PDA

View Full Version : Phenom CPU range Vs. Athlon X2 6000+



jobsonandrew
January 17th, 2008, 11:42 AM
Hey, this isnt regarding Linux/Ubuntu but I just wondered if anyone might know.... I just upgraded my Windows machine to this:
Vista x64 Ultimate
Asus M2N32-SLi Deluxe Wifi Edition Motherboard
Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATA-300 32mb cache
XpertVision nVidia Geforce 8800GT 512mb
Creative SoundBlaster XFi Xtreme Music
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ (Dual core 3GHz per core, 2MB cache (1MB per core))
2GB DDR2 RAM (PC 6400 800mhz)
DVD Writer
CD Writer
700W Power Supply

It gets 5.4 from the Vista performance rating (everything 5.9 except CPU at 5.4) and just over 10500 3DMarks in 3DMark06. I am however, thinking about a Quad Core Phenom CPU. even the top end Phenom doesnt match the clock speed I have now of 3GHz.. But i was wondering if anyone knew if having a quad core cpu, albeit slower clock speed per core, would be faster? seen any reviews that compare standard quad core cpus to top end dual core cpus?

gn2
January 17th, 2008, 12:24 PM
If you buy a Phenom quad-core you'll need a new AM2+ motherboard to get the full benefit of it's abilities.

Is it worth buying? Probably not: http://tinyurl.com/2ke6mj

jobsonandrew
January 17th, 2008, 12:55 PM
My mobo has AM2+ covered..
Thanks for the link... looks like it doesnt make a whole lot of difference.. wonder if this is due to software not being designed for quad core? only a small percentage of apps are designed to/need to take advantage of dual core as it is

gn2
January 17th, 2008, 01:05 PM
My mobo has AM2+ covered.

Yes and no.

It will run AM2+ CPU's but will not run them at their best.


The Phenom processor will ship in a regular AM2 form-factor but not all of its feature-set will be available to present AM2 motherboards. Users of such boards won't enjoy the benefits of DDR2-1066 compatibility, HyperTransport 3.0 or dual-plane power-switching - where processor and memory-controller are run at different voltages.

To take advantage of these features one must use an AM2+ motherboard

SOURCE: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=3

jobsonandrew
January 17th, 2008, 01:10 PM
oh, fair enough, I thought i saw here:
http://uk.asus.com/products.aspx?modelmenu=2&model=1163&l1=3&l2=101&l3=300&l4=0
that it said it was AM2+ compatible, or it might have been on the box.. I dont know..

Looks like AMD might be in a bit of trouble when you look at Intel's top end quad chips

forrestcupp
January 17th, 2008, 03:29 PM
wonder if this is due to software not being designed for quad core? only a small percentage of apps are designed to/need to take advantage of dual core as it is

Yes, that is the problem. I was researching into whether or not it would be worth it to go from a single core @ 2.21 GHz to a dual core at 2.0 GHz. I found that it wouldn't be worth it because the X2 would be at a disadvantage for apps that aren't made for multiple cores, which probably happens to be the majority of things out there.

The only way it would be worth it for you is if you could safely overclock the quad core to be 3.0 GHz.

Jimmey
January 17th, 2008, 04:52 PM
I found that it wouldn't be worth it because the X2 would be at a disadvantage for apps that aren't made for multiple cores, which probably happens to be the majority of things out there.

Right, this means that these single applications can't use both cores at the same time. This does not mean that multiple applications can't be run on different cores at the same time.

Only the programs that don't have threading support and would use 100% of your CPU would loose out, as you'd be missing that .20GHz per core. But in terms of multitasking, you would notice a big improvement.

forrestcupp
January 17th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Right, this means that these single applications can't use both cores at the same time. This does not mean that multiple applications can't be run on different cores at the same time.

Only the programs that don't have threading support and would use 100% of your CPU would loose out, as you'd be missing that .20GHz per core. But in terms of multitasking, you would notice a big improvement.
Very good point. I'll have to consider that. So I could run two processor intensive non-SMP programs and they would run on different cores? That would be beneficial.

jobsonandrew
January 18th, 2008, 11:04 AM
But in terms of multitasking, you would notice a big improvement.
Hmm I didnt think about that.. I did notice a vast improvement when going from single to dual though, mainly because if something is using 100% of one of the cores, the other core can take over.. This is most noticable when windows is in the midst of a hilariously funny slow-to-a-crawl-too-busy-to-open-task-manager crash... as with a dual core you still have another core to recover the machine..

Still i'll probably wait a bit to go to quad core... or see what kind of speeds/prices tripple core CPUs go for once AMD release them

proalan
January 18th, 2008, 12:56 PM
i hope your not doing this just to get that 5.9 rating in vista. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) vista only benchmarks the single core. you should be able to verify this if you can disable the other core in bios.

Quad-cores are impressive but tricky with some software particularly games.

For most current applications there will be no performance gain and can be detrimental, its like assigning one person to change the lightbulb and having 3 people supervising.

Its already quite an impressive rig you've got set up, but ultimately its a question of what you use it for.

jobsonandrew
January 18th, 2008, 02:44 PM
im not just doing it to get the 5.9 rating in vista lol.. i was just interested to know the benefits.. I like the lightbulb changing example lol its spot on

the machine is mainly used for gaming (hence vista in the first place) as i use ubuntu and my laptop a lot of the time

PS I ran World in Conflict on it for the first time last night, very smooth and playable.. great game

shadrach343
January 30th, 2008, 11:02 PM
I have a phenom I dropped into an old dual core mobo just by getting latest bios. I run it overclocked to 2.5GHz but I was able to go 2.8GHz on my previous CPU (an Athlon 64 X2 4000+). What will really upset you is that AMD put the 'bug' fix into the BIOS that really kills the performance. I run mine 100% all cores (Boinc user) and it cannot get the same work done as a system with your CPU running at only 80%. Likely it won't benchmark any better either.

BlueKoala
February 13th, 2008, 07:48 AM
Looking at benchmarks the Phenom does look very attractive compared with the Intel. Although many users will ever use it's full potential, see that the 1000$ Intel quad core performs better than the 250$ Phenom, then turn around and go buy an Intel Celeron system from Dell thinking they have the greatest system on the market. The truth is Phenoms are plenty powerful and thanks to the CPU wars going on, the consumer gets the better part of the bargain. You can actually get a top of the line system for under 2000$ which includes 4gbs of ram, 2x midrange video cards and 2x HDD in raid 0. But to get back to the topic, you probably don't need 4 cores at this time as the x2 6000 is plenty of power. I think your video card will be the bottleneck before the processor. If you're using vista for gaming it would also be recommended to stock up on ram a bit more as Vista consumes ram like it was an addiction. I also wouldn't suggest upgrading because you have an AM2 socket rather than AM2+. The difference is not big, but Hyper Transport 3.0 is likely what would make a slightly noticeable difference between the x2 and a phenom.

Atomic Dog
February 13th, 2008, 07:59 AM
To me all dual core machines are fairly impressive in the performance category. Heck I build pentium dual core setups for workstations and the 2gig+ flavors really scream compared to the older P4's -and those are bottom of the barrel $99 cpu/mobo deals. I'm guessing the AMD64/phenom in a 3ghz flavor with 2meg of die cache would be pretty darn peppy.

I'll be honest, the quad core systems I have seen really don't seem much better. Seems that other poeple also seem to think their potential isn't being leveraged.

BlueKoala
March 20th, 2008, 05:15 AM
I now received my phenom. I can say that I am NOT disapointed. I do all sorts of stuff at the same time now and it keeps going strong. While the q6600 may be better bang for buck, I vote with my dollars. I wouldn't buy a better chip for cheaper if it means that emperor palpatine was capitalizing on it. Although this phenom 9500 seems like plenty of power for now, I did invest in a good motherboard so I can swap CPU's in the next year or so. Maybe frame my current one and hang it on a wall, to show that this is one of the CPUs that have the TLB erratum :)

utUtu
March 23rd, 2008, 04:27 AM
I now received my phenom. I can say that I am NOT disapointed. I do all sorts of stuff at the same time now and it keeps going strong. While the q6600 may be better bang for buck, I vote with my dollars. I wouldn't buy a better chip for cheaper if it means that emperor palpatine was capitalizing on it. Although this phenom 9500 seems like plenty of power for now, I did invest in a good motherboard so I can swap CPU's in the next year or so. Maybe frame my current one and hang it on a wall, to show that this is one of the CPUs that have the TLB erratum :)

Just curious, was your mobo a native am2+ or upgraded am2? I have an asus m2a-vm which has a bios upgrade to support the phenom. I was thinking of getting a phenom myself but trying to feel what's the best way out there. Right now my local Frys has a special 9600 with an ECS mobo for $169US. Tempting. The cpu alone list $200us at newegg. What do you think?