Are theese a good upgrade for the price

Abimor

Hey guys I am looking at upgrading my 4 year old pc right now I have a amd phenom II X4 955 processor not overclocked.

 

I was thinking about buying these

processor:  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514

memory: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233536&leaderboard=1

 

I already have everything else like the case and video card any thoughts or suggestions I would be grateful.

poefue

Check http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/ for the best prices on those items, Newegg is not always the cheapest.  Also head over to http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/ for some good deals.

Vrika

If you're looking to use the computer to gaming, I'd suggest Core i5-4590 because it has a lot better single thread performance. AMD FX-8350 has twice as many cores, and will in theory be a lot faster than i5-4590 if there's something that uses all those 8 cores optimally, but in practice there aren't any games that are able to use that many cores effectively, and i5-4590 is often a lot faster because the game tries to do most of its processing with just a couple of threads and gets slowed down when one of those threads hits the single thread performance limit.

grndzro

Originally posted by Vrika

If you're looking to use the computer to gaming, I'd suggest Core i5-4590 because it has a lot better single thread performance. AMD FX-8350 has twice as many cores, and will in theory be a lot faster than i5-4590 if there's something that uses all those 8 cores optimally, but in practice there aren't any games that are able to use that many cores effectively, and i5-4590 is often a lot faster because the game tries to do most of its processing with just a couple of threads and gets slowed down when one of those threads hits the single thread performance limit.

The new consoles are 8 core and will be heavily threaded. The FX8350 is more future proof and should perform better on any cross platform game.

DeniZg

Originally posted by grndzro

Originally posted by Vrika

If you're looking to use the computer to gaming, I'd suggest Core i5-4590 because it has a lot better single thread performance. AMD FX-8350 has twice as many cores, and will in theory be a lot faster than i5-4590 if there's something that uses all those 8 cores optimally, but in practice there aren't any games that are able to use that many cores effectively, and i5-4590 is often a lot faster because the game tries to do most of its processing with just a couple of threads and gets slowed down when one of those threads hits the single thread performance limit.

The new consoles are 8 core and will be heavily threaded. The FX8350 is more future proof and should perform better on any cross platform game.

I've been hearing this for quite some time and have yet to see AMD perform better than Intel when it comes to gaming.

If you really need to buy AMD, by all means, take the FX8350. It's the best that AMD can offer (apart from some limited series CPU's from AMD which are basically 8350 but better at OC).

But, if you want best gaming performance at the most affordable price, take the i5.

I had both CPU's and honestly, difference is very, very noticable (in gaming).

TamoVamo

Best buy money/performance - i5 

Quizzical

Let's see the full specs of what you already have, not just the CPU.  A sensible upgrade to one system might be completely stupid or not even work on another.

Cleffy

For new processors, I would only be looking at 2. The Core i7-4790 or the AMD FX-8300. We are about to be in for a CPU dry spell into 2016, so getting a CPU that will deal with future changes is probably ideal.

The Core i7-4790 is currently the processor that will most likely deal with future changes the best. Currently the consoles are 8-cores clocked at around 1.8-1.9ghz. This processor is best at dealing with this type of workload. Its hyper threaded and has sufficient clock speed putting it in the same ballpark of performance. Its also an Intel so its architecture should be supported by any x86 software.

The AMD FX-8300 will be difficult to find right now. It runs at 95w, but clocks up to around the same as the 8320 when the workload requires it. It may actually be better to get the FX-8350 if you are paying more than $200 for it because of quantity. The FX series of CPUs are starting to get more support from modern game engines. They are starting to beat Intel based i5 CPUs. It really depends on your workload. The FX series will perform better above 1080p. The i5's will perform better below 1080p. If you are planning to use a good GPU, then you will probably be better served with the FX series.

Its also good to note, the architecture in the FX series is completely different than those in the current generation of consoles. The FX series would act as 4 cores in the same workload the gaming consoles will run under.

I feel the FX-8300 or 8350 would be the best pick at this point. More favoritism to the 8300. The reason why is that everything will change in 2 years, and its best to get a stop gap. So its best not to overspend. The FX series will also cope with changes to software over the next 2 years than a core i5 processor. The core i7 will cope best, but you will also be looking at spending around $600 for the CPU and mobo.

syntax42

Originally posted by Cleffy

The FX series will perform better above 1080p. The i5's will perform better below 1080p. If you are planning to use a good GPU, then you will probably be better served with the FX series.

CPU performance and monitor resolution are not directly linked together.  GPU performance is directly tied to monitor resolution.

 

If it were easy to use eight cores, games would be doing so by now.  It isn't, though, because using eight cores requires tasking each core with work and keeping each tasked evenly with the other cores.  I think anyone who has at least four cores and a FX or i5 CPU will be fine for the foreseeable future.  After all, the processors in the consoles are basically AMD APUs.

Cleffy

You are right. I am here thinking about the interaction between the CPU and GPU in the shader steps, and I can't think of where the CPU would ever play a role in calculating pixel data. When I look at some benchmarks we see the i5 at lower resolutions performing better than the FX-8350. Once we get to 1080P its neck and neck meaning we probably hit a GPU bottleneck since its invariably the same calculations being performed. Then we push it to 1440 and suddenly the FX-8350 starts to pull ahead for some reason. Maybe its just me reading the data wrong or a difference between the test platforms or architecture playing a roll. Or it could be I was looking at 4 different benchmarks and in some the AMD was always on top and in others the Intel was always on top. It was probably that.

Quizzical

If a higher monitor resolution means that less stuff gets culled for being off the screen, that can create more CPU work per frame.  The amount of CPU work it adds is proportionately massively less than the GPU work, however.

The only other reason I can think of off hand for the CPU-side code to care about the monitor resolution is placing 2D stuff like menus intelligently--which doesn't add to the computational load.