which cpu butter with games

[hayder.master]

amd phenom 9850 black or core 2 quad q6600 both of them with 2g ram/800 and video card 8800gt and nforce mobo

[Mussels]

my housemate uses butter made from olive oil.

[/picking on typo]

Since both of those CPU's wont work on the same motherboard, your choices there would make a difference. My vote WOULD go for the Q6600, but the latest batches dont overclock well at all. I'd suggest looking at an E8400 or Q9450 in intel, instead.

[BarbaricSoul]

intel, e8400 preferably, games dont use all 4 cores of the quads

[hayder.master]

q9450 it is expensive cuz i pot a 400$ for mobo and cpu

[hayder.master]

i see e8400 it is seems good for me but am still prefer amd cuz am try now the amd 6000 x2 it is works great with games but i think now tryinng intel

[Mussels]

i see e8400 it is seems good for me but am still prefer amd cuz am try now the amd 6000 x2 it is works great with games but i think now tryinng intel

the majority of people feel that intel is faster. i am one of them. However, we do have some die hard AMD fans that will tell you AMD is better... we have a 3dmark06 thread, which shows at least there that the majority of fast systems are intel/nvidia combos, although the best systems are ATI/intel based. (only with crossfire/most expensive cards, however)


Just keep in mind going intel means a new motherboard... that may sway your decision.

[Nitro-Max]

cpu butter? is that the next gen cooling?

[JrRacinFan]

Actually I prefer toothpaste Nitro ..... :p

To the OP, e8400 is a very promising cpu. Don't overlook it, very very good performing chip.

[Nitro-Max]

Actually I prefer toothpaste Nitro ..... :p

To the OP, e8400 is a very promising cpu. Don't overlook it, very very good performing chip.

Ive read about that been done lol it is cooler than thermal paste but only good for a few hours.

[CH@NO]

You can go for an e8400.....or an Athlon X2 if you're on a tight budget, both brings you nice performance and even if the e8400 are "much more" powerful the AMD X2 versios still fills perfectly today game's requerimients, also today games only uses 2 cores.

The Q6600 are better over the Phenom 9850, at stock performs very similar but in OCking terms the Intel version are far better.

Also, having a nice GPU like yours, you can play any game decently with any dual-core from Athlon X2 and up....

[jonmcc33]

If you get the Core 2 Quad Q6600 do not waste money on an nVIDIA chipset. Get an Intel chipset because you will be much happier.

[Mussels]

If you get the Core 2 Quad Q6600 do not waste money on an nVIDIA chipset. Get an Intel chipset because you will be much happier.

^ mostly why i suggested the E8400, it is well known that Nvidia chipsets do NOT like quad core intels.

[jonmcc33]

^ mostly why i suggested the E8400, it is well known that Nvidia chipsets do NOT like quad core intels.

Not to mention that nVIDIA has admitted that their chipsets for Intel can cause data corruption. Who wants that? :eek:

[Mussels]

Not to mention that nVIDIA has admitted that their chipsets for Intel can cause data corruption. Who wants that? :eek:

thats only on 790i, which is a DDR3 platform and when combined with high FSB overclocking.

[hayder.master]

thank you guys evryone am go after your advice you help me too much
thank you agine...

[hayder.master]

so waht is the fast amd cpu now under 300$ i was think phenom 9850 is there anohter one butter maybe fast than e-8400
i am allways use the 3d mark06 if anyone have score of this cpu's i need it please cus am check tomshardware i can'n find score for 2008 new cpu's
my only cpu score in 3d mark06 about 2500 all score is about in xp 10700 in vista 11080

[Mussels]

so waht is the fast amd cpu now under 300$ i was think phenom 9850 is there anohter one butter maybe fast than e-8400
i am allways use the 3d mark06 if anyone have score of this cpu's i need it please cus am check tomshardware i can'n find score for 2008 new cpu's
my only cpu score in 3d mark06 about 2500 all score is about in xp 10700 in vista 11080

3dmarks CPU score means squat. you get bonus points for having more cores, regardless of actual speed.

[Darren]

amd phenom 9850 black or core 2 quad q6600 both of them with 2g ram/800 and video card 8800gt and nforce mobo

According to most reviews I have seen the E8400 is slower than the Q6600, anyone who makes the argument about games not utilizing four cores is talking nonsense because future proofing your rig is what computing is about. Four cores ensures your computer is future proof and saves money on having to upgrade in the future - which is a good thing because not all of us are rich. Secondly the price difference between the Q6600 and E8400 is almost the same (at least here in the UK) so it makes sense getting the faster processor that is future proofed which is the Q6600.

But to answer your question according to reviews I have seen the Phenom 9850 black is equivalent to the Q6600. Benchmarks say its cut right down the middle, so get the cheapest processor of the two that also has the cheapest motherboard.

PS. I recommend at least 4 GB of ram. I've seen new games eat up 2 GB easily.

[JrRacinFan]

thats only on 790i, which is a DDR3 platform and when combined with high FSB overclocking.

Think that will end once DDR3 has "evolved" more?

[Mussels]

According to most reviews I have seen the E8400 is slower than the Q6600, anyone who makes the argument about games not utilizing four cores is talking nonsense because future proofing your rig is what computing is about. Four cores ensures your computer is future proof and saves money on having to upgrade in the future - which is a good thing because not all of us are rich. Secondly the price difference between the Q6600 and E8400 is almost the same (at least here in the UK) so it makes sense getting the faster processor that is future proofed which is the Q6600.

But to answer your question according to reviews I have seen the Phenom 9850 black is equivalent to the Q6600. Benchmarks say its cut right down the middle, so get the cheapest processor of the two that also has the cheapest motherboard.

as a core2 quad user (in both my rigs) i can honestly say most games do not use all four cores. In fact, barely any do. What it DOES allow, is other programs to use those two cores while games use the first two. 2 cores for a game, 1/2 core for video drivers (they are multithreaded these days) and 1 1/2 cores for whatever else... winamp, voice chat programs, antivirus and such.

The main reason to go a Q6600 over an E8400/E8500, is the lower starting FSB means the overclocking is 'easier' (266FSB to 333FSB for a 3GHz quad core is VERY easy, even on cheap motherboards these days)


Jr: that bug will go away with bios updates. its related to the 790i chipset, and not DDR3.

[echo75]

According to most reviews I have seen the E8400 is slower than the Q6600, anyone who makes the argument about games not utilizing four cores is talking nonsense because future proofing your rig is what computing is about. Four cores ensures your computer is future proof and saves money on having to upgrade in the future - which is a good thing because not all of us are rich. Secondly the price difference between the Q6600 and E8400 is almost the same (at least here in the UK) so it makes sense getting the faster processor that is future proofed which is the Q6600.

But to answer your question according to reviews I have seen the Phenom 9850 black is equivalent to the Q6600. Benchmarks say its cut right down the middle, so get the cheapest processor of the two that also has the cheapest motherboard.

PS. I recommend at least 4 GB of ram. I've seen new games eat up 2 GB easily.

first of all the E8400 is NOT slower than the Q6600! (when it comes to Gaming)

secondly Q6600 is hardly futurproofing ur rig coz thats actually the lowest of the quads.

thirdly the Phenom 9850 is NOT equvalent to the Q6600 (not even the phenom 9900).

Fourthly 4 GB of ram in Win XP is an overkill unless u are going to run vista.

Finally advising him to get the cheapest motherboard he can find is definately a mistake.

Geez where do u get these rumours :twitch:

read TPUs own Review Database-
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/682/12/

http://www.techspot.com/review/84-amd-phenom-family-performance/page10.html

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=11

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2169&cid=2&pg=11

one of the reviews from X-bit labs concludes-

I can’t say that quad-core AMD processors using new B3 stepping surprised today. Against the background of quad-core Intel processors, they still look not very convincing falling behind the competitors in terms of performance, power consumption and overclocking potential.

[echo75]

my advice to the OP is to forget the quads if he is refering to Gaming as he clearly states. Get an E8400 ,E8500 which are top level dual cores , then clock it and enjoy you PC. when they finally make games that can benefit from quad cores then u can buy top level quad core at that time (the prices will be much lower then).



that way you will be running top levels of each relevant class. Look through the forums there are many who exchanged there Q6600 to get one of the top dual cores .

then again if it MUST be a one amongst the 2 u named then get the Q6600.

[Mussels]

my advice to the OP is to forget the quads if he is refering to Gaming as he clearly states. Get an E8400 ,E8500 which are top level dual cores , then clock it and enjoy you PC. when they finally make games that can benefit from quad cores then u can buy top level quad core at that time (the prices will be much lower then).

that way you will be running top levels of each relevant class. Look through the forums there are many who exchanged there Q6600 to get one of the top dual cores .

and a few who havent ;)

Here at least, a Q6600 is cheaper than a E8400. Change the FSB to 333 and you have a 3GHz quad, instead of a 3Ghz dual for more money.

[Darren]

first of all the E8400 is NOT slower than the Q6600! (when it comes to Gaming)

read TPUs own Review Database-
http://www.techspot.com/review/84-amd-phenom-family-performance/page10.html

That is a review of the b2 version not b3 version


http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=10427&page=11


This review is of the Phenom 9600 b2 not the new 9850 black b3



http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2169&cid=2&pg=11

and finally this review doesn't even have any Phenoms in it

So basically you sent me reviews with different AMD processors to the ones we are discussing, one with b2 rather than the newer b3 model, plus a review which don't even have Phenoms in it. Nice one :)

[echo75]

Here at least, a Q6600 is cheaper than a E8400. Change the FSB to 333 and you have a 3GHz quad, instead of a 3Ghz dual for more money.

or pay the little difference in price and clock your E8400 to 3.8 - 4.4Ghz , let me see your Q6600 run at that.

[Mussels]

or pay the little difference in price and clock your E8400 to 3.8 - 4.4Ghz , let me see your Q6600 run at that.

it takes 1.475v to run 3.8GHz and loads at 67C. (hottest core)

If i use two loud fans i can run 3.9Ghz at 1.525v at around 70C. let me see you get either chip higher, without an OCing motherboard and 800+ ram - my point is that with a less clocking oriented system (motherboard, ram and cooling) the quad actually proves more cost effective. not everyone has 1GHz+ ram and a mobo that can do 500 FSB.

[Darren]

or pay the little difference in price and clock your E8400 to 3.8 - 4.4Ghz , let me see your Q6600 run at that.

4.4Ghz isn't a typical over clock, you will be lucky to get 3.7Ghz-ish stable. Plus with your logic the Q6600 is still faster at 3.2Ghz than the E8500 at 3.7 Ghz.


Secondly I went to the liberty of finding a review comparing the Q6600 vs the 9850 Black Edition B3 since you failed to deliver a valid review, and it looks very equivalent to me:)
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=1

Edit: The winner varies depending on benchmark, Phenom holds its own in certain tasks, and the Q6600 holds its own in other tasks, thats called equivalent in my book unless your a fan boy. Although I'm not 100% happy with AMD at the moment they still produce good processors at a low cost, the phenom 9850 BE b3 is cheaper than the Q6600 so why not get the cheapest?

[newconroer]

According to most reviews I have seen the E8400 is slower than the Q6600, anyone who makes the argument about games not utilizing four cores is talking nonsense because future proofing your rig is what computing is about. Four cores ensures your computer is future proof and saves money on having to upgrade in the future - which is a good thing because not all of us are rich. Secondly the price difference between the Q6600 and E8400 is almost the same (at least here in the UK) so it makes sense getting the faster processor that is future proofed which is the Q6600.

But to answer your question according to reviews I have seen the Phenom 9850 black is equivalent to the Q6600. Benchmarks say its cut right down the middle, so get the cheapest processor of the two that also has the cheapest motherboard.

PS. I recommend at least 4 GB of ram. I've seen new games eat up 2 GB easily.


And you think using a Q6600 is future proofing? It's not even a native quad core.

You want to future proof? Get a Nehelam. Otherwise you're better off with a powerful dual for strictly gaming.

[Darren]

And you think using a Q6600 is future proofing? It's not even a native quad core.

You want to future proof? Get a Nehelam. Otherwise you're better off with a powerful dual for strictly gaming.

Ask yourself this:

Why have a powerful dual core today, when you can have a powerful quad core today?

Why have a powerful dual core today which will be an OK dual core tomorrow. When you can have a powerful quadcore today which will remain a powerful quadcore tomorrow.

Think about it.... think about it again...

[echo75]

Secondly I went to the liberty of finding a review comparing the Q6600 vs the 9850 Black Edition B3 since you failed to deliver a valid review, and it looks very equivalent to me:)
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=735&p=1


lol, look at your own link, in 3D rendering, low quality gaming and high quality gaming the Phnem X3 falls short of the 6600.


Again look at the conclusion in the review u linked

The Phenom X4 9850 really is a nice processor, and for $230-$245 US it is a great buy. I personally would not have a problem running one in my own system. The problem is I purchased a Q6600 nearly a year ago and at 3.5GHz it is easily able to outclass the Phenom X4 9850. If AMD were able to reach 3GHz with the Phenom architecture then they really would be able to take it to Intel, but for now they will have to make do with the Phenom X4 9850.

goes hand in hand with what i quaoted X-bit labs concluded above about the Phenom X3

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-x4-9850_11.html#sect0

So faced with these facts i dont see any fan boyism ..just facts man ..just facts.

[Darren]

echo75

I'm not talking about over clocked reviews as I haven't personally seen a review of the a over clocked Phenom 9850 B3 black @ 3 Ghz reviewed against a Q6600 @ 3.5ghz, it will be interesting to read, so lets wait and see.

Indeed the Q6600 has been out for a year, but it's more expensive and so are the motherboards (here in the UK anyways). So it's common logic to go for the cheaper processor and motherboard combination which performs equivalently. Why spend more for the same equivalent performance?

The conclusion is subjective, meaning that its based on the opinion and bias of the person writing it. But you saw the charts yourself mathematics doesn't lie. If you actually looked at those charts you would see its 50/50.

Edit:
Stick with Legion Hardware, the Xbitlabs review is considerable longer, so I need time to read through it. Forget about the reviewer, read the bloody charts, the charts show 50/50 performance. So what if the Phenom is slower in 3D rendering the Phenom is better with memory bandwidth, just proves they both have their strengths and weaknesses. To be accurate the thread starter said he was only interested in games


Quotes from Legion hardware (within review not conclusion)


Again we find that when testing with Company of Heroes all three tested processors are able to push the GeForce 9800 GTX graphics card to the max! The Phenom X4 9850 is able to match the performance of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in this game.

The Phenom X4 9850 was able to match the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in Crysis using the high quality settings at 1920x1200, while it was just 1fps slower at 1680x1050.


...again the review highlights positive parts and negative parts as far as these two processors are concerned.

My point is I'm not trying to prove the Phenom 9850 B3 Black faster or slower, again I'm not trying to prove the Q6600 faster or slower. I'm merely saying if you read reviews and analyse the charts/graphs yourself you can see performance is practically identical. So get the one thats cheapest.

[echo75]

you seem to fail to understand the whole OPs point, he asks which of them is better for GAMING!!!
He has defined a specific desisre he needs fulfilled, u point out 2 games the phenom "matches" the performance of the Q6600 what of the 1000 other games out there??.

Agreed the Phenom may have its strong aspects but thats not what we are talking about , forget those charts you are refering to and look at the Gaming performance of the 2 procs.

look haw many posters also suggest the dual cores for gaming, you think ALL of us are just biased without reason , or maybe its just coincidence ?? no mate its from oue sheer experince.

You try to run away from the fact bay saying that you are not trying to say which proc is faster or slower, man thats exactly what this thread is about..let me spell it out for you "Which proc is faster, better and most suited for GAMING " ??

Like many said to him above, for the best Gaming experiences at the moment get a top level dualcore , i am a gamer myself and have played on various dual core rigs and the Quad 6600. Many like me will tell you the experience cannot be compared.

But then you dont regard reputable laboratory reviewed conclusions so its obvious you wont pay attention to our own conclusions based on what we see..

Furthermore , i you even lack respect for reputable reviewers conclusions which are based on the particular charts they provided , which you refer to. (you claim they are biased ..lol )

You dont want me to take trust their conclusions , than again u want me to trust your own conclusion...very funny mate.

the price difference between a Q6600 and a Phenom X3 negligable , especially considering the same "futureproofing" you are refering to in the sense that their already exists higher Quad processors that use the same socket and are simply legendary in performace hence will be just a case of one Proc out and the next in. What do u suggest he puts into the phenom x3 socket as an upgrade to get same legendary results??...wait a minute.,it hasnt been invented yet :p

[Darren]

you seem to fail to understand the whole OPs point, he asks which of them is better for GAMING!!!



Well I was discretely directing my argument towards gaming, you firstly brought up the 3D rendering argument.

You dont want me to take trust their conclusions , than again u want me to trust your own conclusion...very funny mate.


I never told you to trust my conclusion. I never told you to trust the reviews conclusion. I told you to look at the charts and make up your own conclusion based on the chart evidence.





the price difference between a Q6600 and a Phenom X3 negligable , especially considering the same "futureproofing"

I never said I liked the X3 range, at present I feel the X3 is overpriced and doesn't offer much performance/cost ratio, I wouldn't recommend a X3 currently - They could be worth it if they price them beneath the cheapest X2.