Not a flame starter, Phenom, good for?

jprevost

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2007
60
0
18,630
0
I'm not trying to start a flame thread here, I just want people's honest answers.
What builds are Phenom's good for right now. Same question goes for the x2's.
I totally understand that people can upgrade from the 64 to the x2's and from slower x2's to higher clocked be's but if I were to build a completely new system, when would I consider AMD's processors?
Some quick history so nobody thinks I'm spilling gasoline waiting for somebody to bring a match; my favorite build from scratch was a AMD XP 1600+ with the 1st nForce chipset. For the most part, I build Intel machines and am wanting to have a good reason to build another AMD machine. Upgraded my father's machine from a Pentium D 840 to a used x2 4000 system I picked up a while back for $100 that included a gig of ram.
The only reason I can come up is video encoding, not even transcoding, but just pure h.264 and the like.
I personally prefer AMD's x2's for any pentium 4 family computers but sheesh, the Intel's seem to be steam rolling when you factor in gaming and/or overclocking.
 

spuddyt

Distinguished
Jul 21, 2007
2,114
0
19,780
0
we aren't with P4's anymore- that is why amd is now behind, because frankly K10 architecture just doesn't seem to deliver as much juice as Core 2, let alone penryn, however, if you can find one for cheap enough, it might be worth it for video encoding - better than any dual core anyway, since all phenoms thus far are quad
 

reconviperone1

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2006
1,048
0
19,280
0
Phenoms are good for the same things as core 2's , just not as quickly. As far as X-2's, my x2-5600 was awesome, especially when it gotup to 3.2ghz. I hope to build a amd system again one day.
 

chunkymonster

Splendid
Jan 12, 2006
3,679
0
22,960
78

Anytime a thread starts with this as it's opening line, you should expect nothing but.

Asking what a Phenom is good for is like asking why you would want to use Firefox instead of IE.

You don't need any better reason to build an AMD machine other than the fact that you want to build an AMD machine. Who's approval are you looking for?

 

NMDante

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2002
1,588
0
19,780
0
Phenoms are good for any build, imo. If you want the fastest machine, look elsewhere. If you want a machine that runs applications, then the Phenom fits the bill. Not sure what exactly you're asking, since you didn't really give any specific tasks that you intend to run. You touch on video encoding, but not as a specific task you intend to do.

Hell, an X2, Core2, Quad, or Phenom will run whatever you want to run. It just depends on how fast you want to run a task, depends on the CPU you should get.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Anyone wanting a fine performing system that doesnt want to overclock, and maybe wants to save a buck or two, olus take advantage of a platform on the cheap (780G) for light gaming, yet great for HD playback. No overclock, price competitive per performance, yea thats who its for
 

spongebob

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2004
335
0
18,790
1
Forget about starting with a brand in mind, just make a checklist of what's important to you. Are you concerned about cost? What kind of apps will you run on it, and how often? Do you plan on overclocking? Is upgradability important? Follow your checklist to whatever processor it leads to and go with it.

If you start out wanting to have a reason to go one way or the other, you're apt to find one, regardless of how that reason stacks up against the real facts. That's a bass-ackwards approach IMO.

 

fazers_on_stun

Splendid
Aug 31, 2006
4,744
0
22,860
42



Or perhaps a decent HTPC setup. I like those "butter-smooth" HD playback comments about the 780G IGP. However I'd stick with a lower-power Phenom to avoid fan noise.
 

jprevost

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2007
60
0
18,630
0
So far what I've gathered from your replies is that the phenom is a processor that is just the next x2 for everything (gaming included) when not considering overclocking. In other words, it's for a RTR machine that doesn't have any stand-out performance in one area other than maybe server apps and video encoding.
Considering overclocking and Intel walks away with just about every processor they make right now.
So the phenom is good (maybe not great) for an unspecific family computer that should last 4+ years without needing to clean out any dust bunnies :) .
I can't for the life of me find AMD pushing the chip for any specific application. Kind of sad really because I would think if they priced it as low as they did, they would try and sell them into some market slice. I remember when performance/watt was all the x2, but the price wasn't pretty, then the c2d was all that and then some but the price was stuck and forced the x2's down making them a great buy for a budget gaming build. Now it doesn't look like there is ANY benefit to going with AMD for an internet/office/gaming/family machine. The benefit would only be there if I already had a phenom ready mobo sitting here waiting for an upgrade :( .
 

reddozen

Distinguished
May 11, 2007
62
0
18,630
0
The only thing i would build a K10 box for is MySQL servers. It's the 1 area where the chips shine over current Intel offerings. out side of that in the high end performance arena, a K10 is not the best of the best. It is a cheap quad core though.
 

CiccioB

Distinguished
Feb 28, 2008
12
0
18,510
0
Consider this.
On this board, most people consider AMD chips a failure just because they can reach Intel frequencies. On the other hand, Intel chip cost much more than AMD ones. Even at same performances level. CPU and Motherboard Intel based are more expensive. Yet, from an Intel CPU + motherboard you can get much more power, but you are going to spend more money as well. See the prices of those ultra-mega-super powerful Quad cores.
Phenom CPU costs for what they give.
In the end it all depends on what you use yor PC for (mainly). If you do video encoding/rendering o generally run very CPU intensive application a quad core would be much better than a dual core (even if the latter is faster in clock). If you mainly play games a dual core is still the perfect choice. Now, once you have decided how many cores you need, just look at you pocket and try to chose the best CPU+motherboard you can find for your money. If you desperately need to save 10 secs at each video you encode, then go for Intel Q67xx family. If you prefer to keep you pocket a bit fatter as you don't mind those 10 secs, Phenom may be a solution.
If you want to play Crysis on your brand new 24" monitor @ 1920x1200 with all enabled, go for a E8600 + the faster GForce you can afford (or a couple of them in SLI). If you are happy with a 1600x1200 with medium settings, probably a X2@5400-5600 may be a good choice for half (or less) the price of the previous choice.
Take into consideration than C2D are their end on the actual architecture. Next one will need a completely new motherboard/chipset/memory.
AMD announced that future Phenom CPU will remain compatible with current AM2+ motherboards, so a smooth transition in next months may be available trough that path.

I'm too debated on the kind of PC I am going to build. On one hand a middle set-up AMD based waiting for a further upgrade once faster 45um CPU will be available (ever three cores would be good). On the other hand a full optional (almost as exagerating is stupid in any way) Intel based system to be used in the next couple of year waiting for the brand new architecture to come down in price (and maturing a bit) and so do a change over in a single shot.

My problem is also that I WANT a nVidia GPU. And I can't see many AM2+ motherboards with good SLI support (I'm looking for a 780a motherboard at resonable price).

As there are some interesting offers lately, I think I'm now more geared towards an Intel build (E8400+GF9600 with SLI option in future) which would finally allow me to play modern games at a resolution a bit higher than 800x600 (now I have an Athlon300+ with GF6600... what a dinosaur I am!).

 

rockbyter

Distinguished
Feb 13, 2008
563
0
18,980
0
We used to buy k6-2s because they were really cheap compared to intel and gave us the acceptable performance we needed. The X2 has run its course and now we are back to where the AMD solutions can't beat intel, but can keep up. Phenom is a great solution for under 200 bucks.

A phenom is a good upgrade from a dual core if your currently running less than an x2 5000+ and you have a motherboard that currently supports phenom. you will feel a bit of a performance difference. Its a great upgrade if you are going from single core to multi-core, and you will love it for a couple of years.
 
K8's - High end gaming machines (single threaded)
K10 - Budget mutli-threading (video encoding)

Core 2 Duo - High end gaming (they have faster models than AMD)
Core 2 Quad - Anything, all models faster than AMD's quad-core

Pentium 4 - Landfill

If you're going to OC, go with Intel. The only processor AMD has that is worth OCing is the Athlon X2 5000+ BE.
 

reconviperone1

Distinguished
Nov 23, 2006
1,048
0
19,280
0

Landfill, that was cold, LOL
 

computertech82

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
1,361
0
19,660
145
Phonem really belongs in the landfill with the p4s. It can't even beat amd's own x2 6400+, that's just sad. And with the price about the price of a Intel Q6600 ( a far FASTER cpu), there is NO reason to get a phonem. Now IF (big IF), the B3 gains performace (seems to be a debate if 10-20% is gained or not), it MIGHT be worth it. But it would have to finally beat the OLD X2 6400+ and the OLD Intel Q6600.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator

This is true, a 6400+ will beat out the current Phenoms, but that 6400 is the highpoint of a design over4-5 years. Eventually we will see phenoms outperforming this, its a clock issue not a IPC issue. Now, if you had to do a clock for clock your 6400 against a phenom youd see improvement. Its come in limping, slightly underperforming, had problems from the get go, but if it gets ironed out, therell still be a place for it, maybe not at the top, but certainly somewhere, as it isnt as bad (with no oc) as all that
 

jprevost

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2007
60
0
18,630
0
Ignoring both computertech82 and boner...
Thanks for the replies that boiled down the phenom for me. I think I know how I'll use it in a build.
At where I work, we have a small database and only 2 computers currently. The place is expanding to have 2 additional computers. Right now 1 of the computers is a user AND the sql server. It's our fastest machine, a 64 3400 or something and the other end machine is a celeron D. Everything works great right now but when we add the 2 additional computers and increase the database 2 fold I can see using the phenom as the new server and keep it a user machine. Inexpensive and powerful for the office where we do not overclock.
Again thanks for the replies. BTW, we're using a dual P3 866MHz machine as our VOIP phone system!
 

e36_Jeff

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2007
49
0
18,530
0


saying that a Phenom should go to the landfill because a 6400 beats it in single threaded apps is like saying a 2.4Ghz Q6600 should go to the landfill because a 3.0Ghz X6800 can beat it in single threaded apps. a Phenom vs an X2 running at the same speeds will win all the time, and when you use programs that can actually use 4 cores it really pulls ahead of the 6400. not saying its awesome or anything, but its still better clock for clock than the X2's.

proof is here: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/14/phenom_vs_athlon_core_scaling_compared/index.html

 

ZOldDude

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2006
1,251
0
19,280
0
I am still wondering why I -need- 4 cores as all I do is surf the web,torrent and game.

I can't notice any of the games running any faster moveing from a sngl core to a dual at the same Ghz....but sure as hell noticed alot going from a OC'd 7900GT to a stock 8800GTS (G92)!
 

ZOldDude

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2006
1,251
0
19,280
0

Truth be told I would -rather- have bought more Optron 148's when I picked them up for $70...and more G.Skill PC-4000 (ddr1).
On stock volts they (the seven in my profile) all OC 50% and never get warm (3-4C over room air running Orthos)...and the DDR1 ram beats the fastest DDR2 in Read/Write/Copy benchmarks (Everest) by 1K points.

Shame 939 MB's and fast DDR1 ram are almost just a memory...but you can still pick up Optron 180's boxed for $126.
On stock volts and air the Optrons (939) all had no problem doing 3Ghz (even the 146's) and loads of people had them 3.3-3.4Ghz with just a small volt boost.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS