Requsting help from those more experienced

[Newt]

Hello, my fellow pilots.

 

I am considering a CPU upgrade from my current AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz (oc'd via the MB to 3.0) to an AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition 3.4GHz.

 

The questions are,

1: Do you think that this is a worthwhile upgrade?

 

2: I have only ever put in a new CPU in a new build. What steps must I take to replace just my CPU? I have installed new GPUs but this is different. Do I just need to update my MB's BIOs and then pull out the old one and put in the new one? Or do I have to reinstall win7, too?

 

Thank you for your help. This forum is by far the best that I have ever been on. :D

 

Edit, my current build (including the first mentioned CPU) has an AMD Radeon HD 6870 1Gb and 8Gb of RAM, all held together with an ASUS MB (M4A785TD-V EVO) and running Win7 64bit Home

Edited December 5, 2012 by Newt

[Nopileus]

That would actually be kind of a downgrade, even the newer Bulldozer CPUs are not much faster than your X6.

 

Either make the switch to Intel or keep it as it is.

[trooph]

Im running on 965...im not entirely happy with it. U can easily oc it up to 3,8+ just by using multipliers and decent air-cooling. I used to run it on 3.9 but i got stability issues recently and decided to lower the clock.

 

 

 

 

That can help u with CPU changing.

Just be gently dont force anything.

 

And yes u need to do a fresh instal of ur OS. Otherwise u will get BSOD

 

 

That would actually be kind of a downgrade, even the newer Bulldozer CPUs are not much faster than your X6.

 

Either make the switch to Intel or keep it as it is.

 

DCS are CPU sensitive games... But i dont know if they use all the 6 cores included in that processor. But i agree with u. Intel is the way to go with DCS products.

Edited December 5, 2012 by trooph

[Nopileus]

DCS uses only two cores, so in theory the 965 would be better due to higher performance per thread.

 

Overall it would be a downgrade though, its just not worth it.

[galagamo]

 

Either make the switch to Intel or keep it as it is.

Im going to second this

[SkateZilla]

x6 Black editions are on ebay for $150.

[Newt]

DCS uses only two cores, so in theory the 965 would be better due to higher performance per thread.

 

Overall it would be a downgrade though, its just not worth it.

 

I was under the impression that when it comes to games that they could only go as fast as the slowest core. Which for me, is 3.0GHz, overclocked at 10% from my MB. (I'm not brave enough to try to really push it beyond what my MB will do for me.)

 

Can someone explain why they think it would be a downgrade even if my current one, with more cores, only runs at 2.8GHz stock?

 

Thank you everyone for your advice and help, though. It proves my point about how this forum is so great.

[Nopileus]

The cores in both CPUs run on the same architecture.

You'd be exchanging two cores for higher frequency, its simply not worth the cost.

 

For DCS this might give you a tiny performance boost, but for most other modern game the X6 will be better.

 

Almost all newer games are properly multithreaded, meaning they can utilize all the cores of your cpu,

while DCS is based on over 10 year old tech which doesn't make it easy for the devs to implement this.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Nopileus

[Newt]

Ok, thanks everyone. I think I am going to save the $100 and hold onto my current CPU until the next overall build.

 

On a side note, I just felt the FIRST effect of a game using ALL of my cores evenly and properly. Far Cry 3. I was wondering how my pc was running this new game so well and ran the task manager to discover the total CPU usage only at 35% with the game running almost evenly amongst all 6 cores instead of how most games run core 1 heavy and then a little on core 2 with nothing on the other cores with a total CPU usage at 95%-100%.

 

First time that I have seen a game use multiple cores so well! I wish all games would do this. It is amazing!

[EtherealN]

Almost all newer games are properly multithreaded, meaning they can utilize all the cores of your cpu,

 

This is a truth with modification: if by "utilize all cores" you mean there will be threads from the game running on them, then you might be correct. But if you expect the game to actually max out all of those cores, that's a different matter; as an effect of how multithreading has to be implemented (for practical reasons) in games, you are still likely to have one core that's maxed out and the rest of the cores being under comparatively light load. So a faster 4-core might still be better than a slightly slower 6-core simply through avoiding or minimizing the effect of a specific thread bottlenecking the others.

 

As for how big an issue this would be in practice... I don't dare to say. There's too many factors involved in this, especially since most games aren't really that CPU-dependent to begin with (but rather they use GPU's for their intensive stuff, including what physical effects they include aside from basic HavoK and ragdolling etcetera).

 

I would however concur that it's probably better to save the money until you can make a new build. Intel will be coming out with Haswell in a while, and AMD is promising improvements to the FX-line that might solve it's problems.