problem with getting the x3 over the q8200

[stnicralisk]

I am building a computer basically for the purposes of gaming, most other benchmarks don't mean much to me.

If I go with an x3 will an am2+ board hold it back? I noticed that the HT of the x3 is 4000 but the am2+ boards are 2600?

Which processor would be best for gaming?

 

[SunnyD]

An AM2+ board will not hold it back at all. At best you get ~2-4% better performance with DDR3. That's it.

As far as which would be better... *shrug*... that can be argued every-which-way.

 

[SickBeast]

I think the X3 would be better in most situations, but the Q8300 would probably win in multithreaded benchmarks that use all 4 cores.

If you're a gamer, I'm pretty sure the X3 will win hands down, especially if you overclock.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I think the X3 would be better in most situations, but the Q8300 would probably win in multithreaded benchmarks that use all 4 cores.

If you're a gamer, I'm pretty sure the X3 will win hands down, especially if you overclock.

I do believe both chips actually overclock fairly well though.

Here is an interesting question in regards to gaming on either platform. Are the nforce boards any better or worse for AMD than they are for Intel. I know that I have heard some negative things about them but unfortunately they are the only SLI boards. I would be looking at 750i vs 750a or 780i vs 780a

Will AM3 motherboards fix this issue like i7's x58 - sli for everyone?

 

[phaxmohdem]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Will AM3 motherboards fix this issue like i7's x58 - sli for everyone?

I highly doubt it. In order to use SLI on a motherboard, the manufacturers have to pay nVidia whatever princely commission sum they want. To date I haven't read anything indicating AMD and nVidia are in cross licensing talks for chipsets. Especially since AMD owns ATI and includes ATI graphics cores in their "G" series chipsets.

Things could always change, and I have read rumors lately about nVidia dropping out of the chipset business altogether. If that happens, I imagine AMD would license SLI for their own chipsets, since I doubt they'd be too happy conceding the entire SLI market to Intel. Then again the Xfire/SLI markets are comparatively small to the mainstream/budget users AMD is targeting these days.

Edit: Also I believe that AMD chipsets overclock better (With that AAC Voodoo), so if you're an OCer/Gamer I'd roll an AMD chipset.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

X3 720 BE has 3 fast cores running at 2.8 ghz stock and in most games it beats a PII 920 making it a very good gaming cpu, also most will reach 3.7-3.8 ghz speeds. For gaming i would go with X3.

 

[garritynet]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

X3 720 BE has 3 fast cores running at 2.8 ghz stock and in most games it beats a PII 920 making it a very good gaming cpu, also most will reach 3.7-3.8 ghz speeds. For gaming i would go with X3.

I don't think they have been out long enough to know what most will do.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: garritynet

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

X3 720 BE has 3 fast cores running at 2.8 ghz stock and in most games it beats a PII 920 making it a very good gaming cpu, also most will reach 3.7-3.8 ghz speeds. For gaming i would go with X3.

I don't think they have been out long enough to know what most will do.

you can visit other forums and see for yourself what most people are getting out of these. They're very good for oc, plus i'm building a box for a friend around it, so far i could mirror those results. Also read some reviews, these cpus will reach 3.3 ghz on stock cpu voltages

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: phaxmohdem

Originally posted by: stnicralisk

Will AM3 motherboards fix this issue like i7's x58 - sli for everyone?

I highly doubt it. In order to use SLI on a motherboard, the manufacturers have to pay nVidia whatever princely commission sum they want. To date I haven't read anything indicating AMD and nVidia are in cross licensing talks for chipsets. Especially since AMD owns ATI and includes ATI graphics cores in their "G" series chipsets.

Things could always change, and I have read rumors lately about nVidia dropping out of the chipset business altogether. If that happens, I imagine AMD would license SLI for their own chipsets, since I doubt they'd be too happy conceding the entire SLI market to Intel. Then again the Xfire/SLI markets are comparatively small to the mainstream/budget users AMD is targeting these days.

Edit: Also I believe that AMD chipsets overclock better (With that AAC Voodoo), so if you're an OCer/Gamer I'd roll an AMD chipset.

An individual over at Rebel's Haven OC'd his PhII 940 to 3.8 ghz on a Nvidia 750a mobo.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: stnicralisk
I am building a computer basically for the purposes of gaming, most other benchmarks don't mean much to me.

If I go with an x3 will an am2+ board hold it back? I noticed that the HT of the x3 is 4000 but the am2+ boards are 2600?

Which processor would be best for gaming?

If no OC, I think the 720 is slightly faster. If OC, I think the 720 also has more headroom just due to the fact that the Intel quads are semi-limited by mobo FSB limitations, where as the 720 is unlocked, so easier to OC.

Add in that the 720 is cheaper and yeah, I'd go with the 720.

 

[stnicralisk]

There is an issue with the AMD build, there is no good 750a board - they're all x8 dual - which means I would have to spend more and get the 780a. For intel there are some 750is that are 2 x16 pcie SLI.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

I think you are quite underestimating what a change in FSB can do (1572 vs 1333). Clock speed is not big determining factor. Its why an overclocked E2160 at 2.4ghz is right behind a stock E6600 at stock speeds. Also, cache hardly has an effect after a certain point. Sure the jump from 1mb to 2mb is huge, but the 2mb to 3mb at comparable clocks is almost nothing. With NuclearMC and 3Dmark06 i'm a hundred or so lower then the average rating, and passmark put me over 200 points above the average submit.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

I think you are quite underestimating what a change in FSB can do (1572 vs 1333). Clock speed is not big determining factor. Its why an overclocked E2160 at 2.4ghz is right behind a stock E6600 at stock speeds. Also, cache hardly has an effect after a certain point. Sure the jump from 1mb to 2mb is huge, but the 2mb to 3mb at comparable clocks is almost nothing. With NuclearMC and 3Dmark06 i'm a hundred or so lower then the average rating, and passmark put me over 200 points above the average submit.

What on earth are you saying? The clock speed is THE BIG determining factor. FSB doesn't add too much performace on the Intel boat. Cache is more important then FSB.

Your Q8200 will be the roughly equivalent to a stock Q9650, if you overclock it to 3.2 ghz, but you still have a lot of cache to catch up and probably it's not going to be equal, even then. Applications that love cache will wipe the floor with your oced Q8200 over the Q9650.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Its a toss up really. I went with the quad despite knowing some games and applications (audacity) run better with a faster dual then a standard quad. I picked the quad for future resistance. If you are looking to game on them, learn to overclock these quads. According to all benchmarks my Q8200 overclocked to 2.75ghz is the equivalent to a quad extreme 9650 at stock clocks. Just imagine what the better quads will do.

Keep in mind, if the game is multi-threaded, you are probably limited by your GPU anyway, so picking up any of these quads (even the older phenom's) will do just fine. This is evidenced by the gains seen in SLI/Crossfire. If you get 100fps in a game, then add another video card for SLI and get 150fps, your CPU was already able to power that game at the 150fps and possibly more.

I'd vote for the Q8200. At $169 its a damn good deal. It's also relatively easy to OC and its the cheapest Intel Quad. Don't be fooled by its small cache. It trades blows and then comes out in front compared to a stock Q6600 due to its higher FSB and SSE optimizations.

:shocked:
Your Q8200 is running 2.75 overclocked, it will never be equal to a stock Q9650, remember that they run at 3.0 Ghz. Q9650 are beasts, they have 12MB of cache.

I think you are quite underestimating what a change in FSB can do (1572 vs 1333). Clock speed is not big determining factor. Its why an overclocked E2160 at 2.4ghz is right behind a stock E6600 at stock speeds. Also, cache hardly has an effect after a certain point. Sure the jump from 1mb to 2mb is huge, but the 2mb to 3mb at comparable clocks is almost nothing. With NuclearMC and 3Dmark06 i'm a hundred or so lower then the average rating, and passmark put me over 200 points above the average submit.

So what's your point???? Did i say anything wrong? His Q8200 @ 2.75 is not faster or equal to a Q9650 running at stock speeds. I know very well the benefits of FSB, they are substancial, that's not the point.

Plus he wants a gaming cpu therefore cache is indeed important, do some more research.