PC Upgrade Assistance (UK) - Page 3

Kipper · 2012-08-27, 04:16 PM

Just spotted this on Amazon, do my eyes deceive me or for £20 more on the CPU, I could get a 6 core that's benchmarked around 25% better, and fits on the current motherboard?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-P...4&sr=1-1-spell

Vancha · 2012-08-27, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

Just spotted this on Amazon, do my eyes deceive me or for £20 more on the CPU, I could get a 6 core that's benchmarked around 25% better, and fits on the current motherboard?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AMD-Phenom-P...4&sr=1-1-spell

It might have better benchmarks, but in real-world performance the 965 should be better for gaming, since most games don't utilize more than 4 cores.

That said, more and more games should start being released that do, so it's up to you whether you prefer a definite higher framerate in current games or a possible/probable higher framerate in future games.

Kipper · 2012-08-27, 05:31 PM

That raises a couple of questions - firstly, the recommended specs for PS2 say Intel i5 or AMD X6 upwards. Does this mean that PS2 is one of the games that will use it?

Second question would be that your response seems to indicate the X6 would actually be worse with todays games than the X4. Is that the case, or is it that it would perform about the same but be under utilised by current games?

Since I would like 2 or 3 years more out of the PC post-upgrade, if the performance is the same but with some in reserve, its probably best to take it? I do other windowsy stuff that might use it anyway, Photoshop and the like.

Vancha · 2012-08-27, 05:48 PM

the X6 would be worse than the X4 for games that don't utilize it. PS2 should utilize it, from what I've heard.

Other than gaming, I think only video/3D modelling and animation work would use the extra cores.

I'd guess you'll get more "time" out of the X6, but it's only a guess. It really depends on the future of game development, which is incredibly unpredictable.

Kipper · 2012-08-28, 07:46 AM

Hmm, decisions decisions eh?

What is the logic behind it being worse, I'm sure you know what you're on about but I'm curious.

I would have thought that if a game was only optimised for 4 cores, the processor would just use those.

Is it because the clock speed on each core is slower than on the X4?

Vancha · 2012-08-28, 08:29 AM

Precisely.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/147?vs=102

That's the 1055T against the 965 and even that loses out to the 965 in everything but video/media conversion.

Rbstr · 2012-08-28, 10:58 AM

I wouldn't bet on 6 slower cores being better in the long run than 4 faster cores.

This is a diminishing returns scenario. Performance does not typically increase linearly with more cores, but it's close with more clock speed (between cores of the same type).

(We saw the same things with the first dual cores. The single cores were faster, not simply because dual-core-optimized software hadn't been released but also because the chips were simply slower do to thermal constraints.)

Kipper · 2012-08-28, 05:25 PM

So really, if I can't buy a 6X that runs at the same clock speed as the 4X (which I can, but it requires an AM3+ board and a whole stack more money) then its just better to save the £20 and stick with the 4X is the general consensus.

And I suppose the PS2 specs right now are for the unoptimised version, and we can expect them to be revised down..... and if worst comes to the worst, given that I'm aiming to put it with a 660ti GPU - both of these can be overclocked a little bit if nescessary (I've never OC'd anything before but I'm assuming its all in the BIOS settings and available power/cooling).

Vancha · 2012-08-28, 06:41 PM

Ah, that's something else. Apparently the 965 is a much more capable overclocker, so you should be able to push it a fair way should you need to juice some extra performance out of it.

Kipper · 2012-08-30, 04:46 PM

I'll go with the X4 then. I'm not going to be upgrading the board just yet and if I was, I'd go Intel.

Kipper · 2012-09-01, 12:19 PM

It is done, and that sets a new personal record for the amount spent on one graphics card with the ASUS GTX 660 Ti 2gb.

Vancha · 2012-09-01, 02:14 PM

Congratulations. Here's to hoping it doesn't turn up DOA.

MasterCalaelen · 2012-09-01, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Congratulations. Here's to hoping it doesn't turn up DOA.

Aren't you Mr. Optimistic!

Kipper · 2012-09-08, 12:53 PM

RAM and GPU haven't shipped yet, but I've got the case and the CPU, and transferred over.

Amazing difference just having a faster quad core (although I'm aware theres been a patch too). 15-30 FPS now, mostly on the low side - but even at 15, feels less 'choppy' and now actually playable - despite still being in a low res and on low settings (the 660 should sort that out).

I can fly mosquito's smoothly and run around, even see and join battles. I still die instantly to everything, but at least I can start to be a participant and not a tourist.

Incidentally, I ran windows experience index. Obviously the CPU score went up (from 6.2 to 7.4) but another score changed as well. Memory went from 7.1 to 7.4. I assume this is down to better BIOS ROM (I had to flash the BIOS to get it to recognise the CPU)....? If this is the case, then there's a cheap way of getting some more out of your memory

Also, I predict another Fractal Core 3000 in my future. Its super quiet compared to previously & my other machine, those big fans really doing the trick even with them all running at maximum RPM on the fan controller.

Goku · 2012-09-08, 01:18 PM

Glad to see you are noticing a boost. I even noticed a boost with the recent patch. The devs are coming quite a way from when the tech test originally started. That was brutal.