Which is the better processor for FM ?

Which is the better processor for FM between those only two ?

AMD Phenom X4 9600 (2300 Mhz - sAM2+)

and AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (3200 Mhz - sAM2)

Thanks

I have the second one and fm plays great

Are these your only options for an upgraded? Mind, I'm running an X2 myself but this is 2006/2007 tech, AMD has long since released successors for each, processors doing more per clock cycle and drawing less power each. The X2 6400+ is easily one of the most power hungry processors you can find today, it's an Athlon X2 clocked as high as it gets, pushing the architecture to its phyiscal limits. And still lacking behind modern day dual core processors.

As for performance, this is a question for the official guys, but if FM's multicore support is decent, the quadcore CPU should be able to outrun the dual core X2.

its probably a close call but id say the x2 6400+ is probably better, as it has a much higher clock speed. im not so hot on amd processors, but like Svenc said, amd have released newer, better processors that would be less power hungry and have a better performance.

its probably a close call but id say the x2 6400+ is probably better, as it has a much higher clock speed.

That depends. As for apps that only utilize two core the X2 probably has a bit of an advantage. Phenom chips are based on a newer design than Athlon X2s, and it was said that an Athlon X2 would need about 400Mhz more clock speed match the corresponding Phenom chip. This doesn't count as soon as an application utilizes more than two cores though - and I think FM does. It's really hard to say without benchmarking though, really.

If these are the only options for an upgrade, so be it. But else I'd look for different chips altogether.

Svenc's info is correct. The answer is the Phenom! It's all about how the chips are made. The Phenom has 4 cores all on the same piece of silicon - like the Intel Core i7. The X2 is, as you might guess, has just two cores on the same piece of silicon. The X3, three cores.

The X2 cores do have higher clock speeds than the X4 cores but that's a red herring. The X4 chip is a more efficient design and so it doesn't need the individual cores to be as quick thus saving power and reducing heat.

But yes it also depends how well a program can take advantage of a cpu's processing power.

I have "Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.6GHz"

And i'm having problems with he demo of 2010. Is it time for a change of proceesor, because ithink it has been pretty long the same one

I have "Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.6GHz"

And i'm having problems with he demo of 2010. Is it time for a change of proceesor, because ithink it has been pretty long the same one

I'm running an X2 5200+ myself and don't have any problems at all. It would be weird if I had, after all, the database loaded up in the demo is fairly limited! Are you sure there isn't something wrong with your system? I mean, there's always room for improvement, but if the demo seriously lags on your machine, that'd be off. And the full version would be borderline unplayable on lesser machines, what with the official requirements still hovering around Pentium4 and Athlon XP chips and the like, the really ancient stuff that is seven years of age and counting.

I'm running an X2 5200+ myself and don't have any problems at all. It would be weird if I had, after all, the database loaded up in the demo is fairly limited! Are you sure there isn't something wrong with your system? I mean, there's always room for improvement, but if the demo seriously lags on your machine, that'd be off. And the full version would be borderline unplayable on lesser machines, what with the official requirements still hovering around Pentium4 and Athlon XP chips and the like, the really ancient stuff that is seven years of age and counting.

you mag judge of this is a good system or not:

------------------

System Information

------------------

Time of this report: 10/17/2009, 11:36:35

Machine name: ---

Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)

Language: Dutch (Regional Setting: Dutch)

System Manufacturer: MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO.,LTD

System Model: MS-7367

BIOS: Default System BIOS

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.6GHz

Memory: 2048MB RAM

Page File: 643MB used, 3296MB available

Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS

DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)

DX Setup Parameters: Not found

DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

Card name: ATI Radeon HD 4670

Hm. Better graphics card than mine, and our processors are pretty much the same. What exactly do you mean with "problems"?

Hm. Better graphics card than mine, and our processors are pretty much the same. What exactly do you mean with "problems"?

The game lags and freezes. I already turned off all the 3d-stuff in options (i got rated 3.5/5 stars), and it went a bit better. But whenever you click something, it takes a lot of time before you get in the next menu. it begins with a few seconds, and ather a while the game just get completly stuck, and you have to get te task management to close it. I already tried playing in a window