Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    Member Blue 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas,Tx

    Which CPU for gaming?

    I am looking to upgrade my CPU (and other things) mainly for gaming. Debating between the 5400+BE or the 6000+.

    Should I get the 5400+BE and overclock it to around 3-3.2Ghz? or the 6000+ at 3-3.1Ghz?
    The 6000+ comes in the Windsor and the Brisbane. If the 6000+ would be a better choice for gaming, should I go with the Windsor or Brisbane? I know the Brisbane runs cooler, uses less power, and overclocks better, but which version would be better for gaming? The power usage and heat is not that big of a issue for me. I am just wanting which ever one would be better/faster all together.

    I plan to do a "lil" overclocking on either one that I choose.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103289
    or
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103272
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103773
    Last edited by Blue 83; 12-22-08 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    The one with the most cache is the one I would get. If they are the same (sorry its been years since I had an AMD rig) then go with the lower wattage version. The 6000+ and 5400+BE will overclock about the same.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  3. #3
    Member Blue 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas,Tx
    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula420 View Post
    The one with the most cache is the one I would get. If they are the same (sorry its been years since I had an AMD rig) then go with the lower wattage version.
    So is that the way I should look at it when choosing a CPU? The more cache the better? If thats so, then the 6000+ "Windsor" would be the better choice with the L2 Cache being at 2x1MB? over the 6000+ "Brisbane" L2 Cache being at 1MB?

    If all thats true, then would this new 7750+BE with the L2 Cache being at 3MB be a even better choice for gaming?
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103300

  4. #4
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    As far as the cache goes, only when comparing 2 chips h2h would I do the cache thing. I have never even heard of a 7750+BE!!!! But after looking at it, seeing as how its the same price as the 6000+ AND its a BE. I would go for that.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  5. #5
    shadin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Heatware Profile
    One thing to keep in mind about CPU cache and gaming is that it makes only about a 5% difference, and then the difference is only seen generally at low resolution without AA/AF and other effects. For gaming, in my opinion, the answer is to go with the CPU that gives you the best price/performance ratio and use the extra money on a powerful GPU.
    Desktop: Intel i5-3570k - Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD3H - Samsung DDR3-1600 8GB - Intel 520 240GB SSD - Sapphire HD 7870 Tahiti 2GB - Seasonic X650 Gold

    I know there's no grand plan here. This is just the way it goes.
    Heatware


  6. #6
    Member Blue 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dallas,Tx
    Ok lets say I narrow it down between the 6000+ Windsor and the 6000+ Brisbane. Which one would be better for gaming?

  7. #7
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    I would go with the windsor for the extra cache... But like I said, that 7750 is the same price with higher stock clockspeeds and more cache.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tucson AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Caligula420 View Post
    I would go with the windsor for the extra cache... But like I said, that 7750 is the same price with higher stock clockspeeds and more cache.
    The 7750 doesn't have higher stock clock speeds and will be much slower than the 6000 Brisbane when gaming. The 7750 CPU is starting a full 400mhz behind the 6000 and you can't make that speed up with extra memory speed or cache.

    Even if you can get the 7750 OC'd to 3.1, you still won't match the performance/heat ratio of a stock 6000 Brisbane will provide for gaming under load.

    Just my opinion, but I will take pure clock speed any day for gaming.
    Coolermaster Centurion 531 : Antec Trio 650 : Foxconn A79A-S : Athlon X2 6000+ Brisbane : Xigmatek S1284 : Palit Sonic HD4850 : Westinghouse 22" LCD

  9. #9
    "The Expert" Archer0915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    East Carolina University Grad School
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    If you only plan on gaming then cache is irrelavent after a point and raw horses (Clock Speed) are what you need. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...enom,2104.html Here is a review that will give you an idea of performance. The 6000 seems to whip the 7750 most of the time in the real world admitedly it is a windsor core but you get an idea of where the 7750 stands.
    People that buy OEM systems think Linux was a Charlie Brown character, a registry is something you see at target to buy shower gifts, RAM is a Dodge truck and a hard drive is DC at rush hour.
    Current Active Fleet:
    Daily Driver i7 3740QM T530
    Work Rig/networked backup - i7 4770K@4.4, 24GB Ram, 7850 GFX Bedroom PC - i7 870 @ 3.4, 16GB Ram, 6670 GFX
    Home School PC (kids) SB Celery @1.6, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFX Living Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram
    Game Rig (kids)- 3570K@4.7, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
    Test Bed - In flux

  10. #10
    I'd go wit thte dual core phenom 7750 Black Edition http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103300

    Unless you do allot of CPU limited stuff like Simulators and RTS it should be more then enough grunt for current games.

    http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...re-processors/

    It a good article about what gains you get with various CPUs, unless you're playing at 1280x1024 or lower with a high end GPU you'll be GPU limited when you jack up everything as far as it will go.

    Just remember to ignore things like super pi and useless mark and only follow real world tests.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by apenland01 View Post
    The 7750 doesn't have higher stock clock speeds and will be much slower than the 6000 Brisbane when gaming. The 7750 CPU is starting a full 400mhz behind the 6000 and you can't make that speed up with extra memory speed or cache.

    Even if you can get the 7750 OC'd to 3.1, you still won't match the performance/heat ratio of a stock 6000 Brisbane will provide for gaming under load.

    Just my opinion, but I will take pure clock speed any day for gaming.
    Question, what res do you game at and what do you game? Your your FPS titles should be GPU limited, only your RTS and Simulators should be so dependent on the CPU as to have an adverse effect to your framerate should your GPU be up to the task.

    Consult last year's Tom's gpu charts where like the idiots they are, had MS Flight Sim in the charts, notice that through the full gamut of their tests that only the very bottom line GPUs couldn't cap the CPU limitation, and even then, only once they started raising the quality and res.

  12. #12
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by apenland01 View Post
    The 7750 doesn't have higher stock clock speeds and will be much slower than the 6000 Brisbane when gaming. The 7750 CPU is starting a full 400mhz behind the 6000 and you can't make that speed up with extra memory speed or cache.

    Even if you can get the 7750 OC'd to 3.1, you still won't match the performance/heat ratio of a stock 6000 Brisbane will provide for gaming under load.

    Just my opinion, but I will take pure clock speed any day for gaming.
    Sorry, I flip flopped the speeds...

    Aside from that, both will top out in the 3.2 - 3.4Ghz range give or take. I will take the extra cache under that premise.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  13. #13
    "The Expert" Archer0915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    East Carolina University Grad School
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Duo, actually if you take a hard look at the benchies you will see that after a point several benches on video become cpu limited espically if you have everything cranked up. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...v1-21,752.html is a good example of what I mean.

    EDIT: let me clarify all of these benchies are on different chips with CPU being the only same and limiting factor. If you look you will see a top out point.

    As to the 7750 after a close study of all benchies it is clear that in most apps it is inferior to higher clocked and sometimes lower clocked CPU's and pulls ahead in a very limited number of select bench marks. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...om,2104-7.html this page gives a good idea.
    Last edited by Archer0915; 12-23-08 at 08:18 AM.
    People that buy OEM systems think Linux was a Charlie Brown character, a registry is something you see at target to buy shower gifts, RAM is a Dodge truck and a hard drive is DC at rush hour.
    Current Active Fleet:
    Daily Driver i7 3740QM T530
    Work Rig/networked backup - i7 4770K@4.4, 24GB Ram, 7850 GFX Bedroom PC - i7 870 @ 3.4, 16GB Ram, 6670 GFX
    Home School PC (kids) SB Celery @1.6, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFX Living Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram
    Game Rig (kids)- 3570K@4.7, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
    Test Bed - In flux

  14. #14
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Archer0915 View Post

    As to the 7750 after a close study of all benchies it is clear that in most apps it is inferior to higher clocked and sometimes lower clocked CPU's and pulls ahead in a very limited number of select bewnch marks.
    Links?

    For some reason that doesnt make sense. Why would a dual core chip with more cache perform worse than a similarly and lower clocked model??? What did I miss?

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  15. #15
    "The Expert" Archer0915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    East Carolina University Grad School
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Cache latency of the L3 and the fact that the prediction if not properly implemented will cause the cpu to fetch from mem/hdd and this causes part of the slow down. More cache does not always mean better performance, (it (cache) can and will improve a lot of things but in games and some other apps it is (can be) hit and miss and therefore potentially detrimental to performance) it means that if the processor sends out a fetch command it first checks L2 then L3 then if not there ram and finally HDD and that is where latency comes into play and AMD seems to be having issues with this first gen L3 cache, latency and predictions made by controller.
    People that buy OEM systems think Linux was a Charlie Brown character, a registry is something you see at target to buy shower gifts, RAM is a Dodge truck and a hard drive is DC at rush hour.
    Current Active Fleet:
    Daily Driver i7 3740QM T530
    Work Rig/networked backup - i7 4770K@4.4, 24GB Ram, 7850 GFX Bedroom PC - i7 870 @ 3.4, 16GB Ram, 6670 GFX
    Home School PC (kids) SB Celery @1.6, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFX Living Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram
    Game Rig (kids)- 3570K@4.7, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
    Test Bed - In flux

  16. #16
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Understood. Links to "all" benches of your study please...

    I thought that bug (L3 errata) was fixed with B3 revisions of the chip? Not to mention, I thought that was the Phenom with those issues...
    Last edited by EarthDog; 12-23-08 at 09:16 AM.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  17. #17
    "The Expert" Archer0915's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    East Carolina University Grad School
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    A look at benchmark data covering a broad spectrum such as http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...nom,2104.html# and others allows you to see in practice what I am speaking of. As far as cache design and architecture you will have to break out the books and do some research (AMD white papers are good) as I can not give a link with an all inclusive answer. The answer is there but it will take some digging.

    Though benchies across the board are hard to find these days as most who post benchies are not objective and select only those results that agree with their point of view they are out there I just happen to trust the results of toms.

    EDIT: will post more links later gotta go see the DOC. kid has appt.
    Last edited by Archer0915; 12-23-08 at 09:20 AM.
    People that buy OEM systems think Linux was a Charlie Brown character, a registry is something you see at target to buy shower gifts, RAM is a Dodge truck and a hard drive is DC at rush hour.
    Current Active Fleet:
    Daily Driver i7 3740QM T530
    Work Rig/networked backup - i7 4770K@4.4, 24GB Ram, 7850 GFX Bedroom PC - i7 870 @ 3.4, 16GB Ram, 6670 GFX
    Home School PC (kids) SB Celery @1.6, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFX Living Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram
    Game Rig (kids)- 3570K@4.7, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
    Test Bed - In flux

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Cache is your friend. Since cache fills and flushes to and from main memory can occur
    transparently, this gives the opportunity for a well-coded application to process data
    that's already in the cache, while the subsequent data is being fetched, effectively
    hiding the latency of main memory. I base this on things I've seen and measured in
    multi-core, multi-thread environment.

    Ok, good luck finding a well-coded application.

    Edit

    I just wanted to add, that I started a CPU analysis a few weeks ago without any
    preconception or view to promote. I had no idea what was better, higher clock speeds,
    more cores, one architecture vs another, cache size. So I made a benchmark, wrote some PHP
    script for my website, and got some empirical data from those who were willing to upload
    their benchmark results, which I appreciate. It's been interesting, with some surprises along
    the way.
    Last edited by bz2klag; 12-23-08 at 09:36 AM.

  19. #19
    Researches Meritless
    LIES for the Front
    Page and Super Mutterator

    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Stuck in Maryland...
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Thank you for the link...I will investiage further. Im amazed!!!

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  20. #20
    Disabled
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anywhere but there
    Author Profile
    From what I saw in those benches the 7750 performs very close to the 5600 even though it's clocked 3% lower. From experience with Phenoms I would expect the 7750 to clock at least 3100 if not more so maybe the 6400 would have an advantage but I doubt any of the others will in the real world.

    My recommendation: The 6400 followed by the 7750. Either way, I'd get a GOOD AM2+ motherboard to run it ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •