Choosing the right CPU

[imported_Deathstrike]

Hi everybody,

I have not kept up to date on the latest CPUs and am thoroughly confused. The last CPU I bought was a E6400 during the summer of 2006 and it still works fine, playing the latest games and what not.

I'm now looking for the right CPU for my little brother that is entering college. I do not want to give him the short end of the stick, but I do not want to spend a fortune. I want a CPU that will last him a couple of years and will be able to play games decently for that time. I've been looking at the barebone configurations and combination that many online sites are offering, but that just adds to the confusion.

Here is one that I am interested in:
Athlon 64 X2 7750 + motherboard = ~$115-$130
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/..._HDMI_Combo_051809_HPG

Is it sufficient for what I am asking? I feel that it's a bit on the low end side.

Should I venture into the Phenoms? They are relatively inexpensive and are the latest processors for AMD. (It looks like they start around $120 range) How are the present day C2D?

 

[Spoelie]

Is upgradability part of the equation? As in, the platform or the configuration as-is needs to last a few years? What will be the main task of the new rig?

I'm of the opinion that a PII X3 720 is the best value proposition and the minimum you should go for if you want the pc to last a while (also in light of the other "how much cores do you need" thread). But for future proofing a step up to a quad core might be a better choice.

LGA-775 and DDR2 is not recommended if upgradability is needed, OTOH such a setup might give you a tad more performance than a similarly priced AMD system.

It all comes down to which vendor you prefer and which budget you have, but I would recommend against a dual core in this day and age.

 

[imported_Deathstrike]

AMD Phenom X4 9150e 1.8GHz, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium 64-bit ~ $435
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...4608333&sku=M975-10070

AMD Phenom X3 8400 2.1GHz, 3GB DDR2, 640GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium ~ $445
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...=4442429&Sku=F12-20002

Definitely going to buy a video card, may need another power supply since I think 300W is what they give you.

How are those?

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: Deathstrike
AMD Phenom X4 9150e 1.8GHz, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium 64-bit ~ $435
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...4608333&sku=M975-10070

AMD Phenom X3 8400 2.1GHz, 3GB DDR2, 640GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium ~ $445
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...=4442429&Sku=F12-20002

Definitely going to buy a video card, may need another power supply since I think 300W is what they give you.

How are those?

Those are the old phenom 1s. While not bad, the performance/$$ and peformance/watt is not that great.

Like said above, the Phenom II X3s would be a great CPU.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990

Originally posted by: Deathstrike
AMD Phenom X4 9150e 1.8GHz, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium 64-bit ~ $435
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...4608333&sku=M975-10070

AMD Phenom X3 8400 2.1GHz, 3GB DDR2, 640GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium ~ $445
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...=4442429&Sku=F12-20002

Definitely going to buy a video card, may need another power supply since I think 300W is what they give you.

How are those?

Those are the old phenom 1s. While not bad, the performance/$$ and peformance/watt is not that great.

Like said above, the Phenom II X3s would be a great CPU.

Phenom 1 is basically the celeron/sempron of quad cores. They're good for your mom's computer, but they suck balls when it comes to playing games.

Here is one that I am interested in:
Athlon 64 X2 7750 + motherboard = ~$115-$130

The 7750 is based on the Phenom 1. It's not for games.

The only good gaming processors from AMD are the 45nm ones. If you see something on newegg or tiger that says 65nm, that means don't buy it. Doesn't matter if it's 2 cores, 3 cores, 4 cores. They all suck for gaming.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Andrew1990

Originally posted by: Deathstrike
AMD Phenom X4 9150e 1.8GHz, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium 64-bit ~ $435
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...4608333&sku=M975-10070

AMD Phenom X3 8400 2.1GHz, 3GB DDR2, 640GB HDD, DVDRW, Vista Home Premium ~ $445
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...=4442429&Sku=F12-20002

Definitely going to buy a video card, may need another power supply since I think 300W is what they give you.

How are those?

Those are the old phenom 1s. While not bad, the performance/$$ and peformance/watt is not that great.

Like said above, the Phenom II X3s would be a great CPU.

Phenom 1 is basically the celeron/sempron of quad cores. They're good for your mom's computer, but they suck balls when it comes to playing games.

Here is one that I am interested in:
Athlon 64 X2 7750 + motherboard = ~$115-$130

The 7750 is based on the Phenom 1. It's not for games.

The only good gaming processors from AMD are the 45nm ones. If you see something on newegg or tiger that says 65nm, that means don't buy it. Doesn't matter if it's 2 cores, 3 cores, 4 cores. They all suck for gaming.

show me any reviews where the original Phenom's sucked at gaming.
you seem to be talking out of your ass because the Phenom including the 7750 are still very adequate for gaming, granted that there are better CPU's out there these days, the Phenom can still hold it's own.

Tha would be like saying the 65nm C2's are crap for gaming, they might be a bit old now but they still can do the job quite fine.

I suggest you do some researcg before posting again.

 

[LoneNinja]

Being an owner of both a Phenom 9850 and Phenom II 940 I can say that out side of benchmarks, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the 2 apart. Even looking at benchmarks, and I'll grab games this time since we're talking about them, clock for clock Phenom II isn't some super beast compared to the original Phenom as so many make it out to be. Only real advantage is overclocking to a higher clock speed and lower power consumption with the 45nm process. The numbers below are pulled from the new Bench portion of this website.

Fall Out 3
Phenom 9950 = 76
Phenom II 810 = 78.6

Left 4 Dead
9950 = 95.1
810 = 104.2

Crysis Warhead
9950 = 62.8
810 = 68.6

Far Cry 2
9950 = 40.3
810 = 43.5

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: LoneNinja
Being an owner of both a Phenom 9850 and Phenom II 940 I can say that out side of benchmarks, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the 2 apart. Even looking at benchmarks, and I'll grab games this time since we're talking about them, clock for clock Phenom II isn't some super beast compared to the original Phenom as so many make it out to be. Only real advantage is overclocking to a higher clock speed and lower power consumption with the 45nm process. The numbers below are pulled from the new Bench portion of this website.

Fall Out 3
Phenom 9950 = 76
Phenom II 810 = 78.6

Left 4 Dead
9950 = 95.1
810 = 104.2

Crysis Warhead
9950 = 62.8
810 = 68.6

Far Cry 2
9950 = 40.3
810 = 43.5

The X4 810 is cache-starved, and, specification-wise, is as similar to Phenom I as Phenom II.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Stumps
show me any reviews where the original Phenom's sucked at gaming.

Hi, you must be new around here. Are you aware Ananadtech is a computer hardware website?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=15

Crysis - Phenom processors are dead last.
HL2 Ep2 - Phenom processors are last, in direct competition with the Celeron E4600
UT3 - This game uses all 4 cores but the Phenom X4 is still competing against dual core Intels

Let's try a different site. Get some different methodology in the mix.
Crysis - AMD's old Athlon 6400+ is faster than a Phenom X4? Apparently.
Supreme Commander - AMD's flagship processor, the 9950 black, is just a bit slower than Intel's slowest quad, the Q6600
UT3 again - 9950 X4 is a bit faster than the E6750
World In Conflict - Once again the Phenom 9950 black is competing against Intel's E6700

Tom's always a bit of a fanboy so let's try Xbit instead.
Quake 4 - Phenom sucks
HL2 - Phenom sucks
Crysis - Phenom sucks
UT3 - Phenom is good
World in Conflict - Phenom sucks
Lost Planet - Phenom is good


Ok so I've presented my case. Where's yours?

you seem to be talking out of your ass because the Phenom including the 7750 are still very adequate for gaming, granted that there are better CPU's out there these days, the Phenom can still hold it's own.

The 7750's stock speed is neck and neck with the E5200. aka it sucks. The only reason people buy the E5200 is because it overclocks like crazy. The 7750 does not. You'll hit the same ~3ghz wall as everyone else.

Tha would be like saying the 65nm C2's are crap for gaming, they might be a bit old now but they still can do the job quite fine.

Actually my links above show that the 65nm C2 were pretty good. The E6xxx series was 65nm and they were neck and neck with the Phenom X4 in a few of those tests. It should be noted that the E6xxx were much cheaper and use less power than Phenom X4 processors.

I suggest you do some researcg before posting again.

lol. Are you saying you actually did do some research? I didn't get that impression at all since you didn't read any of the articles on Ananadtech, Tom's Hardware, or Xbit. A good place to start looking would be Ananadtech's somewhat new "Bench" section. You know, that one where the Athlon 6400+ and E6550 are neck and neck against the Phenom X4 9950, link

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Stumps
show me any reviews where the original Phenom's sucked at gaming.

Hi, you must be new around here. Are you aware Ananadtech is a computer hardware website?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3344&p=15

Crysis - Phenom processors are dead last.
HL2 Ep2 - Phenom processors are last, in direct competition with the Celeron E4600
UT3 - This game uses all 4 cores but the Phenom X4 is still competing against dual core Intels

Let's try a different site. Get some different methodology in the mix.
Crysis - AMD's old Athlon 6400+ is faster than a Phenom X4? Apparently.
Supreme Commander - AMD's flagship processor, the 9950 black, is just a bit slower than Intel's slowest quad, the Q6600
UT3 again - 9950 X4 is a bit faster than the E6750
World In Conflict - Once again the Phenom 9950 black is competing against Intel's E6700

Tom's always a bit of a fanboy so let's try Xbit instead.
Quake 4 - Phenom sucks
HL2 - Phenom sucks
Crysis - Phenom sucks
UT3 - Phenom is good
World in Conflict - Phenom sucks
Lost Planet - Phenom is good


Ok so I've presented my case. Where's yours?

you seem to be talking out of your ass because the Phenom including the 7750 are still very adequate for gaming, granted that there are better CPU's out there these days, the Phenom can still hold it's own.

The 7750's stock speed is neck and neck with the E5200. aka it sucks. The only reason people buy the E5200 is because it overclocks like crazy. The 7750 does not. You'll hit the same ~3ghz wall as everyone else.

Tha would be like saying the 65nm C2's are crap for gaming, they might be a bit old now but they still can do the job quite fine.

Actually my links above show that the 65nm C2 were pretty good. The E6xxx series was 65nm and they were neck and neck with the Phenom X4 in a few of those tests. It should be noted that the E6xxx were much cheaper and use less power than Phenom X4 processors.

I suggest you do some researcg before posting again.

lol. Are you saying you actually did do some research? I didn't get that impression at all since you didn't read any of the articles on Ananadtech, Tom's Hardware, or Xbit. A good place to start looking would be Ananadtech's somewhat new "Bench" section. You know, that one where the Athlon 6400+ and E6550 are neck and neck against the Phenom X4 9950, link

HA!

all of the links you presented show that the Phenom is still capable of running games at playable frame rates...

you still have yet to prove that Phenoms can't run games.

Like I said you are talking out of your ass. who really cares if it appears last in benchmarks...the fact is, according to your links the phenom can still run games a more than playable framerates.

I get what you are trying to say, the Phenom (65nm) isn't a good processor to purchase these days but saying that they suck as a gaming processor is just dead wrong.

The same can be said about the 65nm C2's they aren't really worth purchasing these days for a new rig but they are still more than capable of doing the job.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Stumps
all of the links you presented show that the Phenom is still capable of running games at playable frame rates...

I can steer a car with my teeth but that doesn't make it a good idea. Now would you rather the OP pay $150 for the X4 9950 or should he pay $140 for the Phenom II 720? The Phenom II is $10 cheaper, it uses less power, it destroys the Phenom I in gaming, and it overclocks better.

Telling someone to get a Phenom I for gaming is a terrible thing to say. Why not go one step further by recommending ECC memory, RAID 5, and maybe a few other things that are not appropriate for gaming. Of course you could game with these things, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Stumps
all of the links you presented show that the Phenom is still capable of running games at playable frame rates...

I can steer a car with my teeth but that doesn't make it a good idea. Now would you rather the OP pay $150 for the X4 9950 or should he pay $140 for the Phenom II 720? The Phenom II is $10 cheaper, it uses less power, it destroys the Phenom I in gaming, and it overclocks better.

Telling someone to get a Phenom I for gaming is a terrible thing to say. Why not go one step further by recommending ECC memory, RAID 5, and maybe a few other things that are not appropriate for gaming. Of course you could game with these things, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

ROFL. Brilliant analogy.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Stumps
all of the links you presented show that the Phenom is still capable of running games at playable frame rates...

I can steer a car with my teeth but that doesn't make it a good idea. Now would you rather the OP pay $150 for the X4 9950 or should he pay $140 for the Phenom II 720? The Phenom II is $10 cheaper, it uses less power, it destroys the Phenom I in gaming, and it overclocks better.

Telling someone to get a Phenom I for gaming is a terrible thing to say. Why not go one step further by recommending ECC memory, RAID 5, and maybe a few other things that are not appropriate for gaming. Of course you could game with these things, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

show me where I said that getting a Phenom is a good idea?

All I said was that Phenom's aren't as bad as you made them out to be, they are still more than capable of running games at perfectly playable frame rates.

Of course the OP should be looking at a newer processor, that's common sense.

I own a 9950 BE@3.2ghz rig and while it's no match for my Q6600 setup it still runs games perfectly fine including Crysis.

 

[fffblackmage]

I wouldn't say the old Phenoms are a bad buy, but there are better alternatives.

The PhII x3 940be is well priced, OC's decently and it's triple core. The E5200 is cheaper and OC's like crazy (you'll want a 3rd party cooler though, stock sucks for OCing). Either choice is good and fairly cheap.

 

[Collider]

Originally posted by: fffblackmage
I wouldn't say the old Phenoms are a bad buy, but there are better alternatives.

The PhII x3 940be is well priced, OC's decently and it's triple core. The E5200 is cheaper and OC's like crazy (you'll want a 3rd party cooler though, stock sucks for OCing). Either choice is good and fairly cheap.

Plus if you get lucky and get the right X3 and mobo combo you could unlock 4th core.

 

[LoneNinja]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

The X4 810 is cache-starved, and, specification-wise, is as similar to Phenom I as Phenom II.

I compared it for a clock to clock comparison and because its closest in price. Also the Phenom II 910 is OEM only so I didn't feel much reason to compare it.

 

[ardeegee]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The X4 810 is cache-starved, and, specification-wise, is as similar to Phenom I as Phenom II.

Can't google up the review now, but some site did a series of benchmarks on 2 Phenom IIs running at 2.6 GHz, one with 4 MB of L3 and one with 6 MB of L3. The results of around 10 or so tests were mostly in the 2-3 percent or less speed difference, with a single test reaching 5.x percent difference. When I upgraded recently, I went with an 810. Clocked it to 3 GHz with stock voltage and stock heatsink (I had it up to 3.25 GHz with increased voltage, but then decided to be more conservative) and I'm sure it at 3 GHz is on par with or faster than a 920 at 2.8 GHz, even with the 2 MB less cache.