PDA

View Full Version : is the amd anthlon II X2 240 regor @ 2.8 good?


mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 12:35 PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103688

that one

lhwj
10-03-2009, 12:41 PM
I'd say it's a good value processor. But if you can afford it go for the twice as expensive tri-core 720 instead.

Luke

DarkWasp
10-03-2009, 12:41 PM
Yeah, its decent.

What will you use it for? If you're gaming what graphics card do you use?

Its like 1.6x as fast as a 4600+.

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 12:48 PM
im using it with a radeon 4770 and 4 gigs of ram
i plan to OC it to at least 3.0

lhwj
10-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Yeah it will do fine I guess.

Luke

james_2k
10-03-2009, 01:26 PM
I'd say it's a good value processor. But if you can afford it go for the twice as expensive tri-core 720 instead.

Luke

surely if he can afford it it should be an i5/7?

rotNdude
10-03-2009, 01:32 PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103688

that one

I don't consider that CPU good at all with its limited cache. The frequency may be OK, but it will not be a good performer overall.

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 02:40 PM
I don't consider that CPU good at all with its limited cache. The frequency may be OK, but it will not be a good performer overall.

im on a tight budget, what would you recommend?

lhwj
10-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Well, if you want more cache according to rotNdude then the dual core Phenom II has plenty (6 MB). http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103694

Luke

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 02:51 PM
what exactly does the cache do? is it just some marketing tool like dpi or what?

DarkWasp
10-03-2009, 02:58 PM
Cache is memory within your CPU. Processing is spared if it already has the info it needs stored, therefore increasing performance.

Thats the basics atleast.


EDIT: It's a bit faster for the CPU to access than your RAM, it also works along with your RAM.

lhwj
10-03-2009, 03:02 PM
surely if he can afford it it should be an i5/7?

The thing is that the i5 750 costs $200, i7s start at about $100 more. The motherboards costs more too; there are many sub $100 boards for AM3 but you can't say the same for P55 or x58.

I'm no expert at this but T Rush always argued that cache is not really that important for AMD (and now Intel) systems because the memory controller is on the processor and is directly connected to RAM, as opposed to Intel's FSB, reducing latency and stuff. Sorry if I'm inaccurate, correct me if necessary.

Luke



there is no shame in having a 512kb L2 cache per core
...yes there were AMD64 CPUs that did have 1mb L2 cache per core, and often those were favored for the highest performing CPUs, but often the L2 cache size didn't make much difference at all because of AMD64 direct connect memory interface(unlike Intel's older FSB system which needed to use prefetching to the L2 cache of Pentium and Core 2 to a much greater degree and thus always could require larger and larger L2 cache sizes)

the thing the Athlon II X4 Propus and X2 Regor die don't have is an L3 cache
...cache takes up a huge amount of die space, and only now with the 45nm production processes that AMD and Intel are using is it possible to allow a massive 6mb~8mb of cache(L3 in Phenom/Nehalem, and L2 with Core 2) on a die and still keep it affordable to produce

..the performance comparisons can now show what an L3 cache does for multi cores/threading, vs without it...ironically for this new CPU, some single threaded tasks might run quicker without the added step in latency of a L3 cache ... or depending on how multi threading is written or if multi tasks don't need a large L3 'data pool' shared between cores, it could actually be a benefit not to have an L3 cache

Tufelhunden
10-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Used on of those for a friends build and he is loving it. It's paired with a 9600GT and he plays all Source games as well as COD4 and it looks very nice. For a tight budget that's a pretty sid CPU, not sure how it stacks up against AMD's new quad cores though, they have some really inexpensive ones. The Athlon II X4's. My guess would the one you are looking at is superior, but it's only a guess.

lhwj
10-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Yeah, I forgot to mention the $99 quad core. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103706

Luke

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 04:09 PM
so, by what luke says the processors tap into ram, which i have 4 gigs of

lhwj
10-03-2009, 04:22 PM
No, I didn't really say that and besides I don't think RAM is fast enough to totally replace the cache (latter is probably a few hundred times faster) but I think what T Rush was trying to say is that the size of the cache doesn't really affect performance that much. I'm no expert on the processor's architecture so I'll leave it to the experts to explain.

Luke

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 04:29 PM
ah, thanks

falco219
10-03-2009, 04:32 PM
Cache is extremely fast RAM located on the die of the Processor, if the Processor has no information to load from cache it will do absolutely nothing until the data is loaded from your system RAM.

Baron_Fel
10-03-2009, 05:10 PM
I don't consider that CPU good at all with its limited cache. The frequency may be OK, but it will not be a good performer overall.

Its about as good as an E5200/E6300, so its not that bad.

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 06:58 PM
let me rephrase the question, along with a 4770, will it be good for tf2

Baron_Fel
10-03-2009, 07:48 PM
Only get a 4770 if you need a GPU that doenst use much power. The 4850 is the same price and performs better.

Yes the CPU matches the GPU well here.

Duke Something
10-03-2009, 09:26 PM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103688

that one

i would consider the phenom II x2 550 if your in a budget. i think they are around 100$

Baron_Fel
10-03-2009, 10:14 PM
At $100 (Phenom II 550, Athlon II quads) you are getting dangerously close to the $120 X3 720, which is just much better.

The way I see it if you are in the market for a new system, you either go with a cheap Athlon II dual, an X3 720, an i5 750/i7 860, or an i7 920 if you want multi GPU.

mauricioGON
10-03-2009, 11:51 PM
Only get a 4770 if you need a GPU that doenst use much power. The 4850 is the same price and performs better.

Yes the CPU matches the GPU well here.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4770_PCS/22.html

there the 4850 gets less fps

renegadeafk
10-04-2009, 07:17 AM
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4770_PCS/22.html

there the 4850 gets less fps

Umm I wouldn't trust that page at ALL because it also says a 4890 and a gtx 280 is getting lower fps than the 4770 which is completely ridiculous.

4850 is faster, thats just a fact :)

Also I'd go for the 2.8ghz tricore. Its a great gaming processor and very overclockable.

Duke Something
10-04-2009, 07:23 AM
At $100 (Phenom II 550, Athlon II quads) you are getting dangerously close to the $120 X3 720, which is just much better.

The way I see it if you are in the market for a new system, you either go with a cheap Athlon II dual, an X3 720, an i5 750/i7 860, or an i7 920 if you want multi GPU.

if I wanted more than two cores I would go with the phenom II x4 940 for 160$. I could never buy a tri-core. it just does seen right. I understand why amd is doing it but basically its a quad core that has a bad core. Just my opinion though.

right now I have a E8500 computer so when i want to upgrade it will be a i7 maybe *i9* :) but i want a higher clock speed than 2.*Ghz.

renegadeafk
10-04-2009, 07:38 AM
if I wanted more than two cores I would go with the phenom II x4 940 for 160$. I could never buy a tri-core. it just does seen right. I understand why amd is doing it but basically its a quad core that has a bad core. Just my opinion though.

right now I have a E8500 computer so when i want to upgrade it will be a i7 maybe *i9* :) but i want a higher clock speed than 2.*Ghz.

Facepalm
Its 3 cores for the price of a dual core and is very overclockable and does very well in benchmarks.
it's just a great price/performance processor when it comes to gaming.

I'd go with this advice:
At $100 (Phenom II 550, Athlon II quads) you are getting dangerously close to the $120 X3 720, which is just much better.

The way I see it if you are in the market for a new system, you either go with a cheap Athlon II dual, an X3 720, an i5 750/i7 860, or an i7 920 if you want multi GPU.



The cheap X2 dual core in the OP should do fine for most games, and handle any source game fine.

Baron_Fel
10-04-2009, 07:58 AM
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4770_PCS/22.html

there the 4850 gets less fps

these numbers disagree (http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-radeon-hd-4770-review/14). The techpowerup bench is newer though, maybe drivers have been kind to the 4770? I just dont know.

renegadeafk
10-04-2009, 08:03 AM
these numbers disagree (http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-radeon-hd-4770-review/14). The techpowerup bench is newer though, maybe drivers have been kind to the 4770? I just dont know.

That techpower bench is completely inaccurate, it shows the 4770 getting more fps than GTX 280 and a 4890, I wouldn't trust a damn thing on that page.

Baron_Fel
10-04-2009, 08:17 AM
That techpower bench is completely inaccurate, it shows the 4770 getting more fps than GTX 280 and a 4890, I wouldn't trust a damn thing on that page.

Thats a valid concern, but remember that that particular bench is at an extremely low res, not something people would actually be using these cards for. It could be just an anomaly.

At 2560x the scaling becomes what youd expect (except for the 4770 vs 4850).

TheTempest
10-06-2009, 03:23 PM
well, seeing as no one else here actually has used it for themselves, i think that makes my opinion more legit.
It works very well, and is very easy to OC to 3.0.
it is well worth the $60 i paid for it.