• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD Athlon X4-750K

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ascalice

Member
My friend built a PC with an Athlon x4-750k. He says it is the fastest processor he ever had, faster than the i7-3960K. The CPU is only $86 and he says it can be overclocked to 4.2GHz. Is it a good CPU?

I believe the question has been sufficiently answered
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ lols! its not faster than the 3960k. does he have any graphs to show? AFAIK, the 750k is still based on the jurassic age of architecture (phenom 2) which is slow compared to the ivys.
 
netxzero64 said:
^ lols! its not faster than the 3960k. does he have any graphs to show? AFAIK, the 750k is still based on the jurassic age of architecture (phenom 2) which is slow compared to the ivys.
Click to expand...

It is not phenom 2, it is an apu with the graphics part disabled. Based on Trinity or Richland, I am not sure. It is a good basis for a budget rig, but its absurd to compare it to a 3960k.
 
Your friend is a troll. Do not fall for his trap! I don't think any Athlon x4 can beat any Intel i series CPU (not even an i3) regardless of OC.
 
It's a snappy processor with great perf./$ for sure, but not anywhere near 1K$ behemoth like 3960K.
 
netxzero64 said:
^ lols! its not faster than the 3960k. does he have any graphs to show? AFAIK, the 750k is still based on the jurassic age of architecture (phenom 2) which is slow compared to the ivys.
Click to expand...

It's not based on the Phenom II, it's based on Piledriver. It's a Trinity chip with the graphics disabled.

If you want to get an idea of how it performs, look up reviews of the CPU performance of A10-5800K. It's nowhere near an i7-3960, it's roughly comparable to an i3-3220. Worse single threaded performance, better multithreaded performance. It's a good chip for the price.
 
You know, it can be funny to show people systems with slightly different buildouts to get their reactions. One of my job sites has a Dell workstation with the Xeon version of that chip (6-core 12 thread something or other) with 24GB ram and a relatively low end professional GPU, running on a raid set of SAS drives. The other day I brought in my spare laptop, which is nothing special, i7 SB, 8GB, etc, but it has a new Toshiba 256GB Q-Series Pro SSD (about identical to Samsung 840 Pro in performance), and the guy was swearing up and down that my laptop was ten times faster than his desktop, and thinking about 'upgrading' to it. I ended up ordering him a set of SSDs to move the SAS drives to storage duties.

Anyway, back to this one, I bet if a gamer used these configs back to back, without being able to check device manager or look in the case :

Intel 4960X, 32GB DDR3-2400, 2TB 7200RPM HDD, 2GB GT640 DDR3

with

AMD Trinity 750K, 8GB DDR3-1600, 256GB Samsung 840 Evo, 1GB 750ti

That he would swear up and down that the Trinity was the MUCH faster system.

So the OP's friend might just have compared machines built for different purposes. A 3960K with a crappy GPU and HDD will feel like a total dog compared to an i3 with a great GPU and an SSD.
 
Tell your friend that he should make an account on this forum. His bull is no different from the fud we are used to read on this subforum these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This raises a question in my mind, how many cores on a 3960x need to be disabled to match the performance of a 750k?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top