• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Which cpu better, e7200 OR PHENOM X3 8450

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lostinglamb

n00b
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
4
Which cpu better, e7200 OR PHENOM X3 8450

In Multi-tasking Situation, Like Run 3 Super-pi or Open Hundreds Of Webpages, Both Are Max Oc at default Voltage AND ORIGINAL HEAT SINK COME WITH CPU Which One Can Do Better?
 
I'd go with the e7200, only because it's faster and has 3mb L2 cache.

my 0.02 cents.
 
I would go with whichever is cheaper: e7200 + mobo or X3 8450 + mobo.

I would imagine if you are going for lots of multi-tasking the extra core could help, especially if you can OC to 3Ghz like alot of X3 review sites seemed to reach when they came out.
 
This might help, once again it really depends on what you are trying to do.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/cpu/intel-c2d-e4x00-p1.html

In my book, the more cores the better since everything is moving towards parallel computing in the future. Running three super-pi sounds like a pretty dumb test, and it sounds like you are trying to win an argument. Things aren't so cut and dried anymore now that multi-cores are here.
 
The E7200 will be faster in nearly everything. Plus, they can typically overclock to 3.6-3.8GHz on stock voltage, so that would give it a massive performance boost as well. The Phenom will only do better in certain heavily-multithreaded applications, and even then its advantage over the E7200 will be fairly small if the Intel chip is overclocked. For general use the E7200 will be faster as well.
 
If tri-core drop prices below $100 it would be an interesting market.
 
OldPueblo said:
This might help, once again it really depends on what you are trying to do.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/cpu/intel-c2d-e4x00-p1.html

In my book, the more cores the better since everything is moving towards parallel computing in the future. Running three super-pi sounds like a pretty dumb test, and it sounds like you are trying to win an argument. Things aren't so cut and dried anymore now that multi-cores are here.
Click to expand...

More cores are always better, but not when you have to give up significant IPC and clockspeed just to get that extra core. According to the link the X3 8450 trails the E7200 quite badly, with an 'overall' score of 97 vs 77.
 
flippin_waffles said:
Actually if you are gaming, especially at high res and high quality, phenom is the best choice. Load it up with your scenario, and there's no contest; penryn will struggle. Best of all, you have a clear upgrade path to Deneb, but with Penryn it's the end of the line..

Here's a 2.4 ghz triple core vs 3.0 ghz penryn.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320536,00.asp
Click to expand...

Penryn? Penryn just means 45nm, to be precise, thats a Wolfdale, you can upgrade from a Wolfdale (DC) to a Yorkfield (QC).

The games look heavily multithreaded, which is an exception rather than the rule at this stage. It also means a quad core would help even more than a tri core for those games. The Phenom 8750 for $175 in a poor deal when you can get a Phenom 9600 for $170 or a Q6600 for $195.
 
alg7_munif said:
Games are becoming more and more multi threaded rather than single threaded.
Click to expand...

Most games are dual threaded at this stage. They'll run much better on a dual core than a single core, but quads don't benefit much. Obviously, there are exceptions, Sup Com makes intensive use of quads, as does FSX, but for now a higher clocked dual core is still better than a lower clocked quad for the vast majority of games.
 
Therefore X3 is the choice for the future. Unless you are suggesting he buy a dual core now, and then buy a multicore later. It's great advice when you are spending someone elses money. The best choice for him is X3 and you know it.. ;)
 
flippin_waffles said:
Therefore X3 is the choice for the future. Unless you are suggesting he buy a dual core now, and then buy a multicore later. It's great advice when you are spending someone elses money. The best choice for him is X3 and you know it.. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, no, the smart money would be on a quad if you are looking to 'future proof'. With X3 pricing as it is, you may as well get a quad for around the same amount.

Buying a dual core now, upgrading to a quad core later is also not a bad idea, especially for a gamer. Why pay more for 2 extra cores that will largely go unused in gaming? By the time more games actually take advantage of quad core, you can be sure they'll be faster and cheaper than the quads currently available. :cool:
 
ahh well therein lies the key. If you are advocating buying a dual now and a quad later, why not buy a x3 now and an x4 later. As I indicated x3 performs better in games than a dual core (c2d no less) with a .6 ghz clock advantage. :cool:
 
flippin_waffles said:
ahh well therein lies the key. If you are advocating buying a dual now and a quad later, why not buy a x3 now and an x4 later. As I indicated x3 performs better in games than a dual core (c2d no less) with a .6 ghz clock advantage. :cool:
Click to expand...

Because a C2D would provide better gaming performance in the majority of games. Is that so hard to understand? A cherrypicked review focusing on the strengths of the X3 doesn't change the reality of things. Why do you think there are no quad core results in that review? ;)

Btw, here is a review from the same site showing the advantages of a higher clocked dual core vs lower clocked quads.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2282402,00.asp
0,1425,i=207424,00.gif

0,1425,i=207419,00.gif
 
harpoon said:
Because a C2D would provide better gaming performance in the majority of games. Is that so hard to understand? A cherrypicked review focusing on the strengths of the X3 doesn't change the reality of things. Why do you think there are no quad core results in that review? ;)
Click to expand...

Let's get the res and sample rates up if you want to talk about better gaming, and really stress the platform. Games will and are moving to multithreaded anyway, so why handicap your system with a dual core..:)
 
flippin_waffles said:
Let's get the res and sample rates up if you want to talk about better gaming, and really stress the platform. Games will and are moving to multithreaded anyway, so why handicap your system with a dual core..:)
Click to expand...

I edited my last post, you may find the results interesting... ;)

To be honest, I really don't trust Extremetech's testing, its all over the place. In one article they have the E8500 beating both the Q9300 and 9850BE in gaming, in the other they have an E8400 losing to an X3 8750?!
 
harpoon said:
I edited my last post, you may find the results interesting... ;)

To be honest, I really don't trust Extremetech's testing, its all over the place. In one article they have the E8500 beating both the Q9300 and 9850BE in gaming, in the other they have an E8400 losing to an X3 8750?!
Click to expand...


I did indeed see your edit. Can you find one that stresses the platform though? What i'm talking about is high res. 1920 and up. The holy grail of gaming is image quality. So let's get that res UP there and get the sample rates even higher. :) Stress that platform I say, and give it some real work to do. Give it some good ol fashion [H] work, and leave the easy stuff to the boys. :cool:

[edit]


http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8750/14.htm

Six more pages with the same result.
 
flippin_waffles said:
I did indeed see your edit. Can you find one that stresses the platform though? What i'm talking about is high res. 1920 and up. The holy grail of gaming is image quality. So let's get that res UP there and get the sample rates even higher. :) Stress that platform I say, and give it some real work to do. Give it some good ol fashion [H] work, and leave the easy stuff to the boys. :cool:
Click to expand...

http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with-quad-core-processors/

1920 x 1200 and up just looks incredibly GPU limited in most of those games (X2 notwithstanding), CPU speed hardly makes a difference, though X3 is noticeably slower in WiC and ET:QW.
 
I find it interesting that the usual rhetoric is "AMD is getting destroyed" when in fact the margin is actually hardly a massive gap. Even in that article I linked, the gap is frankly not worth mentioning despite the fact that the benchmark bars are rendered with a big gap. Go back and read a lot of comparison reviews and look at the numbers instead of the bars, and be surprised how little a deal it is. The truth is either platform is just fine and you should let things like which motherboard you like, what specials are out right now, and what your upgrade path is going to be dictate where you spend your money. There are dozens of other things to take into consideration then 4 more points on a gaping benchmark bar. The video card is far more important anyway.
 
flippin_waffles said:
I see your Guru3d and raise you one overclockers.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/amd_phenom_x3_8750/14.htm

I'd rather call it getting my moneys worth out of my graphics card than "gpu limited". I want the best image quality my card will offer me at acceptable frame rates. Just like [H] performs their reviews. So once the system is stressed to the max, I want a phenom to power it.
Click to expand...

There you go again with the cherrypicking...

Nice job picking the outlier where Phenom does the best, Core 2 does the worst, and drawing a conclusion from that. You ever considered politics? You're great at spin. ;)

Here, I'll give it a go myself, how did I fare? It looks like Phenom can't even handle 1600 x 1200 medium quality in this game. ;)
http://au.gamespot.com/features/6192732/p-6.html
 
The sad truth is everyone these days spends more time cherry picking then paying attention to more important factors. As I said, if you have two cars and one has a top speed of 190 and the other has a top speed of 180, is that seriously a big deal? They are both damn fast. That's when you start factoring other things in like cost, "interior", insurance costs, whatever. So much time is spent trying to crown a king that perspectives get lost. Sure maybe an x3 its a tad slower then the e7200 in those specific benchmarks at this time, but what if you can get a better motherboard cheaper or if you actually want to install four video cards at a later date? Don't waste time on the tiny numbers, keep the big picture in mind. I still say more cores are better futureproof, regardless of how fast the two cores are. Because that's what everyone is going to be optimizing for in the future. And the present difference is nominal, so why not?
 
OldPueblo said:
I find it interesting that the usual rhetoric is "AMD is getting destroyed" when in fact the margin is actually hardly a massive gap. Even in that article I linked, the gap is frankly not worth mentioning despite the fact that the benchmark bars are rendered with a big gap. Go back and read a lot of comparison reviews and look at the numbers instead of the bars, and be surprised how little a deal it is. The truth is either platform is just fine and you should let things like which motherboard you like, what specials are out right now, and what your upgrade path is going to be dictate where you spend your money. There are dozens of other things to take into consideration then 4 more points on a gaping benchmark bar. The video card is far more important anyway.
Click to expand...

The topic was E7200 vs X3 8450, the article you linked puts the E7200 overall performance at 96(pro) + 97(non pro) against the X3 8450 at 76(pro) + 77(non pro), thats a 26% difference, which *is* massive from a competitive point of view.

That said, I find the 'overall' score dubious at best as it puts the E7200 ahead of the 9850BE, which I don't agree with.
 
harpoon said:
The topic was E7200 vs X3 8450, the article you linked puts the E7200 overall performance at 96(pro) + 97(non pro) against the X3 8450 at 76(pro) + 77(non pro), thats a 26% difference, which *is* massive from a competitive point of view.

That said, I find the 'overall' score dubious at best as it puts the E7200 ahead of the 9850BE, which I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Indeed, however I find it funny that just about every benchmark used nowadays I'll never use on my system, and I'm sure there are many in the same boat. I don't play any of those games, many of those programs I don't use, so if you think about it the benchmarks pretty much can never tell the whole story or at least don't help me at all with how I use my machine. Sure it's a rough glance that might be handy to gauge how a system might perform, but people need to remember that they spend more time in Windows then they do in a game or using only one single application. It's pretty ridiculous nowadays how people act regarding platform benchmarks. I really wish people would spend more time trying to prove the benefits of both platforms rather then trying to "crown a king" and spouting "if it's not as good as the king its utter crap." To get a good perspective on something, rather then spend a lot of time trying to disprove it, instead try to prove it's value. You never know, you could be surprised.
 
LOL, look this is getting ridiculous. If your unbais this is an easy question to answer At stock speeds the the 3X will be faster and in faster per core in some instances but generally slower in single thread apps. Both will play most games just fine and if your running 24" it isn't going to matter anyways as your GPU bound. I think its priced too high against the quad cores but that a personal opinion. Over all I would actually go with the X3 for a build as you get better bang for your buck with the platform (motherboards and such)

If your overclocking the 7200 will mop the floor with the X3 in 9 out of 10 apps. its already faster per clock and increase in speed overwhelms the added core. The phenoms just do not overclock well and can not match the value that the overclocking provides. Looking at it from that angle the E7200 is a clear winner here.

Really if your building a budget system for overclocking the P45 + e7200 + 4850 is simply the best value available. That changes if you get some of the specials (I got 2gb ram + 9600 black for a $100) or hopefully with the 790GX chip sets. but if your buying today....
 
Valset said:
LOL, look this is getting ridiculous. If your unbais this is an easy question to answer At stock speeds the the 3X will be faster and in faster per core in some instances but generally slower in single thread apps. Both will play most games just fine and if your running 24" it isn't going to matter anyways as your GPU bound. I think its priced too high against the quad cores but that a personal opinion. Over all I would actually go with the X3 for a build as you get better bang for your buck with the platform (motherboards and such)

If your overclocking the 7200 will mop the floor with the X3 in 9 out of 10 apps. its already faster per clock and increase in speed overwhelms the added core. The phenoms just do not overclock well and can not match the value that the overclocking provides. Looking at it from that angle the E7200 is a clear winner here.

Really if your building a budget system for overclocking the P45 + e7200 + 4850 is simply the best value available. That changes if you get some of the specials (I got 2gb ram + 9600 black for a $100) or hopefully with the 790GX chip sets. but if your buying today....
Click to expand...

Perfect example, it's all relative and what you should buy is full of variables. We aren't getting simpler with our computers, we're getting more complex and I think its time to shift away from "how fast does it run Crysis, period." Unless of course Crysis is all you do 24/7. :p
 
harpoon said:
There you go again with the cherrypicking...

Nice job picking the outlier where Phenom does the best, Core 2 does the worst, and drawing a conclusion from that. You ever considered politics? You're great at spin. ;)

Here, I'll give it a go myself, how did I fare? It looks like Phenom can't even handle 1600 x 1200 medium quality in this game. ;)
http://au.gamespot.com/features/6192732/p-6.html
Click to expand...

LOL Well, the fact is that there's 6 pages of games there that all behave similarly at high res. If you mean cherry picking as in the entire review, are you calling into question the sites integrity? Unfortunately there isn't much to choose from for high res gaming. I guess these two sites never got the memo to only test at low res...;)
 
OldPueblo said:
Perfect example, it's all relative and what you should buy is full of variables. We aren't getting simpler with our computers, we're getting more complex and I think its time to shift away from "how fast does it run Crysis, period." Unless of course Crysis is all you do 24/7. :p
Click to expand...

it always is. but really this is simple here, if has the two choices, AMD for stock, Intel for overclocking. Really if I was buying I would find the best overall value I could find. that would in fact get rid of the X3 entirely. The phenoms are still a little overpriced to compare with the Q6600 but the overall system cost are less. and the phenoms game very well. on the other hand I would go for the 8400 $170 over the e7200 $120. better performance, overclocking and the like. well worth the extra 50 dollars.

so the real answer to the question in the thread was "nether"
 
DTN107 said:
http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-PHENOM-8450...ryZ80139QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Mmhm.... tri-core for $100?

I thought it was accepted that...

Dual core = Gaming

Quad core = Coding

Not sure where to put tri-core then...
Click to expand...

That's a bit simplistic and should be less relevant the more time passes. The real question is what applications are used and how multi-threaded will things get in the future. The only reason dual cores are faster right now for gaming is most games don't make use of the extra cores. Some do however, and as more and more crop up it's going to be the more cores the better. Clockspeed of course does still make a difference however, an very fast dual core can roughly equal a slower quad core, much like two lower end cards in SLI/Xfire will equal one single high-end card of roughly the same tech.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Don't forget that an E7200 will use significantly less power than that triple core... They run significantly under their listed 65W TDP. I don't know if you care about power consumption or not though.
 
i can say from owning a E7200 if your going to overclock the E7200 will be ther better CPU
if your not doesnt really matter that much but i would get the one with the faster clock speed then
if same clock speeds get the cheaper one
i do not thing 1 extra core will make a huge diffrence namely when thinking about how much you can overclock a E7200 vs. the tri core Phenom

and theres always a chance of getting an unlucky Phenom B2 with TLB bug and getting gimped 10% from the BIOS fix
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top