Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > AMD CPUs
AMD CPUs
Forum Jump

Which CPU for gaming?

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-22-08, 11:27 AM Thread Starter   #1
Blue 83
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.
Blue 83 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 11:34 AM   #2
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 11:52 AM Thread Starter   #3
Blue 83
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
Blue 83 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 11:57 AM   #4
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 12:06 PM   #5
shadin

 
shadin's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis

 
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

shadin is offline Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 01:06 PM Thread Starter   #6
Blue 83
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?
Blue 83 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 01:11 PM   #7
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-22-08, 11:39 PM   #8
apenland01
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
apenland01 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 12:38 AM   #9
Archer0915
"The Expert"

 
Archer0915's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Carolina University Grad School

 
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.
Knowing your usage habits can help you save money and get the fastest system for you!

Current Active Fleet:
Daily Driver - i7@3.8, 16GB Ram, 6770 GFX Bedroom PC - SB Celerey @ 1.6, 4GB Ram
Entertainment Room HTPC & Madia/File Server - 661@3.5, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFXLiving Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram

Game Rig - 2500K@4.5, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
Test Bed - 3570K with various components and a TT 750w PSU
Archer0915 is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 01:38 AM   #10
Duo Maxwell
Registered

 
Duo Maxwell's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2007

 
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.
Duo Maxwell is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 01:50 AM   #11
Duo Maxwell
Registered

 
Duo Maxwell's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2007

 
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.
Duo Maxwell is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 06:56 AM   #12
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 07:45 AM   #13
Archer0915
"The Expert"

 
Archer0915's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Carolina University Grad School

 
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.

__________________
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.
Knowing your usage habits can help you save money and get the fastest system for you!

Current Active Fleet:
Daily Driver - i7@3.8, 16GB Ram, 6770 GFX Bedroom PC - SB Celerey @ 1.6, 4GB Ram
Entertainment Room HTPC & Madia/File Server - 661@3.5, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFXLiving Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram

Game Rig - 2500K@4.5, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
Test Bed - 3570K with various components and a TT 750w PSU

Last edited by Archer0915; 12-23-08 at 08:18 AM.
Archer0915 is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 07:56 AM   #14
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 08:58 AM   #15
Archer0915
"The Expert"

 
Archer0915's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Carolina University Grad School

 
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.
Knowing your usage habits can help you save money and get the fastest system for you!

Current Active Fleet:
Daily Driver - i7@3.8, 16GB Ram, 6770 GFX Bedroom PC - SB Celerey @ 1.6, 4GB Ram
Entertainment Room HTPC & Madia/File Server - 661@3.5, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFXLiving Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram

Game Rig - 2500K@4.5, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
Test Bed - 3570K with various components and a TT 750w PSU
Archer0915 is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 09:02 AM   #16
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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...

__________________

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

Last edited by EarthDog; 12-23-08 at 09:16 AM.
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 09:13 AM   #17
Archer0915
"The Expert"

 
Archer0915's Avatar 

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Carolina University Grad School

 
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.

__________________
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.
Knowing your usage habits can help you save money and get the fastest system for you!

Current Active Fleet:
Daily Driver - i7@3.8, 16GB Ram, 6770 GFX Bedroom PC - SB Celerey @ 1.6, 4GB Ram
Entertainment Room HTPC & Madia/File Server - 661@3.5, 4GB Ram, On Chip GFXLiving Room HTPC - E-450@1.9 GHz, 4GB Ram

Game Rig - 2500K@4.5, 12GB Ram, 465GTX + 9800GT (PhysX) using intel SRT
Test Bed - 3570K with various components and a TT 750w PSU

Last edited by Archer0915; 12-23-08 at 09:20 AM.
Archer0915 is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 09:26 AM   #18
bz2klag
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.
bz2klag is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 09:30 AM   #19
EarthDog
Researches Meritless
LIES for the Front
Page and Super Mutterator

Overclockers.com Editor


 
EarthDog's Avatar 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stuck in Maryland...

 
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
EarthDog is offline Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile   QUOTE Thanks
Old 12-23-08, 10:23 AM   #20
QuietIce
Disabled



Join Date: May 2006
Location: Anywhere but there

 
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 ...
QuietIce is offline Author Profile   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > CPUs > AMD CPUs
AMD CPUs
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?