Need help buying a new cpu .

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 08:16

pandem0nium said:
He has intel and Amd rigs, the andy bashing is silly. Not everyone with an opinion has an agenda.

What rigs he owns doesn't change how much nonsense he spills. He's the last person anyone should take notice of for an opinion. A phenom being more appropriate these days is laughable and flies in the face of reality.
But yeah, it's just silly bashing him (not).

He's advising people with their money, and he's giving factually incorrect advice. Shame on you if you think that's okay.

David Bisset · 17 Mar 2015 at 08:29

Dog said:
That board only supports CPU's up to 140W, that chip's 220W

Stick one of these in for now, seen plenty of them running at 4.7 without too much effort. Then save your pennies to see what comes out later in the year.

Rich

This is a better option than the 9590 for sure, much cheaper and basically the same CPU anyway. However, it's worth highlighting that the board will still likely limit him as when overclocking the 8320E heavily power use would still go well past the 140W mark, reaching probably in the region of 220W at about 4.7GHz or so! The suggestion is still an OK one, good upgrade for the money, but if he wants to go further than that board will allow him then he'll need to replace both the CPU & the mobo, in which case I'd certainly want to look at both vendors options.

For me personally I'd wait until the game comes out anyway, find out what it needs to run well and then decide.

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 08:31

It's really worth waiting to just see how the game performs when it finally arrives.
I'm probably leading towards it being stupid gpu heavy, so it'll have a pretty hefty gpu bottleneck, can see an fx 83 being perfect for it.

gpuerrilla · 17 Mar 2015 at 09:23

Strange advice, one minute the FX is worst decision ever and then martini posts it is perfect..

Andy bashing is common. Though tbf I would caution with listening to dave from somewhere in wales as he is also factually poor and will cherry pick benchmarks to prove his point!

The SSD you have is fine, if you already have a Sabertooth board (which is the one I have) it will cope fine with an FX cpu in there. You can overclock the RAM but will need a decent cooler for the CPU.

Apply to the local distribution board for your electricity supply upgrade and get some new wiring for your installation of the house while you are at it. This will cope with the extreme power draw from a 2011 piece of stagnant technology... :rolleyes:

If you had not already got some good components offering the FX route I would recommend saving for an i7 based machine. I dont know what your budget is but there is plenty of advice on here if you have that magical £150 that is not yours to spend!

Happy St Patrick's day to you all, especially my friend dave over the water!

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 09:50

Perfect for a game that's no doubt going to be ridiculously GPU heavy. It makes no sense not to buy it if you're on AM3+ looking at this game.

NMBlack · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:12

pandem0nium said:
Can you unlock the 2 extra cores? That should help!

I did try it, but no joy. Besides, the stuff I play (mostly GW2 at the moment) is more dependent on processor grunt rather than cores, and there's plenty of info on the forums showing that it runs much better on i5's than AMD processors.

pandem0nium · 17 Mar 2015 at 17:13

Martini1991 said:
What rigs he owns doesn't change how much nonsense he spills. He's the last person anyone should take notice of for an opinion. A phenom being more appropriate these days is laughable and flies in the face of reality.
But yeah, it's just silly bashing him (not).

He's advising people with their money, and he's giving factually incorrect advice. Shame on you if you think that's okay.

He's entitled to his opinion and subjecting him to this kind of cyber bullying is unacceptable.

We're not responsible in any way for other people's money. If person X wants to spend it based on stranger Y's recommendation, it's their decision and they're responsible for it.

Since the launch of the phenom II x6 which of these apply?

Games commonly use more threads
current and upcoming games APIs reduce the cpu overhead
More affordable, higher resolution screens mean that the bottleck is being shifted towards the gpu

If I had £50/60 to spend on a cpu in a budget build, I'd be looking for a PII x6, not a pentium K.

David Bisset · 17 Mar 2015 at 17:50

Aww, 25-35 quid more and you'd be into 6300 territory, not tempted? Maybe I'm wrong, not really looked up much in the way of benches, but I'd have thought the 6300 is enough of a step up to be worth it.

pandem0nium · 17 Mar 2015 at 18:55

David Bisset said:
Aww, 25-35 quid more and you'd be into 6300 territory, not tempted? Maybe I'm wrong, not really looked up much in the way of benches, but I'd have thought the 6300 is enough of a step up to be worth it.

That 25-35 is significant in some of the low budget builds people ask for in general hardware. it could be the difference between, say a 270 and a 280.

There's not a huge amount of difference to justify the extra cost.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=699

I've just drained the loop on my 8350 rig, so I'm thinking about putting my old 960T (unlocks to x6) in for some fun and games

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 19:01

pandem0nium said:
If I had £50/60 to spend on a cpu in a budget build, I'd be looking for a PII x6, not a pentium K.

Your comparison is somewhat skewed.

The Phenom II's going to be second hand, the Pentium K isn't (And if it was, the price difference would be different)

You'd be able to get an FX6300 at that price (And probably a locked i5 really)

The Phenom II is NOT more appropriate now that it was in the past, it's a fallacy.

And of course we're responsible for peoples money when they're asking for advice.

If I gave someone bad advice and they followed it, spending their money, damn right I'd be responsible.

I used to buy a lot of Phenom II's and put them into builds, there's a reason they're now getting replaced.

Davedree · 17 Mar 2015 at 19:11

David Bisset said:
This is a better option than the 9590 for sure, much cheaper and basically the same CPU anyway. However, it's worth highlighting that the board will still likely limit him as when overclocking the 8320E heavily power use would still go well past the 140W mark, reaching probably in the region of 220W at about 4.7GHz or so! The suggestion is still an OK one, good upgrade for the money, but if he wants to go further than that board will allow him then he'll need to replace both the CPU & the mobo, in which case I'd certainly want to look at both vendors options.

For me personally I'd wait until the game comes out anyway, find out what it needs to run well and then decide.

The sabertooth r2.0 board officially supports an Fx9590, (I agree fx9590 is a waste of money I don't know why people buy these marked up cpu's) The ops board will not struggle with an overclocked fx83**, He does not need to upgrade his board to support an Fx9590 or heavily overclocked fx8 just because a Tdp rating states an fx9590 has a 220w tdp. Please don't pass on bad advice.

gpuerrilla · 17 Mar 2015 at 19:33

Davedree said:
The sabertooth r2.0 board officially supports an Fx9590, (I agree fx9590 is a waste of money I don't know why people buy these marked up cpu's) The ops board will not struggle with an overclocked fx83**, He does not need to upgrade his board to support an Fx9590 or heavily overclocked fx8 just because a Tdp rating states an fx9590 has a 220w tdp. Please don't pass on bad advice.

Th0nt said:
The SSD you have is fine, if you already have a Sabertooth board (which is the one I have) it will cope fine with an FX cpu in there.

David Bisset said:
This is a better option than the 9590 for sure, much cheaper and basically the same CPU anyway. However, it's worth highlighting that the board will still likely limit him as when overclocking the 8320E heavily power use would still go well past the 140W mark, reaching probably in the region of 220W at about 4.7GHz or so! The suggestion is still an OK one, good upgrade for the money, but if he wants to go further than that board will allow him then he'll need to replace both the CPU & the mobo, in which case I'd certainly want to look at both vendors options.

For me personally I'd wait until the game comes out anyway, find out what it needs to run well and then decide.

Bad advice David Bisset - which martini and others did not latch onto instead opting to cyber bully Andy

Like I said and then Davedree reiterated - his board is perfectly capable and an 8320E is the best weapon of choice. On a bigger budget I would save and upgrade to intel but by the sounds of it he doesn't have to do this unless you are dave2150 or MrMD.

/thread before blue brigade take it off topic

pandem0nium · 17 Mar 2015 at 20:27

Martini1991 said:
Your comparison is somewhat skewed.

The Phenom II's going to be second hand, the Pentium K isn't (And if it was, the price difference would be different)

You'd be able to get an FX6300 at that price (And probably a locked i5 really)

The Phenom II is NOT more appropriate now that it was in the past, it's a fallacy.

And of course we're responsible for peoples money when they're asking for advice.

If I gave someone bad advice and they followed it, spending their money, damn right I'd be responsible.

I used to buy a lot of Phenom II's and put them into builds, there's a reason they're now getting replaced.

I think it was a fair comparison and still do. New vs used yeah. There needs to be a difference between the products otherwise a comparison would be pointless.

There are alternatives yeah and prices vary. It may not be the best choice in every situation. The differences between a 6300 and a PII x6 aren't worth worrying about.

I would argue that people are responsible for their own actions, with exceptions for mental illness etc.

You haven't commented on any of the points I've made, you've just put the word 'not' in capital letters.

pandem0nium · 17 Mar 2015 at 20:35

Th0nt said:
Bad advice David Bisset - which martini and others did not latch onto instead opting to cyber bully Andy

Like I said and then Davedree reiterated - his board is perfectly capable and an 8320E is the best weapon of choice. On a bigger budget I would save and upgrade to intel but by the sounds of it he doesn't have to do this unless you are dave2150 or MrMD.

/thread before blue brigade take it off topic

I agree with the 8320e. It's a newer revision and should clock higher with less voltage.

David Bisset · 17 Mar 2015 at 21:53

Th0nt said:
Bad advice David Bisset - which martini and others did not latch onto instead opting to cyber bully Andy

Like I said and then Davedree reiterated - his board is perfectly capable and an 8320E is the best weapon of choice. On a bigger budget I would save and upgrade to intel but by the sounds of it he doesn't have to do this unless you are dave2150 or MrMD.

/thread before blue brigade take it off topic

Eh? Bad advice for saying the same processor you then claim you told him to get? (hint: You joined the thread after this and only said FX are OK without mentioning the 8320E unlike Dog in the post I was quoting - I agree the 8320E is his best bet which is why I had already recommended it over the 9590. That is something you didn't do until this very post)
In case you missed it I was quoting Dog who said the 8320E was the one to get - and his reasoning was that the 9590 TDP was too high for the board. I was pointing out that this reasoning itself was wrong but the processor choice was good, though I can totally see why he may have come to the power conclusion & I also agree with his final statement about saving pennies being a good option to be able to see what comes out later in the year.

The OPs board may well be perfectly capable of clocking the chip very nicely - in which case the boards claimed supported wattages are wrong as clocking the chip up to ~4.7GHz will have pushed well past the 140W limit the board claims. I apologise for not making it clear that I don't know if the board is claiming the right limit.

Both your self and Davedree with his 'Please don't pass on bad advice' are being quite pointlessly argumentative given you both are saying the exact same processor I am.

'/thread before someone disagrees with me' ... grow up.

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 22:12

pandem0nium said:
I think it was a fair comparison and still do. New vs used yeah. There needs to be a difference between the products otherwise a comparison would be pointless.

There are alternatives yeah and prices vary. It may not be the best choice in every situation. The differences between a 6300 and a PII x6 aren't worth worrying about.

I would argue that people are responsible for their own actions, with exceptions for mental illness etc.

You haven't commented on any of the points I've made, you've just put the word 'not' in capital letters.

I have no intention of playing graph wars.
But how exactly are Phenoms *more* appropriate than they used to be (When Intel didn't have about 50% higher IPC)? They haven't gotten better in age (Bearing in mind, we're literally saying Phenom II, not Thuban/Deneb/Calliso specifically). Thuban can be argued to have been more "future proof", but again, that's not the same as being "more appropriate" as to say "more" it must stipulate that it's a better option now than it was then. Which makes no sense.

More games are using more threads yes, but that doesn't make them anymore appropriate, their performance isn't up there where it was when they launched relative to the oppositions CPU's at the time.

You've got a messed up notion of "fair" if you can willy nilly switch second hand with brand new. The situation you brought up ; A brand new Pentium K, or a second hand Thuban was entirely selective to make a point.

Phenom II's were great CPU's price/performance wise half a decade ago.

Like I say, for OP, he should check benchmarks when Witcher launches, as far as CPU upgrade, an FX83's probably his best bet.

gpuerrilla · 17 Mar 2015 at 22:20

David Bisset said:
Eh? Bad advice for saying the same processor you then claim you told him to get? (hint: You joined the thread after this and only said FX are OK without mentioning the 8320E unlike Dog in the post I was quoting - I agree the 8320E is his best bet which is why I had already recommended it over the 9590. That is something you didn't do until this very post)
In case you missed it I was quoting Dog who said the 8320E was the one to get - and his reasoning was that the 9590 TDP was too high for the board. I was pointing out that this reasoning itself was wrong but the processor choice was good, though I can totally see why he may have come to the power conclusion & I also agree with his final statement about saving pennies being a good option to be able to see what comes out later in the year.

The OPs board may well be perfectly capable of clocking the chip very nicely - in which case the boards claimed supported wattages are wrong as clocking the chip up to ~4.7GHz will have pushed well past the 140W limit the board claims. I apologise for not making it clear that I don't know if the board is claiming the right limit.

Both your self and Davedree with his 'Please don't pass on bad advice' are being quite pointlessly argumentative given you both are saying the exact same processor I am.

'/thread before someone disagrees with me' ... grow up.

Whatever your justification David, you focused on the board being uncapable of being appropriate for supporting the aforementioned processors. Try not to deflect that this is a fundamental flaw and just leave it at that. The board is adequate for the job, fit for purpose.

As for telling me to grow up that just sums up the people on these forums when they cannot take it on the chin and admit they do not back up the points they are making or research before posting.

the /thread was actually for the people who regularly champion intel is the only way which to be fair I have not seen you do. As you have reacted in such a childish sulk of a reply I will just carry on instead of the tit for tat nonsense that seems to be the norm. Just remember - it was others in this thread mentioning "bad advice" and regardless of what you stand for you gave bad advice!

David Bisset said:
However, it's worth highlighting that the board will still likely limit him as when overclocking

Eh? Yeah, eh that all you like - its false!

Davedree · 17 Mar 2015 at 22:23

David Bisset said:
Eh? Bad advice for saying the same processor you then claim you told him to get? (hint: You joined the thread after this and only said FX are OK without mentioning the 8320E unlike Dog in the post I was quoting - I agree the 8320E is his best bet which is why I had already recommended it over the 9590. That is something you didn't do until this very post)
In case you missed it I was quoting Dog who said the 8320E was the one to get - and his reasoning was that the 9590 TDP was too high for the board. I was pointing out that this reasoning itself was wrong but the processor choice was good, though I can totally see why he may have come to the power conclusion & I also agree with his final statement about saving pennies being a good option to be able to see what comes out later in the year.

The OPs board may well be perfectly capable of clocking the chip very nicely - in which case the boards claimed supported wattages are wrong as clocking the chip up to ~4.7GHz will have pushed well past the 140W limit the board claims. I apologise for not making it clear that I don't know if the board is claiming the right limit.

Both your self and Davedree with his 'Please don't pass on bad advice' are being quite pointlessly argumentative given you both are saying the exact same processor I am.

'/thread before someone disagrees with me' ... grow up.

sorry if it comes across as argumentative, but you incorrectly stated that the op would need to upgrade his board, there's nothing more to it other than you gave bad advice.

Tdp wattage is a reference to heat not the current draw of the cpu when the v-core is raised. The advertised 220 tdp wattage of an fx9590 is a worse case scenario of a v-core full boost p-state in excess of 1.5v. This voltage can vary on various fx9590's, some are excessively overvolted.
The sabertooth has a very robust 8+2 digital phase power reg and can cope with a lot of current draw.

Martini1991 · 17 Mar 2015 at 22:25

TDP isn't power draw.
And also, the ratings on a lot boards will probably be wrong for the most part anyay.

Something about old boards, and then "new" CPU's with different TDP ratings and then "official" lark. (Like with memory speeds back in the day on Intel set ups, what's official isn't actually its limit.)

David Bisset · 17 Mar 2015 at 22:29

Aye, I may well have been wrong on that, as I said - I've no idea if the 140W claim for the board is garbage. Don't know if you know what the word 'likely' means - it's far from stating it as absolute fact but it was a mistake assuming what you're saying is correct.

However the only advice I gave was to get the 8320E. That was advice you had not given and I don't feel it was bad. Clearly you disagree.

At no point did I tell him to change board, though I agree that what I said could have caused him to consider it. If the board is plenty capable then that's great news for the OP.

Once again, I apologise that I took what the board claims it's capable of to actually mean something, as did the original recommender of the 8320E. The reason for mentioning the wattages still stands (an overclocked 8320E at about 4.7GHz still draws a lot of power, comparable to a 9590, so we're not recommending it because it uses less power but instead because it's the same but cheaper and can clock to similar speeds) however the original limit may well have been incorrect. I know TDP is different to power draw, though to hit a certain amount of heat output you inevitably must draw that much power. I am also aware that these values can vary significantly depending on how well cooled the VRMs are etc but thanks for the reminder, it's always good. If these limits are like with Intel officially supported memory speed as Martini mentions then that's worth knowing as those have always been pretty amusing.

I see no reason for the OP to switch to Intel given his use-case and what kit he already has. However if other users want to share their feelings on why Intel is the best best then given the OP intimated he was fairy new to building PCs then this is hardly off topic.