Quad-Core running at 3.4 [Stable OC'd 3.6] (Phenom II X4 965) [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727[/url]
Six-Core running at 2.7 [Will be OC'd] (Phenom II X6 1045T) [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106012[/url]
[B]Which is faster in the following conditions:[/B]
-Neither Overclocked
-Quad Overclocked; Six not Overclocked
-Both Overclocked
[B]Also how much of an increase should I see in video rendering?[/B] I plan on overclocking the six core to 3.2 or, if it can on stock voltage and stay stable, higher.
This would be better in the PC build section. But websites online will tell you how much each processor can be over clocked (the one with the higher speed will be faster, obviously taking into account multiplying the speed by number of cores). You should also be able to find out video rendering speeds too
The Phenom II x4 and x6 use the same core design, so their performance at a given clock speed is going to be similar. The hex core Phenom II x6 is obviously going to be slower at single threaded applications due to the -700 MHz difference from the quad Phenom, but marginally better at threaded applications from the additional cores.
If you're building a new machine, I'd recommend just getting an Ivy Bridge CPU from Intel. They're much more efficient and will run circles around both the Phenom II x4 and x6.
[QUOTE=djjkxbox360;38769973]This would be better in the PC build section. But websites online will tell you how much each processor can be over clocked[/QUOTE]
Not all CPUs are created equal, even if they have the same model number. Any website guaranteeing that some CPU model is able to overclock to some frequency is dumb and shouldn't be considered valid.
You can always check [url]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/[/url] for basic performance comparison. These numbers are based on thousands of different benchmarks. In reality the numbers will be very different, but in general you can see which CPU is faster than which on average.
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Score: 4,320
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T Score: 4,817
So it's pretty much like bohb said.
If you already own the 965, don't bother getting 1045T.
What about the FX series? are there any good CPUs there?
[QUOTE=Charrax;38775336]What about the FX series? are there any good CPUs there?[/QUOTE]
They are faster yes. The FX 8350 is interesting at the moment. Typical AMD: More clock speed and more cores :v:
[QUOTE=Drumdevil;38775502]They are faster yes. [/QUOTE]
It really depends on which CPU series we're talking about here. If you pick anything that's based on bulldozer, you're going to see a decline in performance instead.
[url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106010[/url]
This? Apparently it is a good CPU after looking around. "The savior of Bulldozer" or something like that.
[QUOTE=Drumdevil;38774066]You can always check [URL]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/[/URL] for basic performance comparison. These numbers are based on thousands of different benchmarks. In reality the numbers will be very different, but in general you can see which CPU is faster than which on average.
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Score: 4,320
AMD Phenom II X6 1045T Score: 4,817
So it's pretty much like bohb said.
If you already own the 965, don't bother getting 1045T.[/QUOTE]
Update on that. Apparently I have the 955 which rates 4,047. I still do plan on overclocking the 1045T
[QUOTE=Charrax;38780279][url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106010[/url]
This? Apparently it is a good CPU after looking around. "The savior of Bulldozer" or something like that.
Update on that. Apparently I have the 955 which rates 4,047. I still do plan on overclocking the 1045T[/QUOTE]
My server has a 1055t. When I need some extra power from it it will let itself overlock to a stable 3.5 Ghz. I had to increase the voltage though.
any opinion on that Fx6200? some reviews said it was the savior of bulldozer.
Just wondering, but does it absolutely have to be a AMD CPU? If you're building or upgrading a new motherboard too, I strongly suggest look into Intel instead.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;38781652]Just wondering, but does it absolutely have to be a AMD CPU? If you're building or upgrading a new motherboard too, I strongly suggest look into Intel instead.[/QUOTE]
i dont have the money for intel and i have my reasons for liking AMD. so i am gettint a new mobo but it is AM3+ rather just AM3.(sorry it is hard to type with grammar and capitals on the psvita)
[QUOTE=Charrax;38783467]i dont have the money for intel and i have my reasons for liking AMD. so i am gettint a new mobo but it is AM3+ rather just AM3.(sorry it is hard to type with grammar and capitals on the psvita)[/QUOTE]
$60 more isn't that much of a stretch for an Ivy Bridge quad core CPU, and can be offset by getting a slightly cheaper motherboard.
The newer Piledriver CPUs aren't that much better than Bulldozer. They're still terribly energy inefficient, and while they may have slightly higher clocks than Bulldozer, the performance improvement is only about 10-15% at best. Most of which comes from the clockspeed increase and not architecture improvements.
[QUOTE=bohb;38785878]$60 more isn't that much of a stretch for an Ivy Bridge quad core CPU, and can be offset by getting a slightly cheaper motherboard.
The newer Piledriver CPUs aren't that much better than Bulldozer. They're still terribly energy inefficient, and while they may have slightly higher clocks than Bulldozer, the performance improvement is only about 10-15% at best. Most of which comes from the clockspeed increase and not architecture improvements.[/QUOTE]
Well, as I said, I don't have the money for Intel. I put a set budget on my CPU.
Also I don't see why Intel is so much better. The memory caches seem bigger that is about it... Power isn't a problem for me and I don't want this thread derailing... Even if I wanted Intel I know nothing of how to match a compatible motherboard with the processor.
Either way, is the FX-6300 any good? Apparently it is [url]http://puu.sh/1zJ82[/url] and it fits my budget pretty well.
Opinions?
[QUOTE=Charrax;38787580]Also I don't see why Intel is so much better. The memory caches seem bigger that is about it...[/QUOTE]
Sandy/Ivy Bridge is more efficient at processing instructions per clock (can process more at lower clock speeds) and per watt (can get more done using less power.) You can't base performance of a CPU solely on the amount of cache it has.
[QUOTE=Charrax;38787580]Even if I wanted Intel I know nothing of how to match a compatible motherboard with the processor.[/QUOTE]
Erm, you pair an Ivy/Sandy bridge CPU with a motherboard that has an LGA1155 socket? And you have the entire PC Building forum to get help.
[QUOTE=Charrax;38787580]Either way, is the FX-6300 any good? Apparently it is [url]http://puu.sh/1zJ82[/url] and it fits my budget pretty well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah because using paint to copy and paste one line out of an entire benchmark totally tells you it's a great CPU. Wait, no it doesn't.
[url]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core[/url]
It's a full 26.35% slower in that benchmark than even an Ivy Bridge i7 with a clock speed 35.58% slower than it. The FX6300 is a crap CPU.
6300 performs pretty bad to what other CPUs are out there to be honest
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;38791335]6300 performs pretty bad to what other CPUs are out there to be honest[/QUOTE]
Well then what is your AMD reccomendation? the 6300 isnt bulldozer it is Vishera/Piledriver. In many reviews it is surprisingly good.
[QUOTE=bohb;38790475]Yeah because using paint to copy and paste one line out of an entire benchmark totally tells you it's a great CPU. Wait, no it doesn't.[/QUOTE]
I dont think you know what puu.sh is.
That benchmark page tells me that it is pretty good for the buck. It is comparing it to the top ten as seen on that page (Of which all the intel are really expensive). [B]I already said I am not looking for an intel processor.
[/B]
[QUOTE=Charrax;38792593]
I dont think you know what puu.sh is.
That benchmark page tells me that it is pretty good for the buck. It is comparing it to the top ten as seen on that page (Of which all the intel are really expensive). [B]I already said I am not looking for an intel processor.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The point isn't how it's made, it's how it's done. You just copied something from a site, but you need to compare it to real life scenarios. Running stuff like prime95 isn't the same as gaming or encoding.
The reason why we're saying you [I]should[/I] get a Intel processor is because we aren't trying to scam you, even if you buy a cheaper processor you'll get more out of it.
And what I recall from AMD was a couple of BSOD's.
[QUOTE=Killervalon;38793189]The point isn't how it's made, it's how it's done. You just copied something from a site, but you need to compare it to real life scenarios. Running stuff like prime95 isn't the same as gaming or encoding.
The reason why we're saying you [I]should[/I] get a Intel processor is because we aren't trying to scam you, even if you buy a cheaper processor you'll get more out of it.
And what I recall from AMD was a couple of BSOD's.[/QUOTE]
I only BSOD on my old Radeon 5770 HD (It was broken but I only had it for the shortest time)
The problem with intel is that I have a budget. 140$ is my max for the CPU (Well the max I am going)
So if you have any suggestions, shoot. Because that FX-6300 ranks (with benchmarking) up with 200$ processors, so I feel like I am getting more bang for my buck.
[QUOTE=Killervalon;38793189]And what I recall from AMD was a couple of BSOD's.[/QUOTE]
I've been seeing reports about both the Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs having defective cores, which would be where the BSODs came from.
A few people that received defective CPUs tried to downclock the cores and were able to get the unstable cores to work properly. Others weren't so lucky and tried both downclocking and bumping the voltage up and still yielded unstable cores. I think AMD might be trying to push the architecture too far clock wise, but it could be that some CPUs just slipped past QA.
[QUOTE=bohb;38797076]I've been seeing reports about both the Bulldozer and Piledriver CPUs having defective cores, which would be where the BSODs came from.
A few people that received defective CPUs tried to downclock the cores and were able to get the unstable cores to work properly. Others weren't so lucky and tried both downclocking and bumping the voltage up and still yielded unstable cores. I think AMD might be trying to push the architecture too far clock wise, but it could be that some CPUs just slipped past QA.[/QUOTE]
If they received a defective CPU they should have just RMA it.
How good is the Intel Core i5-2500K?
My friend is willing to sell his. [sp] Even though I still want the FX-6300 [/sp]
i5-2500k was the last sweetspot cpu until the i5-3570K was released. It is really really good.
In fact I am looking for one, as I want to upgrade my PC cheaply.
[QUOTE=Charrax;38800208]How good is the Intel Core i5-2500K?
My friend is willing to sell his. [sp] Even though I still want the FX-6300 [/sp][/QUOTE]
Better than the 6300 and you can overclock it to a ridiculous frequency if you got the right board and cooler setup.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.