CPU UPGRADE FOR GIGABYTE GA-K8N PRO-SLI

[Santilli]

Hi
With the AMD prices diving, I was wondering what might be a good upgrade for this motherboard.
Here's the list of supported cpus, according to Gigabyte.

I'm looking for something to double, at least, the 3200 processor in the computer. Motherboard bios is F7.

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/...ard&ProductID=1883&ProductName=GA-K8N Pro-SLI

Problem is, newegg doesn't seem to list any of the CPU's that are really fast, approved for this board:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...50001028 40000343&page=5&bop=And&Order=PRICED

Which would be better, Opteron, dual core, etc? Looking for
2003 Server preformance. Ram is 2 gigs of Patriot, running at 800 mhz.

Box is used for gaming, and regular internet office duties.

Thanks

Greg

 

[Buck]

Your board supports the socket 939 configuration, whereas the newer pinout is AM2.

 

[ddrueding]

As Buck said, that board will support any 939 CPU. The fastest of which is an Opteron 2.6Ghz Dual Core chip for $330.
But I would suggest that a Dual Core 2.0Ghz 3800+ for $115 would be the cost-effective upgrade.

 

[Mercutio]

I have a couple x2/4800s sitting around. They're used, but they're in "spare" machines sitting in my office. Those PCs could just as easily have 3200s or 3000s or Semprons or whatever in them.

The reason 939s went for fire sale prices last summer was to clear them out of inventory. Now they're out of inventory and almost impossible to come by.

FWIW, the x2/3800 is about the same, speedwise, as your 3200. You just have two of them. An A64/3800 or 4000 might be a better fit, since it has higher (single-core) clock speed, and it'll be cheaper, too.

 

[Santilli]

I'm going to have to replace the ram, as well?

Mercutio, want to swap?

3200 has hardly been used. Not OCed, and, I guess I'd trade the ram as well. Ram is 3200.

Thanks

Greg

 

[Buck]

I'm going to have to replace the ram, as well?

No.

 

[P5-133XL]

I'm going to have to replace the ram, as well?

Mercutio, want to swap?

3200 has hardly been used. Not OCed, and, I guess I'd trade the ram as well. Ram is 3200.

Thanks

Greg

I'm confused, why are you changing out your RAM when the MB stays the same? Getting faster than PC-3200 RAM probably won't speed things up much. High speed ram upgrades typically only improve system speed by maybe 5-10%.

If you want at least a 100% system-wide improvement from your 3200+, you are going to have either dual-core or replace your MB to AM2 or C2D. Going dual core will get you a theoretical 100+% but only for multi-threaded applications. Even the fastest single core 939 CPU replacement, won't even get you close to your goal.

Taking a different tack. Your machine is used for internet, office and gaming. Most machines are already limited by external (non-computer) limitations with these applications. For the internet, your machine is limited by your internet providers bandwidth rather than the CPU horsepower. Office applications are typically limited by your typing speed rather than CPU performance. So neither of those applications should require, or even benefit much from a CPU upgrade.

Now for gaming that is an entirely different matter. A faster CPU can definately improve framerates. However, before going the CPU route, I would suggest that your money is more likely to be better spent on upgrading your video card (unless you are already maxed out there). You will normally get a bigger FPS improvement by getting a better video card than a CPU upgrade.

 

[Santilli]

"Now for gaming that is an entirely different matter. A faster CPU can definately improve framerates. However, before going the CPU route, I would suggest that your money is more likely to be better spent on upgrading your video card (unless you are already maxed out there). You will normally get a bigger FPS improvement by getting a better video card than a CPU upgrade."

Mark, the gaming rig has a ATI 850 XT in it.
Overall, it's pretty quick. IIRC, it was about 10-15% slower then the 1900's, and, considerably faster then the 1600's.
Board is SLIable, but, not with that card, IIRC. Requires Nvidia cards to go SLI, so that would be a big expense, and, it MIGHT work.
I figured going from 3200 to 4800, or the Opteron 2.6 ghz, dual would be a near double speed upgrade. From the looks of it, thanks to Intel, I should just wait, and prices will come down even further. The 3200 I paid 150 plus for is now 50 dollars or under. Wonder if the rest of the 939's will go down another two thirds?
This box has mainly sat on my desk, with another box getting most of the work, which I've just sold.

You do have a point, in that the 3200 is 1.8 ghz, and, the fastest I can put in it is a 2.6 ghz dual core opteron, but, that's still kind of expensive...

I guess the Athlon numbers make the jump from 3200 to 4800 dual core look like a very large increase in speed. It would be for Quake 4, since it is dual capable.;0
Also, I see numbers like 6000 on some of the Athlons, and, wonder if they are that fast, in comparision to the 3200.

Greg

 

[ddrueding]

The S939 CPUs are already on their way back up...I don't think there is any more down for them. AMD has already discontinued over half the product line. If you are looking for a CPU upgrade, now would be the time. If you are going to keep that system for a long time, buy the 2.4Ghz 4800+ from Merc or the single-core 4000+ for gaming.

 

[P5-133XL]

I know I'm gonna get flack for it, but here goes nothing.

How AMD produces its numbers is roughtly P4-Equivilents. Yes, I know, that they really aren't comparable but that is what AMD is trying to do. You can't really go by simply GHz because of the difficulty in comparing cache sizes between the different chips but the model numbers try to compensate for that. So a 3200 vs a 4600 produces roughly a 40% speed increase (not including the dual-core concept).

Now with the Opterons it is slightly harder to compare because their model numbers have nothing to do with P4-equivilency. With those, I simply research, using the web, their equivilent X2 chips. It isn't totally accurate because Opterons tend to have larger caches but you can get close .....

Now dual core means exactly that: Two cores or dual CPU's. That produces an immediate 100% (minus overhead) increase (for the same P4-equivilency number) but only in situations where the application is multi-threaded to take advantage of the extra CPU. So when you are going from a single-core 3200 to a dual core 4600 the technical speed increase is 1.4x2 or 2.8x At the moment, for your applications, that has limited value because games are not really multi-threaded and office/internet applications are not CPU limited and will not really benefit form increased horsepower. Even without any multi-threaded applications, that is enough of a difference to produce a "snapper" machine. Especially if there is enough RAM and you are a simultanous multi-application type person.

Regardless of the above, DD is right that virtually all the down-side of upgrading your CPU has already occured. Further, Merc is correct that the inventory for 939 CPU's has basicly dried up since they have been discontinued, so get your upgrade while you still can. If you feel you can extend the life-span of your computer by upgrading your CPU, now is the time. If you can delay replacement a few years then you will be looking at much faster and many more cores and also the applications that use multi-core technology will be much more common. The CPU upgrade becomes a relatively inexpensive of saving money: A purchase delayed is money saved!

You can exclude the AM2 X2's from your consideration and limit yourself to compatible chips, if all you want is a CPU upgrade and not replace the MB, CPU, and RAM (basicly an entire computer replacement). It's all nice and fine that AMD is producing 6000's but not relevant to your situation because they are not offered in the 939 form factor that you have.

Also I disagree with your comparison between an x850 and an x1900. I'm sorry but I don't believe that there is only a 10%-15% increase but rather closer to a 100% increase in speed (I know that is a unprofessional link but my internet search did not come up with a better comparison site, even though I know there are better because I've seen them), or maybe more, between the two depending upon specific models. Further the x1950's have come down alot in price to the point that you can get them new for around $160+ which is outright cheap compared to what they used to cost.

However, I wouldn't be upgrading a video card for a few months till the effect of the next generation x2900 series is known. Who knows, but you may be able to get a 2900 series card with signifigently more speed than that x1950 for that same $160 ....

 

[Clocker]

Regardless of the above, DD is right that virtually all the down-side of upgrading your CPU has already occured. Further, Merc is correct that the inventory for 939 CPU's has basicly dried up since they have been discontinued, so get your upgrade while you still can. If you feel you can extend the life-span of your computer by upgrading your CPU, now is the time. If you can delay replacement a few years then you will be looking at much faster and many more cores and also the applications that use multi-core technology will be much more common. The CPU upgrade becomes a relatively inexpensive of saving money: A purchase delayed is money saved!

.....

Also I disagree with your comparison between an x850 and an x1900. I'm sorry but I don't believe that there is only a 10%-15% increase but rather closer to a 100% increase in speed (I know that is a unprofessional link but my internet search did not come up with a better comparison site, even though I know there are better because I've seen them), or maybe more, between the two depending upon specific models. Further the x1950's have come down alot in price to the point that you can get them new for around $160+ which is outright cheap compared to what they used to cost.

However, I wouldn't be upgrading a video card for a few months till the effect of the next generation x2900 series is known. Who knows, but you may be able to get a 2900 series card with signifigently more speed than that x1950 for that same $160 ....

Good post!

 

[Pradeep]

Good thread. I have an MSI K8 Platinum/Diamond mobo with an AthlonXP at 1.8GHz. Socket 939 seems to have dead ended. What would be the best value processor, for F@H purposes? I'd put in a decent video card for gpu acceleration but I only have AGP.

 

[Mercutio]

P5, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to post.

I really don't know how to value the x2/4800s I have. They are still ridiculously fast CPUs, and they're scarce, which means they should be worth more than the AM2 ones... and when I bought them they were not cheap either.

 

[Sol]

It's worth noting also that if you have some time to tweak them Opterons tend to be far more overclockable than their X2 counterparts. I have an 939 Opteron 170 (2Ghz stock) that I managed to get up to 2.75 Ghz and keep rock solid. (Full disclosure I did water cool it but it wasn't strictly speaking necessary I just happened to have all the parts and wanted to keep the noise down).

If you can get your hands on a 939 Opteron I have no doubt you'll be able to squeeze an extra speed grade out of it with a completely stock set up.
(This is where upgrading you memory would actually help keep things stable whilst wringing out a few hundred extra clock cycles but if your doing that you may as well consider upgrading the whole system to a Core2 based system).

 

[Santilli]

Well, let's see. First off, the game tests seem to have higher scores, when I was looking at the ATI video cards, for the 850XT then the benchmarks. Frame rates, at the levels I played them, were very high for the 850 XT.
16 pipelines, IIRC, are a wonderful thing.

The 8800's seem to be a pretty big step up, but, I'm not even sure two of them would fit on the Gigabyte board.

As others have posted, the 6000 AMD chips are not even in the mix, and, when you look at the clock increase 1.8 ghz to 2.6 ghz, if I coughed up the money for a dual Opteron 185, well, that's a 40-45% increase in clock speed, and, 2X going to dual core. I'm sure that would be a nice speed increase, but, it's a 300 dollar chip, or more.

http://www.reportlabs.com/testbed/version1/grv1/grtopten.php

At the time I was looking only the 1900 was in price range, and, the 850 was within 15 frames, or less, of the 1900, in the games I was playing, and, it was considerably cheaper. The 1950's are way faster, and, now would probably be cheap enough to look at. However, as others have mentioned, with dual chip graphics cards(didn't we do this a long time ago with sli and Voodoo 5500's? I had two, one pc and one mac version, and, almost no games worked on the darn things...) and the possibility of running duals on the Gigabyte board, with, SLI, I'd be looking at Nvidia, even though they more then pissed me off with thier drivers for the dual chip cards, and, quad sli...

I have in the past, played Quake 4, and Farcry of the games listed, and, the 850 is fast enough so both are enjoyable, as is anything else I've tried playing on the rig, at max settings.
GS

 

[Bozo]

Speaking of upgrades;
I now have a Celeron in my Core 2 Duo motherboard. Soon I will be upgrading to a C2D. I can save a few dollars by buying the OEM version without a fan. From all appearances, the Celeron fan should fit and work fine. Any thoughts on this idea?

Bozo :joker:

 

[Mercutio]

I'd say you'll be fine, if you can stand Intel's cruel joke of a stock fan.

 

[Santilli]

http://www.reportlabs.com/testbed/version1/grv1/grtop50.php

Mark:
The card I bought was the HIS Radeon X850XT PE IceQ II 6494 13282 Halflife 48.78 Farcry 73.86 Doom 3 93.6 Unreal 04 174.89

I play Farcry poorly, didn't like Doom 3, but have finished Quake 4, and, play Unreal 04. Don't play Half Life.

The FASTEST 1900 XTX card is
Sapphire X1900XTX Toxic 9268 19009 Half life 61.45 FarCry 75.94 Doom 3 106.8 Unreal 04 177.19.

While there is a considerable gap in 3dmo5 and 3d mo3,
6494 13282 vs. 9268 19009, in the games I play, the difference in negligible, and, probably not detectable:
Farcry 73.86 vs. 75.94
Doom 3 93.6 vs 106.8
Unreal 174.89 vs 177.19

The other thing I've noticed is the SLI cards seem to be at about the same level.
The top tested SLI card Gainward Ultra 3500PCX Golden Sample,
only runs the following
Farcry 73.29
Doom 3 112.9
Unreal 04 183.6
.

NOT sufficient to make me want to run down and plunk down 500 dollars for two cards that will probably give little more preformance then the single
ECS GeForce 8800GTS 320* 14873 103.38 125.42 164 310.64
Funny thing about this card is it has higher frame rates then the top rated card, but lower 3d scores;-)

So, to sum up, the fastest Pci-e sli is frame rate wise, the same speed as the HIS 850 XT card I have already. SLI was always kind of sketchy, and, I haven't scene any reviews that would indicate anything has changed. Dual processor cards may be the way to go, after the second generation.
First is always WAY too expensive.
Speedwise, the ECS GeForce 8800GTS 320* 14873 103.38 125.42 164 310.64 is the way to go, if I'm not doing 3D.
Still, it improves Farcry about 50 fps, Doom 3 55 fps, and Unreal 04 130 fps.50% or less jumps.

The 1950 Pro Crossfire would do 120 fps in Farcry, 151. in Doom 3, and 319 in Unreal.

None of these seem like big enough jumps to really go for.
The 16 Pipelines on the 850 XT seem to make it move pretty well for high quality work, and, none of the possible crossfire or SLI cards are much faster, with many slower.

On the otherhand, for 300 dollars, this one might be worth picking up:
XFX PVT80GGHF9 GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Video Card - Retail, and, it seems to be SLI capable...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16814150171

S

 

[Pradeep]

Honestly Greg I have no idea what those numbers mean. You may want to look at some reviews from anandtech.com or elsewhere. The newest video cards do excel in very high resolutions and/or heavy anti-aliasing.

The 320MB card is fine, as long as you aren't going to run it at very high resolutions.

 

[Santilli]

Honestly Greg I have no idea what those numbers mean. You may want to look at some reviews from anandtech.com or elsewhere. The newest video cards do excel in very high resolutions and/or heavy anti-aliasing.

The 320MB card is fine, as long as you aren't going to run it at very high resolutions.

Frame rates run on a 1024 X 768, IIRC.

3D program is a test, and, seems to get a bigger spread of preformance then actual tests with real program seems to indicate...

S

 

[Mercutio]

The tests you're talking about probably indicate games that are being limited by something other than the graphics cards, and were conducted a very low resolution.

An x850 is a pretty pokey card by modern standards.

 

[Santilli]

Did a bit more research, and, according to another reviewer, the 850XT series is limited by processors, in this case, the AMD 4000 was too slow for the 850XT.

"Any game at any settings on all cards will perform absolutely perfectly, in fact with a faster processor performance would be even higher as believe it or not, both x850 cards are limited by the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU. It's really silly, but in several cases the VPU (Graphics core) is waiting for the CPU (processor) to finish up its calculations and send them to the graphics card driver. Don't get me wrong, the Athlon 64 4000+ is powerful enough but see it like this, your graphics card is like 80% at work with certain games. So if you own an Athlon 64 3000+, your CPU probably is not powerful enough to feed the x850 with enough data to maximize performance."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/196/19/

Sounds like my system, on the last part...

Greg

 

[Santilli]

Wonder if the way to do this might not be get an Opteron 185 from Newegg, and put it in the game machine. Take the 3200, buy another 939 pin board, and, build a dedicated machine for Home viewing, with the AMD 3200?

I could also pull the same machine swap, putting a 8800 into the gaming machine, and using the AT 850XT for the HT machine...

HMMMMM.

Greg

 

[ddrueding]

What display will you be using for HTPC? What input? Will it be in the same room as the gaming rig? Will it ever be used at the same time?