sorry, but i don’t see that this would make sense. you can buy the phenom II x4 with 4x 3.00 ghz (the phenom II 945) for 115 bucks already, so it’s not much difference between the phenom II x2 555 and the phenom II x4 945. the i5-750 is still 175 bucks and runs at 4x 2.66 ghz. for a powerful dx11 gpu i recommend a quad core, otherwise the CPU could slow down the GPU. maybe not ATM, but if he buys a dual core CPU now he maybe has got to buy another CPU one year later. for now on for gamers i wouldn’t recommend to buy any dual core anymore.
Comparing the i5 line with the Phenoms clock-for-clock isn’t a very effective comparison. At 2.66ghz an i5 750 beats a Phenom II x4 955 at 3.2 in almost all benchmarks (even if not by much in gaming), plus the i5/i7 line is known for very good overclocking headroom, and with a good cooler its easier to bring an i5 to 4ghz than a PII. When both processors are at 4ghz, the i5 performs significantly better.
the i5 was in some benchmarks faster, not in all and you can only see the difference in benchmarks, but you don’t feel it. and don’t forget the price difference. if he wants to o.c., then the i5 would be the better option. but i don’t want to start a intel vs AMD discussion. i’m just saying that it makes more sense to buy a quad core now when you buy new hardware, and there’s a AMD much cheaper and mostly not slower and you can save a lotta money with this option. i also tried to oc my phenom II, he runs still stable at 4x 3,4 ghz with the boxed cooler - but why oc when 4x 3,00 ghz is enough and the CPU lives longer then.
For a budget gaming build I agree that AMD is a good option, but at the present time I would either wait for the Bulldozer architecture or go with the i5 2500k. The latter isn’t much more expensive than the older i5 750 (you can find it at an MSRP of around $215), and performance-wise it easily offers the best bang-for-the-buck out there.
Personally, the additional $75 spent on the i5 2500k over the PII x4 955 is a worthwhile investment.
The trouble is it’s not just the processor that’s more expensive, the motherboards are generally more expensive too, so I can see where Mechunit is coming from.
For most people though the AMD Athlon II x3 445 is enough processor for current games and will be for sometime. See it as a bonus if you can unlock a fourth core as it’s not guaranteed and will make the processor even better bang for buck.
Newegg have the 445 @ $77 and the 955 at $145, the 955 is roughly 25% better than the 445 for nearly double the price, not worth it imo.
That Bulldozer architecture looks really good, Im just worried about the price and if its compatible with my new mobo.
I expect it will be a new socket as it’s now APU’s rather than just CPU’s. Like intel AMD are incorporating a GPU into the CPU as GPU’s are good for various tasks which gives the CPU more room to do what it does best.
It is annoying for those adopting the AM3 socket boards only to have to buy a completely new board again. Intel are just as bad really.
It is a new socket, AM3+, but current AM3 CPUs will work in the new socket (not vice versa).
That’s another reason why I suggest either buying a Sandy Bridge processor now or waiting for the Bulldozer lineup; they’re new, and will have more processors coming out for them in the future.
^this
I am veeery excited about the new Bulldozer architecture. I just hope that we will see a similar boost in gaming performance like that from the Sandy Bridge architecture. There is only one thing I am afraid of. A Bulldozer core can not be considered as a full cpu core. It’s just a part of a core that shares the rest with another core so in the final product we only have a hardwareside double thread unit. We’ll see.
I’m a bit worried about the bulldozer unit thing too, but from what I’ve read the bulldozer core works a ton better than hyperthreading. Plus, you’ll still be paying the price for a 4 core bulldozer even if it has 8 effective cores. I.E. the price will be fair for a 4 core CPU.
Wait. If 2 hardthreaded cores make one core than my worries are all gone. I thought that this were two cores.
I’m not sure what you mean by hardthreaded, but I made a mistake: 2 bobcat modules will be marketed as a 4 core processor, and 4 bobcat modules will be marketed as an 8 core, etc. etc… I just hope that one bobcat module really performs like a dual-core CPU should, rather than a slightly improved hyperthreading alternative.
One bobcat module doesn’t performe like a real dual core. Intels Hyperthreading is only softwarebased while the Bobcat architecture offers a hardwarebased doublethread. Two Int schedulers need to run with only one floating point scheduler. In the end we only of have 80% or 70% of a real dual core.
i’m worried about that the cache is gonna be shared. i hope this won’t cost any performance.
It will. It seems that Amd just delivers a more less fake dual core than Intels Hyperthreading.
We won’t know until Bulldozer comes out I guess. If Bulldozer is faster than Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock, then 4 bulldozer modules may perform like an 8 core Sandy Bridge processor, which isn’t bad at all.
Obviously this is all just speculation, but I’m excited nonetheless.
ok, then i’ll better stay with my AM2+ system for a while. good to know that the Phenom II x6 (if needed) still will run on my board…