Best Processor for AM3 Motherboard?

I'm just wondering a few things:

- What would bethe hands down best processor you can get for AM3 that would be good for gaming?

- Best price/performance?

Also, what would be the best AM3 processor for ~$200 CAD? I'm thinking this:

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103894&cm_re=phenom_ii-_-19-103-894-_-Product

or this:

http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=46281&vpn=HDZ965FBGMBOX&manufacture=AMD&promoid=1259

965 is fine out of the box.

965 is fine out of the box.

desertpython

Yes, you won't need to overclock at all.

the 970 is the fastest out of the box quadcore.

the 1090T is the fastest out of the box hexcore

the 955 is probably the best bang for the buck

Really depends on if you want to overclock, sometimes you dont even need a voltage increase to go .2 ghz or so, so stock cooler is fine.

It depends on what you want to do. If you want to game and not a whole lot of applications then either the 970 or 965 but you wont really see a difference between the two. If you are doing more applications the 1075T or 1055T 6 cores would be a better pick, but may not perform as well in games.

Realistically the best "bang for the buck" on the AM3 platform is probably the Athlon II X4 640. For less than $100 (USD) you get a 3ghz quad-core that can do anything reasonably well.

If you can afford to spend a little more, the Phenom II X4 955 is the next best for bang-for-the-buck IMO. I don't see a reason to spend the extra money on the 965 or the 970 when any 955 can reach their clock speeds with a simple, fast multiplier change in the BIOS. You'd never notice the difference anyways.

The out and out most powerful CPU for AM3 is the Phenom II X6 1090T hexacore.

New line is coming out early next year probably, I believe but it is not AM3 socket, I heard the cores are rectangles not squares or something like that. But AMD does a good job making new motherboards able to support older sockets.http://www.techradar.com/news/computing-components/processors/amd-bulldozer-the-fightback-begins-in-2011-663795?artc_pg=1 is a good summary article about them.

Realistically the best "bang for the buck" on the AM3 platform is probably the Athlon II X4 640. For less than $100 (USD) you get a 3ghz quad-core that can do anything reasonably well.

If you can afford to spend a little more, the Phenom II X4 955 is the next best for bang-for-the-buck IMO. I don't see a reason to spend the extra money on the 965 or the 970 when any 955 can reach their clock speeds with a simple, fast multiplier change in the BIOS. You'd never notice the difference anyways.

The out and out most powerful CPU for AM3 is the Phenom II X6 1090T hexacore.

hartsickdiscipl

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Realistically the best "bang for the buck" on the AM3 platform is probably the Athlon II X4 640. For less than $100 (USD) you get a 3ghz quad-core that can do anything reasonably well.

If you can afford to spend a little more, the Phenom II X4 955 is the next best for bang-for-the-buck IMO. I don't see a reason to spend the extra money on the 965 or the 970 when any 955 can reach their clock speeds with a simple, fast multiplier change in the BIOS. You'd never notice the difference anyways.

The out and out most powerful CPU for AM3 is the Phenom II X6 1090T hexacore.

MaoTheChimp

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Realistically the best "bang for the buck" on the AM3 platform is probably the Athlon II X4 640. For less than $100 (USD) you get a 3ghz quad-core that can do anything reasonably well.

If you can afford to spend a little more, the Phenom II X4 955 is the next best for bang-for-the-buck IMO. I don't see a reason to spend the extra money on the 965 or the 970 when any 955 can reach their clock speeds with a simple, fast multiplier change in the BIOS. You'd never notice the difference anyways.

The out and out most powerful CPU for AM3 is the Phenom II X6 1090T hexacore.

Iantheone

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Realistically the best "bang for the buck" on the AM3 platform is probably the Athlon II X4 640. For less than $100 (USD) you get a 3ghz quad-core that can do anything reasonably well.

If you can afford to spend a little more, the Phenom II X4 955 is the next best for bang-for-the-buck IMO. I don't see a reason to spend the extra money on the 965 or the 970 when any 955 can reach their clock speeds with a simple, fast multiplier change in the BIOS. You'd never notice the difference anyways.

The out and out most powerful CPU for AM3 is the Phenom II X6 1090T hexacore.

MaoTheChimp

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

Not really true. All the 970 does is push the envelope of the existing Deneb architecture a little bit farther. The max overclock speed of a 955, 965, and 970 are pretty much the same. Meaning that you're no more likely to hit 3.9 or 4.0ghz with a 970 than you are a 955.

Thanks for the responses guys. I think I'll get the 965 because it's actually cheaper than the 55 where I am getting it. Anyone know if AMD going to be releasing a new line or processors any time soon?brandontwb

AMDs new line of processors will be coming out in 6-9 months from what things look like. The current processors will work in the new motherboards (AM3+) but the new processors (bulldozer) will not work in AM3 motherboards.

I am actually waiting for a bulldozer for my next significant upgrade (I have an athlon II 240)

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

yellosnolvr

All of the Phenom II X4 "Black Edition" or "BE" CPUs are the same thing. The only difference is that they clock some a little higher out of the factory so they can sell them for a higher price. In reality there's really no difference between a 955, 965, and 970. The "multiplier" is a setting that each CPU comes with that makes it run at a certain speed. A Phenom II that's clocked at 3.2ghz (3200mhz), like the 955, has a stock multiplier of 16, which is then multiplied by the bus speed, which is 200.. so 16x200=3200. A 970 has the multiplier set at 17.5. So 17.5x200= 3500mhz (3.5ghz).

The thing with the BE processors is that they all have unlocked multiplier settings, so you can just change the multiplier of a 955 to 17.5 in your system BIOS, and boom.. you have a 970. With most CPUs out there the multipliers are locked, which makes overclocking much more complicated.

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

You could also increase the multiplier on the Phenom II 970, thus returning the performance gap between it and the Phenom II 955 :?

hartsickdiscipl

Not really true. All the 970 does is push the envelope of the existing Deneb architecture a little bit farther. The max overclock speed of a 955, 965, and 970 are pretty much the same. Meaning that you're no more likely to hit 3.9 or 4.0ghz with a 970 than you are a 955.

In a similar situation, the E8500 and E8600 also pushed the Wolfdale architecture a little bit further, and yet, on average, they could attain significantly higher overclocks than what the older E8400 could achieve. My thoughts are, if AMD is selling a processor which has a stock frequency that's quite a bit higher than it's lower-end cousin, it should behave similarly to the Wolfdale scenario I mentioned above.

All of the Phenom II X4 "Black Edition" or "BE" CPUs are the same thing. The only difference is that they clock some a little higher out of the factory so they can sell them for a higher price. In reality there's really no difference between a 955, 965, and 970

hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry if I'm being completely ignorant here, but I can't find a single source, whether it be from AMD or a hardware review site, that has come to this same conclusion with some degree of proof to back it up. Because of this, I'm rather skeptical of your statement that the Phenom II 970 is no different than it's 965/955 cousins.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

Not really true. All the 970 does is push the envelope of the existing Deneb architecture a little bit farther. The max overclock speed of a 955, 965, and 970 are pretty much the same. Meaning that you're no more likely to hit 3.9 or 4.0ghz with a 970 than you are a 955.

MaoTheChimp

In a similar situation, the E8500 and E8600 also pushed the Wolfdale architecture a little bit further, and yet, on average, they could attain significantly higher overclocks than what the older E8400 could achieve. My thoughts are, if AMD is selling a processor which has a stock frequency that's quite a bit higher than it's lower-end cousin, it should behave similarly to the Wolfdale scenario I mentioned above.

All of the Phenom II X4 "Black Edition" or "BE" CPUs are the same thing. The only difference is that they clock some a little higher out of the factory so they can sell them for a higher price. In reality there's really no difference between a 955, 965, and 970

hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry if I'm being completely ignorant here, but I can't find a single source, whether it be from AMD or a hardware review site, that has come to this same conclusion with some degree of proof to back it up. Because of this, I'm rather skeptical of your statement that the Phenom II 970 is no different than it's 965/955 cousins.

That's typically how processors work, at least the ones that are the same stepping, sometimes all the processors have the exact same capabilities, and they just pick different ones to fill different price points. So it is possible that today's 955s are identical to 970s but are just set 300 mhz slower by the factory.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

Not really true. All the 970 does is push the envelope of the existing Deneb architecture a little bit farther. The max overclock speed of a 955, 965, and 970 are pretty much the same. Meaning that you're no more likely to hit 3.9 or 4.0ghz with a 970 than you are a 955.

MaoTheChimp

In a similar situation, the E8500 and E8600 also pushed the Wolfdale architecture a little bit further, and yet, on average, they could attain significantly higher overclocks than what the older E8400 could achieve. My thoughts are, if AMD is selling a processor which has a stock frequency that's quite a bit higher than it's lower-end cousin, it should behave similarly to the Wolfdale scenario I mentioned above.

All of the Phenom II X4 "Black Edition" or "BE" CPUs are the same thing. The only difference is that they clock some a little higher out of the factory so they can sell them for a higher price. In reality there's really no difference between a 955, 965, and 970

hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry if I'm being completely ignorant here, but I can't find a single source, whether it be from AMD or a hardware review site, that has come to this same conclusion with some degree of proof to back it up. Because of this, I'm rather skeptical of your statement that the Phenom II 970 is no different than it's 965/955 cousins.

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

In a similar situation, the E8500 and E8600 also pushed the Wolfdale architecture a little bit further, and yet, on average, they could attain significantly higher overclocks than what the older E8400 could achieve. My thoughts are, if AMD is selling a processor which has a stock frequency that's quite a bit higher than it's lower-end cousin, it should behave similarly to the Wolfdale scenario I mentioned above.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

All of the Phenom II X4 "Black Edition" or "BE" CPUs are the same thing. The only difference is that they clock some a little higher out of the factory so they can sell them for a higher price. In reality there's really no difference between a 955, 965, and 970

hartsickdiscipl

I'm sorry if I'm being completely ignorant here, but I can't find a single source, whether it be from AMD or a hardware review site, that has come to this same conclusion with some degree of proof to back it up. Because of this, I'm rather skeptical of your statement that the Phenom II 970 is no different than it's 965/955 cousins.

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

I believe you, because it's true.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="MaoTheChimp"]

I'm sorry if I'm being completely ignorant here, but I can't find a single source, whether it be from AMD or a hardware review site, that has come to this same conclusion with some degree of proof to back it up. Because of this, I'm rather skeptical of your statement that the Phenom II 970 is no different than it's 965/955 cousins.

NailedGR

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

I believe you, because it's true.

lol.. at least someone does :P. The truth eludes most.

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

hartsickdiscipl

I explained my thought process with a comparison of the Intel E8XXX series with the AMD 9XX BE series, and even went to the point of explaining why I am skeptical and admitting that I could be ignorant of the methodology behind AMD's binning. But instead of continuing the discussion, you snobbishly boast your credentials and tell me to go elsewhere to get an answer. I'm not entirely sure about what I should think at this point, but you're giving me the impression that you're not the kind of person that likes to be disagreed with :?

That being said, I took your advice and searched for threads on Overclock.net that pertained to what I was looking for, and I got conflicting answers on the first threethreads which I came across. And on HWbot, every PII x4 970 CPU-Z entry from 4.7GHz to 4.3GHz is done on air coolers, and there is absolutely no entry below the 4.3GHz mark. I'll try registering on overclock.net and posting a thread regarding this when I'm feeling a bit less tired, but TBH, all the information I've come across so far does NOT sway my mind in favor of your argument.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

MaoTheChimp

I explained my thought process with a comparison of the Intel E8XXX series with the AMD 9XX BE series, and even went to the point of explaining why I am skeptical and admitting that I could be ignorant of the methodology behind AMD's binning. But instead of continuing the discussion, you snobbishly boast your credentials and tell me to go elsewhere to get an answer. I'm not entirely sure about what I should think at this point, but you're giving me the impression that you're not the kind of person that likes to be disagreed with :?

That being said, I took your advice and searched for threads on Overclock.net that pertained to what I was looking for, and I got conflicting answers on the first threethreads which I came across. And on HWbot, every PII x4 970 CPU-Z entry from 4.7GHz to 4.3GHz is done on air coolers, and there is absolutely no entry below the 4.3GHz mark. I'll try registering on overclock.net and posting a thread regarding this when I'm feeling a bit less tired, but TBH, all the information I've come across so far does NOT sway my mind in favor of your argument.

Swaying your mind in favor of my argument isn't at the top of my priority list. Of course some people are going to hit higher overclocks. There are people well over 4ghz with 955's and 965's too. Obviously this discussion is much more important to you than it is to me. I''ll leave you to your research, or else in peace for the rest of this thread.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Since you don't want to take the word of someone who has overclocked multiple Phenom II chips, go to overclock.net and ask some people who know a lot about overclocking Phenom II X4's. They'll tell you the same story.

MaoTheChimp

I explained my thought process with a comparison of the Intel E8XXX series with the AMD 9XX BE series, and even went to the point of explaining why I am skeptical and admitting that I could be ignorant of the methodology behind AMD's binning. But instead of continuing the discussion, you snobbishly boast your credentials and tell me to go elsewhere to get an answer. I'm not entirely sure about what I should think at this point, but you're giving me the impression that you're not the kind of person that likes to be disagreed with :?

That being said, I took your advice and searched for threads on Overclock.net that pertained to what I was looking for, and I got conflicting answers on the first threethreads which I came across. And on HWbot, every PII x4 970 CPU-Z entry from 4.7GHz to 4.3GHz is done on air coolers, and there is absolutely no entry below the 4.3GHz mark. I'll try registering on overclock.net and posting a thread regarding this when I'm feeling a bit less tired, but TBH, all the information I've come across so far does NOT sway my mind in favor of your argument.