What CPU would be best for me?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I have found a review on power consumption and overclocking, don't know how reliable it is though, but they have done some benchmarking with various CPUs against the FXs

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_2.html#sect0

Make sure the results tally with the other reviews of the FX6100. The Metro2033 results for the FX8150 look suspiciously low when compared to other reviews for example. XBitlabs had some questionable benchmark methods with their E350 reviews too.

[mikeo01]

Hmm, yeah its all quite suspicious.

Now to be honest I am more thinking about going with the Phenom lol.

At £75 on Amazon I saw FX-4100 isn't too bad.

But would 1Ghz HT really effect me if I chuck in a Phenom? It'll be a six-core.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Compared to the 3GHZ Athlon II X3 440,the Phenom II X6 1045T:
1.)Runs at 3.2GHZ over three cores
2.)Runs at 2.7GHZ over six cores
3.)Has 6MB L3 cache
4.)Power consumption is the same

I assume you are not running video encoding programmes 24/7 for a week on end?? Your current motherboard should be fine.

Regarding HT,I am not so sure. However,as long as your BIOS is a compatible one you can just drop the Phenom II X6 in and not need to re-install windows.

At a later date you can always get a newer motherboard(a £70 to £80 one) and a £20 cooler and overclock it.

Edit!!

Here is a comparison of an Athlon II X3 440 and a Phenom II X6 1055T:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/119?vs=147

[mikeo01]

I have decided to go with the 6-core FX-6100... why?

Turbo core gets the FX-6100 up to near enough the same level as Phenom II x6
Lower TDP, meaning more headroom
Going for an ASUS 140W M5A78L-M/USB3, which supports the FX and allows a good overclock.
Lower heat than the Phenom
Better architecture as in cores are underclocked and overclocked when needed = low heat
Future hotfixes give it a bit more performance

Future proof, more than I will ever need, better options to tweak it as I need.

Instead of the MSI I went for the ASUS, better quality, OCP and OVP, better quality power phase, nice 140W support, lots of additional features (USB 3.0, HDMI for onboard graphics if I ever needed it, HT 3.0 5.2 GT/s) etc.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Phenom II X6 1045T has the same 95W TDP as the FX6100. I have installed one for a mate and I can confirm it. The Phenom II X6 1045T and FX6100 both have Turbo Core with the latter having a slightly more refined version with more granular control.

Both CPUs at idle underclock themselves to under 1GHZ at idle although the FX6100 has better idle power consumption.

Regarding the 870S it actually uses a newer chipset,the AMD 870 which uses the SB850 southbridge with six SATA ports. The Asus uses the earlier 780G but has USB3.0 added so take you pick!

Like I mentioned before both the Phenom II X6 and FX6100 power consumption rises when overlocked so just be careful with 4 phase VRMs on the MSI and Asus - the big overclocks are seen on more expensive motherboards with 6 and 8 phase VRMs.

[DanceswithUnix]

TBH I think I would go the same way. Why?

Well the sensible option is to stick with what you have and save the money. I mean, it is fast enough for what you really need isn't it?

But if I had an itch to upgrade, I would want the newest toy around with the most scope for tweaks and overclocks, and that strikes me as the FX

[mikeo01]

I am the type of person who likes to upgrade.. for the sake of it

But no it isn't really that fast enough, I mean it doesn't feel much different to my old Athlon 64 x2 2.9 Ghz to tell the truth. Even in gaming, there isn't all that much difference. The Athlon II x3 is a tad faster.

That is why I am looking at the FX, the 6 cores and high core clock attracts me. 6-cores for multi-threading, high core clock for single thread.

Besides my motherboard isn't really up to it, the only thing different about it is that its AM3, everything else is the same (well except the RAM obviously).

So I would rather invest in a decent motherboard (ASUS) and upgrade the CPU as well, for me it will last for years. Instead of tiny upgrades as I do now.

Athlon > FX, noticeable difference. Tiny upgrades each year, won't seem worth the money.

One big upgrade to the latest should do me


Yes the Phenom is faster, but the FX allows more tweaking, and not only that the design is great, even though there are still some flaws with the FX (Which Piledriver should flatten out hopefully).
The design for it is great, just it isn't completely finished. But for a standard user (ME) its an awesome upgrade

[scaryjim]

Don't be fooled, the FX series have lower throughput per clock cycle and the higher clock speed doesn't entirely make up for that. You're not going to see much of an improvement in lightly threaded workloads going to the FX-6100 from the 3GHz X3. A stock 8150, which has a base clock of 3.6GHz and turbos up to 4.2GHz in ideal circumstances, barely matches a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4, so an FX6100, clocking at only 3.3GHz / 3.9GHz turbo, might even be slower than a 3GHz Athlon II X3 in lightly threaded tasks. Yes, it'll monster it in heavily threaded tasks, but that's the compromise you make with AMD at the minute - great multi-threaded performance but less than stellar lightly-threaded. If you want a noticable bump in both, I'm afraid to say that a platform upgrade to Core i5 is proabbly the only option...

[DanceswithUnix]

I think Scaryjim is right, you will get a boost but I doubt it will blow your socks off.

What is your machine slow at doing?

[mikeo01]

Yeah I know i5s are great, yes Intel are much better than AMD, but the things AMD have done with their processors are great.

Would you rather a slower chip you can tweak and basically do whatever with, or a chip you just install and let it do its thing.

AMD has overclocking and computer enthusiasts in mind, where Intel does not.

Programs are being pushed to be more multi-threaded. Most high end tasks done is multi-threaded, games even use 2-4 cores, some higher.

It should be an improvement from my Athlon, because the Bulldozer architecture is great, not perfect, but its definitely got potential in the future when they iron out problems.

Considering I game and use everyday tasks, the FX will be more beneficial really in the long term. The FX-8150 kills an Athlon, but struggles to match up to the Phenom series. The Phenom series are at the moment the way to go yes, but it doesn't mean the FX is all that bad a chip. It may be slower, but is easily more tweakable, and with the hotfixes (If Windows can be bothered) it should be a decent chip for its price.

[mikeo01]

No not blow my socks off, but its much more forgiving with tweaking.

And more games are becoming multi-threaded, bare that in mind. If I wasn't gaming a Duron would probably be enough

Its for the sake of an upgrade + gaming + future proof for multi-threaded programs. I don't want a chip which is insanely quick, just want a chip which running cooler, easier to tweak, and quick which like you said is quick for multi-threaded programs.

[mikeo01]

Well comparing the FX-8150 on AnandTech shows that it kills the Athlon II x4 at 3.1 Ghz

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If anyone looks at the reviews in post 3 you soon realise performance is very variable for the FX6100. In certain applications it is slower than a Phenom II X6 1055T and in others it can be quicker than a Phenom II X4 980 or as fast as a Phenom II X6 1090T or Phenom II X6 1100T.

The Phenom II X6 1055T does have more consistent performance though.

OTH,the FX6100 has better power consumption overall though.

[DanceswithUnix]

Well it should be an improvement and as I said I think the most fun for the money.
If you are gaming, I wonder if a new graphics card wouldn't be a bigger performance improvement though.

Looking at Anandtech, FX8150 is a big improvement if you play Starcraft.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=434

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like the FX6100 is now around £103 delivered from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005UBNKW...SIN=B005UBNKWO

What games does the OP play?? It could explain if the framerates are not that great.

[mikeo01]

I don't intend my graphics card soon, although there is another HD 4870 on eBay for £45. Just unfortunate a crossfire is a no go

Well the only reason I considered a CPU is that it will be used for other stuff than gaming too when I need it. I may be gaming a lot, but I don't want to spend on another component purely for gaming. Yes the HD 4870 will bottleneck the FX, but I can use the FX for other uses too if I ever need to

And I am mostly into FPS and strategy and I know strategy games can be a CPU hog. Never played Starcraft though