# Phenom II - 965 @ 3.8Ghz - Worth an upgrade ?



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Hello there TPU.

So Right now I have a nice Phenon 965 Black edition (C3) on a 990FX board from Gigabyte. Some 8gb of Corsair Vengeance RAM. a 600W TT PSU, and a Radeon 7950 3GB.

My primary Windows uses are Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, Movies, Premiere, Tixati, and various Astronomy tools.

Primary 3D uses are: Counter Strike, GO-  Diablo III, and any new Quest Adventure. 


I never experienced any special lag, but I don't know... I'm not doing much in the way of heavy gaming, or any rendering of some sort.  I also don't usually notice the CPU Load at 100% ... 

Is there any reason at all to get one of those 8-core AMD FX ? Can operations be even faster or is it meant for people who need the computing power only ?

Otherwise I figured I'd get a nice case and a bigger SSD with the 200$ the FX-8 costs


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Also, while I am here... That Toughpower 600W is like a thousand years old -  works perfectly as far as I am concerned. Is there any reason to get one of the newer- budget 600w PSU's (corsair/tt) over it ? Some power saving technology that I am missing perhaps ? Or is it more or less the same nowadays...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 19, 2014)

Seasonic, xfx, antec, enermax, corsair, rosewill, evga, all make respectable units. Search for johnny guru or research power supply reviews here


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

For that kind of usage your CPU is fine.  Unless you use several filters on Photoshop I don't think you'd see an improvement with an updated CPU. The PSU is getting long in the tooth though.

Now, if you still have that X1800 it might be a good idea to get a current GPU, even a R7 260 would be an upgrade and consume way less power while also getting you OpenCL support which could help on Photoshop and Premiere (if your versions support OpenCL that is).

I would get an SSD or maybe a new bigger monitor (19" is just so small  ). A 24" would be very nice.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Oh yea, I upgraded since then  I've got a 7950, and an IPS Dell.. I have a SSD but a small 120gb one, which needs to be upgraded as well.
So what can I get from a new 650W Power supply that I don't have in my 6 year old Thermaltake ?


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

Does your Thoughpower have an input voltage switch at the back? (small red one with 115 or 220 writen on it). If so, newer units would get you Active PFC and greater efficiency. Still, at 650w it has power to spare as your rig barely uses ~300w. My OCed FX8350 + OCed 7970 peak at 310w (365w at the wall).


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 19, 2014)

The thing is the capacitors age in power supplies.  6 years is pretty close to the maximum age for a power supply, IMO.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Actually  no such switch... Well so I could even get a nice 500W modern PSU correct ? Will it work fine as long as I keep my future upgrades at the same "tone" of low-mid range hardware with average graphics ?


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

yes and I would be looking at a cheap intel Z97 combo
at the risk of starting a flame war the FX Chips quiet simply aren't worth the money


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

This is the one I have now by the way
http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00000973


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> This is the one I have now by the way
> http://www.thermaltake.com/products-model.aspx?id=C_00000973


psu is fine
AMD have literally no cpu-upgrade path beyond this generation


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

So AM3+ is dead ? no roadmaps ?


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> So AM3+ is dead ? no roadmaps ?


pretty much expect a new socket 2016 or so
the logic is thus
the intel chip will use less power and provide better performance 
I am 100% sure it will match/outperform anything AMD intends on releasing


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Sweet, so I take it the general consensus right now is to not get a new FX and work with the Phenom until a need for a real upgrade in the direction of Intel emerges ... And meanwhile I can get a SSD and a nice Corsair Carbide 540 case


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Sweet, so I take it the general consensus right now is to not get a new FX and work with the Phenom until a need for a real upgrade in the direction of Intel emerges ... And meanwhile I can get a SSD and a nice Corsair Carbide 540 case


You need a upgrade now lol
I had a phenom II @ 4Ghz this chip blows it out of the water


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Really that much ? In what way though.. What are you doing with your PC ?


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

For those games your current rig is fine. If anything I would overclock the CPU if you really needed more oomph.

Do you deal with Photoshop and Premiere professionally? As in, several filters that take minutes (or hours) to render and such? Do you rip movies with handbrake daily or something? If so, upgrading to an i7 would net you some time savings but if you only use them for recreational purposes I think shaving off a few minutes isn't on your top priority list.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Oh not at all !  Recently I used Photoshop to add a tail and severe gynecomastia on a friend's picture.


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Really that much ? In what way though.. What are you doing with your PC ?


its quiet literally twice as fast @ pretty much everything I picked up 15FPS going from a 4Ghz phenom II to a stock 4670k
a phenom II is in no way adequate for any kind of serious Photoshop/art production work
light work yes but it still a 5 year old CPU


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Oh not at all !  Recently I used Photoshop to add a tail and severe gynecomastia on a friend's picture.



I use Photoshop to edit manga on my 5350 and I don't notice any hiccup or anything so if that's the kind of work you do I'd say your Phenom is fine.

When you really need to upgrade take a while to research what's out at the time. Though unlikely, AMD might come up with something good in 2016 or so. If not there's always Intel.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

That reminds me Moar.... What were your settings at 4GHZ phenom ? (multiplier x bus x voltage) .. Let's see if I can hit 4. I have the Noctua D14


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> That reminds me Moar.... What were your settings at 4GHZ phenom ? (multiplier x bus x voltage) .. Let's see if I can hit 4. I have the Noctua D14


try 200 x 20 @ 1.50v @ 2600NB @ 1.165V cpu-nb-vid
its not gonna make that much of a difference slow chip is slow


----------



## vega22 (Dec 19, 2014)

one moar you are talking crap dude, sorry but you are trying to scare this guy into think his, more than upto the task, pc is an abacus.

best way to upgrade that system on the cheap would be an x6 and overclocking imo but overclocking that cpu would help too.

yes amd are slower, and yes and upgrade would be better but saying things like "you need and upgrade now LOL" is just not needed. you need an upgrade now as your i5 is shit compared to a i7 5860......


----------



## m&m's (Dec 19, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> best way to upgrade that system on the cheap would be an x6



What y'all seems to forget is that his board is a chipset 990FX which is compatible with FX-8xxxs. 

@OneMoar calm your tits with a whole upgrade to Intel that will cost him 350$+ when a FX-8320 costs 150$ and can be easily overclocked over 4.5GHz+ with his NH-D14.

OP what is your exact motherboard? http://www.gigabyte.com/products/list.aspx?s=42&jid=0&p=346&v=16


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Ooops, sorry, the board I have seems to be "990X" ... Rather confusing.
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4434&dl=#ov

I notice a difference in Crossfire/SATA configurations... But I will never use that anyway. Any other benefits of the FX in terms of support for FX-8XXX ?


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

FX Chips are a waste of money they cost you more in the long run the power consumption is higher and it gets positively stratospheric when you start pushing them beyond 4.5
going from a phenom II to a FX 8300 will not net any real performance gains outside of encoding video
a z97 anniversary and a i5 4570 will run him ~300.00 shipped and in 4 Thread limited tasks will walk all over any overclocked FXChip and use haft the power doing it
hes at the point in the life span of his system where trying to milk any more from it is a fruitless effort


and if the power supply really is pushing 6 years old you are basically looking at a new system because I certainly would't trust it to run a high end FX chip they draw way to much power


----------



## vega22 (Dec 19, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> FX Chips are a waste of money they cost you more in the long run the power consumption is higher and it gets positively stratospheric when you start pushing them beyond 4.5
> going from a phenom II to a FX 8300 will not net any real performance gains outside of encoding video
> a z97 anniversary and a i5 4570 will run him ~300.00 shipped and in 4 Thread limited tasks will walk all over any overclocked FXChip and use haft the power doing it
> hes at the point in the life span of his system where trying to milk any more from it is a fruitless effort
> ...



where to start with that?

erm, what is "a z97 anniversary" 

do you mean the intel cpu they did to celebrate the pentium brand?

only that aint a mobo and they did not do a z97 version....

"in 4 Thread limited tasks"

so you think if software can use 4 threads it can not do that twice and use 8?

single threaded stuff intel is faster but once you get to mutlithreaded stuff that table starts to turn. so much so that when software does that cheap £100 fx8 is almost on par with the £250 i7s....

"the life span of his system where trying to milk any more from it is a fruitless effort"

so having the latest amd chipset is already eol?

did i miss that headline on tpu?

amd secretly sneak the new chipset out while i was taking a p did they?

"yada yada, psu yada, yada"

really clutching at straws now aint you dude...shall we ignore the fact that intel chips can suck 200/250w of power too when overclocked?

sorry dude but from what i can tell here you are trying to feel some justification about your last upgrade by talking this guy into doing the same move. when it seems like that aint really an option in this case.

only real valid point raised is about the psu, but it is more one to keep an eye on imo than something you need to rush out and replace. start getting very random, unconnected bsod then i would say the psu 1st. until then i would not lose sleep. i mean hell its a tt but they dont really make psu, just sticker them up :lol:


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 19, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> where to start with that?
> 
> erm, what is "a z97 anniversary"
> 
> ...


The wrong is strong with this one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116896
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157528
A fx on par with a i7 don't make me laugh not sure what bizzaro universe you are front the FX 8350 is nearly 25% slower then the lower clocked i7 .. here is a benchmark for reference
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836
a intel chip draw >200W when overclocked maby on a LGA 2011 board not on LGA 1150 certainly not a i5  the entire system might draw >250 but the cpu its self noway
the 990FX chipset is indeed EOL there will not be another cpu for it AMD has stated this people here on TPU have stated it
I been down the road of milking a older 990fx system it snowballs really quickly


----------



## XSI (Dec 19, 2014)

^this post I'm not always on the same page and have different opinion often as @OneMoar, but this time, its spot on and personally totally agree with it!
and @marsey99 yes intel had Anniversary Edition Pentium and some manufactures chose to launch specific Anniversary Edition MB. Asrock, Asus and MSI maybe some other too.

to the OP, if you feel you need update, if your system runs too slow for you, if you planning to do more tasks, at the end if you WANT TO, than upgrade is always and option.
if you just have upgrade idea, maybe you can live 1-2 years with your system.
I'm on 8400@ 3-3,5 dual core but for most my tasks this cpu is enough. for games I would better put overkill gpu and have cpu bottleneck it  it would be more worth it for me.
It's always up to you.


----------



## m&m's (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> I notice a difference in Crossfire/SATA configurations... But I will never use that anyway. Any other benefits of the FX in terms of support for FX-8XXX ?


990X and 990FX chipsets use the same southbridge "SB950" so the SATA configuration is the same for both. 990FX supports Quad CrossFire/SLI while 990X supports 2-Way CrossFire/SLI.



OneMoar said:


> FX Chips are a waste of money they cost you more in the long run the power consumption is higher and it gets positively stratospheric when you start pushing them beyond 4.5



Lets do some maths. 







FX-9590 stock @ 4.7GHz (essentially an overclocked FX-8xxx) = total system power consumption of 324W
i5-4690k @ 4.4GHz = 200W
Current price of electricity -> 0.08$/kWh
Price of a FX-8320: 150$
Price of a i5-4690k: 250$ + 100$ for a motherboard = 350$.
Difference of 200$.

324W * 24 hours / 1000 = 7.776kWh * 365 days = 2838.24kWh * 0.08$ = 227.06$ a year
200W * 24 hours / 1000 = 4.8kWh * 365 days = 1752kWh * 0.08$ = 140.16$ a year
227.06$ - 140.16$ = 86,9$
200$ / 86.9$ = 2.3 years before he starts to save money *if the CPU runs @100% 24/7* which is more than unlikely.






On idle the difference is now of 16 watts between the two...

Realistically, if I didn't do any mistakes, we can conclude that it will take over 10 years before he starts to save money. 

Is an Intel system faster? Yes.
Will he save money on the very long run? Yes.
Does he need an upgrade from his Phenom II? Doesn't seems like he really need it.
If he has the money and want to upgrade to a i5, should he go for it? Yes, or he could wait for the next mainstream CPUs from Intel and maybe AMD.
What is the best upgrade for him? Seems like a bigger SSD is the thing to do.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

And they say Math class is useless.............  !

the RAM and motherboard are new... just got them not long ago so I'd hate to throw it away  I never really checked out benchmarks, I always had a soft spot for AMD even if they were inferior 
The famous Athlon 2500+ Mobile chip  I had as a kid bought me 

I really think I'll put all that in mind, but still get a big SSD so I can install more than 1 game on it in addition to Windows.
Also I've been looking at that for a year ...
http://www.corsair.com/de-de/carbide-series-air-540-arctic-white-high-airflow-atx-cube-case

Now that would just look awesome in my living room... Never seen such a case !


----------



## m&m's (Dec 19, 2014)

That sure is a good looking case!

For an SSD take a look at Crucial MX100, they're cheap, fast and reliable.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

This is just getting out of hand. Getting back to the original post:



> _*I never experienced any special lag, but I don't know... I'm not doing much in the way of heavy gaming, or any rendering of some sort. I also don't usually notice the CPU Load at 100% ... *_



Right there lies your answer.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> its quiet literally twice as fast @ pretty much everything I picked up 15FPS going from a 4Ghz phenom II to a stock 4670k
> a phenom II is in no way adequate for any kind of serious Photoshop/art production work
> light work yes but it still a 5 year old CPU



Not really a sensible move. You spent at least £300 on a new CPU and board for only 15 FPS??

The OP could spend 50% less on a GPU alone and gain double his usual frame rate.



Fif23 said:


> My primary Windows uses are Adobe Acrobat, Photoshop, Movies, Premiere, Tixati, and various Astronomy tools.
> 
> Primary 3D uses are: Counter Strike, GO-  Diablo III, and any new Quest Adventure.
> *I never experienced any special lag, but I don't know... I'm not doing much in the way of heavy gaming, or any rendering of some sort.  I also don't usually notice the CPU Load at 100% ...*



I'm actually disappointed that we are swaying him to upgrade when he is clearly happy with the performance. He experiences no lag, doesn't do anything intensive and isn't experiencing any CPU load.  He seems quite content with the performance.  There should be some ethical responsibility on the forum to advise him that no upgrade is needed.

Fif23, if you were to upgrade (not needed). The cheapest option that would yield the most performance would be to drop in an AMD FX-8320 and R280x or R290x.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> FX Chips are a waste of money they cost you more in the long run the power consumption is higher and it gets positively stratospheric when you start pushing them beyond 4.5
> going from a phenom II to a FX 8300 will not net any real performance gains outside of encoding video
> a z97 anniversary and a i5 4570 will run him ~300.00 shipped and in 4 Thread limited tasks will walk all over any overclocked FXChip and use haft the power doing it
> hes at the point in the life span of his system where trying to milk any more from it is a fruitless effort
> ...



I previously had a Z77X-UP7 along with a 3770K for my main rig. Had been crunching with FX8350s for quite a long time but after MCM rolled out and OET more recently my ppd languished a lot as it went from 8K to 3.5K (I suppose MCM and OET are heavy on floating point and we know that the FXs don't perform as well in those).

So what did I do? I put apart the Intel rig, got an ITX board and made a dedicated cruncher out of it (gives 5K, still not as much as the FX used to get but way better than it does now) and re-purposed the 8350 as my main rig (<-- specs on the left). What was the power difference between both builds? 56w on average load (3dm11 combined test) at the wall according to my power meter (309w vs 365w), so takin into account 82% efficiency (80+ bronze PSU) the FX rig takes just 45w more (again, on average GPU/CPU load) than the intel does and the performance is comparable. I took a hit of 200 points in Firestrike and about 500 on 3dm11 but that's it.

As you said, the FXs take unholy amounts of power to get beyond 4.5Ghz, that's why I left mine at 4.4 and I suppose that running stock I would have got a wider difference in benchmarks between my 3770K rig and the 8350 one but then I would have run with less power too.

I see someone already did the math but yeah, it'll take years of 24/7 use at 100% load for that difference to make a dent on your power bill.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Dent1 ! I just bought a used Sapphire 7950 3GB .. To my understanding it is similar to the X280 ?


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 19, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Dent1 ! I just bought a used Sapphire 7950 3GB .. To my understanding it is similar to the X280 ?



The 7950 is the same speed as the R9 270x.  The R9 280x is a fair bit faster.  http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/R9_280X_OC/26.html

I was under the assumption you had it for a while and wanted a change.   The 7950 3GB is a very good card. I personally wouldn't upgrade it there is nothing it can't handle.

In all honesty, just drop in the 8 core, £115 will net you a lot of performance.

http://www.ebuyer.com/409186-amd-fx...mb-cache-retail-boxed-processor-fd8320frhkbox
http://www.ebuyer.com/409184-amd-fx...mb-cache-retail-boxed-processor-fd8350frhkbox

You'll be spending at least £300 for an Intel board and processor for a few frame rate extra. Performace: cost ratio doesn't add up.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 19, 2014)

Not quite,

265 ~ 7850
270 ~ 7870 underclocked
270x ~ 7870
280 ~ 7950
280x ~ 7970 Ghz edition


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 19, 2014)

Nice ! 8 Core looks sweet !
There are probably a lot of disappointed AMD guys with used FX's for half that... I'll take advantage and get myself a bargain to put under the D14   I've seen them float for around 80 dollars.

EDIT: not anymore  At least 150 dollars now.

(Exact card i bought http://www.sapphiretech.com/present...ex.aspx?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1157&pid=1450&&lid=1 )

quick question... FX6300 also an option if I find one thats like 50-80$ cheaper than 8320 ?


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 19, 2014)

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/362?vs=697

That is probably the closest to the OP's setup comparison I could find.

If I was the OP, I'd grab a FX-8320E, which goes for ~$140 on newegg right now. It will easily overclock to 4.2GHz+ without sucking down a bunch of power.  Single threaded performance will be about the same, but actually should be slightly better with the FX-8320E.  But look at the things that use multi-threading!  Photoshop(OP mentions this specifically) is almost twice as fast, and Premier(again mentions by the OP) should be way faster too.  And games get a 5-20FPS boost.  Of course at 1080p games will likely be limited by the GPU, so even going Intel won't be much help here.

Now, time for a little anecdotal information from me.  I currently run a 4790K@4.6GHz, a 4690K@4.4GHz, and a 8320@4.4GHz.  Before moving to the 8320 I had a 960T@3.8GHz or I could unlock it to an x6@3.6GHz.  Upgrading from the 960T to the 8320 did not make any real difference in the basic tasks of the computer(browsing the internet and crap like that).  However, it did make a very noticeable difference in Photoshop, Premier, and games.  There isn't much difference between my 8320 and 4690K in most tasks including photoshop and premier.  The 4790K does make a little difference, but not enough that I would justify it over the 4690k or 8320.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 20, 2014)

Excellent !


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> quick question... FX6300 also an option if I find one thats like 50-80$ cheaper than 8320 ?



Socket AM3+ is nearing the end of its lifecycle, realistically this would be your last upgrade before moving on.  Get the FX 83xx and finish on a high.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 20, 2014)

Yeah, if you're going to do so anyway go straight to the 8300s.


That being said, I've always thought that the only FXs worth to consider are the 6300 and 8320. The 6300 is just $10 more than the 4300 but those $10 get you an extra module AND 4MB more of L3 cache  There's the 6350 but you can easily overclock the 6300 to 4Ghz and be on par with it.

The 8320 is on the same vein: has all the features of the 8350, cost $30 less and you can put those savings towards a good air cooler that will let you overclock past the 8350s stock speed.  I've got two 8350s as part time crunchers but only because I got them on sale for roughly the same price as an 8320 so why not?


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Socket AM3+ is nearing the end of its lifecycle, realistically this would be your last upgrade before moving on.  Get the FX 83xx and finish on a high.


Agreed.  The FX-8320/50/70 should last for a good while still and be a good holder until the next generation of Intel is out or until AMD release AM4.  I remember reading somewhere that AMD is likely to release AM4 once DDR4 becomes mainstream, which will likely be when Intel release there next generation 115x socket that also uses DDR4.  And if were are lucky, they'll do what they did with the AM3 and make the AM4 processor backwards compatible with AM3.  Though I secretly hope they don't limit themselves by this and do a proper AM4 release, and hopefully finally move to LGA on their desktop processors.



TRWOV said:


> I've got two 8350s but only because I got them on sale for the same price as an 8320 so why not?


That is the only reason I have the 4790K, I got it on sale at Microcenter with a motherboard for the same price as the 4690K and board.  I've got 2 other z97 computers running 4690Ks.


----------



## vega22 (Dec 20, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> The wrong is strong with this one
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116896
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157528
> A fx on par with a i7 don't make me laugh not sure what bizzaro universe you are front the FX 8350 is nearly 25% slower then the lower clocked i7 .. here is a benchmark for reference
> ...



that mobo has to be the cheapest nasty looking z97 board you can find!

but yea i was unaware that any had been sold as such, sorry. not that i blame them for using the term to cash in on it xD 

eol, the term means end of life. as you can still buy them new to use the term is wrong. not that i doubt amd will bring another new socket out for their ddr4 chips, but knowing amd i also expect they will have ddr3 imc and work in 3+ mobo too.

if you think an i5 cant pull 200w then you aint pushed any hard enough.

@newtekie1 i thought 1151 was going to be ddr3 again too?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Either you can Keep the 965 and oc it or get a 8320 and oc it.

Power savings are only meaningful if you keep the rig for 10 years otherwise youd already have upgraded in 6 years of use.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 20, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> @newtekie1 i thought 1151 was going to be ddr3 again too?



From what I've read, it will be both. The memory controller will support DDR3 and DDR4, it will be up to the motherboard to decide what RAM is used.  So early boards will probably be mostly DDR3, and once the DDR3 supply starts to dwindle and DDR4 becomes more readily available a second wave of boards will come out that use DDR4.

http://wccftech.com/intel-skylake-p...port-compatible-lga-1151-socket-z170-chipset/


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 24, 2014)

OK. so I bought a new Modular Seasonic 650W Gold PSU and a Corsair case.
Now just the CPU left...

I know we agreed on a FX8350 (170-200$ shipped to where I live with taxes), but now I stumbled upon an fx-6300 chip, for about 90$ shipped. 

Is the price difference too much to get the FX-8 ? Will I still enjoy the FX-6, or should I really spend that 200$ to get the 8350.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 24, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> OK. so I bought a new Modular Seasonic 650W Gold PSU and a Corsair case.
> Now just the CPU left...
> 
> I know we agreed on a FX8350 (170-200$ shipped to where I live with taxes), but now I stumbled upon an fx-6300 chip, for about 90$ shipped.
> ...



Forget the X6.

Find an FX 8320, They are significantly cheaper. You can overclock it yourself past 8350 level.

Cant you sell your Phenom II X4 to make up the difference?


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 24, 2014)

Good point ! It must be worth a few bucks for an OC  fan... C3 chip. DONE.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 24, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Good point ! It must be worth a few bucks for an OC  fan... C3 chip. DONE.



As this would be your last upgrade on the socket I would be reluctant to spend extra on cooling unless you're sure the cooler will be compatible with your next platform.

To be honest, even with the stock heat sink and fan you'll still get a decent overclock.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 24, 2014)

I have this installed:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018

With the Carbide 540, the CPU@3.8Ghz idles at 25C (2 140mm intake, 3 120mm exhaust)


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 24, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> I have this installed:
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018
> 
> With the Carbide 540, the CPU@3.8Ghz idles at 25C (2 140mm intake, 3 120mm exhaust)



I see. That's plenty.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 25, 2014)

"8320E" also works ?


----------



## Vario (Dec 25, 2014)

Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k.  If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)?  If you must do an AMD FX get the 8320E.

You will have a bigger difference in performance going to a Phenom to i5 then from a phenom to FX.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Vario said:


> Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k. If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)?



Considering the difference I've seen between my 8320 and my i5-4690k, I'd say it isn't worth it to do a complete platform update.  Maybe once Broadwell comes out things will be different.

And it definitely isn't worth moving to the dead 1155 socket.


----------



## Vario (Dec 25, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Considering the difference I've seen between my 8320 and my i5-4690k, I'd say it isn't worth it to do a complete platform update.  Maybe once Broadwell comes out things will be different.
> 
> And it definitely isn't worth moving to the dead 1155 socket.



From Phenom II 965 @4.0 to i5 3570k stock was amazing for me.  I since moved on to a 2550k and a 3770k, but other than overclocking way better than the 3570k, aren't much different and are way beyond the Phenom.  You can get complete 1155 systems for pretty cheap now that its 2 years old.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> "8320E" also works ?



Yes the 8320E is fine too. The default clock speed is 300Mhz lower, but because your intending to overclock it doesn't matter. If its cheaper go for it.



Vario said:


> Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k.  If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)?  If you must do an AMD FX get the 8320E.
> You will have a bigger difference in performance going to a Phenom to i5 then from a phenom to FX.



There is plenty of applications that the 8 core performs better than the 2500k.  $150-180 for 2500k, then you have to add another $90-130 for the motherboard. Then when its all said and done you'll be investing more money on a dead LGA 1155 socket for marginal performance increase and arguably less performance on specific tasks.


----------



## Vario (Dec 25, 2014)

8320E overclocks better and uses less volts I've heard.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 25, 2014)

E model is a 95w part.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 25, 2014)

you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.

Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Cost nuff said


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 25, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.
> 
> Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.



Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 25, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...



the op is going to end up replacing the whole system within ~2 years anyway so hes just wasted  a bunch of money

a z87/z97 will still offer plenty of performance >3 years from now the FX chip won't
look up the cpu workload on AMD Vs intel across the benchmarks ..
the intel chip has power to spare whilst still matching the FX chip
its not about outright performance its about platform-longevity


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 25, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> the op is going to end up replacing the whole system within ~2 years anyway so hes just wasted  a bunch of money
> 
> a z87/z97 will still offer plenty of performance >3 years from now the FX chip won't
> look up the cpu workload on AMD Vs intel across the benchmarks ..
> the intel chip has power to spare whilst still matching the FX chip



Re-read the OP's posts.  He's currently happy with a Phenom x4.  I doubt he'll be unhappy with an FX-8000 in the near future.

It is a $150 upgrade vs. a $360 upgrade for performance that is maybe 10% better overall and as I said in real world use is basically unnoticeable.


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 25, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Re-read the OP's posts.  He's currently happy with a Phenom x4.  I doubt he'll be unhappy with an FX-8000 in the near future.
> 
> It is a $150 upgrade vs. a $360 upgrade for performance that is maybe 10% better overall and as I said in real world use is basically unnoticeable.


that may be but its 150.00 wasted because of the complete lack of upgrade path
in the short term It will offer SLIGHTLY Better performance then the Phenom II but nothing massive


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 25, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> that may be but its 150.00 wasted because of the complete lack of upgrade path



The OP is running a 5 year old CPU, he doesn't seem to be someone that upgrades every year. So an upgrade path is pretty moot.  By the time he thinks of upgrading again 1150 will be dead too.



OneMoar said:


> in the short term It will offer SLIGHTLY Better performance then the Phenom II but nothing massive



It all depends on the work load.  I have a feeling you've never actually even used an FX chip and are just repeating all the BS.  They really do offer a pretty significant boost in performance over a Phenom II x4s.  It is only single threaded performance that is similar, but only at similar clock speeds.  The FX chips have way higher clock speeds, so the single threaded performance is better as well. And look at the OP's work that he does with the PC, most of it is multi-threaded.


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 25, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> The OP is running a 5 year old CPU, he doesn't seem to be someone that upgrades every year. So an upgrade path is pretty moot.
> 
> 
> 
> It all depends on the work load.  I have a feeling you've never actually even used an FX chip and are just repeating all the BS.  They really do offer a pretty significant boost in performance over a Phenom II x4s.  It is only single threaded performance that is similar, but only at similar clock speeds.  The FX chips have way higher clock speeds, so the single threaded performance is better as well. And look at the OP's work that he does with the PC, most of it is multi-threaded.


you start pushing them and the power consumption and heat go though the roof .. even at >4.5Ghz they aren't that much faster then a phenom II if he can use 8 Threads then fine it will walk all over the phenom II it can't then there is going to little if any gain
and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 25, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> you start pushing them and the power consumption and heat go though the roof ..



They power issue has already been discussed.  It really makes no difference.  And my FX8320@4.4GHz still idles under 100w for the whole system.  Load is high, but not what I would consider through the roof.  My Phenom II x6@3.6GHz power consumption was what I'd consider through the roof...



OneMoar said:


> even at >4.5Ghz they aren't that much faster then a phenom II



Its actually significantly faster.  I already showed this.  Even at just 4.0GHz the FX chip is faster than the Phenom II x4 in single threaded apps, overclock it to 4.4GHz and it leaves the phenom in the dust.



OneMoar said:


> if he can use 8 Threads then fine it will walk all over the phenom II it can't then there is going to little if any gain



It is statements like this that make we wonder if you've ever actually use an FX.  You're talking to someone that went from a Phenom II x6 to an FX-8xxx, I've actually done it.  There most certainly is a gain, even in single threaded apps like games.



OneMoar said:


> and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...



Again, you're talking to someone with both, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.  Tasks that truly use the 8-cores are way faster with the FX than the i5-4690K.  Premier renders are significantly faster with the FX, 7zip compressing and decompressing is faster with the FX, music conversion is faster with the FX, just as examples.

Yes, the i5 is also faster at a lot of tasks, but not fast enough that I could ever justify more than double the cost.  The difference between the two, as I said, is pretty much not noticeable.

At this point I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll just leave it here and let the OP decide what to do based on the information and recommendations we've provided.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 25, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...



Listen to the facts? What facts? ............ Soundin a little heated bro.


----------



## TRWOV (Dec 25, 2014)

If anything on the FXs is gimped is floating point performance. When FAM and CEP2 were the only game in town on WCG my FX ate my i7 for breakfast (8k vs 5.5k). Now that OET and MCM seem to make heavy use of floating point calculations it's the other way around (3770k 5k, 8350 3.5k).

Apart from games, the programs I use the most are gimp, Videostudio and handbrake. I don't recall how long it took Videostudio to save my videos on the 3770k (it supports OpenCL anyway so most of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU) but I can attest that on handbrake the performance with the 8350 is practically equal to my 3770K. 



As I stated, if I were the OP I'd keep the 965 for a while longer but if he intents to upgrade I think an 8320 is the bang for the buck option. Will he see a massive boost in performance? Probably not, given his usage pattern but that would be true with the Intel option as well.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 25, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.
> 
> Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.



If you don't want an explanation then its your fault that you don't understand why we recommend the FX chip.

It's like saying I don't know why humans drive cars, but if a human explained I wouldn't care to listen.




OneMoar said:


> and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...



Then explain why a stock FX 8350 is beating out the i5 2500K consistently.  Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming the i7 2600k in many tasks. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming an i7 3770k in transcoding and encoding.  Explain why a stock FX 8350 is whooping a i5 3570 and i7 2600k in FryBench and Cinebench.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,12.html



TRWOV said:


> If anything on the FXs is gimped is floating point performance. When FAM and CEP2 were the only game in town on *WCG my FX ate my i7 for breakfast (8k vs 5.5k).* Now that OET and MCM seem to make heavy use of floating point calculations it's the other way around (3770k 5k, 8350 3.5k).
> 
> Apart from games, the programs I use the most are gimp, Videostudio and handbrake. I don't recall how long it took Videostudio to save my videos on the 3770k (it supports OpenCL anyway so most of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU) *but I can attest that on handbrake the performance with the 8350 is practically equal to my 3770K.*




MxPhenom 216 and OneMoar will conveniently not read the bolded parts.


----------



## GLD (Dec 25, 2014)

Just get a 95w AMD FX chip and enjoy.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 26, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> If you don't want an explanation then its your fault that you don't understand why we recommend the FX chip.
> 
> It's like saying I don't know why humans drive cars, but if a human explained I wouldn't care to listen.
> 
> ...



I think you need to continue reading between the conveniently cherry picked bold parts........


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 26, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I think you need to continue reading between the conveniently cherry picked bold parts........



Maybe what TRWOV said was cherry picked, who knows? But Guru 3D review isn't cherry picked. I find it funny that neither you or OneMoar would respond to the Guru 3D review. It seems like you two cherry pick your responses.


As per post #76


OneMoar said:


> and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...


Then explain why a stock FX 8350 is beating out the i5 2500K consistently.  Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming the i7 2600k in many tasks. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming an i7 3770k in transcoding and encoding.  Explain why a stock FX 8350 is whooping a i5 3570 and i7 2600k in FryBench and Cinebench.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,12.html - (feel free to navigate through every page.)


----------



## Blue-Knight (Dec 26, 2014)

TRWOV said:


> I see someone already did the math but yeah, it'll take years of 24/7 use at 100% load for that difference to make a dent on your power bill.


I have to agree.

My current build including monitor and everything eats an average of 50kWh /month, let's suppose an AMD build would eat about 80kWh /month at a realistic average of 16 hours per day.

The difference in my power bill would still be tolerable and payable: Just $7.80 USD difference at $0.26 /kWh That's the price I'm paying here... 

The difference for USA people and other countries would be even lower: Just $3.60 USD at $0.12. 

Considering the power consumption "intel vs amd" described above was a bit exaggerated I believe you would pay even less than that.

*My conclusion*:
Power consumption should not be an excuse for average users (i.e. no 24/7 @ 100%), especially when living in USA and other "cheap energy" countries unless you are a "green hardcore". 

Just my opinion.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 26, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Maybe what TRWOV said was cherry picked, who knows? But Guru 3D review isn't cherry picked. I find it funny that neither you or OneMoar would respond to the Guru 3D review. It seems like you two cherry pick your responses.
> 
> 
> As per post #76
> ...



If youll notice I have not mentioned that I agree with anything OneMoar has said in the thread so don't include me in your replies towards him. Thanks.

I never said anything about 2500k, 2600k, 3770k. I never recommend people old parts. Also there isnt much whooping happening. There is not a huge jump in performance between all of the CPUs you have mentioned in that review, most if not all of the numbers could fall within margin of error.

I find it funny that any thread where someone says anything bad about AMD you instantly jump on their case, do you have any other means to contribute to these forums in other ways or is your defense of AMD the only one?


----------



## OneMoar (Dec 26, 2014)

I unsubbed from the thread as you people seem intent on defending your inferior cpus


----------



## Vario (Dec 26, 2014)

At this point the FX 83xx is so 2012.  It was bad in 2012. Why would you buy it in 2014? Feel free to get offended at this comment.  Kthx.


----------



## Fif23 (Dec 26, 2014)

Since I decided to upgrade... I started OCing my Phenom... I got a golden chip I think....
4.1Ghz at 1.48~ and 48C full load .... Woof !  Memory runs at 1333.


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 26, 2014)

Going from and OC'd phenom to an FX 8 core is a side grade and a waste of money.
If you want a noticeable improvement its time to make the switch to Intel.


----------



## Schmuckley (Dec 26, 2014)

If you need multiple threads..
I think the cheapest way to go would be $200 1366 board + $70 Xeon...and those do outperform FX chips..
Intel chips really are better for Gaming...10-15 more fps in just about everything.
I like AMD for daily use, though.It seems to open browsers/pages faster.
well..not the FX series..k8/k10 chips.
965BE was released in 2009, no?
Le Sigh..I wish they would have improved on that architecture.


----------



## Dent1 (Dec 26, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I never said anything about 2500k, 2600k, 3770k. I never recommend people old parts. Also there isnt much whooping happening. There is not a huge jump in performance between all of the CPUs you have mentioned in that review, most if not all of the numbers could fall within margin of error
> 
> I find it funny that any thread where someone says anything bad about AMD you instantly jump on their case, do you have any other means to contribute to these forums in other ways or is your defense of AMD the only one?



You said TRWOV cherry picked his good handbrake and WGC performance. I was merely pointing out its consistency with Guru 3D general review.


OneMoar, when you're ready can we please get an explanation for your inaccurate comment below please:


OneMoar said:


> and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...


----------



## Vario (Dec 26, 2014)

Fif23 said:


> Since I decided to upgrade... I started OCing my Phenom... I got a golden chip I think....
> 4.1Ghz at 1.48~ and 48C full load .... Woof !  Memory runs at 1333.


Nice. Pretty similar to my old 965.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 26, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> You said TRWOV cherry picked his good handbrake and WGC performance. I was merely pointing out its consistency with Guru 3D general review.
> 
> 
> OneMoar, when you're ready can we please get an explanation for your inaccurate comment below please:



Jesus dude, I replied to your comment! That you cherry picked the bold parts. He also said once two new technologies were introduced to WCG, it was the other way around, Intel performed better. Seriously dude, everyone I know from forums and in person have left AMD and gone to Intel with ZERO regrets regardless of what they use it for. I have also built plenty of systems for friends and for other families with AMD chips. I have experience with both sides, and AMD chips have left me unimpressed.


----------



## xvi (Dec 27, 2014)

I hate to walk in to a minefield here, but I just wanted to share my experiences.
I moved from an PII X6@3.8GHz to a FX 8350@4.8GHz and it felt like a sidegrade. The FX will outperform the X6 in certain scenarios, but not always, from what I recall.
I've played around with a Pentium G3258 and was decently impressed too, although overclocking it seems a bit more complicated.
Intel will give you better performance, but I don't think it's worth the buy-in for what you'd be using it for. I'm looking at a move to Intel now, but only with the understanding that it's not a financially sensible plan to ditch all my AMD gear for Intel gear.



Fif23 said:


> Since I decided to upgrade... I started OCing my Phenom... I got a golden chip I think....
> 4.1Ghz at 1.48~ and 48C full load .... Woof !  Memory runs at 1333.


That's a pretty nice result. If you're happy with it, I'd say it's worth keeping as is. It's better performance than you started with and it costs zero dollars, which is the best amount of dollars for things to cost.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm not going to crap on your choices like some people here.  AMD is good and acceptable for your usage.  It's also probably a cheaper upgrade(ish) thing to do in your situation.  No, it's not a better chip than most modern intels.  But people getting butthurt because their cpu is worse/better than the competition, and likewise people who think it was "worthless" to go the route you did in your situation, BOTH need to go and take a breath, maybe play some video games and just basically take a chill pill.  There's more to life than getting mad at someone for choosing the other brand.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree



R-T-B said:


> I'm not going to crap on your choices like some people here.  AMD is good and acceptable for your usage.  It's also probably a cheaper upgrade(ish) thing to do in your situation.  No, it's not a better chip than most modern intels.  But people getting butthurt because their cpu is worse/better than the competition, and likewise people who think it was "worthless" to go the route you did in your situation, BOTH need to go and take a breath, maybe play some video games and just basically take a chill pill.  There's more to life than getting mad at someone for choosing the other brand.


----------



## EpicShweetness (Jan 4, 2015)

I waited for a CPU upgrade until the IPC was about 50% greater. Now modern Haswell will do that for that aging Phenom, but if it's not within your budget then don't bother. Psu upgrades are usually suggested when you get a Psu related *sign*, sudden power failure, black screens, blue screens, etc. Dig some info up and use your common.


----------



## xfia (Jan 4, 2015)

you might not put all 8 threads to work with a 83xx but a fx cpu would be much more efficient at what you are doing..  I say go for a 6300 and overclock it


----------



## Dent1 (Jan 7, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> I unsubbed from the thread as you people seem intent on defending your inferior cpus



So the only processor you recommend is the Intel Core i5 4670K because its not inferior?


----------



## erocker (Jan 7, 2015)

Fif23 said:


> I never experienced any special lag, but I don't know... I'm not doing much in the way of heavy gaming, or any rendering of some sort. I also don't usually notice the CPU Load at 100% ...
> 
> Is there any reason at all to get one of those 8-core AMD FX ?



^I've quoted the important part.

The answer is no.


----------

