Upgrade from an AMD Phenom II X4 955

So I was looking up some AMD processors to upgrade from myAMD Phenom II X4 955 and apparently the 1090T and the 1100T performs lower than the 965 which I really don't get. I can't go intel either because I just bought my new MOBO for £170 (ASUS crosshair IV formula). So what would be a good upgrade from my 955?

IMO, there is nothing on the market that's worth upgrading to from a Phenom II X4 955. The only possibility is Intel's Sandy Bridge, but I don't see why anybody wouldn't just wait for Bulldozer to come out first, then do a comparison. I'm skipping this generation of CPUs, because my 955 destroys anything I throw at it at stock speeds, let alone with an overclock. Why do you want to upgrade now? :?

IMO, there is nothing on the market that's worth upgrading to from a Phenom II X4 955. The only possibility is Intel's Sandy Bridge, but I don't see why anybody wouldn't just wait for Bulldozer to come out first, then do a comparison. I'm skipping this generation of CPUs, because my 955 destroys anything I throw at it at stock speeds, let alone with an overclock. Why do you want to upgrade now? :?

hartsickdiscipl

Well my boot speeds are pretty slow which I found to be weird, and I'm getting quite low frames per second on some of my games (I have a GTX 460 1GB Graphics card) and so I thought my processor might be the problem, am I wrong?

Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsMonsieurX

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsoOiRuL3zOo

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

Open msconfig (type "msconfig" into the terminal or Windows 7 search box).

Under the startup tab uncheck all the non-essential programs (crap like google update, adobe, steam, MSN, etc). Just keep drivers and anti-virus.

Under the boot tab check the "no GUI boot" box. It removes the stupid windows logo as you boot and can sometimes save you a few seconds.

Finally defrag your OS partition.

.

That should help with boots time.

[QUOTE="oOiRuL3zOo"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsTezcatlipoca666

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

Open msconfig (type "msconfig" into the terminal or Windows 7 search box).

Under the startup tab uncheck all the non-essential programs (crap like google update, adobe, steam, MSN, etc). Just keep drivers and anti-virus.

Under the boot tab check the "no GUI boot" box. It removes the stupid windows logo as you boot and can sometimes save you a few seconds.

Finally defrag your OS partition.

.

That should help with boots time.

Last time I messed with msconfig my windows stayed in a windows 98 kind of theme and wouldn't read any of my drivers...

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

[QUOTE="oOiRuL3zOo"]

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

oOiRuL3zOo

Open msconfig (type "msconfig" into the terminal or Windows 7 search box).

Under the startup tab uncheck all the non-essential programs (crap like google update, adobe, steam, MSN, etc). Just keep drivers and anti-virus.

Under the boot tab check the "no GUI boot" box. It removes the stupid windows logo as you boot and can sometimes save you a few seconds.

Finally defrag your OS partition.

.

That should help with boots time.

Last time I messed with msconfig my windows stayed in a windows 98 kind of theme and wouldn't read any of my drivers...

That shouldn't happen as long as you stay only in the 'Startup' tab. There's literally nothing in that section that could destroy your drivers or your Windows theme, and this will have the most noticeable effect on your boot time.

The "No GUI boot" thing is hardly what I'd call an essential change. Or even a worthwhile one.

You have a very good computer, the best thing you can buy is an SSD although I personally dont think they are worth it.

As others suggested maintaining the msconfig thing can really boost up your boot times. Infact since you dont even tweak with it as you say I am pretty damn sure you have a buck load of unnecessary crap at startup. And yes you can mess up some things if you dont know what you are doing with msconfig.

The best thing to do is to google all the programs that you dont know about under the startup tab and then decide whether you want them or not.

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

[QUOTE="oOiRuL3zOo"]

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

oOiRuL3zOo

Open msconfig (type "msconfig" into the terminal or Windows 7 search box).

Under the startup tab uncheck all the non-essential programs (crap like google update, adobe, steam, MSN, etc). Just keep drivers and anti-virus.

Under the boot tab check the "no GUI boot" box. It removes the stupid windows logo as you boot and can sometimes save you a few seconds.

Finally defrag your OS partition.

.

That should help with boots time.

Last time I messed with msconfig my windows stayed in a windows 98 kind of theme and wouldn't read any of my drivers...

You can do the same with CCleaner.

http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner

i will be perfectly honest here....a sandy bridge cpu or even a first generation core i cpu loads windows much faster than the phenom II x4 955. Im basing this on my own experiences with the 955, the core i5 750 and the core i5 2500k. All of these cpus i have owned at one point in time (core i5 2500k using right now)

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsoOiRuL3zOo

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

The smaller the harddrive the smaller the platters which means the further your data is physically from each other, which means it takes more time to get to the data to load it. Get your OS off that tiny drive.

i will be perfectly honest here....a sandy bridge cpu or even a first generation core i cpu loads windows much faster than the phenom II x4 955. Im basing this on my own experiences with the 955, the core i5 750 and the core i5 2500k. All of these cpus i have owned at one point in time (core i5 2500k using right now)

blaznwiipspman1

I will be perfectly honest here... No they don't.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

i will be perfectly honest here....a sandy bridge cpu or even a first generation core i cpu loads windows much faster than the phenom II x4 955. Im basing this on my own experiences with the 955, the core i5 750 and the core i5 2500k. All of these cpus i have owned at one point in time (core i5 2500k using right now)

GummiRaccoon

I will be perfectly honest here... No they don't.

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

[QUOTE="oOiRuL3zOo"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsGummiRaccoon

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

The smaller the harddrive the smaller the platters which means the further your data is physically from each other, which means it takes more time to get to the data to load it. Get your OS off that tiny drive.

I also have my OS on my smaller and older drive but I am too lazy to renintall windows.:cry:

I'll need an SSD to actually motivate me to reinstall it.:lol:

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

i will be perfectly honest here....a sandy bridge cpu or even a first generation core i cpu loads windows much faster than the phenom II x4 955. Im basing this on my own experiences with the 955, the core i5 750 and the core i5 2500k. All of these cpus i have owned at one point in time (core i5 2500k using right now)

blaznwiipspman1

I will be perfectly honest here... No they don't.

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

Wait til Bulldozer.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I will be perfectly honest here... No they don't.

Iantheone

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

I am loving my 1100T BE,but to be honest, I play very little that takes advantage of all 6 cores.

BFBC2 is the only thing I have seen use all 6 yet.

Now if you are doing alot of encoding and stuff then maybe it would be worthwhile.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

blaznwiipspman1

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

blaznwiipspman1

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

I don't think you quite understand what happens during boot. The slowest part is data being taken from the harddrive. The best thing you can do to help boot times is getting a faster harddrive. There is no way a CPU upgrade is going to decrease your load times so significantly.

It looks like you have tons or stuff on startup, or a bad HDD. I have 2 windows 7s on my PC (don't ask why), one is a recent installation on a slow 80GB 2.5" laptop drive i had lying around from my PS3, and the other i've had for a couple of years on a WD Caviar blue. The new installation boots faster due to less programs on startup, even though it's on a slower drive.

TL;DR - Boot times are limited by hard drives, either due to lots of startup programs or a slow drive. CPUs make next to no difference.

[QUOTE="oOiRuL3zOo"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Yes you are. Boot speeds = hard drive or too much stuff installed that loadsGummiRaccoon

I have my OS on a 160GB 7200RPM HDD along with all my drivers and I have all my main programs on a 1TB 7200RPM HDD

The smaller the harddrive the smaller the platters which means the further your data is physically from each other, which means it takes more time to get to the data to load it. Get your OS off that tiny drive.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

im just stating what my experiences were, nothing more nothing less.

blaznwiipspman1

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

Okay, so I think I may go for an SSD, nothing too big though as it's only for my OS. How does this look?http://www.uk-tec.co.uk/components/solid-state-drives/ocz-2.5-serial-60gb-vertex-2-ret-w3.5-adapter?zenid=6e3a66beb5e70faa341af8ed9cfdda7e

I have the 965 @ 3.4gz and i have never seen it hit 100% usege so dont bother wasting money on a new cpu. it is the hard drive that is slow

Wait til Bulldozer.

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Wait til Bulldozer.

Birdy09

It's got more cores and a higher IPC also the memory controller is DDR3 1866.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Wait til Bulldozer.

GummiRaccoon

It's got more cores and a higher IPC also the memory controller is DDR3 1866.

IPC? DDR3 1866 controller suggests 1866 will now be compatible? Im full time working for the first time so im going to go mad and build an Eyefinity setup hopefully for BF3! might crossfire 2x 6950's (with 6970 bios if possible.) would the hex core be enough? or should I rely on this upcoming Bulldozer?

Another question lol, will the 7XXX be out this year?

No reason to upgrade from that processor, the only thing you might even want to consider is the 12 core i7, but I'm betting that's way out of your price range.istuffedsunny

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] When is Bulldozer due and whats so good about it?Birdy09

It's got more cores and a higher IPC also the memory controller is DDR3 1866.

IPC? DDR3 1866 controller suggests 1866 will now be compatible? Im full time working for the first time so im going to go mad and build an Eyefinity setup hopefully for BF3! might crossfire 2x 6950's (with 6970 bios if possible.) would the hex core be enough? or should I rely on this upcoming Bulldozer?

Another question lol, will the 7XXX be out this year?

IPC = instructions per clock

There are 2 main factors when you look at how powerful a processor is the frequency and the IPC, Right now intel has a higher IPC than AMD which is why their slower clocked i7s consistently beat Phenom IIs.

No reason to upgrade from that processor, the only thing you might even want to consider is the 12 core i7, but I'm betting that's way out of your price range.istuffedsunny

There is no 12 core i7.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

Wait til Bulldozer.

Birdy09

[QUOTE="istuffedsunny"]No reason to upgrade from that processor, the only thing you might even want to consider is the 12 core i7, but I'm betting that's way out of your price range.GummiRaccoon

There is no 12 core i7.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="istuffedsunny"]No reason to upgrade from that processor, the only thing you might even want to consider is the 12 core i7, but I'm betting that's way out of your price range.kraken2109

There is no 12 core i7.

That just shows how uninformed he is.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] I havent noticed any difference between a 955 and an i5 750, during startup or in games. GummiRaccoon

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

I don't think you quite understand what happens during boot. The slowest part is data being taken from the harddrive. The best thing you can do to help boot times is getting a faster harddrive. There is no way a CPU upgrade is going to decrease your load times so significantly.

Smaller Hdds work faster then larger ones.....get an 80 gb hdd and just install the Os on it....then see the difference....or....get a $80 64gb SSD (not worth it)

I have a similar Cpu to yours....overclock it....or get more ram....you cant change what you have now....it wouldnt make any sense.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

Modbetto

I don't think you quite understand what happens during boot. The slowest part is data being taken from the harddrive. The best thing you can do to help boot times is getting a faster harddrive. There is no way a CPU upgrade is going to decrease your load times so significantly.

Smaller Hdds work faster then larger ones.....get an 80 gb hdd and just install the Os on it....then see the difference....or....get a $80 64gb SSD (not worth it)

I have a similar Cpu to yours....overclock it....or get more ram....you cant change what you have now....it wouldnt make any sense.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

and uve personally owned one to make that statement? As soon as windows loaded to desktop I could open up an internet browser in less than 30 secs with my i5 750, with the 955 it would take closer to a minute, even more.

Modbetto

I don't think you quite understand what happens during boot. The slowest part is data being taken from the harddrive. The best thing you can do to help boot times is getting a faster harddrive. There is no way a CPU upgrade is going to decrease your load times so significantly.

Smaller Hdds work faster then larger ones.....get an 80 gb hdd and just install the Os on it....then see the difference....or....get a $80 64gb SSD (not worth it)

I have a similar Cpu to yours....overclock it....or get more ram....you cant change what you have now....it wouldnt make any sense.

You actually just posted something that is the opposite of what is true.

[QUOTE="Modbetto"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I don't think you quite understand what happens during boot. The slowest part is data being taken from the harddrive. The best thing you can do to help boot times is getting a faster harddrive. There is no way a CPU upgrade is going to decrease your load times so significantly.

GummiRaccoon

Smaller Hdds work faster then larger ones.....get an 80 gb hdd and just install the Os on it....then see the difference....or....get a $80 64gb SSD (not worth it)

I have a similar Cpu to yours....overclock it....or get more ram....you cant change what you have now....it wouldnt make any sense.

You actually just posted something that is the opposite of what is true.