[Blue 83]

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

[EarthDog]

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.

[Blue 83]

Originally Posted by Caligula420

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

[EarthDog]

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.

[shadin]

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.

[Blue 83]

Ok lets say I narrow it down between the 6000+ Windsor and the 6000+ Brisbane. Which one would be better for gaming?

[EarthDog]

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.

[apenland01]

Originally Posted by Caligula420

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.

[Archer0915]

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.

[Duo Maxwell]

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]

Originally Posted by apenland01

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.

[EarthDog]

Originally Posted by apenland01

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.

[Archer0915]

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.

[EarthDog]

Originally Posted by Archer0915

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?

[Archer0915]

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.

[EarthDog]

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...

[Archer0915]

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.

[bz2klag]

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.

[EarthDog]

Thank you for the link...I will investiage further. Im amazed!!!

[QuietIce]

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 ...