Processor help needed

[Tappys]

Im looking to upgrade some parts on my computer (Motherboard b/c the one i have can only have 1 gpu and i want to get a second 6870 for Crossfire). I dont want to spend to much money so i was wondering if you could use the same processor more then once. Meaning can i take it from my current motherboard and put it on the new one im planning on getting?

p.s. I have a amd phenom x6 if that makes any difference in what i can do with it.

Thanks for the help
-Tappy

 

[CrushedDiamond]

Yes very much so! you can go from a 790FX to a 990FX motherboard with those X6 chips!!! AMD is very good about that. If you buy a 990FX you can get SLI/Crossfire, support for future bulldozer processors and great overclocking! Many are cheap to expensive 139.99 to 279.99 but not much difference between the cheap and the expensive.

 

[Tappys]

im looking to get the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. so i would be able to use my amd phenom x6 on that even though its been on my current motherboard for like 2 months?

 

[mad pistol]

im looking to get the ASUS Crosshair V motherboard. so i would be able to use my amd phenom x6 on that even though its been on my current motherboard for like 2 months?

yes.

 

[Henderson]

Ah, you've got an X6 chipset? Those're compatible with all AM3 and AM3+ motherboards. You can find that you'll be able to get a relatively high quality SLI/Crossfire compatible board (I prefer Asus and Gigabyte in terms of motherboard manufacturers) for about $120-$160USD. Grab one of those, and I can't picture you needing to upgrade for at least 2-3 years. The X6 will have a ton of life left in it once programmers jump on the multithreading bandwagon!

Regards,

Henderson

 

[mad pistol]

Henderson, you realize that a stock 2600K usually beats the pants off a 6-core AMD CPU, both in singlethreaded and multithreaded performance, right? There are only a scant few instances where the X6 is faster.

 

[CrushedDiamond]

Henderson, you realize that a stock 2600K usually beats the pants off a 6-core AMD CPU, both in singlethreaded and multithreaded performance, right? There are only a scant few instances where the X6 is faster.

In the end there's a good price difference, better upgrade path and the performance difference doesn't really outweigh these seeing how the 2600K is being replaced very soon...

 

[Demoralized]

Asus Sabertooth 990FX, supports the X6 and roughly $200.

 

[mad pistol]

In the end there's a good price difference, better upgrade path and the performance difference doesn't really outweigh these seeing how the 2600K is being replaced very soon...

2500/2600K is being replaced by Ivy Bridge, which is socket compatible. It is supposedly a drop-in replacement for Z68 motherboards.

Also, try overclocking the 2500K/2600K and a 1090T or 1100T. You'll find that the 2500K and 2600K absolutely crush AMD's 6-core CPUs at stock, and when you overclock a 2500K/2600K, it absolutely pulverizes AMD's 6 core CPUs. It wouldn't matter if the 6-core CPU's were monster overclockers, but they're not. They're lucky to get past 4Ghz, while the 2500K/2600K are about 50% faster in IPC and overclock to the upper 4Ghz range.

The price difference is justified. If you don't already have an AMD 6-core, there's no reason to get one right now.

 

[Amodin]

Never ever ever ever buying Asus again, I've blown through four of their motherboards in a year! I don't even OC anything.

I just bought my G1.Sniper Gigabyte board. Best setup I've ever had.

Good luck with the Asus board, I hope you have more luck with them.

 

[CrushedDiamond]

2500/2600K is being replaced by Ivy Bridge, which is socket compatible. It is supposedly a drop-in replacement for Z68 motherboards.

Also, try overclocking the 2500K/2600K and a 1090T or 1100T. You'll find that the 2500K and 2600K absolutely crush AMD's 6-core CPUs at stock, and when you overclock a 2500K/2600K, it absolutely pulverizes AMD's 6 core CPUs. It wouldn't matter if the 6-core CPU's were monster overclockers, but they're not. They're lucky to get past 4Ghz, while the 2500K/2600K are about 50% faster in IPC and overclock to the upper 4Ghz range.

The price difference is justified. If you don't already have an AMD 6-core, there's no reason to get one right now.

In games that use the cores like BC2 and BF3 which he is building it for there all even maybe a 1 fps to 3 fps frame diffirence, and as we havent seen bulldozer which is DAYS away i would still wait...an 8 core that can clock in at 4.2ghz out of the box is impressive no matter how you slice it and since bulldozer now holds the world record for highest Ghz speed on a processor i would still stand by what i said and say wait...

Seeing as how intel lately has been known for socket after socket after socket (true ivy bridge is coming out but its a die shrink 20% at most increase) he 2011 is coming out soon and after ivy bridge is out they WILL release a new socket and then hes stuck again with old tech its still not worth it.

And while true it does outperform the 1100t it doesn't truly matter but for e-peen if im over 80fps and somebody with a 2600k is doing 130 or 140 do i really care? not really. The frostbite engine for sure shows exactly where intel is going, while they tend to destroy in older games those logical cores get you nowhere, BC2 tests show it all across the board you won't get much more performance if at all when a game uses the cores correctly, Synthetic benchmarks mean jack as most of those tests are in fact sponsored by intel its been argued on the internet for ages for there to be a non sponsored testing method but there isn't so take it with a grain of salt.

In the end we're talking days here....DAYS Oct 12th BD is released and the NDA is open so i would for sure wait till then.

 

[reflex99]

I'd way rather have 130 FPS over 80.

In a few years, when games get more system intensive, that will be 40 over 25, which is the difference between playable, and completely not worth it.

 

[CrushedDiamond]

I'd way rather have 130 FPS over 80.

In a few years, when games get more system intensive, that will be 40 over 25, which is the difference between playable, and completely not worth it.

In a few years there will also be 4 new sockets and 10 new "top of the line" processors too...the main thing is HOPEFULLY in a few years gaming will truly use all cores correctly and then you'll have what i said before with the Frostbite engine which is pretty much dead on the same performance. I'm an intel man myself but lately it seems were reaching a "so what" point in performance just making things faster for the sake of being faster without adding any REAL value to the consumer, IF BD flops then ya i'll prob switch over to intel again but all AMD has to do is clock for clock match the 2600K, BD's OC'ing ability is already been proven now were just waiting on the hard facts, and with a new revision planned for 2012 and using the same socket at that with turbo core 3.0 as opposed to the 2.0 in BD and 12 cores...the race is getting down to the wire between this and that oh ya and running crossfire/sli in x16/x16 mode not x8/x8 (I know there's little to no difference but still the value thing is what i'm pushing here) And with no real word on how much ivy bridge is gonna cost and considering past intel launches i would say $500-600 msrb. I don't care how you put it it's just not worth it. When mirrors edge 2 comes out that'll be a good game on what im saying i think we'll see AMD match fps for fps in that game since it uses the frostbite engine, Intel need to stop playing the lets hyper thread everything game and push real tech not release new processors 3 times a year with a new socket to go with it. With no real hard push from AMD Intel is able to force people into buying 20% performance increases (MAYBE 20%) at a pretty premium. I will not abide to this. BTW when the processors become so far bad that we're pushing 40 over 25 from the PROCESSOR it'll be more than a few years easy...the trend is to add cores and optimize around that not clock speed. again as i said we're 8 days out from BD release i know its hard to wait but trust me just wait and see, if it flops then whatever prices still go down and you still save money if its a mind blower then you still save money its a win/win if you wait. When ANY large hardware company is a week out from releasing their next big thing trust me....you wait, you'd be a fool not too. (unless you bought from Fry's then screw it cause their return policy is AWESOME! :thumbup

 

[mad pistol]

CrushedDiamond, I don't think you get it. AMD doesn't have a competitive product at the moment. Period. Their X6 processors are not futureproof either because they get beaten in multi-threaded applications by SB quad cores. We're not talking about the future. We're talking about the now, and right now, the SB quad cores are the better buy no matter how you spin it. What's worse is that those CPUs are going to continue to outshine the AMD X6 processors as time goes on.

The "So what" point you refer to is a GPU limitation, so when you take the GPU limitation away, you're left with the speed of the CPU. In this case, an SB quad core will last far longer (in the order of years) than any Phenom II product. BD is the unknown, and until it is released, we cannot make any conclusions about performance at all.

Also, BD is not going to match SB clock-for-clock. It's going to be faster only in certain multi-threaded applications, and even that is not confirmed. BD's OCing ability hasn't been proven at all except for the fact that it does not suffer from a cold bug (which does nothing for recreational overclockers). Remember that SB overclocks to the moon and back too.

It's apparent that you're an AMD fan, and that's understandable, but even you have to admit that Intel is way ahead of AMD right now, and they stand to stay ahead of AMD in the coming future. You're defending AMD with information that falls on deaf ears (dividing your argument into paragraphs makes it easier to read, btw). If BD surpasses SB, we'll all be surprised, especially considering that the price of an 8-core BD is lower than that of the 2600K.

Last but certainly not least, the clock-for-clock advantage of SB over PhII is more in the order of 30-40%, and while it doesn't show it in most games (again, GPU limitation), the SB 2500K/2600K are much MUCH faster than any of AMD's current offerings. I'm wiaiting anxiously for BD, but I'm also not expecting much and hoping to be surprised. However, you're defending a product that hasn't even hit the market yet. Again, BD will NOT match SB clock-for-clock. Mark my words on that one. You speak as if that's an easy thing, but it isn't.

AM3+ is going the way of the dinosaurs at the end of this cycle. It will be replaced by Socket FM2 for added compatibility with On-die GPUs. The upgrade path right now belongs to no one, as they're both going to replace sockets soon.

 

[a pet rock]

Besides all the brand bashing, I don't think buying a 990FX board right now is smart. Personally, I would wait for the Bulldozer release (which is now rumored to be Oct 12) and see how performance is. If it's great, then you know a 990FX board is a solid buy, or it'll drop the prices on Sandy Bridge. If it's not, then you know not to upgrade into AM3+.

 

[CrushedDiamond]

CrushedDiamond, I don't think you get it. AMD doesn't have a competitive product at the moment. Period. Their X6 processors are not futureproof either because they get beaten in multi-threaded applications by SB quad cores. We're not talking about the future. We're talking about the now, and right now, the SB quad cores are the better buy no matter how you spin it. What's worse is that those CPUs are going to continue to outshine the AMD X6 processors as time goes on.

The "So what" point you refer to is a GPU limitation, so when you take the GPU limitation away, you're left with the speed of the CPU. In this case, an SB quad core will last far longer (in the order of years) than any Phenom II product. BD is the unknown, and until it is released, we cannot make any conclusions about performance at all.

Also, BD is not going to match SB clock-for-clock. It's going to be faster only in certain multi-threaded applications, and even that is not confirmed. BD's OCing ability hasn't been proven at all except for the fact that it does not suffer from a cold bug (which does nothing for recreational overclockers). Remember that SB overclocks to the moon and back too.

It's apparent that you're an AMD fan, and that's understandable, but even you have to admit that Intel is way ahead of AMD right now, and they stand to stay ahead of AMD in the coming future. You're defending AMD with information that falls on deaf ears (dividing your argument into paragraphs makes it easier to read, btw). If BD surpasses SB, we'll all be surprised, especially considering that the price of an 8-core BD is lower than that of the 2600K.

Last but certainly not least, the clock-for-clock advantage of SB over PhII is more in the order of 30-40%, and while it doesn't show it in most games (again, GPU limitation), the SB 2500K/2600K are much MUCH faster than any of AMD's current offerings. I'm wiaiting anxiously for BD, but I'm also not expecting much and hoping to be surprised. However, you're defending a product that hasn't even hit the market yet. Again, BD will NOT match SB clock-for-clock. Mark my words on that one. You speak as if that's an easy thing, but it isn't.

AM3+ is going the way of the dinosaurs at the end of this cycle. It will be replaced by Socket FM2 for added compatibility with On-die GPUs. The upgrade path right now belongs to no one, as they're both going to replace sockets soon.

Sorry about the chunk of text I was tired haha. First off let me just point out some issues with what you said. You can't say this "BD is the unknown, and until it is released, we cannot make any conclusions about performance at all." and then later say "Also, BD is not going to match SB clock-for-clock. It's going to be faster only in certain multi-threaded applications, and even that is not confirmed."

Seeing the overclocking part by the way if you watched them do any of their demonstrations they had a chip at 4.8Ghz all cores with a basic H70 water cooling kit (Which btw can be outdone by the right air cooler like your thermalright ultra). (Been trying to find the video where it showed the chipped they overclocked was at 3.1ghz which puts it at the FX8120 which wasnt even their fastest chip along with the release of the FX8170 which is going to release early early next year)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIGvQ3vtYWE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIGvQ3vtYWE&feature=related[/ame]

The demonstration they showed a air cooled, water cooled, LN2, and then on on 4 different systems with more than likely an older stepping. And THEN they went on with one system to break the record it wasn't all just one system.

You are also wrong about the socket change, it is only for the mainstream Llano platform (It's not even the same processor, Llano has been out for a while now) The next successor to Bulldozer is called Vishera and "Zambezi will be replaced by Vishera (up to 8 cores). Vishera will feature Turbo Core 3.0 while using the existing Socket AM3+ format and 9xx series chipset of the 1st generation FX-series Zambezi processor." They did say in 2-3 years time there will allow 12 core processors to be placed in the same socket as bulldozer.

How many sockets are there right now out from Intel? If people bought everything i tossed out of my company too i would love having the ability to sell new sockets almost on a yearly basis also.

In the end if BD flops then it flops, if not then hurray everybody wins. Easier way to put things is you WANT AMD to put something up that is direct competition you don't lose anything and you gain everything.

I wouldn't buy a 990FX motherboard right now either, i would wait until the numbers come out and THEN we can all talk about these processors.

 

[reflex99]

who gives a crap if it can hit 8.429GHz? Other than WR significance, it means nothing. For the sake of comparison, they both can reach about 4.7-5GHz on normal cooling.

The previous record was held by a Celeron D. If you are trying to tell me that it is a better processor than a 2600K becuase it can hit 8.309GHz, then you are a fool, and should probably be banned for tech talk forum.

Clock speed doesn't mean a thing anymore. It is entirely possible that a 1GHz processor could one day be thousands of times faster than what we have today. Instructions per cycle/clock is what really matters, and right now, SB has the highest IPC of any microprocessor.

It is extremely UNLIKELY that BD will be faster on an IPC basis. If it was, it would be the undisputed performance champion in every task. Judging by the prices of preorders (~$250-270 for top of the line FX-8150), it is not anywhere close to having that kind of performance. AMD is not dumb, they are out to make a profit just like any other company. If they were able to secure such performance, BD would most definetly be more expensive than it is right now.

Intel currently has 1 socket on the market right now. 1155, with 2011 planned for later this year. 1366 lasted 4 years. just as long as any AMD socket. 775 was around for 6.

AMD has just as many, AM3+, and FM1. Trinity is planned to use a socket FM2, so yea, AMD switches sockets too.


I want bulldozer. I have been waiting since 2006 for Trinity..... I am getting impatient AMD, so i decided to settle at bulldozer, which i have been waiting for since November 2010.

What i am trying to get at is, right now SB is winning right now. AMD may pull an upset in 8 days, they may not, we will see. But, on October 4th 2011, Intel's Sandy Bridge microarchitechture is faster than AMD's K10.5.

 

[CrushedDiamond]

The only thing that's got me worried about the launch is the lack of numbers considering it's a week out.

Match the 2600K and we got a winner, do ANY less and i'll never use AMD ever again.

 

[reflex99]

wait, so you just went from defending AMD to hating them if they miss one release?

You must have been really sad between 2006 and 2008

 

[mad pistol]

CrushedDiamond, are you ok? That was a pretty quick 180 there bud.

You went from "Buy AMD! Best value EVAR!!!" to "If BD isn't competitive, I'm jumping on the Intel bandwagon"

No one is asking you to use one brand or another. A good consumer researches their products and doesn't make blind purchases based on brand. Hardcore Fanboys never win 100% of the time in any tech industry.


I got my Phenom II X4 because at the time, it was way cheaper than anything intel had to offer. It offered 90% of the performance for 60% of the price. I also got the HD 5870 because at the time, Nvidia didn't have anything that could compete (Fermi didn't release for another 6 months after I got my HD 5870.) I did research on all of my components prior to purchasing them. That's what any smart consumer does. Playing favorites for certain companies very rarely nets you the win.