Upgraded computers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skibur

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
248
Basically, I ran into some kind of memory problems quite a few days ago, and decided it's time for a new upgrade. Because of my motherboard, it uses a SATA II connection, which limits all the read/write speed up to 150 mbps. This wasn't fair for me because I'm using two Solid State Drive for most of the work capacity. (Yes I'm that impatient, deal with it)

So, I ran some research, found some neat motherboard and rams, as well as a new cpu processor.

My old computer specs:
AMD Phenom II x6 1055T 2.8 Ghz
6 Gb DDR2 ram (one was 800, two of them were 600) random memory.
Asus M4A785-M


My new computer specs:
AMD FX 8120 3.1 Ghz
16 GB Corsair DDR3 1600 Ram (2 x 8 Gb)
Gigabyte 970A-D3

(Yes I bio flash my mobo for the latest version just in case)
 
You probably had memory problems because you had two different running memory speeds. Also 2 x 8GB =/= 12GB.
 
reckford said:
You probably had memory problems because you had two different running memory speeds. Also 2 x 8GB =/= 12GB.
Oh well, no matter. I have eight cores now and that's important.

Also, lol sorry xD too tired to realize that, thanks for correcting me.
 
Skibur said:
reckford said:
You probably had memory problems because you had two different running memory speeds. Also 2 x 8GB =/= 12GB.
Oh well, no matter. I have eight cores now and that's important.

Also, lol sorry xD too tired to realize that, thanks for correcting me.
Except your 8 core CPU isn't really any faster than your 6 core CPU was.

But enjoy it.
 
*sigh* said:
Skibur said:
reckford said:
You probably had memory problems because you had two different running memory speeds. Also 2 x 8GB =/= 12GB.
Oh well, no matter. I have eight cores now and that's important.

Also, lol sorry xD too tired to realize that, thanks for correcting me.
Except your 8 core CPU isn't really any faster than your 6 core CPU was.

But enjoy it.
The performance or anything wasn't the only reason why I bought the eight core.

If you would know a little about, it would make sense.

I'm a 3D max type of guy, and I gotta have more cores.

More cores = Faster getting the job done right.
 
Skibur said:
The performance or anything wasn't the only reason why I bought the eight core.

If you would know a little about, it would make sense.

I'm a 3D max type of guy, and I gotta have more cores.

More cores = Faster getting the job done right.
Uh... no total performance gets thing done faster. Yes, you may be able to take advantage of the full 8 cores, but in the end a faster 6 core is going to keep up as well.

Heck a 2600k generally outperforms any of the AMD 8 cores by a substantial margin despite it's 4 cores + hyper-threading. All I'm saying is don't fall into the "more cores = better" argument. Yes, it's something to consider with the type of work you're doing, but if more cores was always better than the FX series chips should be the fastest around, and that is far from the case.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8120-6100-4100_7.html

Heck the 2500 outpaces the 8150 despite being a quad core with no hyperthreading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom