which cpu better for gaming AMD Phenom II X2 550, Intel E6300 or continoue with old Pentium D935?

[country2]

My son wants a another computer and I have access to both of these cores and motherboards to install on and trying to decide which one to build off of. If it matters he plays mainly WoW and COD4 and right now he is running a old Asrock 4CoreDual-SATA2 with a Pentium D 935 Dual Core 3.2. Would any of those two cpu be better than the P D935? Thank.

 

[taltamir]

what do you mean "access to". You mean you have them just lying around already paid for? and what motherboards?

 

[dguy6789]

The Phenom II X2 550 is a lot better than the Core 2 E6300 which is a lot better than the Pentium D 935.

 

[country2]

Boards are laying around. One for the Intel chip is a Abit IP35 pro..old but still a great board, and the one for the AMD chip is a new BIOSTAR TA790GXE. Also have a N260 video card laying around also that will be used....

 

[country2]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Phenom II X2 550 is a lot better than the Core 2 E6300 which is a lot better than the Pentium D 935.

I read a while back that the e6300 was a lot better than the 935 but was unsure about difference between the e6300 and the AMD PhenomII x2 550.

Thanks for the info

 

[dguy6789]

The Phenom II is just a tiny bit slower than the Core 2 clock for clock. The Phenom II X2 550 runs at 3.1Ghz and the E6300 runs at 1.86 Ghz, so the Phenom II is a lot faster. Both are much much much faster than a Pentium D clock for clock.(Close to 2x)

 

[country2]

If the e6300 is oc to 3.1 or so would it be on par with the phenom? I rember I had it ol to little over 3 when I was using it. Then again I will most likely oc the 550 also so guess that point is mute..

I also thought that intel and amd did there clock speed different and amd lower clock speed was faster than same clock speed of the intel chip.

 

[veri745]

Originally posted by: country2
If the e6300 is oc to 3.1 or so would it be on par with the phenom? I rember I had it ol to little over 3 when I was using it. Then again I will most likely oc the 550 also so guess that point is mute..

I also thought that intel and amd did there clock speed different and amd lower clock speed was faster than same clock speed of the intel chip.

You're think of the Athlon 64 back in the day. Core2 changed that.

 

[LoneNinja]

Originally posted by: country2
If the e6300 is oc to 3.1 or so would it be on par with the phenom? I rember I had it ol to little over 3 when I was using it. Then again I will most likely oc the 550 also so guess that point is mute..

I also thought that intel and amd did there clock speed different and amd lower clock speed was faster than same clock speed of the intel chip.

Athlon64/Athlon X2/Sempron were all much faster at the same clock speed than Intel's Pentium4/Pentium D/Celeron, but that was a few years ago. C2D came out in 2006 and is much better than those old processors from AMD, AMD's Phenom II lineup is just now catching them back up with the performance of C2D.


I'd go with the Phenom II X2 550, it's much better at stock due to the much higher clock speed, and even if you overclock it'll still go further than the E6300 will.

 

[country2]

Ok thanks everyone. He'll be getting the AMD setup.

 

[BolleY2K]

Not a bad choice - BUT!!!

I have to disagree with all of the above posters! You are all refering to the OLD C2D E6300 - but there is a NEW E6300 out, sporting 2.8GHz and 2 MB Cache - which I would prefer compared to the Phenom II X2. And I am pretty sure that the original threadstarter had the new E6300 in mind when asking about building a new system.

 

[country2]

Mine is the old one but good info as I did not know there was a new one out.

 

[taltamir]

i would check to see what you can get on ebay for each... so that you can take relative "cost" into account

 

[imported_Scoop]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Phenom II X2 550 is a lot better than the Core 2 E6300 which is a lot better than the Pentium D 935.

Gary Key disagrees, seriously.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

EDIT:
Ok, so you were talking about the E6300 from the previous life. Well whatever, I don't know how that thing compares to anything.

 

[Soleron]

Which E6300? Confusingly, there are two.

If it's a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz) then the Phenom is MUCH faster, by about 50%.

If it's a Pentium Dual-core E6300 (2.8GHz) then the Phenom is marginally faster, so if they're both the same price the Phenom is preferable.

 

[Fox5]

It's probably the pentium e6300 that was mentioned, since the core 2 duo e6300 hasn't been produced for quite some time now.

Anyhow, cutting down cache on the intel chips can noticeably effect performance, I wouldn't bet on the pentium e6300 beating the phenom II 550 clock for clock.

 

[country2]

Originally posted by: Fox5
It's probably the pentium e6300 that was mentioned, since the core 2 duo e6300 hasn't been produced for quite some time now.

Anyhow, cutting down cache on the intel chips can noticeably effect performance, I wouldn't bet on the pentium e6300 beating the phenom II 550 clock for clock.

Its the old one...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Scoop

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Phenom II X2 550 is a lot better than the Core 2 E6300 which is a lot better than the Pentium D 935.

Gary Key disagrees, seriously.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

EDIT:
Ok, so you were talking about the E6300 from the previous life. Well whatever, I don't know how that thing compares to anything.

Why would he disagree? He's using the Athlon II 250 for those tests, not the Phenom II 550 we're discussing, and the 550 is faster than the 250 since it has L3 cache. And if dguy6789 was referring to the "old" E6300, then his statement is very much spot-on.

The 250 vs the new E6300 are pretty close with a few favored results to one or the other processor according to AT's benches
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

The 550, however, is generally faster than the new E6300
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

As for the discussion at hand, the "old" E6300 is noticeably faster than a PD 935, yet I'd say the Phenom II 550 is as much faster than the E6300 as the E6300 is from the PD 935.

I looked at some old benchmarks and averaged the gaming performance of the E6300 vs the PD 940. The E6300 is about 40% faster than the 940. Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

Since I couldn't think of nor find any results directly comparing the old E6300 to the new Phenom 550, I used AT's bench and chose the slowest Core 2 available, the E4500. It runs at 2.2 GHz, however, and is faster than the E6300, but I'm going to use its result as a demonstration of what I claimed when I said the 550 is as much faster than the E6300 as the E6300 is from the 935. Except I'm replacing the E6300 with the E4500's performance numbers.

Here's what I found: Again, the 550 in AT's bench (beta) is about 40% faster than the E4500 in gaming tests only. So we can conclude the 550 is at least 40% faster than the E6300. Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

While I know in the real world we can't use those 40% numbers as concrete, as gaming performance will be more limited by the video card's performance, we can say these numbers demonstrate the relative performance of these chips. I also trust when AT made his reviews in the past and now that he uses a fair way to show CPU speed in gaming tests, and judging from the results of the benchmarks I'd say he does in that he seems to test at the highest settings possible which are low enough to not completely tax the GPU and show the effects of processors.

 

[BolleY2K]

Think about overclocking... That would put the new E6300 on top in my opinion.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: BolleY2K
Think about overclocking... That would put the new E6300 on top in my opinion.

but you can unlock a 550.

 

[BolleY2K]

Not guaranteed - but the 45nm process in the new E6300 is pretty solid and almost a guarantee for a good OC.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: BolleY2K
Not guaranteed - but the 45nm process in the new E6300 is pretty solid and almost a guarantee for a good OC.

No overclock is guaranteed either, usually it is but it's not 100% like you think it is.

OP get the X2 550, it will be the best choice since you have a decent board already for it.

 

[Denithor]

Guys - learn to read - the OP already has the older Core 2 e6300 (1.86GHz, 2MB) not the newer Pentium e6300 (2.8GHz, 2MB).

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
As for the discussion at hand, the "old" E6300 is noticeably faster than a PD 935, yet I'd say the Phenom II 550 is as much faster than the E6300 as the E6300 is from the PD 935.

This is dead on for stock speeds (and a major understatement - the e6300 will absolutely murder the P4D 935 in gaming). And consider - if you OC the old e6300 you could expect to get into the 2.8-3.0 range fairly easily but above that it's a crapshoot. Meaning it will top out around the same level as the new e6300 @ stock, which is just a bit faster than the PhII 550. However, the PhII will OC also - and will win the race at that point.

OP - give your son the PhII + GTX 260 and he will be in gamer heaven for WoW and COD4. Even without overclocking this combo will run those games maxxed without breaking a sweat.

 

[imported_Scoop]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: Scoop

Originally posted by: dguy6789
The Phenom II X2 550 is a lot better than the Core 2 E6300 which is a lot better than the Pentium D 935.

Gary Key disagrees, seriously.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3615&p=9

EDIT:
Ok, so you were talking about the E6300 from the previous life. Well whatever, I don't know how that thing compares to anything.

Why would he disagree? He's using the Athlon II 250 for those tests, not the Phenom II 550 we're discussing, and the 550 is faster than the 250 since it has L3 cache. And if dguy6789 was referring to the "old" E6300, then his statement is very much spot-on.

The 250 vs the new E6300 are pretty close with a few favored results to one or the other processor according to AT's benches
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

The 550, however, is generally faster than the new E6300
http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

As for the discussion at hand, the "old" E6300 is noticeably faster than a PD 935, yet I'd say the Phenom II 550 is as much faster than the E6300 as the E6300 is from the PD 935.

I looked at some old benchmarks and averaged the gaming performance of the E6300 vs the PD 940. The E6300 is about 40% faster than the 940. Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=14

Since I couldn't think of nor find any results directly comparing the old E6300 to the new Phenom 550, I used AT's bench and chose the slowest Core 2 available, the E4500. It runs at 2.2 GHz, however, and is faster than the E6300, but I'm going to use its result as a demonstration of what I claimed when I said the 550 is as much faster than the E6300 as the E6300 is from the 935. Except I'm replacing the E6300 with the E4500's performance numbers.

Here's what I found: Again, the 550 in AT's bench (beta) is about 40% faster than the E4500 in gaming tests only. So we can conclude the 550 is at least 40% faster than the E6300. Reference: http://www.anandtech.com/bench...3.44.45.46.47.48.49.50

While I know in the real world we can't use those 40% numbers as concrete, as gaming performance will be more limited by the video card's performance, we can say these numbers demonstrate the relative performance of these chips. I also trust when AT made his reviews in the past and now that he uses a fair way to show CPU speed in gaming tests, and judging from the results of the benchmarks I'd say he does in that he seems to test at the highest settings possible which are low enough to not completely tax the GPU and show the effects of processors.

Oh I got 250 and 550 mixed up, sorry. I just thought of something at a similar price. Comparing 550 and E6300 doesn't make any sense.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I figured you did, I just thought if I was going to clear the air I'd do it proper.