[CPU] is AMD's phenom 2 Really not that great for gaming?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
slendermanFTW

slendermanFTW

Honorable
Oct 27, 2012
39
0
10,530
i was just wondering, and after seeing this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khoTYa3m9u8) it has kinda made me reconsider using intel.
is the video correct?
thanks!!!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
lol... Well, you be asking a question that many have asked before and has been met with fierce debate on both sides..

All I can say is, I'm quite happy with the "gaming machine" in my signature. It does everything I ask of it. And yes, BF3 is occasionally one of those things.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ya, my friend has his phenom up to ~3.8 and he says in runs dirt 3 at 100fps, he also runs 8 gigs of ram and 2 7770's in crossfire. he completely insisted Intel uses synthetic benchmarks and that those numbers don't matter
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Synthetic benchmarks do have their place honestly. And yes, Intel does have an advantage in terms of better and more efficient CPU design. They wouldn't make the synthetic programs if they didn't serve a purpose.

But there are some things that people overlook either willingly or lack of knowledge.. For example... If you're playing a game that on an AMD processor gets 100 FPS and an Intel gets a 120.. Then theres no discernible difference between either one if you're playing on a monitor that is 60hz (and the vast majority of computer monitors are)

You can look at those "benchmarkable" differences and say, aha! the Intel CPU is clearly better. Well sure.. but your monitor is only showing 60FPS no matter how many FPS the system is sending to it. Now, if an AMD processor only gets 40 FPS in a game you really want to play and an Intel gets 60FPS, then you have something worth considering, but the answers aren't really as black and white. As far as gaming goes, more often than not, the video card is going to be the most heavily influencing component in terms of gaming performance.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Like I said, it really comes down to your individual needs, theres no simple answer. What games are you looking to play, at what resolution, are you building a new system and do you have a budget restraint?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ok, im going to be playing games like skyrim,bf3,borderlands 2, at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 if i upgrade my monitor
and im building a new system with a budget of about $1000 US but if a part is good for the money, i will be willing to increase it by $200
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
With that kind of budget in mind, you can get a decent gaming system with an AMD or Intel CPU.

I would be looking at the Ivy Bridge i5s or the FX-8320/8350. Depending on if you want to overclock or not. If not overclocking, the 8350 or the i5-3450 are both decent choices.

For the video card I would be looking at 7870 or GTX 660 TIs and up. Possibly 7950/7970 or GTX 670 depending on how everything else fits into the budget.

Power supplies, you definitely want to pick a decent one. Don't just get any cheap old thing, this is something a lot of new builders do, spend their money on nice components and cheap out on the power supply.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It depends on whether you go amd or intel. you can get a fairly feature rich and overclockable amd 970 chipset for pretty cheap.

If you go intel, the asrock extreme 4 z77 mobo is a good bet for an unlocked i5 k. if you get a locked one, get a h77 or b75 mobo.

If you get a locked i5 you won't be overclocking, but you won't need to. Part of amd's value is relatively cheap unlocked processors you can overclock.

Generally they have more cores per dollar than intel, but lower instructions per clock(ipc) per core. a 965BE is better than a fx 8000 series cpu when gaming.

A slower non k i5 quad is as fast or faster than an overclocked amd cpu. Intel also uses less power than amd.

with unlocked multipliers and late model intel chipset models not tolerating base clock manipulation well, adjusting multiplier is the the preferred(or only) way to really get notably more performance out of most modern processors(if the one you pick supports that functionality).

I agree about hd7870, 7950 and 7970(however much you can afford will last you longer). Think about something like xfx 550w for a psu.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

You know, I used to recommend the Asrock boards myself, to echo what jtenorj is saying, although evidence has come to light that Asrock cut corners on certain quality things both on their vaunted Z68 Extreme 3 and Z77 Extreme 4. So, I'm going to stick with Asus here.


Good overclocking boards for both AMD and Intel, and both around the same price range and similar features-
AMD-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131754

Intel-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131837

---

As far as jtenorj's thing about the FX series vs the Phenom II. I'm of the opinion that the new Piledriver (thats your FX-x3xx series) are worthy successors to the Phenom IIs. But everything else he said is basically correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Clock for clock never struck me as a particularly useful metric.. Well, I guess its useful, but insofar as it demonstrates how different architectures compare in efficiency. Beyond that, its useless. Processors run at the clock speed they run at. Nobody is going to buy a FX-8350 thats 4.0GHZ stock and downclock it to say 3.4GHZ to play games on (the stock speed of a Phenom II 965). It just doesn't make sense in the practical world.

You also have to keep in mind that Phenom IIs have a relatively low ceiling for overclocking, they tend to top out at 4.2-4.4GHZ, and its rare to see em that high. Mine has the potential to do 4.2, but 4.0 is a more stable "daily OC". Even though theres little risk of frying a chip these days as long as you take proper precautions and do research to know what your limits are, you still probably don't want to do a daily overclock at its very peak. Now, FX 8s cores are well known to hit much higher clock speeds, potentially as high as 5.0, although more realistically, a 4.5GHZ daily OC would probably be fine. So the clock for clock thing becomes less relevant again when you figure in the Phenom IIs top OC.

Don't get me wrong, as I stated when I first posted in this thread, I love my Phenom II, but its time for new builders wishing to go AMD to look at the newer CPUs. PileDriver is what Bulldozer should have been.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I'm sorry, did you have a point in posting here? You get 5 points for answering questions that NOBODY asked.. idiot. Seriously, the fanboyism needs to take a friggin hike on these forums. You clearly did not read anything the OP mentioned (or anyone else for that matter) you just blither on about blah blah, heres links and bye. You have contributed nothing to this thread. How about an original thought for starters?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
say you get 965be to 4ghz vs a fx 8320 or 8350 at 4.5 ghz. The greater per clock performance of phenom will even things out. Phenom is 90 bucks where fx is 160-200 bucks. how much more do you want to pay for so little extra(or possibly a bit worse) performance? phenom remains amd's value king(while supplies last, anyway).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Sure I can go along with that, if the system is strictly for gaming, the Phenom IIs are only $85 right now from Newegg, which is a hard deal to pass up. Although, I do believe (no I cannot prove it) that the 8 core FX would fair better in BF3 multiplayer, or the upcoming medal of honor (which uses the same engine as BF3), and possibly other games will favor the extra cores as well.


As far as those extra cores go.. Now they do have this open Beta, FX-8150s actually had a slight edge against SB i7s. Granted, an unnoticeable one in terms of practical gameplay.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/11/amd_bulldozer_fx8150_gameplay_performance_review/2

Thats about as close as you can really get to a multiplayer bench from any respectable tech site.. Since respectable tech sites don't do em, since they're too unreliable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



With those games, your $1000 budget, and at 1080p your best bet would be a i5 3570k setup with a 7950.

None of the amd processors would give you that performance level when building a new PC, as they bottleneck anything higher than a gtx 560.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Now... that I have had a cigarette.. I'll give.. a thoughtful answer to the post that was made earlier.

First link from Crowe...

Showing Phenom II 955 vs Core2Quad 9550

Price difference... 9550 $290.. This was the high end CPU at the time of its generation's release, as you may or may not know, Intel CPUs drop very little in price from their release date.
http://ark.intel.com/products/33924/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q9550-12M-Cache-2_83-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB

Discontinued.. Your link may be pretty to look at from a computer geek's historian standpoint, but its completely irrelevant to in regards to building a new system TODAY.

The Phenom II 955 is still available from newegg, but its actually 10 dollars higher than the 965, so further irrelevant.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103727

------

Your second link showing Phenom II 980 up against an i5-3470.. This link is a bit more relevant. 980s are no longer available from newegg. The 965 again, is still available for $85. They are identical CPUs, the only difference is the stock multiplier settings, they even ship with the same cooler.. Once again.. priced at $85..

How much is the i5-3470? $199

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115234&Tpk=i5-3470

Well hell, its over 2x as much. And funny, not one single bench in that link shows a 50% performance increase for over twice the money. I'm not saying the i5-3470 shouldn't be considered for the OPs build, but if you're seriously expecting an $85 CPU to perform on par with a $200, you really need to think about your logical processing.

Yes, I'm aware that when Phenom IIs were released they were priced higher than what they are today. But once again, while this may be relevant from a historian's perspective, it bears little relevance to building a system TODAY.

---

The third link, yup, the 8350 stock to stock outperforms the 980. Yes it costs more, yes, the performance difference is not that substantial. Thats about the only relevant information in your post.






 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Again, I'm not saying an Intel setup isn't the best solution for the OP, but really, people need to know what they're talking about before they start advising people how to invest hundreds of their money into a computer. If nothing else, I want you to bear that in mind when you post on these forums. I real live person, is looking to invest real hard-earned money in a computer. Your advice should be thoughtful, and informed.


None of the amd processors would give you that performance level when building a new PC, as they bottleneck anything higher than a gtx 560.
Click to expand...

Well, let me see if I can find benchmarks of games he specifically mentioned.. Lets see if a video card bottlenecks something higher than a 560...

Battlefield 3.. with a GTX 580 CPU scaling.. Well, if the FX processors bottleneck a 580, so does the i5-2500K....

http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page7.html

---

Skyrim with a GTX 680- You're onto something here, Skyrim is a fairly CPU bound game as shadow rendering is burdened upon the CPU. There is a fairly decent sized bottleneck, even so, the FX-8350 is still capable of performing just a hair below 60FPS in Tom's bench @ ultra settings. Notice they used several different resolutions. 1920x1080, it slightly exceeds the magic number of 60FPS. Which brings us back to what I already covered about noticeable performance differences and benchmarkable ones.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html
---

Borderlands 2

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/6/

Try as I might, I cant seem to find what video card they used in their setup, suffice to say both the i7 and FX-8350 in their setup have zero discernible difference. So, I don't think for the purposes of the point I'm trying to make, the video card really matters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom