Amd Quad 2,2ghz

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

snoopdog1971

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
52
hi

i am thinking of buying one of the amd quad chips 2.2.

forgive me for the daft question, but is this cpu better than the amd dual core 6400?

i was told that just becasue its 4 core its slow?
if its 2.2ghz will that make it 8,8 in total?
 

Triple6

Rob
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
Each core runs at 2.2Ghz, they don't really combine to give you 8.8Ghz. When you are using multiple programs or programs designed to take advantage or multiple cores then the work load gets spread across the cores to improve performance. The new AMD Phenom's use a newer core architecture so they are faster clock per clock compared to the AMD Athlon 64/X2 processors. But the X2 6400+ is a 3.2Ghz per core processor, so thats a big difference. I think in most of today's applications that 1Ghz increase is more beneficial versus the additional 2 cores but it'll depend on what applications or games you run.

You can look at some benchmarks like these to see how processors compare: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=921&model2=1076&chart=424
That benchmark has the AMD Phenom 9500(2.2Ghz) and the AMD Athlon X2 6000+(3.0Ghz) instead of the 3.2Ghz Athlon X2 600+ but it gives you the general picture.
Here's one site comparing the 9500, 9600, and the 6400+: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/19/the_spider_weaves_its_web/page21.html
 

Triple6

Rob
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
Not quite, I'm saying that you are comparing two processors with a very significant clock speed difference. In this case the dual core processor outperforms the quad core processor; the X2 6400+ is usually faster then the Phenom 9500 in most benchmarks. However if you were to look at Intel processors then the quad core processors are generally the fastest in most benchmarks.

Check out some of those links above to benchmarks.
 

snoopdog1971

Thread Starter
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
52
thanks for that

i just cant maked my mind up as to which one to choose, the cost between both are not that great.

which would you go for?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
9
I bought one of these. Unfortunatley I can't test it yet because I bought this with a whole new computer, graphics card, motherboard, case, PSU. And the monitor didn't come on. We think it's the PSU that's faulty and we sent it back to be replaced. If it's the PSU that was faulty, and the monitor works good. I'll tell you what I think of the AMD Quad Core.
 

Triple6

Rob
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
I'd personally go for the Phenom, but I'd go and overclock it. At stock speeds the 6400+ dual core is the faster of the processors though.
 
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
2,484
If you are considering the Intel Q6600, it has quad cored thst run at 204Ghz. However, it has a huge overclock- i run mine at between 3 and 3.4 Ghz without breaking a sweat. I have akways been an AMD guy, because the always gave a better deal than intel, but i had ti admit that now, intel are winning (boo hiss!!)
I cant speal for the phenom, as i havent seen them yet, and i havent really got the urge to build another rig yet ( besided, wife to be would probably eunachise me if i did!), but the 6600 is an awesome chip.With prices coming down, i would reccomend them highly.
 

Triple6

Rob
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
52,933
Thats true, if you go Intel you have faster processors available, the Intel Quad Cores are pretty much the fastest processors available.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
2,113
If i may assist in your decision making process. :)

The intel Q6600 can be overclocked quite easily thus giving you the performance of a far more expensive chip. For instance... I am running a Q6600 right now @ 3.4ghz. They run about 280 bucks.

The price difference between the phenom 9500 @ 2.2ghz is about and the Q6600 is 85 bucks on newegg.

The QX6850 runs @ 3.0ghz and costs about a 1000 bucks. Of course the QX6850 will overclock as well but we are talking about equivalent performance at what cost. If you can get the performance of or greater then a stock QX6850 for only 280 bucks!!?? Seems worth the extra 85 bucks to me.:)
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
3,765
Don't get a phenom yet, they have issues:
Elsie Wahlig said:
Erratum 298 will be described as follows: "The processor operation to change the accessed or dirty bits of a page translation table entry in the L2 from 0b to 1b may not be atomic. A small window of time exists where other cached operations may cause the stale page translation table entry to be installed in the L3 before the modified copy is returned to the L2. In addition, if a probe for this cache line occurs during this window of time, the processor may not set the accessed or dirty bit and may corrupt data for an unrelated cached operation. The system may experience a machine check event reporting an L3 protocol error has occurred. In this case, the MC4 status register (MSR 0000_0410) will be equal to B2000000_000B0C0F or BA000000_000B0C0F. The MC4 address register (MSR 0000_0412) will be equal to 26h."
That basically says that there is a small chance you will occasionally get either a BSOD or you computer will lock up due to a poor instruction in the L3 chache, specifically the Transition Lookaside Buffer. That's seen mostly when doing virtualizations. The average user will probably never encounter it, but I would want a processor that works without issues like that.

AMD will release Phenom's with a fix to that problem soon (1 or 2 months) and the ones with the fix will have a "50" at the end of the model number. So Phenom 9*50.

The fix for the issue right now is a bios update which essentially disables parts of the L3 cache. That fix, however, will slow down the average use of a computer by 14%. Some programs show no change, others (like firefox) get 50% slower.

That said, either wait or go Intel. I woud love for AMD to come out with a nice processor because their 790FX chipset is the best right now.


Edit:
I just looked around some more and this is a better simplified version of the issue:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/18/amd-delays-phenom-ghz-due-tlb
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
7,800
From what I have heard the TLB problem is very, very rare and hard to produce, any insight on that?

I agree that it is hard to buy a CPU with a known problem, but with the true nature of the beast it may be hard to look away, especially for those already invested in an AM2 or AM2+ platform. The performance gain may be worth the very unlikely event of running into the TLB issue.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
3,765
They are rare, that's why I said the average user will probably never see it. But I would still wait until it's fixed.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top