Upgrade to i5 2400 from FX 6100 dilema

[Shakabutt]

Would it make any sense to go from a fx 6100 to a i5 2400 on a h61 board ?

I got the offer for only 70 bucks, im thinking its not much in terms of price, but is it in terms of performance?

I know im struggling with some recent games with my FX (dying light, ac unity, planetside etc).

Maybe it will do my Radeon r9 280 some good?

Should i do it ?

 

[sm625]

For $70? Hell yeah. Does that include the sale/trade of the old components? If not then its an even better deal.

 

[Shakabutt]

It includes the swap of my old FX and AM3 cheapo board (SB 760L i think).

And the dude is offering another deal swap for 200 $ from my FX to a Xeon 1240V2 on a Asus H61 Pro board.

But i don't game that much these days, and im thinking il go with the i5 2400, il be missing out on PCIE 3.0, but i could swap in some Ivy Bridge later on.

 

[Burpo]

Really not much of an upgrade except single thread performance.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6100+Six-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+@+3.10GHz

The Xeon is a much better upgrade..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+V2+@+3.40GHz

 

[Shakabutt]

Really not much of an upgrade except single thread performance.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6100+Six-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+@+3.10GHz

The Xeon is a much better upgrade..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+V2+@+3.40GHz

Yeah...but in terms of games ?

 

[Burpo]

Xeon turbos to 3.8Ghz and has single thread rating of 2034..
The best choice & most future proof is the Xeon..

 

[Arachnotronic]

Do it.

 

[Phynaz]

Yeah...but in terms of games ?

If for games do it. Otherwise no.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Really not much of an upgrade except single thread performance.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6100+Six-Core

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+@+3.10GHz

The Xeon is a much better upgrade..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E3-1240+V2+@+3.40GHz

For 70.00 it seems worth it. Single thread performance is still important in a lot of (most?) games, and the i5 is 50% faster, and even somewhat faster in multithread.

Granted the xeon is a much better uograde, but also 3x the cost.

 

[Shakabutt]

I keep looking on some cpu charts from Gamegpu.ru and it seems theres a big gap between sandy and my FX in most, if not all of the games, im thinking that gap, will do me good, since it can mean the difference between playable and sub 30fps unplayable, and i could turn the settings down on my gpu and still could pull some fps gains without running into a cpu wall.

Im gonna get the i5, the xeon is beyond my budget for now.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I would do it in a second,spend the $70.

 

[AtenRa]

Would it make any sense to go from a fx 6100 to a i5 2400 on a h61 board ?

I got the offer for only 70 bucks, im thinking its not much in terms of price, but is it in terms of performance?

I know im struggling with some recent games with my FX (dying light, ac unity, planetside etc).

Maybe it will do my Radeon r9 280 some good?

Should i do it ?

For the games you are mentioning it will be a nice upgrade. For 70 bucks it is worth it.
Just a question, have you OC the FX6100 ???

 

[Shakabutt]

For the games you are mentioning it will be a nice upgrade. For 70 bucks it is worth it.
Just a question, have you OC the FX6100 ???

i keep it at 4ghz,but the board is a 95w am3, it always trothles it if i go higher,and i dont really like ocing

Heck it even throttles at stock clocks when i do cinebench or some stress test , back to 3ghz.

 

[Shakabutt]

A little update, i made the jump ahead and got this baby :

Got 659 in Cinebench R15, some 9658 physics points in Firestrike, but the biggest thing im seeing is the blazing speed of my desktop use, no more hicups, no more waiting, can't wait to try the games.

Also after doing cinebench and firestrike my highest temp is 69 Celsius on core 2.

Is that good or bad ? This is my first intel cpu

 

[ShintaiDK]

Its fine. The max temperature is 105C.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Xeon E3's are killer gaming CPUs. I have an E3-1231v3 and it's awesome for Dying Light and everything else I throw at it, and keeps my 970 at 100% usage or near it all the time. And an E3-1240v2 is really similar to an E3-1231v3 in performance. I do have to caution your R9 280 is still going to likely hurt performance in Dying Light a lot. It's like that game was intentionally sabotaged on AMD hardware, I have never seen anything like it. On Tom's Hardware's benchmarks they found the R9 290x to have similar performance to the crappy GTX 960 at 1080p.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dying-light-benchmark-performance-analysis,4060-3.html

Hopefully the newest patch 1.5.0 makes it actually use Radeon GPUs properly, no reason an R9 280 shouldn't be pulling 45 FPS in the game at least.

 

[Burpo]

Xeon turbos to 3.8Ghz and has single thread rating of 2034..
The best choice & most future proof is the Xeon..

Glad to see you went with the Xeon.. Quite capable CPU & worth it in the long run.. Nice upgrade!

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I do think the E3-1240v2 is a great buy, much better than the i5-2400. Lots of people will say games don't use hyperthreading and i7/Xeon are wastes for gaming, and that was true in 2013. But it's not true now. This gamegpu article I link below shows all of the 2014 games benchmarked here use the extra hardware threads of an i7-2600k, and most of them use them a significant amount. But if you went and looked at the AAA titles for 2013, you'd find most of them left the extra hardware threads of an i7-2600k at 0-5% usage.

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

So it's not even a future-proofing thing: right now AAA games are targeting eight cores, and new games will too. It's not hard to see why, since AAA games are designed for console first since that's where they make their money. And the consoles are octacores with really weak per core performance, so parallelization is and will be critical to getting reasonable performance on them. And now the lowest common denominator to write your game to is an octacore XBox One, not a tri-core XBox 360.

 

[Shakabutt]

Man i don't know if Dying Light is a joke or AMD is a joke, but i started a new campaign, and i got eagerly to the first mission, when you go outside.

I was expecting the FPS to tank to 28....suprise suprise it didn't drop under 60.........i mean holy shit, with my FX i had to edit the CFG's to put the view distance under 1.0 to get 28 FPS....and with this thing i pushed the slider to max ingame and it still hangs arround 55 fps.

Im hella impressed :biggrin:
​

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Man i don't know if Dying Light is a joke or AMD is a joke, but i started a new campaign, and i got eagerly to the first mission, when you go outside.

I was expecting the FPS to tank to 28....suprise suprise it didn't drop under 60.........i mean holy shit, with my FX i had to edit the CFG's to put the view distance under 1.0 to get 28 FPS....and with this thing i pushed the slider to max ingame and it still hangs arround 55 fps.

Im hella impressed :biggrin:
​

Nice. So I guess 1.5.0 really helps for AMD cards.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I do think the E3-1240v2 is a great buy, much better than the i5-2400. Lots of people will say games don't use hyperthreading and i7/Xeon are wastes for gaming, and that was true in 2013. But it's not true now. This gamegpu article I link below shows all of the 2014 games benchmarked here use the extra hardware threads of an i7-2600k, and most of them use them a significant amount. But if you went and looked at the AAA titles for 2013, you'd find most of them left the extra hardware threads of an i7-2600k at 0-5% usage.

http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

So it's not even a future-proofing thing: right now AAA games are targeting eight cores, and new games will too. It's not hard to see why, since AAA games are designed for console first since that's where they make their money. And the consoles are octacores with really weak per core performance, so parallelization is and will be critical to getting reasonable performance on them. And now the lowest common denominator to write your game to is an octacore XBox One, not a tri-core XBox 360.

Yes, but if you look at the cumulative graph at the end of the article, the 4770k overall is only 9.7% faster than the 4670k, and it has an almost 3% advantage in base clock (not sure about the turbo performance). So even though the games can use the virtual cores, it still does not make a huge difference in the final performance.

And the 4 core 4670k beats the 8 core FX8350 by 25 percent, and the dual core i3 4330 is even almost 10% faster than 8350. So it is far more complex than just looking at core count and saying you have to have x cores because the consoles do.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Yes, but if you look at the cumulative graph at the end of the article, the 4770k overall is only 9.7% faster than the 4670k, and it has an almost 3% advantage in base clock (not sure about the turbo performance). So even though the games can use the virtual cores, it still does not make a huge difference in the final performance.

And the 4 core 4670k beats the 8 core FX8350 by 25 percent, and the dual core i3 4330 is even almost 10% faster than 8350. So it is far more complex than just looking at core count and saying you have to have x cores because the consoles do.

But what would the cumulative difference have been in 2013? Probably 3%. I don't think it's a stretch to expect that difference to widen over the next year or two as eight core optimization continues. I don't know, maybe developers will hit a wall since multithreaded code is a lot harder to write than serial code, but the trend over the last year was that utilization of 8 cores was greatly improved.

 

[Shakabutt]

After testing a wide range of games today, i still can't believe how big of a difference a good cpu makes.

Its amazing how smooth every game is, like not in terms of fps, but the hiccups i was always chucking away to lazy developers or something (maybe that frametime thing ?) but its amazing how smooth everything is.

My guilty pleasure AC Unity is simply silk, no more dips under 30 fps, hell i havent seen a dip under 45 fps, and im stalking the Afterburner counter like a fiend.

But like i said, everything feels so smooth, AC Unity feels like a different game altogether and im doing a second run .

Ain't going back to AMD (cpu's) ever again thats for sure. And in a way this makes me kinda sad since i always had AMD cpu's since my first PC with a Semprom. :|
​

 

[AtenRa]

i keep it at 4ghz,but the board is a 95w am3, it always trothles it if i go higher,and i dont really like ocing

Heck it even throttles at stock clocks when i do cinebench or some stress test , back to 3ghz.

Hmmm, the problem was the motherboard not the CPU. Those cheap AM3 boards were not meant for the Bulldozer.