Which CPU specs to go for?

[A Traveller]

Hi all.

My questions are regarding the following CPUs.

AMD Phenom II X2 560/565 - 3.3/3.4GHz, L3 cache 6MB

AMD Phenom II X4 840 - 3.2 GHz, L3 cache N/A

The pc is is for general use and video/multimedia. I have seen two different opinions. One is to choose a quad core because future software will benefit from it and the other is that a faster dual core would be better than a slower quad core, as the quad core may be slower than the dual core in some cases.

My main worry is that why is the Phenom II x4 840 the ONLY Phenom to not have an L3 cache, according to what I have understood from my research. Am I missing something? How does the missing L3 cache affect my decision?

Any clarification would be appreciated as usual.

Thanks.

Edit - I have just read that the Phenom II x4 840 should really be called an Athlon-II X4-650. I think I'm leaning more towards the Phenom II X2 560/565 because it SLIGHTLY faster and has an L3 cache. Do these reasons make sense?

[MJA]

did u buy the MB already?

[deadrats]

it's funny you should mention it but i have both a x2 550 and an x4 620, despite what anyone tells you with regards to the higher clock speed of the dual core, the quad is the better overall chip, offering a much smoother computing experience and if plan on doing video, as you indicate you will, the quad core will run rings around the dual core.

[jagabo]

There's essentially no difference between 3.2 and 3.3 GHz. Not worth worrying about. L3 cache rarely makes any significant difference. Get the quad if you do any video encoding. The exception might be if you plan on overclocking.

I couldn't find any direct comparisons of the X2 560 and X4 840, but here is a comparison of the X2 560 and an Athlon X4 640 (3 GHz, no L3):

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Roundups/amd_pii_560_aii_645/5.html

The A2 X4 640 blows the 560 away.

Ah, here we go: X2 560 vs X4 840, x264:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=662&Itemid=63&li...&limitstart=10

Again, the 840 blows the 560 away. Even in the single threaded benchmarks (eg, Cinebench), where the 560 has the clock speed and L3 cache advantage, it's win is tiny.

[MJA]

I was going to suggest buying the new AMD A8-3850 chip if you didn't buy already the motherboard since you are not a gamer that way you can save some money

[jagabo]

I was going to suggest buying the new AMD A8-3850 chip if you didn't buy already the motherboard since you are not a gamer that way you can save some money

Yeah, that would be a good choice too.

[A Traveller]

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

MJA, no I have not yet bought the motherboard. The options I am considering are in the following thread.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/335889-Suitable-motherboard-for-Ubuntu

Thanks for the advice, deadrats.

Thanks jagabo, your second link is where I had read that the 840 should really be called an Athlon, small world!

MJA/jagabo, the motherboard needs to have onboard IDE as I don't like the look of those flimsy bits of circuitry available that converts SATA to IDE. I am also leaning very much towards Gigabyte and by the looks of it, none of their FM1 motherboards have IDE. There's also not much choice when it comes to compatibility with processors if I wish to change CPUs, for example, I won't be able to use my old Phenom II if I need to one day.

As suggested by all your good advice, I may go for a quad core CPU but maybe one which is just slightly higher than the 840.

Thanks everyone.

[nic2k4]

Can you find out the 840 part number? If it's HD840TWFK4DGR, then it's a nice CPU worth getting. If it's that other one that doesn't deserve the Phenom name, you'd be better off with PhenomII x2 555. It's in the same price range and can be unlocked to up to quad cores with a board that has Advanced Clock Calibration in the BIOS.

As for a board with IDE, there are still plenty that offer at least one IDE port, but that's it. Those little converters do a decent job and get this, I've seen the same bridge chips built in on WD IDE drives. If you need more IDE ports, get an add-on card.

I've been playing with computer hardware for nearly 20 years and now I realise that all that stuff has become a commodity with the same value as a toaster. There's no use holding on to your old CPU, sell it while it's still worth something. If and when you need another CPU, you can go and buy one from someone who's selling his old stuff while it's still worth something.

[Bix]

I have a 840 and have been loving it.

Supposedly, the deal with it being branded a Phenom is that at 3.1 Ghz or higher, the performance is comparable. L3 cache doesn't matter much if you're not a big gamer. More details from Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416.html

[A Traveller]

Thanks for your advice/information nic2k4/Bix.

I now find myself in a similar position as I do whenever I decide to buy something, which is setting my sights low at the start and by the time I've done all the relevant research and saying "it's only a little price higher to pay for a better spec" CONTINUOUSLY and by doing so, eventually find myself considering the best product!!!!

Anyhow, as I have mentioned, I will probably never be doing any overclocking. I don't play any games at all at present, but would like my pc to be capable of doing so if the need arises. Even then, it'll only be on Linux and probably some flight sim or the other, not much else.

I would like to edit video, ie, remove parts from video, join two parts together, maybe add sound to video, etc, nothing fancy at all. I do sometimes play video in one player and separate audio in another player and I also open several tabs in my web browser. Playing the highest quality video on my pc and having the video remain in the same quality after editing is the most important thing I want from the pc.

I also tend to use the same motherboard and CPU for several years (over five years at least, possibly ten years) so future proofing is important.

My question is, what would be the better processor for me from the following two ignoring their costs.

AMD Phenom II X4 980 3.7GHz

or

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3 GHz

Thanks.

[Bix]

The X6 1100T has a higher Passmark benchmarking score at least:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X4+980
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X6+1100T

Also, make your you get an AM3+ motherboard so you can upgrade to one of the Bulldozer CPUs that are coming out in the Fall.

[A Traveller]

Thanks Bix.

I was thinking Gigabyte GA-890GPA-UD3H but it'd have to be AM3 and not AM3+ as there aren't many available in the UK the tiny few that are found are quite expensive.

[redwudz]

That's the MB in my PC specs. I've been happy with it. To save money, I got a X6 1055T and OC'd it to 3.5Ghz with Corsair water cooling. Does really well with H.264 encodes.

[A Traveller]

Hi redwudz. That motherboard does have everything I need except it's not AM3+ and I don't like messing with BIOS afterwards. I have tried to find one of these in version 3.0 or 3.1 at a normal price, but couldn't.

Anyhow, I do not know anything about editing video yet and will have to learn the basics (which should be sufficient for what I want to do) so I won't know what will be required of my CPU.

Am I correct in thinking that the X4 980 3.7 GHz CPU would be faster than the X6 1100T 3.3 GHz CPU for single threaded applications? If that's correct, wouldn't the x4 be better for me since I don't know if I'll ever be using a multi threaded application? I'm thinking that I'll always be using the 'speed' of the processor, but extra cores may never be utilised at all!

Thanks.

[redwudz]

For single threaded applications, the quad core should be fine. I'm thinking MPEG-2 encoding, most video filters and most editing. The six core is more suitable for multi-threaded capable codecs like H.264, and probably Divx as it can multithreaded. Multiple cores are also better for multitasking where you may be running several applications at the same time.

The only time I hit 100% on all six cores is during H.264 encodes. But I do a lot of them, so the six core was a good choice.

I like that MB also because it has eight SATA connections which I use, along with a add-on card for two more eSata connections. The video and HDMI output is also sufficient for high definition video without needed a separate video card.

[A Traveller]

Thanks redwudz.

'Multiple cores are also better for multitasking where you may be running several applications at the same time.'

In that case, I think the x6 would be better. But then again, x4 would be good enough for that anyway! Ok, I've gone for the x6.

Thanks everyone for all the help and good advice.

[jagabo]

Am I correct in thinking that the X4 980 3.7 GHz CPU would be faster than the X6 1100T 3.3 GHz CPU for single threaded applications?

Of course the X4 is faster for single threaded programs -- but only by about 10 percent at best, barely noticeable. How many single threaded programs do you run where you're waiting for the computer to finish? Even most of those are probably disk bound, not CPU bound. Most programs where you sit around for minutes or hours waiting for the computer to finish are multithreaded already. And the worst offenders (h.264 encoding and decoding, for example) are very well multithreaded -- the X6 will be much faster than the X4.

If you're so concerned about the speed of single threaded, CPU bound, programs you should be looking at Intel Sandy Bridge processors with Turbo Boost.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2423.html?prod%5B47...d%5B4757%5D=on

See the audio encoding benchmarks with lame or itunes, single threaded cinebench, etc.

Or maybe you should wait to see what the AMD bulldozer chips can do in a few months.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/07/bulldozer-prototype-suggests-amd-shooting-...erformance.ars

[A Traveller]

Thanks jagabo. I've gone for the x6.

Now that I've managed to decide on the CPU, I'm thinking if it would be a good idea to get a separate heatsink fan for it. I understand that the fan that comes with it will be sufficient with regards to COOLING as I won't be overclocking, however, I want it to be as SILENT as possible.

Thanks.

[jman98]

I've got the X6 1100T 3.3 GHz CPU on a Gigabyte motherboard using the standard AMD heatsink/fan. I don't think it's noisy at all. My case fans make more noise. Note that AMD policy is that using ANY 3rd party cooler violates their warranty. And many of those 3rd party coolers are so big that they take up space over where the memory goes. I found it easier to just keep the standard AMD heatsink and use it. I do not overclock.

I believe that you said you are going to use a Gigabyte motherboard, which is good. At first I tried an Asus motherboard and I ended up shipping it back to NewEgg. I won't ever buy Asus again. Their designs for AMD CPUs are terrible. It required King Kong type strength to attach the heatsink/fan to the CPU because of the bad design. It was a piece of cake to get the standard heatsink/fan attached on the Gigabyte motherboard I'm using.

[redwudz]

I don't know what heatsink AMD includes with their X6 CPUs at present, but mine was a nice heat pipe design with a copper base. That motherboard is set up for PWM (Pulse Width Modulated) fans and the CPU should come with one. You need to set that in BIOS. When activated, the fan can be very quiet, in fact it can even shut off if the CPU is really cool. A PWM fan has a 4 conductor connector, so easy to spot. Easy to set in BIOS.

If you do have your MB already picked out, I would DL the manual from the manufacturer and go over that while the parts are shipping. That makes it much easier when you do the assembly. If you're not familiar with BIOS, good time to learn about it there even if you don't OC.

If you need any info on assembly, I have a old post about that with a PDF guide that still seems to be up: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/255934-Guide-How-to-Build-a-Basic-Computer?

[A Traveller]

Thanks for the very helpful advice jman98. I'll stick with the standard fan then. I've never had a quiet pc before. If it is left on overnight, the annoying whirring sound doesn't help with trying to get to sleep! I can also easily hear that the pc is on in my room even if I stand outside the room with the door closed. At the moment I have a Gigabyte GA-MA785GT-UD3H and Phenom II 545 (I think) with the standard fan.

Hi redwudz. Thanks for the info about PWM. I wasn't aware of all that. Thanks for the link on pc assembly. You provided it when I was building my first pc nearly two years ago, haha. It is due to having problems with that very same pc that I am having to buy this new hardware! You may not be aware of the problems since I had posted it in the Linux board. I did not expect to spend on any of the main parts of the pc for at least another five years yet, maybe even ten! Anyhow, I am not building an entirely new pc. It is only the motherboard, cpu and case that I'm changing. All the parts I bought were good ones and should all be working fine. Well, I HOPE they are because recently I've been having a very strange problem, which would be better to post in a separate thread. Your assembly post should come in very handy indeed as I'll be moving all the parts to the new case so it'll be like fitting a whole pc and I will have forgotten some important steps since it's been nearly two years since my first build.

[redwudz]

As long as your computer case has decent air circulation via front and rear case fans, the CPU fan shouldn't wind up too much. And I'm guessing that your room temp isn't high, which can also cause the CPU fans to run faster. The general rule is larger fans turn slower and are quieter. 120mm case fans are usually fairly quiet. But even with 80mm case fans, there are quite a few that aren't noisy and still move enough air for good case ventilation.

[jagabo]

Yes, use 120mm (or larger, but they aren't common) whenever possible. They can move more air at lower speeds so they are quieter.

Some power supply fans are louder than others. Look for 120mm fans there too.

[A Traveller]

Thanks redwudz/jagabo. You can help me decide which case to buy in my other thread about big pc cases. I'm sure I'll have a few questions after conducting my research! Haha.

[A Traveller]

Hi it's me again. I've only just realised when I was looking to purchase the motherboard that the 'since BIOS version' in the CPU support list is FGF. Whatever on Earth that means!!!! Does that mean that my motherboard requires BIOS version FGF in order to use the 1100T CPU? If so, how do I find this information prior to purchasing the board? In some cases, the retailer doesn't even know what version the board is!

http://uk.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=3516

I did some research and came across the following threads at various websites, but am still unsure what it all means for me regarding using the 1100T CPU with the GA-890GPA-UD3H motherboard. I will be getting a revision 2.1 board.

http://forums.techarena.in/motherboard-processor-ram/1422129.htm
http://forum.giga-byte.co.uk/index.php?topic=6270.0
http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/5863-Award-amp-AMI-Bios-mod-requests./page2792

Would anyone be kind enough to explain what this means for me? I really do not want to be updating BIOS myself. Will I need to?

Thanks!

Edit - I also found the following link

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3516&dl=1#bios

Edit - Ok, I've found some bad news. According to one customer review, who has the same combination of motherboard and CPU, the motherboard doesn't recognise the CPU and they had to buy a cheap CPU in order to flash the BIOS and then remove that CPU and install the 1100T, after which it worked. The LAST thing I want to do! How annoying! On the plus side, I do already have my Phenom II 545 which I'll be removing anyway in order to send the motherboard to Gigabyte for RMA, however, the last thing I wanted was to mess about with the thermal paste aspect of changing processors. Just GREAT!!!!

[nic2k4]

Would anyone be kind enough to explain what this means for me? I really do not want to be updating BIOS myself. Will I need to?

Yes you will have to, they won't ship a new m/b with a beta BIOS, plus FGF has reduced functionality. Your best bet is a PhenomII 1090T; the difference in speed is negligeable and the AMD's do well with a little overclocking. You can easily boost the clock 5% with the stock cooler, even 10% works if your room temperature isn't too high (above 25C). I wouldn't put too much emphasise on being able to do a CPU upgrade with the same old board 2-3 years down the road.

Just look at the track record so far, socket 754, socket 940, socket 939, AM2, AM2+, AM3. The first 3 went obsolete in no time on account of the memory controller being integrated to the CPU. Even though the AM2 series is still a 939 pin socket, you can't use an AthlonII in a socket 939 board since it's designed for DDR memory (AM2 CPU's are DDR2). With AM3 CPU's, the controller is DDR2/3 capable and some older AM2 boards can take an AM3 CPU, but the slower HT bus reduces performance; and that's only if a BIOS upgrade is provided. Also, technology changes faster than before; the thing to get today is SATA3 and USB3, but there's already talk of a new faster interface coming. The upgrade myth is something that dates back from the days of 386/486, when a cheap m/b would cost $300 and CPU's were even more expensive. When you can buy a new board and CPU for under $100 (and getting cheaper) it's hard to make due with lower performance.

As for messing about with thermal paste, just buy a replacement cooler with the paste already applied.

[jagabo]

I agree. If you're buying near the top of CPU line don't count on being able to upgrade in a few years. If you're going to buy near the bottom you may be able to upgrade in a few years (to what's at the top now). Even then, the parts may become scarce.

[A Traveller]

Thanks for the explanation and replies nic2k4/jagabo. I appreciate your taking the time!

'Your best bet is a PhenomII 1090T'

I'm afraid I've already purchased the 1100T. I have not yet bought the motherboard but have my heart TOTALLY set on the one in question.

'I wouldn't put too much emphasise on being able to do a CPU upgrade with the same old board 2-3 years down the road.'

That's ok, I usually don't change computers until they stop working so I'd be hoping to get a lot of mileage out of it without upgrading.

'the thing to get today is SATA3 and USB3'

I think the motherboard has these.

'As for messing about with thermal paste, just buy a replacement cooler with the paste already applied.'

Why can't they just design these motherboards so that the whole heatsink and fan can be lifted off (and re-fitted) with the processor???? What I can do is not install the new CPU first but skip straight to installing my old CPU and updating BIOS and then removing the old CPU and installing the new CPU. That way, I won't need to have to clean and re-paste my new CPU as it can go on once and stay on.

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse, I've just noticed that BIOS updates list the operating systems they can be used with. I'm on Ubuntu Linux! I never thought BIOS updates had anything to do with the OS. Has anyone ever seen the method of updating BIOS for Ubuntu?!?!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=318789

I am well and truly stumped!!!!

[jagabo]

Generally, the BIOS can't update the BIOS. It would be like you removing your brain to implant a new brain. Once you've removed your brain you can no longer function! But I think the motherboard you are looking at has a dual BIOS -- it may be able to update one BIOS while running the other.

BIOS updates used to come as simple binary files and a DOS update program. You had to make a bootable floppy and copy the program and update file to the disk, boot the disc, the run the program. It's considered a great step forward to have a Windows program to update the BIOS! I guess it will take another great leap to get a Linux based updater.

[johns0]

Most newer motherboards can update the bios through the bios using mounted harddrives and usb drives,i've been doing it that way for the past few years now with no problems at all using hdds or usb drives.