Athlon 64 x2 6400 or Phenom 9500?

SaLsiChA

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
Is Phenom 9500 confiable?
I seeking for a new PC, but i'm having serious problems with processor.
Wich i choose, Athlon x2 64 6400 Black Edition or Phenom 9500?
Both since to be a good choice but I heard that Phenom have some bugs.
 

hughyhunter

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
865
0
18,980
0
You need to seriously read this article... http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/19/amd_phenom_athlon_64_x2/

Dont even consider the dual core.... quad core is the future.... and besides, why get a proc that is limited due to it's 90nm manufacture process? Get the 65nm phenom that is future proof!
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0



3.2 GHz vs 2.3 GHz... I don't think IPC is going to help there.

What do you plan to use the PC for?
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2


Really... getting a quad core that is currently crippled, and incomplete?
X-bit labs on Phenom's performance.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom_11.html

As you can see here, Phenom 9500 is outperformed by 6400 X2, in almost all of the benchmarks (except synthetic).

Most programs don't use over a single core, and there are very few of them use over two cores. For desktop applications, it will be a long while before we see many programs that seriously take advantage of 4 cores. For a desktop user, more core counts don't mean as much as more clockspeed.

On the other hand, AMD's 90nm process is far superior than their 65nm process.
 

MarkG

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2004
841
0
19,010
7


True, but programs that really _need_ that kind of performance are going to support quad cores fast, if they don't do so already. Word doesn't need four cores (or even two), but, for example, video compression needs all the CPU power it can get; the video compression program I use has supported 'dual cores' at least since the hyperthreading era, I presume it supports quads now too.
 

cnumartyr

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
2,287
0
19,780
0



Which is why it's important to know what he intends to use the processor for.
 

hughyhunter

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2007
865
0
18,980
0
With all being said... it doesnt really matter what he is going to use his comp for... the future is quad core. Even if all he wants to do is play games- crysis is utilizing all four cores right now... so games in the coming months should too.
 

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
0
19,790
2


Actually, Crysis only utilizes two cores maximum. The only game I know of that really takes advantage of quad core, is Supreme Commander. However, the difference is no more than 10%.

Quad core may be the future. It really depends on how the program is written in the first place. Since desktop applications are not CPU-intensive like server applications, it will be a while before quad core becomes the mainstream.
 

Reynod

Administrator
yomamafor1 has my vote ... tho the 5000+ is a good option (albeit they have half the cache) because they run cooler and chew a bit less power.

The 90nm process is superior as the higher end chips use the 2 X 1MB mask and AMD only made a 2 X 512K mask for the 65nm cores.

If it is for gaming get a 6000+ or 6400+.
General purpose? Get a 5000+.
Overclocker ... 5000+ black edition. (best of both worlds).

Sometime early next year AMD will have done a respin and their quad core cpu's will hopefully be up to spec ... then you can upgrade simply by swapping chips.

That's why I would recommend a cheaper X2 cpu like the 5000+ ... you won't be throwing away so much money.

I won't touch their Phenom till it is sorted ... and I am an AMD fan ... just not a stupid one.

 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Hey, I know that there's been lots of egg nog goin down my gullet lately and I'm not realy lucid :) but can someone anyone explain to me why you would buy a curent Phenom? If I put an ad up for a bike that said "the engine might just stall on you when you're on the highway passing a bus" do you think anyone would actually be dumb enough to buy it? Or maybe I should adopt the current stance of AMD which is (rumored) to be "lets release a fixed version to compete with Nehalem," which is the bike eqivalent of "Buy my 250cc Chinese V-twin... it's about the same price as a new Harley... but at least we've fixed the problem that has you stall in front of a bus."

I've owned AMD in the past and they've been perfectly fine chips. I'd be happy to consder them again for my next build. But theyre not even on the Radar Screen. Not because I'm a Intel fanboi. Because AMD right now is not even close to being in the enthusast CPU market!

That's my opinion and now I'll go back to more eggynoggy! yum yum yum! :)
 

Reynod

Administrator
Chinese V-Twin ... jeez they aren't that bad. That's a Cryix.

Russian outboard motor is probably closer to the truth ... gutsy but hard to start ... lol.

From Ferrari (AM64) to Russian outboard motor all due to not listening to the engineering team and rushing out a product not ready for market.
 

trinix

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2007
197
0
18,680
0
It's more like the engine might explode if it's hot and you press the gas to hard and name a few more reasons in desktop environment, or so they want us to believe I am not sure I don't own one.

The reason to buy a phenom would be the price. It's very cheap now, though you are still buying a "damaged" product. It's not worth it and as yomamafor1 says (can't believe I agree with him for once) a quadcore is not needed yet for desktop. It's great if you want to get the best performance, but for mainstream it's not needed yet. As most said, the change to dual core from single was bigger advancement then the change to quad will be. A lot of people will skip this step probably going for 8 or 16, depending on the speed of the cpu market and the slowness of the program market.

I would say get the 5000+ or 6400+ depending on your budget. If you got more money get the 6400, if you can get a better video card by going for the 5000+ do that, in the end for gaming, a good video card is worth more then a faster cpu.
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Ok, reynod, not Chinese Vtwin but Ural flat twin! Just as useless and clunky and faulty and sold only to people who dont have the brains G-d gave a squirrel. :)

Trinix, what planet are you living on? Is it planet Hectoria Prime, the one where Phenoms are cheaper than C2Q? :) Everywhere I'm looking I'm finding Q6600 which is a 2.4 part that actualy works (wow... actually works...) cheaper than the 2.3 AMD that doesn't. If I sell an engine that I know the crankpin is going to break if it gets hot and it gets throtled too hard then I deserve to be put out of business by lawsuits. Why does none of this apply to AMD?

I would advise OP to forget AMD, if he has an AM2 or something board to crack it in half over his knee and buy a product that is competitive, comptetively priced, and is acknowliged to work!

Paul O, you can send me my commision check now! :)
 

SaLsiChA

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2007
5
0
18,510
0
i'll use it for gaming. You're making more confused but more CPU expert too. I don't like Intel and I'm not a AMD fan but there ins't other option :)
The quest is: Have Phenom 9500 bugs that could make him a "bomb"?
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Salsicha, hermano! The P9500 is like a chorizo thats been left out in the sun too long. Might look ok on the outside but inside its full of magots! :)

The TLB erata is something that most people say will not show up in normal operation. If thats the case why is AMD acknowlidging that theyre faulty, giving some away, etc.?

Cant see why you say you dont like intel. Paul O may be a bolillo but he is far less of a chingadero than that chavala Hector. But so what? A chip is a chip, carnal! You buy the one that works and who cares if the company grinds up ferrets to make it?

Take it from your amigo borracho guaino! Aguila Phenom, vato!
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3


You seriously need to comprehend that article :>
You seriously need to compare that article to other articles on Phenom to realize what THG did.

The relative performance results returned by THG were the same as the the initial test results using ES samples from AMD.

Why is this important?

#1) AMD has since cut the NB speed from 2.0 to 1.8 to address stability misc problems. Please Checkout Extreme Systems forums for some of the results. It's a noticible performance cut which THG did not see since they were not using the same chip you will buy in a store.

#2) AMD is proding "TLB Errata" fixes for the BIOS which lowers performance. THG also did not deploy the code to fix the bugged CPUs.

#3) The Relative Per-Core speed of the Phenom is skewed since only a single core is using the full L3 cache.
As multiple cores are active, they will need to share L3 and the gain from each core will be less.

Under un-biased testing conditions, the X2 will have a notibly higher not lower IPC than the Phenom.
Add to this the AMD runs at speeds about 40% faster so all applications which do not support quad cores will lose.

Furthermore, many applications that support multiple cores, will not see a linear gain from more cores because the threads that are distributed among the cores may not be able to balance the load with some threads simply more intense than others.

The result is that in the Majority of cases the Phenom will be extremely slower.
In some cases the Phenom will be only a little slower for those items that support quad cores.
In isolated cases it will have a small performance gain.

In all cases, it will cost quite a bit more which could mean you will need to sacrifice legitimate upgrades such
as GPU, PSU, RAM, etc.... to get the downgrade.

Not wise in my book.
 

speedbird

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2007
547
0
18,990
2
The Phenom 9500 is nicely priced, so it's worth the little extra cost over the Dual core 6400+X2. Gaming wise the 6400+ would be better, but as games become Multi-cored to use Quads the Phenom will own the 6400+ X2.

 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3


Correct.
If you are an AMD Loyalist and really want a quad.
Wait on the B3.
 

OlSkoolChopper

Distinguished
Dec 15, 2007
564
0
18,980
0


... or throw your AMD loyalism down the craper and wait another couple of months after B3 and get a Nehalem which will totaly anhailate your Phenom. :)
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
I'm trying to keep the AMD vs Intel arguement out of this thread.
The poster wants AMD, so be it.

Right now, in the AMD realm, X2 is the way to go.
They are cheaper and more powerful than the Phenom.

While the faster Phenoms have now been pushed back to Q2 from Q1, my guess is its going to be late Q2 or maybe even Q3.

The reason is that AMD began announcing more X2 chips after things hit the fan. If the delay was going to be minimal, I would not have expected AMD to introduce new products to cover a short delay.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS