Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will my pc run this proccessor

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 2:09:46 PM

Yes, the mobo you have right now supports the CPU you're looking to get. The mobo socket type fits AM2/AM2+, and it also supports HT 3.0.

One problem that you're going to run into is heating. The mobo you have is only designed to dissipate heat from a CPU that runs at a max of 95W. The CPU you're looking to get runs at 125W, which means a higher voltage than the mobo is able to handle (the higher the voltage the more the heat).

So, if you're thinking about getting this CPU, make sure you have very good cooling, or you may even want to get a cheap (but better than stock) heatsink, otherwise your CPU will run 100C+ (you don't want anymore than 70C-80C).

Hope this helped!
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 2:15:31 PM

whats ht 3.0 mean whats it do
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 853 à CPUs
a c 1099 V Motherboard
January 15, 2011 2:29:25 PM

As stated above your board only supports 95watt CPU's putting in a 125watt CPU can lead to board damages since the board is not designed with power circuitry to supply the CPU's power requirement. Here is the cpu support list for your board http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail...
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 2:52:29 PM

all i do is play wow on my pc is it worth upgrading ?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 2:58:06 PM

dragonx_08 said:
whats ht 3.0 mean whats it do



HT 3.0 stands for HyperTransport, and 3.0 is simply the version of the technology. HT allows faster computing speed between multiple cores within the CPU (with yours being a quad-core), as well as other PC components (such as the mobo, or peripherals that may support HT technology). This would be effective in more intense processes, such as video games or HD video playback.


rolli59 said:
As stated above your board only supports 95watt CPU's putting in a 125watt CPU can lead to board damages since the board is not designed with power circuitry to supply the CPU's power requirement. Here is the cpu support list for your board http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail...



On the site it does state that it supports the type she's looking to purchase (AMD Phenom™ processor (Socket AM2+)). The only issue is the wattage, but as I said earlier, the motherboard would still be able to handle that CPU. There is a huge difference between TDP and theoretical maximum power for a CPU. If she were to keep the CPU cooled there would be no issue in using it with that mobo.


Edit: No, you wouldn't need to upgrade your computer for WoW; then again it depends on how high you want your graphic settings to be (as well as how smooth you want the game to run). WoW is an older game and is pretty bulky, so you probably won't get any more than 20-25 FPS at medium settings.

There are a few setting that impact the performance of the game more than others, such as distance visibility and particle intensity. If you lower those, it'll give you more room to increase other video settings to make your game look pretty and still run smoothly. :D 
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 3:07:08 PM

my cpu is dual not quad core :)  and ty for the help
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 3:16:59 PM

dragonx_08 said:
my cpu is dual not quad core :)  and ty for the help



You're right, its not, but the one you're looking to get and that has the HT technology is. Not a problem! Glad to help! :D 
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 3:49:57 PM

well like i said in above post i only play wow, what would a cpu upgrade do for my gaming
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 4:40:41 PM

dragonx_08 said:
well like i said in above post i only play wow, what would a cpu upgrade do for my gaming




Well if you solely play WoW, you could tailor your system to aspects of it that would make the game all around better, instead of buying a new CPU. You could purchase a SSD and reinstall WoW on it, making loading screens (taking up WAY more time then they really should) drastically decrease in time. Also, since WoW is an older game and Blizzard is too stupid to write it on a newer graphics engine because they're afraid they'll lose subscribers (money), more RAM would definitely help give you more flexibility with increasing graphics settings (such as the more impacting ones that I previously described, making the game look its best but also demand more power).

One last improvement I can think of is try improving your internet connection, resulting in faster load times as well and less lag in major cities or during boss fights. Here's a network card that runs in a PCIe slot and has 128MB of DDR2 RAM. It's made specifically for online games and lowers ping/decrease lag and take some workload off the CPU too.

VisionTek Bigfoot Killer 2100 Gaming Network Card

So there's a few options to consider that, in my opionin, give WoW better performance as apposed to buying a new CPU.

Food for thought!
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 4:46:23 PM

cant buy from newegg they dnt ship to uk but il google it ty
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 4:53:21 PM

i read a review doesnt seem to really do anything that network card seems a waste of cash
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 5:10:05 PM

Well in my opinion the SSD would show the biggest performance increase out of all the others. You can get a 40GB one for around 50-60 pounds, which is cheaper than a CPU...

And I can reassure you that network card does its job. You were misinformed by the review you read.
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 5:49:32 PM

well i was just wondering about my pc that cataclysm has increased the system speccs on wow by alot since vanilla and when the next expansion comes out il fear that i wont even be able to play warcraft and future expansions cos they may need tri or even quad cores to play or something am i worrying o ver nothing or should i save for a new pc
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 7:01:24 PM

dragonx_08 said:
i read a review doesnt seem to really do anything that network card seems a waste of cash


The cost of buying that NIC is so high and the NIC is so useless you're better off buying a pair of ballet flats to speed up your computer. (Aussie humour)

Although I do believe the biggest impact would come from improving your graphics card. The processors you can upgrade to aren't really worth the effort.

Could you tell me what GPU you have? If you don't know google "GPU-Z".
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 7:08:47 PM

i have a geforce 8800gt 2gb
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 7:15:09 PM

I'd say that's quite alright.

You could upgrade to a DirectX11 card for fancy Cataclysm effects if you wanted to.

Anything around a HD 6850 or GTX 460 would be a worthy upgrade, albeit held back by your CPU.

There's not much you can upgrade without having to upgrade lots of stuff except an SSD would make your computer load faster. Anything short of a motherboard+CPU upgrade won't net you much improvement.

BTW: I like your avatar.
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 7:31:41 PM

thanks thats me :)  on the avatar theres no point in upgrading mobo and cpu cos u need to make sure u ram is compatible as thats expensive now
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 7:33:44 PM

You could get a motherboard that does support your RAM type and also a faster CPU, but trust me when I tell you it's probably not worth it.

I like what you've do with your hair and the makeup goes well too.

I really love you British people with your awesome accent and BBC.
m
0
l
January 15, 2011 7:43:21 PM

please answer this,

well i was just wondering about my pc that cataclysm has increased the system speccs on wow by alot since vanilla and when the next expansion comes out il fear that i wont even be able to play warcraft and future expansions cos they may need tri or even quad cores to play or something am i worrying o ver nothing or should i save for a new pc?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 7:53:56 PM

Don't be in a rush, buy it when you need it :) . I personally don't do Wow, but I don't think the requirements will not get so high so soon.

Put your money in the bank and reap the wonderful interest.

Then when the day comes when you can skip through all you TV channels faster than you can channel spells, you'll be able to buy a really spiffy new computer.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2011 10:21:09 PM

amdfangirl said:
The cost of buying that NIC is so high and the NIC is so useless you're better off buying a pair of ballet flats to speed up your computer. (Aussie humour)


The card isn't expensive, it's only $80...and they are far from useless, especially since the ONLY game we're making the rig for runs on an engine that's 6+ years old AND is an MMO, which if you don't have a stable connection you can't even play the game correctly. If she wants to increase the performance of the game, how her computer handles her connection is one of the most important things to focus on.


amdfangirl said:
You could upgrade to a DirectX11 card for fancy Cataclysm effects if you wanted to.



Seriously? There is like .000000000000000000000002% DX11 in WoW:Cataclysm.
DirectX11 in WoW
This is when DX11 is actually utilized


amdfangirl said:
...but I don't think the requirements will not get so high so soon.


That's about the only thing you said that is accurate. Sorry to be harsh but you're completely misleading her...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 4:06:39 AM



calmstateofmind said:
The card isn't expensive, it's only $80...and they are far from useless, especially since the ONLY game we're making the rig for runs on an engine that's 6+ years old AND is an MMO, which if you don't have a stable connection you can't even play the game correctly. If she wants to increase the performance of the game, how her computer handles her connection is one of the most important things to focus on.


Because you're better off spending more money on a faster connection than you are on a NIC.

Simply put, the NIC offloads about 1-2% of the load that the integrated gigabit ethernet port. Show me a reputable website showing an performance increase worthy of $80.

Gigabit is 1000mbits/s. It hard enough to saturate a fast ethernet port with your internet connection.

There are 8 bits in a byte, so 100/8 = 12.5mb/s

For her Gigabit ethernet port, 1000/8 = 125mb/s

If she wanted a better upgrade she should get a faster connection although I doubt you need much more than decent 1.5 mb/s connection to raid.

calmstateofmind said:
Seriously? There is like .000000000000000000000002% DX11 in WoW:Cataclysm.
DirectX11 in WoW
This is when DX11 is actually utilized


amdfangirl said:


You could upgrade to a DirectX11 card for fancy Cataclysm effects if you wanted to.

Anything around a HD 6850 or GTX 460 would be a worthy upgrade, albeit held back by your CPU.

There's not much you can upgrade without having to upgrade lots of stuff except an SSD would make your computer load faster. Anything short of a motherboard+CPU upgrade won't net you much improvement.


I didn't recommend her to buy a Dx11 card, unless it was significantly faster and only if she upgraded her CPU and Mobo.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2011 4:29:49 AM

I'll start with the most positive review of the Bigfoot 2100. It's very inconsistent with the rest of the results. Further down, there is another review which also uses LOTRO, on a higher load but with a much more uniform performance between the two. Then again, Turbine servers suck.

Quote:
In all three cases, the Realtek adapter showed very high ping peaks. The worst case was in the MMO, which occasionally hit peaks of over 1,000ms (1 second) and often hit pings over 400ms. The Killer2100 occasionally hit peak pings higher than 150ms, but those were fairly rare. LOTRO would sometimes feel less laggy with the Killer2100 during gameplay, but lag was never a glaring problem with the Realtek part. At the time we played, however, our particular server wasn’t heavily loaded.

We saw similar behavior with Team Fortress 2, but the scale was much different. Sure, the Realtek NIC would hit high peaks more often than the Killer2100—but those peaks were still shy of 45ms. We noticed no subjective difference between the two parts with TF2 on a fairly busy, 16-player server.

Like LOTRO, Borderlands would occasionally hit some very high pings with Realtek, while the Killer NIC only exceeded 400ms once (keeping well below 100ms the rest of the time.) Again, though, the subjective experience between the two sessions felt no different.


Quote:
The bottom line is that the Killer2100 does what Bigfoot promises—lowers ping times while maintaining high throughput. But unless you’re a twitchy pro gamer, you probably won’t notice any subjective difference.


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/bigfoot_killer...

Quote:
We started with our file transfer tests, which involved transferring large folders of files over a private network between two identical computers. When transferring a folder full of large files between the two computers the Killer 2100 did make a difference, if only a slight one. With the Killer 2100 involved in the transfer, whether sending or receiving the data, we saw transfer speeds of 11.1MB/sec. This result is slightly above the result seen when transferring data between the on-board controllers, but only by 0.3MB/sec.

The Killer 2100 had a problem when it came to organizing small files however, as we saw transfer speeds of only 5.69MB/sec when the Killer 2100-equipped PC was sending this type of file over the network. This was well behind the speeds we saw for the other two transfers and indicates that the Killer 2100 may struggle when bombarded by thousands of tiny files. It’s all very well removing the networking processing from the CPU but this isn’t a benefit if the replacement chip can’t cope with it.

Things were a lot less clear cut when it came to our games testing. Our ping remained constant while playing Team Fortress 2 regardless of whether we had the Killer 2100 installed or not. We also saw our frame rates drop with the Killer 2100 installed, a surprising result given that the card claims to keep your frame rates consistently high when gaming. The Killer 2100 had more of an effect in Call of Duty 4 though, with our ping dropping by around 3ms when using the Killer 2100. Frame rates also saw a small boost with the Killer 2100 installed.

Our time with CS:S did little to tip opinion either in favour or against the Killer 2100. We saw a tiny improvement in ping with the Killer 2100 equipped but our framerates remained constant. Our GRID testing was limited to measuring framerates as we couldn’t get the game to show us our ping. Unfortunately for Bigfoot our framerates remained the same when we added the Killer 2100 to our test rig.



http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2010/09/02/killer-2100...

Quote:
Conclusion
It says a lot that it was so difficult for us to see any tangible difference from the Killer 2100 despite our best efforts to test in a scientific and consistent way. Even in our theoretical tests where we could control the variables of our local, private network we saw little benefit from the Killer 2100.

When gaming we saw little difference between our (free) on-board network controller and the Killer 2100 in terms of ping and frame rate. The only advantage we found was that the Killer 2100 allowed us to download in the background while gaming - possibly handy if you buy loads of games via download services but haven't the patience to wait for those downloads. This makes it very difficult to recommend the Killer 2100 as, at the end of the day, everyone wants some kind of tangible benefit for their £68.

For the gamer who has everything, the Killer 2100 could be a consideration, as we did see very slight ping improvements in CoD 4 and CSS, after all. Having said that, you might see better improvements in online gaming performance by spending that £70 ditching your ISP and getting a more gamer-friendly one (pay close attention to whether, and how much, gaming traffic is throttled). Alternatively, invest in a new mouse or keyboard, or put the money toward a larger monitor.


http://www.xsreviews.co.uk/reviews/other-products/bigfo...

Quote:
At points in MW2, the ping bars did show as being higher when using the Killer 2100 than the D-Link. However, in general, there was little to no difference. I certainly didn't feel any.

Ok so while it may not seem to make a massive difference, the Killer 2100 perhaps offers a slightly more stable platform for LoL gaming, though it's not particularly noticeable.


http://www.totalpcgaming.com/hardware/networking-hardwa...

Quote:

Having played with some of the advanced settings too, we jumped into a game of Lord Of The Rings Online and wandered into a populous low-level hub: frame rates averaged around five percent more than using the onboard Ethernet, but with Fraps registering 100 FPS spiking to 130 in places, lag just wasn’t an issue.

Unreal Tournament 3 yielded more significant results with a ping that more than halved after installing the Killer 2100, while in file tranfer tests it was comparable with the integrated NIC.

Our results make the Killer 2100 sound like Bigfoot has created a component for a problem that doesn’t really exist – and indeed, we didn’t have a problem with lag in any of our games in the first place, though there were noticeable gains from dumping processes onto the dedicated NPU.

For online gamers with latency problems though, the Killer 2100 will make a much bigger difference, improving frame rates in online shooters and reducing rubber-banding in MMOs, as well as proving a far more cost effective solution than upgrading other components or risking heat-death by further overclocking your CPU.
m
0
l
!