Trying to choose a processor...

[Darkfiber]

I am looking to buy a new gaming PC and I am down to a choice of a few processors. I am unsure which to choose of the following:

AMD Phenom X3 8650 Triple-Core 2.3GHz
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad-Core 2.4GHz

While the obvious choice may be the Quad-Core, it is significantly more expensive. The clock speeds are roughly the same but I don't know much about AMD triple-core processors. I have heard that they are somewhat beneficial in some circumstances as many programs can't even use 4 processors. In that case, I wouldn't even need a fourth core. Do you think I should spend the extra money for a quad-core or just get a triple-core AMD processor?

[Apoptosis]

Well here are a couple things to ponder...

Are you going to overclock? If yes, then Intel is the way to go as they have much more headroom to do so.

If you don't plan on overclocking ask yourself what you will be doing with the PC. If you aren't doing a ton of processor intensive tasks then you likely don't need the more expensive system.

AMD has been doing viral marketing videos to show people that spending more money doesn't mean you'll get more performance. An example of this is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_XG411Lik

In that video they compare a Phenom X4 9950 to a Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 processor and show that there is harly a difference when using the same video cards.

Personally I use an Intel system, but I game, overclock and do encoding/decoding along with photoshop and a ton of other applications that average users don't use on a daily basis. If money is critical and the AMD system is cheaper and gets the job done then got for that one. I've used plenty of AMD Phenom systems and now that the TLB issue is fixed there is nothing wrong with the processors or platforms.

Hope this helps a bit.

[Darkfiber]

I will most likely be using it for similar things. Gaming mostly but some photoshop and probably some video editing and such. Money isn't necessarily critical but I would always prefer to spend less if I have the choice! Most likely I will be overclocking but with that processor I don't know if I will even need to (at first anyway) but I possibly will in the future if I feel the need. I would honestly prefer an Intel processor as they seem to be the better ones right now for a change. I'm guessing the quad-core would be better in the long run though

[martini161]

yup, if you do do procesor intensive tasks then the quad is the way to go

[Terune]

If your a gamer i suggest you go with a faster dual core, such as the E8200. The performance wont be too far off the phenom you said and it will play better in games. Both will do fine, but if you play alot of FPS games then every little FPS can help, especially when running high resolutions which can kill your FPS right down. But if you are running a 22" monitor or less i dont think the difference will be huge. But for example the Q6600 will perform better in video encoding etc but worse in games than the E8200.

If it was up to me (take for instance this review) the 45 seconds (the Q6600 compared to the E8500) wouldn't bother me as i would be getting better performance in games, if i was encoding 4 times a day i could see how this would add up, but every couple of days that you actually need to do this stuff (or less) wouldn't worry me in the slightest.

But as for the phenom it kinda loses out. The faster 8750 only just out performed the E7200, which is a bit slower than the E8200. Then again AM2 motherboards can be cheaper than the equivalent intel ones. If money isnt an issue go for the Q6600, if it is (or you just like to save where you can) go for the E8200 as i dont think you would be far disappointed.

[martini161]

If your a gamer i suggest you go with a faster dual core, such as the E8200. The performance wont be too far off the phenom you said and it will play better in games. Both will do fine, but if you play alot of FPS games then every little FPS can help, especially when running high resolutions which can kill your FPS right down. But if you are running a 22" monitor or less i dont think the difference will be huge. But for example the Q6600 will perform better in video encoding etc but worse in games than the E8200.

If it was up to me (take for instance this review) the 45 seconds (the Q6600 compared to the E8500) wouldn't bother me as i would be getting better performance in games, if i was encoding 4 times a day i could see how this would add up, but every couple of days that you actually need to do this stuff (or less) wouldn't worry me in the slightest.

But as for the phenom it kinda loses out. The faster 8750 only just out performed the E7200, which is a bit slower than the E8200. Then again AM2 motherboards can be cheaper than the equivalent intel ones. If money isnt an issue go for the Q6600, if it is (or you just like to save where you can) go for the E8200 as i dont think you would be far disappointed.

this is not entirely true. a q6600 can easily be overclocked to 3ghz on any board, and they perform about the same in games

[Darkfiber]

If your a gamer i suggest you go with a faster dual core, such as the E8200. The performance wont be too far off the phenom you said and it will play better in games. Both will do fine, but if you play alot of FPS games then every little FPS can help, especially when running high resolutions which can kill your FPS right down. But if you are running a 22" monitor or less i dont think the difference will be huge. But for example the Q6600 will perform better in video encoding etc but worse in games than the E8200.

If it was up to me (take for instance this review) the 45 seconds (the Q6600 compared to the E8500) wouldn't bother me as i would be getting better performance in games, if i was encoding 4 times a day i could see how this would add up, but every couple of days that you actually need to do this stuff (or less) wouldn't worry me in the slightest.

But as for the phenom it kinda loses out. The faster 8750 only just out performed the E7200, which is a bit slower than the E8200. Then again AM2 motherboards can be cheaper than the equivalent intel ones. If money isnt an issue go for the Q6600, if it is (or you just like to save where you can) go for the E8200 as i dont think you would be far disappointed.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying for gaming that the dual core you mentioned would outperform the quad core? I will most likely be doing more gaming than encoding. The other option I have for the same price as the Phenom I mentioned is a PC with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual-Core 3.0GHz. That seems like the better bet for the processor, however the Phenom has a 9800GT card and the dual core PC has a 9600GT. I also think the motherboard is slightly better on the Phenom as well. Ahhh I don't know what to do!

[Terune]

this is not entirely true. a q6600 can easily be overclocked to 3ghz on any board, and they perform about the same in games

The e8200 will overclock a bit more under the same circumstances. But now i think about it an average overclock between the two isn't use, and nor is the processors impact on game performance in a balanced system. But even with that said its still an even match for the phenom and a cheaper alternative to the Q6600 if you dont mind a few extra seconds here and there. I guess phrasing it that way puts my point across slightly better

edit: just to clarify are you buying these pre-built?

[Darkfiber]

this is not entirely true. a q6600 can easily be overclocked to 3ghz on any board, and they perform about the same in games

The e8200 will overclock a bit more under the same circumstances. But now i think about it an average overclock between the two isn't use, and nor is the processors impact on game performance in a balanced system. But even with that said its still an even match for the phenom and a cheaper alternative to the Q6600 if you dont mind a few extra seconds here and there. I guess phasing it that way puts my point across slightly better

edit: just to clarify are you buying these pre-built?

Somewhat pre-built, or partially anyway, I can choose some parts or add/switch others. I'm getting them cheaper if they are pre-built from my brother's place, but I can customize parts for more money...but again why spend more when I don't really have to!

[Bwall]

The video card is still the most important part of the system when it comes to gaming. What CPU and video card options do you have?

[Darkfiber]

The video card is still the most important part of the system when it comes to gaming. What CPU and video card options do you have?

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Dual-Core 3.0GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9600GT
AMD Phenom X3 8650 Triple-Core 2.3GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT (same price as the dual-core system)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Quad-Core 2.4GHz with NVIDIA GeForce 9800GT (more expensive)

Again, I can make substitutions but I would prefer not to because it would cost more. The E8400 seems like a better processor but the 8650 system has a better video card. I could upgrade the card in the E8400 system to a 9800GT but it would cost more, so I might as well just get the Q6600 if I'm paying more money. But now I am hearing that a fast dual-core can outperform the Q6600 so now I dont know if I should get the E8400 and upgrade the video card or get the Q6600. Or save the money and get the 8650 system OR just get the fast dual-core and not pay the extra money by just keeping the 9600GT. I would prefer the 9800GT but I don't know if the difference would be that big or not

[martini161]

well if you can why not go with the q6600 and the 9800gt? if you really wanted to save money the 8800gt and the 9800gt are the same thing, but the 8800gt's cost less

[Terune]

well if you can why not go with the q6600 and the 9800gt? if you really wanted to save money the 8800gt and the 9800gt are the same thing, but the 8800gt's cost less

Not in the Uk there not. 9800gt's in the UK site at around £90 compared to the £105 of the 8800gt's. But the GT's are nice, at least the 9800's are, they scale well in SLI (out of the few reviews there are on them in SLI) and have a similar price to performance ratio as the 4850's (less performance and less price...). But im getting side tracked. I would go with the Q6600 in this situation hands down, you will get alot more out of your games with it over the 9600.

[Darkfiber]

well if you can why not go with the q6600 and the 9800gt? if you really wanted to save money the 8800gt and the 9800gt are the same thing, but the 8800gt's cost less

Not in the Uk there not. 9800gt's in the UK site at around £90 compared to the £105 of the 8800gt's. But the GT's are nice, at least the 9800's are, they scale well in SLI (out of the few reviews there are on them in SLI) and have a similar price to performance ratio as the 4850's (less performance and less price...). But im getting side tracked. I would go with the Q6600 in this situation hands down, you will get alot more out of your games with it over the 9600.

Didn't you say you'd go with a faster dual-core before? Say I upgraded the 9600GT to a 9800GT, then it would be a 3.0ghz dual-core compared to a 2.4ghz quad-core, with every other part being the same, and the dual-core being cheaper

[Terune]

Didn't you say you'd go with a faster dual-core before? Say I upgraded the 9600GT to a 9800GT, then it would be a 3.0ghz dual-core compared to a 2.4ghz quad-core, with every other part being the same, and the dual-core being cheaper

Sorry i was abit confused as to the options, i thought that it was like dell where you can change and chose parts but you are very limited in your options, if you can get that setup yeah go for it. But if you can chose that specifically (i.e. its a private company that does custom PC's) i would go for the 4850 for little more than the 9800 but it gives better performance, especially at 22" and 24" monitor resolutions. If you cant customise that much the fast dual core with the 9800 should do you fine.

[Darkfiber]

Didn't you say you'd go with a faster dual-core before? Say I upgraded the 9600GT to a 9800GT, then it would be a 3.0ghz dual-core compared to a 2.4ghz quad-core, with every other part being the same, and the dual-core being cheaper

Sorry i was abit confused as to the options, i thought that it was like dell where you can change and chose parts but you are very limited in your options, if you can get that setup yeah go for it. But if you can chose that specifically (i.e. its a private company that does custom PC's) i would go for the 4850 for little more than the 9800 but it gives better performance, especially at 22" and 24" monitor resolutions. If you cant customise that much the fast dual core with the 9800 should do you fine.

Choose the fast dual-core over the quad-core with all else being the same?

[DMB2000uk]

How long are you planning on keeping this system for?

The quad core will last you longer, and with a little overclocking to 3Ghz, the system will feel pretty nippy indeed.

The dual core will give you (slightly) faster performance in games and things, but will lack the super-multi-threaded-ness that will kick off in the near future. It will also overclock easier and higher than the quad core will.


At the end of the day it comes down to what is the most important for you:
Pure game fps (go for the dual core)
All round system wide performance (go for the quad core)

That's not to say that the E8400 will be slow at all in general windows usage, but if you do heavy duty things like photoshop or video transcoding (say to rip a dvd to an ipod or something)/editing (home movies or something) the the quad would be so much more useful.

Dan

[Darkfiber]

Thanks for the insight. I think I will probably go with the Q6600. I plan on keeping it for a few years anyway, I will most likely get a ram upgrade, maybe an operating system upgrade (I hate vista...only putting 2gb of ram in it for now and sticking with XP, maybe upgrade to 64 bit vista and get some extra ram in the future) and maybe update the video card at some point in a few years from now, but I want the processor to last me through all that, which I think it should if I overclock it to 3.0ghz. I'm not just going to be using it for games and I honestly don't care in minor FPS dips now and then, or even having to put slightly lower settings, I'm not so shallow that I can't enjoy a game unless it's on max graphical settings. I do a lot of video encoding and plan to do video editing now which is the other reason I wanted to get a new PC. My video card and processor now are just getting too slow to deal with high quality videos

[DMB2000uk]

Glad the whole video encoding thing was brought up so that you will be able to get the most from your new purchase

Dan

[martini161]

well i hate to add more confusion for you, but i have to put this out there: you may have heard of CUDA from nvidia, which allows programs to use the incredible performance of the gpu to do many tasks many times faster than the cpu, since you do a lot of video trans/encoding, i should let you know about a program called badaboom, its still in beta but its looking very promising! i believe its quite a bit faster than quads at video transcoding. despite that though, i would still go with the quad. im just giving you all the information you should consider before making a decision