Phenom X4 2.6 GHz to Phenom II X3 72BE?

J

JimmiG

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,429
So, I'm running a first-gen Phenom X4 9650 OC's to 2.6 GHz. My system is used mostly for gaming, but I also use it to make music. I know my music apps take advantage of all four cores, but I haven't come that close to maxing the CPU out so I could live with one less core when working with those.

From a gaming perspective, would it be an "upgrade" going to an X3 2.8 GHz, which could probably be overclocked a bit (nothing extreme as I like to keep voltage, noise etc. down and want 100% stability)? I would loose one core, but the other three would be faster. I know many games don't take advantage of four cores, but there are some that do. What about future games coming out in 2009/2010?

Also would my Radeon 4850 512MB @ 1680x1050 res (2x or 4x AA) be a limiting factor so that even if the CPU was faster, I wouldn't really notice the difference? For example, in Fallout 3 I had to drop to 2x AA to get the best performance, indicating that at least in this game, the videocard rather than the CPU is the bottleneck.
 
4850 will over power any game on a 22", 720BE would be worth the upgrade. Since Phenom 2 is about 20-25% faster clock for clock than Phenom 1.
 
I would say its not worth it YET. I'm assuming your motherboard will support the Phenom IIs (you didn't mention a motherboard switch at all), so my route would be to get a Phenom II X4 8xx series 2.8GhZ chip.

Phenom II isn't 20% faster clock per clock compared to a Phenom. If you look at every single benchmark from a good few reputable sites, which I did (and I did the math, too), then Phenom II is actually 11.2% faster clock per clock (on average) compared to Phenom when you stick with an AM2+ board and DDR2 RAM. When you go to AM3 with DDR3, the difference is really only about 12.1%. Theoretically, by going from your current chip at its current OC to a 720 BE at stock speed, you could see up to a 14% performance decrease in anything that utilizes all 4 cores to their fullest. Then again, the 720 overclocks VERY nicely. Mine is stable at 3.7GhZ for benchmarks, but I usually go a bit mild and keep the OC to 3.4GhZ.

Gaming, obviously, is a totally different story. I would be lying if I said Mirror's Edge didn't perform AMAZINGLY on my 720 BE system with a GF 9800GTX+ and 2GB of DDR3-1600 (Vista) at stock speed, and it only gets better with the OC.
 
LAiN_OfTheWired said:
I would say its not worth it YET. I'm assuming your motherboard will support the Phenom IIs (you didn't mention a motherboard switch at all), so my route would be to get a Phenom II X4 8xx series 2.8GhZ chip.

Phenom II isn't 20% faster clock per clock compared to a Phenom. If you look at every single benchmark from a good few reputable sites, which I did (and I did the math, too), then Phenom II is actually 11.2% faster clock per clock (on average) compared to Phenom when you stick with an AM2+ board and DDR2 RAM. When you go to AM3 with DDR3, the difference is really only about 12.1%. Theoretically, by going from your current chip at its current OC to a 720 BE at stock speed, you could see up to a 14% performance decrease in anything that utilizes all 4 cores to their fullest. Then again, the 720 overclocks VERY nicely. Mine is stable at 3.7GhZ for benchmarks, but I usually go a bit mild and keep the OC to 3.4GhZ.

Gaming, obviously, is a totally different story. I would be lying if I said Mirror's Edge didn't perform AMAZINGLY on my 720 BE system with a GF 9800GTX+ and 2GB of DDR3-1600 (Vista) at stock speed, and it only gets better with the OC.
Click to expand...

umm phenom 2 am3's are backwards compatible with am2 and am2+ all you would need is the appropriate bios update. the phenom 2 is a better chip than the p1 from every angle amd's 65nm chips hurt amd badly but amd has rebounded with the 45nm very nicely.

to the op check you board manufactures site for an am3 bios update if that update exists i feel it is worth it to buy p2 720 sure you lose a core but 720's are stable around 4ghz on air with voltage not that much higher than stock.
 
For under $150 and less the 720 BE Unlocked NB/CPU can easily clock 3.6ghz with stock cooler . Its already proven faster than B3 and the Nb can Oced like mad too.

AM3 810 or 910 is not Unlocked No NB/CPU multi changes and is priced higher for the bang of a simple 720 BE. If you feel lucky ,,look for Bios to enable 4cores,, Lol... and if it turns into a 4core,, that alone is worth it.

Note:
720 uses both AM2/AM3 mobos just like 8xx/9xx AM3..

This means if you want you can up the ram and Mobo to AM3 with the 720BE ,,then wait a while while you play ,,Prices will drop by summer for a 955 or bigger . Either way its a win if you have AM2/AM2+/AM3 ready system.
 
Just wanted to say, my 720 BE didn't unlock the 4th core, and won't overclock past 3.1ghz.

Not all of them are overclocking allstars.

It is however a great processor at default clocks. I have mine running stable at 3ghz just for the hell of it, but yea, they aren't all super overclockers.

This is on a pretty well established Gigabyte platform with plenty of cooling. Juicing extra voltage does nothing for stability past 3.2ghz.

I don't want people thinking they'll get an OC monster by switching to the Phenom II for free.
 
DigitalEmperor said:
Just wanted to say, my 720 BE didn't unlock the 4th core, and won't overclock past 3.1ghz.

Not all of them are overclocking allstars.

It is however a great processor at default clocks. I have mine running stable at 3ghz just for the hell of it, but yea, they aren't all super overclockers.

This is on a pretty well established Gigabyte platform with plenty of cooling. Juicing extra voltage does nothing for stability past 3.2ghz.

I don't want people thinking they'll get an OC monster by switching to the Phenom II for free.
Click to expand...

sounds more like a motherboard issue.. since i havent seen any 720's not make it passed 3.4ghz when overclocked correctly..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
sounds more like a motherboard issue.. since i havent seen any 720's not make it passed 3.4ghz when overclocked correctly..
Click to expand...

Not saying it isn't the motherboard, but lots of folks are using the same board I am, and I haven't really heard of anyone citing their board as a stopping mechanism. Brand name board with a proven NB/SB combo on a matured platform.

Could be that I just got a bad sample of the board, but it's difficult to diagnose where things go wrong when overclocking.

Not sure what the ellipsis after "correctly" is supposed to imply?
 
chinesepiratefood said:
No it won't, not even close to "any game"

Run them? Yes, over power them? No.
Click to expand...


really depends on your personal preference mostly..

at 1680x1050 you will pretty much get as close to maxing out all the settings with a 4850 in games.. well minus crysis.. but who the heck plays that crappy game anymore..
 
maxius said:
it is worth it to buy p2 720 sure you lose a core but 720's are stable around 4ghz on air with voltage not that much higher than stock.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. HardOCP as well as many other review sites were unable to get the chip past 3.76GhZ stable on air, which if you think these sites are using shoddy air cooling then... well, that's wrong. I, too, was able to produce similar results, not getting it past 3.72GhZ stable on air (I have a Scythe 100mm cooler with 6 heatpipes and 4 80mm fans pushing 230CFM through the case, used AS Ceramique, and an ASUS M4A79T Deluxe board with G-Skill Pi Black DDR3 RAM for overclocking room). We were all pushing around the same volts too, which were much higher than stock (I had mine at 1.525v, stock is 1.35v...). That's a big increase, but even if you ran 3.6GhZ on the 720 at all times the extra core you've got now translates up to an 8% performance loss in applications that can achieve full use of all 4 cores. You know, nevermind the fact that keeping the CPU OCed at that all the time could drastically reduce the lifetime of the CPU, motherboard, and possibly the RAM.

Again, on the gaming side, though, the Phenom II 720 would be the better performer by at least 10%. If you're primarily a gamer, this should be a consideration. If you play the occasional game, though, and are far more involved with other things then considering this chip right now shouldn't be a priority since in 6 months it'll still perform the same but cost less. For somebody who "mostly plays games" on their PC, its sort of a toss-up. Do you absolutely crave the better gaming performance and have the cash, or were you simply bit by the upgrade bug and could wait until its cheaper?

I'm trying to be the voice of reason for you, I know how fanboys get ;)
 
LAiN_OfTheWired said:
No, they're not. HardOCP as well as many other review sites were unable to get the chip past 3.76GhZ stable on air, which if you think these sites are using shoddy air cooling then... well, that's wrong. I, too, was able to produce similar results, not getting it past 3.72GhZ stable on air (I have a Scythe 100mm cooler with 6 heatpipes and 4 80mm fans pushing 230CFM through the case, used AS Ceramique, and an ASUS M4A79T Deluxe board with G-Skill Pi Black DDR3 RAM for overclocking room). We were all pushing around the same volts too, which were much higher than stock (I had mine at 1.525v, stock is 1.35v...). That's a big increase, but even if you ran 3.6GhZ on the 720 at all times the extra core you've got now translates up to an 8% performance loss in applications that can achieve full use of all 4 cores. You know, nevermind the fact that keeping the CPU OCed at that all the time could drastically reduce the lifetime of the CPU, motherboard, and possibly the RAM.

Again, on the gaming side, though, the Phenom II 720 would be the better performer by at least 10%. If you're primarily a gamer, this should be a consideration. If you play the occasional game, though, and are far more involved with other things then considering this chip right now shouldn't be a priority since in 6 months it'll still perform the same but cost less. For somebody who "mostly plays games" on their PC, its sort of a toss-up. Do you absolutely crave the better gaming performance and have the cash, or were you simply bit by the upgrade bug and could wait until its cheaper?

I'm trying to be the voice of reason for you, I know how fanboys get ;)
Click to expand...

phenom II is rated for 1.55v so how your effecting the lifespan of the cpu is a little over rated.. sure maybe you take 1 or 2 years off the lifespan of the cpu.. but how many people that overclock actually stick with a cpu long enough to find out what the actual lifespan of the cpu is.. i mean hell im still using an overclocked athlon xp 1700+ thats been going for over 4 years now 24/7.. the cpu's lasted longer then the 4 motherboards its been on since i got it.. still using the same pc-2700 memory i started with..

though on to the point.. i have a 940 @ 3.5ghz.. and ive still yet to find a program that actually benefits from all 4 cores.. most ive ever seen the load go up to in any of my games was 45% and even most of them barely took advantage of all 4 cores.. usually loaded up cores 0 and 1 and the other 2 just sat idle.. though ive also had some weird issues with windows incorrectly setting games to certain cores.. some odd reason if i play ET:QW it loads up cores 1 and 2 and leave 0 and 3 idle.. some games load up cores 0 and 3 and leave the other 2 idle.. just weird crap like that..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
really depends on your personal preference mostly..

at 1680x1050 you will pretty much get as close to maxing out all the settings with a 4850 in games.. well minus crysis.. but who the heck plays that crappy game anymore..
Click to expand...

A 4850 is enough for 1680x1050 with maximum details? If ~30fps is acceptable. You would need a GTX 260 or 4870 1GB for a 22" panel if you like maximum details and a consistently high framerate (and that includes AA and AF). A 4850 is a poor man's substitute.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
A 4850 is enough for 1680x1050 with maximum details? If ~30fps is acceptable. You would need a GTX 260 or 4870 1GB for a 22" panel if you like maximum details and a consistently high framerate (and that includes AA and AF). A 4850 is a poor man's substitute.
Click to expand...

where do these nvidia clowns come from? will you stop trying to get him to buy a video card his 4850 is perfect hell i run 1680/1050 on my desktop with a 3870

oh i see you have a 4850 but you really need a gtx 260 regular or a 4870 1gb to do this .... give me a fucking break please leave his video card alone its fine for his application
 
LAiN_OfTheWired said:
No, they're not. HardOCP as well as many other review sites were unable to get the chip past 3.76GhZ stable on air, which if you think these sites are using shoddy air cooling then... well, that's wrong. I, too, was able to produce similar results, not getting it past 3.72GhZ stable on air (I have a Scythe 100mm cooler with 6 heatpipes and 4 80mm fans pushing 230CFM through the case, used AS Ceramique, and an ASUS M4A79T Deluxe board with G-Skill Pi Black DDR3 RAM for overclocking room). We were all pushing around the same volts too, which were much higher than stock (I had mine at 1.525v, stock is 1.35v...). That's a big increase, but even if you ran 3.6GhZ on the 720 at all times the extra core you've got now translates up to an 8% performance loss in applications that can achieve full use of all 4 cores. You know, nevermind the fact that keeping the CPU OCed at that all the time could drastically reduce the lifetime of the CPU, motherboard, and possibly the RAM.

Again, on the gaming side, though, the Phenom II 720 would be the better performer by at least 10%. If you're primarily a gamer, this should be a consideration. If you play the occasional game, though, and are far more involved with other things then considering this chip right now shouldn't be a priority since in 6 months it'll still perform the same but cost less. For somebody who "mostly plays games" on their PC, its sort of a toss-up. Do you absolutely crave the better gaming performance and have the cash, or were you simply bit by the upgrade bug and could wait until its cheaper?

I'm trying to be the voice of reason for you, I know how fanboys get ;)
Click to expand...

how can you quantify NO THEY ARE NOT when every batch of chips have different overclocking properties. the PII is better than the PI (45nm vs 65nm) 4ghz clocks have been reported on x3 720 vs x3 8750 that can barely see 3ghz clocks. 2.8 ghz launch freq for the 720 vs 2.4 for the 8750 its a better chip hands down
 
You said something that was blatantly false and can be proved false. You CANNOT put a 720 BE at 4GhZ with air cooling and stock voltage. It is quite literally impossible to get the system to post. Stock voltage is the voltage that the chip automatically uses in its stock operation. That is not anywhere near the same as the maximum voltage AMD rates the chip for.

Also, if nobody at any of the major review sites can get these things to stay stable beyond 3.7GhZ with the best air cooling money can buy for this chip at the maximum supported voltage, how do you expect anybody to get it stable at 4GhZ? Maybe with an Ultra ChillTEC, but with a "standard" (a thing with a base, heatpipes, and fins) heatsink and 120mm fan... no way. MAYBE stable enough to run 3DMark, but not Prime95 stable, that's for god damn sure. Let it be known, though, that I went through 8 review sites before buying one of these, all of them said [email protected] (or worse, like [H] best stable was 3.58GhZ), so when I tried 3.88GhZ I knew I had a decent chance of crashing the system. 4 > 3.88, so I have no idea how you think 4GhZ is possible on air.

I really shouldn't even have to say these things, anybody that can read has already seen these arguments in my first post.

I have one. I've put it through a good amount of testing. I have pretty decent cooling. I know what I'm doing. QFT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top