What is better for gaming: a Athlon 64 X2 6400+ or a Phenom 9550?

Neither. Get a Core 2 Duo E8400 instead.

If you have a romantic fascination with AMD, then you'll probably want to be aiming for something higher like the 9850 Black Edition.

AMD, when it comes to CPU's, is pretty much a no-go at the moment. Espeically for high end gaming.

^ AMD CPU's are just fine for high end gaming(you cant tell the difference in the real world)Most of the work load is on the GPU the higher the resolutions are. My X2 6000+ Maxes every game out there besides one Crysis which still on very high settings still gets 45 average fps.04dcarraher

Why is it that everyone who bought an AMD CPU after the Core 2 launch uses the exact same "most of the work is done by the GPU" or "you can't tell the difference IRL" reasoning? Yet, during the Pentium D and Pentium 4 days, the CPU was so so important. :roll:

High end gaming is not with an 8800 GT. I'm talking about anything faster then a GTX 260, such as SLI or CrossFire systems. I don't know what kind of rig the OP has, which is why I specified that if he has a high end GPU setup, he'll want something along the lines of an E8400.

You'll be surprised at the difference that a fast CPU makes.

Then your ideas of high end gaming is warped. Because high end gaming in playing the games on high or max you dont have to have the best of the best to achieve it. And its true about the cpu becomes less important(to a certian point) as the resolutions go up. You can take a game with a X2 6400 vs a E8400 with same gpu,ram etc, ok and play at 1024x768 the X2 get say 90 fps while the E8400 get 120 fps. Now bump up the res to 1600+ or even 1920 now they are within a couple of frames of each other.

Then your ideas of high end gaming is warped. Because high end gaming in playing the games on high or max you dont have to have the best of the best to achieve it. And its true about the cpu becomes less important(to a certian point) as the resolutions go up. You can take a game with a X2 6400 vs a E8400 with same gpu,ram etc, ok and play at 1024x768 the X2 get say 90 fps while the E8400 get 120 fps. Now bump up the res to 1600+ or even 1920 now they are within a couple of frames of each other.

04dcarraher

Do you not understand the concept of 'high end'? :| OK, yes, maybe I probably should have put some form of stupid modifier infront of 'high' like 'ultra' or 'super', but I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

The CPU does make a huge difference, not matter what the resolution, despite what Nvidia wants you to believe. If you have a slow CPU feeding data too slowly to the GPU, then you'll obviously incur a performance penalty. The CPU relies on the GPU to render the given data quickly, the GPU relies on the CPU to feed it data quickly. There's no way of getting around the fact that they rely on each other.

The difference between a 6000+ and E8400 can be the difference between 25 FPS in Crysis and 18 FPS (for example).

Then your ideas of high end gaming is warped.

04dcarraher

And to answer your question, The 6400 is better for gaming than the 9550. If you want a quad get atleast a 9850.beefdog

[QUOTE="beefdog"]And to answer your question, The 6400 is better for gaming than the 9550. If you want a quad get atleast a 9850.mastershake575

Well when im looking for a answer, i look to have more than one person to answer my question.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Then your ideas of high end gaming is warped.

mastershake575

At least you see it

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="beefdog"]And to answer your question, The 6400 is better for gaming than the 9550. If you want a quad get atleast a 9850.beefdog

Well when im looking for a answer, i look to have more than one person to answer my question.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

Then your ideas of high end gaming is warped. Because high end gaming in playing the games on high or max you dont have to have the best of the best to achieve it. And its true about the cpu becomes less important(to a certian point) as the resolutions go up. You can take a game with a X2 6400 vs a E8400 with same gpu,ram etc, ok and play at 1024x768 the X2 get say 90 fps while the E8400 get 120 fps. Now bump up the res to 1600+ or even 1920 now they are within a couple of frames of each other.

Wesker776

Do you not understand the concept of 'high end'? :| OK, yes, maybe I probably should have put some form of stupid modifier infront of 'high' like 'ultra' or 'super', but I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

The CPU does make a huge difference, not matter what the resolution, despite what Nvidia wants you to believe. If you have a slow CPU feeding data too slowly to the GPU, then you'll obviously incur a performance penalty. The CPU relies on the GPU to render the given data quickly, the GPU relies on the CPU to feed it data quickly. There's no way of getting around the fact that they rely on each other.

The difference between a 6000+ and E8400 can be the difference between 25 FPS in Crysis and 18 FPS (for example).

Do you know why the CPU and GPU depend on each other?

its because the GPU is run though PCIe and the chipsets run the data to the CPU and then back again. but anyway I think that the gaming it would depend on the game but I think that the X2 6400+ would be faster in most games. But in some game and apps. the x4 9550 would beat the 6400+ since it better for HD movies, and more deminding but I am not sure for certian. THe qual core is the future.

[QUOTE="beefdog"]

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="beefdog"]And to answer your question, The 6400 is better for gaming than the 9550. If you want a quad get atleast a 9850.mastershake575

Well when im looking for a answer, i look to have more than one person to answer my question.

Sry dident mean to come off like an ass....just got off work :P

Heres a good example when you get to a certain point on the cpu front you dont gain a great deal even with a game made for multithreaded in mind & even with the better Intel Cpu's are still in the same range as the poor AMD cpu's. At the lower resoultion shows off the cpu's more than at high res's.

"Supreme Commander is a high-end real-time strategy game, similar to a next-gen Total Annihilation, combining killer graphics with top-level AI. The game is also multi-threaded, but due to processor affinity, it only shares the burden when a core is at 100% usage. This translates into more of an advantage for dual core platforms, but in-game speed and responsiveness can still benefit from quad core processors. In this test, we use the Sim score, which rates performance in the simulation portions of the game.

The Supreme Commander scores stay in line with many previous game benchmarks, and the Phenom X4 9950 BE manages to outpace the Core 2 Extreme QX6800 and Core 2 Quad Q6700, while losing to the Core 2 Duo E8500. The Phenom X4 9350e posted a respectable score, but again, it sits at the bottom of the chart."

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="beefdog"]

[QUOTE="mastershake575"][QUOTE="beefdog"]And to answer your question, The 6400 is better for gaming than the 9550. If you want a quad get atleast a 9850.beefdog

Well when im looking for a answer, i look to have more than one person to answer my question.

Sry dident mean to come off like an ass....just got off work :P