• 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?

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



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.
Click to expand...

The 1100T has 6 integer units, 6 decoders, 6x L1 and 6x L2
The FX-83## has 8 integer units, 4 decoders, 8x L1, and 4x L2

It has 8 real cores, the only real difference is 2 cores share one decoder and L2.

As for clock speeds, there is about as much chance of running a 1100T @ 4.2Ghz as there is an FX-83## at 4.8Ghz or even 5Ghz

I'm not suggesting T C should replace his 1100T with an FX-83##, what i'm responding to is comments like this

FrenchTart said:
Don't bother upgrading to an FX8350 either. Assuming you manage to overclock it incredibly well and hit something near to 5ghz you'll gain pretty much nothing in anything gaming-related. If your overclock is bad and you end up with a similar clock speed to now you'll probably lose performance.
Click to expand...

No disrespect but that is a completely inaccurate statement.

Look again at Tonester0011 example...



That is a very clear performance advantage, some 28%, even the 3.5Ghz FX-6300 beats the 3.3Ghz 1100T by some 15% (6 Cores vs 6 Cores 3.5Ghz vs 3.3Ghz) in other words you would have to run the 1100T at a round 4Ghz (maximum Average overclock) to match the stock 3.5Ghz FX-6300, never mind the FX-83##
You may well say the FX-6300 only has 3 real cores, be that as it may, though its not, those 3 cores would be more than twice as fast as the Phenom II cores, no, just no.

PS: having said all that a lot of people in this room recommended they upgrade their Sandy Bridge with an Ivy Bridge for no performance gain at all.
mamvyaj
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
You may well say the FX-6300 only has 3 real cores, be that as it may, though its not, those 3 cores would be more than twice as fast as the Phenom II cores, no, just no.
Click to expand...

Which would imply BF4 is much more about integer calculations than floating point. Perhaps AMD's bet that they should double integer processing power at the expense of floating point will pay off with games?
 
humbug said:
The 1100T has 6 integer units, 6 decoders, 6x L1 and 6x L2
The FX-83## has 8 integer units, 4 decoders, 8x L1, and 4x L2

It has 8 real cores, the only real difference is 2 cores share one decoder and L2.

As for clock speeds, there is about as much chance of running a 1100T @ 4.2Ghz as there is an FX-83## at 4.8Ghz or even 5Ghz

I'm not suggesting T C should replace his 1100T with an FX-83##, what i'm responding to is comments like this



No disrespect but that is a completely inaccurate statement.

Look again at Tonester0011 example...

*snipped*

That is a very clear performance advantage, some 28%, even the 3.5Ghz FX-6300 beats the 3.3Ghz 1100T by some 15% (6 Cores vs 6 Cores 3.5Ghz vs 3.3Ghz) in other words you would have to run the 1100T at a round 4Ghz (maximum Average overclock) to match the stock 3.5Ghz FX-6300, never mind the FX-83##
You may well say the FX-6300 only has 3 real cores, be that as it may, though its not, those 3 cores would be more than twice as fast as the Phenom II cores, no, just no.

PS: having said all that a lot of people in this room recommended they upgrade their Sandy Bridge with an Ivy Bridge for no performance gain at all.
Click to expand...

BF4 does seem to show a better performance advantage than most games (and admittedly the OP did specifically mention BF performance).

However, the 8150 as an example, shows a 9% performance increase when running at a clock speed 9% higher than the 1100T. That's great. For those extra execution units (I like this definition) it manages to retain parity clock-for-clock. If you can hit a higher clock speed then you'll see an improvement. However, is that worth a £100 upgrade when you could put that money elsewhere? Up the OP I guess but personally I would invest elsewhere first.

Other examples:

8350 @ 4ghz - 20% increase in clock speed vs 1100T at 3.33ghz meant a 27-28% increase. This one is a fair bit better admittedly.

...I'm bored of pulling out examples. One backing up my point and one proving yours seems enough :p

The cores are not "real" cores in the traditional sense. I have at no point ever mixed up the way AMD processors work with hyper threading though. Your statement about the number of execution units is correct also.

So do most PDs hit regularly way above 4.5ghz? I still stand by my thoughts that for anything that is even close to making the upgrade worthwhile you would really want something nearer 5ghz. Admittedly I'm a bit out of date on the PD oc'ing scene.

edit: on further reading it seems the *3** series of PDs have significantly better performance than the *1** series. Presumably more cache or some such? I cba comparing all the models exactly right now.
 
Last edited:
What Martin Said. we are now actually on the third gen FX CPU's, like Llano, Trinity and Richland, only AMD refreshed the the second to third FX silently.

I have had built several FX-8350 rigs for others in recent times, its not difficult to get them running at 4.8Ghz on a half decent air cooler, this is coming from someone who owned a P-II 1090T running at 4.1 to 4.3Ghz at best, the FX-8350 is a significantly faster and better chip.
personally my advice to anyone with a Thuban and an FX compatible motherboard is to upgrade to the FX-83## if they can get most of the money together from selling the Thuban.
Failing that an i5 is a more 'consistent' performing CPU for games, having said that i agree with what you have also said, the FX-83## is not a bad chip, at worst in something like World of Warcraft its still running something like 80 FPS, which is also significantly more than a Thuban 1100T.
£110 for the 8320 or £140 for the 8350 is the best CPU there is for that money.
I would be perfectly happy to run the latest version in my gamers rig if i didn't already have an i7.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Bf4 will have optimisations that simply aren't useable in thuban, avx as an example.
Click to expand...

I'm almost certain BF4 isn't compiled with (and wouldn't see much benefit from) AVX. It would make it unusable on all but the newest CPUs. This guy seems to agree.

Integer benchmarks are few and far between, but this 7zip one (top of page) has the 8350 beating a 3rd gen i7. I suspect BF4 just has lots of integer calcs relative to FP.
 
Interesting stuff. I'm happy to have learned a bit more and improved my slightly out of date info. Good to know the general conclusion was mostly correct even if some of the ways of reaching it weren't.
 
joeyjojo said:
I'm almost certain BF4 isn't compiled with (and wouldn't see much benefit from) AVX. It would make it unusable on all but the newest CPUs. This guy seems to agree.

Integer benchmarks are few and far between, but this 7zip one (top of page) has the 8350 beating a 3rd gen i7. I suspect BF4 just has lots of integer calcs relative to FP.
Click to expand...

I wasn't explicitly stating that it uses AVX, but it's an example of an instruction set that Thuban simply can't use.

But I'm sure programs can have more than just say AVX etc, as Crysis 3 uses some of the latest optimisations in instruction sets, but it's still usable on other equipment.

Games are usually FPU heavy, and AMD's performance in 7 zip knacks an i7, which I assume is integer performance? But the FX83 isn't faster than an i7 in BF.

Either way, PD outperforms Phenom II in the BF's, so it's a fairly moot discussion.
 
Just a quick update!

So, I thought I'd restart all this overclocking malarky and have another bash.

Downloaded and installed the latest bios, this is where everything started to go incredibly wrong....

It reset everything and I couldn't remember what I'd set my last overclock to.

So did a best guess sort of thing. Don't do a best guess.....it's just going to lead to bad things happening.

After putting my settings in and rebooting I'd inadvertently opened the 7th gate of Hell within my little Silverstone Raven case, this resulted in a BSOD and a wiping of many essential things that required little old Windows to start....mainly it had lost the MBR etc.

No problem a repair should sort that.....Ya thunk? Well no.

After much searching on the internet and many hours at the command prompt entering code configurations that would put the German Enigma to shame I finally got the beast to boot.

This was at 3:30am.....Work at 6am....no that wasn't happening.

Anyway long story short I diddled about some more had a few more crashes resulting in the same code entering scenarios but managed to get he system back up but with a lower overclock of 4gb but the NB is now running at 2800.

The asus sabertooth has lots of settings and though it does some things well, it does others not so well. My main problem was setting my memory to 1600 and thinking it would set the timings itself as per spd for 1600. It doesn't which resulted (I think ) in the crashes.

Whilst dabbling I did manage to get into windows with an overclock of 4.85, can't remember how I did it but I took a screenshot for posterity! didn't do any benchmarking at this but I may try :D
OVERCLOCKINGMAX.png



I wasted most of today fiddling as well....in fact....I hate pc's now :(

It is good to see you all had a good discusion though and brought some interesting information to the masses!

So to summarise,
4ghz
Bus speed 200
ht 2000
nb/cpu 2800
cpu voltage 1.425

Think I may have more success upping the bus speed!


Thanks again :D
 
Last edited:
Well that image was a waste of time :D

Bf4 running at 1080p ultra with 2xmsaa lowest frame 30 averaging 50 CPU at 65% GFX at 99% (go figure)
 
Its could be anything.

CPU-NB volts
Ram volts
Ram Timings

...........

for 24.7 i used to run mine:

4.1Ghz
Bus speed 210 x19.5
HT 2100
CPU-NB 3000
CPU voltage 1.420v
120% Board Power Line

(Asus Sabertooth MOBO)

 
T C said:
Well that image was a waste of time :D

Bf4 running at 1080p ultra with 2xmsaa lowest frame 30 averaging 50 CPU at 65% GFX at 99% (go figure)
Click to expand...

The 480 hasn't got enough VRAM to run at Ultra iirc. I play at low (mesh ultra) and get 60+fps 99% of the time normall;y much higher ofc with my 960T unlock to 6 cores @ 4ghz + 580.
 
JGStonedRaider said:
The 480 hasn't got enough VRAM to run at Ultra iirc. I play at low (mesh ultra) and get 60+fps 99% of the time normall;y much higher ofc with my 960T unlock to 6 cores @ 4ghz + 580.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought! Do you think it's really just defaulting down to high or something in the background?
I'm deffo set at ultra though.
 
Sooooooo, I could ahve asked you from the off :D

I'll give them there settings a go and see if it's stable

What the 120% on board power line thingy mebob?

Thanks in advance.

humbug said:
Its could be anything.

CPU-NB volts
Ram volts
Ram Timings

...........

for 24.7 i used to run mine:

4.1Ghz
Bus speed 210 x19.5
HT 2100
CPU-NB 3000
CPU voltage 1.420v
120% Board Power Line

(Asus Sabertooth MOBO)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
T C said:
Sooooooo, I could ahve asked you from the off :D

I'll give them there settings a go and see if it's stable

What the 120% on board power line thingy mebob?

Thanks in advance.

If i remember right its called CPU Current Compatibility on the Sabertooth.
Click to expand...
 
I do miss the old Thuban, a fantastic chip in its day even if it wasn't the the most powerful, it was a real joy to use, fluid, snappy and a pleasure to mess about with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom