Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX6300.. worth it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX6300.. worth it? - Page 5

post #41 of 46
that was the 10-20% that i was talking about
post #42 of 46
I thought people were over that whole "Phenom II still is better than FX" thing. Piledriver > Thuban for some things, neck and neck with everything else. As a PCSX2 user, we've taken just about every post-A64-era AMD CPU, and APU, and overclocked the hell out of them for the purpose of the CPU benchmark. This emulator being very CPU-intensive, it generally shows you the performance you could get clock for clock. Phenom II would generally get you 1.5fps per 100 MHz. The Sandy Bridge would get you 2fps per 100 MHz. The benchmark showed that FX Piledriver generally outperformed Phenom II. Phenom II generally tops out around 4.0~4.2 GHz.

We have a Phenom II x6 1090T which was clocked at 4.2 GHz. It scored 60.94fps (the general goal of this benchmark is to get at least 60fps, which would generally ensure you could run most games without having to use speedhacks at full speed. Since the PS2 was bound to the refresh rate of your TV, fps in this sense means % of refresh rate. If you get 40fps in a game, for example, the game will be going in slow motion because it's not running at the speed it was on the original PS2.)

The closest result for the FX-6300 was a result at the stock clock of 3.5 GHz, where the FX-6300 gets 56.94 fps. The next highest is the same chip at 4.8 GHz, where it gets 70.64 fps. Here are some more:

Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.33 Ghz OC: 48.05 fps (Turbo core off)
Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.33 Ghz OC: 53.33 fps (Turbo core on)
FX-6300 @ 3.5 Ghz stock: 53.36 (Turbo core off)

So basically, Phenom II and Vishera are just about neck and neck with each other, with Vishera being faster clock for clock (though nothing massive). This program favors the Intel architectures, but otherwise shows how a CPU will perform very accurately. The program isn't strongly multi-threaded; under normal use, two threads are used for most of the emulation, and a third thread can optionally be used to process the VU1 unit which provides a nice boost for most games. The benchmark runs in software mode, only using two threads.

Seeing as how the Vishera can easily clock a lot higher than PII can, we usually recommend that to people who are already on an AM3+ socket, but want an upgrade from their current whatever.

However, going from a PII x6 to a Vishera... As a few have said, it's mostly a side-grade. You can get more performance out of the Vishera, but it would be up to the user if they really wanted to spend $130 for a bit more performance than they're already getting.
post #43 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixson01974 View Post

Yes and no.
For GPU base games then yes.
For CPU base games then no.

It's okay guys, I've upgraded to an i5-4570. It's a lot faster than the Phenom.
Mike Wazowski
(8 items)
 
  
Reply
Mike Wazowski
(8 items)
 
  
Reply
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaroonGTX View Post

I thought people were over that whole "Phenom II still is better than FX" thing. Piledriver > Thuban for some things, neck and neck with everything else. As a PCSX2 user, we've taken just about every post-A64-era AMD CPU, and APU, and overclocked the hell out of them for the purpose of the CPU benchmark. This emulator being very CPU-intensive, it generally shows you the performance you could get clock for clock. Phenom II would generally get you 1.5fps per 100 MHz. The Sandy Bridge would get you 2fps per 100 MHz. The benchmark showed that FX Piledriver generally outperformed Phenom II. Phenom II generally tops out around 4.0~4.2 GHz.

We have a Phenom II x6 1090T which was clocked at 4.2 GHz. It scored 60.94fps (the general goal of this benchmark is to get at least 60fps, which would generally ensure you could run most games without having to use speedhacks at full speed. Since the PS2 was bound to the refresh rate of your TV, fps in this sense means % of refresh rate. If you get 40fps in a game, for example, the game will be going in slow motion because it's not running at the speed it was on the original PS2.)

The closest result for the FX-6300 was a result at the stock clock of 3.5 GHz, where the FX-6300 gets 56.94 fps. The next highest is the same chip at 4.8 GHz, where it gets 70.64 fps. Here are some more:

Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.33 Ghz OC: 48.05 fps (Turbo core off)
Phenom II x6 1055T @ 3.33 Ghz OC: 53.33 fps (Turbo core on)
FX-6300 @ 3.5 Ghz stock: 53.36 (Turbo core off)

So basically, Phenom II and Vishera are just about neck and neck with each other, with Vishera being faster clock for clock (though nothing massive). This program favors the Intel architectures, but otherwise shows how a CPU will perform very accurately. The program isn't strongly multi-threaded; under normal use, two threads are used for most of the emulation, and a third thread can optionally be used to process the VU1 unit which provides a nice boost for most games. The benchmark runs in software mode, only using two threads.

Seeing as how the Vishera can easily clock a lot higher than PII can, we usually recommend that to people who are already on an AM3+ socket, but want an upgrade from their current whatever.

However, going from a PII x6 to a Vishera... As a few have said, it's mostly a side-grade. You can get more performance out of the Vishera, but it would be up to the user if they really wanted to spend $130 for a bit more performance than they're already getting.

And what about Phenom II x4 to fx 63xx or even 8320?
FX Klasse
(25 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8350 SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 MSI R9 290X Lightning MSI R9 290X Lightning 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
Corsair  Corsair  g.skill sniper gaming series 16gb 2400mhz ddr3 WD 1 TB  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD 320 GB OCZ vertex 3 64GB Samsung 840 Pro 128GB Seagate 250 GB  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial MX300 525 GB Samsung SH-S223L Cooler Master Glacer 240l Windows 8.1 Pro N 64 bit 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit AOC 2462w Lenovo L2261wA Razer Lycosa 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCG 750 Rosewill Future corsair vengeance m65 Turtle Beach Montego DDL 
Other
Altec Lansing ADA 995 
  hide details  
Reply
FX Klasse
(25 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD FX 8350 SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 MSI R9 290X Lightning MSI R9 290X Lightning 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
Corsair  Corsair  g.skill sniper gaming series 16gb 2400mhz ddr3 WD 1 TB  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD 320 GB OCZ vertex 3 64GB Samsung 840 Pro 128GB Seagate 250 GB  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Crucial MX300 525 GB Samsung SH-S223L Cooler Master Glacer 240l Windows 8.1 Pro N 64 bit 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit AOC 2462w Lenovo L2261wA Razer Lycosa 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Antec HCG 750 Rosewill Future corsair vengeance m65 Turtle Beach Montego DDL 
Other
Altec Lansing ADA 995 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 46
post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggidii 
And what about Phenom II x4 to fx 63xx or even 8320?

Going from a Phenom II x4 to an FX hexa- or octo-core would be an upgrade if the user were using the cores, or just wanted to get higher overclocks. In PCSX2 for example, the IPC of the Vishera chips are virtually the same for all of the chips, quad~thru~octocore, clock for clock. The hexa- and octocore variants have a bit more L3 cache than the 4300, but the 4350 bumps up the L3 cache a bit. Generally, all the FX chips are the same die anyway, just with the quad and hexa parts having 1 of 2 modules disabled. Too bad they didn't support core-unlocking...Thuban-series Phenom II's, anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Going from a Phenom II X6 to an FX6300.. worth it?