Win 8 - four core vs. 6 core processors

[znod]

I'm currently using Win 7-64bit, 2X2GB, 180GB SSD, AMD 945 quad core, 880G motherboard.
Think of getting the Win 8 upgrade, new 4 (4170) or 6 core AMD cpu, 970 motherboard.
Would Win 8 make it worth it to get a 6 core cpu, or should I just get a faster 4 core processor (4170)?

Win8 won't do anything of special significance for you in regard to having 6 cores versus 4--in comparison to what Win7 would do. In other words, if you are happy with 4 cores versus 6 under Win7, then stick with 4 cores in Win8. Enjoy your new mobo and faster 4 core (or, maybe 6 core?). Also, enjoy Win8; I assume you know a fair amount about Win8, right? Anyway, I would not make any hardware change predicated on switching to Win8--except maybe to a mobo with UEFI from one without. Even then some, perhaps many, would not consider the price in terms of dollars and labor to be right.

 

[Coke Robot]

I'm currently using Win 7-64bit, 2X2GB, 180GB SSD, AMD 945 quad core, 880G motherboard.
Think of getting the Win 8 upgrade, new 4 (4170) or 6 core AMD cpu, 970 motherboard.
Would Win 8 make it worth it to get a 6 core cpu, or should I just get a faster 4 core processor (4170)?

Win8 won't do anything of special significance for you in regard to having 6 cores versus 4--in comparison to what Win7 would do. In other words, if you are happy with 4 cores versus 6 under Win7, then stick with 4 cores in Win8. Enjoy your new mobo and faster 4 core (or, maybe 6 core?). Also, enjoy Win8; I assume you know a fair amount about Win8, right? Anyway, I would not make any hardware change predicated on switching to Win8--except maybe to a mobo with UEFI from one without. Even then some, perhaps many, would not consider the price in terms of dollars and labor to be right.

Or if the CPU supported the Connected Standby feature.

 

[znod]

Good point. Didn't know this feature is hardware dependent. But, so it is. Still, I wouldn't change processors just to get this feature. Don't mean to demean the feature though; it is a good one. And, some probably would change processors to get the feature. Processor change cost wouldn't be a problem for me. It's the darn labor I would object to--even if what I changed to wouldn't require a mobo change. I am not too up on mobos/the processors they support lately--not sure which new processors would require a change given what I have (see my specs if interested). Just yakking. No reason to go there if not interested.

 

[Coke Robot]

Good point. Didn't know this feature is hardware dependent. But, so it is. Still, I wouldn't change processors just to get this feature. Don't mean to demean the feature though; it is a good one. And, some probably would change processors to get the feature. Processor change cost wouldn't be a problem for me. It's the darn labor I would object to--even if what I changed to wouldn't require a mobo change. I am not too up on mobos/the processors they support lately--not sure which new processors would require a change given what I have (see my specs if interested). Just yakking. No reason to go there if not interested.

I wouldn't either, but if I were to be rebuilding a system, definitely would. I'm still trying to understand how an OEM motherboard with UEFI and Secure Boot can mesh with Windows 8. It's an interesting and confusing feature.

 

[Tacoboy]

Just found out that Microsoft will raise the Win 8 Pro downloadable upgrade from the current $40.0 to $120 at the end of the month (13 days). So I guess I will at least download the upgrade and sit on it until I'm ready to replace CPU/motherboard.

 

[znod]

Just found out that Microsoft will raise the Win 8 Pro downloadable upgrade from the current $40.0 to $120 at the end of the month (13 days). So I guess I will at least download the upgrade and sit on it until I'm ready to replace CPU/motherboard.

Good idea. Check this thread out; you may want at least be sure you get the ISO.

 

[bobkn]

Or if the CPU supported the Connected Standby feature.

I'm not familiar with Connect Standby. I looked it up. It's unclear that any current desktop CPUs can support it. Do you know of any? (It would be fairly desirable.)

 

[jimbo45]

I hate to say it, because back in the day I was an AMD guy...but if it's performance you are truly after, get rid of the budget AMD CPU's and get an Intel.

Except in heavily multithreaded areas, I have seen very little difference between dual core and quad core CPU's. So, unless you spend all day encoding video or something else, I doubt you would see much real benefit from going from 4 AMD cores to 6 AMD cores or 8 AMD cores.

Hi there
I've just posted a topic that my Acer small 11.6 inch V151 laptop with an Intel i3 (DUO proceesor) in it seems to me to perform much less sluggishly than my desktop with an AMD QUAD phenom 3.2GHZ processor in it -- both machines had SSD's for the OS.

I would agree Intel these days just rings rings around AMD -- sad but true as a bit of competition does everybody good both in cost and better products.

(Also far less compatibility problems with almost any sort of software running INTEL vs AMD).
Cheers
jimbo

 

[azasadny]

I also think that competition is good for Intel, but when given the choice, I always pick Intel. I do like AMD's video cards, though...

 

[Tacoboy]

Are there any AMD six core CPUs are are considered easy overclockers?

 

[ecevit]

I use my Q9300 cpu at 3 ghz with windows 8. I don't need any cpu upgrade at the moment. I am not a gamer though.

 

[Coke Robot]

Pretty much all AMD processors are easy overclockers. In fact, some of the world records of CPU overclocking are AMD processors.

 

[Tacoboy]

Got lucky, ordered the Windows 8 upgrade disk for $29, after $40 mail in rebate.
Hopefully someone will soon put the Fx-6200 on sale.

 

[dwarfer66]

I use Radeon (AMD) video cards and have no compatibility or performance issues with Intel chipsets, motherboards or CPU's. I strongly prefer Intel CPU's because they tend to perform better in a wide range of tasks, versus the AMD CPU's, which tend to perform better in a few tasks, then the same or worse than Intel on most others. I subscribe to the "buy once, cry once" policy and I buy the best CPU I can afford and it tends to last me a long time. Case in point, I bought an Intel Quad Core 6600 way back in 2007 and I'm still using it as my daily workhorse PC!

Yeah my Q6600 lasted from 2007 till I build a new pc in august last yeah, great chip, now have a i5-3550.

 

[JLyman]

[DEL]I'm down with[/DEL] I will take no fewer than 80 cores, thank you very much.

Supermicro | Products | SuperServer | 5U | 5086B-TRF

 

[Tacoboy]

Fx-6300

Looks like the FX-6300 might be a better choice then the FX-6200.

 

[jimbo45]

I'd take a decent mulit-threaded chip for under 200 dollars that competes against a real expensive i7, where I may or may not see any other potential/performance with that.

Well, most AMD's compete with mid-line Intel i5's that can be had for around $200. It doesn't take a high-end expensive i7 to compete. An i7 around $299 (i7-3770), outperforms an $180 (AMD-8150), but scores 9474 compared to a 7733. PassMark Intel vs AMD CPU Benchmarks - High End

And in this users case, he was asking to upgrade his machine...so apparently he is looking for additional improvements.


And off the point: Cokie: Aren't you the guy who is dead set on trying to build a new computer and wants to install 15 hard drives into it??? You really want to go with a lower end cheaper CPU, but then add an absurd # of hard drives to provide a potential to store 40+TB of data...even though you have less than 1TB today?????? Sometimes I just don't get it.

Hi there
If the purpose of the system is to act as a file server with 15 HDD's then you don't really need a very fast CPU. You do need some type of hardware that's capable of delivering the speed of I/O required -- but this might be done via special hardware, some type of I/O bus / buffering capability / SCSI cards or whatever but you aren't really likely to need a mega powerful CPU as even an i3 would be able to handle programming for the I/O interrupts -- and the I/O cards should be able to offload most of the queueing and I/O data transfer away from the CPU.

(If you are running HUGE databases with complex queries which have to deliver 1000's of answers a second then another issue of course -- but we aren't talking about Airline reservation systems or Stock market trading here).

Cheers
jimbo

 

[TONSCHUH]

File-Repair via SabNZB (3770k @4200MHz):





Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Sometimes it's nice to confirm, that the last upgrade was necessary.

 

[Tacoboy]

Amd fx-4170

Ended up getting a used FX-4170 off eBay for $93 (should arrive Saturday or Monday), should work fine in the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 motherboard I installed earlier today.