Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD Phenom II X4 965 vs Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz for new build

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2012 6:17:47 AM

Hello,

I'm not sure which is better. The AMD Phenom II X4 965, I've been told, has less gaming capability than the Sandy Bridge, but if it's negligible, I'd rather not spend the extra money on the Sandy Bridge. I have a budget that I'm trying not to pass ($650) and I'd rather have more money to spend on the GPU. Anyone able to give a bit of advice?

Edit: The CPU's looked at are

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor

Intel Core i3-2100 Sandy Bridge 3.1GHz LGA 1155 65W Dual-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 2000

Best solution

a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:27:07 AM

Get the 965 and overclock it. The extra two real cores will make a difference in games and other applications that can use them.

A comparison between the two, if you're interested: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=289

The i3 is better in many areas, but overclocking the 965 will close the gap significantly.

Edit: Having said that, you'll need to factor in the cost of an aftermarket cooler, like a Cooler Master Hyper 212+ or Evo to OC the 965.
Share
August 25, 2012 6:31:37 AM

Aftermarket cooler? Sorry, I'm new to the whole... well, everything related to computers. Do I need a cooler other than the one that comes with a bought case? Also, if I buy the Phenom, is there a guide on the forums to overclocking it? I wouldn't want to mess up.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:35:50 AM

blueyfooey said:
Aftermarket cooler? Sorry, I'm new to the whole... well, everything related to computers. Do I need a cooler other than the one that comes with a bought case? Also, if I buy the Phenom, is there a guide on the forums to overclocking it? I wouldn't want to mess up.


An aftermarket cooler is something like this: COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 EVO RR-212E-20PK-R2 Continuous Direct Contact 120mm Sleeve CPU Cooler Compatible with latest Intel 2011/1366/1155 and AMD FM1/AM3+

The 965 will come with its own stock cooler, you just don't want to OC with it because temps would get out of hand pretty quickly.

And yes, there's a guide in the OC section on OC'ing Black Edition CPU's.
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 6:38:18 AM

Get 965, you don't have to overclock it unless your running crossfire. Stock cooler will be fine with stock settings.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:41:39 AM

Tmant123 said:
Get 965, you don't have to overclock it unless your running crossfire. Stock cooler will be fine with stock settings.


It's true that you don't have to overclock it, but to even it up with the i3 in gaming, it helps.

Regardless, even at stock speeds, it should be fine, in most cases, it would just be better overclocked.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 6:43:54 AM

Tmant123 said:
Get 965, you don't have to overclock it unless your running crossfire. Stock cooler will be fine with stock settings.


Try telling someone with a Radeon 7950 that a stock Phenom II 960 will handle a 7950 at 1200MHz GPU and 1600MHz memory or better. It doesn't take CF to show a big difference between a stock 965 and a well overclocked 965.
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 6:49:03 AM

If I were using a
ASRock 970 PRO3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
and
SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Would it be necessary to overclock the 965?
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 6:49:57 AM

I second OC a 965. It makes a substantial difference - I've pushed mine to 3.8GHz with 1.4v and the northbridge to 2400MHz. Gaming feels smoother and I'm certain I've squeezed out a few frames too. And yes I have a 7950. RAM's only 1333MHz though.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:58:05 AM

blueyfooey said:
If I were using a
ASRock 970 PRO3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
and
SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Would it be necessary to overclock the 965?


"Necessary", no, but it would still help some.

If you don't want to spend the money on a aftermarket cooler, you should be ok not OC'ing with just a 6870.
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 7:09:19 AM

blueyfooey said:
If I were using a
ASRock 970 PRO3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
and
SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Would it be necessary to overclock the 965?



I'm running an FX-6100 and a Saphire 6870 1gb, You should be fine.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:15:58 AM

+1 DJDecible :)  . . . you may refer to our toms benches as well
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
Those are for gaming as that seems like your primary use
You'll notice that as far as gaming alone goes, an OC'ed Phenom comes close to an i3 (does not always beat it)... that means you have to take pains to install an after market cooler and carefully oc the chip which also translates to a higher power consumption
i3 would be better value for money IMO
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:25:10 AM

satyamdubey said:
+1 DJDecible :)  . . . you may refer to our toms benches as well
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
Those are for gaming as that seems like your primary use
You'll notice that as far as gaming alone goes, an OC'ed Phenom comes close to an i3 (does not always beat it)... that means you have to take pains to install an after market cooler and carefully oc the chip which also translates to a higher power consumption
i3 would be better value for money IMO


Those benches don't include an overclocked CPU/NB frequency which could let the Phenom II x4s take the performance win over the i3s. Also, Newegg has a Phenom II x4 830 for $85. That and a $20-30 CPU cooler has more value than an i3 has. The i3's advantage at this point is its much lower power consumption.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 8:38:40 AM

if your interested in the 965 BE, theres a 90$ for 965 be promo code this weekend EMCYTZT2108. should give you enough $ to buy a HSF
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:41:15 AM

dudewitbow said:
if your interested in the 965 BE, theres a 90$ for 965 be promo code this weekend EMCYTZT2108. should give you enough $ to buy a HSF


That's another good option.
m
0
l
a c 79 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 9:40:01 AM

blazorthon said:
Those benches don't include an overclocked CPU/NB frequency which could let the Phenom II x4s take the performance win over the i3s. Also, Newegg has a Phenom II x4 830 for $85. That and a $20-30 CPU cooler has more value than an i3 has. The i3's advantage at this point is its much lower power consumption.

I may have misunderstood the benches but they do have 955 @ 4 Ghz.....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 2:36:28 PM

satyamdubey said:
I may have misunderstood the benches but they do have 955 @ 4 Ghz.....


That's the CPU frequency, not the CPU/NB frequency which is still at a mere 2.2GHz.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 2:57:48 PM

Oc'd Phenom II > i3 any day in my book.

Quote:
satyamdubey said:
I may have misunderstood the benches but they do have 955 @ 4 Ghz.....



The benches are such that, contrary to the commentary of the article writer, are close enough that you could play on two different computers identical in every way except the CPU and you'd never know which is which. But the Phenom IIs have superior multi-threading performance than i3s. I personally want that quad core assurance for when I'm not playing a game.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 3:30:19 PM

While I agree with the PHII 965 being the better option for building "right now" performance, I also feel it should be pointed out that the upgrade path kinda sucks from AMD right now as well. I still personally recommend to people to grab a cheap i3 and then later on grab an Ivy/Sandy bridge quad core when they can afford it. If not, they may end up switching platforms sooner than they would like, and then they will be spending even more money in the long run.

I myself have the x6 1090t @ 4.0ghz(4.2ghz for benching), and my brother grabbed a 2500k a few months back. His 2500k at stock benches about the same as mine does at 4.0ghz. Then when it's OC'd it flies right past my 1090t in most synthetic benchmarks. Doing so at 4.8ghz, and if he really wants to he can hit the 5.0ghz barrier as well. Overclocked the intel chip use alot less power than my 1090t at 4.0ghz and higher as well. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I know I read that in numerous articles.

This is one reason I make the recommendation that I do: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=288

and here's the other:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/362?vs=288


Basically in the first link I put the highest stock clocked x4 PHII vs. the 2500k to show why going with an i3 for now and later upgrading to a quad sandy/ivy cpu is probally the better option.

In the second link I wanted to show that if someone buys a PH II chip right now the FX 8150 is at the top of AMD's food chain, so that's where there upgrade path would lead. That chip even gets beat by a stock 2500k in almost every benchmark. The games FPS differences seem pretty darn high too.

If I was to upgrade right now I would be switching over to Intel, and that would require a new mobo+cpu+aftermarket cooler(for OC). So I just personally can't recommend an AMD build for a new computer. I think Intel has my recommendation nailed down right now. If someone allready has an Athlon/Phenom x2, x3 in their current system, I would recommend the x4/x6 PHII for sure. Just not on a new build.


m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 3:40:12 PM

Fair enough, however, my opinion is that one should never buy a system for the "upgrade path". If you want i5 performance, save up for another pay check until you can afford it, rather than buying a $120 CPU today and then say 6 months down the road paying $200 for the CPU you wanted in the first place. That really doesn't make sense to me. As far as power consumption, a lot of people talk about it, I think few realize how insignificant the watts translate to on the electric bill.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 4:03:36 PM

nekulturny said:
Fair enough, however, my opinion is that one should never buy a system for the "upgrade path". If you want i5 performance, save up for another pay check until you can afford it, rather than buying a $120 CPU today and then say 6 months down the road paying $200 for the CPU you wanted in the first place. That really doesn't make sense to me. As far as power consumption, a lot of people talk about it, I think few realize how insignificant the watts translate to on the electric bill.



What you are recommending will require a change of platform alltogether down the road because AMD seem to be getting further and further behind. They themselves say they aren't tring to beat intel in performance anymore. So that switch will cost alot more money than just dropping in a cpu in a year or so time. New mobo+cpu+cooler(if OCing). Also if the new build uses win7 OEM to save money, they would need a new copy of Windows as well since OEM copies get linked to the motherboard mainly. The price on the chip may even be lower by then as well. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-cpu-apu-proc...



The only reason I bought up the power consumpion was for OCing purposes as related to the size PSU being bought initially. You may need a larger PSU to take the PHII higher, and that will run a bit more money as well. It could be the difference between a 650w, and having to go to 750-850w depending on what GPU is being purchased and how many. I should of elaborated that more in my first post. Sorry.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 4:20:50 PM

Quote:

What you are recommending will require a change of platform alltogether down the road because AMD seem to be getting further and further behin


What I am recommending is that if the OP wants to know what is the better of the two, between the i3-2100 and the Phenom II 965. I am sticking to that format, and that format only.

Quote:
They themselves say they aren't tring to beat intel in performance anymore.

What is in the future is irrelevant when it comes to computers. TODAY the Phenom II overclocked performs on par with the i3 in gaming, and exceeds it in multithreaded apps, in some cases, substantially.. Beyond that, it doesn't matter what you buy today, its all "old trash" in 4-5 years just the same. Now, Intel is done with LGA 1155 socket. That means in a year, if you want to upgrade to the latest generation i5, you'll be buying a new motherboard.

Intel does not drop the price on prior generation chips. A quick search on Newegg or TigerDirect will show you that remaining LGA1156 chips are still about as expensive as they were when they were brand new, or they're just gone completely. Thats the problem with the "upgrade path" theory.

Like I said, I'm not saying one shouldn't buy an i5, but I'm sorry, it makes no sense to me that if you think you want the performance of an i5 to say "well, I think I'll get an i3 for now, and then upgrade it later". It costs you more money in the long run then if you were just to buy the right CPU to meet your needs in the first place.

Quote:
The only reason I bought up the power consumpion was for OCing purposes as related to the size PSU being bought initially. You may need a larger PSU to take the PHII higher, and that will run a bit more money as well.


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/07/13/amd-ph...

Theres some power consumption data, now yes, a Phenom II 980 at 4.3GHZ, the whole system at the wall uses about 100 more watts than the 2500K. However, as far as having to buy a more expensive PSU. Most quality power supplies on the market have 500-600 watts anyway when you hit that sweet spot of good bang for the buck (I'd say around $40-$80). Its not like you'd be going out and buying a more expensive PSU than you normally would for the 2500K. I have a 750 watt PSU, but not because I actually need it. I got a good deal on it, and I bought it for the quality that Seasonic made Corsairs are known to have, I full well expect it to last me 10 years of builds.

Glad we can talk reasonably, lol. I'm not being sarcastic either, I'm seriously impressed this thread hasn't turned into a flame war yet. :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 4:37:55 PM

nekulturny said:
Glad we can talk reasonably, lol. I'm not being sarcastic either, I'm seriously impressed this thread hasn't turned into a flame war yet. :lol: 


Well, I guess you know that I'm about as die hard Intel as they come, but I 100% agree with you on the 965 over the i3 in this situation (or any situation, really).

For me, it's either get an i5 instead of the i3 or just go with the 965.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 4:46:43 PM

No hostility whatsoever on my end. I'm not a troll by any means, and respect your views on this topic.

I know that that socket will be dead in a year, but i think that the whole ivy/sandy platform will last someone longer than the AMD platform is all. It is quite a bit further ahead perfomance wise than the AMD platform. The PHII may do someone for a year or two still, but where the ivy/sandy are so much further ahead performance wise than the AMD option, it should last someone for 3-4 years before needing another upgrade at least IMO. The PHII tech is around 3-4 years old and the sandy/ivy are alot newer, so that just makes sense to me. My brother got by on his e-8500 for a long time before upgrading to the 2500k, and I think the sandy/ivy chips should be still be very capable chips for a few years to come yet. It really takes alot to bottleneck those suckers when they are OC'ed. You won't be doing it with any current single or dual GPU setup. The AMD chips probally won't bottleneck any single card, but multiple is a different story. Quad SLI/Crossfire may bring it out with sandy/ivy, but most higher end 2 card configurations bring out a cpu bottleneck on 4.0ghz PHII/FX. So future generations of GPU's could bottleneck alot faster on an AMD platform. I know the tech industry changes pretty quick, but I don't think you need to upgrade all the time if you pick the right components and leave some room for upgrades if needed.


I can see why you say Intel probally won't be dropping prices as well. Why would they right? The only way that would happen is if AMD released something that was faster for the same price or cheaper. :p 

I think either option is a good option for this guy. I just wanted him to see things from different perspectives so he could make an informed decision. I think we definitly showed him both sides of the coin. lol. Now he just needs to decide what option will suit him better, and what he may or may not want to do in the future. :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 4:57:38 PM

My two cents:

After six weeks of owning an i3-2100, it acts like a quad-core in games, and a fast dual-core in everything else. However that's plenty for my needs - I built strictly to improve my gaming experience.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 5:21:53 PM

jessterman21 said:
My two cents:

After six weeks of owning an i3-2100, it acts like a quad-core in games, and a fast dual-core in everything else. However that's plenty for my needs - I built strictly to improve my gaming experience.

Yea, the 6870 and i3 are decent pairing, then again, so is the Phenom II, been several people who have used that and a Sapphire 6870 based on my suggestion, all of them have been happy with em. As far as me, I do all kinds of stuff, when I built the system, Runescape was the game I played the most. But I wanted something I knew could multitask on, as a college student. Sure, the i3 would probably do that too, but theres something to be said for 4 real cores vs 2 real ones and 2 HyperThreads. Although I came in as a casual gamer, my demands have changed, I have another use in mind for my 550 TI, to make room for something more aggressive (looking at 7870 GHZ edition), my CPU on the other hand isn't whats holding me back.

sincreator said:
No hostility whatsoever on my end. I'm not a troll by any means, and respect your views on this topic.

I know that that socket will be dead in a year, but i think that the whole ivy/sandy platform will last someone longer than the AMD platform is all

Comes down to performance expectations I spose. As it is now, for gaming, most games are limited by your choice in video card, there are some outliers, but this isn't changing that much as time goes by. Its a question of balance, for example, if you want a 2500K and you have to fit it into a budget, and in order to make room for it you get something like a 6850 video card, when on the other hand you could have spent roughly the same amount and gotten a Phenom II with a CPU cooler and gotten a 7850 video card. The Phenom II will embarrass the 2500K in games configured that way. While certainly theres no question about it the 2500K is the superior CPU, its not always that simple.

And actually believe it or not, not all of the Sandy Bridges actually outperformed Phenom IIs. My (btw, I'm single again so I should change my sig) the i5-23xx series, 2300s specifically, actually has slightly worse performance than my overclocked Phenom II. The 2310s and 20s start to get better, but you really have to go i5-2400 before the SB architecture is clocked high enough to really pull away from AMD's older architecture.

Quote:
I can see why you say Intel probally won't be dropping prices as well. Why would they right? The only way that would happen is if AMD released something that was faster for the same price or cheaper.


Well, we do have an Intel marketing rep on the forum. He said that after a certain point, the stores are the ones setting the prices on older gen chips. So its Newegg whos refusing to sell them for lower. But, that answer he gave me (and I don't have the thread off hand to link to) doesn't really tell the big picture. Intel I think makes exactly (or close to) enough CPUs to meet the demand, no more, no less. Whats left, the merchants are gonna gouge you on, cus they know if you need to replace a bad CPU, you don't have a choice but to either buy a new mobo or pay up. Dunno, thats just a guess on my end. I'm sure I could come up with more conspiracy theories given time. :kaola: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 6:22:41 PM

sincreator said:
No hostility whatsoever on my end. I'm not a troll by any means, and respect your views on this topic.

I know that that socket will be dead in a year, but i think that the whole ivy/sandy platform will last someone longer than the AMD platform is all. It is quite a bit further ahead perfomance wise than the AMD platform. The PHII may do someone for a year or two still, but where the ivy/sandy are so much further ahead performance wise than the AMD option, it should last someone for 3-4 years before needing another upgrade at least IMO. The PHII tech is around 3-4 years old and the sandy/ivy are alot newer, so that just makes sense to me. My brother got by on his e-8500 for a long time before upgrading to the 2500k, and I think the sandy/ivy chips should be still be very capable chips for a few years to come yet. It really takes alot to bottleneck those suckers when they are OC'ed. You won't be doing it with any current single or dual GPU setup. The AMD chips probally won't bottleneck any single card, but multiple is a different story. Quad SLI/Crossfire may bring it out with sandy/ivy, but most higher end 2 card configurations bring out a cpu bottleneck on 4.0ghz PHII/FX. So future generations of GPU's could bottleneck alot faster on an AMD platform. I know the tech industry changes pretty quick, but I don't think you need to upgrade all the time if you pick the right components and leave some room for upgrades if needed.


I can see why you say Intel probally won't be dropping prices as well. Why would they right? The only way that would happen is if AMD released something that was faster for the same price or cheaper. :p 

I think either option is a good option for this guy. I just wanted him to see things from different perspectives so he could make an informed decision. I think we definitly showed him both sides of the coin. lol. Now he just needs to decide what option will suit him better, and what he may or may not want to do in the future. :) 


FX 8120. Disable one core per module to eliminate resource sharing, thus making each active core about 20-30% faster per Hz. Overclock (half the cores means a heck of a lot more headroom). Overclock the CPU/NB frequency to improve the L3 cache performance too. It will compete with the highly overclocked i5-2500Ks quite well. Next, we have Piledriver, Steamroller, and possible Steamroller's successors on the same AM3+ socket. AMD's future of AM3+ is far better than that of LGA 1155 because it will continue to improve whereas LGA 1155 will not and is already no better than the current top AM3+ solution for gaming if you know how to use the AM3/AM3+ platform well.

Phenom II is a better starting point than the FX-4100 and i3.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:33:16 PM

blazorthon said:
FX 8120. Disable one core per module to eliminate resource sharing, thus making each active core about 20-30% faster per Hz. Overclock (half the cores means a heck of a lot more headroom). Overclock the CPU/NB frequency to improve the L3 cache performance too. It will compete with the highly overclocked i5-2500Ks quite well. Next, we have Piledriver, Steamroller, and possible Steamroller's successors on the same AM3+ socket. AMD's future of AM3+ is far better than that of LGA 1155 because it will continue to improve whereas LGA 1155 will not and is already no better than the current top AM3+ solution for gaming if you know how to use the AM3/AM3+ platform well.

Phenom II is a better starting point than the FX-4100.



steam roller is most likely not going to be on AM3+. Piledriver is going to end AM3+, 1155 ended with ivy bridge. both companies are going into next generation mobo next year.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 6:40:17 PM

dudewitbow said:
steam roller is most likely not going to be on AM3+. Piledriver is going to end AM3+, 1155 ended with ivy bridge. both companies are going into next generation mobo next year.


AMD has no reason to make a new socket until DDR4 is out. Steamroller was confirmed to use AM3+. There will be more motherboards and a new bunch of chipsets, but Steamroller should work with BIOS updates anyway just like FX works in older boards with a BIOS update and even AM3 CPUs can work in the older AM2+ socket with a BIOS update to the older boards.

Also, even if Piledriver did end AM3+, it would still be as good as or better than LGA 1155 in the best configuration for both platforms.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:49:01 PM

blazorthon said:
Also, even if Piledriver did end AM3+, it would still be as good as or better than LGA 1155 in the best configuration for both platforms.


I don't know about all that. Better than Bulldozer, absolutely, but as good as the best that LGA 1155 can do? I HIGHLY doubt that.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 6:52:24 PM

I'm expecting PileDriver 8 cores to be more competitive with Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge i5s in most things. I do expect them to still fall behind them slightly in individual core performance, however, I expect this to be negligible considering very fewer programs are still using a single core, at least ones that really do anything intensive. We still have to wait to see what we're getting. Trinity looks promising however.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 6:56:09 PM

^ I agree that I expect a more competitive product from Piledriver, but I just don't see any way that it can meet (or exceed) the absolute best that LGA 1155 has to offer, like blazorthon said.

Piledriver will just continue the trend of great multi thread performance and lacking single thread performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 7:10:42 PM

You're not thinking about what I said. Simply turning off one core per module gives the remaining core a significant boost in performance per Hz (mistakenly referred to as IPC by some people) and overclocking the CPU/NB frequency to the CPU's frequency to get a full-speed cache like Intel has by default lets overclocking the CPU frequency of the FX-8120 and 8150 make them compete with the i5-2500K and the i5-3570K in performance per thread. Piledriver is a substantial boost over Bulldozer and will continue this. Steamroller is bound to make the win over LGA 1155 significant.

If you consider the default quad-core AMD CPUs, then this is a useless tactic for them because it would reduce them to dual-core CPUs and without it, they can't compete with Intel, but this method lets the default eight core FX CPUs compete with the i5s excellently and lets the six-core FXs soar past the i3s.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 7:15:57 PM

Ok, so overclocking is the answer then. Got it... :sarcastic: 

Yes, no doubt when Piledriver is OC'd, they'll be close equivalents to an i5 or i7, but if you OC the i5 or i7 to the same clock, that won't really matter.

And Steamroller may very well equal a LGA 1155 CPU, but a significant win? I don't think so.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 25, 2012 7:21:42 PM

I don't really know how well that works, I think I did see a couple benches where they tried it with an FX-8150, but it wasn't quite good enough to match the i5 2500K. But honestly, if I'm paying for an 8 core CPU, disabling it down to 4 cores wouldn't really be acceptable to me.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 7:45:42 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Ok, so overclocking is the answer then. Got it... :sarcastic: 

Yes, no doubt when Piledriver is OC'd, they'll be close equivalents to an i5 or i7, but if you OC the i5 or i7 to the same clock, that won't really matter.

And Steamroller may very well equal a LGA 1155 CPU, but a significant win? I don't think so.


Again, you're not listening. Even if you overclock the i5 to 4.5GHz, a common overclock, it wouldn't win against a 5GHz FX 8120 or 8150 that is overclocked in this manner. 5GHz is an easy target for moderate overclocking with the 8120 or 8150 when used in this way. They could probably break 5.5GHz (on average) easily.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 7:47:52 PM

nekulturny said:
I don't really know how well that works, I think I did see a couple benches where they tried it with an FX-8150, but it wasn't quite good enough to match the i5 2500K. But honestly, if I'm paying for an 8 core CPU, disabling it down to 4 cores wouldn't really be acceptable to me.


Disabling two full modules is the wrong way to do it. That's what I see most sites trying rather than disabling one core per module and that's why they tend to not work well. Disabling two full modules makes it basically an FX-4100 with a slightly higher Turbo frequency and better binning rather than having both of those advantages in addition to the significant performance per Hz boost.

Also, your last complaint doesn't make much sense. Many people disable Hyper-Threading on i7s because it isn't beneficial to gaming. Disabling one core per module of an FX CPU is a similar concept, but is more effective.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 7:50:18 PM

blazorthon said:
Again, you're not listening. Even if you overclock the i5 to 4.5GHz, it wouldn't win against a 5GHz FX 8120 or 8150 that is overclocked in this manner.


I don't know of any benches to back that up anyway, so I don't know if you're right or not (I tend to think not, until I see proof), but still, my main point is that you shouldn't even NEED to OC a 81xx to 5Ghz (which isn't exactly super easy, as you allude to) to beat a 4.5Ghz i5 (which IS incredibly easy, for a 2500K, anyway).

And disabling cores to reach 5Ghz doesn't count, in my book. You shouldn't need to do that either.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:00:59 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
I don't know of any benches to back that up anyway, so I don't know if you're right or not (I tend to think not, until I see proof), but still, my main point is that you shouldn't even NEED to OC a 81xx to 5Ghz (which isn't exactly super easy, as you allude to) to beat a 4.5Ghz i5 (which IS incredibly easy, for a 2500K, anyway).

And disabling cores to reach 5Ghz doesn't count, in my book. You shouldn't need to do that either.


Sorry, I'll go through my links to get a bench of this phenomenon.

I agree, it shouldn't need to have its cores disabled for this, but I don't see why it shouldn't count. It works and in that sense, I think that it should count. Also, it is easy to break 5GHz with this *mod*. With the FX-8120, it's a 125w TDP CPU. Yes, I know that this isn't true power consumption, but it's a good number to work with. You're disabling half of the cores, generally the most energy sucking parts of a CPU. That's going to lower power consumption by about 30-40%. Hitting 4.5GHz or thereabouts is fairly easy with the 8120 even in its default core configuration. Cutting power consumption like this increases thermal headroom greatly and FX is an architecture that is excellent at hitting huge frequencies. 5GHz shouldn't be a difficult target at all with that in consideration.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:03:09 PM

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Remember, this wasn't disabling the cores, simply telling the benchmark program to not use them, so there was still some resource sharing going on with the background tasks using the second cores of each module somewhat. Despite this and the fact that the default core configuration test had a higher frequency, the performance per thread was easily 10-20% higher. Performance per Hz peaked at over 25% better and with the secondary cores disabled rather than ignored by the bench-marking program, it would undoubtedly be a little higher. Disabling the cores would, again, drop power consumption substantially while increasing performance per core significantly. Power efficiency would sky rocket.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 8:05:47 PM

blazorthon said:
I agree, it shouldn't need to have its cores disabled for this, but I don't see why it shouldn't count.


Because it defeats the purpose of having an "8 core" CPU in the first place...

Does it work, as you say? Sure, but you're neutering a chip that shouldn't have to be neutered.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:07:58 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Because it defeats the purpose of having an "8 core" CPU in the first place...

Does it work, as you say? Sure, but you're neutering a chip that shouldn't have to be neutered.


I don't consider it neutering the CPU as much as reorganizing its threading target from highly threaded to lightly threaded performance.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:09:59 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Yes, better thread scheduling... Nothing ground breaking there. Also, nothing that really matters all THAT much. Just a band-aid on a bad situation.


Hence my argument in disabling one core per module rather than relying on better thread-scheduling that is more like a band-aid rather than a cure.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 8:10:02 PM

blazorthon said:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865

Remember, this wasn't disabling the cores, simply telling the benchmark program to not use them, so there was still some resource sharing going on with the background tasks using the second cores of each module somewhat. Despite this and the fact that the default core configuration test had a higher frequency, the performance per thread was easily 10-20% higher. Performance per Hz peaked at over 25% better and with the secondary cores disabled rather than ignored by the bench-marking program, it would undoubtedly be a little higher. Disabling the cores would, again, drop power consumption substantially while increasing performance per core significantly. Power efficiency would sky rocket.


Yes, better thread scheduling... Nothing ground breaking there. Also, nothing that really matters all THAT much. Just a band-aid on a bad situation.
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 25, 2012 8:14:44 PM

blazorthon said:
Hence my argument in disabling one core per module rather than relying on better thread-scheduling that is more like a band-aid rather than a cure.


I get it, I just don't necessarily like the idea of it.
m
0
l
August 25, 2012 8:46:42 PM

It should be added that a 965 now will last at the very minimum for another year. In another year Haswell will be out for Intel (and yes, a new mobo and chipset will be required) and Piledriver's successor will probably also be out. I've had my 965 for 3yrs, now going on 4. I've virtually upgraded everything except the CPU, mobo (still 790GX) and RAM. Its getting old yes, but it does the job very well and has four full fat cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 25, 2012 8:49:12 PM

Smeg45 said:
It should be added that a 965 now will last at the very minimum for another year. In another year Haswell will be out for Intel (and yes, a new mobo and chipset will be required) and Piledriver's successor will probably also be out. I've had my 965 for 3yrs, now going on 4. I've virtually upgraded everything except the CPU, mobo (still 790GX) and RAM. Its getting old yes, but it does the job very well and has four full fat cores.


Piledrivers successor, IE Steamroller? Let's not get hasty here, we don't even have desktop Piledriver CPUs yet. Steamroller might be out in late 2013, but it might not hit the market until early 2014 instead.
m
0
l
August 26, 2012 2:30:39 AM

I am so confused, haha. So many questions are running through my mind, such as what Piledriver, Steamroller, and Bulldozer are, and how would they affect me. If I'm getting a GTX 480 along with overclocking the 965, what sort of PSU should I get? Sorry, this might be wandering a little off-topic.
m
0
l
a c 78 à CPUs
August 26, 2012 2:41:05 AM

lol, they won't really affect you at all. Bulldozer is AMD's newer generation processor, those would be like the FX-4100/6100/8120/8150 etc. Even though they're newer than Phenom IIs, in some things they actually perform worse than Phenom IIs. The Bulldozers use a different design than the Phenom IIs which are based on the" K10 design.

PileDriver is a new and improved Bulldozer (its the next generation) set to release in a few months, SteamRoller is scheduled to be an even further improvement but thats not slated til late 2013. Thats really too far off in the future to worry about. A year is like an eternity for computers.

For a GTX 480, I would get a good 600 watt PSU like the Corsair CX600v2.
$41.99 with mail in rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

May I ask why a GTX 480, and how much you're paying for it? You might consider a 7870GHZ edition. Its performance should match the GTX 480 fairly well, and use a ton less power and not cost a great deal more.
m
0
l
!