AMD AM3+ Multicore Processors -- Which Is Best Bang For Buck?

[cooltouch]

Hey Folks,

I'm in the process of resurrecting a Win7 machine, mostly from a hard drive that has an existing copy of Win7 + SP1 installed. Prior, this drive had been residing happily within a system that was using an AM3 processor and AM3/AM3+ compatible mobo -- an ASRock 890GX Pro3, a great board, but it died, sadly, and I don't know why.

The system is a desktop system and is used primarily for music recording and production. It's also used for general web surfing and image processing tasks (Photoshopping pics taken with my digital camera). It will have 16 GB of DDR3 RAM and over 2 TB of drive space using SATA drives.

So, now that I'm looking for a replacement board, I'm thinking about replacing the processor as well, and I'd like to upgrade from a 3.4 GHz four-core AM3 to something better with AM3+. So, questions:

Will I see an improvement with a 4-core processor, just by going with the AM3+socket configuration -- assuming same processor speed?

Will I see a noticeable gain in performance moving beyond 4 core to 6 or 8 core, and given my machine's workload, what sort of processor do you think I would most greatly benefit from?

Will there be a significant difference in processing speed, aka number-crunching ability, between 6-core and 8-core processors (assuming same CPU speed?)

I see some multi-core processors that have CPU speeds rated "slower" than my 4-core AM3 processor (sorry, I don't recall if it's an Athlon or Phenom or what, I just know it's a 3.4 GHz, 4-core processor), like 3.1 or 3.3 GHz. I'm hesitant to buy any CPU that's slower than what I already have. But can there be an argument made for better architecture distribution (or some such language) that would offset the slower speed?

Thanks for any help and/or insights you'd care to provide.

Win7 ain't dead yet. Far from it. For one thing, it's prettier than Win10, which I think is stark and ugly looking, like an anorexic Teutonic fashion model. Win10 has also been dumbed down in some ways, obfuscated in others. Why? Just to churn product, make it look different as some excuse to upgrade? And, maybe I'm insufficiently endowed in the techno-weenie department, but I still don't see the *need* for Win10. Finally, whatever happened to Win9? Number 9? Number 9? Number . . . .

 

[cooltouch]

Folks, I'm thinking seriously about going with an FX-8120 (8 core, 3.1 GHz) processor. According to the chart here:

Access denied

its specs are right about in the middle of the pack. Which I'm thinking will be plenty good for what I need.

Huh. "Access denied." It loads fine on this end though.

 

[GEWB]

Should work just fine for you! Do you have a mobo in mind?

 

[TechnoMage2016]

I don't remember the numbers, but I built two desktop PC's, with Gigabyte motherboards.
One with an AMD 8 core cpu, and one with an AMD 6 core cpu.

I have a friend who wanted a REALLY FAST PC, so I sold him the one with the 8 core AMD cpu, and kept the 6 core cpu for myself. The six core is plenty fast for everything I do.


Good Luck,
TM

 

[cooltouch]

I got to checking out some 6-cores, and some, like the 6320 are more expensive than some of the 8-cores, like the 8120. It's probably a toss-up. Performance wise, at least, it seems to be.

GEWB, I bought a mobo yesterday. Should be here in a few days. It's a Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P. Not sure exactly how old it is -- probably 10 years or so, same as most of the processors I've been looking at.

The age of the board and the processors doesn't really concern me. My old ASRock is 12 years old and it was working just fine until I swapped it into a new case. I think I broke it somehow when I made the swap. Not sure what or how, but I can't get it to come back to life no matter what I try. So, time for another board.