i dont know if an E6500 can reach 4.0ghz on air but at 3.6 Ghz it would be quite a challenge for the AMDs CPUs since C2Ds have the fame of reaching higher overclocks with lower power consumptions AND better clock for clock results. BUT , and it is a BIG BUT, a quad core for $100 is simply too much temptation for a budget system. I speak as the owner of an e8600 running at 4.0Ghz with 1.16v, something that is quite out of reach of AMDs CPUs.
- Status
philosofool
Distinguished
- Jan 10, 2008
- 49
- 0
- 18,530
Lots of really high frame rates from budget computers that have a great graphics card and the conclusion of the article is that "CPUs matter."
Uh, let's be less stupid in the future and recognize that exactly the point of the people saying "CPUs don't matter very much" is that a good CPU in the $100-125 range coupled with a $200 graphics card will outgame the pair when the GPU is $100 and the CPU is $200.
The point of the "don't blow money on CPUs" crowd has always been that your money is better spent on a graphics card once you pass the bottle neck point at the CPU level.
And the smart counter argument has always been "If you spend $200-300 on a CPU now, it will last you two or three generations of graphics cards but a $100 CPU won't."
Uh, let's be less stupid in the future and recognize that exactly the point of the people saying "CPUs don't matter very much" is that a good CPU in the $100-125 range coupled with a $200 graphics card will outgame the pair when the GPU is $100 and the CPU is $200.
The point of the "don't blow money on CPUs" crowd has always been that your money is better spent on a graphics card once you pass the bottle neck point at the CPU level.
And the smart counter argument has always been "If you spend $200-300 on a CPU now, it will last you two or three generations of graphics cards but a $100 CPU won't."
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
It should also be noted that the AMD 785G board is far more powerful chipset than the Intel P41. More memory options, DVI/HDMI output, sometimes costs less. For $10 more, the 785G has two 16x PCIe slots (both in 8x mode) but they are PCIe 2.0.
For someone who IS not a gamer, this makes the AMD setup a far better deal for running Windows7 and AERO visual effects.
While this article was for $100 CPUs, the AMD X2 250 *SHOULD* have been included. Its a $75 CPU and would actually compete more with the PDC used in this article as its only slightly slower than the X2 550.
For someone who IS not a gamer, this makes the AMD setup a far better deal for running Windows7 and AERO visual effects.
While this article was for $100 CPUs, the AMD X2 250 *SHOULD* have been included. Its a $75 CPU and would actually compete more with the PDC used in this article as its only slightly slower than the X2 550.
spearhead
Distinguished
- Apr 22, 2008
- 120
- 0
- 18,680
I think the PH 710 triple core is the best choice. It has all the L3 cache and you can easily increase its clocks from 2.6ghz to something more of desireable around 3.2ghz. It dous not fit a unlocked multiplier ofcourse but you can increase. its a good choice for the cheap gamer who is probrety going to pair it with a now affordable graphics solution such as the radeon 5750 - 4870. But the athlon 620 x4 isnt bad too. Without l3 heat and timings to worry about you should be able to squeeze in some more MHZ while having 4 cores instead of 3. a great option for the buget orientated multitasker who likes to play games.
_Please_ come back and add the OC information to this article. I would agree that most of the folks that frequent Tom's are _intensely_ interested in the OC numbers for these CPUs.
neuromandw
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2006
- 11
- 0
- 18,510
Please, definitely cover overclocking for this group. Overclocking is exactly the value add these processors offer, i.e., low price-high performance. Thanks!
aznshinobi
Splendid
- Oct 19, 2009
- 8,772
- 0
- 31,460
You should really show us the overclocking battle between the four. Maybe even unlocking the calisto. Overall good article gave me real incite on which CPU to get for my Budget build.
there wouldn't be a need to test these processors in a overclocked scenario cos 90% of computer users DO NOT overclock their system and stick to the stock settings till the end of life of the product. So all in all a excellent review. As for the decision making process the graphs are a good enough hint to help a normal gamer to make a wise decision and be happy with it for a long time 
PS: Overclocking is not advisable and if YOU really want higher performance just spend the extra bucks to get it. If a major corporation like Intel or AMD thought overclocking was advisable they would have made a single processor, sold it for a premium and asked US to do the math to overclock it to it's limit. So all in all general advice to all users stick to STOCK speeds cos the company who built the processor knows what it was doing when it built the processor and sure as hell has more idea WHY it should run at a given speed better than anyone sitting in their home in their free time with a better cooler and basic math skills
PS: Overclocking is not advisable and if YOU really want higher performance just spend the extra bucks to get it. If a major corporation like Intel or AMD thought overclocking was advisable they would have made a single processor, sold it for a premium and asked US to do the math to overclock it to it's limit. So all in all general advice to all users stick to STOCK speeds cos the company who built the processor knows what it was doing when it built the processor and sure as hell has more idea WHY it should run at a given speed better than anyone sitting in their home in their free time with a better cooler and basic math skills
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
Phr30n,
Maybe so, but plenty of people who read this forum _do_ overclock
and thus would like to see oc results included. Your comment about
overclocking is ludicrous; both Intel and AMD now deliberately
target users who oc their CPUs, likewise there is a vast array
of mbds made with this aspect in mind, along with coolers, fans,
etc. The graphs already include stock results, so you have what
you want to know. The rest of us would like to see extra oc info
to satisfy what we want to know.
In many cases, overclocking a CPU is simple performance for free.
If you don't want to do it that's fine, but don't suggest that
others should not do it merely because you don't - that's just daft.
Besides, the nature of the Turbo Boost function in i5/i7 chips,
and AMD's future plans, show that both companies can see a degree
of automatic 'overclocking' (I use the word with caution) when
multiple cores are not needed is the best way to go in order to
make maximum use of available thermal limits for a given workload.
This isn't really overclocking of course since the chip is merely
boosting its clock rate to a level that is within specified
normal limits, as a natural function of how it works, but the
function has nevertheless been the cause of argument on most
forums. Within a few years, there will be no such thing as 'stock
speed', so will you turn off this function in any future chip you
buy? I think not.
Modern x86 CPUs have a huge amount of headroom and I see nothing
at all wrong with wanting to make the most of what is possible.
I infer from the way your comment is worded that you don't know
anything about overclocking, so how can you make such judgements?
For the system I built for my brother, using a better cooler to
boost his stock 2.4GHz Athlon64 3400+ up to 2.76GHz resulted in
a huge improvement for games such as Stalker. It made all the
difference. Soon I'll be building a new rig for him, most likely
an Athlon II X4 620 boosted to at least 3.3, more if possible.
You're free to stick with your stock speeds. Everyone else will
be happy with their oc's, higher frame rates and faster execution
times.
One other thing: oc'ing hardware does mean one learns about this
technology. That can only be a good thing. I can't imagine how
else the next generation of tech fanatics can be encouraged to
enter this field. When I was in my teens (mid-1980s), writing
programs for 8bit/16bit systems was all the rage. But it's nigh
on impossible to write one's own programs for PCs these days (way
too complex) so IMO hardware modding and oc'ing is the modern-day
equivalent of the early/mid-80s coding culture. As such, I believe
it serves a very useful function in encouraging future engineers,
etc. In the past I was scornful of the bottom-up construction
nature of PCs, looking at the technology as I did from the
viewpoint of an SGI user, but in one respect I was wrong: without
doubt, hardware modding/overclocking helps push the technology,
and as others have pointed out in many cases it enables problems
to be identified earlier than otherwise be the case.
I don't have the time/resources to attempt extreme overclocking
using water, NO, etc., but to those who do I say, I salute you!
I just hope that some of you do end up becoming the next
generation of CPU/mbd designers, etc.
Ian.
PS. Here's a typical later example of the programs I used to
write, in this case a complete word processor in 68000 asm for
the Atari ST.
Maybe so, but plenty of people who read this forum _do_ overclock
and thus would like to see oc results included. Your comment about
overclocking is ludicrous; both Intel and AMD now deliberately
target users who oc their CPUs, likewise there is a vast array
of mbds made with this aspect in mind, along with coolers, fans,
etc. The graphs already include stock results, so you have what
you want to know. The rest of us would like to see extra oc info
to satisfy what we want to know.
In many cases, overclocking a CPU is simple performance for free.
If you don't want to do it that's fine, but don't suggest that
others should not do it merely because you don't - that's just daft.
Besides, the nature of the Turbo Boost function in i5/i7 chips,
and AMD's future plans, show that both companies can see a degree
of automatic 'overclocking' (I use the word with caution) when
multiple cores are not needed is the best way to go in order to
make maximum use of available thermal limits for a given workload.
This isn't really overclocking of course since the chip is merely
boosting its clock rate to a level that is within specified
normal limits, as a natural function of how it works, but the
function has nevertheless been the cause of argument on most
forums. Within a few years, there will be no such thing as 'stock
speed', so will you turn off this function in any future chip you
buy? I think not.
Modern x86 CPUs have a huge amount of headroom and I see nothing
at all wrong with wanting to make the most of what is possible.
I infer from the way your comment is worded that you don't know
anything about overclocking, so how can you make such judgements?
For the system I built for my brother, using a better cooler to
boost his stock 2.4GHz Athlon64 3400+ up to 2.76GHz resulted in
a huge improvement for games such as Stalker. It made all the
difference. Soon I'll be building a new rig for him, most likely
an Athlon II X4 620 boosted to at least 3.3, more if possible.
You're free to stick with your stock speeds. Everyone else will
be happy with their oc's, higher frame rates and faster execution
times.
One other thing: oc'ing hardware does mean one learns about this
technology. That can only be a good thing. I can't imagine how
else the next generation of tech fanatics can be encouraged to
enter this field. When I was in my teens (mid-1980s), writing
programs for 8bit/16bit systems was all the rage. But it's nigh
on impossible to write one's own programs for PCs these days (way
too complex) so IMO hardware modding and oc'ing is the modern-day
equivalent of the early/mid-80s coding culture. As such, I believe
it serves a very useful function in encouraging future engineers,
etc. In the past I was scornful of the bottom-up construction
nature of PCs, looking at the technology as I did from the
viewpoint of an SGI user, but in one respect I was wrong: without
doubt, hardware modding/overclocking helps push the technology,
and as others have pointed out in many cases it enables problems
to be identified earlier than otherwise be the case.
I don't have the time/resources to attempt extreme overclocking
using water, NO, etc., but to those who do I say, I salute you!
I just hope that some of you do end up becoming the next
generation of CPU/mbd designers, etc.
Ian.
PS. Here's a typical later example of the programs I used to
write, in this case a complete word processor in 68000 asm for
the Atari ST.
I know people buy cheapo computers and even build computers with cheapo cpus. Realistically for most computer users, their facebook and youtube experience will be about the same no matter what they use, and every computer can handle office tasks nowadays.
But why would a gamer go for a sub-$100 CPU? Not when you can spend even a typical single day's wages more and you can build something with a lot more capability, that won't drag down your graphics card.
But why would a gamer go for a sub-$100 CPU? Not when you can spend even a typical single day's wages more and you can build something with a lot more capability, that won't drag down your graphics card.
mapesdhs,
i think the issue with overclocking and all is that the user will have to spend more for a good OCing main board, more for cooling, more for a PSU, to the point that the same money could have bought a more stable solution with better stock performance (and better OCing potential, if that's wanted simply for hobbiest reasons).
i could see it going to the point you spent more on case, drives, psu+cooling, graphics, OS, etc than you did on the CPU.
i think the issue with overclocking and all is that the user will have to spend more for a good OCing main board, more for cooling, more for a PSU, to the point that the same money could have bought a more stable solution with better stock performance (and better OCing potential, if that's wanted simply for hobbiest reasons).
i could see it going to the point you spent more on case, drives, psu+cooling, graphics, OS, etc than you did on the CPU.
mapesdhs
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2007
- 2,507
- 0
- 21,160
squirtle, not so. My own experiences with simple boards show there
is much that is possible with even low-cost boards, and in this
case the cost of a good cooler for something like a 620 is very low.
There is no need to spend a lot on an expensive mbd in order to
oc a CPU. Extreme overclocking is another matter, but for the
kind of overclock every site has said is possible with a 620
using the supplied cooler without any additional voltage (3.25),
just about any board will do. As for why a gamer would go for
such a CPU, it's because not everyone has the budget to get
something better, so they make the best of what is possible
using every trick available.
As it happens, my brother doesn't want a system that can cope
with the *latest* games, merely something that is good for
running the last generation of games, up to and including titles
such as Stalker SOC. Thus, given the speed of my own system
(6000+ with 8800GT), an oc'd 620 with a 4870 or 4890 should be
more than enough.
Ian.
is much that is possible with even low-cost boards, and in this
case the cost of a good cooler for something like a 620 is very low.
There is no need to spend a lot on an expensive mbd in order to
oc a CPU. Extreme overclocking is another matter, but for the
kind of overclock every site has said is possible with a 620
using the supplied cooler without any additional voltage (3.25),
just about any board will do. As for why a gamer would go for
such a CPU, it's because not everyone has the budget to get
something better, so they make the best of what is possible
using every trick available.
As it happens, my brother doesn't want a system that can cope
with the *latest* games, merely something that is good for
running the last generation of games, up to and including titles
such as Stalker SOC. Thus, given the speed of my own system
(6000+ with 8800GT), an oc'd 620 with a 4870 or 4890 should be
more than enough.
Ian.
Great article, but to me it's entirely lacking of a true conclusion without an OC comparison, which one would think is a requisite for an article such as this comparing CPUs to one-another... Not to mention the possibility of unlocking a core on P2X3's which could turn this comparison entirely on it's ear. (yes even if it's not a guaranteed success, it's still at least a very real possibility which should be factored in when buying a CPU that without the extra core is very nearly tied in the contension for winner)
Ok, I know I sound like a complainer about price, but shouldn't dual core processors be in the $50 price range by now, and not $100? The reason they're not is these companies have pushed out these crappy underpowered chips @ 1.6-2.4ghz and made those the $50 chips, not these, ugh! e1400-e4xxx
By this time next year these will be the machines sitting at curbside for pickup with the garbage.... ok maybe not, but you see where I'm going with this. We are on the verge of socket 775 and am2/3 being pushed aside for something more sexy and 2010-ish.
By this time next year these will be the machines sitting at curbside for pickup with the garbage.... ok maybe not, but you see where I'm going with this. We are on the verge of socket 775 and am2/3 being pushed aside for something more sexy and 2010-ish.
I agree with others here, most enthusiasts who visit sites like this are often only interested in these budget CPU's because of their overclocking potential. Apart from the enjoyment of overclocking, it really can save a fair amount of money.
Shaitis_06
Distinguished
- Dec 3, 2009
- 26
- 0
- 18,540
Why Why Why I should ever consider buying I7 for gaming.
I CAN AFFORD IT: Full rig with best I7 is my weekly salary. But I'm running 500Eu rig for gaming and there is no title that is running below 50 FPS @ 1920x1080.
I prefer each year to buy new complette Rig than invest 1000$ in CPU now
ah btw I'm runnin PII720@4Ghz
I CAN AFFORD IT: Full rig with best I7 is my weekly salary. But I'm running 500Eu rig for gaming and there is no title that is running below 50 FPS @ 1920x1080.
I prefer each year to buy new complette Rig than invest 1000$ in CPU now
ah btw I'm runnin PII720@4Ghz
enzo matrix
Splendid
- Nov 10, 2009
- 4,289
- 0
- 23,160
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]First of all OC is out of the question here in this article since a 100$ CPU is clearly not for an enthusiast user (not even i with a PII 940 don`t use OC) , second OC`ing will only lead to huge power consumption fron the pc performance / watt will drop like hell.[/citation]
Tell that to my 3.25GHz athlon IIx4 on stock cooling at stock voltage running at 25C idle 50C load.
Tell that to my 3.25GHz athlon IIx4 on stock cooling at stock voltage running at 25C idle 50C load.
youssef 2010
Distinguished
- Jan 1, 2009
- 1,263
- 0
- 19,360
If you used Crossfire capable motherboards (And two 4890s), the Inel CPU would've looked much worse (NO OC).
Although this is a little farfetched but just to clarify the differences between these processors
Although this is a little farfetched but just to clarify the differences between these processors
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 21
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question Eine ehrliche Bewertung von Glucoslim zur Gewichtsreduktion
- Latest: GlucoslimPreisDeutschland
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram