[stratcatprowlin]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103849

This six core Amd looks nice but can it keep up with my Intel 9650 for gaming?Reason to ask is because my son is running a E5500 3ghz with 2mb's of L2 cache.I'm upgrading his rig and since I have an Intel 9650 which is great for gaming,perhaps I would take the Amd 6core and put the 9650 in his rig.I game also but not as much as hime so six cores would benefit me more than hime.Only I don't want to lose performance by switching the 9650 to this AMD 6 core cpu.

Any suggestions?

[dan_ep82]

Just done a quick search and found this

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...50+%40+3.00GHz

You can see all of the HEX cores score above the Q9650 but if you wanted to stick to intel the i5 2500K or the i7 2600k score aboe AMD's hex cores.
Although the Intel's are dearer.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge will come along soon too

[aries2110]

Actually the Q9650 is a much faster CPU. Hex cores do not help in games because most games are not programmed for 6 cores. So per-clock per-core the Intel CPU is going to be quite a bit faster. I think 3.4GHz on an AMD Phenom II is equivalent to 3GHz on an Intel Q9000.

If you have a specific use for 6 cores, a hex core would make sense, but if you do not, AMD is not an upgrade from Intel. You would technically be going to a slower chip in a practical sense. The only time an AMD hex core would be an upgrade would be for heavy encoding or folding.

[bigben6]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=146

By most standards the x6 phenom is a better proc actually, when the 9650 i better its pretty minimal and the the hex destroys it in some some benchmarks... that being said only consider bench marks that matter to you, in which case its really a toos up when looking at games.... some times the hex is a lil faster but on fC2 the Q is like 15-20% BETTER....

to OP, for future reference if someone posts a strong opinion without some form of benchmark or proof, be skeptical, obviously this staetment: "Actually the Q9650 is a much faster CPU. Hex cores do not help in games because most games are not programmed for 6 cores. So per-clock per-core the Intel CPU is going to be quite a bit faster. I think 3.4GHz on an AMD Phenom II is equivalent to 3GHz on an Intel Q9000.
is a little off in this case...

This compares both 3.0ghz chip verisno:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=185

And the AMD still seems slightly better overall, not as clear cut... but go with data in these choices not just opinions...

[stratcatprowlin]

Originally Posted by bigben6

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=146

By most standards the x6 phenom is a better proc actually, when the 9650 i better its pretty minimal and the the hex destroys it in some some benchmarks... that being said only consider bench marks that matter to you, in which case its really a toos up when looking at games.... some times the hex is a lil faster but on fC2 the Q is like 15-20% BETTER....

to OP, for future reference if someone posts a strong opinion without some form of benchmark or proof, be skeptical, obviously this staetment: "Actually the Q9650 is a much faster CPU. Hex cores do not help in games because most games are not programmed for 6 cores. So per-clock per-core the Intel CPU is going to be quite a bit faster. I think 3.4GHz on an AMD Phenom II is equivalent to 3GHz on an Intel Q9000.
is a little off in this case...

This compares both 3.0ghz chip verisno:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=185

And the AMD still seems slightly better overall, not as clear cut... but go with data in these choices not just opinions...

According to this I don't think it's worth the whole change in cpu,mobo and mem.I'll just buy my son an Intel E8400 Core 2 duo.Thanks guys!

[bigben6]

Originally Posted by stratcatprowlin

According to this I don't think it's worth the whole change in cpu,mobo and mem.I'll just buy my son an Intel E8400 Core 2 duo.Thanks guys!

I think thats prolly a pretty wise move, while the x6 is overall a better proc for your intended use its not gonna be a huge step up and prolly not worth the investment in a brand new rig....

[aries2110]

This compares both 3.0ghz chip verisno:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/49?vs=185

And the AMD still seems slightly better overall, not as clear cut... but go with data in these choices not just opinions...

I actually mean per GHz per core per CPU. So in single to quad threaded apps, the Q9650 will be faster by default. The Q9000 core architecture is faster than the Phenom II architecture by a large margin, and more efficient too. Remember, if something isn't coded to use the two extra cores, they literally go unused.

If an application takes advantage of a 6 core CPU, the AMD will be faster. If it's optimized for quad only, which a lot of games are, the Q9650 will be faster. Comparing both at their respective stock speeds. I mentioned this because the OP asked specifically about gaming.

Also yes the final choice was a good move. Good CPU.

[bigben6]

Well it would appear that per clock per core the intel is better, thats like saying per piston per liter an S2000 is better than a viper.... yes in fact it is true an S2000 produces more power per liter but thats such a narrow section of the total picture i question its usability... thats all, i get what your saying now, and i agree, it just was kinda convoluted in your intital post i guess...

[aries2110]

Yeah sorry sometimes I have a hard time getting my thoughts down in writing LOL!

But yeah I'm saying that unless he's using specifically multi-threaded application, the Intel will be faster per clock per core.