Phenom II - 965 @ 3.8Ghz - Worth an upgrade ?

[Dent1]

Good point ! It must be worth a few bucks for an OC fan... C3 chip. DONE.

As this would be your last upgrade on the socket I would be reluctant to spend extra on cooling unless you're sure the cooler will be compatible with your next platform.

To be honest, even with the stock heat sink and fan you'll still get a decent overclock.

 

[Fif23]

I have this installed:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018

With the Carbide 540, the CPU@3.8Ghz idles at 25C (2 140mm intake, 3 120mm exhaust)

 

[Dent1]

I have this installed:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835608018

With the Carbide 540, the CPU@3.8Ghz idles at 25C (2 140mm intake, 3 120mm exhaust)

I see. That's plenty.

 

[Fif23]

"8320E" also works ?

 

[Vario]

Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k. If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)? If you must do an AMD FX get the 8320E.

You will have a bigger difference in performance going to a Phenom to i5 then from a phenom to FX.

 

[newtekie1]

Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k. If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)?

Considering the difference I've seen between my 8320 and my i5-4690k, I'd say it isn't worth it to do a complete platform update. Maybe once Broadwell comes out things will be different.

And it definitely isn't worth moving to the dead 1155 socket.

 

[Vario]

Considering the difference I've seen between my 8320 and my i5-4690k, I'd say it isn't worth it to do a complete platform update. Maybe once Broadwell comes out things will be different.

And it definitely isn't worth moving to the dead 1155 socket.

From Phenom II 965 @4.0 to i5 3570k stock was amazing for me. I since moved on to a 2550k and a 3770k, but other than overclocking way better than the 3570k, aren't much different and are way beyond the Phenom. You can get complete 1155 systems for pretty cheap now that its 2 years old.

 

[Dent1]

"8320E" also works ?

Yes the 8320E is fine too. The default clock speed is 300Mhz lower, but because your intending to overclock it doesn't matter. If its cheaper go for it.

Nah not worth it for a FX instead get an Intel i5 4690k. If thats too much maybe a used 2500k ($130)? If you must do an AMD FX get the 8320E.
You will have a bigger difference in performance going to a Phenom to i5 then from a phenom to FX.

There is plenty of applications that the 8 core performs better than the 2500k. $150-180 for 2500k, then you have to add another $90-130 for the motherboard. Then when its all said and done you'll be investing more money on a dead LGA 1155 socket for marginal performance increase and arguably less performance on specific tasks.

 

[Vario]

8320E overclocks better and uses less volts I've heard.

 

[eidairaman1]

E model is a 95w part.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.

Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.

 

[eidairaman1]

Cost nuff said

 

[newtekie1]

you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.

Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.

Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...

 

[OneMoar]

Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...

the op is going to end up replacing the whole system within ~2 years anyway so hes just wasted a bunch of money

a z87/z97 will still offer plenty of performance >3 years from now the FX chip won't
look up the cpu workload on AMD Vs intel across the benchmarks ..
the intel chip has power to spare whilst still matching the FX chip
its not about outright performance its about platform-longevity

 

[newtekie1]

the op is going to end up replacing the whole system within ~2 years anyway so hes just wasted a bunch of money

a z87/z97 will still offer plenty of performance >3 years from now the FX chip won't
look up the cpu workload on AMD Vs intel across the benchmarks ..
the intel chip has power to spare whilst still matching the FX chip

Re-read the OP's posts. He's currently happy with a Phenom x4. I doubt he'll be unhappy with an FX-8000 in the near future.

It is a $150 upgrade vs. a $360 upgrade for performance that is maybe 10% better overall and as I said in real world use is basically unnoticeable.

 

[OneMoar]

Re-read the OP's posts. He's currently happy with a Phenom x4. I doubt he'll be unhappy with an FX-8000 in the near future.

It is a $150 upgrade vs. a $360 upgrade for performance that is maybe 10% better overall and as I said in real world use is basically unnoticeable.

that may be but its 150.00 wasted because of the complete lack of upgrade path
in the short term It will offer SLIGHTLY Better performance then the Phenom II but nothing massive

 

[newtekie1]

that may be but its 150.00 wasted because of the complete lack of upgrade path

The OP is running a 5 year old CPU, he doesn't seem to be someone that upgrades every year. So an upgrade path is pretty moot. By the time he thinks of upgrading again 1150 will be dead too.

in the short term It will offer SLIGHTLY Better performance then the Phenom II but nothing massive

It all depends on the work load. I have a feeling you've never actually even used an FX chip and are just repeating all the BS. They really do offer a pretty significant boost in performance over a Phenom II x4s. It is only single threaded performance that is similar, but only at similar clock speeds. The FX chips have way higher clock speeds, so the single threaded performance is better as well. And look at the OP's work that he does with the PC, most of it is multi-threaded.

 

[OneMoar]

The OP is running a 5 year old CPU, he doesn't seem to be someone that upgrades every year. So an upgrade path is pretty moot.



It all depends on the work load. I have a feeling you've never actually even used an FX chip and are just repeating all the BS. They really do offer a pretty significant boost in performance over a Phenom II x4s. It is only single threaded performance that is similar, but only at similar clock speeds. The FX chips have way higher clock speeds, so the single threaded performance is better as well. And look at the OP's work that he does with the PC, most of it is multi-threaded.

you start pushing them and the power consumption and heat go though the roof .. even at >4.5Ghz they aren't that much faster then a phenom II if he can use 8 Threads then fine it will walk all over the phenom II it can't then there is going to little if any gain
and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...

 

[newtekie1]

you start pushing them and the power consumption and heat go though the roof ..

They power issue has already been discussed. It really makes no difference. And my FX8320@4.4GHz still idles under 100w for the whole system. Load is high, but not what I would consider through the roof. My Phenom II x6@3.6GHz power consumption was what I'd consider through the roof...

even at >4.5Ghz they aren't that much faster then a phenom II

Its actually significantly faster. I already showed this. Even at just 4.0GHz the FX chip is faster than the Phenom II x4 in single threaded apps, overclock it to 4.4GHz and it leaves the phenom in the dust.

if he can use 8 Threads then fine it will walk all over the phenom II it can't then there is going to little if any gain

It is statements like this that make we wonder if you've ever actually use an FX. You're talking to someone that went from a Phenom II x6 to an FX-8xxx, I've actually done it. There most certainly is a gain, even in single threaded apps like games.

and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...

Again, you're talking to someone with both, and I'm telling you that you are wrong. Tasks that truly use the 8-cores are way faster with the FX than the i5-4690K. Premier renders are significantly faster with the FX, 7zip compressing and decompressing is faster with the FX, music conversion is faster with the FX, just as examples.

Yes, the i5 is also faster at a lot of tasks, but not fast enough that I could ever justify more than double the cost. The difference between the two, as I said, is pretty much not noticeable.

At this point I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'll just leave it here and let the OP decide what to do based on the information and recommendations we've provided.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Your unwillingness to listen to facts explaining the reasoning is probably why you don't understand the reasoning...

Listen to the facts? What facts? ............ Soundin a little heated bro.

 

[TRWOV]

If anything on the FXs is gimped is floating point performance. When FAM and CEP2 were the only game in town on WCG my FX ate my i7 for breakfast (8k vs 5.5k). Now that OET and MCM seem to make heavy use of floating point calculations it's the other way around (3770k 5k, 8350 3.5k).

Apart from games, the programs I use the most are gimp, Videostudio and handbrake. I don't recall how long it took Videostudio to save my videos on the 3770k (it supports OpenCL anyway so most of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU) but I can attest that on handbrake the performance with the 8350 is practically equal to my 3770K.



As I stated, if I were the OP I'd keep the 965 for a while longer but if he intents to upgrade I think an 8320 is the bang for the buck option. Will he see a massive boost in performance? Probably not, given his usage pattern but that would be true with the Intel option as well.

 

[Dent1]

you'll benefit more from going Intel in everything you intend to use it for than an AMD FX chip.

Honestly its a bit beyond me why people still recommend FX chips. I also don't really care for anyone's explanations on the regard at this point too.

If you don't want an explanation then its your fault that you don't understand why we recommend the FX chip.

It's like saying I don't know why humans drive cars, but if a human explained I wouldn't care to listen.

and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...

Then explain why a stock FX 8350 is beating out the i5 2500K consistently. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming the i7 2600k in many tasks. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming an i7 3770k in transcoding and encoding. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is whooping a i5 3570 and i7 2600k in FryBench and Cinebench.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,12.html

If anything on the FXs is gimped is floating point performance. When FAM and CEP2 were the only game in town on WCG my FX ate my i7 for breakfast (8k vs 5.5k). Now that OET and MCM seem to make heavy use of floating point calculations it's the other way around (3770k 5k, 8350 3.5k).

Apart from games, the programs I use the most are gimp, Videostudio and handbrake. I don't recall how long it took Videostudio to save my videos on the 3770k (it supports OpenCL anyway so most of the heavy lifting is done on the GPU) but I can attest that on handbrake the performance with the 8350 is practically equal to my 3770K.

MxPhenom 216 and OneMoar will conveniently not read the bolded parts.

 

[GLD]

Just get a 95w AMD FX chip and enjoy.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

If you don't want an explanation then its your fault that you don't understand why we recommend the FX chip.

It's like saying I don't know why humans drive cars, but if a human explained I wouldn't care to listen.

Then explain why a stock FX 8350 is beating out the i5 2500K consistently. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming the i7 2600k in many tasks. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming an i7 3770k in transcoding and encoding. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is whooping a i5 3570 and i7 2600k in FryBench and Cinebench.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,12.html

MxPhenom 216 and OneMoar will conveniently not read the bolded parts.

I think you need to continue reading between the conveniently cherry picked bold parts........

 

[Dent1]

I think you need to continue reading between the conveniently cherry picked bold parts........

Maybe what TRWOV said was cherry picked, who knows? But Guru 3D review isn't cherry picked. I find it funny that neither you or OneMoar would respond to the Guru 3D review. It seems like you two cherry pick your responses.


As per post #76

and a core i5 will still walk all over a fx chip regardless of the workload ... yes even in 8 threaded tasks the lowly intel quad is still faster ...

Then explain why a stock FX 8350 is beating out the i5 2500K consistently. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming the i7 2600k in many tasks. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is outperforming an i7 3770k in transcoding and encoding. Explain why a stock FX 8350 is whooping a i5 3570 and i7 2600k in FryBench and Cinebench.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8320e_processor_review,12.html - (feel free to navigate through every page.)