Groups
    EXPIRED

    QUAD CORE OR PHENOM

    Hi
    Im wanting to buy a new motherboard,cpu ,the problem is Im not sure what to go for between intel quad core 2.6 gb or the phenom II 2.8 gb and the more I read up on these the more confused I get so if someone could please answer these questions it would be much appreciated oh and I have a budget of £230 max.
    1)Iis there a big difference between the quad core and the phenom II cpus I mentioned
    2)I read somewhere that if I place a phenom II cpu in an am2+ board i will have to flash the bios,ive never done this before so its swaying my decision a little.
    3)I also read that if I flash the bios then i will have to firstly use a cpu that is compatible with the mobo to flash it then insert the the phenom II cpu, this is a concern as im using an intel cpu at the moment.
    30Is there much difference in performance between the older phenom cpus and the newer phenom II cpu's

    Im wanting to use the pc for light gaming as i already have an ps3 and 360 console but would like to be able to play a few games like crysis and use a blu ray rom for playing back movies onto my plasma.I already have a radeon hd 4670 with a hdmi output so the mobo doesnt need a hdmi port on it.

    Help would be much appreciated.
    Thanks

    7 Comments

    For gaming I would recommend a higher clocked dual core, as opposed to lower clock speed quad core processor.

    If you have 3 monitors hooked to the PC and tend to browse the net in multiple windows, work in Word/Excel, playback a DVD, have a Virtual Machine open and encode a video file all at the same time you are better off with a Triple/Quad Core.

    1) The Core 2 Quad and AMD Phenom II X4 are both x86 Quad-Core CPUs, there are no big differences between them. (A few small ones, but for gaming and general use they don't matter).

    2) & 3) This would only be relevent if you already had an existing AM2+ motherboard, as you're buying a new motherboard you'd just buy one that supports the Phenom II X4s out of the box.

    Personally, I'd recommend a slower and cheaper CPU. As you've only got a 4670 then that's going to be the limiting factor in the majority of the games and for blu-ray playback a slower CPU is lower power so you can cool it quietly for less money. (your 4670 should be doing most of the work for blu-ray playback anyway as it's more suited and thus more efficient).

    Original Poster

    EndlessWaves;5081439

    1) The Core 2 Quad and AMD Phenom II X4 are both x86 Quad-Core CPUs, … 1) The Core 2 Quad and AMD Phenom II X4 are both x86 Quad-Core CPUs, there are no big differences between them. (A few small ones, but for gaming and general use they don't matter).2) & 3) This would only be relevent if you already had an existing AM2+ motherboard, as you're buying a new motherboard you'd just buy one that supports the Phenom II X4s out of the box.Personally, I'd recommend a slower and cheaper CPU. As you've only got a 4670 then that's going to be the limiting factor in the majority of the games and for blu-ray playback a slower CPU is lower power so you can cool it quietly for less money. (your 4670 should be doing most of the work for blu-ray playback anyway as it's more suited and thus more efficient).


    Thanks for the advice, do you think a Core 2 Duo E7400 2.8GHz Socket 775 1066FSB 3MB L2 Cache would mabye be the way to go? thanks

    Original Poster

    SUMMONER;5077305

    For gaming I would recommend a higher clocked dual core, as opposed to … For gaming I would recommend a higher clocked dual core, as opposed to lower clock speed quad core processor.If you have 3 monitors hooked to the PC and tend to browse the net in multiple windows, work in Word/Excel, playback a DVD, have a Virtual Machine open and encode a video file all at the same time you are better off with a Triple/Quad Core.


    Thanks for the advice, much appreciated.
    Eric

    My money is on the Quad Core. But then again I would use Intel over AMD on most fronts these days.

    I used to be different. 10 years ago I prefered AMD and thought there was a real chance they could beat intel, but now I dont think so. I guess in the end intel had more money to throw at the fight than AMD did and won my vote.

    Original Poster

    jcumpsty;5083939

    My money is on the Quad Core. But then again I would use Intel over AMD … My money is on the Quad Core. But then again I would use Intel over AMD on most fronts these days.I used to be different. 10 years ago I prefered AMD and thought there was a real chance they could beat intel, but now I dont think so. I guess in the end intel had more money to throw at the fight than AMD did and won my vote.


    Does the cache make a lot of difference?

    Hi,

    you can find out plenty via the popular review sites such as Tom's Hardware, benchmark graphs are rather helpful as a way of sifting through the PR and tech speak to get down to the facts, more or less: tomshardware.com/cha…ts/

    Currently Intel appears to be whipping the AMD offering, there's talk about the new Intel i5 series (32nm) being as good as entry level i7s (45nm) with better power consumption and heat emission but it's not yet backed up by any public stats - from what I can gather this will arrive sometime in September thus price changes would be prominent late August to early November.

    AMD is doing well to woo the enthusiast market with the ACC (overclocking / tuning) feature set but when one gets down to the nitty gritty it's very hard to ignore the price/performance of an Intel Q6600 or E8400 in comparison to a top-end Phenom.

    I still run an AMD x2 4200 and looking / wanting to upgrade soon myself. I'd love to continue being a customer of AMD processors for the next 3/4 years though I'm not convinced today's desktop proc/chipsets are a match for the Intel line up, especially in November '09 ;-) That said I did invest in a new 1GB HD4870 gpu over the nividia GTX260.

    It's a clever old ruse about how much to spend - if you take the sum of the cost of your sample builds and divide each by 3x365 you get to see the difference is not a lot for the time in use on a daily basis so it's smarter to save double your budget and have the flexibility to get what you'll love rather than rush into a decision based on the lure of value i.e. the perception of 'cheap', as that's always been a moving target.

    If you are a casual user (email, office, browsing) and regular gamer (i.e. no more than 2 discrete graphics cards in a Crossfire or SLi setup) you should be fine with a good dual core, if you use the computer for multiple tasks *simultaneously* then quad is the way to go but note you pay a performance hit so you should not rush to quad core just because its 4 instead of 2 as well as more obvious things to consider like the power / cooling differences.

    That's my 2c.
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Help Feed a Homeless Animal for Free1608651
      2. I want to talk about the WEATHER no politics no religion19047187
      3. I have 2 spare netflix slots and a spotify share.918
      4. One thing you've forgotten79

      See more discussions