Does this motherboard supports this CPU?

[Wulfburk]

Hi i dont know much of this pc stuff so im asking here before i get dissapointed..

Currently i have a :

Gigabyte GA-M61PM-S2
AMD Sempron Processor LE-1100 1,91 Ghz (single core )
2 g RAM
Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT 1 1024 mb

With that i cant play BF BC2, it runs at 10 or so fps, Company of Heroes Blitzkrieg mod also runs in 10 fps or so, it takes hours and hours to load maps, specially in BK mod, my brother has a worse PC than me, way worst graphic card, 7600 gt, same memory, but he has a dual core cpu and he can play BK mod way better than me, and he always load faster...

So i was thinking of wasting a few bucks and getting a new CPU but NOT needing to change any of the other stuff, so does this Gigabyte GA-M61PM-S2 motherboard supports this AM3 Athlon II X2 240 ( 2800 Mhz ) dual core CPU? and sorry if i said anything wrong about those stuff


Thanks!

[PoleCat]

...so does this Gigabyte GA-M61PM-S2 motherboard supports this AM3 Athlon II X2 240 ( 2800 Mhz ) dual core CPU?...

That motherboard is Socket AM2 while that CPU is Socket AM3. They are not compatible. Good luck!

[Wulfburk]

Alright, thanks for the answer

Well, what is the best cpu that i can get, without changing my motherboard? what would you recommend.

Thanks!

[Devilmaypoop]

I'd recommend getting a new motherboard and a CPU, seeing as an upgrade with your current motherboard wouldnt be worth it. A cheap AM3 quad and a motherboard shouldnt cost you more than $140 (Assuming you live in U.S.A). You'd need some ram too, but that wouldnt be more than $30

[Crazyeyesreaper]

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...aspx?pid=2373#

yes your board supports AM3 chips

you will need to update the Motherboards BIOS

Gigabyte has a utility for that so update to the newest bios and id suggest grabbing a Phenom II minimum if you wish to play Bad Company 2, BC2 uses 4 full cores and going from a dual core to a quadcore nearly doubles performance the Phenom IIs are pretty cheap as well

The better deal is below, as its 4 full cores etc also will work in the upcoming newer AM3b socket motherboards meaning you can reuse it later on.
Phenom II x4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103916

[Devilmaypoop]

But consider the motherboards mosfet setting, it would be rather hazardous to run a 4 core on it.

EDIT: Unless you get the 95W one Crazyeyes linked.. Missed it

[Crazyeyesreaper]

yea i was gonna suggest the 95w Phenom II 840 but the board dosent support it, so had to go with the 95w 925

[Wulfburk]

Alright guys thanks so much! i'll seek to it and try buying that cpu, i wasnt expecting to find that my motherboard supports 4 Cores so im glad!

But how does i update my Motherboard BIOS, and it does what exactly, will it effect anything in my pc? dumb question i know im just dumb when it comes to pc.

Thanks again!

[Crazyeyesreaper]

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...d=2373#utility

download @Bios for your particular Operating system ( OS )

Then download the F9D bios and install it with the tool if i remember correctly.
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/pro...?pid=2373#bios

just download CPU-Z first google it, and run it, go to the motherboard tab, and see what revision your board is as there are 2 revision for your motherboard
Rev 1.0 and Rev 2.0, the difference shouldnt matter but its better to be prepared then to halfass something.

[Big Boss]

I would not run even a 95w Phenom II on that motherboard. Just because it can support it doesn't mean it should...

[Crazyeyesreaper]

and you do realize most Athlon X2 64bit CPUs of the Windsor Cores, use 95w for 2 cores and that was the cpu originaly set to use those chipsets,

hmm so lets see, same wattage same power draw, same rough vcore hmm i forsee no issue,

besides just drop the CPUs v core down 1 notch in the bios, woop de fricken do, takes 15 seconds to do

925 is 95w at 1.35 vcore
dropping vcore to 1.3 drops the TDP to 88w at 100% load
if lucky a 925 will run just fine at 1.25-1.27v = 80-84w at full load, well below whats needed,

AMD CPUs are well known to have vcore far higher then they need its why many 955 and 965be cpus can be overclocked from 3200 -3400 stock up to 3800 using the stock voltages, the same applies in the opposite direction you can lower vcore at the same speed and reduce power.

overall just a simple vcore drop to on a 925 to about 1.2v vcore will drop the 925 down to just 75w TDP.

The only difference between a 925 945 955 etc and say there low power equivalents are the fact amd tests the chips at lower voltages cuts the clock speed a bit and pushes them out. Some people are lucky enough to take chips like the 955 to 3.6ghz or so overclocked with a vcore dropped down on far worse quality motherboards that that gigabyte.

[Big Boss]

and you do realize most Athlon X2 64bit CPUs of the Windsor Cores, use 95w for 2 cores and that was the cpu originaly set to use those chipsets,

hmm so lets see, same wattage same power draw, same rough vcore hmm i forsee no issue,

besides just drop the CPUs v core down 1 notch in the bios, woop de fricken do, takes 15 seconds to do

925 is 95w at 1.35 vcore
dropping vcore to 1.3 drops the TDP to 88w at 100% load
if lucky a 925 will run just fine at 1.25-1.27v = 80-84w at full load, well below whats needed,

AMD CPUs are well known to have vcore far higher then they need its why many 955 and 965be cpus can be overclocked from 3200 -3400 stock up to 3800 using the stock voltages, the same applies in the opposite direction you can lower vcore at the same speed and reduce power.

overall just a simple vcore drop to on a 925 to about 1.2v vcore will drop the 925 down to just 75w TDP.

The only difference between a 925 945 955 etc and say there low power equivalents are the fact amd tests the chips at lower voltages cuts the clock speed a bit and pushes them out. Some people are lucky enough to take chips like the 955 to 3.6ghz or so overclocked with a vcore dropped down on far worse quality motherboards that that gigabyte.

*Sigh* I don't know why I come back here.

Power consumption and TDP aside (and the way you explain TDP makes me think you don't really know how it works), a Phenom II should not be put into that motherboard for one reason. VRMs. What are VRM's you say? I'll let this thread do the talking.

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/94...hy-choose.html

On second thought, I like to talk too much. Basically they regulate and distribute the power coming from the PSU to the CPU. Basically, if the motherboard's VRM's are not up to snuff than horrible horrible stuff may happen to your equipment.



Now, I'm gonna take a look at this motherboard, and even with my poorly trained eye I can tell that that is an old budget motherboard with budget VRM's designed to handle old dual-cores made on a now obsolete and very old process node. And also, if I may, I would hazard a guess that that is a 2+1 VRM design maaaybe? So you have 2 mosfets designed to power 2 cores, and 1 mosfet designed to power the auxiliary components of a CPU.



Now lets take a look at this motherboard. My poorly trained eye tells me its a new budget motherboard designed to run quad-cores made on a relatively new process node, with what looks like 4(+1) VRM design. 4 mosfets to power 4 cores, sounds about right.

Now, why do I keep mentioning process nodes? Well, let me explain. The shrinking of a process node refers to the amount of distance between transistors on a piece of silicon. Thats why its measured in nanometers. The smaller the distance, the cleaner the power you must deliver to the silicon, otherwise you'll run into nasty problems like power leakage. Larger process nodes are more forgiving to that type of thing, whereas smaller ones are not. Due to this, VRM's nowadays are usually of a much higher quality than those of old motherboards, especially in the budget sector.

So, by putting a new Phenom II into an old motherboard, even with its 95w TDP!!!!, you are asking a pair of low quality mosfets designed to power old dual cores, to power new quad-cores which have much tighter restrictions on the power that can be delivered to them. Bad idea.

In short, if you put a Phenom II into that mobo, supported or not, you gonna fry the out of it.

*schooled*

[Wulfburk]

Ok i update my Bios with no problems, downloaded @Bios, installed, run it, and updated to F9D bios through it, now im at CPU-Z and at my mainboard tab says my Bios version is F9d while before i updated was F6, everything went well i guess.

At the Mainboard tab it says Rev. A2 and under it another Rev. A2, first one is at the right of "Chipset" and the other at the right of "Southbridge", is that right?

Thanks for the assistance mate!

[Crazyeyesreaper]

and im tell you it god damn fine, otherwise gigabyte wouldnt rate the board for the ing cpu to begin otherwise they would have replace these boards.

fact is ive used far boards with higher wattage CPUs

i know what the VRMs do The board is a 4+1 is perfectly fine for what is going on a 3+1 phase would work as well as its only again 95w chip and unless the OP runs PRIME 95, IBT, OCCT which put loads that stress the system more then any actual app he wont have any issues and hes not overclocking so it wont make any difference
notice most of the boards in that list on that link the ppl running those boards were overclocking oh theres a shocker board blows up when overclocked wow who would have thought that possible, that said all cpus used in the above were 125w cpus up to 140w cpus those were classified as the HIGH TDP, 95w cpu is perfectly acceptable again otherwise 90% of the cpus on the god damn support list wouldnt work and it would also mean a great deal of OEM PCs that used the nforce 6100 series would have popped, i looked up the info before hand. for the OPs situation and usage there wont be any problems, Now the board had support for 125w chips, with that power arrangement id be extremely leary of its capabilities but the board is limited to 95w cpus, and uses a 4+1 phase

So to sum it up
the board meets the so called articles 4+1 phase minimum
It could support up to 125w cpus but Gigabyte limits support to 95w cpus,
a Phenom II 925 is rated at 95w but in reality the new C3 revisions use far less then that, the board is rated to support a C2 version C3 cut power usage but 5-10% not alot but enough to get max TDP of the chip down a bit further.

If you read through all the boards that popped in that little forum post, you would see most of the cheap boards went POP when running overclocks or high voltages,
example
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/94...l#post12416051 MSI 790FX-GD70/1090T 4.4Ghz 1.56V, shut down/never posted again, 1 MOSFET looked wet [4+1 HS] - 17/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/94...-waste-my.html - MSI 870-G45/965 4.3Ghz 1.45V [4+1 phase] silent failure - 16/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherb...therboard.html - Gigabyte MA-78LM-S2H/Phenom II x4 940 [125W] 3.7Ghz 1.45V [3+1 phase board, 95W] - 28/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-general...therboard.html Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H/Phenom x4 9950 [140W OC, 3+1 phase] - 18/4/2011

The above is a great example of a bad idea 3+1 phase can only handle 95w person stick a 140w cpu in there herp derp. bad idea.

So roughly in essence 80% of the failures your talking about were from overclocking high wattage CPUs on cheap boards. hmmm and wait whats that the OP isnt overclocking? oh hmm yea

from what i could see out of all those posts only 3-4 failures happened on stock chips no if we take into account availability of the motherboards and the fact these boards were available in OEM pcs around the world, if there was an actual issue the boards would have been recalled.

as for TDP its not hard to figure out

OC Wattage = TDP x ( OC MHz / Stock MHz) x ( OC Vcore / Stock Vcore )^2

[Big Boss]

i know what the VRMs do The board is a 4+1 is perfectly fine for what is going on a 3+1 phase would work as well as its only again 95w chip and unless the OP runs PRIME 95, IBT, OCCT which put loads that stress the system more then any actual app he wont have any issues and hes not overclocking so it wont make any difference

That board is clearly not a 4+1 mate. It has 3 chokes which points to it being 2+1 max which is in no way good enough.


notice most of the boards in that list on that link the ppl running those boards were overclocking oh theres a shocker board blows up when overclocked wow who would have thought that possible, that said all cpus used in the above were 125w cpus up to 140w cpus those were classified as the HIGH TDP, 95w cpu is perfectly acceptable again otherwise 90% of the cpus on the god damn support list wouldnt work and it would also mean a great deal of OEM PCs that used the nforce 6100 series would have popped, i looked up the info before hand. for the OPs situation and usage there wont be any problems, Now the board had support for 125w chips, with that power arrangement id be extremely leary of its capabilities but the board is limited to 95w cpus, and uses a 4+1 phase

So to sum it up
the board meets the so called articles 4+1 phase minimum
It could support up to 125w cpus but Gigabyte limits support to 95w cpus,
a Phenom II 925 is rated at 95w but in reality the new C3 revisions use far less then that, the board is rated to support a C2 version C3 cut power usage but 5-10% not alot but enough to get max TDP of the chip down a bit further.

That board is a 2+1 designed to run dual cores, not quad cores. Again, just because its supported doesn't mean it should be.

If you read through all the boards that popped in that little forum post, you would see most of the cheap boards went POP when running overclocks or high voltages,
example
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/94...l#post12416051 MSI 790FX-GD70/1090T 4.4Ghz 1.56V, shut down/never posted again, 1 MOSFET looked wet [4+1 HS] - 17/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/94...-waste-my.html - MSI 870-G45/965 4.3Ghz 1.45V [4+1 phase] silent failure - 16/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-motherb...therboard.html - Gigabyte MA-78LM-S2H/Phenom II x4 940 [125W] 3.7Ghz 1.45V [3+1 phase board, 95W] - 28/2/2011

http://www.overclock.net/amd-general...therboard.html Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H/Phenom x4 9950 [140W OC, 3+1 phase] - 18/4/2011

The above is a great example of a bad idea 3+1 phase can only handle 95w person stick a 140w cpu in there herp derp. bad idea.

So roughly in essence 80% of the failures your talking about were from overclocking high wattage CPUs on cheap boards. hmmm and wait whats that the OP isnt overclocking? oh hmm yea

from what i could see out of all those posts only 3-4 failures happened on stock chips no if we take into account availability of the motherboards and the fact these boards were available in OEM pcs around the world, if there was an actual issue the boards would have been recalled.

And those boards are all newer and made with better components than the one he has.

I wouldn't risk it, but its not my decision to make.

[Wulfburk]

Thanks both of you, im not even thinking of overclocking, i wont do it.

i will search for that CPU where i live, and call a few guys, thanks for the help you all!

[Erax]

Gigabyte mobo's are excellent quality. Just don't OC and you'll be fine.

[mrcrusty]

I'd go for a Propus based Athlon II x4 645 model myself.

Despite having the same TDPs as the others, in real world usage, the lack of an L3 cache and refinements in the manufacturing process leads to lower power consumption in idle and typical use loads.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually, what I'd really go for is one of those energy efficient models. But they are mucho expensive. A good dual or tri core CPU wouldn't be so bad, either.

[Crazyeyesreaper]

well from what ive seen the 925 is the same price as the athlon II x4s and offers better performance when gaming same price better performance

but if it cant be found then athlon II x4 630 or Athlon II x3 440 wold be decent choices.

[Wulfburk]

but if it cant be found then athlon II x4 630 or Athlon II x3 440 wold be decent choices.

hm, and both of those will work in my motherboard with the updated Bios?

thanks i was afraid that it might have been hard to find the phenom II x4 925, i'll try to find any of those three, either one i'll be well satisfied i belive