• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Any good upgrade now or upcoming for AM3+ chipset??

T

thilanliyan

Lifer
Was wondering if there is any worthwhile (low power consumption, relatively good overclocking) upgrade for my FX6100 on the AM3+ chipset? This chip seems to be very difficult to overclock. I can't seem to get even 4.2GHz stable without going over 1.55v, which I don't want to do. It could also be all the other voltages which I'm not sure what they should be set to of course.

The high power consumption rules out the 8XXX or 9XXX lines I think. I don't even mind going to a 4 core as long as it overclocks well and consumes <100w.

Currently I don't want to switch out my motherboard so switching platforms completely is out of the question.

Any thoughts?
 
Given your parameters, the only AM3+ CPU available now that would perform faster than your 6100 AND use less than 100W is the 6300. It's really not a massive improvement, but if you sell your 6100, it might not really cost all that much to upgrade to Piledriver. It should be about an 18% improvement stock vs stock.
 
Not sure if still accurate, but at one point steamroller was supposed to continue on the AM 3+ platform. That would give AMD users a good path in 2014.
 
FX 6300 chips are the same wattage (95W) as your current 6100 but are faster and overclock better.

If you sold your 6100 on Ebay you'd probably be looking at a $20-$30 upgrade cost if that.

Best bet for your rig 🙂
 
daveybrat said:
FX 6300 chips are the same wattage (95W) as your current 6100 but are faster and overclock better.

If you sold your 6100 on Ebay you'd probably be looking at a $20-$30 upgrade cost if that.

Best bet for your rig 🙂
Click to expand...


yes..
if he can find some 8320 it would be even better, higher IPC, potentially higher clock, and another module..

from the limited information we've seen so far, AM3+ is not going to get a new gen of CPUs anyway.
 
wty said:
FX-8320 : Socket AM3+/3.5GHz/8M/32 nm/125W

8320 is 125W.
Click to expand...

his board shouldn't have a problem with that... if he is to concerned about power usage it's a good idea to get some Intel CPU, and get rid of the triple VGA setup.

oh, and give UP overclocking.
 
It's a shame that you ruled out the 8320/8350. They are much better than the 8150. The rest of your components are high end. Plus if you really are concerned about power run 2 7950s in CF instead of 3. However, it appears from you sig that you are bit mining.
 
FX6350 is a good deal imho, at least at the Micro Center I have nearby. I think I saw it for $119 recently. When you combine the resell value of the old chip, it's a pretty good $ for $ upgrade, they run cooler in my experience, and the clock and IPC are both better.

As far as future AM3, I sort of doubt it.

The chipsets are just too old to justify new releases imho. SATA, USB, and PCI-e are all really old on them. FM2+ should be AMD's future.

When you consider that quality FM2 boards aren't too pricey, it also seems like a smart move. Even with just an adaptation of an existing chip, I think it would be a great combo for the right price.
 
The reason I ruled out the 8XXX series is because the higher power consumption will lead to higher temps. My CPU and my main 7950 are watercooled on the same loop with 2x120 + 1x120 rads. The fans and pump are running fairly slow to keep noise down. As it is if I fully load both, temps start to rise fairly quickly above 60C on the CPU, especially when I try to OC the 6100. I'm not worried about power consumption per se, just the resulting temps from higher power consumption.

If I can get higher clocks on a 6-core at the same (or lower) power consumption as an 8-core I think I would rather do that.
 
Some data of cpu benchmarks for ref.:

CPU benchmark
Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz 10,125 $329.49
Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz 9,975 $298.99
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 @ 3.30GHz 9,592
AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core 9,111 $199.99
Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2 @ 3.30GHz 8,882 $234.99
AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core 8,190 $159.99
Intel Xeon E3-1230 @ 3.20GHz 8,145 $233.99
Intel Core i5-4670 @ 3.40GHz 7,547 $219.29
Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.40GHz 7,536 $229.99
Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.20GHz 7,157 $189.02
Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz 7,120 $219.99
Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz 6,998 $207.38
AMD FX-6350 Six-Core 6,968 $139.99
AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core 6,844
AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core 6,620 $149.98
Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz 6,603 $190.29
Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz 6,462 $194.97*
AMD FX-6300 Six-Core 6,386 $118.99
 
If you wanted to hit 5GHz+ minimum then the 8-core FX-9370 (4.4GHz) would absolutely destroy your CPU (and mine! LOL!). Don't bother with the 4.7GHz FX-9590 which costs $900!

If you want something a bit more affordable than grab a FX-8350 and overclock it to 4.5Ghz minimum.
 
The OP was pretty clear on not wanting to increase power consumption (heat), a fact which several posters seem to have ignored. I suppose one practically has to ignore this parameter in search of higher AMD performance, but unless the OP can be convinced otherwise, suggesting higher TDP CPUs is not helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top