Worth upgrading 1090T to 8320/8350?

/dev/null

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
15,181
I looked at this, but there aren't enough games to make a decision.

This is a box I use occasionally ONLY for gaming and I run 6850 xfire @ one of the following resolutions

1680x1050
5040x1050
3840x800

Games I'm currently playing:

Overlord/overlord 2
dawn of war 2
battlefield bc2

I know my gpus are older, but I don't think any single GPU under $200 is going to be faster than 68xx crossfire right now and that is the limit of my budget. I also don't really want to install windows from scratch.

I also don't overclock.

Also: Is steamroller going to be available on am3+?

Edit: Looks like my board doesn't support bulldozer except for FX[468]100 and 8120...
 
Last edited:
I have the same dilemma, so even though your board doesn't support (but if it supports 8120, it should get a new BIOS update to support 8320-50 too).

Single core performance: 1090T should be equal to 8320 at stock speeds (Vishera=Thuban + 300Mhz).

The 8320-8350 make sense if you find games that scale linearly with more than 6 cores. I mean, the ideal situation of the new 8-cores is video encoding. Why? Because it uses all 8 cores equally. If you find or expect such games in the future, then it's worth it. If not, it's not worth it IMHO.
 
Like Faethon said, if you utilize software that has an inherent advantage on the new FX series over your exisiting 6 core and the added performance is worth the cost to get there, then go for it. If it were me (a gamer not unlike yourself), I'd still chug that X6 along until the next generation CPU's emerge from both AMD and Intel, then make a decision based on comparison reviews.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=146
 
Do you have a good cpu cooler? You could always OC and that would be a pretty good gain there.(I am not sure if you meant you dont want to OC or dont have it OC right now)
 
Faethon said:
I have the same dilemma, so even though your board doesn't support (but if it supports 8120, it should get a new BIOS update to support 8320-50 too).

Single core performance: 1090T should be equal to 8320 at stock speeds (Vishera=Thuban + 300Mhz).

The 8320-8350 make sense if you find games that scale linearly with more than 6 cores. I mean, the ideal situation of the new 8-cores is video encoding. Why? Because it uses all 8 cores equally. If you find or expect such games in the future, then it's worth it. If not, it's not worth it IMHO.
Click to expand...

You'd think so, but I think asrock just gave up on updating this board since newer ones are out....
 
Last week I went from a 1090T to a FX-8350 on my gaming box. At the resolution I play (2560 x 1440) there's nothing to be gained, performance wise.

I ran benchmarks before and after, with exactly the same settings and in the games that I saw improvements, they were in the range of 3 to 5 extra fps. (I can post the numbers if you guys want). The 1090T was running at 3.8Ghz, while the 8350 ran at 4.6Ghz.

Maybe at 1680 x 1050 the story is a bit different, as that resolution puts more load on the CPU than 1080p or 1440p, where the load falls more on the GPU.

I say keep your 1090T if all you do is gaming.

Oh and by the way, for all of you with the Asus Crosshair Formula IV wondering if the FX-8350 works on it, I can confirm it does work. Just update your bios to 3029.
 
Faethon said:
I have the same dilemma, so even though your board doesn't support (but if it supports 8120, it should get a new BIOS update to support 8320-50 too).

Single core performance: 1090T should be equal to 8320 at stock speeds (Vishera=Thuban + 300Mhz).

The 8320-8350 make sense if you find games that scale linearly with more than 6 cores. I mean, the ideal situation of the new 8-cores is video encoding. Why? Because it uses all 8 cores equally. If you find or expect such games in the future, then it's worth it. If not, it's not worth it IMHO.
Click to expand...

Wondering where you got the +300 mhz figure for vishera?

From experience they are about equal. but I don't really do a ton of benching.
 
stealthy123 said:
Wondering where you got the +300 mhz figure for vishera?

From experience they are about equal. but I don't really do a ton of benching.
Click to expand...

It's just Cinebench single thread:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=698

Also, you can look at x264 encoding test between 6 core 1090T and 6 core FX-6300, which i regard the most accurate "real world" test, since x264 uses all cores at 100% at all times and scales pretty much linearly as you add cores:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/146?vs=699

They 're practically on par. 1090T= 3.2Ghz FX6300= 3.5Ghz
 
Thanks for all the responses guys.

I'm a little hesitant to do anything at this point:

1) I don't overclock. I don't have time to deal with any additional problems/heat it may bring.
2) No official support from Asrock. They don't support any pd's and no bd's over 95w.
3) Not going to buy a new motherboard + cpu, because if I do it will be > $200 for minimal gain. I'd go intel anyhow.

If someone has a report of an 8320/8350 confirmed working (not oc'ed) on an 890FX Deluxe4, I might reconsider.

It's dissapointing the AMD keeps making these backwards (socketwise) compatible cpu's and the MB manufacturers don't step up.
 
Robstar said:
Thanks for all the responses guys.

I'm a little hesitant to do anything at this point:

1) I don't overclock. I don't have time to deal with any additional problems/heat it may bring.
2) No official support from Asrock. They don't support any pd's and no bd's over 95w.
3) Not going to buy a new motherboard + cpu, because if I do it will be > $200 for minimal gain. I'd go intel anyhow.

If someone has a report of an 8320/8350 confirmed working (not oc'ed) on an 890FX Deluxe4, I might reconsider.

It's dissapointing the AMD keeps making these backwards (socketwise) compatible cpu's and the MB manufacturers don't step up.
Click to expand...

You never know, they could end up coming out with one, but could be due to your chipset being older.

And if your not OC, then the difference really isnt going to be alot.
 
Robstar said:
T
2) No official support from Asrock. They don't support any pd's and no bd's over 95w.
.
Click to expand...

Contact support. They SHOULD be able to support Vishera (even if it's "white socket" AM3+). Once, i was considering in my Asrock 790 GMH to use the Phenom II x4 820 (?), which was one of the latest Athlons disguised as Phenom at the time. It was NOT listed in the CPU support list. I wrote to Asrock Support and they replied to me that the CPU is supported, they just forgot to update the CPU support list. And as a matter of fact, a day later they updated it and added the CPU i had asked them about.

So, you never know... Although it seems possible that being a "white" socket, they 're trying to abbandon them, which sucks, it's disappointing from Asrock's part. If it can run BD, it should run PD too. And i see it can run 125W Thubans, so why not the BDs.
 
Last edited:
Faethon said:
Contact support. They SHOULD be able to support Vishera (even if it's "white socket" AM3+). Once, i was considering in my Asrock 790 GMH to use the Phenom II x4 820 (?), which was one of the latest Athlons disguised as Phenom at the time. It was NOT listed in the CPU support list. I wrote to Asrock Support and they replied to me that the CPU is supported, they just forgot to update the CPU support list. And as a matter of fact, a day later they updated it and added the CPU i had asked them about.

So, you never know... Although it seems possible that being a "white" socket, they 're trying to abbandon them, which sucks, it's disappointing from Asrock's part. If it can run BD, it should run PD too. And i see it can run 125W Thubans, so why not the BDs.
Click to expand...

I just e-mailed them. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

The last time I e-mailed them they told me to "install windows" on a board I had a question about... :rolleyes:
 
Robstar said:
I just e-mailed them. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

The last time I e-mailed them they told me to "install windows" on a board I had a question about... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I just literally LOL'd at that. "Install Windows!" Because that solves everything!

Should have asked them for the download location and if it was the appropriate size for your particular MoBo's CMOS chip. UEFI? Hell no, I'm running full on Windows 7 Ultimate from my BIOS chip! Fuck yeah!
 
Robstar said:
I just e-mailed them. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

The last time I e-mailed them they told me to "install windows" on a board I had a question about... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You would be surprised at how many techs have had no experience with linux.

I installed mint or ubuntu on the business center computers at an apartment complex. Well I no longer work for the company and about 6 months later I get a call from them.
They hired a computer technician for the company and he couldnt figure out how to install the drivers for a new printer they got. 2 weeks he worked on it and couldnt figure it out..... :rolleyes:
 
Good call on asking Asrock. It doesn't hurt anything, but don't get your hopes too high. I think Bulldozer cpus pull more current and wattage than their ratings would suggest, and more than what board makers were anticipating. I may be wrong of course, but I somewhat remember certain boards having issues with throttling back when Bulldozer was introduced. It turned out that the throttling was not about temp, but current/wattage. Your boad may run great with a Phenom II but the VRM area may not be able to supply a Bulldozer/Vishera properly.
 
pgaster said:
Good call on asking Asrock. It doesn't hurt anything, but don't get your hopes too high. I think Bulldozer cpus pull more current and wattage than their ratings would suggest, and more than what board makers were anticipating. I may be wrong of course, but I somewhat remember certain boards having issues with throttling back when Bulldozer was introduced. It turned out that the throttling was not about temp, but current/wattage. Your boad may run great with a Phenom II but the VRM area may not be able to supply a Bulldozer/Vishera properly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that board is "white socket". Initially, Bulldozer capable boards were supposed to be only the "black sockets". Then manufacturers started releasing BIOS for some white sockets too. But it seems like Asrock has decided to "kill" them. It's probably that is for the reasons you say. But what surprised me is that , it won't list even the 95W FX-6300 or the 4300.

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/890FX Deluxe4/?cat=CPU

If it can run the 95W Bulldozer, why can't the 95W Visheras?

Smells to me like a combination of VRM limitation + "political" decision by Asrock to "put white sockets to death".

Honestly, i am disappointed. I 've had Asrock for years and one thing i was sure of, was BIOS updates for new CPUs. Now i m having my doubts.

Another "white socket" left with BD only:

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/890GX Extreme3/?cat=CPU

On the contrary, seems all the "black socket" 890 boards, have received BIOS updates.
 
Good points, you are right, if the board can take a 95W Bulldozer and Vishera takes less power there is no reason not to have the bios update for the 6300 and 4300 at least. It probably is political and they just want you to buy a new board.

Maybe it would help if we, and reviewers, all start demanding to know how long a board will be supported and how long they will keep providing bios updates. I know I would stay away from a board that only had updates guaranteed for a short time, as in support for one cpu generation and then that was it.
 
TLDR version: you may have cpu support on your older board but not get official info saying as much due to a lot of older or cheaper boards having a lack of current capacity to support the higher wattage draw of the newer cpus.


I think a lot of the older boards just don't have the wattage capacity to make writing a bio update for them to support BD or PD worth it. I've been using a Gigabyte MA785GPMT-UD2H for several years now with a Deneb Phenom II. The board only has 4+1 power phasing, and if you draw too much current the vrms overheat and the system becomes unstable. A lot of older AM3 family boards have a similar design.

Gigabyte released a nice amount of bios updates after I got this board. The latest bios for the board F8b didn't mention much of anything in the way of updated cpu support. But a look at the cpu support list gives more information. Oddly they have listed support for the FX-4130 but chose to hide it all the way at the bottom of the page below even the Semprons. They also seem to imply it's not officially supported in the same way the 140 watt 965 wasn't supported. I'm guessing for the same issues with power draw, because a 965 boots right up on this board and my 550BE is clocked to a higher speed than it at the moment on the same board with all 4 cores unlocked.

I'd be a more satisfied customer if companies would actually document their bios releases so we have some idea of what's going to work and what won't. But at the same time I'm just happy Gigabyte kept adding cpu support for as long as they did. Hell, they even gave me back cool and quiet functionality where previously it was disabled as soon as I touched the cpuNB multiplier.
 
Last edited:
asrock reply:

Rob;

For the motherboard model you described can not update BIOS for newer FX series of CPUs, since the chipset’s limitations

ASRock America Support
Click to expand...

I sent him a link showing that the 8100/8120 were already supported and that the board supports up to 140w.

Edit: 890FX Deluxe 5supports PD's! Same chipset! (890FX)
 
Last edited:
pgaster said:
Good call on asking Asrock. It doesn't hurt anything, but don't get your hopes too high. I think Bulldozer cpus pull more current and wattage than their ratings would suggest, and more than what board makers were anticipating. I may be wrong of course, but I somewhat remember certain boards having issues with throttling back when Bulldozer was introduced. It turned out that the throttling was not about temp, but current/wattage. Your boad may run great with a Phenom II but the VRM area may not be able to supply a Bulldozer/Vishera properly.
Click to expand...

NO KIDDING. my overclocked FX8320 system showed 429 watt draw at the wall with a 4.9ghz overclock. at stock speeds it was pulling 210 watts. This was full system draw running cinebench r11.5 benchmark.

If the cpu was pulling 125watts stock, then it must of been pulling 344 watts overclocked. I have to imagine my MSI board was crying for dear life those few minutes.
 
Faethon said:
Keep pounding them! It seems they simply want "white sockets" out of their way.
Click to expand...

ASRock has now ignored me for a week. I just e-mailed them again.

Anyone know if there is an ASRock rep on the forums?
 
Last edited:
Update: I asked them again and got the following response:

I tested FX-8150, FX-6300 and FX-4300 with the latest BIOS P1.70, 3 CPU can be recognized by BIOS normally.
Basically, FX series CPU can be recognized by 890FX Deluxe4 P1.70 at the present.

Please kindly tell us which CPU you would like to use on 890FX Deluxe4, we could help to do full test on 890FX Deluxe4.

ASRock America Support
Click to expand...

I wrote back & asked for 8320/8350 test.

If 8350 works, I can see a double upgrade coming:

phen ii 940 linux box -> 1090T
890FX 1090T gaming box -> 8320/8350
 
Robstar said:
Update: I asked them again and got the following response:



I wrote back & asked for 8320/8350 test.

If 8350 works, I can see a double upgrade coming:

phen ii 940 linux box -> 1090T
890FX 1090T gaming box -> 8320/8350
Click to expand...

That sounds more promicing. Good luck!
 
Ramirin said:
Maybe at 1680 x 1050 the story is a bit different, as that resolution puts more load on the CPU than 1080p or 1440p, where the load falls more on the GPU.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the noob-ish question, but I would like to know why does 1680x1050 put more load on the CPU than 1080p?
 
it doesn't.

but 1080p puts more load on the GPU, making that the bottleneck, and thus harder to determine the impact of CPU performance on overall system performance.
 
No luck. They claim they can't support AM3+ 125w cpus because AM3+ is new architecture but they can support 125W AM3.

WTF?

Rob;

After we double check it, 890FX Deluxe4 cannot fully support CPU FX-8320 and FX-8350 (125W) CPU.

Because AMD CPU FX-8350/8320 is new architecture, the CPU behavior are different from AM3 CPU.
For AM3 socket motherboard, it cannot support AM3+ 125W CPU.

Please us from the CPU support list as below link to choose the CPU.
CPU support list: http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/890FX Deluxe4/?cat=CPU

ASRock America Support
Click to expand...

ASrock140wsupport.png
 
Last edited:
Seems like they are being lazy and trying to sell you another motherboard instead of putting out a new bios.
 
cageymaru said:
Seems like they are being lazy and trying to sell you another motherboard instead of putting out a new bios.
Click to expand...

You better believe my next motherboard will NOT be ASRock....and I will stop purchasing them for friend/family builds as well.

Small claims court might not be unreasonable as well (false advertising).
 
Robstar said:
You better believe my next motherboard will NOT be ASRock....and I will stop purchasing them for friend/family builds as well.

Small claims court might not be unreasonable as well (false advertising).
Click to expand...

They want to cut support on white sockets. It's rather obvious. Shame on them...
 
I wonder if [H} would be willing to write something up about the lack of Vendor support for AM3+ and "white sockets" when many were assured about support before purchasing.

I wrote back to them and they repeated what they said before...

Robert;

In the previous email we reply we explained about it.
Can not fully support FX8320 and 8350 (125 watts) ,beside that can support any others including 125 and 140 watts as shows in the cpu support list .
As was told before it is a new architecture and the cpu behave different from traditional AM3 processors.
CPU support list: http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/890FX Deluxe4/?cat=CPU
ASRock America Support
Click to expand...
 
Emily @ ASRock (rep on tweaktown) only says "new architecture only supports 95w cpus on your board" (even though 140w is listed on the website).

I guess you DONT get what you paid for. I specifically bought a $160'ish asrock board due to feature set & high tdp support tho hopefully support BD/PD cpus. Apparently ASRock doesn't deliver.
 
i wouldn't bet on any 890 board supporting Pile Driver. Can always visit the boards website and check supported Cpu's, If it is not listed then odds are it doesn't

I remember this debate awhile back but it wasn't the 8350, but the 8150 vs the 1100T/1090T

If you already have the 1090T I see no reason to upgrade the cpu to a 8320 or 8350 if your sole use is games. If do other things then its well worth the upgrade (video encoding, photoshop, 3dsmax etc etc etc)

Toms just compared all cpu's currently available under 200$, and put up a list of relative performance vs a Pentium G860.

Average.png


as you can see the performance between the 1100T and the 8350 is pretty similar. Though if you want to stick to pure numbers the 8350 is 3-5% faster in most games compared to the 1100T. If you overclock the cpu then the difference is greater.
 
ebduncan said:
i wouldn't bet on any 890 board supporting Pile Driver. Can always visit the boards website and check supported Cpu's, If it is not listed then odds are it doesn't

I remember this debate awhile back but it wasn't the 8350, but the 8150 vs the 1100T/1090T

If you already have the 1090T I see no reason to upgrade the cpu to a 8320 or 8350 if your sole use is games. If do other things then its well worth the upgrade (video encoding, photoshop, 3dsmax etc etc etc)

Toms just compared all cpu's currently available under 200$, and put up a list of relative performance vs a Pentium G860.

Average.png


as you can see the performance between the 1100T and the 8350 is pretty similar. Though if you want to stick to pure numbers the 8350 is 3-5% faster in most games compared to the 1100T. If you overclock the cpu then the difference is greater.
Click to expand...


An 880 and up board "CAN" support an FX processor but you must update the bios before the processor swap. I personally wouldn't even attempt it and I have an 880 board and 2 990FXA boards.

There has to be more to the story here then just looking at that graph. A i3 faster then an 8350?

Two case in points.
This is an 8350 vs 3570K, 3770K,& 3820. Which is much higher then the i3 rated above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

The OC version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc

I would call into question some of the results given in other reviews as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top