Amd x4 920 vs Amd x4 965
- Thread starter Faelar86
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Dialog Video Games
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
You wouldn't see much difference really. They are both quad-core processors, one running at 2.8 GHz and the other running at 3.4 GHz. The 920 is still a pretty good processor, even by today's standards.
Now, if you're talking like overhaluling your whole system (new CPU, mobo, ram, etc.) then I'd say you'd see a decent increase in your performance. But personally I don't think it would be enough to justify buying $300 worth of upgrades.
Now, if you're talking like overhaluling your whole system (new CPU, mobo, ram, etc.) then I'd say you'd see a decent increase in your performance. But personally I don't think it would be enough to justify buying $300 worth of upgrades.
whatsthatnoise
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2011
- 595
- 1
- 19,060
Not much of an upgrade, not really worth it. You would get some more memory bandwidth and all, but the money would be better spend on a new CPU/Motherboard/DD3 combo. Which, at the time, should be from Intel if you want the most bang for the buck.
Edit: Yes, you would have to buy new board and RAM in your case. So like I said, you are better of getting some Z77 board, DDR3 RAM and a LGA1155 chip of your choice. Depends on what you are doing with your system.
Edit: Yes, you would have to buy new board and RAM in your case. So like I said, you are better of getting some Z77 board, DDR3 RAM and a LGA1155 chip of your choice. Depends on what you are doing with your system.
henydiah
Splendid
you can compare it by yourself at anantech benchmark CPU :
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=102
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=102
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
Lol is that a joke? I'm not saying intel is bad, but there is no doubt that AMD makes better value chips. Intel is thenest choice if you have the money, but if you're on a budget build, that AMD is usually the way to go. I mean, at $110 the 965 BE gives performance that is comparable to an i5 3570, the i5 may be better, but is it $100 better? Personally, id say not really. AMD is definitely giving you the best performance per dollar spent these days.
whatsthatnoise
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2011
- 595
- 1
- 19,060
Actually intel offers more performance per $. So yes it is more expansive (not the board or RAM, but the CPU), but it's still the better investment, if you have the money. If you don't: an i3 can at the very least keep up with an 965 BE, while still offering you a future upgrade path on the same motherboard/RAM combo. Whereas AMD pretty much has nothing to offer in the "future upgrade department".
And an i3 is comparable in price (just a little more expansive than a 965, depending on where you live/buy).
And an i3 is comparable in price (just a little more expansive than a 965, depending on where you live/buy).
henydiah
Splendid
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
Lol, again is that a joke? Didn't get the memo that it was opposite day. Intel switches around sockets faster than I switch around shirts. If you look at socket AM3+ you have access to phenoms, athlons, bulldozer, piledriver. I sorry my friend, but AMD is clearly beating Intel at a VALUE standpoint these days.
Okay, enough arguing, let's get back to the thread. I don't want to hijack this guys thread, and this isn't the time nor place to discuss this anyway.
whatsthatnoise
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2011
- 595
- 1
- 19,060
There's a guy thinking about upgrading his system. So discussing options including the best and also a future upgrade path is completely viable. Don't see the hijacking here.
Intel CPUs range from i3 to i7, whereas the i3 can compare to a 965, bulldozer is crap, piledriver isn't here, yet and is still crap. So, at the very best, what AMD can offer is something close to an i5 2500.
Just because AMD has a crap lot of CPUs on one socket doesn't mean it's any more viable. If anything it shows how outdated the architecture is. That being said, socket 1155 is here since about january 2011 and will be around at least one more year, with chips available for quite some time (ivy just released... and guess what socket).
Besides, I don't think you even understand what performance per $ means.
I'm no Intel fanboy, I have a Phenom 9750 myself. It's still okay'ish. ATM, Intel just beats the crap out of AMD CPUs, which even AMD itself admits.
Intel CPUs range from i3 to i7, whereas the i3 can compare to a 965, bulldozer is crap, piledriver isn't here, yet and is still crap. So, at the very best, what AMD can offer is something close to an i5 2500.
Just because AMD has a crap lot of CPUs on one socket doesn't mean it's any more viable. If anything it shows how outdated the architecture is. That being said, socket 1155 is here since about january 2011 and will be around at least one more year, with chips available for quite some time (ivy just released... and guess what socket).
Besides, I don't think you even understand what performance per $ means.
I'm no Intel fanboy, I have a Phenom 9750 myself. It's still okay'ish. ATM, Intel just beats the crap out of AMD CPUs, which even AMD itself admits.
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
Exactly. You said it your self my friend. AMD. An offer something CLOSE to the 2500, and for $90 less. It is tre, the 2500 is probably better than the 965BE, but is it REALLY $90 better? I don't think so...
And just because you call all of the processors "crap" doesn't mean they are not still an upgrade path. Wether you like it or not, the AM3 socket has more processors available to it than the 1155.
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,106
- 17
- 31,965
If you tell us your motherboard model, we might determine if the PhII965BE will run on it.
It has a DDR2 memory controller, too, and will run on AM2+ motherboards that accept 125w CPUs
It has a DDR2 memory controller, too, and will run on AM2+ motherboards that accept 125w CPUs
Blahman11
Distinguished
- May 23, 2011
- 205
- 0
- 18,710
Like Wisecracker says, lets see if your board supports a Phenom 965. If it supports a 920, there's a high chance that it will support a 965. There isn't really much difference though tbh but you'd be able to overclock the Phenom 965 higher due to it's unlocked multiplier (the only Phenom 965 I've seen is the black edition variant). But if you overclocked the 920 to 965 levels there would be no difference. The two CPUs use exactly the same architecture and perform exactly the same clock for clock.
I wouldn't bother upgrading the mobo and ram if you're just interested in getting the 965. As I said, It'll probably work in your existing motherboard and more ram always gives more of a boost than faster ram really. You wouldn't really notice the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 in real world scenarios. I would only change mobo and ram when you really have to.
And about the ongoing flame war. AMD does offer the best upgrade path in terms of longevity. Their sockets support many different generations of CPUs which really cannot be said for intel (granted there's socket 775, but the new generations of CPUs weren't compatible with existing mobos so you had to change motherboard anyway). But looking at Bulldozer versus ivy and sandy bridge intel really do have the lead in the value stakes. Their Pentiums beat AMD CPUs of a far greater price. The best bang for buck CPU would be the 965 at the mo in my opinion as that can be overclocked and therefore beat the i3s, the FX CPUs and mix it with the i5 (but lose admittedly) for a lower price than most if not all of them but they won't be around for much longer and I can't see AMD prolonging the production of their Phenom ii line.
I think they should have just die shrunk the Phenom ii, added more instructions per clock and upped the clock speed.
I wouldn't bother upgrading the mobo and ram if you're just interested in getting the 965. As I said, It'll probably work in your existing motherboard and more ram always gives more of a boost than faster ram really. You wouldn't really notice the difference between DDR2 and DDR3 in real world scenarios. I would only change mobo and ram when you really have to.
And about the ongoing flame war. AMD does offer the best upgrade path in terms of longevity. Their sockets support many different generations of CPUs which really cannot be said for intel (granted there's socket 775, but the new generations of CPUs weren't compatible with existing mobos so you had to change motherboard anyway). But looking at Bulldozer versus ivy and sandy bridge intel really do have the lead in the value stakes. Their Pentiums beat AMD CPUs of a far greater price. The best bang for buck CPU would be the 965 at the mo in my opinion as that can be overclocked and therefore beat the i3s, the FX CPUs and mix it with the i5 (but lose admittedly) for a lower price than most if not all of them but they won't be around for much longer and I can't see AMD prolonging the production of their Phenom ii line.
I think they should have just die shrunk the Phenom ii, added more instructions per clock and upped the clock speed.
whatsthatnoise
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2011
- 595
- 1
- 19,060
Okay just for you; an i3 2120 can keep up with a 965 BE in most games (except for BF3 which can actually use 4 cores) and even apps. Let's say it's available for about the same price point. I also said "at the very best" AMD has something that gets close to an i5 2500, but something that has to be heavily overclocked to reach it. It has nothing to offer to beat an i5 2500k.
I also gave advise to the OP for what is the best way to go, which still is going intel, even if it's an i3 2120, which would end up costing about the same as a new AMD setup but still offers POSSIBLY WAY MORE performance, later.
So what's your point? That a 965 is ~90 bucks cheaper than a 2500k? Great, but it's still comparable to a i3 2120 for the about the same, whereas AMD has not much beyond that.
TLDR; if you have to built a new system now going AMD is just not a good idea. You can do it because you want to support them or have some affinity towards them or whatever else reason. But definitely not for performance - considering how good even an i3 or even the Pentium CPUs perform - and not even really for price reasons.
Yeah, you could built a system around an overclocked 965 and hope for AMD to someday miraculously catch up to Intel, still using the AM3 socket, but hey ... that's just not the situation right now and it's not going to happen anytime soon from what is known of AMDs plans so far.
Hope you got my point now. This is no flame war, this is reason and argument vs. "but I want AMD ... sooooo bad ... I just want them ... because ... you know ... err". Benchmarks tell the truth as much as I would like to go AMD myself.
Recent review of an FX 8120 (after they lowered the price)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/07/27/amd-fx-8120-review/8
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
Well I JUST built a $550 gaming system for myself a couple weeks ago. I was on a pretty tight budget but I went for the 965 over the i3, because I will be playing battlefield e. I also figured that by the time I will have to upgrade the CPU (in three years or so) DDR4 will be out and I will have to buy a new mobo CPU and ram anyway. I figured I'd wait until then to see if intel still holds the overall lead in the CPU market, and hopefully I will have enough money to buy Rockwell by then.
Personally, I'm not really an AMD fanboy, at least not when it cames to CPUs. I think that both the i3 and the 965 are great choices, personally I just feel that the 965 is the better value. I'm just saying that if you are on a BUDGET build I think that AMD is the way to go. The i5 is a good processor, I was just pointing out that I don't know if it's worth the $100 jump for the performance increase you get.
I do have to admit though that if I had like $700'or $800 when I was doing my own build I probably would have bought the 3570, but on a $550 budget I chose to go AMD.
Personally, I'm not really an AMD fanboy, at least not when it cames to CPUs. I think that both the i3 and the 965 are great choices, personally I just feel that the 965 is the better value. I'm just saying that if you are on a BUDGET build I think that AMD is the way to go. The i5 is a good processor, I was just pointing out that I don't know if it's worth the $100 jump for the performance increase you get.
I do have to admit though that if I had like $700'or $800 when I was doing my own build I probably would have bought the 3570, but on a $550 budget I chose to go AMD.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
Recent benchmarks and reviews have illustrated quite clearly that there is no longer any price point at which Intel does not outperform AMD in games, often severely, and always using less power. An AMD CPU upgrade to an existing system is one thing, but any new system built today (for games) should be Intel; no rational exception. Disclaimer: as you can see, my primary rig is AMD, and I've built more AMD than Intel rigs over the last few years. I just don't know that I'd build another.
whatsthatnoise
Distinguished
- Dec 7, 2011
- 595
- 1
- 19,060
^^ Just my point.
I sincerely hope that AMD gets back into the line. Like they compete with NVIDIA in the GPU department.
Wisecracker
Splendid
- Jan 15, 2007
- 8,106
- 17
- 31,965
What has also been lost in this discussion is that IF the OP has the AMD PhII x4 920 he may simply move it to the Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 AM3+ 990FX including RAMS for around $150 after rebate, or choose any of these mobo/RAM combos starting at $90
If it's an old original 920, that's good and bad. It will not move forward to AM3+ but it is a 125w CPU (meaning his current motherboard with updated BIOS may support other 125w PhII Denebs).
Edit:
The Intel contingent is simply trolling ... it's the video card that drives gaming in the overall majority of cases.
If it's an old original 920, that's good and bad. It will not move forward to AM3+ but it is a 125w CPU (meaning his current motherboard with updated BIOS may support other 125w PhII Denebs).
Edit:
The Intel contingent is simply trolling ... it's the video card that drives gaming in the overall majority of cases.
SniperNoSnipeee
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2012
- 65
- 0
- 10,640
whatsthatnoise :
^^ Just my point.
I sincerely hope that AMD gets back into the line. Like they compete with NVIDIA in the GPU department.
I sincerely hope that AMD gets back into the line. Like they compete with NVIDIA in the GPU department.
So true my friend, so true. At the vey least if intel pushes them out of the CPU business (which is where it may be headed if piledriver and excavator are busts) AMD at least has the fusion apu's which I think have a pretty decent market.
I'm not denying that intel makes great CPUs. They do, if you have the money for one.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
You missed the point. At ANY price point, Intel outperforms AMD in games. No matter how much or how little money you have, Intel is better for games (yes, there are a few specialized, well-threaded applications where AMD beats Intel, but they are few and far between, and very unlikely to be relevant to "us"). Mobo costs are also similar, and since you can even find cheap H61 boards with USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s, AMD has lost the chipset advantage they used to hold also.
I am not a fanboy. I built my AMD rig anticipating that Bulldozer would not suck. It does, and my teeth still hurt from the grinding. BUT, as Wisecracker points out, "it's the video card that drives gaming in the overall majority of cases." I do not feel compelled to scrap my AMD system; it remains perfectly competent, and will remain my primary because of the other components in the build (premium ATX mobo, lots of drives, lots of ports) until such time as it is no longer "good enough."
When I was beta testing GW2, I compared my rigs, which I specifically configured as they are: modest CPU+strong GPU, and strong CPU+modest GPU. The AMD rig with the stronger GPU won, hands down.
So, upgrading an AMD rig is perfectly reasonable, just don't build a new one.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram