AM2+... first phenoms... i doubt they'll make a lot of difference. 4 cores were not all that useful for games back then. Phenom2 would, but that's AM3, even if backwards compatible with AM2+...

I have Phenom 9950 BE, 2.6Ghz variant. They have L3 cache, it should help.

I also have the special Phenom II 940 BE 3.0 Ghz just in case, that was made just for AM2+. I will also try running Vista era games also in Vista. That way we will see comparison of Crysis in dx9 vs dx10. I have AM3 Phenom II as well, but those are just for comparison. They should run in AM3.

I have better GPUs available for Phenoms. Phenoms can run 1066 memory natively. No more need for OC. Phenoms have faster HT.

In Far Cry 2 and Need for Speed: Undercover I do see 100% CPU utilization, so there is hope.

Testbench 7:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon 64 X2 6400+ ADX6400IAA6CZ (Windsor, released in 2007) with DDR2 running at 800
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 45 fps
• Firefly Forest - 45 fps
• Canyon Flight - 98 fps
• Deep Freeze - 56 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 44 fps
• Firefly Forest - 45 fps
• Canyon Flight - 92 fps
• Deep Freeze - 56 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 44 fps
• Firefly Forest - 44 fps
• Canyon Flight - 90 fps
• Deep Freeze - 55 fps

The gain is about 3-5 fps over standard Athlon 64 X2 6000+ with DDR 750.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 144 fps average, 59 fps minimum in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 33 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. 4 fps improvement over standard Athlon 64X2 6000+. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in GPU benchmark is 49 with 4x full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. Playable.

We didn't test Far Cry 2 and Need for Speed: Undercover as we already know from Testbench 6 that Windsor isn't going to cut it.

Conclusion about Athlon 64X2 6400+ (Windsor) with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 800:
- noticeable improvement in Crysis in average fps and game. We can state Crysis is in the playable range now.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- we are unable to improve performance of Need for Speed: Undercover or Far Cry 2 to acceptable levels (inherited from Testbench 6)

Bonus Testbench 8:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- OCed Athlon 64 X2 6400+ ADX6400IAA6CZ to 3.3Ghz (Windsor, released in 2007) with DDR2 running at 943. Base frequency 254Mhz, 13.0 multiplier, CPU speed 3302Mhz with stock voltage, HT link 1270Mhz, DRAM frequency 471.7, DRAM divisor 7, DRAM timings 5 5 5 15, DRAM voltage 2.2V
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

Interestingly, attempt to use 13.5 multiplier and lower base frequency lead to performance regression even though memory timings were the same as was CPU clock and memory clock.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 47 fps
• Firefly Forest - 47 fps
• Canyon Flight - 102 fps
• Deep Freeze - 58 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 45 fps
• Firefly Forest - 46 fps
• Canyon Flight - 93 fps
• Deep Freeze - 57 fps

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 150 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 35 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in GPU benchmark is 52 with 4x full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. Playable.

Conclusion about OCed Athlon 64X2 6400+ (Windsor) to 3.3Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 943:
- this represents an attempt to squeeze more performance out of Windsor. It is faster than Testbench 6. It will be the fastest Windsor.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- no instability was observed

Testbench 9:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane, released in 2008) with DDR2 running at 778.
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 40 fps
• Firefly Forest - 41 fps
• Canyon Flight - 89 fps
• Deep Freeze - 51 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 39 fps
• Firefly Forest - 40 fps
• Canyon Flight - 85 fps
• Deep Freeze - 51 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 38 fps
• Firefly Forest - 40 fps
• Canyon Flight - 82 fps
• Deep Freeze - 50 fps

We see a performace regression of 2-4 fps over Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor), while stock Brisbane has 100Mhz higher clock speed and memory is running faster as well.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 132 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 30 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 45 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 44 average fps. We get 5-6 fps less than stock Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor).

Conclusion about Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Brisbane)
- inferior to Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor) in performance
- lower TDP is not a good tradeoff given good silent coolers are available
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- if you have a choice, choose Windsor over Brisbane

Bonus Testbench 10:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- OCed Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane, released in 2008) to 3.2Ghz with DDR2 running at 916. Base frequency 247Mhz, 13.0 multiplier, CPU speed 3210Mhz with stock voltage, HT link 1235Mhz, DRAM frequency 458.7, DRAM divisor 7, DRAM timings 5 5 5 15, DRAM voltage 2.2V
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

Multiplier 13 worked great in Testbench 6 and Bonus Testbench 8. This testbench is identical to Testbench 6 in settings used for Windsor. We get clock by clock comparison of Windsor and Brisbane architecture.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 42 fps
• Firefly Forest - 43 fps
• Canyon Flight - 93 fps
• Deep Freeze - 53 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 41 fps
• Firefly Forest - 41 fps
• Canyon Flight - 85 fps
• Deep Freeze - 53 fps

At the same clock speed, memory speed, HT link, Brisbane lags behind Windsor by about 3-7 fps.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 134 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 29 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Very minor performance drop over stock CPU. Benchmark was repeated and findings confirmed. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 48 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 46 average fps.

Conclusion about OCed Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane) to 3.2Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 916:
- this represents an attempt to squeeze more performance out of Brisbane. It will be the fastest Brisbane.
- it doesn't reliably beat stock Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADX6000IAA6CZ (Windsor) and lags behind Windsor OCed to 3.2Ghz.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- if you have a choice, choose Windsor over Brisbane
- no instability was observed

So easily ~10% lower performance. Not an insignificant downgrade, in fact easily within what improvements from generation to generation are nowadays.

That's fascinating. Must be annoying to buy a new computer which is slower than one from last year...

And a good reason to avoid brisbane altogether nowadays...

AMD 65nm process was a big flop. AMD originally probably expected clocks about 3.5Ghz or higher. Phenom I also had initially very low clocks and TLB bug. 2008 was an extremely bad year for AMD with the TLB bug and Brisbane. In 2009 AMD switched to 45nm process and never had the time to refine 65nm. 2008 was probably a turning point when many switched to Intel. I had Intel core 2 duo at that time.

Nowadays people should get Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) only for historical value reasons as a curiosity, or if nothing else is available. Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor) is a clear winner for AM2, with Athlon 64 X2 6000+ being a stopgap solution until a cheap higher clocked brother is found. 6400+ conveniently runs memory at DDR2 800 speed so there is no need to mess with OC settings. Just run it at stock speed and it will last for a very long time. Mediocre for Windows Vista era, but it does allow to play Crysis. Buy them now as they may be too expensive in 5-10 years.

I was on AMD back then and i completely missed whole mess. I got earlier athlon x2 when vista was released, i do not remember exactly - something in 4000-5000+ range. 4400+ perhaps. This upgrade was long overdue since i was using athlonXP 2200+ still.

This CPUs were not bad back then, they were competitive enough in terms of price/performance and offered some benefits like support for more memory. That system had 8GB, since vista kind of wanted that...

Then a few years later i swapped it for phenom2. Those were fun and still competitive too, with overclocking more easily available (plenty of unlocked options), again - less issues with RAM, whole unlocking cores and L3 thing...

Intel's LGA775 has its own issues with memory controller still in chipset, whole bunch of chipsets and some weird limitations with use of single/dual rank sticks etc. E8600 system i currently have does not support more than 4GB of RAM for example. A couple AM2 boards i have support 8GB with no issues, being older...

For me the point where AMD became not competitive and outright bad, forcing me towards intel, was FX...

4GB is a quite low limit. Not really for Vista. Sometimes boards support 8GB but you cannot use that with the fastest memory. E8600 has 6MB shared L2 cache and supports DDR3 1066 which is quite low as well. Windsor not having a shared L3 cache must be hurting it. It's essentially a competition between 45nm and 90nm and having to share data through main memory.

The motherboard I used Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0 had no trouble running 4x 2GB at DDR2 1000 speed with Windsor. Gigabyte claims it supports 16GB but 4GB modules are not sold.