AM2/AM2+ CPUs

Discussion in 'Tech' started by Belgarion, Feb 3, 2010.

  1. Belgarion

    Belgarion New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Hey everyone. Been a while since I was here. :)

    I have a Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H (v1.0). It has an AM2/AM2+ socket on it and I'm wondering what you think the faster CPU will be. NewEgg has an Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @3ghz w/2 megs L2 cache for 55 shipped (AM2 socket). On the other hand there is an AM2+ X3 8750 Black @2.4ghz for 65 shipped. I like that the 8750 is only 95W vs the 6000+125W, but that's about the only deciding factor for me right now, aside from which is the faster of the two for strictly gaming. I don't really do anything else these days where CPU speed is a factor any more.

    Thanks for the advice fellas.

    :edit: i'm on XP Pro
  2. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,840
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    The AM2+ X3 is a triple core chip so it should out perform the 64 X2.

    Is there a reason you're building a system using 2-4 year old chips? Spend $50 and get a newer motherboard and get yourself some Intel actions.
  3. Belgarion

    Belgarion New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I've had the board a couple years, I just don't feel the need to upgrade, particularly if I can get a chip that will perform admirably with what I have. Besides, I'm a die-hard AMD fan. I've never owned an Intel and I don't want to. Silly as that may be. ;)

    I guess I just never bought into the idea that more cores will always be better. I can certainly see how a dual-core is better, but three? Does XP even support triple-core? Maybe I just feel the X2 is more cost effective, even if only by 10 dollars.
  4. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,840
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    Welp, have fun playing Counter Strike and World of Warcraft then.

    Edit: My two year-old iMac even has a Core2Duo!
  5. -=Lurker=-

    -=Lurker=- **BANNED**

    Messages:
    10,118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah

    Haha my iNtel Xeon Mac has 8 cores at 2.93 GHz each....

    Sorry but I hate AMD fanboys...:eek:
  6. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,840
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    You know what else is overrated? Cylinders.

    I guess I just never bought into the idea that more cylinders will always be better. I can certainly see how a four-cylinder is better, but six? Does Ford even support six-cylinders? Maybe I just feel VTEC is more cost effective, even if only by 10 dollars.
  7. -=Lurker=-

    -=Lurker=- **BANNED**

    Messages:
    10,118
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    You sir need to drive a v12 Ferrari that makes your nuts itch...

    Sure you can get that with a bored out inline or boxer 4 but not at 5-6K rpms with the source 2-3 feet behind your ballsack... ;)
  8. Just so you know, even the newer AM3 chips will work on the older AM2/AM2+ boards. If you're gaming I'd suggest the 6000+ but if you're going to do video/photoshop I'd suggest the 8750.

    I'm not sure on the particulars, but I know you can software unlock some of the triple core chips to quad core.
  9. Belgarion

    Belgarion New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    I had no idea. In that case I'll probably get this [link] or this [link2] in stead.

    That's what I'd always thought, that more cores does not necessarily mean faster, particularly in programs that only use one thread.

    A simple "more cores is actually better" would have sufficed.

    Oh btw, I don't play CS or WoW thanks. :p
  10. Commissar Smersh

    Commissar Smersh 2020 Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,840
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Nuevo Springfield
    A lot of programs are starting to use multi-threading and the OSes are taking advantage of it as well. If the OS can offload some of it's overhead to the second core, that frees up more power for your first core.
  11. Belgarion

    Belgarion New Member

    Messages:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    that part i understood, I just thought it was more a case of diminishing returns after 2 cores, but from the sound of it that won't begin until somewhere after 4, if tri and quad cores are indeed faster than dual cores. and after doing some more reading and thinking about it i have to come to the same conclusion, that 3 cores are, indeed, faster than 2. so i'm sold on the tri-core cpu and ordered an X3 425. no L3 cache but eh.. I'm not that hardcore any more. and also poor. hehe. thanks for the help guys.