x mode but also possibly run two lower powerful cards in SLi/Crossfire. So Crossfire V would be out of the question. I'm looking more toward Sabertooth 990x but fear $189.99 is a bit out of my price range/expectancy out of a board. I'd be happy to run a 955 @ 4Ghz even than get a board high-priced but get 4.2Ghz oc same equip. Opinions please. :) 

If you decide to go with an X6 and disable 2 cores to make it an X4, it will perform like an X4. Thuban is made on a different process, so it will most likely use a little less power even though the disabled cores use a little power just being there.

It's always good to overclock the northbridge along with the cores in the Phenom II arch, so a 1055T would do well. I don't really know how many games will start taking advantage of more cores, but anything made with the Source engine loves cores and BF3 is able to use the cores.

I recommend the 1055T over the 965, because the price increase isn't as much as the performance increase could be.
October 15, 2011 3:42:29 AM

Haserath said:
Sorry I'm sort of trolling this thread; I'll make this my last comment off topic.

It seems Ivy Bridge will have 60% more performance per clock per EU on Ivy Bridge, but it will double the EUs and increase the clock speed.

Here's Bit-tech's article on Ivy:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/10/all-ab...
Quote:
Okay well I'm going to be using the CPU I choose for about 3 years. In this case I'd fork out the extra and get the 975. But that raises a good question that I will throw at you guys.

Since the X4 975 is $159.99 on an undisclosed website the X6 1075T is listed at the same price. So would it be in my best interest to purchase the 1075 or maybe even the 1055T which is @ $149.99. Sure *most* games today use Quad-Core maximum but what about in 2 years? I plan to use this CPU for 3 years (or 4 depends on whats going on).

Basically.. address my concern above but also take this into consideration.. I'm not quite sure what downgrading a multi-core CPU actually dose but what if I got the X6 and made it into an X4 until I run across a game needing X6?

All opinions welcome. Also since we are on the topic. I've *ALWAYS* purchased older gen boards as it is cost effective. Like for example I bought a halfway decent AM2 board for my X2-4100 when the new FX 64 AM2+ boards came out. Should I do the same with my X4/X6 CPU? I'm not a hardcore gamer looking to get 60FPS on Max settings.. just looking to be able to run the top of the top cards in single 16x mode but also possibly run two lower powerful cards in SLi/Crossfire. So Crossfire V would be out of the question. I'm looking more toward Sabertooth 990x but fear $189.99 is a bit out of my price range/expectancy out of a board. I'd be happy to run a 955 @ 4Ghz even than get a board high-priced but get 4.2Ghz oc same equip. Opinions please. :) 

If you decide to go with an X6 and disable 2 cores to make it an X4, it will perform like an X4. Thuban is made on a different process, so it will most likely use a little less power even though the disabled cores use a little power just being there.

It's always good to overclock the northbridge along with the cores in the Phenom II arch, so a 1055T would do well. I don't really know how many games will start taking advantage of more cores, but anything made with the Source engine loves cores and BF3 is able to use the cores.

I recommend the 1055T over the 965, because the price increase isn't as much as the performance increase could be.


Yes off topic I'd want the Sandy core if I did Intel but I don't need that much power. Think my minds made up on getting the 965BE but might even wind up getting the 970BE because a good rated website (forget name atm) could only get the 965BE to 3.8GHz with a 1.5v vcore. If I'm spending all this cash I'm keeping the vcore to the max spec of 1.425v though that extra 0.075v probably is nothing I'm just not that risky. Also won't use stock cooling I'll use the 212 cooler. xD
October 15, 2011 4:25:11 AM

Centora said:
Okay well I'm going to be using the CPU I choose for about 3 years. In this case I'd fork out the extra and get the 975. But that raises a good question that I will throw at you guys.

Since the X4 975 is $159.99 on an undisclosed website the X6 1075T is listed at the same price. So would it be in my best interest to purchase the 1075 or maybe even the 1055T which is @ $149.99. Sure *most* games today use Quad-Core maximum but what about in 2 years? I plan to use this CPU for 3 years (or 4 depends on whats going on).

Basically.. address my concern above but also take this into consideration.. I'm not quite sure what downgrading a multi-core CPU actually dose but what if I got the X6 and made it into an X4 until I run across a game needing X6?

All opinions welcome. Also since we are on the topic. I've *ALWAYS* purchased older gen boards as it is cost effective. Like for example I bought a halfway decent AM2 board for my X2-4100 when the new FX 64 AM2+ boards came out. Should I do the same with my X4/X6 CPU? I'm not a hardcore gamer looking to get 60FPS on Max settings.. just looking to be able to run the top of the top cards in single 16x mode but also possibly run two lower powerful cards in SLi/Crossfire. So Crossfire V would be out of the question. I'm looking more toward Sabertooth 990x but fear $189.99 is a bit out of my price range/expectancy out of a board. I'd be happy to run a 955 @ 4Ghz even than get a board high-priced but get 4.2Ghz oc same equip. Opinions please. :) 


Well like I said.. I have a 955 at the moment. Now.. people say quads are used in gaming. Yes.. but they aren't fully utilised. Considering how things are now, I can probably bet your bum off that my quad along with the 8g of ram and the soon to be 6870 GPU will do what it has to for at least 5 years on top end. Hell.. they've done the 3D thing. All they can do is enhance that.. but not by a horribly huge ammount.

At the mo in total I have a GigaByte 880GM with the x4 955 black ed and a 650w PSU running it all with 8gb DDR3 1333 (oc'able to 1600 and indeed the board supports it)

I'm putting a 6870 in there to cause overkill.

At the mo anyone will tell you although the 6900 series is awesome it's a bit OTT to have that much. Overkill aplenty times two haha.

As far as anyone talking the truth will tell you on here, that's more than enough to power it for the next FIVE years. Yeah they've got 8xcores out but really? We don't actually need that much.

However if you got an 8 core and stuck a 6970 or 6990 in there you're talking ultimate.

But think reasonable prices. In UK money it cost me 380 and will indeed be 520 in total once the GPU's added to it. It'll cost over 3 GRAND to BUY that sort of PC. Needless money wasted when you can self-build :) 

Go for the cheaper option. If you need more, it's easy enough to upgrade in the future :D 
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!