• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Phenom II x3 720 = the sweet spot?

It seems like a nice prospect, but the main reason I'm not going for it, is because I think the next step up from dual core is quad core. If software developers decide to code for more than 2 cores, the most likely amount they will code for is 4. While 3 cores is still an upgrade from 2, it will fall behind 4 cores.

Of course, some of it boils down to the efficiency and architecture of the chip, but there's no doubting that a 3 core chip will not be as good as a 4 core chip in a 4 core application. I'm all for high end dual cores over quad cores, as they can proide a notable upgrade in 2 core applications, but 3 is in between, and won't provide any noticeable difference in a 2 core application.

I haven't used a 3 core chip though, so I can't help you with experience, I'm just showing my thoughts on it. The value for performance is darn good though, and I would recommend it over a dual core, but maybe not over a quad core. It depends on your budget.
 
blop said:
Which gives me the impression the x3 720 looks like an ace chip to have.
Click to expand...


If you're set on having an AM3 chip rather than an AM2+ then your choices are limited. The only quad core available at the moment is the 810, which has a locked multiplier, less cache, and a lower clock speed, so most people are agreeing that that the 720 is indeed the sweet spot as you suspect. In some single threaded tests it is outperforming the 810 & even the 940BE.

DD's understanding of how multi core computers & software work is flawed. It's not about "2" & "4 core applications". True multithreaded applications will use as many cores as are available, and in reality, your computer is always running many processes at once including those of your game or application as well as OS services. The more cores you have, the better your computer will run, even more so if you are doing several things at once such as browsing, encoding & gaming, so 3 cores ARE better than than 2, even if a dumb benchmark run in isolation, suggests no performance gain.
 
mnemonix - That is just what i was thinking!

When will there be a 940BE AM3 equilavent?

Im getting really eager to buy as my sk939 Opty is not up to it anymore
 
Helios1234 said:
Don't know how true it is but apparently the 4th core can be unlocked...

http://vr-zone.com/forums/396089/phenom-ii-x3-is-unlockable-to-x4-wtf--.html

Maybe someone could try it out.
Click to expand...

I know in some cases you may be lucky there is the fact that AMD are apparently taking quads with defective cores and disabling the defective one, so by enabling it you may well have a dodgy cpu. Interesting article, but be careful ;)

With regards to three cores being better than two for general performance, I agree, however programs are more likely to move from 2 cores to 4, then 2 to 3, so multipthreaded applications will most likely run on 2 or 4. It's the way computing handles most upgrades, by doubling so this is the most likely due to the ease of programming or whatever. E.g. RAM went up from 1MB to 2MB, to 4MB to 8MB and so on. The computers that came with 3mb or 6mb were few and far between and most programs recommend to the multiple of 2 even today.
 
blop said:
When will there be a 940BE AM3 equilavent?
Click to expand...

The 945BE, probably not til April I'm afraid.

If you must buy now, and £120 isn't much to you, then you could set yourself up with a nice AM3 rig with the 720 & then just replace the cpu with a 945 when they come out. Most of your expense right now will be a new motherboard and ram anyway.

As you're upgrading everything, MB & RAM, from your opty setup it would be worth doing it properly and going DDR3 with a proper AM3 motherboard instead of AM2+, so you'll have something to last a few years that'll be capable of upgrades along the way.

£344.97 gets you a 720 + Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P + 4Gb Corsair DDR3.
 
Last edited:
mnemonix said:
If you're set on having an AM3 chip rather than an AM2+ then your choices are limited. The only quad core available at the moment is the 810, which has a locked multiplier, less cache, and a lower clock speed, so most people are agreeing that that the 720 is indeed the sweet spot as you suspect. In some single threaded tests it is outperforming the 810 & even the 940BE.

DD's understanding of how multi core computers & software work is flawed. It's not about "2" & "4 core applications". True multithreaded applications will use as many cores as are available, and in reality, your computer is always running many processes at once including those of your game or application as well as OS services. The more cores you have, the better your computer will run, even more so if you are doing several things at once such as browsing, encoding & gaming, so 3 cores ARE better than than 2, even if a dumb benchmark run in isolation, suggests no performance gain.
Click to expand...

Surely if an application gets little to no benefit from 4 cores, it will get little to no benefit from 3? I suppose the extra core does help with background tasks, but my point still stands. The performance gain from 2 to 3 would be fairly small, I would reckon, and if an application uses true multithreading, then 4 cores would be better than 3, no? In most cases, at least.

Although the L3 cache and low price are a bargain, personally I'd rather go for quad, if it was within my price range. Maybe it's just me being natty over 3 cores being an awkward number, but if I want something higher up than 2 cores, I might as well make a bigger jump for 4. Then again, for a new build, the price of the X3 720 is remarkable. If I was looking at a build similar to a C2D, I wouldn't hesitate on the X3.
 
D D Danneh said:
then 4 cores would be better than 3, no?
Click to expand...

You're simply stating a trueism... More cores is better than less, more RAM is better than less and so on, but it's not particularly useful. Especially if you have to consider performance vs cost and affordability.

In the case of these particular chips, it's even less useful, because the 3 core chip can actually outperform the only available 4 core chip in some circumstances, it has more cache, a higher clock speed and is unlocked for a potentially much higher overclock. At only £120 it's less to lose if he replaces it with a 945 down the road too.

Ultimately the best solution for the OP will depend on how he uses his computer and how often or if he upgrades components along the way.
 
Last edited:
mnemonix said:
You're simply stating a trueism... More cores is better than less, more RAM is better than less and so on, but it's not particularly useful. Especially if you have to consider performance vs cost and affordability.

In the case of these particular chips, it's even less useful, because the 3 core chip can actually outperform the only available 4 core chip in some circumstances, it has more cache, a higher clock speed and is unlocked for a potentially much higher overclock. At only £120 it's less to lose if he replaces it with a 945 down the road too.

Ultimately the best solution for the OP will depend on how he uses his computer and how often or if he upgrades components along the way.
Click to expand...

Well said. When I said 4 cores is better than 3, I meant generally. If you're comparing the 720 and the 810, yes, the 720 is a better choice as it clearly has better features. As a whole though, 4 core processors are usually better than 3 cores. I'm not doubting it's a great chip, just not for me, like I said.
 
mnemonix said:
The 945BE, probably not til April I'm afraid.

If you must buy now, and £120 isn't much to you, then you could set yourself up with a nice AM3 rig with the 720 & then just replace the cpu with a 945 when they come out. Most of your expense right now will be a new motherboard and ram anyway.

As you're upgrading everything, MB & RAM, from your opty setup it would be worth doing it properly and going DDR3 with a proper AM3 motherboard instead of AM2+, so you'll have something to last a few years that'll be capable of upgrades along the way.

£344.97 gets you a 720 + Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P + 4Gb Corsair DDR3.
Click to expand...

We are joined by a mental link it seems!! :) I was thinking about that exact situation.

Im gonna hold off a little longer as i am forcing myself to sell all my old stuff first i have a fair bit lying around here:

Opty 148
4 x 1gb ddr
DFI lan party
1 x thermal take case LAN BOX
1 x 3 ghz p4 D with mobo and 1gb of ram
3 x 4 port NIC pci cards (ideal for home firewall)

i have just loads of stuff!

But say i go the x3 route - what graphics card and monitor, heatsink and fan (to get the max oc possible) should i go for....:D

I play a lot of source games l4d,css,tf2 but i wanna comfortably most titles....especially Total War Empire!
 
If it turns out this bug is reproducable consistently enough I'm gonna sell up my LGA775 kit and pick up some of this cheapo quad core action. I long for the ability to unlock stuff in hardware.
 
If demand is high, AMD are forced to sell good X4 as X3 chips. As process improves, so less 'faulty' X3 chips are produced and therefore the higher the chance of getting a good X4 instead. :)
 
What is interesting is if you can enable and disable the 3rd and 4th core?

Running on just 2 cores the Phenom II would have even more cache to share around so would in theory be even punchier in current games.

That'd be a nice feature, being able to tailor the core setup to the application.
 
Lightnix said:
If it turns out this bug is reproducable consistently enough I'm gonna sell up my LGA775 kit and pick up some of this cheapo quad core action. I long for the ability to unlock stuff in hardware.
Click to expand...

Same here.

Just waiting for some more verification, before I chuck my stuff on the MM :p
 
mnemonix said:
True multithreaded applications will use as many cores as are available, and in reality, your computer is always running many processes at once including those of your game or application as well as OS services. The more cores you have, the better your computer will run, even more so if you are doing several things at once such as browsing, encoding & gaming, so 3 cores ARE better than than 2, even if a dumb benchmark run in isolation, suggests no performance gain.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no app is a true multi-threaded app as yet, most support a fixed number of cores. And the next "fixed" point will be 4 probably.
 
Modern apps tend to be thread based, these threads are run inside a core. Take SupCom for example, the graphics/AI/Sounds ect all have there own thread (and with a 3rd party tool each AI can run in its own thread). Each of these threads can run in a core, or multible threads can run inside a core. One thread howerver, cant run in more then one core (IE the old way of programing).

They dont program for x amount of cores, they try to split the programing up into threads so that these can be devided as equally as posable in all available cores. This alows them to be flexible with the amount of cores they can use, and also be future proof(8 cores or more). They dont want there apps to be in the same situation they where 3-4 years ago when dual cores became the norm and next to nothing could benifit from it correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom