Which CPU is better for gaming

[Kosay1991]

I'd go for a 965. I have one and its superb in gaming. Temperatures are awesome too.

ADD:

If you're into OC definitely bulldozer chips, but regular gaming phenoms will do better at lower clocks, like someone else said earlier more independent cores.

 

[BeepBeep2]

1333 MT/is megatransfers per second, not Megahertz. Memory bandwidth is frequetly given in that unit, or more commonly GT/s (gigatransfers per second).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT/s

PC-16000 is 2000MHz memory. PC-10666 is 1333MHz. Go on Newegg and search any 1333MHz RAM kit, you will see either PC-10600, PC-10660, or PC-10666 in the model name (multiple due to rounding). Or, straight from the power-search function on Newegg:

View attachment 114199

No, you're just obscenely biased and making wildish claims and slandering a good website just to try to justify your incorrect point. Tom's clearly specified that it was included as a reference point, as I quoted. It was listed in every graph as a 2500K @ 4GHz. Anyone taking more than a quick look at the graph would easily see the difference and know that a 2500K is not sub-$200 (especially not in January).

Websites such as Tom's Hardware often list "MHz" as "MT/s", don't ask me why other than retarded authors and editors. I believe the ram was running 1333 8-8-8 for all systems.

 

[Tyerker]

Websites such as Tom's Hardware often list "MHz" as "MT/s", don't ask me why other than retarded authors and editors. I believe the ram was running 1333 8-8-8 for all systems.

And if this was the case, it takes away the only advantage FX really has right now, and that's the native 1866 IMC.

 

[Supertrucker]

Do amd chips benefit that much with faster ram when gaming? On sandy bridge ram speed means almost nothing to games. 1333 9-9-9 is like 1% slower than 2133 9-9-9. I was under the impression it didn't matter much for amid either unless you were running with one of the integrated video options.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Do amd chips benefit that much with faster ram when gaming? On sandy bridge ram speed means almost nothing to games. 1333 9-9-9 is like 1% slower than 2133 9-9-9. I was under the impression it didn't matter much for amid either unless you were running with one of the integrated video options.

No.
CPU-NB speeds help Phenom II a lot though, due to memory bottleneck and L3 speed.
Bulldozer can pull almost as much throughput as SB from ram at stock CPU-NB, the difference is not as big.

I always said that if Phenom II had BD's IMC, it would be a good 5-10% faster per clock...

 

[Frakk]

@ Jagged_Steel, do you still have a Phenom x4 laying around. if you do please do some comparisons if you feel some of those reviews are wonky.

One thing that has always bugged me about FX CPU's vs Phonem II is that FX CPU's are apparently so far behind in FP performance its not even funny.

I don't automatically trust big name reviewers as a lot of them may depend on silent sponsors, that's not me saying i think there IS something wonky going on.

Now i did have an FX-8150 to play with for a day or so some time ago now, i did not think then to compare it properly but honestly the only thing that i could find wrong with it was that its literally a hot chip.

Other than that it was a fairly nice chip to use, whats more i could not see this "apparent" massive performance deficit.

Having said all that it is pretty wide spread across the net that the FX have an FP deficit to AMD's own Deben and especially Thuban.

Adding to that i can not see the "Apparent" massive FP deficit on my Thuban compared to my wife's family donkey 2500K, which she has barred me from going anywhere near despite the fact that i built it, probably because she knows what i will do to it

That's not to say they don't exist, they do, but out side of the production office or a badly coded single threaded game its of little consequence.

The high revving horse power of Intel is relentlessly the big story seemingly in pursuit to please Intel and there deep pockets, while the unstoppable torque of the AMD which has its own advantages is completely ignored, that's how capitalism works.

AMD have always done it there own way, it seems obvious they don't think single threaded FP matters much, and outside of Supper PI ect.... it probably doesn't.

But in that they need to accept that people will always point at Supper PI and say look, that's why its crap.

Want to prove how missguided that is? find a way, if your passionate enough you will

 

[BeepBeep2]

Look at it this way...

8150 loses to 1100T almost all of the time in gaming. This is a 3.3 GHz 6 core vs 3.6 GHz 8 core. Overclocked, 1100T still wins, with less power consumption.

FX-4100 wins to Phenom II X4? What are we smoking here?

Logic says PII X4 wins. Go read 8150 reviews to see what I'm talking about...

@ Jagged_Steel, do you still have a Phenom x4 laying around. if you do please do some comparisons if you feel some of those reviews are wonky.

One thing that has always bugged me about FX CPU's vs Phonem II is that FX CPU's are apparently so far behind in FP performance its not even funny.

I don't automatically trust big name reviewers as a lot of them may depend on silent sponsors, that's not me saying i think there IS something wonky going on.

Now i did have an FX-8150 to play with for a day or so some time ago now, i did not think then to compare it properly but honestly the only thing that i could find wrong with it was that its literally a hot chip.

Other than that it was a fairly nice chip to use, whats more i could not see this "apparent" massive performance deficit.

Having said all that it is pretty wide spread across the net that the FX have an FP deficit to AMD's own Deben and especially Thuban.

Adding to that i can not see the "Apparent" massive FP deficit on my Thuban compared to my wife's family donkey 2500K, which she has barred me from going anywhere near despite the fact that i built it, probably because she knows what i will do to it

That's not to say they don't exist, they do, but out side of the production office or a badly coded single threaded game its of little consequence.

The high revving horse power of Intel is relentlessly the big story seemingly in pursuit to please Intel and there deep pockets, while the unstoppable torque of the AMD which has its own advantages is completely ignored, that's how capitalism works.

AMD have always done it there own way, it seems obvious they don't think single threaded FP matters much, and outside of Supper PI ect.... it probably doesn't.

But in that they need to accept that people will always point at Supper PI and say look, that's why its crap.

Want to prove how missguided that is? find a way, if your passionate enough you will

What were you using to test FP performance?
x87 (SuperPi) is antiquated...but FP related.

"Deneb" not Deben

 

[Frakk]

Look at it this way...

8150 loses to 1100T almost all of the time in gaming. This is a 3.3 GHz 6 core vs 3.6 GHz 8 core. Overclocked, 1100T still wins, with less power consumption.

FX-4100 wins to Phenom II X4? What are we smoking here?

Logic says PII X4 wins. Go read 8150 reviews to see what I'm talking about...


What were you using to test FP performance?
x87 (SuperPi) is antiquated...but FP related.

"Deneb" not Deben

No benchmarks, just doing what i do with my computer. I think placing a lot decision making based on benching data can skew what suits you as an individual.

No benching data could have told me that the 2500K stutters and grinds to a halt in placing multiple high loads on it long before the Thuban does. only using the computer in the way that i do highlighted that difference.

Oh yes, sorry, Deneb, not Deben