AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition at at 3.6ghz vs intel core i3 2100

vishalaestro

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2011
1,446
0
19,310
when a AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is overclocked to 3.6ghz using this mobo asus M5A88-M on stock cooler will it give better performance than i3 2100 at gaming
 
Solution

magnesiumk

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2011
22
0
18,520
I own the phenom II 955. You can clock it to a solid 4 Ghz without upping the voltage. I bought the 955 with the intent on putting as much power as I could through it, even to breaking point. It was a cheap, and fun experiment. I learned that after around 4.1-4.2Ghz of performance.The performance increases minimally, however the power required to overclock it isn't worth it. It usually becomes unstable after 4.2Ghz, even if it is running cooler temperatures.

I use a zalman 9900 aftermarket heat sink fan. Usually any of them are good with a push/pull design.

Keep the FSB at 200, and only overclock the multiplier. Pushing the FSB any higher doesn't help performance very much, or if it does it's minimal. Setting the multiplier at x20.0 should be sufficient.

I ran the passmark CPU mark to reach a score of 5700 on the performance test. Looking at the high end CPU list It's slightly better than a stock Core i5 2300.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

All of the x6, and the 960T processors perform better.
 

truegenius

Distinguished
BANNED
lets make it duel vs duel, by dissabling 2 cores of 955 and ht of i3.

so you need around 4.7ghz on 955 with 2 cores disabled to beat a i3 at 3.1ghz.

but if a game can use all four threads effectively then 955@3.2 will be ~15% faster than i3@3.1
 

vishalaestro

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2011
1,446
0
19,310
okay i3 is in 3.1ghz with stock cooler and phenom is also in stock cooler with above mentioned mobo overclocked to 3.6ghz because at this speed only the temp is good..now say which is better at gaming the gfx is amd 6770 for both cpu's
 
Right, this has been done before, effectively AMD have nothing worthwhile, you should buy Intel that way in no time we will all be buying awesome i3's for $300. We have done the IPC and IMC debate to death, we can discuss the benchmarks validity to death but the one thing is overlooked, AMD tend to give you a lot more bells and whistles for a lot less, is the i3 really enough, is the i5 and i7 enough, is the Extreme range enough and the real honest answer is no, not for the premium shelled out. Some may be contented with this but for others its alarming it is killing of the desktop market, before no time everyone will be going back to console.
 

jeffredo

Distinguished
When Software uses all Four cores Intel i3 just cannot match it you cannot make up for something that is physically not there and i3 is not double the speed of an OCed 955 LOL

Where did anyone claim the i3 2100 is "double the speed" of an OC'd 955? Please stop exaggerating. The OP asked one question - is an i3 2100 faster than an X4 955 @ 3.6 Ghz for GAMING. That's all he asked. For today's games in general the i3 is faster, even with only two cores since most games make use of no more than that. By the time most games are make use of four or more cores the Phenom II line will be redundant anyway - much the way the Pentium D was by the time most games made use of two cores. The architecture is going to so old by then this argument will be moot. Right now the i3 is somewhat better than a Phenom II @ 3.6 Ghz. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

BTW, I'm gaming right now with a Phenom II X4 955 C2 @ 3.6 Ghz (with a CPU/NB of 2.4 Mhz) so its not like I'm completely ignorant on the subject. Its O.K. for now, but I can see its starting to strain a bit with more modern games (and I plan on replacing it this summer with an Ivy Bridge). Its had a good three year run, but there's no way in hell I'd build a PC today with it.
 
I think the through put of the Intel processor would be faster than the AMD. the Intel would lose because of lack of cores when more cores are needed. an aged stock 2.8 775 quad core is faster than anything amd has right now..... at stock......... and maybe over clocked too. but if you judge by fps in gaming, depending on res and settings they may seem similar yet. but having both I think the Intel is quicker reacting.
 

DryCreamer

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2012
464
0
18,810
I've been sorely disappointed with the products AMD has released... and they are too, they just can't admit to it because it will make their stock prices dump. They are selling their APU's hand over fist to the OEM market, and that's the only reason they haven't noticed the fact that Intel will outperform them right now with 3 year old hardware...
 

mercer95

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2011
514
0
19,010


+1
 

kelthic

Honorable
Feb 28, 2012
1,078
0
11,460
In the real world there is little difference at all discernible between any decent modern CPU Phenom II and up. EDIT C2Quad and Phenom II x4 and up

That's exactly what you said. Where is the AND UP on your benchmark? I would like you to show me a benchmark you found where a difference could not be found between a Sandy Bridge i5 and a Core 2 Quad/Penom II x4 for gaming. There are many CPU-bound titles today that you can use to show that, such as Skyrim and BF3 multiplayer. This has been documented on articles here on Tom's.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html Here is a benchmark to show that there is a discernable difference between an i5-2500k and the Phenom II x4 you discussed. As a side note, there is a second chart there that shows there is a discernable difference between the dual core i3 and a 6 core Phenom II, and it's in the favor of the Dual Core.

I believe your points on this thread are disproved by this link.
 
GameBench-1.jpg


its pretty even.
 

radnor

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,021
0
19,290


Similar specs here, and i see no reason to change CPU. Maybe retiring my 4850 CF is one thing, retiring CPU is another ballgame. I honestly can't see the point. Rigth now, my 955 is running stock. For SCII and now ME3 is more than enough with all maxed out on both games @ 1680x1050.

EDIT: nice chart esrever. They are mostly tied.
 

diablo34life

Honorable
Mar 8, 2012
252
0
10,790


me personally i would go with a phenom II quad core or fx 4100 or fx 4170. the i3 really isnt a killer at gaming despite what you might hear. having 2 cores isnt enough for skyrim, BF3 and deffintley not the future. check out this link of skyrim with an i3 and gtx 550 ti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALhBnmAhtfk hes not getting very good fps. i have a fx4100 clocked to 4 ghz and a radeon 6790 and i blow away his fps. hes outside in the video. in the world of skyrim and hes getting around 40 fps, thats reallllly bad. in towns i could understand that but in the outside world of skyrim its much easier to obtain good fps. i have it on max and i never go below 60 fps. infact i usually get 75 fps at all time. in towns it can be tricky tho i get between 45-60 fps
 

DryCreamer

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2012
464
0
18,810


Clock for clock an i3 will walk all over a similarly priced FX4100, and you have a massively different video card, which namely, has a 256-bit memory interface which can handle massive amounts of texture bandwidth better than the 550ti and your CPU is clocked 15% higher, its comparing apples to oranges

Dry