Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Upgrading computer to new CPU

Tags:
  • Computers
  • AMD
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
July 24, 2014 3:19:14 PM

In the past half year or so, I've been browsing around and tickling the idea of upgrading my desktop or just building another one. I decided I'd just upgrade my computer and use the same case.

Current PC
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.2Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- Abit AN-M2HD (9.6" x 9.6")

Rebuilt PC
- AMD FX6300 Black Edition (3.5-4.1Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 8GB Patriot Viper DDR3 1600Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- ASUS Micro ATX DDR3 2000 AMD AM3+ Motherboard M5A78L-M/USB3 (9.6" x 9.6")

I asked this previously on a different forum, but I had two replies which conflicted interests and made me a little unsure.

This a simple question, Will I get much of a performance benefit from this upgrade?

- I know my processor is 7 years old or so, but it's also in really good condition and I reformatted my computer in the last 2 months just to clean 7 years of junk out of my hdd.

- One person said that I would see significant benefits from the upgrade since whatever chocking my Althlon 64 X2 6000+ had on my GPU would be gone. HOWEVER the other person said that I'd likely see benefits in CPU bound games and not much anywhere else since most games are GPU bound and because I didn't bother to upgrade my GPU. The second reply seems pretty off to me since we're comparing a 7 year old Dual core processor to a 1 year old Hexa core processor, my Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X is fine I think, why wouldn't I see much benefit in a new build with the FX6300?

More about : upgrading computer cpu

July 24, 2014 3:28:31 PM

Brandon Lew said:
In the past half year or so, I've been browsing around and tickling the idea of upgrading my desktop or just building another one. I decided I'd just upgrade my computer and use the same case.

Current PC
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.2Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- Abit AN-M2HD (9.6" x 9.6")

Rebuilt PC
- AMD FX6300 Black Edition (3.5-4.1Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 8GB Patriot Viper DDR3 1600Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- ASUS Micro ATX DDR3 2000 AMD AM3+ Motherboard M5A78L-M/USB3 (9.6" x 9.6")

I asked this previously on a different forum, but I had two replies which conflicted interests and made me a little unsure.

This a simple question, Will I get much of a performance benefit from this upgrade?

- I know my processor is 7 years old or so, but it's also in really good condition and I reformatted my computer in the last 2 months just to clean 7 years of junk out of my hdd.

- One person said that I would see significant benefits from the upgrade since whatever chocking my Althlon 64 X2 6000+ had on my GPU would be gone. HOWEVER the other person said that I'd likely see benefits in CPU bound games and not much anywhere else since most games are GPU bound and because I didn't bother to upgrade my GPU. The second reply seems pretty off to me since we're comparing a 7 year old Dual core processor to a 1 year old Hexa core processor, my Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X is fine I think, why wouldn't I see much benefit in a new build with the FX6300?


You'll see gains from the higher clock of the new processor. a few games will make use of the extra cores but most will not.
m
0
l
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:29:00 PM

You will see a pretty big gain in games that are CPU bound and in general use. The performance difference will be DEFINITELY noticeable as that old CPU is bottlenecking your GPU.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:30:09 PM

drkatz42 said:
Brandon Lew said:
In the past half year or so, I've been browsing around and tickling the idea of upgrading my desktop or just building another one. I decided I'd just upgrade my computer and use the same case.

Current PC
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.2Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- Abit AN-M2HD (9.6" x 9.6")

Rebuilt PC
- AMD FX6300 Black Edition (3.5-4.1Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 8GB Patriot Viper DDR3 1600Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- ASUS Micro ATX DDR3 2000 AMD AM3+ Motherboard M5A78L-M/USB3 (9.6" x 9.6")

I asked this previously on a different forum, but I had two replies which conflicted interests and made me a little unsure.

This a simple question, Will I get much of a performance benefit from this upgrade?

- I know my processor is 7 years old or so, but it's also in really good condition and I reformatted my computer in the last 2 months just to clean 7 years of junk out of my hdd.

- One person said that I would see significant benefits from the upgrade since whatever chocking my Althlon 64 X2 6000+ had on my GPU would be gone. HOWEVER the other person said that I'd likely see benefits in CPU bound games and not much anywhere else since most games are GPU bound and because I didn't bother to upgrade my GPU. The second reply seems pretty off to me since we're comparing a 7 year old Dual core processor to a 1 year old Hexa core processor, my Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X is fine I think, why wouldn't I see much benefit in a new build with the FX6300?


You'll see gains from the higher clock of the new processor. a few games will make use of the extra cores but most will not.


Sorry, but clock rate is not comparable on different architecture CPUs. For example. A 3.0ghz i5 blow away a 4.3ghz fx4300.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:30:49 PM

I think the fact is the gpu is not changing. Therefore the change will only correlate to the change in the cpu. This bottling from the cpu is the main factor as well as the 4gb or ram.

The ram change will help you with some extra applications as well as having help with the operating system.
The upgrade to the cpu will help in games where the old cpu was bottlenecked.

You will also need a new motherboard and a way to move the os to the new motherboard.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:34:42 PM

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...

This is a comparison. I think the truth is that the new processor will be good in the games where you get lower performance than you should with your graphics card.
For the games that seem fine. they will seem better but not the total change you were hoping for.

At this price range intel could be good to invest in, but either will suit your needs.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:35:11 PM

If you want to truly see a difference I would also upgrade the GPU, add an SSD for the OS and main programs (keep or upgrade your HD for games and files).

Me personally upgrade my PC a few times during a 5 year span, then is a new build entirely.

There is no benefit on keeping a 7 year old video card in a new build.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:37:07 PM

tiny voices said:
You will see a pretty big gain in games that are CPU bound and in general use. The performance difference will be DEFINITELY noticeable as that old CPU is bottlenecking your GPU.


tiny voices said:
drkatz42 said:
Brandon Lew said:
In the past half year or so, I've been browsing around and tickling the idea of upgrading my desktop or just building another one. I decided I'd just upgrade my computer and use the same case.

Current PC
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.2Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- Abit AN-M2HD (9.6" x 9.6")

Rebuilt PC
- AMD FX6300 Black Edition (3.5-4.1Ghz)
- AMD Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X
- 8GB Patriot Viper DDR3 1600Mhz
- 500 GB HDD (7200rpm)
- CD/DVD
- ASUS Micro ATX DDR3 2000 AMD AM3+ Motherboard M5A78L-M/USB3 (9.6" x 9.6")

I asked this previously on a different forum, but I had two replies which conflicted interests and made me a little unsure.

This a simple question, Will I get much of a performance benefit from this upgrade?

- I know my processor is 7 years old or so, but it's also in really good condition and I reformatted my computer in the last 2 months just to clean 7 years of junk out of my hdd.

- One person said that I would see significant benefits from the upgrade since whatever chocking my Althlon 64 X2 6000+ had on my GPU would be gone. HOWEVER the other person said that I'd likely see benefits in CPU bound games and not much anywhere else since most games are GPU bound and because I didn't bother to upgrade my GPU. The second reply seems pretty off to me since we're comparing a 7 year old Dual core processor to a 1 year old Hexa core processor, my Sapphire R9 270 Dual-X is fine I think, why wouldn't I see much benefit in a new build with the FX6300?


You'll see gains from the higher clock of the new processor. a few games will make use of the extra cores but most will not.


Sorry, but clock rate is not comparable on different architecture CPUs. For example. A 3.0ghz i5 blow away a 4.3ghz fx4300.


amd's architecture has not really come that far in the past 7 years....perhaps slow evolution versus any earth shattering revolution.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...
m
0
l
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:37:43 PM

schau314 said:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...

This is a comparison. I think the truth is that the new processor will be good in the games where you get lower performance than you should with your graphics card.
For the games that seem fine. they will seem better but not the total change you were hoping for.

At this price range intel could be good to invest in, but either will suit your needs.


CPU boss is never accurate or even reliable as they do not use ANYWHERE near enough tests to come to a conclusion. Have a look at my benchmark for how different they will really be.
m
0
l
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:38:50 PM

drkatz42 said:


amd's architecture has not really come that far in the past 7 years....perhaps slow evolution versus any earth shattering revolution.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...


Have a look at my post about how CPUboss is not accurate or reliable and have a look at the benchmark I posted.
m
0
l
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:39:28 PM

drwho1 said:
If you want to truly see a difference I would also upgrade the GPU, add an SSD for the OS and main programs (keep or upgrade your HD for games and files).

Me personally upgrade my PC a few times during a 5 year span, then is a new build entirely.

There is no benefit on keeping a 7 year old video card in a new build.


His GPU is plenty for gaming at high settings. No need to upgrade. His GPU is BRAND NEW.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:42:41 PM

It still gets the general comparison statistically. Anyhow, I'm on my backup pc. It has an athlon x2 6000 also I think, and it works fine for most uses. I really don't see the difference for different cpu's in most tasks besides gaming and editing. Just some advice.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 3:44:30 PM

tiny voices said:
drkatz42 said:


amd's architecture has not really come that far in the past 7 years....perhaps slow evolution versus any earth shattering revolution.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...


Have a look at my post about how CPUboss is not accurate or reliable and have a look at the benchmark I posted.


Good info, illustrates that the fx 6300 is good upgrade in general. But, we're limited to talking about the gaming aspect.
m
0
l
a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:45:15 PM

CPUBoss uses things like Price/ availability/ overclocking headroom. NONE of those affect the CPUs stock performance at all, but greatly impact their score on that site. Generally we tend to stay away from them for that reason. same with GPUboss. Neither is reliable or even a worthwhile comparison.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 113 À AMD
July 24, 2014 3:46:23 PM

drkatz42 said:
tiny voices said:
drkatz42 said:


amd's architecture has not really come that far in the past 7 years....perhaps slow evolution versus any earth shattering revolution.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...


Have a look at my post about how CPUboss is not accurate or reliable and have a look at the benchmark I posted.


Good info, illustrates that the fx 6300 is good upgrade in general. But, we're limited to talking about the gaming aspect.


In games. the 6300 will perform MULTIPLE times better than the 6000+ does, plain and simple.
Share
a b À AMD
July 24, 2014 5:04:56 PM

CPU Boss ...
[snicker]

You'll see a huge boost all around. The 6000+ was a nice chip for its time but the arch will only run your RAMs at 750MHz.

It would help if you dropped the mATX and snagged a 'real' AM3+ ATX motherboard.

m
0
l
July 24, 2014 5:54:00 PM

tiny voices said:
drkatz42 said:
tiny voices said:
drkatz42 said:


amd's architecture has not really come that far in the past 7 years....perhaps slow evolution versus any earth shattering revolution.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X2-60...


Have a look at my post about how CPUboss is not accurate or reliable and have a look at the benchmark I posted.


Good info, illustrates that the fx 6300 is good upgrade in general. But, we're limited to talking about the gaming aspect.


In games. the 6300 will perform MULTIPLE times better than the 6000+ does, plain and simple.


Wisecracker said:
CPU Boss ...
[snicker]

You'll see a huge boost all around. The 6000+ was a nice chip for its time but the arch will only run your RAMs at 750MHz.

It would help if you dropped the mATX and snagged a 'real' AM3+ ATX motherboard.



It would be great to see a head to head comparison of the fx6300 and x2 6000+ using the r9 270x in today's games.
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 5:58:13 PM

Disclaimer: I do know what CPU bottle-necking is, and this is not supposed to be, primarily, a gaming setup.

So I replaced 9800GT with R9 270 (Gigabyte) in my old AM2 board (Gigabyte M57SLI-S4, nVidia nForce 570 chipset) with a Brisbane Athlon X2 5000+, and I am getting low GPU usage and framerate in games.

For example, in 3DMark 06 I got about 20% GPU usage with about 85-95% CPU usage.

3DMark 2006 results were worse overall:

9800GT / R9 270
SM2.0: 4635 / 3937
SM3.0: 5067 / 5621
Overall: 10336 / 9620

In 3DMark 2013, Ice Storm result was worse as well:

9800GT / R9 270
Ice Storm graphics: 63K / 61K
Cloud Gate graphics: 7.5K / 29.5K
Fire Strike graphics: n.a. / 5.4K

These are all pure graphics tests, so I cannot comprehend how a slow CPU/RAM/system could possibly prevent the card from loading the level in it's 2GB memory and rendering it as fast as possible.

Or are there geometry calculations still depending on CPU even for these "pure graphics" tests? Otherwise, how can one explain why an R9 270 can hit lows of 18 - 20 fps in 3DMark 2006 "Return to Proxyconn" and not go past ~25% GPU usage.

Heat is no issue and power, I am pretty sure, isn't either, as I have been running a pair of these 270s in this system (Corsair VS650watt) at maximum utilization and nonstop day and night. (Don't ask me why, you probably know already).

It just feels like there is some software limitation there. Something in the drivers that perhaps relies on some newer CPU instructions or higher system/PCI-E BUS speed.

It feels like these modern day drivers are not optimized for something like Athlon 64, which probably contributes to it more than the fact that Athlon X2 system does have a pretty obvious difficulty with feeding the card with data fast enough.

What is your experience with old system + new card situations? Perhaps I should try more ancient drivers? How far in the past can I go as far as drivers?
m
0
l
July 24, 2014 6:00:43 PM

If you decide to do the upgrade, I recommend an m5a97 mobo. Preferably the ASUS R2.0 or the Gigabyte UD3P (or something like that).
m
0
l
!