Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Performance increase?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 14, 2012 2:45:21 AM

Hello,
Currently I am upgrading my CPU from an Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.2 ghz. To an FX-6200 (6 core) 3.8 ghz. CPU.
I am curious as to how much of a performance increase there will be. Will it be noticeable in browsing as well as gaming?

More about : performance increase

a c 185 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 2:48:19 AM

A better option would be a Phenom II X4 or a Sandybridge i5.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:19:18 AM

Would rather have the newer tech. Also no Intel.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 283 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:21:04 AM

xa376 said:
Would rather have the newer tech. Also no Intel.


A SB or IB i5 destroys a 6200 in almost everything and a higher end Phenom II X4 is better too. Hell, go with an i3. Still better than a 6200 for "internet browsing" and gaming.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:22:30 AM

Ok, but will I notice a performance increase in my computer? (for the FX-6200)
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:24:54 AM

xa376 said:
Ok, but will I notice a performance increase in my computer? (for the FX-6200)


Of course, but if you want to upgrade, you might as well go with something that's truly good, unlike the 6200. The only FX CPU's worth owning are the 81xx CPU's.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:27:14 AM

So why would the 8150 be worth it if I wouldn't need the extra 2 cores and it would operate at .2 ghz slower?
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:30:20 AM

xa376 said:
So why would the 8150 be worth it if I wouldn't need the extra 2 cores and it would operate at .2 ghz slower?


For other purposes besides gaming. I wouldn't get a 81xx for that either, but it's still a better buy than a 6200. Seriously though, an i3 or a slightly OC'd Phenom II X4 will out perform the 6200 in games (and a 81xx too, actually). Wait for Piledriver if you're hell bent on a BD architecture CPU.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:36:49 AM

Well Piledriver is (supposively) 15% faster than Bulldozer. 6200 being 3.8 ghz +15% = 4.37 ghz. Would that not then be better than an i5?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 471 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:42:03 AM

You will see an improvement. Arguably, the FX CPUs performs as well as Core 2 Duo / Quad CPUs at the same clock speeds. Therefore, a FX-6200 @ 3.8GHz vs the older Core 2 Duo @ 2.2GHz should perform 73% better when taking into consideration 2 cores. When more than 2 cores are used the performance will be even greater. Note that this is just raw potential performance, not actual performance. For example if you were to overclock your Core 2 Duo by 10%, that does not mean all benchmark performance will improve by 10%. It may be more like between 4% - 7% depending on the program being benchmarked.

Also note that there are very few games that can use 4 cores, BF3 being one of those very few games.
Share
a c 283 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:42:28 AM

xa376 said:
Well Piledriver is (supposively) 15% faster than Bulldozer. 6200 being 3.8 ghz +15% = 4.37 ghz. Would that not then be better than an i5?


LOL, Nope. BD can't even even match first gen Core Intel's, so matching and/or exceeding a current i5 with Piledriver is just a pipe dream. AMD really screwed up with the BD architecture. It may make more sense in the future, but for now, it's a mess.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:49:04 AM

AMD is shooting for a performance increase of between 5% - 15% for every newly released CPU generation. Therefore, expecting 15% will be shooting for the high end of that range. Too early to tell what it's actual performance increase will be.

However, assuming a 15% increase, that means PileDriver's performance would be approximately between the performance of the 1st and 2nd gen Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs if the clock speeds were the same.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 3:52:00 AM

Well im assuming a 10% increase. However users of Windows 8 notice AMD CPU's to be 5% faster (now that windows 8 supports FX chipsets).
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
June 14, 2012 3:54:59 AM

xa376 said:
Well im assuming a 10% increase. However users of Windows 8 notice AMD CPU's to be 5% faster (now that windows 8 supports FX chipsets).


5% is just about at the high end of what I expect from any performance increase with Win 8. Just don't bet on it... Software improvements can't make up for horrible IPC.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 4:02:13 AM

Best answer selected by xa376.
m
0
l
June 14, 2012 4:34:43 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
For other purposes besides gaming. I wouldn't get a 81xx for that either, but it's still a better buy than a 6200.


It's actually been proven that the higher end FX processors are not worth the money, and the only one nearly worth the money is the FX-4100, as it is very cheap, and you can still overclock it. At higher price points, you might as well go with Intel.

Currently on Newegg (offer ends in 4 days [6/18]) the FX-4100 is $99.99, after the promo, it's $109.99. Under $100 is starting to approach a good bargain. If I see it drop to $90 or $80, I'd most likely buy it to upgrade off my Propus.
m
0
l
!