Opinion on Phenom

[VulkanBros]

I know a guy who will sell me a AMD Black Edition AMD Phenom 9600 / 2.3 GHz Processor for around 170$ - Overall - Is it worth it ??

[hat]

here's retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244

sure go for it just make sure your board supports it

[Darknova]

Definately. The Phenoms are still a good chip. They're just not as good as the current intels.

[Mussels]

They overclock poorly, but the cost of a new intel mobo as well as CPU is a problem if you already have a compatible mobo.

If your mobo doesnt support phenom, just go intel :D

[tkpenalty]

Phenoms are fairly inexpensive quad core CPUs, I have to say, wait for the B3 stepping to come out. While intel does boast better perf, they are somewhat more expensive in contrast.

However some newegg buyers report dead cores, etcetera... wtf?

[Atnevon]

I do not want to start a 2v4 core battle. But from experiance, and a Designer, the 4 is only worth it if you multi-task alot or do extensive Video editing work. But for the price they gave you for the chip, it sounds good. I'm not a fanboy of any brand, but the Phenom sound decent as long as you don't rip into benchmark sporting, and it will do the job it is meant to do.

[VulkanBros]

Okay thanks....

Would it be better with a Black Edition X2 6400 ??
( I don´t know if the Black Edition Phenom´s are to compare with the X2 Black editions´s - in terms of overclock´ability )

And yes....my ASUS Crosshair supports AMD Quadcore.....

The rig is meant for gaming

[Darren]

Okay thanks....

Would it be better with a Black Edition X2 6400 ??
( I don´t know if the Black Edition Phenom´s are to compare with the X2 Black editions´s - in terms of overclock´ability )

And yes....my ASUS Crosshair supports AMD Quadcore.....

The rig is meant for gaming

You already have a 6000+ X2, so moving one model number higher to the 6400+ will not benefit you much. Either get a cheap Phenom 9500 if your motherboard is already compatible keeping in mind that the L3 cache is faulty, or get an Intel Q6600 or better if your current motherboard can not support Phenoms.

Edit: to be frank, your current 6000+ X2 is more than enough for sufficient gaming.

[newtekie1]

For the price, I would say go for it.

It has a faultly L3 cache, and runs slower than Intel's offerings, but still easily gets the job done in gaming. They overclock pretty poorly also, but for $170 I would be hard to pass up.

[VulkanBros]

You already have a 6000+ X2, so moving one model number higher to the 6400+ will not benefit you much. Either get a cheap Phenom 9500 if your motherboard is already compatible keeping in mind that the L3 cache is faulty, or get an Intel Q6600 or better if your current motherboard can not support Phenoms.

Edit: to be frank, your current 6000+ X2 is more than enough for sufficient gaming.

= TRUE.....but what the heck...I only live 1 time....

[DaMulta]

I'd trade a 6400+ for a 9600.......

[trog100]

an advert for dual core intel..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/4gig.jpg

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/pixx.jpg

or alternatively who needs four cores to multitask.. the super pi was run with six games running in the background..

trog

ps.. the performance difference bewteen amd and intel is getting silly..

[Mussels]

an advert for dual core intel..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/4gig.jpg

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/pixx.jpg

or alternatively who needs four cores to multitask.. the super pi was run with six games running in the background..

trog

ps.. the performance difference bewteen amd and intel is getting silly..

i do that all the time... even with 4GB of ram, the pause to re-load the game out of swap files takes a few seconds (10-30)

ofc superpi wont be affected, set it to real time priority or pause the games and no one will notice a thing :)

[trog100]

the games were not paused.. as u can see by the cpu usage.. 100% on one core a small amount on the other.. this was after the super pi run.. it did affect the score it dropped it from 11-ish to 13-sh..

i still found it remarkable thow to be honest.. i expected a huge drop..

trog

[Mussels]

the games were not paused.. as u can see by the cpu usage.. 100% on one core a small amount on the other.. this was after the super pi run.. it did affect the score it dropped it from 11-ish to 13-sh..

i still found it remarkable thow to be honest.. i expected a huge drop..

trog

Some games auto-pause, and the CPU usage drops if you dont have the window open (If its minimised, audio stops, and if you're dead etc not much really happens)

Not arguing its not impressive here, just saying that any dual core with a lot of ram can pull it off if they try.

[overclocker]

i love my 9500 phenom and have it clocked at 2.662mhz 24/7 :) go for it !

[trog100]

Not arguing its not impressive here, just saying that any dual core with a lot of ram can pull it off if they try

any wolfdale might be able to.. not many others. thow.. and not wishing to labour the point its very nearly twice as fast as the fastest amd chip with nothing running in the backround.. its impressive period..

as i said the performance difference between amd and intel is getting silly..

trog

ps.. sadly it aint even fanboy talk.. just todays reality..

[ShadowFold]

Just get a 6400+ for that price.

[VulkanBros]

any wolfdale might be able to.. not many others. thow.. and not wishing to labour the point its very nearly twice as fast as the fastest amd chip with nothing running in the backround.. its impressive period..

as i said the performance difference between amd and intel is getting silly..

trog

ps.. sadly it aint even fanboy talk.. just todays reality..

Youre right trog....BUT as your sig says :
Ignore the truth.. follow the herd.. you will make more friends that way and life will be easier..
I´m just replacing "herd" with "heart".....

[Wile E]

an advert for dual core intel..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/4gig.jpg
http://www.cavecom.com/pics/pixx.jpg

or alternatively who needs four cores to multitask.. the super pi was run with six games running in the background..

trog

ps.. the performance difference bewteen amd and intel is getting silly..Yeah, but how much did game performance suffer? And 2 sec in SuperPi 1M is significant. That's an 18% performance hit compared to the 11sec score.

[TechnicalFreak]

Actually before I got an offer from a friend to buy a combo of mobo/ram/cpu from him I was thinking about getting a Quad from Intel. But then a voice in my head said:
"That is more power than You're ever going to use..".

And that's true. I don't play games so much, and if I do it's older games. I mainly do music and feel that the 9600 I bought will do the work just as well. Just waiting for my case and the graphics card (wherever they are...).

[trog100]

Yeah, but how much did game performance suffer? And 2 sec in SuperPi 1M is significant. That's an 18% performance hit compared to the 11sec score.

way less than u think wile.. and an 18% drop or not 13-ish seconds is still a pretty good super pi score..

i sometimes get the impression u argue with me just for the hell of it.. he he

so we have on intel dual core 45nm chip clocked 500mhz less than what its capable off pulling off a 13-ish second super pi to 1 million run with six games fully loaded and running but alt/tabbed into the background..

compare that with 26 seconds or so my overclocked amd chip managed with just windows running..

as i said the performance gap between intel and amd is getting silly..

love your "from the heart comment" vulcan.. but it take more "heart" than i have..

trog

[Mussels]

way less than u think wile.. and an 18% drop or not 13-ish seconds is still a pretty good super pi score..

i sometimes get the impression u argue with me just for the hell of it.. he he

so we have on intel dual core 45nm chip clocked 500mhz less than what its capable off pulling off a 13-ish second super pi to 1 million run with six games fully loaded and running but alt/tabbed into the background..

compare that with 26 seconds or so my overclocked amd chip managed with just windows running..

as i said the performance gap between intel and amd is getting silly..

love your "from the heart comment" vulcan.. but it take more "heart" than i have..

trog

My FX62 ($1200 retail au) is slower than an allendale E4400 ($180 au). Extreme example, but funny nonetheless.

[trog100]

the amd truth is that sad i feel bloody guilty for pointing it out.. the phenom is a disaster compared to what intel has currently on offer..

like it or not it seems the case.. :(

trog

[PVTCaboose1337]

I say if you have the board for it, buy it. If not Intel is the way to go ATM. I think that I will go Phenom as my board supports it, but if it did not I would switch in a second.

[flashstar]

I'm holding out for the B3. I'm giving AMD until June for this. At that point, I will upgrade to whatever is fastest between Intel and AMD for less than $300. If the Phenom B3 can overclock to 3+ ghz, then I will probably go with that over an E8500, but if not then a 4.3ghz E8500 here I come.

[Wile E]

way less than u think wile.. and an 18% drop or not 13-ish seconds is still a pretty good super pi score..

i sometimes get the impression u argue with me just for the hell of it.. he he

so we have on intel dual core 45nm chip clocked 500mhz less than what its capable off pulling off a 13-ish second super pi to 1 million run with six games fully loaded and running but alt/tabbed into the background..

compare that with 26 seconds or so my overclocked amd chip managed with just windows running..

as i said the performance gap between intel and amd is getting silly..

love your "from the heart comment" vulcan.. but it take more "heart" than i have..

trog
I don't disagree with the AMD vs Intel argument. But I argue because you tend to state things as pure fact, when, in fact, there is a lot of gray area involved. I just point out the gray area. Playing "Devil's Advocate", so to speak.

With your test up there, properly set affinities, and see the performance boost. Then do the same on a quad core, and see the performance difference. The argument I'm making is not whether something is "good enough", but rather what is better.

[trog100]

i wasnt really playing the "how many cores are better arguement" with that test wile..

i loaded those six games because i was curious to see how 32 bit XP handled its 4 gig memory address limit when it had to swopfile.. the six games were the only way i could think of to fill up my ram..

i didnt actually try playing them all.. i just checked they all ran in a reasonable fashion.. i did play serious sam for twenty minutes cos it amused me.. i could not tell i had the other five games loaded..

i just ran the super pi as an afterthought.. i was surprised at the result..

so what does the test prove as fact.. i can play serious sam with five other big games loaded without even knowing they are loaded..

my dual core wolfdale cpu can pull off a very good by normal standards super pi score with six games loaded..

two facts i recon that are not in dispute..

but it does tend to suggest i have way more cpu power and memory than i personally need.. even with only two cores..

one other fact.. windows was not making full use of my two cores.. this isnt fact but i tend to think it rarely does..

as to the "what does it better argument".. well a slower quad would not do the super pi test as well even with those six games loaded.. thats a fact..

an example of a quad at roughly the same speed.. without six games running in the background.. one assumes set up for super pi benching scores..

giorgos th.: 12.593 (Intel Q6600 @ 4023

make of all this what u will.. its an example of multitasking.. not how well more cores work with an app set up to use more cores.. to be honest i think there are only about half a dozen at most apps out there that will effectively use four cores..

sadly these half dozen apps are always selected out of the many that dont use four cores to over exaggerate the benefits of four cores..

trog


ps.. and sadly wile.. my world has to be a "good enough" world.. i cant afford the "what is best" one.. he he

[trog100]

and wile.. just to put the devil really on the spot and knowing he loves more cores.. given the choice between two cpus and only two cpus.. which one would u pick.. both can be give a reasonable overclock..

an amd phenom at say 2.7 gig.. or an intel wolfdale at say 4 gig..

which would the devil go for.. ???

trog

[ZenZimZaliben]

There was a time, not long ago, when AMD released a 64Bit CPU for home computers, yet there wasn't a really good 64bit OS. Sure all the NIX based systems ran it, but who games on those..Yet people snatched up those Procs like they were gold. I did as well. Now there is a pretty good 64Bit OS, XP 64, and to a lesser extent Vista 64. remember the big day when Farcry came out with a 64Bit patch and it did add a fair amount of detail to the game. Those AMD chips were pretty future proof.

Multi-core is the next big thing. Parallel computing is simply a better way of computing. So...a quad-core is following the same trend. Now that Quads are out there software WILL catch up and start using multi cores efficiently. Its happening today, in small steps, but it will be here before you know it. When that day comes we will see a lot more then just 4 cores on a CPU.

On topic -> Going with a Quad, even a Phenom, if you don't plan on upgrading in a year or so will be more future proof. IMO.

[trog100]

There was a time, not long ago

it seems an eternity ago in PC terms to me.. and so far i aint seen any good reason to move to a 64 bit operating system.. what real world benefits do u think i would see if i did.. ??

trog

[KieranD]

lets see what the next batch of phenoms do as i wouldnt ever buy a current phenom with all its problems and clocking is bad

AMD cpu have good tech in them they are efficient and are true quad cores so you would expect it to be a powerfuller and faster cpu well not exactly
See intell take like a cpu and juice it up on steroids make it ultra clocking and have a high cache and then for added juice just slap some of them together and even then they slap 2 of thses juiced up freaks together in a ysytem for multi multi core perfomance

its like this amd is a desert eagle and is powerfull and is efficient i mean all it takes is one shot and no head but intel is a uzi and can rattle hundreds of small calibre ammo at a target weapon of choice the uzi (intel)

2 strategy for amd either just juice up thier cpu on roids and pump it full of chache and raw speed its not pretty but it will work OR the hard way actually increase the cache and speed but have optimised drivers that work well in real terms like programs and games an actual architechture that games can utilise instead of having good spec and no real show

EDIT: for 64bit os it is supposed to increase performance and efficiency allow better programing but i dont really see any of this except maybe some 64bit programs and that far cry patch

[ZenZimZaliben]

How about the ability to use more then 3.5Gb's of RAM?

[ZenZimZaliben]

Benefits of 64bit vs 32bit:
Virtual Memory = 16 Terabytes vs 4Gb's
Page File = 512 TeraBytes vs 15 Terabytes
System Cache = 1 terabyte vs 1Gb
Paged Pool = 128Gb vs 470Mb

[Mussels]

and wile.. just to put the devil really on the spot and knowing he loves more cores.. given the choice between two cpus and only two cpus.. which one would u pick.. both can be give a reasonable overclock..

an amd phenom at say 2.7 gig.. or an intel wolfdale at say 4 gig..

which would the devil go for.. ???

trog

Q6600, followed by the wolfdale :P

Its about performance, and i am a quad lover. That said, even with all 4 cores running at full load, i dont think a phenom can match a wolfdale...

it seems an eternity ago in PC terms to me.. and so far i aint seen any good reason to move to a 64 bit operating system.. what real world benefits do u think i would see if i did.. ??

trog

The ability to have more than 4GB of address space in a system.
Lots of people think its just system ram, the real problem is it counts other things to - all hardware uses address space, most notably video cards. 4GB ram + 512MB video card = 4.5GB, so you lose 512MB ram. add a 768MB or 1GB video card (or crossfire/SLI) and problems are gunna be found...

[kenkickr]

I would say for THAT price go for it but make sure your board can support the board. The only big issue is yes you'll have a quad core but non-AM2+ board will NOT let you see the full benefits of the fast HT and other new features of the Phenom's. I just thought you might want to have this info.

[trog100]

i did say "real world" benefits.. the ability to use more than 4 gigs of ram as yet dont fit in the "real world" category for me.. this is still the theoretical benefit stage.. i cant make use of the amount i have.. i certainly wont benefit from any more..

64 bit is full of theoretical benefits.. as yet its totally lacking in real world ones thow.. four years of the hardware being around aint exactly produced much..

trog

[kenkickr]

I know a guy who will sell me a AMD Black Edition AMD Phenom 9600 / 2.3 GHz Processor for around 170$ - Overall - Is it worth it ??

Here is the Asus compatibility chart from Asus: http://event.asus.com/mb/am2_plus/

Sum it up, it should work in your board

[AthlonX2]

i love my phenom 9600 BE the multi tops out at 24.5 on my board...it booted 1 time to 3.2ghz havent gotten there since..overall it much better than my previous setup..and the L3 cache is bugged but you will likely never notice it because it only happens when running virtualization

[joytime360]

I think if you can use it, that's not a bad deal.

[Wile E]

i did say "real world" benefits.. the ability to use more than 4 gigs of ram as yet dont fit in the "real world" category for me.. this is still the theoretical benefit stage.. i cant make use of the amount i have.. i certainly wont benefit from any more..

64 bit is full of theoretical benefits.. as yet its totally lacking in real world ones thow.. four years of the hardware being around aint exactly produced much..

trogNo, it's not theoretical at all. Maybe for gaming, but it absolutely holds a huge advantage to people using large raws in Photoshop, Rendering things in Maya/3ds Max/etc., AutoCad, etc., etc.

You have to look beyond just what's best for you, and consider other possibilities. This is another reason I address your posts a lot. It's nothing personal, I'm just trying to get you to look at the bigger picture.


As for the cpu question, that's actually a tough decision. Athlon and I will be running some comparo benches between his Phenom and my Q6600, using clocks that are as close as possible. So I'll be able to answer then. lol.

[trog100]

wile i consider my use typical use.. i do see a bigger picture.. the point i make is 64 bit as yet for the vast majority of users me included hasnt produced any real world benifts..

there are always exceptions to the rule.. u have a big list of em up your sleeve..

Maya/3ds Max/etc., AutoCad, etc., etc.. come on dude be real.. u will be quoting nasa next..

now if i did use maya.. i would not quote my needs as being relevant to the average user at all.. what i consider "real world" aint so far removed from the norm.. bigger picture my arse.. he he he..

playing that devil again dude..;)

mind u the clever "devil" dodged the spot question nicely.. a nice politicians answer.. a none answer.. he he he

trog

[Wile E]

wile i consider my use typical use.. i do see a bigger picture.. the point i make is 64 bit as yet for the vast majority of users me included hasnt produced any real world benifts..

there are always exceptions to the rule.. u have a big list of em up your sleeve..

Maya/3ds Max/etc., AutoCad, etc., etc.. come on dude be real.. u will be quoting nasa next..

now if i did use maya.. i would not quote my needs as being relevant to the average user at all.. what i consider "real world" aint so far removed from the norm.. bigger picture my arse.. he he he..

playing that devil again dude..;)

mind u the clever "devil" dodged the spot question nicely.. a nice politicians answer.. a none answer.. he he he

trogWell, I know plenty of people that use rendering programs and photoshop, and x64 has been a godsend to them. (Stepfather, best friend, 2 co-workers, and 3 or 4 family friends all benefit from more ram in x64). So to me, this isn't that unusual. There are plenty of gfx artists, drafters, and others that can use more than 4GB. Even if they only do that stuff every once in a while, it still benefits them when they do.


And don't worry, I won't be dodging your cpu question much longer. Plan on running the benches today. lol.

[trog100]

will benches reflect real life wile.. the thing of interest is how much actual core speed/performance makes up for having less of em..

quite clearly the simple statement "quad is better" or quad is more "future proof"isnt true...

at what point do the benefit of having more cores become negated by the slower speed and lack of performance of the extra cores..

to the average user.. not one of your maya useing friends or a nasa scientist..:)

trog

[Wile E]

will benches reflect real life wile.. the thing of interest is how much actual core speed/performance makes up for having less of em..

quite clearly the simple statement "quad is better" or quad is more "future proof"isnt true...

at what point do the benefit of having more cores become negated by the slower speed and lack of performance of the extra cores..

to the average user.. not one of your maya useing friends or a nasa scientist..:)

trogNo, the benches will reflect what the people I know do with their rigs. Mostly Specviewperf10 and Cinebench I think. I'm not worried about benching games, as the gpu plays a bigger role there anyway.


For someone that's a pure gamer, a dual might be better, but not everybody is purely a gamer. And the dual is only better if they plan on upgrading within the next 2 years. If somebody wants to build a rig to have for the next 3+ years, I would still recommend a quad.

[VulkanBros]

Well........trog and wile .... thanx for your, shall we say, prosaic features.....

I got the guy down to 160 bugs.....so I bought it.....

Probably I´ll never use more than 20% of it capasity....but what...it was cheaper than a wolfdale......

I wish there were more girls in this fora...

[trog100]

Well........trog and wile .... thanx for your, shall we say, prosaic features.....

I got the guy down to 160 bugs.....so I bought it.....

Probably I´ll never use more than 20% of it capasity....but what...it was cheaper than a wolfdale......

I wish there were more girls in this fora...

true on all counts vulcan.. he he.. but being obsessed with PC hardware does tend to be a guy thing.. or as we would say in blighty.. a bloke thing..

best of luck dude..

trog

[Mussels]

will benches reflect real life wile.. the thing of interest is how much actual core speed/performance makes up for having less of em..

quite clearly the simple statement "quad is better" or quad is more "future proof"isnt true...

at what point do the benefit of having more cores become negated by the slower speed and lack of performance of the extra cores..

to the average user.. not one of your maya useing friends or a nasa scientist..:)

trog

go play crysis or supreme commander on a single core. Dual core is a NECCESITY for those games. Soon we shall reach teh same point with quads - you do realise everyone ALWAYS has this argument every generation?

Single core Vs hyperthreadign
RAM - i started on 16MB, and that was 'overkill' at the time.
single core vs dual core
dual core vs quad core
SD ram vs DDR ram
DDR vs DDR 2

seriously, this argument goes on and on and on. EVERY time the new tech has won out - it all depends on WHEN to make the switch.
Most of us went quads because we have uses, and they OC pretty good - and we wont be crapping our pants when quad core games come out. we can stick with a 3.6GHz quad for 2 years, and it wont choke on anything. Dont care what speed its at, no single core will handle supreme commander... even at 4GHz.

[trog100]

go play crysis or supreme commander on a single core. Dual core is a NECCESITY for those games. Soon we shall reach teh same point with quads - you do realise everyone ALWAYS has this argument every generation?

Single core Vs hyperthreadign
RAM - i started on 16MB, and that was 'overkill' at the time.
single core vs dual core
dual core vs quad core
SD ram vs DDR ram
DDR vs DDR 2

seriously, this argument goes on and on and on. EVERY time the new tech has won out - it all depends on WHEN to make the switch.
Most of us went quads because we have uses, and they OC pretty good - and we wont be crapping our pants when quad core games come out. we can stick with a 3.6GHz quad for 2 years, and it wont choke on anything. Dont care what speed its at, no single core will handle supreme commander... even at 4GHz.

mussels.. this gets boring.. i have and i can play crysis on a single core.. and i can play supreme commander.. in fact i can and have played all my games with just one core..

i have also posted screenshots useing fraps to bloody prove it..

which game would u like me to demonstrate.. u "assume" i do it for real to find out..

every game i have is perfectly playable with just one core running.. that was with my E6750 at 3.6 gig.. i aint actually run the tests with my current chip..

trog

[Mussels]

mussels.. this gets boring.. i have and i can play crysis on a single core.. and i can play supreme commander.. in fact i can and have played all my games with just one core..

i have also posted screenshots useing fraps to bloody prove it..

which game would u like me to demonstrate.. u "assume" i do it for real to find out..

every game i have is perfectly playable with just one core running.. that was with my E6750 at 3.6 gig.. i aint actually run the tests with my current chip..

trog

i'll play supcom with you.
i'll take screenshots of the in-game benchmark (and its IN-GAME) showing a systems max speed as you play. i can guarantee on any single core, you will end up below +0 (normal speed) and lag the crap out of the game.

[trog100]

lets get crysis out of the way first.. the in game bench.. resolution and settings how i would normally play the game.. 1680 x 1050 all setting on medium except textures and shader on high no AA.. my own choice of playable settings for a tweaked 3870 card and E6750 at 3.6 gig.. thow i did pick these settings when i had an amd system..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/cr-1.jpg

i have never played S/C online.. but offline with hundreds of units all engaged in an epic battle type scenario i dont think i could see 0 fps.. possibly 8 or so wiih one core.. 12 or so with two cores.. not exactly playable in either case but its mostly sit back and watch cos there is that much going on..

i have seen a 3.2 gig P4 come to a dead stop as soon as the massed army is set on the move.. mine can play the game (offline) with only one core thow.. the epic battles are rare and still tolerable..

i also play S/C at 1680 x 1050.. pretty well maxed out..

trog

[Mussels]

lets get crysis out of the way first.. the in game bench.. resolution and settings how i would normally play the game.. 1680 x 1050 all setting on medium except textures and shader on high no AA.. my own choice of playable settings for a tweaked 3870 card and E6750 at 3.6 gig.. thow i did pick these settings when i had an amd system..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/cr-1.jpg

i have never played S/C online.. but offline with hundreds of units all engaged in an epic battle type scenario i dont think i could see 0 fps.. possibly 8 or so wiih one core.. 12 or so with two cores.. not exactly playable in either case but its mostly sit back and watch cos there is that much going on..

i have seen a 3.2 gig P4 come to a dead stop as soon as the massed army is set on the move.. mine can play the game (offline) with only one core thow.. the epic battles are rare and still tolerable..

i also play S/C at 1680 x 1050.. pretty well maxed out..

trog

Crysis benchmark: useless. didnt you see the link in the forums the other day to [H] proving that bench was inaccurate?

Supcom has nothing to do with FPS either - the game SLOWS DOWN to give you more FPS in the original, and in the expansion they became unlinked - you could have 80FPS in the expansion and -7 for game speed, or 2FPS and +8

Play a game of supreme commander or forged alliance with an AI or two on a mid sized (40KM) map (or 81KM if you feel like it). Send me the replay, and we'll do a comparison using the in game bench on the replay.

(Benchmark command is to open the console and type ren_showNetworkStats )
Info appears in the top corner for all players in multi (or just you if in replay)
I would prefer to use the expansion for this, as the FPS is unlinked it would be a pure CPU comparison - we can pick a time when the game is busiest, and take a screeny (of the same area) showing the in game speed.

[SirKeldon]

I was reading this thread mainly cause i'm decided to purchase a Phenom in the next months ... of course, i'll wait till B3 or even more, till B4 stepping, and at that moment i'll ask if my MoBo is also compatible with the 45nm Phenom (Deneb and Deneb-FX) which are supposed to get the way in the 3rd quarter of this year. We'll see.

As for the overclocking, these guys (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQzMywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==) were able to punch out the 9600 till 3Ghz stable for 14hours, that's a 30% level of overclocking, a huge one comparing to the 10-15% most AMD actual chips are able to do. I suppose that guys didn't upgrade the BIOS to not lose performance in front of the TLB-bug, cause that's the main problem of the people when OC'ing a Phenom. So if we wait 4-6-8 months, sure we'll see how chips with B3 (the B2 stepping with the bugs corrected) and B4 are able to overclock till those levels and maybe more. And if things are good on the Phenom's 65nm, sure it will ensure the rock to the 45nm roadmap.

trog100, the 64bits are so so so useful, but as much technology, it needs a lot of time to reach its tops. It's not just about the memory size, it's about the MEMORY AND DATA SPEED, even if you're working on a 32bit system, the performance of a 64bits chip is clearly superior, why? cause it's able to page more memory in less time, the CPU is able to increase the number of bits in every cycle, cause the address bus and the data bus are bigger, which affects clearly ALL the system perfomance. My AMD64 3500+ @ 2,2Ghz with 1GB RAM was nearly in the same way of performance of a P4 550 3,4GHz with 2GB in all levels.

Look at the 32bits, the first "mass" processor of that arch was intel 80386, launched on 1986. The first "mass" 64bit processor is from 2003, with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron64 lines, though the Itaniums of Intel were a total fail in 2001 and they sured "this is our ONLY 64bits processor we'll do" ... and now look at the C2D and C2Q, they're all based on x86_64, though they say it's IA-64, but really are the same instructions AMD made popular 5 years ago. Why? Cause it's mean to be better in any use you give to the machine. Intel's now kicking ass with the dual and quad arch USING AMD64 arch, they're doing things "well". The multicore's helps a lot to increase the "hard" CPU tasks, the cluster-based systems were very popular running *nix machines, it helps the performancing specially multitasking, and WE ALL HAVE multitask OS's, even if you're just GAMING, the OS has a lot of systems running in background, that's multitask.

If you take sight to the past, you'll remember even with high clock speeds, if you used one-core CPU for encoding a video, ate all the CPU and if you wanted to open another thing, took "hours" to do, the system was stressed; adding one core more allowed to balance that load and bringing the possibility of making a real "hard" multitask use without getting stuck. So, 4 cores are of course better than 2, maybe not with the actual software ... 32bits arch had a roadmap of almost 17 years to reach its tops, "mass" 64bits and multicore are just 5/3 years old, let's wait a bit ... but actually for any task on video, image or audio editing takes benefit of the multicore 64bits, since it's more balanced, speeded up for the core's and also the size of data and adress buses, multiply that things and you'll find why is better :)

[ChillyMyst]

go play crysis or supreme commander on a single core. Dual core is a NECCESITY for those games. Soon we shall reach teh same point with quads - you do realise everyone ALWAYS has this argument every generation?

Single core Vs hyperthreadign
RAM - i started on 16MB, and that was 'overkill' at the time.
single core vs dual core
dual core vs quad core
SD ram vs DDR ram
DDR vs DDR 2

seriously, this argument goes on and on and on. EVERY time the new tech has won out - it all depends on WHEN to make the switch.
Most of us went quads because we have uses, and they OC pretty good - and we wont be crapping our pants when quad core games come out. we can stick with a 3.6GHz quad for 2 years, and it wont choke on anything. Dont care what speed its at, no single core will handle supreme commander... even at 4GHz.

gotta call bullshit on this, when i got sup com i was using a 3500+@2.95gz, and it played FLAWLESSLY at 1600x1200 with the map full of units and all the gfx cranked up, i think your singel core system sucked or something, now sup commander got a boost going from 2gb of ram to 4 i can say that, and when u boosted ram speed and lower timings it got anothet boost, but moving from singel to dual didnt make a drastic diffrance, i mean i could run more stuff in the background as i game but supcom didnt show me anything new, other then studdering till i installed the dual core optimizer.......

and the k10s are fine,and the bug dosnt effect normal users, i have seen a shitload of people across many forums try and get the chip to error due to the bugg, none have managed it......

u cant get most k10's past 2.6/2.7 currently but they are a first gen chip based on a new core, the core2 chips where NOT a new design, they where just an evolution on the pentium-m, hence intel had alot of experiance and builds behind them when they started producing the c2 chips, hence the massive overclocks.

im not rushing to grab a k10 at the moment because theres no fuking point, i game and brows the net mostly on my system, also chat on msn/yahoo/gtalk/exct nothing that needs quad cores yet.

when the kuma and rana cores come out, then i will start watching for a new chip and possably a new board to go with it(if i can get a ta770 cheap or in trade for my asus m2n-sli delux i will hop on it) i have never gone for the top chip or even the higher end chips, i have alwase found that for my $ i get a better value getting the best overclocking chip i can grab.

or in the case of this chip a buddy sold it to me for 1/2 retail price, and i couldnt pass it up!!!

im quite happy with my system, i would sooner buy an hdd then a cpu at the moment(i need more space :/ )

[trog100]

two S/P examples i have just done with only one core running..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/sc-1.jpg

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/sc-2.jpg

an epic battle worse case scenario.. with just one core running.. all perfectly playable..

the crysis bench does show an optimistic fps level.. but its set at the settings i played the game at.. the cpu benches run at at 37 fps average at those settings..

i also could play the game at those settings with one core.. what more is needed.. ???

trog

[ChillyMyst]

haha trog so you finnely ditched creative!!!! i know ALOT of people who have done the same, specly since the x-fi and all its driver/hardware problems and the fact that onboard HD audio has gotten ALOT better over the last few years :)

i had an audigy, i have tryed x-fi in this rig, honestly, i dont see the point, creative support sucks, sure u get more noise in some games that use eax3-5 but......who wants that cluttered crap destracting them as they play, trying to place 1000 diffrent sounds all at once......when the human brain cant prosess even close to that....blah.....

[trog100]

what the f-ck am i trying to say.. he he..

well hardware like 64 bit and zillions of cores run at least three to four years in advance of the bloody software that takes advantage of the hardware..

the advantages of 64 bit and four core chips are totally over hyped and as yet are wasted on the average gamer or average user..

or to put it another way.. if i can do everything i do with just one core in use and not notice the bloody difference why the hell should i buy a quad..

this is just me.. but i dont recon i differ much from the average TPU reader..

in two years time things might well be different but by then it will be time for my next throw out the lot and start again type upgrade..

trog

[SirKeldon]

trog, i can feel what you're saying, maybe you'll get the same speed cause both cores are working nearly the same one but speed != performance, usually when you play you don't do anything else, but ... what about encoding a video while you're playing? try it with one core and then with two cores, you'll see the performance gain, in any different or "not-extreme" case of course, multicore won't help that much. Maybe i'm too exigent as i compile too much on GNU/Linux systems while doing another things but it depends on what you're looking for and what fits better to you, at this time, i'm agree with you, there's no need to go for a Quad, but in a year we'll see. And after that, we'll see how software uses the quad-potence, or at least, i hope so.

ChillyMist, that support you're telling is damn true, and when going to GNU/Linux is even worst, drivers are always unofficial and ASIO is not supported (though Linux is most powerful to rip any data) ... neither on MacOS X, however, i'm pretty satisfied of my Audigy 4 Pro, the external rack is great to plug the guitar, headphones and also the microphone at the same time and she's 4 years old and still rocking with not too much issues, but i'm sure i'll look Steinberg next time, they produce high-end professional sound quality products.

PS: I know it's such "crazy" thing to play and encode a video at the same time ... but as a stability and performance test it's priceless :D

[Mussels]

i also could play the game at those settings with one core.. what more is needed.. ???
trog

The benchmark command i asked you to include?
and setting the game to one core is completely innacurate, other parts of the system can still use that core.

Disable that core entirely (so that windows cant see it... they talked about it in the 3dm06 thread) or dont say you're on a single core. Even if the game isnt using it, video card and sound card drivers can, as well as all other apps in the system.

Edit: you too chilly... FPS had nothing to do with game SPEED in the original game. the game slowed down to increase your FPS.
The benchmark command shows this more accurately, as it shows what SPEED the game is running at.

[ZenZimZaliben]

well hardware like 64 bit and zillions of cores run at least three to four years in advance of the bloody software that takes advantage of the hardware..

Im pretty sure a 64bit OS takes advantage of a 64Bit chip...Im guessing it would be pretty hard to run a 64Bit OS on a 32bit chip.


the advantages of 64 bit and four core chips are totally over hyped and as yet are wasted on the average gamer or average user..

Yes the average user/average game...that comment would work on a Dell/HP forum. Very few people on here are your typical average users or average gamers.


or to put it another way.. if i can do everything i do with just one core in use and not notice the bloody difference why the hell should i buy a quad..


Then why did you buy a dual core?

[trog100]

i just to finish off before i get shot for labouring a point too much..

one worse case scenario world in conflict shot at 1680 x 1050 settings fully maxed out for dx 9.. with just one core..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/wc-1.jpg

why did i buy a dual core.. stupid question.. they dont sell decent fast single cores any more.. nuff said..

but i am just a lone voice.. forums are about consensus opinion.. which sadly is mostly wrong.. not much point in trying to go against it thow.. he he he

trog

ps..my boot ini.. option two runs with just one core.. its as disabled as i can make.. windows and cpu-z dosnt see it.. i have no reason to "assume" other things do..

[boot loader]
timeout=12
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /PAE
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional one cpu" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /NUMPROC=1
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS.0="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /PAE

ps 2.. i dont have any help from super creative sound cards either.. he he

[ZenZimZaliben]

yeah, it was a stupid question. goes along perfect with a stupid argument. change will happen doesn't matter if you believe it will or not.

Yes you are the one true voice in the forum. I can't understand why anyone would disagree with you. Then again we are all just sheep. Perhaps we need a leader to show us the way...any volunteers.

[ChillyMyst]

trog, i can feel what you're saying, maybe you'll get the same speed cause both cores are working nearly the same one but speed != performance, usually when you play you don't do anything else, but ... what about encoding a video while you're playing? try it with one core and then with two cores, you'll see the performance gain, in any different or "not-extreme" case of course, multicore won't help that much. Maybe i'm too exigent as i compile too much on GNU/Linux systems while doing another things but it depends on what you're looking for and what fits better to you, at this time, i'm agree with you, there's no need to go for a Quad, but in a year we'll see. And after that, we'll see how software uses the quad-potence, or at least, i hope so.

ChillyMist, that support you're telling is damn true, and when going to GNU/Linux is even worst, drivers are always unofficial and ASIO is not supported (though Linux is most powerful to rip any data) ... neither on MacOS X, however, i'm pretty satisfied of my Audigy 4 Pro, the external rack is great to plug the guitar, headphones and also the microphone at the same time and she's 4 years old and still rocking with not too much issues, but i'm sure i'll look Steinberg next time, they produce high-end professional sound quality products.

PS: I know it's such "crazy" thing to play and encode a video at the same time ... but as a stability and performance test it's priceless :D

i regularly run mediacoder and game and do other things

normal open apps at any one time,

pidgin(multi im client)
yahoo9beta
opera with at least 10 tabs open
mediacoder x64
tcmp playing tunes or even a movie
WoW/nwn2/other games
as well as other memory res apps like nod32, anydvd, and a slew of other apps

only thing i do now that i didnt with singel core, i didnt use to run mediacoder all the time(wasnt encoding/recoding much anime then!!!)

truth to tell, i would love a quad and new board to go with it, but do i need it NO, would it be for anything but braging rights and as a new toy NO, so am i getting one asap NO.

and creative will never properly support linux, same as they will never fully and properly support 64bit xp or vista.

screw creative.......i h8 them!!!

[Solaris17]

does anyone know which phenoms dont have the TLC bug or w/e its called?

[ChillyMyst]

the b3 stepign fixes it, there will be no b4 steping accorind to amd.

the bug DOSNT MATTER TO HOME USERS, just dissable the patch in bios or dont use a patched bios, the ONLY time its been conferemed to cause a problem is under HEAVY vertulization with all 4 cores paged at 100%, thats not bloody likely on any home system since, common now, nobody really uses virtulization at home yet, and by the time they do, u will need a faster cpu to really make use of it, even if you made use of it, to have the bug cause a problem u would need to have the cpu's paged at 100% use.......takes some extream conditions to get all the right pegs int he right holes to cause a crash!!!

people on other forums have been acctivly trying and nobody i found has succeded, some thought they had but couldnt reporduce it after lowering their overclocks a notch.