Which one is better as am going to buy the AMD Phenom™ II X6 but most of the applications i use do not support dual or multiple cpus so if we compare a single core from e8400 to a single core from AMD Phenom™ II X6 which one is faster?
ok if we compare single core from AMD Phenom™ II X6 to a single core from e8400???
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Basically equal clock for clock. PII might have an edge.
If you want single thread performance the PII x6 is not the right choice. It's a great chip if you want 6 affordable cores, but if you want single thread performance even something like an i3 will be cheaper, faster clock for clock, and can hit 4.5ghz on a stock cooler.
If you want single thread performance the PII x6 is not the right choice. It's a great chip if you want 6 affordable cores, but if you want single thread performance even something like an i3 will be cheaper, faster clock for clock, and can hit 4.5ghz on a stock cooler.
Quote:
Depends on what x6 processor your talking about. The e8400 is a 6M Cache, 3.00 GHz. Each core runs as 3GHz.
Let say you get an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. Its 3.2GHz with Cache 6MB. Each core runs as 3.2 GHz so each of its cores are slightly faster.
If you want to overclock it the AMD will hand down kill that e8400. All around the X6 is much better even in duel core apps.
Oh and the X6 has a 2000 fsb vs the 8400 1333 fsb.
Thats just my opinion on the matter.
Originally Posted by kitt3  Which one is better as am going to buy the AMD Phenom™ II X6 but most of the applications i use do not support dual or multiple cpus so if we compare a single core from e8400 to a single core from AMD Phenom™ II X6 which one is faster? |
Let say you get an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. Its 3.2GHz with Cache 6MB. Each core runs as 3.2 GHz so each of its cores are slightly faster.
If you want to overclock it the AMD will hand down kill that e8400. All around the X6 is much better even in duel core apps.
Oh and the X6 has a 2000 fsb vs the 8400 1333 fsb.
Thats just my opinion on the matter.
Joined
·
688 Posts
Quote:
The FSB speed is not comparable between the different architectures.
Also, just because the clock speed is faster doesn't mean the CPU is faster. See: Pentium 4.
If you have single and dual-threaded apps usually and just the occasional quad-threaded, get an X4. The X4 965 has the fastest base clock (since you're not overclocking) and is cheaper. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-727-_-Product
Or you can get an X2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103912
Note: The 955 and 555 will be cheaper than the 965 and 565, and you can overclock them to the same speeds as the more expensive processors by changing a single value in the BIOS
![]()
Originally Posted by Krymore Depends on what x6 processor your talking about. The e8400 is a 6M Cache, 3.00 GHz. Each core runs as 3GHz. Let say you get an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T. Its 3.2GHz with Cache 6MB. Each core runs as 3.2 GHz so each of its cores are slightly faster. If you want to overclock it the AMD will hand down kill that e8400. All around the X6 is much better even in duel core apps. Oh and the X6 has a 2000 fsb vs the 8400 1333 fsb. Thats just my opinion on the matter. |
Also, just because the clock speed is faster doesn't mean the CPU is faster. See: Pentium 4.
If you have single and dual-threaded apps usually and just the occasional quad-threaded, get an X4. The X4 965 has the fastest base clock (since you're not overclocking) and is cheaper. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-727-_-Product
Or you can get an X2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103912
Note: The 955 and 555 will be cheaper than the 965 and 565, and you can overclock them to the same speeds as the more expensive processors by changing a single value in the BIOS
Quote:
Even if you wont overclock a AMD cpu,it is good to OC the northbridge (NB) for better performance.Originally Posted by kitt3;13090326
wow ok so 2000fsb i assume it means faster than 1333 fsb. Man i guess i should look for an amd cpu that has high Ghz? as for overclocking i wont do any overclocking.
Joined
·
688 Posts
Quote:
Well... What's your budget?
You should go with the 945 if you don't need that much power and are on a budget.
Originally Posted by kitt3 yeah ok but x4 it has high clock base but its only minimal increase i dunno now am so confused. what should i do? |
You should go with the 945 if you don't need that much power and are on a budget.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2
you could check under 3d rendering, cinebench have multi and single threaded charts.
for single threaded applications i would pick the faster architecture first, then clocks and finally core count.
you could check under 3d rendering, cinebench have multi and single threaded charts.
for single threaded applications i would pick the faster architecture first, then clocks and finally core count.
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
I imagine in most instances, it'd probably be similar at stock speeds. If anything, I wouldn't be too hesitant to say the Core 2 Wolfdale has a slight better IPC performance.
Whoever said the AMD would "hands down kill the other" if you'd overclock them has it wrong. I routinely see almost all E8x00s at 4.0GHz and above but Phenom IIs aren't uncommon at all in the 3.xGHz range.
If you don't need more cores than the Core 2 Duo E8400 has, going to any Phenom II is a side-grade at absolute best. Since you already have the Core 2, you'd be better sticking with it. If you ask anyone who went from a Wolfdale Core 2 to a Phenom II (X4), I imagine they'd say there was some regret.
Save your money and do it right. Get more threads/cores AND more performance per core, namely, Sandy Bridge or beyond. If you do need more cores, a Core 2 Quad is still a better choice as you wouldn't need a new motherboard and it'd likely be cheaper.
In other words, either way you look at it, I don't see much of a reason to go from a Core 2 to Phenom II right now unless you get it very cheap.
Whoever said the AMD would "hands down kill the other" if you'd overclock them has it wrong. I routinely see almost all E8x00s at 4.0GHz and above but Phenom IIs aren't uncommon at all in the 3.xGHz range.
If you don't need more cores than the Core 2 Duo E8400 has, going to any Phenom II is a side-grade at absolute best. Since you already have the Core 2, you'd be better sticking with it. If you ask anyone who went from a Wolfdale Core 2 to a Phenom II (X4), I imagine they'd say there was some regret.
Save your money and do it right. Get more threads/cores AND more performance per core, namely, Sandy Bridge or beyond. If you do need more cores, a Core 2 Quad is still a better choice as you wouldn't need a new motherboard and it'd likely be cheaper.
In other words, either way you look at it, I don't see much of a reason to go from a Core 2 to Phenom II right now unless you get it very cheap.
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
Quote:
Where did I say clock speed was all there was to it? I touched up on the other bits, like IPC. IPC-wise, the Core 2 probably has a slight edge in many cases, but last I checked, they're roughly comparable, so in that regard, I said it's a side-grade at best.
How is it an obvious upgrade if it's not going to perform better yet cost money to obtain, versus what they already have now and will cost nothing? In that regard, it's a downgrade if anything (because it's an unneeded net loss for no performance gain).
Originally Posted by Heavy MG 
There's more to a CPU than just clock speeds and cores... The Phenom II is an obvious upgrade. |
How is it an obvious upgrade if it's not going to perform better yet cost money to obtain, versus what they already have now and will cost nothing? In that regard, it's a downgrade if anything (because it's an unneeded net loss for no performance gain).
Quote:
Lol bias more?
Haven't you seen any reviews/comparison tests?
Phenom II compares to the Core i5 and i7 ( for the most part the i7 is a i5 with HT) in some areas.
Not to mention when comparing OC'd Vs. OC'd,most tests don't have the Phenom II's NB overclocked which adds another <10% performance boost.
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet Where did I say clock speed was all there was to it? I touched up on the other bits, like IPC. IPC-wise, the Core 2 probably has a slight edge in many cases, but last I checked, they're roughly comparable, so in that regard, I said it's a side-grade at best. How is it an obvious upgrade if it's not going to perform better yet cost money to obtain, versus what they already have now and will cost nothing? In that regard, it's a downgrade if anything (because it's an unneeded net loss for no performance gain). |
Haven't you seen any reviews/comparison tests?
Phenom II compares to the Core i5 and i7 ( for the most part the i7 is a i5 with HT) in some areas.
Not to mention when comparing OC'd Vs. OC'd,most tests don't have the Phenom II's NB overclocked which adds another <10% performance boost.
Joined
·
2,832 Posts
I'm not being bias at all.
Can you link to any tests done which show the Phenom II being faster than the Core 2 clock for clock to the extent that warrants him putting down the money for a new motherboard and CPU? If not, then you should understand what I'm saying.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news-a...ive/19619.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/4
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/38
That last one is supposed to be single-threaded performance, but since a 3.5GHz Phenom II X4 just barely loses to a 3.3GHz Phenom II X6, I'm going to presume there's still a small difference being made by more cores? If that's the case, the 3.33GHz Core 2 being faster than both is only more highlighted as having better IPC.
It looks to me like IPC is "roughly similar, but perhaps slightly better on Core 2", which is exactly what I said. I don't know I'm being called bias by stating this as an answer in a thread where the original poster asked about it. I'm not being bias. If anything, I'm being unbiased by telling him not to waste his money on doing a lateral, and instead advising to save for the future.
But hey, maybe you're right. What do I know? Afterall, girls can't overclock, so they probably can't think straight either (I'm joking, don't think I'm mad or accusing you of insinuating that). Maybe he'd be better spending money on a new board, CPU, and RAM (Phenom II) for next to no increase (keeping in mind he's after IPC performance too, not so much more cores), versus a new CPU, board, and RAM (Sandy Bridge or whatever is beyond) for a bigger increase to warrant the money spent. I never would have guessed. Sorry for trying to offer some reasonable advice about a purchasing decision.
Can you link to any tests done which show the Phenom II being faster than the Core 2 clock for clock to the extent that warrants him putting down the money for a new motherboard and CPU? If not, then you should understand what I'm saying.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news-a...ive/19619.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/4
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/38
That last one is supposed to be single-threaded performance, but since a 3.5GHz Phenom II X4 just barely loses to a 3.3GHz Phenom II X6, I'm going to presume there's still a small difference being made by more cores? If that's the case, the 3.33GHz Core 2 being faster than both is only more highlighted as having better IPC.
It looks to me like IPC is "roughly similar, but perhaps slightly better on Core 2", which is exactly what I said. I don't know I'm being called bias by stating this as an answer in a thread where the original poster asked about it. I'm not being bias. If anything, I'm being unbiased by telling him not to waste his money on doing a lateral, and instead advising to save for the future.
But hey, maybe you're right. What do I know? Afterall, girls can't overclock, so they probably can't think straight either (I'm joking, don't think I'm mad or accusing you of insinuating that). Maybe he'd be better spending money on a new board, CPU, and RAM (Phenom II) for next to no increase (keeping in mind he's after IPC performance too, not so much more cores), versus a new CPU, board, and RAM (Sandy Bridge or whatever is beyond) for a bigger increase to warrant the money spent. I never would have guessed. Sorry for trying to offer some reasonable advice about a purchasing decision.
Joined
·
293 Posts
Please do not go Phenom II from C2D, they are very much on par clock for clock. Also it's end of life, you may as well go Sandy bridge or wait for bulldozer.
What's your budget? You would be best to go Sandy bridge. P67 mobo and i5 2500k if you can afford it. If not maybe go for the i5 2300/2400.
This will also give you room to upgrade to Ivy Bridge if you get a P67 mobo.
What's your budget? You would be best to go Sandy bridge. P67 mobo and i5 2500k if you can afford it. If not maybe go for the i5 2300/2400.
This will also give you room to upgrade to Ivy Bridge if you get a P67 mobo.
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Quote:
this is right, i still have a core 2 rig as a spare that keeps up fine with most games, until you hit a cpu intensive one, single threaded programs run fine.
Originally Posted by Princess Garnet I imagine in most instances, it'd probably be similar at stock speeds. If anything, I wouldn't be too hesitant to say the Core 2 Wolfdale has a slight better IPC performance. Whoever said the AMD would "hands down kill the other" if you'd overclock them has it wrong. I routinely see almost all E8x00s at 4.0GHz and above but Phenom IIs aren't uncommon at all in the 3.xGHz range. If you don't need more cores than the Core 2 Duo E8400 has, going to any Phenom II is a side-grade at absolute best. Since you already have the Core 2, you'd be better sticking with it. If you ask anyone who went from a Wolfdale Core 2 to a Phenom II (X4), I imagine they'd say there was some regret. Save your money and do it right. Get more threads/cores AND more performance per core, namely, Sandy Bridge or beyond. If you do need more cores, a Core 2 Quad is still a better choice as you wouldn't need a new motherboard and it'd likely be cheaper. In other words, either way you look at it, I don't see much of a reason to go from a Core 2 to Phenom II right now unless you get it very cheap. |
Joined
·
11,679 Posts
Quote:
The Phenom II compares well when compared to the i5 and i7 exclusively because they almost always compare the phenom with more cores to the intel chips.
As far as general speed is concerned, the Phenom II architecture is roughly equivalent with the C2D.
Originally Posted by Heavy MG Lol bias more? Haven't you seen any reviews/comparison tests? Phenom II compares to the Core i5 and i7 ( for the most part the i7 is a i5 with HT) in some areas. Not to mention when comparing OC'd Vs. OC'd,most tests don't have the Phenom II's NB overclocked which adds another <10% performance boost. |
As far as general speed is concerned, the Phenom II architecture is roughly equivalent with the C2D.
Joined
·
9,670 Posts
Quote:
What are you talking about? 2000 FSB your freaking out of your mind. That is HT speed. Which is bandwith speed not FSB. THE cpu base frequency is 200 which is the x4 that speed for the FSB. The true FSB is 800 for all the 64-bit from AMD and for the E8400 is 1333 FSB. Now days when Intel or AMD is talking about FSB it is the bandwith of the FSB.
Originally Posted by Krymore Oh and the X6 has a 2000 fsb vs the 8400 1333 fsb. |
Quote:
To add, the CPU-chipset interconnect has nothing to do with performance since there is way more than enough bandwidth.
Originally Posted by dixson01974 What are you talking about? 2000 FSB your freaking out of your mind. That is HT speed. Which is bandwith speed not FSB. THE cpu base frequency is 200 which is the FSB. The true FSB is 200 for all the 64-bit from AMD and for the E8400 is 333 FSB. Now days when Intel or AMD is talking about FSB it is the bandwith of the FSB. |
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
