• 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.

Athlon X2 or X3 Phenom

E

Exardious

Member
Hey all

Im upgrading my computer on a tight budget. I'm gonna use it primarily for gaming, but also some internet surfing. I think you can call it casual gaming. Games are World of Warcraft, Warhammer online, Doom 3, TF2 and in the future i hope Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

I've been searching around alot and it came down to these 2 processors: AMD x3 phenom 8x50 or Athlon X2 6000+. Those are REALLY cheap atm, which is my primary focus right now.

So which one would you chose?
 
I assume that you already own an AM2 motherboard, so I'll recommend you buying the 6000+ since the triple cores are clocked pretty low and current games are not using more then 2 cores ( except Supreme Commander and Company of Heroes ). So a triple core doesn't make sense.

If you don't have an AMD motherboard, then getting yourself an E5200, which is cheaper and faster then 6000+, would be the best cpu you can buy for the money. Use it with a P35 mobo and you have yourself a monster, if you'll overclock it. 😉
 
hmm, the E5200 doesnt seem to be on the market in denmark (anymore?). The cheapest C2D is E4600. Then theres the E7200 around the same price (about $20 more than 6000+. After that they get considerably more expensive that the low-low-low budget 6000+. In denmark the processor costs about half of an E8400.
 
For 20$ more, the E7200 is so worth it. Just think that at 2553 mhz ( stock clock ) is faster then 6000+ at 3 ghz. Now imagine how much faster it can be at 3,5 ghz, which this Intel does on stock volts, stock cooler.

I did the upgrade to my E7200 from an X2 4000+ oced to almost 3 ghz and the difference is pretty big really, especially now at 4 ghz in any game or settings. If you are short on cash, the E5200 is such a sweet deal, being almost as fast as an E7200, but having less cache. In a couple of days you should be able to find it in stores, since it just came out. 😉
 
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=6

You can see how much faster the Phenom is then the A64 at different clock speeds. This is with a 4870x2, I imagine with less video card things would be closer. Of course, I'm not sure how well a Phenom performs on an AM2 board compared to an AM2+ board. But I'd go Phenom personally. Often the Phenom is very close to the dual core Intel's also.
 
He is on a tight budget man. The Phenom is way over his hands and in the test you linked there it gets its ass kicked pretty bad. So I wonder, why would you go for the Phenom personally ???? It's more expensive then Intel duals and gets beaten by those in games.... Am I missing something here?
 
Originally posted by: error8
He is on a tight budget man. The Phenom is way over his hands and in the test you linked there it gets its ass kicked pretty bad. So I wonder, why would you go for the Phenom personally ???? It's more expensive then Intel duals and gets beaten by those in games.... Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Well, he asked about a Phenom x3 vs. an Athlon 64 6000+. Since most (all?) of the games in that review only use one or two cores the Phenom x3 should put out pretty much the same results at a given clock speed as the x4.

The Phenom is pretty much right there with the Intel duals clock for clock, the C2D's just clock higher. Show me a game, any game what so ever in that link that the Phenom can't play. Sure, there are measureable differences, but no real world differences... 121 FPS vs. 128 FPS. Not a real world difference. On the other hand, while the A64 6000+ (72FPS) certainly can play most any game out there, it's performance is certainly less then the Phenom and Intel stuff. Low enough that I'm sure that it would dip below 60FPS in plenty of those games, not to mention games that come out 6 months from now.

Also, keep in mind that those tests are with the fastest single video card money can buy today. Assuming you're using less video card (as most of us are, probably the OP too) then the differences between the CPU's is likely to be much less as you're more video card limited. So really, I don't think the Phenom is that bad. The OP asked about a Phenom vs. a A64 upgrade, that's why I posted that.
 
Don't forget the phenom will suck more juice too. If we're scraping the bottom of the barrel price wise the extra monthly cost adds up (expecially in Europe, where kw/hr are more expensive).

That said, I'd probably choose whatever CPU (core2 or x2) I could get the cheapest. If it couldn't handle SC2 or Diablo2 I'd upgrade again in the future. E5200 or E7200 is the most likely to handle those games w/o upgrading, while an AMD solution is perfectly acceptable for today's games.

Also, while max frame rates may not differ that much minimum frame rates are DEFINITELY bothersome if your CPU can't keep up. It's arguable whether having 10-20% more CPU is enough to cure those ills, but 25%+ seems to be.
 
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Originally posted by: error8
He is on a tight budget man. The Phenom is way over his hands and in the test you linked there it gets its ass kicked pretty bad. So I wonder, why would you go for the Phenom personally ???? It's more expensive then Intel duals and gets beaten by those in games.... Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Well, he asked about a Phenom x3 vs. an Athlon 64 6000+. Since most (all?) of the games in that review only use one or two cores the Phenom x3 should put out pretty much the same results at a given clock speed as the x4.

The Phenom is pretty much right there with the Intel duals clock for clock, the C2D's just clock higher. Show me a game, any game what so ever in that link that the Phenom can't play. Sure, there are measureable differences, but no real world differences... 121 FPS vs. 128 FPS. Not a real world difference. On the other hand, while the A64 6000+ (72FPS) certainly can play most any game out there, it's performance is certainly less then the Phenom and Intel stuff. Low enough that I'm sure that it would dip below 60FPS in plenty of those games, not to mention games that come out 6 months from now.

Also, keep in mind that those tests are with the fastest single video card money can buy today. Assuming you're using less video card (as most of us are, probably the OP too) then the differences between the CPU's is likely to be much less as you're more video card limited. So really, I don't think the Phenom is that bad. The OP asked about a Phenom vs. a A64 upgrade, that's why I posted that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Avalon
6000+ or E7200 for sure. E7200 if you don't mind doing some overclocking.
Click to expand...

With or without overclocking, E7200 is faster then 6000+. And I'm not saying that just because I own one. 😛
 
Thanks for all the input guys. Was really valuable for me. So i guess the AMD X2 6000+ is out of the game.

Which leaves me with C2D E7200 (E5200) and X3 phenoms. While the X3s are lacking pretty well behind the E7200, in numbers anyway, the X3 still has one more core. These benchmarks are... clinical tests. They are done on freshly installed computers with nothing but an OS and benchmark programs.

But what would happen if you for example play with 7 internet explorers open, a download, windows media player serving you music and messenger so that you can talk with your buds. Would the extra core of the X3 maybe have an advantage then, with still 2 cores for the game, and 1 core for the background tasks. It would be really nice with such benchmarks really. everyday-benchmarks. 🙂
 
And even if you decide to go AMD Dual-core, get the 5600+ X2, not the 6000+. The 5600+ runs at 2.9GHz and has 1MB of cache as opposed to the 6000+ that is 3GHz and 2MB of cache....

But the 5600+ consumes 65Watts and the 6000+ eats up 125Watt and gets pretty hot.

I would still recommend an E5200 or E7200 though over either of those chips. 🙂

 
Just curious, would maybe an E2180 or E2160 be worth considering if the E5200 is not available to the OP and E7200 is out of his price range? I know they are "slow", run on a slow FSB, and don't have much L2, but they are dirt cheap, and I hear they are fully capable of being OC'd to decent levels.....
 
Originally posted by: Exardious
Thanks for all the input guys. Was really valuable for me. So i guess the AMD X2 6000+ is out of the game.

Which leaves me with C2D E7200 (E5200) and X3 phenoms. While the X3s are lacking pretty well behind the E7200, in numbers anyway, the X3 still has one more core. These benchmarks are... clinical tests. They are done on freshly installed computers with nothing but an OS and benchmark programs.

But what would happen if you for example play with 7 internet explorers open, a download, windows media player serving you music and messenger so that you can talk with your buds. Would the extra core of the X3 maybe have an advantage then, with still 2 cores for the game, and 1 core for the background tasks. It would be really nice with such benchmarks really. everyday-benchmarks. 🙂
Click to expand...

Well a dual core is very capable of doing all those things you've listed there with no problem whatsoever. Even a slow one can multi task 7 IEs, winamp, 1 messenger, 1 media player and so on.
Who knows, maybe a triple core could handle much more stuff opened at once, but its biggest problem is that is clocked so low and fails totally in games.
 
Phenom X3 vs. E7200

Depending on the benchmark, the Phenom actually can beat C2D as a result of the 3rd core. But once you take power consumption and overclocking into the equation, the C2D is hands down the better processor. If the application is specifically multi-threaded though (science app, etc.), then the Phenom would be superior.
 
personally i'd go with a low wattage processor like the 5400 black edition which is pretty nice for the money
 
after acquiring a HD4870 and using an X2 4400+

I would say look into purchasing an Intel CPU. I feel very CPU limited playing TF2, WoW, and Mass Effect, and am looking into purchasing an Intel setup since my 4870 isn't performing the level it should because of the 4400+.
 
Originally posted by: Kraeoss
personally i'd go with a low wattage processor like the 5400 black edition which is pretty nice for the money
Click to expand...

Hey, I just got the 2.8 GHz X2 5400+ and it has the el' cheapo heatsink. I feel like I was robbed. lol Does the Black Edition have the heatsink with the heatpipe in it? Which models have the better heatsink?

(I don't know why but I kind of feel like my "e-penis" is smaller because of that cheapo heatsink even though I don't overclock. lol)
 
Looks like a 44% increase x2 4400 (@ 2Ghz) v E6350 (@ 1.86Ghz), and that to me is convincing enough, X2 AMD must be out of the question...
 
Hey, I just got the 2.8 GHz X2 5400+ and it has the el' cheapo heatsink. I feel like I was robbed. lol Does the Black Edition have the heatsink with the heatpipe in it?
Click to expand...

No: Black Editions are "WOF", with out fan....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103289

except for the 9850:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16819103249

I don't know why but I kind of feel like my "e-penis" is smaller because of that cheapo heatsink even though I don't overclock.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That "cheap and used" feeling eventually goes away....usually. Or, you might want to hang out with processors with a higher social status.....AMD is like the poor kid at school on a scholarship, Intel: daddy pays for everything.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top