Gotta update my processor?

[Josquius]

Stellaris is running like a pig.
And I haven't updated my processor for 5 or 6 years.
I think the time may have come that I need to look into upgrading it.

Looking at the numbers for processors they don't seem to be so much faster than mine in terms of pure ghz. Where is the performance increase coming from?
What makes a good processor these days?

At the moment I'm on a M3A770DE motherboard with a  phenom ii x2 550. I guess I shall have to switch my motherboard too?
Traditionally there I've always just gone with whatever fit the processor I wanted. Valid?

And....what will this mean for my windows 10 install?
It's tied to motherboard correct?

[viper37]

Newer processor and motherboard have increase cache and bandwith meaning despite a similar clock (ghz), they can deliver information quicker to other parts of your system.  Exchange between memory (RAM), video card, motherboard and CPU are all faster.

You will need a AM3+ motherboard if you want an AMD FX processor.  Your current CPU would work in a newer board, but the new CPU will not work in your old board, unfortunately.

For gaming, you will need a 990FX AMD chipset.
The Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming could be a good motherboard choice, combined with an AMD FX-8370E for CPU would give you decent performances.

Depending on your budget, you could go for an higher CPU if you wish to.  AMD is simple: the higher the number, the better the CPU.  So FX-9590 is better, but pricier too.

Intel would give you more power for 2 times the price though, but you'd all need to upgrade your RAM to DDR4.
So if I were you, I'd stick with AMD.

AMD will appear slower in games that requires single-core performance (DirectX 9) but will beat Intel for DirectX 12 and multi-core games.

[Josquius]

Is there anything 'due' in the next few months?
I'm in a bit of a dillema as though I have the budget to afford something decent, my life might take me on the road in late summer/autumn so could be a bit of a waste to buy something fancy for my desktop right now. If its better to wait it might be wisest to do so.

So AMD is still better than intel in terms of  bang for buck?
Most games these days are using multi-core right? I remember back when I got my current one being told a faster dual was better than a quad since nothing used quad.

[Barrister]

Intel's Kaby Lake processors are due in the next few months.  It's a further iteration of the Skylake processors.  If you're looking for a reason to wait that's your reason, but really it's not going to offer anything amazing compared to Skylake.

AMD - just no.  I wish they were more competitive, I really do.  But the reviews I've seen all suggest they just aren't nearly as strong as Intel processors.

If you have a 5-6 year old system you're pretty much looking at a whole new system I'm afraid.

[viper37]

So AMD is still better than intel in terms of  bang for buck?

Well, most games are still DirectX 9.0c and use 1 or 2 cores, so unfortunately, for gaming, Intel remains the king, with an i5 4670k (it's 2 or 3 Intel generations behind the currect one, I lost count), and they could be had for a bargain, maybe.  The current Intel generation will be on a premium compared to AMD though, and you need DDR4.

Where AMD shines is for the new DirectX12 games.  Their performance trumps Intel by far, since these games use most of the cores (up to 6, beyond that, it doesn't make a difference) but unfortunately, there aren't many DX12 or Vulkan games.

And AMD also shines for everything non gaming.  My Intel is noticeably slower for copying files, encrypting, loading files, etc.

What is "due" in the next few months, by fall, is AMD's latest CPU generation.  It might have an impact on prices if they are as competitive as they promise.

I recommended an AMD system because you already had one, and I don't see the point to upgrading to the newest Intel processors if you don't also change your video card. So basically, that's a new system to make it worth your buck.

If you are willing to invest in a totally new system, then, I would recommend going Intel for now.

Most games these days are using multi-core right? I remember back when I got my current one being told a faster dual was better than a quad since nothing used quad.

No, not really, unfortunately.  The newest games coming out with newer engines will use the many cores of a CPU, but most (the vast majority) games stick with 2 cores.  On one hand of the gaming spectrum, developpers need to cater for the older computers.  On the other end of the spectrum, they need to limit their games to what a gaming console can handle.

I don't see this changing much for another 3-4 years.

List of DX12 games

[Josquius]

I just updated my graphics card a few months ago (GTX 970), so I'm already up to date there.
For intels that aren't the most recent, my existing ram should work right?

So what exactly am I looking for in terms of a good motherboard? Doesn't seem to be much in the way of specs given on stores.

Researching around intel seems to be said to be best at all but the most budget range

[Grey Fox]

Pick a CPU over at pcpartpicker & pick a Motherboard for ~150$ with features you will use.

[DontSayBanana]

At the moment I'm on a M3A770DE motherboard with a  phenom ii x2 550. I guess I shall have to switch my motherboard too?
Traditionally there I've always just gone with whatever fit the processor I wanted. Valid?

And....what will this mean for my windows 10 install?
It's tied to motherboard correct?

Wow, and I thought my processor (x4 945T) was aging badly.

The silver lining is that's far enough behind the curve that you don't need to wait for the next big thing to see a pretty significant boost in capability, pretty much any current-gen system above the "budget" category is something I think you'll be pleased with.

For your Windows install, you just call up Microsoft and explain your auth won't work because you've done a mobo swap, and they'll set it up so you can activate Windows with the new hardware.

[Josquius]

I'm looking at this one:
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/amd-fx-9590-vishera-am3-470ghz-unlocked-processors-458189
FX9590.
Only 4 beers more than the FX 8370.
'tis good?
I guess I need a pretty awesome fan.

Motherboard I've no clue as said. So many pretty similar with slightly different prices. Any pros and cons of different companies?
Doubt I need any special features like crossfire and all that.
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/asrock-990fx-extreme3-am3-amd-990fx-atx-motherboards-290207
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/asus-m5a99x-evo-r2-am3-amd-990x-atx-motherboards-374018

And any particularly great companies/features for coolers?

[DontSayBanana]

I'm looking at this one:
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/amd-fx-9590-vishera-am3-470ghz-unlocked-processors-458189
FX9590.
Only 4 beers more than the FX 8370.
'tis good?
I guess I need a pretty awesome fan.

Motherboard I've no clue as said. So many pretty similar with slightly different prices. Any pros and cons of different companies?
Doubt I need any special features like crossfire and all that.
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/asrock-990fx-extreme3-am3-amd-990fx-atx-motherboards-290207
https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/asus-m5a99x-evo-r2-am3-amd-990x-atx-motherboards-374018

And any particularly great companies/features for coolers?

Personal opinion, but I prefer Asus over ASRock.  If you're going to get into an ultra-high end build like that, though, you may want to invest in either a water cooling system or concentrate more on a case designed for good airflow.  Running a 9590 with a high-end graphics card will generate MAJOR heat across that board- that's a 220W processor, not a 95W or even a 125.

[viper37]

I guess I need a pretty awesome fan.

Yes if you want to overclock.  Otherwise, the stock fan is very decent.  It will give you good cooling performances for 1-2 years until it breaks, then you need to replace it.

If you want to compare your CPU to others:
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-FX-9590
as you can see, the Intel i7 4790k gives you a lot more power, nearly twice as much, but so is the price.  Value/$ is very similar.

And a full review here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/6

Motherboard I've no clue as said. So many pretty similar with slightly different prices. Any pros and cons of different companies?

https://www.digitec.ch/en/s1/product/asus-m5a99x-evo-r2-am3-amd-990x-atx-motherboards-374018

I too prefer Asus.  This seems a very decent board.

And any particularly great companies/features for coolers?

Liquid cooling is nice, apparently.  Let's you overclock much more. 
If you want to go air cooling, this is the model I have for my own system
http://zalman.com/global/product/Product_Read.php?Idx=416
I had it for my AMD as well as my newer Intel system.  I quite like it, as much as air cooling goes.

[Josquius]

Fair point on the wattage. Never looked into that one. Heat is a problem and I don't want to setup a full water cooling system at the moment.

The trouble with going i7 as you say seems to be having to buy all new ram. So its not twice as much.
i5 though seems that it will handle ddr3 and prices are comparable. It ranks higher on some metrics too. I think thats what I'm comparing to.
The 8 to 4 drop core seems big lower overall speed also...Other specs too are lower across the board. Wonder how it performs better.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

Integrated graphics seems to be the area where it scores high....which is irrelevant to me no? If you've a graphics card it just isn't used. Hope that isn't where it scores its points.

Oddly lower intels are coming out better

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K



I am heavily leaning intelwards due to the heat thing.
I do use my computer heavily for stuff other than gaming but I don't have any speed problems there even now.

[viper37]

The 8 to 4 drop core seems big lower overall speed also...Other specs too are lower across the board. Wonder how it performs better.

Intel uses Hyperthreading, AMD uses Multi-threading.  Multi-threading is not supported by the vast majority of games out there.
To make it simple: Intel has faster core speeds, AMD has more cores.
Now, with DirectX 9 through 11, the way it works is this:
C1=C2; C3=C4, C5=C6; etc.   Instructions are executed sequentially.  They fill 2 core's capacity, then they move to the others.
If you have very fast cores, and like Intel a way to emulate the second core by logically splitting your cores (an Intel i5 has two physical cores, but it is being reported as having 4 since it uses virtual cores; same for i7, 4 "real" cores, 8 reported).

So Intel is able to produce faster CPUs that generate less heat since they have less physical cores.  Each individual core is faster than anything AMD has to offer.  Given the way games are coded, it results in faster performances since 6 or your 8 AMD cores are barely used.


With DirectX12 (and Vulkan)
C1=C2=C3=C4=C5=C6; C7=C8.  Instructions are executed on the first 6 cores, than they may use the next 2.
This would have given AMD a solid boost, 3 years ago.  Nowadays, Intel has closed the gap.
And there are but an handful of DX12&Vulkan games out there, less than a dozen out and planned for the next year.

So, gaming wise, Intel will remain the undisputed king for a while.  The new AMD platforum might be competitive for middle of the run CPUs, but I expect Intel to still remain at the very top, where it can sell CPUs at 1000$/piece and above.  The kind of system you and I don't buy
In any case, Zen could introduce a positive change for middle of the run CPUs that intel currently sells 400-500$ each.  If AMD can introduce the same performance for 250-300$, there will be pressure down for these products.  But not before late fall or winter, as they launch presumably around september/october (no clear date has been given).

Going back to your FX CPU, it will be great for copying files, burning DVDs, encrypting/decrypting, bacially everything non gaming.
But when it comes to gaming, an older Intel i5 4670k will perform better than your FX under most games.  The i7 will be about on par for everything, but generate less heat.  With these generation of CPUs, you can still use DDR3 ram.  However, going that way, if you find a board (they are becoming harder to find is you want to buy new hardware), you can practically forget about upgrading your CPU later on.  By the time you're ready to upgrade, it will be a new socket and require a new board the support DDR4 for the new generations CPU since the other ones will have been phased out.


You can use www.pcpartpicker.com to help you build it without forgetting anything and resolving conflict.

Integrated graphics seems to be the area where it scores high....which is irrelevant to me no? If you've a graphics card it just isn't used. Hope that isn't where it scores its points.

That's pointless to you.  Even with DirectX12 games, you still can't use your onboard (well, onchip) adapter to supplement your discrete GPU.
They made various attemps in the past, ever since the first 3dfx cards up do "hybrid" technology developed by AMD not so many years ago, and it's a failure.

I don't really know why.  It seems to me that it would be a boost to use your integrated graphics for web browsing and text editing and then use the discrete GPU when you need more power (drawing, 3D, games, etc).  I guess it's really hard to code properly.

Oddly lower intels are coming out better

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-4670K



I am heavily leaning intelwards due to the heat thing.
I do use my computer heavily for stuff other than gaming but I don't have any speed problems there even now.

As I said, AMD will give you better performances for the price for anything else than gaming.
Gaming wise, you would need a DX12 game to achieve similar result.  So for most games, Intel will still perform better.

I don't know what's the deal with the newer Intel CPUs, why the current gen performs slower than the older gen.  I'm guessing it's because they sell so well that they didn't want to canibalize their own lines.
And DDR4 does not offer any real speed benefit for now over DDR3.

If I were you, looking to compare, say, the AMD FX 9590 vs Intel i7 4770k, I'd look at what I do with my computer.
Is gaming composed of 50% if your time spent on this computer?  Yes, go with the older Intel.  No, think of AMD.

Then there is the question of price.  Can you afford the Intel?  If not, go for the AMD, and live with the slower speed.

[Josquius]

Thanks a lot. Explains it.

I think an i7 would be stretching my budget on its own considering that I may not be using this computer much beyond the new year.
DDR3 would work with it though? That does make it slightly cheaper...but I should still resist....probably....possibly....can't make it even harder for myself!

The real curiosity is the different types of i5 and the 4670K coming out better and cheaper than the 6600K. Which is just confusing. I need to investigate that

[viper37]

Thanks a lot. Explains it.

I think an i7 would be stretching my budget on its own considering that I may not be using this computer much beyond the new year.
DDR3 would work with it though? That does make it slightly cheaper...but I should still resist....probably....possibly....can't make it even harder for myself!

The real curiosity is the different types of i5 and the 4670K coming out better and cheaper than the 6600K. Which is just confusing. I need to investigate that

i5 6600k is the new generation and it requires DDR4.
i5 4670k is the old generation.  Faster than anything AMD for gaming, no more stuttering in my games.  However, copying files or burning a DVD is excruciatingly long compared to my older AMD FX.  The lower

I have the i5 4670k and I'm considering upgrading to an i7 4770k because it will be faster for non gaming applications.  But in games, so far, with graphic settings at maximum and even some more graphically intensive mods, Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, an heavily modded Skyrim with 2k-4k textures... that has no given me no noticeable problem speed-wise.

Looking at the prices in Canada, the i5-4670k and the FX 9590 seems about the same.

If you find the right board and CPU new, it might be better to switch to Intel.  It is possible it will be easier to sell in a few months.

I have the Asus MAXIMUS VII HERO and I quite like it, but it might be hard to find.  It's worth checking into, though.  And there are cheaper boards just as good.  You need to look for a motherboard with the Z97 chipset.  If I look at Asus, I only see 3 of them currently listed, the Z97-Pro looks good, but Z97-A would be perfect if you don't plan on overclocking much (it seems to have some feature integrated in the BIOS for that).  But maybe some stores have an older model lying in their stock.