• 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.

Worth upgrading from phenom II 1100t?

Thanks again,
I was toying with the idea of going to the Intel side of things, but the cost of a new mobo etc is really not economical with the gains I would get.

I hear what you are saying ref the benchmarks and I honestly cant see I cpu upgrade giving me an extra 50 fps? If it did I would change my board and chip and hold out on the GFX!

I've always been a believer of GPU upgrade being the most important and feel that many can fall into the trap of online bench marks giving you X,Y AND Z improvements but we don't all poses the funds to go out and test ourselves, hence forums becoming the gold mine of information!

I appreciate you all taking the time to reply on no doubt a question that's been asked a million times.

Yes I agree that a new AMD cpu would improve things but honestly to the extent of some benchmarks posted I don't believe it?

Some benches I've seen only give about 10fps difference for midrange to top cpus not the astronomical figures shown in that graph.

If some one wants to loan me a pile driver I'll throw it in and give my own unbiased view for free :D

At the moment Intel is the top dog, though I feel AMD may and I mean this loosely, shorten the gap for out of the box head to heads (price being a main factor) but once people start overclocking the Intels the gap just stretches into the horizon :D

Thanks again all, really is some food for thought to be taken in and digested!
 
The core for core clock for clock performance difference between the Phenom II and Piledriver is less than 5% to the Phenom II. 'if anything'

The difference is:
The 1100T has 6 cores while the FX-83## has 8
The 1100T will run at 4Ghz+, FX-83## will run at 4.6Ghz+

In lower threaded your getting about 10% more performance, in newer games like Crysis 3 / BF4 where it will use 8 cores your getting about an extra 30%.
 
Last edited:
T C said:
Thanks again,
I was toying with the idea of going to the Intel side of things, but the cost of a new mobo etc is really not economical with the gains I would get.

I hear what you are saying ref the benchmarks and I honestly cant see I cpu upgrade giving me an extra 50 fps? If it did I would change my board and chip and hold out on the GFX!

I've always been a believer of GPU upgrade being the most important and feel that many can fall into the trap of online bench marks giving you X,Y AND Z improvements but we don't all poses the funds to go out and test ourselves, hence forums becoming the gold mine of information!

I appreciate you all taking the time to reply on no doubt a question that's been asked a million times.

Yes I agree that a new AMD cpu would improve things but honestly to the extent of some benchmarks posted I don't believe it?

Some benches I've seen only give about 10fps difference for midrange to top cpus not the astronomical figures shown in that graph.

If some one wants to loan me a pile driver I'll throw it in and give my own unbiased view for free :D

At the moment Intel is the top dog, though I feel AMD may and I mean this loosely, shorten the gap for out of the box head to heads (price being a main factor) but once people start overclocking the Intels the gap just stretches into the horizon :D

Thanks again all, really is some food for thought to be taken in and digested!
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think you've made the right decision :)

humbug said:
The core for core clock for clock performance difference between the Phenom II and Piledriver is less than 5% to the Phenom II. 'if anything'

The difference is:
The 1100T has 6 cores while the FX-83## has 8
The 1100T will run at 4Ghz+, FX-83## will run at 4.6Ghz+

In lower threaded your getting about 10% more performance, in newer games like Crysis 3 / BF4 where it will use 8 cores your getting about an extra 30%.
Click to expand...

The FX series doesn't have 8 real cores for starters - the 1100T has 6 real cores. The OP is running at 4.2ghz on his 1100T also, which is a pretty damn good OC and reduces the gap further.

The difference between piledriver and phenom II is less in the favour of phenom II than bulldozer and phenom II was but it's still there in the favour of phenom II for gaming. As such the OP would be spending a lot of money on an upgrade that provides very very little benefit.
 
FrenchTart said:
The FX series doesn't have 8 real cores for starters - the 1100T has 6 real cores.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is 8 cores. I suggest you do your research on how the BD architecture works, but this would be a good start.

http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1e8226/discussion_amds_module_architecture_the_fx_8350/

There are four modules, each with two cores in. They share resources, however, they are cores and not hyperthreading. There's also some information as to why they don't work properly in Windows 7 there too.

I grow so tired of people giving out advice on here that just isn't true because they don't know what they are talking about.

In more modern games the PD will beat the Thuban by a considerable margin. These are the games that OP would need a new GPU for, hence why I figured another £100 may be a good idea. Then there's Mantle. It is confirmed to work with PD, but as of yet I've not seem AMD mention Thuban.
 
The whole FX and core thing depends how you want to see it.

I see it as 8 real but slow cores sharing resources.
But one might see a core as something which has its own resources all to itself.
 
Martini1991 said:
The whole FX and core thing depends how you want to see it.

I see it as 8 real but slow cores sharing resources.
But one might see a core as something which has its own resources all to itself.
Click to expand...

It doesn't depend how you see it. Cores are cores, as you pointed out, no matter how fast or slow.

To say it isn't just isn't true.
 
Well, they're "incomplete" cores (Missing that resource that traditional cores have to themselves) then :p

I'm going to take this as a scenario you won't back down, and I don't care about, so I'll drop it.
 
Martini1991 said:
Ha, indeed.

More thinking into it, incomplete cores might make more sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what I'd consider to be the most accurate description to be honest. Sometimes you don't need to always need to use the perfect word to convey the right meaning.

Point being, it's not quite as simple as saying one has 8 cores and the other 6 :)
 
I stick with using 'threads' wont get into any arguments over if they're real cores or not. In theory it will stop people like Andy getting offended and getting ready for war.
 
Tonester0011 said:
I stick with using 'threads' wont get into any arguments over if they're real cores or not. In theory it will stop people like Andy getting offended and getting ready for war.
Click to expand...

Now you're opening up a can of worms with threads ;)

Did you know the Xbox 360 could I believe execute 6 :p?
Bed time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom