any phenom x6 benchmark, does it worth it?

bige420

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2008
717
0
19,010
They're going to be officially released on Money (26th) so you'll see some benchmarks then. Honestly, theres no reason to upgrade unless you do alot of photo editing or video encoding or heavily threaded apps like that.
 

xaira

Distinguished
idk, its a good cpu and you already have it unlocked to a quad, $110 sounds reasonable, but you have a perfectly working quad, why sell? unless ur like me and just want to see 6 graphs in taskman...
 

uncfan_2563

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2009
904
0
19,010

Nah.. You'll see some increase from the newer games like Bad Company 2 probably. Now, how much the increase is worth is another topic.
 

bige420

Distinguished
Dec 29, 2008
717
0
19,010
The 1055 should overclock similarly, possibly a little better because of the new stepping. The 1055 has 1mb more of cache because each core has 512kb and 2 extra cores means 1mb more of cache. I wouldnt expect much of an improvement in games over your current CPU, except for highly threaded games which are few and far between.
 
In all honesty, if you have a quad core Phenom II right now it would be a waste of money at the current time to buy a Phenom II X6.

Unless you make a living off of video/audio editing where it will save you some time, its not worth it.

Even then, we need benchmarks to show its actual performance in commonly used apps to see if it is worth it.
 
In all honesty, if you have a quad core Phenom II right now it would be a waste of money at the current time to buy a Phenom II X6.

Unless you make a living off of video/audio editing where it will save you some time, its not worth it.

Even then, we need benchmarks to show its actual performance in commonly used apps to see if it is worth it..

This is a common and extremely short sighted view. Even if it doesn't make individual applications run faster, you dont run just one app at a time in real life. You mulitask, you have antivirus and other memory resident programs using memory and clock cycles. In other words, most people create their own multithreaded environments.

And that doesn't even consider future use of the extra cores.

In real world non-gaming use, More cores is almost always a much better option.
 


In a true multitasking enviroment that can use the cores, sure. But a quad core, even a Q6600 at this time is fine for even power users like myself.

Back when I got my Q6600 I would run TF2, WMP, encode a video and browse the web all at once and it would barley hit 50% overall usage and never hiccup.

If someone bought a new quad core in the past 2 years, why would you buy a 6 core with the promise of software barley catching up to a quad core in the next 1-2 years? SSoftware is way behind.

But by your logic, someone with a LGA1366 mobo should spend more than needed to buy a Core i7 980X because in the future, probably 2+ years from now, it will be more utilized by that gen software.

My thoughts are this: If a person ahs a Core 2 Quad, Core i5/i7 or Phenom II, there is no reason to upgrade to a 6 core. Possibly in 2011 or beyond when they become the more common CPU and quad become low to mid end. If you don't agree, thats fine. Not everyone does.

Now if it was a new build, then sure. Go for it. But there is no reason to pay another $200 bucks for a new CPU if yours is barley being pushed at all.
 


My point was slightly different. I meant cores over CPU speed, all things being equal for all non-gaming use.

For example If a X4 965 at 3.4 vs a X6 at 2.8 at the same or similar price, most gamers always say go with fewer cores and faster clock. But MOST people are not hard core gamers and benifit more in the long run from the 6 core option. You also hear, "todays apps dont use x many cores". But the end user might not upgrade very often. 5 to 10 year upgrades is not uncommon with many people.

Your quad core experience is a good example. Your q6600 is a much better system today than an equally priced dual core of the time would be for anything but gaming. Yet at the time, the same "apps dont use that many cores" argument could have been applied.

I'm just saying that I don't think we are always as in tune with the OP's vision of their system as we should be. And that sometimes leads to, not bad advice, but misguided advice.
 
^the difference is that I am a person who builds for the future. I had a 7 yeard old P4 system at the time so I built something to last me near 5 years.

Most people who build systems do it every 1-2 years. And I didn't buy a dual core because at the time it was the same price as the quad I wanted. Most people who bought dual cores back in 2006 haven't really upgraded until recently to a quad.

As I sia,d if you bought a quad recently a 6 core is useless. If you are building new, then sure its worth it for the price.
 

spotless

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2007
248
0
18,680
anyway ive got it installed and games are more silky smooth, no bit slowdown @ heavy phsyx compared to quad, havent oc it yet, stepping 0, anyone suggest smaller bechmark softaware which scale well with gaming?
 

spotless

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2007
248
0
18,680
phenom x6 CPU Vantage 102

phenom x6 CPU Vantage 102

2_854482262l.jpg


2_830250934l.jpg