If you bought this abomination, you are probably miserable and possibly poor.
As are the people that made it by mistake.
meh .At least you're not shitposting the pentium 4.
When's the last time you saw your sister? Maybe she mises you. You should visit her and spend some time together. We're not gonna be here forever anon, cherish those you love NOW while they're still here.
>>52401495
>talking shit about the Phenom II
Great price/perf for the time, mine is still trucking strong. OP is a faggot as usual.
>>52401495
Im about to upgrade from dual quads in my server to dual 6 cores for like 25$.
Stupid cheap d00d
>>52401495
six cores for da sex whores
>>52401495
Do intel shills get paid well ? The hexa-core Phenoms still rock in most modern applications.
25$ is a steal for that CPU for server or in order to tie yourself over for Zen.
I did, that 1100T is still running.
>>52404870
>25$
I wish. They go for as much as a brand new 8350 on eBay here, otherwise I'd upgrade my X3 720 to one.
>>52401495
>If you bought this abomination, you are probably miserable and possibly poor.
The Phenom II was a Core 2, but cheaper, with 6 cores, higher clocks, and modern motherboards (sata3, etc).
It's only downside was that Intel had better CPUs out at the time, though they also cost a lot more.
>>52401495
Bought the x4 like 4 years ago and still using it get rekt
>>52401597
Nice words son. Made me think.
>>52401597
>tfw no imouto
>>52405291
Same here, x4 965.
>>52405337
yeah x4 955 be here
>>52401495
I had the x8 and it always done good by me
>>52401495
Bought mine when it was half of the price of the i7 920 and offered pretty much the same performance. Still using it until Zen.
>>52405353
4 years already here, no problems here.
>>52401495
X4 925 was good back in 2010.
You were even poor-er if you bought this
Phenom II x6 was a beast. It might have been literally a four core CPU with two extra cores tacked on but it was still a beast performance-wise. The only thing that consistently beat it was the i7 980x which cost like 3x as much.
>>52401495
I am poor, but I don't regret upgracing from a Phenom II dual core to the Phenom II x6 105ot.
Works great for music production.
>>52401495
Still rocking a X6 1100T on my main build. Stay mad and faggot OP
1090T since 2010. Still running strong.
>>52401495
>Absolutely bait
Still use a 1045t for my htpc. No issues what so ever, going 4 years strong. Was a prior gaming cpu before I switched to a 8320.
Hamburgler harder faggot.
>>52401495
This was the best option at the time that it came out. Unlike Intel which inflates thread counts on their high end through hyper threading, or AMD itself later receiving a class action lawsuit over the FX series not really being 8 distinct cores, the Phenoms really did have X number of cores and the same number of threads, with no shennanigans or busllshit, making them a good purchase for gaming, general purpose use, and multitasking, far from an "abomination".
In other words, you bought a Jewtel and now you expect a cookie or to be patted on the back or something for being retarded. Maybe you're just pretending to be retarded. Either way, go fuck yourself.
>>52401495
1045T here. Since 2010 and I haven't had a single problem. It was the best bang for the buck at the time. Fuck you OP. Have a (You).
[spoiler]Faggot[/spoiler]
>>52405353
Same, i got the 955 in... 2009 i think and it's still kicking.
I have one (1055T) OP, it's actually decent and I remember well that it was cheaper than 2500K and half of an i7 920. Also, I bought it on launch (~2010).
>>52402003
>six cores for da sex whores
Reminds me a picture with "AMD Sex Core 2.8Ghz".
>>52401495
I would still use it too, but it was starting to show its age.
>>52407239
this
I used a 965BE(4core) from 2010 until 2014 when the motherboard died. Chip is still fine, and would get the job done. However, like you said it was starting to show its age I bought a Haswell i5 to replace it, because AMD's options at that time were terrible.
>>52407165
Why the fuck isn't it working
[spoiler]Let me try it[/spoiler]
[spoilers]Like this?[/spoilers]
>>52407505
>[spoiler] tags are not supported on /g/.
phenom 4 lyfe
>>52401495
I only bought a X4 955
Could only ever get the thing to oc to 4GHz
>>52408418
That's pretty much the upper limit for most Phenom IIs. Some go to 4.2GHz or so with tons of voltage, but many more don't even hit 4GHz.
>should have upgraded to a 1100T
>brought a 8320 + new mobo on the hype
Welp.
>>52408418
IIRC I could get my X4 980 to 4.3 with watercooling and overvoltage, but I live in the tropics and it would become unstable as soon as I turned off my air conditioner. There's really not much overhead available on modern AMD chips.
>>52401495
I have Phenom II x4 B95 overclocked from 3GHz to 3.3GHz. It runs GTA V at 1080p high settings at above 30fps in the city and up to 50 in rural areas. get fucked.
I probably made a mistake right?
>>52409627
I did the same. Why do you say it was a mistake?
>>52409627
its 1337 tho
>>52409757
According to Ops standards. Im not sure if I was joking or not.
>implying my [email protected] isnt still kicking ass.
Sure its in my gf's computer but it still does everything she needs including playing fallout 4.
>Phenom X4 960T
>Unlocked to 6 cores
>1.43V
>3.9GHz from 3.0Ghz
>still gets the job done
Fuck off OP
>>52408776
The 8320 is faster than it for the most part
>>52401495
Nice try
>>52405627
I had the 9650.
It wasn't too bad, I think I paid about $130 for it in April 2009.
>>52401807
Yea phenom II and athlon 64 where some of the best processors AMD has ever made.
>>52409820
I used that CPU, but then I upgraded to an i5 3570K for Planetside 2 and gave my AMD with motherboard to my little brother.
i still have my 1090T
played battlefront on it a few days ago.
didnt notice a single difference between it and the 4670k at 4.4GHZ
OP is a confirmed faggot
>>52413722
>didnt notice a single difference between it and the 4670k at 4.4GHZ
I definitely did. (well, vs. the 4790k)
The 4790k pushed more details with a GTX 960, while my 1090T was stuttering at times (had to disable some things).
>>52413799
really? thats interesting,.
im running dual 290x setup, and i didnt notice a single difference.
the 1090t was clocked at 4.2ghz i think.
>>52401495
Youre fucking retarted. I could have done more with a X6 phenom than a 2500k in modern games.
>>52414573
2500k is years old and no you could have not.
>>52405353
mah nigga
That CPU was great for embarrassingly parallel tasks. Intel still don't have a hexacore that doesn't cost a fucking fortune.
Is there literally any reason to upgrade from a Phenom II X4 965 now other than showing off in benchmarks?
>>52408827
>There's really not much overhead available on modern AMD chips
Bullshit. The FX chips overclock higher than Intel's stuff on average. Doesn't do much for their shitty performance, but still. The Phenom IIs aren't "modern".
>>52401495
>AMD Phenom
I haven't been keeping up but are these discontinued now?
Seriously though, the athlon x4 860k is still a screaming CPU that I can pick up secondhand for $40
What's not to love.
>>52411463
>Yea phenom II and athlon 64 where some of the best processors AMD has ever made.
Hahaha
Phenom II doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the Athlon 64.
The Athlon 64 actually sent Intel into a fucking panic mode, the Pentium 4 literally couldn't compete unless you shoved $1000 L3 cache onto it. Phenom II was just an 'ok' budget processor.
The original Athlon (for baiting Intel into prematurely releasing the i820 chipset and its terrible RDRAM) and the Athlon 64 are the actual best AMD processors of all time.
