AMD Unleashed: Four CPUs, Two GPUs, All Overclocked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very interesting and informative.
I'm surprised the e5200 held up so well, but it does require a very high OC to do it; it's still a mutt at stock. Also, it doesn't support virtual winXP in Windows 7, another thing to consider for some people.
The 720BE looks remarkable for the price, compared to other AMD chips as well as to Intel.
The 7750 however, was disappointing all around. How much better is the 7850?
 

bounty

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2006
389
0
18,780
I don't understand, why all the overclocking if you're not unlocking? Seems to me if we're looking at this from the SBM viewpoint, 60$ for a quad 3.3Ghz chip is a great value? Sure it's variable, so is overclocking.
 

avericia

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2009
47
0
18,530
"Notice how the lone dual-core processor trails significantly in every game."

Great point it's amazing how many people still say dual core cpus are better for gaming, that's ridiculous with current games, they are only saying that because they don't have a quad. Going from a amd x5200 2.7 dual core to a 2.83 q9550 was night and day for everything i played as well as overall responsiveness. (o ya 12mb total L2 cache instead of 1mb L2 cache might be a factor too)
 

MAD4AMD

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2009
11
0
18,510
Thanks for this article! It's a pity that 7850BE is left out.
Anyway, You listen to your reader and that's a big pro!
 

IronRyan21

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2008
241
0
18,680
This article makes me depressed for owning a 9950 BE. :(
Im seriously considering getting an Intel for my next build in the coming year.
 

hardwarekid9756

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2008
142
0
18,680
The charts are a little jumbled, but tolerable. However, the comparison to the System Builder rigs is really awesome. I like that a lot, it gives you an Idea of what kind of performance a reference box gets compared to a pricepoint.
 

cinergy

Distinguished
May 22, 2009
251
0
18,780
[citation][nom]dirtmountain[/nom]The AMD 7850 Kuma is such a recent release i'm sure it wasn't available when Paul gathered the components to start this article. I doubt it would be much of an improvement over the 7750.[/citation]

How long does it take Paul to gather components then? 7850 was released in April 28. I consider Tom's to be one of the biggest hardware sites (or at least it used to be) and I find it very hard to believe there is hw availability problems. True, its not a big difference from 7750 but an improvement none the less. Same goes for X4 955 vs 940. Why review yesterdays products today?
 

KT_WASP

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2008
125
0
18,690
I'm glad the guys at Tom's finally did this. It was especially nice to see the comparisons to the SBM machines. But most of all, I'm glad you did benches not only on the CPUs overclocked, but at stock speeds as well, as I'm not one to overclock.(It is not that I don't see the benefit of overclocking, it is just that I don't have the time nor the inclination to overclock anymore as I get older).

I think that the budget AMD CPUs, while not having the best performance, did not do to bad at stock speeds. I like the comparisons between the E5200 and the 7750 BE the most. The E5200 clearly came out ahead, but it was close with the 7750 BE coming in at 97% average overall. That, for stock users, is not that big of a spread and I think that it would be a toss up. Going by that, the 7850 BE would be the same or slightly better then the E5200 (stock). But clearly, when you introduce overclocking into the equation, the E5200 leaps ahead, which will definitively answer the question of which to get if the person buying is an overclocker.

I'm one of the people who responded to the $600 SBM article that wanted to see AMD and I'm glad that this article came out.

Thanks again for listening to your readers!
 

Gryphyn

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
184
0
18,680
Awesome article. Makes me feel even better about my PhII X3 720 and the $120 I still have in my pocket.

Your overclocking results are exactly what I found on mine. 1.45v for 3.6 ghz stable.
 
G

Guest

Guest
It might also be important to notice that the Corei7 might have heat issues being installed in the smaller case.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]cinergy[/nom]How long does it take Paul to gather components then? 7850 was released in April 28. I consider Tom's to be one of the biggest hardware sites (or at least it used to be) and I find it very hard to believe there is hw availability problems. True, its not a big difference from 7750 but an improvement none the less. Same goes for X4 955 vs 940. Why review yesterdays products today?[/citation]

It's not a matter of gathering the hardware--it's much harder to run the sheer volume of tests that Paul ran. If you want scores for the 955, you can always refer to my review of the processor and how it fared against competing CPUs. However, for this piece, Paul wanted to use some of the hardware on-hand from the How To: Overclocking Your AMD CPU guide and really put the rubber to the road in a meaningful way, rather than just rattle off some recommendations. I think he did a great job in this regard!
 

caamsa

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2006
1,830
0
19,810
Nice review, good to finally see some AMD cpu's being put to the test. The only complaint I have is that you didn't run that many games. What about FarCry2 and Left4Dead. Also the charts are kinda busy. Good thing I am not color blind or I would be in trouble.

I will piggy back on what a lot of the other people here have been saying. AMD better pull that rabbit out of their hat pretty soon or their top end cpu's will be in the sub $100.00 range when i5 comes out. Good for us bad for them.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]coopchennick[/nom]Am I the only one wondering what is going on with the SBM giveaway????[/citation]

Should have more info on it tomorrow. One little correction needed to be made to the $600 system spec list (it was called a Core 2 instead of a Pentium). Keep an eye out tomorrow! The contest will involve answering one question about each build and it'll run until the end of the month, at which point all three boxes will be shipped out from each of our authors. ;-)
 

pauldh

Illustrious
[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]O, BTW isn't 1.5V extremely high for a PhII? I've never taken mine beyond 1.45V. I'm chicken[/citation]
That will vary chip to chip as some do not tolerate higher voltages. Tips from AMD targeted 1.4V-1.55V on air cooling. Take note how many Phenom II launch reviews were pushing 1.55V. One constant is the need to keep them cool. Aim here was to not exceed 50C as much above that always seemed to fail stability testing.

As stated in the article, these chips were pushed high to see just what they could do. 3.6GHz and a bit less voltage looks like a nice 24/7 target: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-overclock,2267.html
 

pauldh

Illustrious
[citation][nom]dirtmountain[/nom]The AMD 7850 Kuma is such a recent release i'm sure it wasn't available when Paul gathered the components to start this article. I doubt it would be much of an improvement over the 7750.[/citation]
Yes, Exactly...something this size doesn't happen overnight. This was intended to be a follow-up exploring the performance achieved with hardware from the OC Guide. The PII X3 720BE added for obvious bang/buck reasons. The Athlon X2 5600+ BE was then left out to save a substantial amount of time.

Besides, I'm yet to see an Athlon 7850 BE top 3.3GHz in a review. Anything above that on air is icing on the cake with a 65nm Kuma or Phenom. We were quite fortunate to push 3.4GHz with these two.

100MHz more stock clocks is pretty insignificant and IMO not even worth $10 for an overclocker, especially considering the unlock multiplier anyway. The stock 7850 would have basically been as unimpressive as the stock 7750 and E5200.
 

pauldh

Illustrious
[citation][nom]avericia[/nom]"Notice how the lone dual-core processor trails significantly in every game."Great point it's amazing how many people still say dual core cpus are better for gaming, that's ridiculous with current games, they are only saying that because they don't have a quad. Going from a amd x5200 2.7 dual core to a 2.83 q9550 was night and day for everything i played as well as overall responsiveness. (o ya 12mb total L2 cache instead of 1mb L2 cache might be a factor too)[/citation]

Having both the Athlon 7750 BE and the Phenom 9950 BE made for some nice dual/quad comparisons. Here is another nice look at the value of more than two cores: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html

Keep in mind though architecture and clocks speed differences could easily change the outcome. (Just look at the E5200 vs X4 9950 BE) Most people who point to a killer dual-core gaming processor are referring to a E8x00 Wolfdale. I have little doubt a 4.4GHz E8400 would have still topped this comparison in any of the CPU limited gaming situations.
 

volks1470

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
262
0
18,790
bah, Windows 7 doesn't like overclocked cpus very much. I had my X3 720 at 3.7GHz (100% stable) for a month in XP and in Windows 7 3.6GHz is barely stable.
 

pauldh

Illustrious
[citation][nom]volks1470[/nom]bah, Windows 7 doesn't like overclocked cpus very much. I had my X3 720 at 3.7GHz (100% stable) for a month in XP and in Windows 7 3.6GHz is barely stable.[/citation]
Are you running the 64-bit RC? In general Phenom II OC's have been slightly higher with a 32-bit OS.
 
G

Guest

Guest
What I take away from this article is:
For a gamer, the X3 is the best value.
Why?: because it does nearly as well as the Q5500 at about nearly half the price.

I have an e8400. Seems like I made a good choice (it's OC'd to 4Ghz), but perhaps the X3 would have been slightly better for those few games that reward the third core and multi-tasking.

Ultimately I went with the dual core processor because it seems the higher clocks were more critical than cores.

Anyway, this is a quality article. In general though, y'all need to work on your conclusions. They are pretty weak. "If you have extra cash..." is weak conclusion for you guys. Take a stand and suffer the harsh comments. Money is always an issue - it could go in my IRA if I didn't burn it on toyz. So I dare you to take a stand next time. Tell what you think I should get if I want a gaming machine/general purpose/workstation and why. The key being the why. Then I at least get your perspective. Right now, I pretty much have to dig through the data and draw my own conclusion... which is still valuable, but weak.

The labels are off on the X3 on $120 Comparison charts. (The OC is switched).
 

rambo117

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2008
1,157
0
19,290
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom] I have an e8400. Seems like I made a good choice (it's OC'd to 4Ghz)[/citation]

easily one of the best configs to have.
until quadcores REALLY become dualcores of today's threaded world, im gonna do exactly what you did, invest in a highly OCable dualcore and throw it out when the time comes.

the new phenomII 550 is lookin pretty nice at only $110...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.