Phenom II 1100T to FX series?

C

cgrant26

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
3,416
I'm getting a lot of mixed opinions in my research as to whether or not it's worth the upgrade.

I'd switch to an intel system if I had more cash to throw around but for the moment, I'm stuck with AMD.

System:

Phenom II 1100T
Thermalright Macho Rev A
Crosshair V Formula-Z
Asus GTX 970
16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 (4 x 4GB)
Corsair 620W PSU
System drive: 500GB Samsung 850 Evo SSD
Utility/Storage: 2 x Seagate 3TB in Raid 1

At the moment, the 1100T isn't overclocked at all, but it's been running almost non-stop since early 2011 and spent most of it's life at 4.1 Ghz. Is there any sense in upgrading to an FX 8350 or an FX 9590? Would that PSU (which has been rock solid for the past 6+ years and at one point, reliably supported a pair of 135W paxville xeons) struggle with a 9590?

Thanks.
 
It is a mixed bag most things now run decent on AMD cpu even on Piledriver. But the cost of a cpu might be a bit to much for the performance gain it offers.

Your 6 core will still be pretty decent compared to 8 cores of the FX8xxx/FX9xxx. When gaming you will best notice the performance gain in new games which are using Mantle or DX12 and are pushing over 40K batches. Since that is not happening yet (higher batch count games) you might as well stick with what you are using now.
Under Mantle/DX12 you will notice that your cpu is no longer the bottleneck your current setup as well as if you upgraded the reason for that is that these new API allow all CPU cores to talk to the GPU rather then just 1 CPU core under DX11.
 
IMHO stick with the 1100T and OC it if you think it is holding you back.

It's been a while since I looked at the benchmarks but iirc clock for clock, core for core the 1100t is faster anyways. Since most games aren't even using 6 cores then I doubt the 2 extra cores are going to help much.
 
It wouldnt hurt imho to upgrade to an AMD FX 6300 6 core there 89 bucks at microcenter if you have one near you. 8 gigs of ram ddr3 1600 for 50 bucks, asus, gigabyte brd for another 70 plus bucks, ssd and your all set for not very much money :) Happy Gaming
 
Overclock that Thuban! Screw FX. Oh wait you say you're already @ 4.1 .

Even if you got an 8370E and got it up to 4.5 you'd be looking at like a 5% difference anyway, not worth the $$ unless you encode video all day.
 
fightingfi said:
It wouldnt hurt imho to upgrade to an AMD FX 6300 6 core there 89 bucks at microcenter if you have one near you. 8 gigs of ram ddr3 1600 for 50 bucks, asus, gigabyte brd for another 70 plus bucks, ssd and your all set for not very much money :) Happy Gaming
Click to expand...

The FX6300 would be a side grade a best. The 1100T's 6 actual cores put it on par with the 6300s 3 higher clocked "modules".
 
Wait for Zen or get an i5K/i7K now if you want a noticeable improvement.
 
fightingfi said:
It wouldnt hurt imho to upgrade to an AMD FX 6300 6 core there 89 bucks at microcenter if you have one near you. 8 gigs of ram ddr3 1600 for 50 bucks, asus, gigabyte brd for another 70 plus bucks, ssd and your all set for not very much money :) Happy Gaming
Click to expand...

I would not bother with this. If money is tight this is not going to make you happy ....
 
I can say that going from my 965BE 4.0ghz to my 8350 4.6ghz was a noticeable increase in performance. Is it worth the upgrade... that depends on whether you feel you are being limited in some way or not. If not then wait for ZEN. Otherwise the FX can give a bit of a lift.

ad: I generally don't recommend less than an 8 core from AMD because of the modules as far as overall performance. Exception is the APUs because of different purpose.
 
Thanks guys. I think I'm just going to stick with the 1100T for now. The cost to performance ratio had me on the fence but the power consumption on the newest FX chips nudged this in favor of the Thuban.

Thubgirl can continue crunching my numbers. :)
 
durquavian said:
I can say that going from my 965BE 4.0ghz to my 8350 4.6ghz was a noticeable increase in performance. Is it worth the upgrade... that depends on whether you feel you are being limited in some way or not. If not then wait for ZEN. Otherwise the FX can give a bit of a lift.

ad: I generally don't recommend less than an 8 core from AMD because of the modules as far as overall performance. Exception is the APUs because of different purpose.
Click to expand...



I've always wondered if i should upgrade my 965be @ 4.1 up to an 83xx and it's always seemed like it would just be a sidegrade, all in all. It's been fine for a few years now, and I don't see much of a point, unless I end up upgrading my gpu as well.
 
in tests FX@5GHz is only slightly faster than X6@4GHz, and in some rare chases it is actually slower

average performance from 17 games relative to Zambezi @ 4.7GHz
gry.png


maximum power usage after OC
energia_cine.png


if you want upgrade sell AM3+ with this Phenom II X6 and get Intel build, even used LGA1155 if you do not want to spend much cash on it
 
XoR said:
in tests FX@5GHz is only slightly faster than X6@4GHz, and in some rare chases it is actually slower

average performance from 17 games relative to Zambezi @ 4.7GHz
gry.png


maximum power usage after OC
energia_cine.png


if you want upgrade sell AM3+ with this Phenom II X6 and get Intel build, even used LGA1155 if you do not want to spend much cash on it
Click to expand...


The FX@5ghz always will beat a thuban at 4ghz. The difference is quite large in most things. I came from a 1055T@4ghz to a 8120@5ghz to a 8320@5ghz. Even the previous 8120 was faster.
 
There's still such a demand for those X6 1100T's that you can defray a big chunk of the cost of an FX 8320. Maybe all of it if you find the right idiot. Some newer games are starting to show the age of the Phenom II/Thuban architecture.
 
My Phenom II 940 Black Edition blew a cork after 5 years. Ran her at 3.5 Ghz.

Just upgraded to a FX 6300 Black Edition. Running 4.5 Ghz with my old Freezer Pro 64.

1.4 Volts
45C after 1 hour of 95 Prime torture
Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P (rev. 2.0)

CPU - $89
Motherboard - $79

CPU's are irrelevant. Get one that's fast and cheap. Spend the coin on the GPU.
 
cgrant26 said:
Thanks guys. I think I'm just going to stick with the 1100T for now. The cost to performance ratio had me on the fence but the power consumption on the newest FX chips nudged this in favor of the Thuban.

Thubgirl can continue crunching my numbers. :)
Click to expand...

Just to add... I have two AMD cpu machines. One has a 1090T, the other an FX8350. (I ran them with similar video cards, fwiw, at one point.) I really don't notice a difference.

I'm going to upgrade the 1090T (got that itch); I'm not sure, like you, what would be a good upgrade versus the cost. Kinda leaning towards an i5...but I'd like to learn more about the latest AMD cpus.

Back on point: the difference is not noticeable. A benchmark may show different numbers, but I can't see it.

Ken
 
I upgraded from an 1100T to an 8350 and noticed a big difference with encoding in Handbrake (at least the difference of having 2 extra cores). I don't overclock so this was strictly comparing standard specs.

Handbrake is the most cpu intensive task I run regularly, I don't play a lot of recent games and for most things I don't notice much of a difference even in day to day tasks between even my old dual core machine anyway. The biggest difference for me in standard day to day computing in the last 10 years is, hands down, SSD drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top