X2 5800+ vs 9550 Agena

Twist86

Twist86

Active Member
Well my rig has just about seen its last days I wanted to upgrade its CPU though before I say good bye to it. Mainly making sure I have a good enough CPU for Far Cry 2 when it gets released.

I was curious my board cannot handle 125w+ CPUs so I am stuck with getting either a X2 5800+ or a Phenom 9550.

My board supports
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?...d_no=1415&maincat_no=1&cat2_no=&cat3_no=#menu

I attempted to OC my 2.3ghz X2 4400+ but for some reason the over clock worked like a charm all day but when the PC was turned off for more then a hour I was unable to boot back up having to pop the battery out.

So which would you recommend? I would think the Phenom since 4 cores vs 2 but would my rig really see the potential of it? Or should I shoot for a tri core?

Also I hear ppl talking about cooling phenoms with a Arctic 64 Pro is this for real? If so whats your temps. ATM my 64 with 100% CPU use for 1-2 hours using heavyload) gives about 42c temps in a 84F room.
 
Last edited:
Twist86

Twist86

Active Member
I thought so too but I was reading a few other posts and few people said with 5800/6000 that it wasn't worth getting anything lower then the 9750 phenom because of the low clock speed of anything below it.

Reason I was curious why a 2.8ghz-3ghz dual core was better then a quad.
 
S

simpletron

New Member
if that is your motherboard then you can get X2 6000+ 89 watts and X4 9750 95 watts. between these two I would get the 9750. be careful buying because there are 125 watt versions of these also, which are not supported.

the reason a faster dual core can be better than a slower quad is that a lot of application can only utilize one or two cores of a processor. a quad core would have two cores working and two cores idle while running an application that can only utilize two cores. so in this case a faster dual core is faster at that application than a quad core. future applications will utilize more cores and so in the future the dual core would have to be almost twice to make for the lack of cores. for example I would take a x2 6000+ over a x4 9150e because even in four threaded applications, the x4 9150e might not beat the x2 6000+ because of the significantly lower clock speed. my thinking is the x4 9750 is fast enough in two or less threaded applications and is faster than x2 6000+ in four threaded applications, so it is better in the long run.

here is 6000+ 89 watts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103233
I found the 9750 95 watts but they were at stores I'm not fimilar with so I'm going give a link to the amd specs page.
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=401
 
Twist86

Twist86

Active Member
I see thank you very much for clearing that up simpletron.

I was not aware anything higher then the 9550 was under 125w this is a lovely surprise since 2.3ghz to 2.4ghz even if it only uses 2 cores its faster then my current set up.

Thanks for sorting and helping me out :)

In 2 weeks when I get the funds I will get the 9750.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top