Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Which is better amd vs amd cpu's?
The AMD 4X4 System setup that has two seperate processors as shown below on the two links, and 8 gigs ram, these cpu's run at 3.0 GHZ each, and are dual core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131248
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103866
OR One single amd Pheonom Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103244
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136041
Not exactly sure which of these two are the best, however the AMD Phenom has bigger cache, and faster FSB, and also I could add Cross fire to the phenom motherboard, as well as a soundcard,killer nic, and physics card...
However im wondering over all which is the fastest two dual cores, or one single amd CPU Phenom.
Comments
Since you are going quad core and buying a new motherboard + CPU, Intel is your best choice. Either get the Q6600 or wait for the new quad cores that are coming out within a month.
> AMD IS BETTER FOR THE OVERCLOCK i'd go for an amd overclock it properly
It's all Lies...
Why turn it into a Intel Vs Amd discussion? He was asking about Amd and i think you should stay on topic.
I've been using AMD cpu's since the K6-2 3D Now chips. As I write this I'm running on a socket 939 3800+ X2.
I'm really not sure how to answer your quesion. In the end if you are looking at it from the performance angle (versus costs etc) I am not sure you would see any difference.
Its also going to depend on what type of software (games/applications etc) you are going to be running. For gaming not that many games are actually coded to support multi core. Its something that will become common over the next few years but...
I'm not sure if someone asked me I could recommend a "quad" setup of any kind over a dual core. Unless they were running software that is going to take advantage of it (many cad/graphics programs would be and it cuts render times etc).
I'd also at this point in time have a very hard time telling them to buy AMD instead of a Core 2 duo setup.
That's just how I see it..
But your basic quesion is "what will be faster two dual cores or one quad core".
The only way I can see that being an issue in that paticular comparison is if:
1) One setup is running a higher clock.
2) One setup has inherent performance issues (could be heat or hardware etc)
3) Cache sizes/cache speeds
Then again I perhaps haven't kept up on the hardware end of things that well for the last 2 years due to work. So perhaps I am totally off here.
From what I know, AMD abandoned the 4x4 platform in Q3 2007. It was basically stillborn, from what I have read. If so, it is a very bad investment, with no support. See here:
www.dailytech.com/AMD+Details+Nextgeneration+Platforms/article10034.htm
A Little Dab'll Do Ya!
Well Basically back to the first post...
The two dual cores have a higher clock, really high, 6GHZ combined, however i hear that you cant combine them when using single application's such as games, and ect.
The phenom cpu its self, has a big cache, about 500 or so more than the two amd DUO Cores put together, and a higher Front Side Bus, however it only runs a max of 2.2, or 2.3, and the two duo cores run a total of 3.0 GHZ each...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4VtxVIO3p8&feature=related 4X4 System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oQq0nyZyBc&feature=related 4X4 System
So which is really better for playing games/mmorpg's at max graphics/running multiple games at once?
Basically i play games like Fury online, Guild Wars, Quake 4, Counter Strike, ECT. And i want to run them in the highest graphics possible without lag, and long loading times, or graphics lag.
Also Note that the 4X4 System Can Only Hold a Good Soundcard, It cannot hold a Killer NIC Card, and a physic's card like the DFI phenom motherboard can...
Also the games that I play do not have to take advantage of all 4 core's on the cpu, or both cores, or the 4x4 setup, im just looking for a setup to run the games, and other software programs, and pc programs without lag.
Im just trying to find out over all which would be best the 4X4 System, with 2 cpu's at 3.0 GHZ each, or a single 2.3GHZ Phenom Quad Core.
take your hard earned money and buy an intel.....
If your going to stick to AMD, just go with a single CPU.
If your upgrading, might be cheaper and better in the long run to go Intel.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Not Cheaper. AMD currently has the best budget when building up a new system and has the lower cost upgrade future. Intel is currently a money eater. On performance you are looking at a marginal difference with the price difference of a few hundred. Quad Cores pretty much beat all Dual Cores except the 2 current Intel Extremes. I mean you are looking at a 3% performance difference and people screaming there is a HUGE gap.
The next few months should be interesting. Right now AMD and Intel are pretty much on equal footing in the Q3 2008 bracket. AMD is also starting to show the fruits of thier research in Fusion Technology, while Intel may be beginning to branch out of the CPU segment.
I would go with the Single CPU as well. Unless you are operating a Server or Workstation, the extra processor is worthless. Even if you are, a dedicated server board is better for this task because it can support far more CPUs and more Ram. Bringing a dual CPU to gaming and mainstream didn't really catch on for the consumer or the game developer so it was a good choice just to drop it.
Is this a joke? That's an obvious no brainer, ditch the dual 1207 FX's and get the Agena 9600. Easy choice.
Yes, 2 FX-74s @3.0 ghz will slightly outperform the Agena @ 2.3 ghz. The FX-74s will be a bit faster than a Q6600, which itself is a bit faster than the 9600.
However:
- 2x FX-74s will suck up to 250W alone, making for one hot computer and one big electric bill
- The 9600 has more overclocking potential (though not as high as Intel's). The FX-74 has none whatsoever.
- Because of the way the 4x4 platform accesses memory, you can be bottlenecked unless you run Vista
- 2x FX-74s cost $300 vs. $230 for the 9600. The motherboard is also $100 cheaper (and less power hungry to boot)
- The AM2+ socket has an upgrade path, whereas the 1207 socket was a dead end when it first came out.
- The 790FX motherboard has more future expandability
If the Q6600 is not an option, the 9600 easily. It's not even a contest.