Upgrade to 6400+ or Phenom?

[Kuroimaho]

Probably B4 at least those might OC.

 

[Moto7451]

There won't be a B4 unless things have changed. They're going to try to go 45nm after this.

 

[Kuroimaho]

Then skip the whole 65nm quad line unless it comes under 150$. 10% OC does not worth it.

 

[sajberTim]

Personally I went the 90nm 6400+ route for the most bang for the bucks, waitin for AMD to get their act together and deliver some nice 45nm cpu's. Unless you have special needs I don't think the current AMD quads are a good buy. But hey, since this is a hobby you should get whatever you feel like and can afford

 

[Kuroimaho]

At least wait till the 7th of april when AMD has the next price cut.

 

[funnyperson1]

I currently have a BE5000 running 3.2 24/7 under a freezone cpu cooler on lowest speed. All is good.

I am considering a OEM 9500 B2 for $155 ca shipped or a 9600 at $170ca shipped. Question are either of these worth it at this time over my 5000, or should I just wait for the B3.

I ask this because after downgrading from a xeopn x3210 quad at 3.4ghz to the 5000 I see a diff when I attempt to do some things which were possible on the intel quad such as game and burn a dvd and streamripping music. Now I am not doing this all the time but will a phenom handle this type of multi tasking very well. I figure I can flog my 5000 and pay some extra cash and get the 9500 as the cheapest quad AMD solution for my Biostar A2+ 770 board. But is it worth it or will I regret it , I am thinking since the multi is looked I will not get more than 2.5-2.6 out of either chip and that is not a gimme either.

If I am lucky getting 2.5 would I be looking at equivalent speed to the BE5000 at 3-3.2ghz or should I just hold off. I have not been following whats happening at all but the prices I found from a seller seem decent....

I think Phenom at 2.5 would be equivalent to a 5000+ @ 2.8-3 depending on the application. A quad core would probably also fix your multitasking issues. However I would still wait because price drops (and B3s) are coming soon as Kuroimaho stated.

 

[Lostapostle]

Personally I would wait until April like many here are saying and peek at the new benches from the B3's come out. OC that beast you already have. Your board should be able to give you 10% and that beats a Phenom right now.

On the other front if you are having problems with multitasking it might have more to do with what else you have going on in the background on your current OS install. Try installing or removing the dual core patch and see if you get any improvements.

 

[funnyperson1]

Personally I would wait until April like many here are saying and peek at the new benches from the B3's come out. OC that beast you already have. Your board should be able to give you 10% and that beats a Phenom right now.

On the other front if you are having problems with multitasking it might have more to do with what else you have going on in the background on your current OS install. Try installing or removing the dual core patch and see if you get any improvements.

I don't think thats necessarily the issue, I mean we aren't talking about web browsing while burning a dvd. He's trying to encode music, burn a dvd and play a multithreaded game at the same time.

 

[Cisco Kid]

I don't think thats necessarily the issue, I mean we aren't talking about web browsing while burning a dvd. He's trying to encode music, burn a dvd and play a multithreaded game at the same time.

correct and I was spoiled with my xeon x3210 setup that could handle it which really surprised me. probably smarter to just wait, the 9500 is 155ca shipped but I could be disappointed if it is not a decent clocker and I am stuck at 2.4 for example. when exactly are the B3's to surface what is the "word"

 

[wingless]

Listen to everybody here. Wait for the B3 or even 45nm revisions before upgrading your CPU on your platform. Waiting to upgrade is the only logical choice with what we know today.

 

[MRD]

Personally, I'd go for the 6400 if you do anything, although I'd likely wait. the 6400 dual core is faster for most apps than the quad core because the quad cores only run at 2.1-2.3 ghz, and that power is only going to be accessible in video editing, mathematical/scientific apps, folding, etc. For gaming or general purpose apps, the dual core will outperform the quad core because the clock speed is 33% faster, and both those cores will be used.

I've seen benchmarks showing that the quads are slower than the dual cores in many "normal" apps and games.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

Software just isn't built for quad cores for the most part.

If you really are using it for multimedia encoding with software that can use all 4 cores, then the quad would be worth it.