0

Hmm, first post here in ages. Anyway, I'm getting a new box soon, and I'm torn between an Athlon 64 X2 6400+, or a Phenom (either 9500 or 9600). From what I've seen, the 6400+ outperforms the Phenom by miles on non-multithreaded applications (apps that don't take advantage of multiple cores), but the Phenom outperforms the 6400+ by miles on apps that do. The non-multithreaded apps that I've seen tested are mainly games. I'm not much of a gamer, but I do play a few games every now and then. Most of the time I'm coding and compiling stuff, which, based on what I've seen, should be better on a Phenom because GCC can use multiple cores, but I would like a balance between the 2.

I've also heard that a BIOS fix for the bug in the Phenom absolutely cripples performance. Is this true?

So basically, has anyone here bought a Phenom, and if so what has it been like? Or, does anyone have some good advice about what'd be better for me to get?

6
Contributors
9
Replies
10
Views
9 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by madoverclocker
0

the bios patch to fix the eratta problem in the first batch of processors saps performance by 5% - 50%. it sounds like the phenom will be a good choice for you because of the phenom's superior scaling provided by four native cores and hyper transport 3.0. my advice to you, is to wait 3 - 4 months. by then we will have a full line of eratta free phenoms and a lot more am2+ mobos to choose from. but if you already have a good am2 system and you want some more processing power, just upgrade the cpu to the 6400 and wait for am3. am3 will feature ddr3 memory controller and 45mn cores with 6mb of l3 cashe. it will also have hyper transport speeds of 5000mhz! that's twice as fast as the current phenom.

0

Ugh, don't like the sound of that performance drop. I'm also considering a Core 2 Quad Q6600. It's quad core so I get the power of having quad core for compiling stuff, the clock speed is higher than a Phenom, I can get it cheaper than a Phenom, plus this benchmark rates it far above the Phenom. But, what I don't know is how it compares to a 6400+..

0

the q6600 is a kick ass cpu, i'm probably going to build my next computer around it, but i don't think it will be as good as the phenom for compiling because it's just two dual cores on one die. i'd wait to find out how the phenom performs without eratta and it's accompanying bios patch. what makes the intel "quad core" cpus good at multitasking is thier ability to run two programs that each utilize dual core cpus because it is just a pair of dual cores. but future programs will run better on the amd because it has four independant cores and future programs will be able to take advantage of this. more specificly an amd without eratta and with higher clock speeds. i know i'm not giving you any kind of clear cut answer, but right now the waters are a bit cloudy. each chip has it's advantages, and so do the supporting platforms. like i said earlier, if you have a good am2 platform now just get the 6400 and wait to see where the market goes.

0

imo the only time a quad core is worth it is when you have the software that is able to utilise them :).

0

for my two cents worth, i have the 6400 X2 , 2 gigs of ram, asus m3a32 MVP, 800Wt PS and the 8800GT zotac edition and it bottlenecks. Playing games such as half life 2, cod 4, fear, stalker etc produce low frame rates in the high teens low twenties. Ive switched graphics cards to the Acer model 8800GT, the XTX alpha dog edition and the Leadtek 8800, and all have the same results. I even switched for another cpu in case i had a bad one, and still had the same problem. I dont recommend it for gaming at all, as it bottlenecks the graphics card. Go for the phenom 9.

0

i have a feeling that AMD will not be competative until they make the switch to 45nm and AM3. but then it might not matter because intel's quick path interconnect will appear later this year and could blow the doors off hyper transport.

0

the cpu wasnt to blame for the bottleneck!

did you download the AMD optimizer?

is your RAM a approperiate speed?
(333mhz wont do)
have you got enough ram?

i know it doesnt bottleneck because i have a AMD Athlonx2 +5200 (2.6ghz ea core)
and it mae fps much higher than my old sempron (1.8ghz)

my 8800GTS gets a min of 70fps through every part of call of duty 4! (all maxed)

0

i've had an 8800GTS 512 for a while and used it with 4 different cpu's. first with an amd 4200 x2, then a 6000 x2, then i bought an nvidia 780i and a q6600, now i'm running a q9300. every cpu upgrade brought with it an increase in frames per second in all of my games (crysis, bioshock, world in conflict). especially the jump to intel quad core.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.