   Opinions on processors
  I'am upgrading my PC, old single core 1.8GHz processor, but I can't make a decision between two processors. The processors are:AMD Phenom II X2 545 3.00GHz Dual CoreandAMD Phenom II X3 710 2.60GHz Triple CoreWould it be better to get the Phenom II X3 with +1 core and less power, or the Phenom II X2 with more power but -1 core? Will recent games use all three cores if I get the triple core processor? I would like to hear your opinions whether you have these processors or not. Thanks.   
  For gaming I would definitely get the X2.. For video encoding (which I don't do) I would probably choose the X3.EDIT: I have neither one of these CPUs (I'm an Intel lover) but generally the only way that you'll notice the third core is if you're doing some sort of multimedia work.   ;  Going from a single core 1.8 GHz to either of those will be like night and day, so I wouldn't worry that much which one. Personally, I would go for the triple-core, as it is only marginally slower (plenty fast for games), while the extra core will provide very decent speedup for parallel operations (compilers, video encoding, etc.).However, I wouldn't buy that particular X3, because of the Biostar motherboard it is bundled with. I just replaced that motherboard (with a Gigabyte board), and I am much happier with the new board. The Biostar's north-bridge ran very hot, the hybrid crossfire is useless with modern video cards, and the BIOS is some of the worst I have ever seen. On the plus side, it does do 2x crossfire (albeit with limited bandwidth), but I didn't have a use for that.   ;Quote:Original post by WavarianEDIT: I have neither one of these CPUs (I'm an Intel lover) but generally the only way that you'll notice the third core is if you're doing some sort of multimedia work.... or enjoy doing software rendering of any sort :) (e.g. ray tracing, rasterising, ifs-sampling, etc.)   ;  Correct me if I'm wrong (since I don't really know much about how AMD processors work), but if you were running a game which made use of just one core, the X2 would give you 1.5GHz to work with, whilst the X3 would only provide you with 0.87GHz. Can all 3 cores work as one?   ;Quote:Original post by WavarianCorrect me if I'm wrong (since I don't really know much about how AMD processors work), but if you were running a game which made use of just one core, the X2 would give you 1.5GHz to work with, whilst the X3 would only provide you with 0.87GHz. Can all 3 cores work as one?Say what??? Clock-speed is per core, not total... (no matter what manufacturer we are talking about)   ;  Wouldn't that pretty much defeat the whole point of having multiple cores though? I mean lowering the core speed like that, not using single-threaded programs.EDIT: ninja'd.   ;  Forgive me, I'm a software developer, not a hardware fanatic. I was simply asking a question and was not stating a fact. No need to get your panties in a twist.   ;Quote:Original post by swiftcoderQuote:Original post by WavarianCorrect me if I'm wrong (since I don't really know much about how AMD processors work), but if you were running a game which made use of just one core, the X2 would give you 1.5GHz to work with, whilst the X3 would only provide you with 0.87GHz. Can all 3 cores work as one?Say what??? Clock-speed is per core, not total... (no matter what manufacturer we are talking about)More importantly, while clock speed partly determines total processing power, its not the whole equation.  Its entirely possible for a processor to have a lower clock speed and process faster.  Benchmarks are a better measure.Have you viewed benchmarks that the X2 is better for single-core tasks?For example, I have this CPU which runs at 2.66 GHz, and it kicks the pants off that X2 running at 3 GHz for single-threaded tasks.Edit: I'll also throw in here that I also favor Asus mobos over Biostar.Another Edit: Given that its the same processor family and roughly the same generation, its probably safe to assume that the X2 does have better single-thread performance.  I'm not sure that .4 GHz is going to give an appreciable difference, and I'd rather have the extra core.  Software is moving towards multi-threading.   ;Quote:Original post by RycrossQuote:Original post by swiftcoderQuote:Original post by WavarianCorrect me if I'm wrong (since I don't really know much about how AMD processors work), but if you were running a game which made use of just one core, the X2 would give you 1.5GHz to work with, whilst the X3 would only provide you with 0.87GHz. Can all 3 cores work as one?Say what??? Clock-speed is per core, not total... (no matter what manufacturer we are talking about)More importantly, while clock speed partly determines total processing power, its not the whole equation.  Its entirely possible for a processor to have a lower clock speed and process faster.  Benchmarks are a better measure.This is really only important when dealing with different processor families. But with in a single family of processors you can generally expect them to be doing the same things in a given cycle when running code, so a 2.0 X processor is going to be slower than a 2.2 X processor. As for the triple vs dual core? Unless you have a need for more cores and know what that need is, go with the higher clocked dual core.   