# amd phenom II hex vs amd phenom II quad



## xxmorpheus (Apr 19, 2011)

Which one is better for gaming?


AMD phenom ii quad core 975 3.6 ghz

or

AMD phenom ii 1075t hex core 3.0 ghz


i have 1075 t right now, i dont think its a good option for gaming. With 2x 6950 2gb with shaders unlocked, seems like its creating a serious bottleneck with many games, since most donot support hex core setups... I am getting killed especially with crysis.

RAM is getting upgraded to 16gb g skill ripjaws x 1866


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 19, 2011)

If the game isnt using more then 4 cores, then the X6 and X4 at the same clock speed would perform the same.


----------



## ktec (Apr 19, 2011)

not speaking from experience, but I think either processor is more than enough.

I have a phenom II x2 555 BE, unlocked to a x4 b55 and even that should be enough, given you have a good card (which you have 2 of the best)


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 24, 2011)

StrangleHold said:


> If the game isnt using more then 4 cores, then the X6 and X4 at the same clock speed would perform the same.



^This...


You need to overclock your CPU....3ghz isn't really enough for a lot of games anymore, atleast with AMD cpu's. 

Take your bus clock to 250 (default is 200), you CPU has a multiplier of 15 so thats 3.75ghz.

I would put Vcore right to 1.40v and see if it's stable (prime95).  Watch your temps, you don't want over 60c under load.  So if you are running the stock cooler, it's gonna be close.  You might want to just stick with 240 bus clock and like 1.35v (if it's stable there) if you have a stock cooler.


----------



## PixelVandalism (Apr 24, 2011)

I'm hoping a 1090T won't  bottleneck my gaming, i'm about to get  a 6850, easter made me wait.. I hope it performs well.


----------



## 2048Megabytes (Apr 24, 2011)

What games are you planning on playing?  My GTR2 Racing Simulation runs fine with a Phenom II 940 running at stock speeds.  But this game was released 2006.  (The graphics look great despite it being such an old game.)

Edit: My video card is an ASUS EAH4670/DI/1GD3.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 24, 2011)

xxmorpheus said:


> Which one is better for gaming?
> 
> 
> AMD phenom ii quad core 975 3.6 ghz
> ...



I'm seeing this issue very often lately. Your processor is not the problem.

The problem is possibly your Crossfire setup. In many benchmarks, and tests alike, SLI and Crossfire have shown (in gaming) that there are very little benefits in x2 GPU setups; in fact, the opposite is sometimes true. Many times SLI and Crossfire configurations cause lower frame rates and bottlenecks, because many games do not benefit from SLI/ Crossfire, or the increased bandwidth and power usage of two cards cause issues. Take one of your 6950's out, and run your games. Post results.

Also, you do not need to overclock your processor. Overclocking is also one of those "maybe" things. As stated before, your processor is much more than enough to run anything, and you probably won't gain a noticeable difference. And as we all know from experience, *clock speed is not everything.* It's mostly about architecture.


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 24, 2011)

the 1075t is just fine for gaming.  I would recomend an overlock like 87dtna mentioned.  Even the 3.5 that you have in your sig should be enough for most games.  Be sure to take it slow to those speeds not just jump to them.  

I am not too sure if this makes a difference but Crysis is only coded for 2 cores.  So there might be more of a bottleneck in that game than there is in any other game coded for more than 2.  How is your setup performing for other newer games?


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 24, 2011)

Demilich said:


> And as we all know from experience, *clock speed is not everything.* It's mostly about architecture.




Yup thats right, it sure is about architecture....and since Phenom II architecture is over 2 years old now.....he needs more clockspeed.


----------



## Spesh (Apr 24, 2011)

87dtna said:


> Yup thats right, it sure is about architecture....and since Phenom II architecture is over 2 years old now.....he needs more clockspeed.



Yeh Phenom II is getting on a bit now. I had my 955BE for about a year. I then upgraded to Sandybridge on the day of release, as I was starting to feel that the AMD platform was holding the system back. 

Framerates and in game smootheness increased massively after the upgrade.


----------



## 2048Megabytes (Apr 24, 2011)

It must be because I am playing older video games that I do not notice any bottlenecks with my Phenom II 940.  I do notice that my processor heats up after a few hours and then lag develops while running the GTR2 racing simulation.  I am thinking about getting a better cooler.

What popular games besides Crysis is the Phenom II architecture just not good enough for?


----------



## mihir (Apr 24, 2011)

Stop creating new threads about the same problem.I have posted on 4 your threads.You create thread with the same problem but different conclusion which you thought of.I am sorry for this but this is the truth if you want real help stick to one thread so that the anyone who is trying to help you will be on one track and will also know your problem and all the required information. You won't get a satisfactory conclusion if you create many threads about the same problem.Stick to one thread and ask the mods to close all you other threads and post all the info needed by the members to help you out on one thread so it will be convinient for them to help you.I myself am a bit lost and confused by your problem since you have so many diffrent threads like one not enough power and the other on a trifire setup and one or two more regarding the same problem.

I am sorry if you felt that this post was rude but I am speaking for your benefit only because that way you will find a solution faster.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

87dtna said:


> Yup thats right, it sure is about architecture....and since Phenom II architecture is over 2 years old now.....he needs more clockspeed.



lol that doesn't make sense.


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 25, 2011)

An older architecture with a higher clock speed will help raise the performance to compete with newer architectures.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

salvage-this said:


> An older architecture with a higher clock speed will help raise the performance to compete with newer architectures.



Ok, but will it really have that substantial of an increase in performance? Personally, I don't believe it will.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 25, 2011)

Demilich said:


> Ok, but will it really have that substantial of an increase in performance? Personally, I don't believe it will.



Well, you're wrong.

How's that


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 25, 2011)

True I will not reach the performance of a sandy bridge build with my current processor but I did get quite a boost from the 600MHz jump that I have with my CPU.  Enough to bump the resolution and some other settings in BFBC2.  

How much performance you gain would largely be determined by the application that you are using.  I got almost no gains in some games and a large boost in others.

If nothing else.  it's free performance.  Why not OC?  I can't find any reason that a 2 year old architecture would be so out of the loop that you can't run games on it.  A buddy of mine is still running a Core 2 Quad at stock settings.  He says that he has no reason to upgrade yet.

@87dtna lol that also sums it up quite nicely.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 25, 2011)

Core 2 quads are indeed still capable CPU's.  A Core 2 Quad is about in line with a Phenom II in terms of raw overall performance clock for clock, so that would make sense.   Even core 2 quad has the edge over Phenom II quads actually, especially with the Q9x50's with 12mb cache....they easily beat Phenom II's clock for clock.

Again, not bashing AMD just saying with the older architecture you need increased clockspeed to make up the difference for the newer games.  I do not know which games need that extra boost.  I know Black ops is pretty CPU intensive, you almost must have a quad core at atleast ~3.6ghz for smooth game play.  It takes atleast 4ghz with an I3 530 for smooth play, and actually it's a little laggy at first until it gets settled in.  Core 2 duo is NOT enough CPU to play black ops smoothly.  I also heard GTA 4 is pretty CPU intensive.


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 25, 2011)

Never knew that.  I probably should have guessed when we were matching in benchmarks when I had mine overclocked.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 25, 2011)

Here's a 955 VS a Q9650-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=49


I think the 955 only wins like 2-3 tests, but remember....the 955 is actually clocked 200mhz higher than the C2Q!!!

Phenom II is more in line with the Q8400 (4mb cache instead of 12mb like the Q9650) clock for clock.

Here's a Q8400 VS a 920 (and even still the 920 has a 140mhz clock advantage and they trade blows)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=89


Most of the reason Phenom II can beat the lower end core 2 quads is because of memory bandwidth.  AMD's internal memory controller is far superior to the socket 775 memory controller.  So any test that implements ram in any way will be swayed toward AMD....even though raw CPU power the core 2 quad still has over the Phenom II.

Once Intel got their own internal memory controller with nehalem architecture, it was all way over.  And now sandy bridge's dual channel even beats nehalem's triple channel bandwidth numbers.  Extremely impressive indeed.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

87dtna said:


> Well, you're wrong.
> 
> How's that



Well, no, I'm not wrong. However, I'm not completely correct. It is still possible that the OP's crossfire configuration is in some way hindering his performance. Did you even care to look at his RAM configuration? It's possible the OP is experiencing latency problems. Sure, he could boost his processor up some more. Why not? Well, because, we don't have the whole story. How's that? lolz

Oh, and your boost in the CPU speed is possibly wrong. In the way that you're stating how boosting the speed of the processor will make the Phenom "on-par". This theory can be utter non-sense. I believe this theory was disproved in the famous AMD Athlon vs. the Intel Pentium IV? (I may be off a generation) Where the much lower clocked AMD processors were outperforming the much higher clocked Intel processors.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 25, 2011)

Demilich said:


> lol that doesn't make sense.


 


Demilich said:


> Oh, and your boost in the CPU speed is bs. In the way that you're stating how boosting the speed of the processor will make the Phenom "on-par". This theory can be utter non-sense. I believe this was disproved in the famous AMD Athlon vs. the Intel Pentium IV?


 
I'm baffled by your comment. So your saying increasing the clock speed doesnt improve performance. Using the Athlon XP/64 vs. Pentium 4, why do you think the pentium had to run such a high clock speed to keep up with a lower clocked Athlon. The Phenom is just in the same hole as the Pentium use to be. Roles reversed.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

StrangleHold said:


> I'm baffled by your comment. So your saying increasing the clock speed doesnt improve performance. Using the Athlon XP/64 vs. Pentium 4, why do you think the pentium had to run such a high clock speed to keep up with a lower clocked Athlon. The Phenom is just in the same hole as the Pentium use to be. Roles reversed.



I didn't say it doesn't increase performance lol don't twist my words. I stated that it most likely will not give a noticeable boost in performance if the OP were to overclock. Hell, the OP is already at a 3.5 GHz clock speed. I'm stating there's most likely more to the OP's story on why he's getting terrible frame rates.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 25, 2011)

Demilich said:


> I didn't say it doesn't increase performance lol don't twist my words. I stated that it most likely will not give a noticeable boost in performance if the OP were to overclock. Hell, the OP is already at a 3.5 GHz clock speed. I'm stating there's most likely more to the OP's story on why he's getting terrible frame rates.


 
I think post 9 was a general statement, not really directed at the thread itself and you took as meaning a cure for the poster. Clock speed never hurts.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

StrangleHold said:


> I think post 9 was a general statement, not really directed at the thread itself and you took as meaning a cure for the poster. Clock speed never hurts.



Yeah, I agree; extra clock speed never hurts. However, when 87dtna used the word _need_, his view seems to point in the direction that more clock speed will solve all of the OP's problems.



> Yup thats right, it sure is about architecture....and since Phenom II architecture is over 2 years old now.....*he needs more clockspeed*.



That sounds like a "solve all" statement to me, to be honest. And well, again, I believe we do not have enough facts about what the OP is experiencing to say, "oh well, yeah, just overclock. That's your _definite_ issue." That's misguiding, and misinforming. Even if 87dtna was attempting to be general, that wasn't a very effective way to assist someone who is having issues lol.


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 25, 2011)

Point taken, since its already at 3.5. A couple hundred MHZ isnt going to make much difference one way or the other.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 25, 2011)

StrangleHold said:


> Point taken, since its already at 3.5. A couple hundred MHZ isnt going to make much difference one way or the other.



3.5 GHz is a nice speed. However, if the OP is still have lagging/ frame rate issues, would you not agree that there may possibly be a RAM configuration issue? I know that RAM in an incorrect configuration (i.e. too much RAM) can cause too high of a latency.

Also the Crossfire configuration can also cause a high latency issue.

Just wondering if you think the OP should mess with either of these configurations?


----------



## StrangleHold (Apr 25, 2011)

The dude is all over the place. Seems he got his problem fixed in this thread post #9. 
http://www.computerforum.com/194430-poor-performance-gaming-rig.html
Driver update. Other then Crysis.

The memory, not sure. It is overkill, but just running at 1333 its not putting much stress on the controller. Have no idea what timing hes at running four 4gb. sticks. But he could pop two sticks out and make sure they are at default timing and see if it changes anything.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 25, 2011)

First of all it was never stated that he was running 3.5ghz in this thread.   He asked what was better a 975 at 3.6 or a 1075t at 3.0.....which lead me to believe he was not an overclocker.
A Phenom II at 3.0ghz is definitely a large bottleneck with some newer games.  At 3.5, not quite as bad.  You really need closer to 3.8ghz to not bottleneck a 6970 (6950 unlocked), let alone Xfired.

Had I been privy to all the facts and information, I would have not stated things exactly the way I did.

Demilich- What are you talking about his ram configuration?  He has 16gb of 1333 ram, whats the problem here?  Reading your posts makes blood shoot out of my nose.


----------



## xxmorpheus (Apr 26, 2011)

How do i check ram configuration?


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 26, 2011)

CPUz, memory tab.

If you have all 4 slots populated, there's nothing that can be wrong really.  Jedec standard for 1333 is 9-9-9-24 timings, which is fine for everyday use and gaming.  There is not bottleneck there.


----------



## Demilich (Apr 26, 2011)

Alright, then it's agreed that the RAM is not the issue.

How about your GPU's, Mr. xxmorpheus? Have you disabled crossfire?


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 26, 2011)

He said he tried one card in the other thread.


----------



## xxmorpheus (Apr 26, 2011)

yes i disabled crossfire, i get worse performance, especially on crysis


----------



## xxmorpheus (Apr 26, 2011)

I dont have my cards overclocked... does that matter?


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 26, 2011)

Not really.  1 6950 should give you decent frame rates in Crysis.  

Just a shot in the dark here but are you forcing any high AA/AF levels through CCC?  That would hurt your performance a lot if you are.


----------



## xxmorpheus (Apr 26, 2011)

I have them on use application settings


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 26, 2011)

Try setting it to force off and see if it makes any difference.  And check your graphics settings in the game then and see what you had them at.


----------



## salvage-this (Apr 27, 2011)

you might want to try the 6970 with the stock bios.  Just to make sure that it is not the modded bios that is causing the trouble.  I doubt it is, but it would be worth a check.


----------



## xxmorpheus (Apr 28, 2011)

it did it before the bios change as well. Forcing off does nothing. Im going to reinstall windows.


----------



## 87dtna (Apr 28, 2011)

What drivers are you running now?  And which have you tried?


----------

