By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Intel or AMD?

Intel 74 43.79%
 
AMD 95 56.21%
 
Total:169
Soleron on 30 May 2010

@Slimebeast

I agree then, the 965 is not supported. To be honest though, it would probably work if you bought one, same as if you OCd a 955 to 3.4GHz.

If you know you're CPU bound as you say, then a 955 is a good choice. The 6000+ is worth stepping up from (that said, I'm managing fine on a C2D E6400 which performs similarly, lol).



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 30 May 2010
Squilliam said:
Slimebeast said:
Socket AM3


The green ones. Awkward. They're hidden. Two CPUs are hidden, but show up when you copy paste on that page. They were:

Phenom II X4 965  3400MHz 125W     -
Phenom II X4 965  3400MHz 140W     -

And the little "-" marks that they aren't supported I assume.


Most programs aren't slow but in some games like Bad Company 2 and others who like CPU power I feel it. I get only 25fps in Bad Company 2 (1920x1200 and 2xAA). 

I'd like to have a Phenom II X4 to be able to support a Radeon HD 5870 or something. My current CPU is an Athlon X2 6000+ with a Radeon 4850 GPU.

Yeah, I would suggest either a Phenom X4 955 or 945. Probably the latter as its got a 95W TDP so ought to be more power efficient and should give longer life to you motherboard components as they won't get as hot.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=2874&dl=1#bios

Choose the FDD bios.

Also download this:

http://www.gigabyte.com/MicroSite/121/tech_a_bios.htm

That will allow you to flash your motherboard in windows.

 

U mean choose FDD assuming I choose a Phenom II 955 or 945?

In that flashing in Windows step, i should go for step I and II, not III? :

Methods and steps :

    I. Save BIOS
  In the very beginning, there is "Save Current BIOS" icon shown in dialog box. It means to save the current BIOS version.
    II. Update BIOS through Internet
  a. Click "Internet Update" icon
  b. Click "Update New BIOS" icon
  c. Select @BIOS sever ( "GIGABYTE @BIOS server 1 in Taiwan" ,
"GIGABYTE @BIOS server 2 in Taiwan" ,
"GIGABYTE @BIOS server in China" ,
"GIGABYTE @BIOS server in Japan" ,
"GIGABYTE @BIOS server in USA" are available for now, the others will be completed soon)
  d. Select the exact model name on your motherboard
  e. System will automatically download and update the BIOS.
    III. Update BIOS NOT through Internet :
  a. Do not click "Internet Update" icon
  b. Click "Update New BIOS"
  c. Please select "All Files" in dialog box while opening the old file.
  d. Please search for BIOS unzip file, downloading from internet or any other methods (such as: 6OXM7E.F1).
  e. Complete update process following the instruction.


Squilliam on 30 May 2010

Either one works fine. Last time I tried it failed to download but my internet is fail... its up to you.



Tease.

Slimebeast on 30 May 2010
Soleron said:

@Slimebeast

I agree then, the 965 is not supported. To be honest though, it would probably work if you bought one, same as if you OCd a 955 to 3.4GHz.

If you know you're CPU bound as you say, then a 955 is a good choice. The 6000+ is worth stepping up from (that said, I'm managing fine on a C2D E6400 which performs similarly, lol).

Thank you.

I probably will be fine with a 5850 or 5870 and wont go for a 5970 but would a 5970 even work with that mobo?



dahuman on 30 May 2010
Vertigo-X said:
dahuman said:
Vertigo-X said:
I heard a while ago AMD has a good synergy going on with its processors and video cards. Is this still true? If it is, then I'd have to go with AMD.

... Despite having an Intel Core 2 Duo in my laptop. :o

ATI video cards are superior in design atm vs Nvidia but Intel has the better CPUs right now. I just went Intel with ATI card obviously.

You didn't actually answer my question. I already knew that was true; my laptop has the same configuration. I was wondering, though, if the AMD processors and video cards had a driver (or something) that enables the two to work better than with the equivalent competition mixture (i.e. Intel + ATi).

nope, ATI cards run faster on Core is' in general.



Around the Network
Soleron on 31 May 2010
dahuman said:
Vertigo-X said:
...

You didn't actually answer my question. I already knew that was true; my laptop has the same configuration. I was wondering, though, if the AMD processors and video cards had a driver (or something) that enables the two to work better than with the equivalent competition mixture (i.e. Intel + ATi).

nope, ATI cards run faster on Core is' in general.

It doesn't make a difference. Intel+AMD card performs exactly the same as AMD+AMD card. The 'synergy' thing is marketing hype really, you'll only see benefits when the GPU goes on the CPU die later this year with Fusion (Llano).



dahuman on 31 May 2010
Soleron said:
dahuman said:
Vertigo-X said:
...

You didn't actually answer my question. I already knew that was true; my laptop has the same configuration. I was wondering, though, if the AMD processors and video cards had a driver (or something) that enables the two to work better than with the equivalent competition mixture (i.e. Intel + ATi).

nope, ATI cards run faster on Core is' in general.

It doesn't make a difference. Intel+AMD card performs exactly the same as AMD+AMD card. The 'synergy' thing is marketing hype really, you'll only see benefits when the GPU goes on the CPU die later this year with Fusion (Llano).

that's only assuming that they put high end GPU in there with direct memory access at the speed of GDDR5+, which i don't see happening atm. it's really just the faster CPU will make the difference with video cards in general. Core i's are just a little faster atm in general at the same price range without OC or unlocking chances.



Tanstalas on 31 May 2010

I was AMD all the way until a couple years ago when I went with the Prescott CPU. Sucker ran hot but performed well, I built a new PC a few years ago and went with the Q6700, now I'm not sure whats up with it, but it actually boots up slower than my old prescott.

I'm thinking that during POST/BIOS maybe not all the CPU power is used, I know it had a program where you could set the multiplier in windows, defaulted to 6, but you could step it up to a 10 which gave you the 2.67..

So I assume that when it's booting it is only running at 1.6ghz speed (x6 multiplier) - I'm sure there is a BIOS setting, but I really never really cared, when I put it on 10x multiplier the PC fans spin so fast it sounds like a jet is taking off :) And I don't PC game much anymore, last few years have been basically WoW and FFXI.



Unicorns ARE real - They are just fat, grey and called Rhinos

Soleron on 02 June 2010
dahuman said:
...

that's only assuming that they put high end GPU in there with direct memory access at the speed of GDDR5 , which i don't see happening atm. it's really just the faster CPU will make the difference with video cards in general. Core i's are just a little faster atm in general at the same price range without OC or unlocking chances.


They are putting a high-end GPU in there. Will perform somewhere between a 5670 and 5750 based on the number of shaders. And they haven't announced what the memory setup would be, but with that many shaders to serve it has to be better than the normal integrated GPUs, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered.

EDIT:Just this morning, they demoed a game running on it. Can Intel integrated graphics do this:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/15536/amd_s_world_first_fusion_apu_demonstration_at_computex/index.html

Core ix CPUs are only faster above $200. None of the Intel Core ix dual-cores are competitive with AMD, let alone faster.



Soleron on 02 June 2010
Tanstalas said:
I know it had a program where you could set the multiplier in windows, defaulted to 6, but you could step it up to a 10 which gave you the 2.67..

So I assume that when it's booting it is only running at 1.6ghz speed (x6 multiplier) - I'm sure there is a BIOS setting, but I really never really cared, when I put it on 10x multiplier the PC fans spin so fast it sounds like a jet is taking off :) And I don't PC game much anymore, last few years have been basically WoW and FFXI.

That... is not a good idea. The CPU runs at x6 when idle, it lowers clocks to save power only when you don't need it. If you put a load on, it would go up to the max, 10x, and run at full speed anyway.

So making it run at 10x all the time is just wasting power, not giving you extra performance at all.