Every time we buy an AMD-based computer, we wonder which processor and socket to choose? Especially now that AMD changes them almost every year. Will there be a prospect of replacing the processor in the future and what is the old processor good for? It is also important to know when there is a bunch of old hardware with different performance. And you need to assemble a computer of tolerable performance from all this. This table shows that the range for creativity is decent. Especially for overclockers and gamers, a large amount of iron accumulates. And it makes sense to rummage on the mezzanine and assemble, for example, a computer to the country house, or to a younger brother / sister.

It is clear from the table that, unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, FM1 and FM2 sockets are absolutely incompatible. Here you need to choose whether to move a more expensive motherboard and a budget processor, or build a powerful PC, but on the previous socket. In my opinion, the decisions are equivalent. For example, you purchased powerful computer on the outgoing socket, it doesn't matter that you will use it for several years. Although if you assemble a PC on a new socket, there is a prospect of installing a more powerful and more economical CPU in a year.

Socket, as you know, is a socket on the motherboard for installation CPU. Sockets vary in form factor, number of pins, and attachment type. The use of sockets, in principle, is intended to facilitate system upgrades by simply changing the processor. However, the problem is that the release of almost every new processor from AMD or Intel is associated with a transition to a new platform, that is, with the advent of a new socket.

This is clearly seen, in particular, on the example of the latest FM1 and FM2 sockets, designed to connect powerful AMD hybrid processors. The FM1 platform was developed for Llano processors, which were released not so long ago - in mid-2011. However, when developing processors of the new Komodo and Trinity family AMD decided to abandon the use of the FM1 socket in favor of the new FM2 platform. In this short article, we will try to figure out what this threatens users with and whether there are significant design differences between the FM1 and FM2 sockets.

Platforms FM1 and FM2

Socket FM1 is a 905-pin processor socket. It was developed specifically for AMD Fusion APUs. First of all, we are talking about Liano hybrid processors, which, due to the presence of an integrated graphics core, required not only a new design. AMD's Liano processors were introduced in dual or quad-core variants with support for Direct X 11 GPUs and random access memory type DDR3 1600. All motherboards that came out with a Socket FM1 socket for installing Liano processors adopted the UEFI system instead of the traditional BIOS. In the desktop segment, Liano processors and, accordingly, the FM1 platform debuted on June 30, 2011.

It seemed that the next generation of AMD APUs would also be in Socket FM1. However, the appearance of AMD Llano processors on the market computer enthusiasts and fans of overclocking, for whom, in fact, the novelty was designed, rated it ambiguously. Although the powerful built-in graphics core and provided a good level of performance, comparable to the work of junior discrete video cards, however, Liano processors did not bring the expected increase in frequency potential. And if AMD Llano solutions were quite competitive in the mobile segment, their popularity turned out to be low in desktop systems.

AMD has decided to bet on a new generation of Trinity APUs with more powerful graphics and computing cores. Building a faster desktop processor required abandoning the existing FM1 platform. This is how the FM2 socket appeared, which is structurally different from FM1 in a slightly different arrangement of contacts.

AMD's new Trinity processors are based on the improved Piledriver architecture and feature powerful integrated graphics. They have a dual-channel DDR3 memory controller with support for operation in modes up to DDR3 1866. One of the main differences between Trinity chips and their predecessor Liano processors is higher clock speeds. If Liano processors managed to get close to the 3 GHz mark, then the older Trinity models can already be overclocked to the mark of 3.8 GHz - 4.2 GHz.

Despite the fact that the older Trinity models have slightly fewer shader units than Llano, this is more than offset by the use of VLIW4 multiprocessor units, faster tessellation processing unit and higher clock speed. The integrated graphics core Trinity has full support for DirectX 11 with ShaderModel 5.0, OpenCL 1.1 and DirectCompute 11. Solutions based on the FM1 socket, by the way, did not provide the ability to use two graphics adapters in the system at once. The new FM2 platform with Trinity processors is aimed at a wide range of users who are interested in building fairly powerful multimedia desktop PCs.

Differences and compatibility of sockets FM1 and FM2

In general, the FM2 socket is a logical continuation of the FM1 platform, so the differences between the two sockets were not too significant. On closer examination, one can see that even appearance the FM2 socket has not changed radically from its predecessor platform. However, these changes still exist. Although the pin layout of both sockets looks similar, the FM2 is missing one of the pins in the center. Thus, if the FM1 processor socket had 905 pins, then the new platform had only 904.

In addition, the so-called "keys", that is, areas without contacts, for Llano and Trinity processors are in different places substrates. Unfortunately, a different location of the "keys" will not even allow you to install the AMDTrinity processor in the old FM1 socket. Some other subtle changes to the FM2 socket have to do with power delivery.

Representatives from AMD have for a long time given rather evasive answers to the question of whether the FM1 and FM2 platforms will eventually be compatible. This was done, probably, in order not to indirectly reduce the demand for processors with socket FM1. But today it is already known that the new AMD hybrid processors have neither direct nor backward compatibility with FM1 platform.

This means that in order to switch to latest processors Trinity desktop users with AMD Liano processors will need to purchase socket FM2 motherboards. This incompatibility is understandable, because the new AMD processors are based on a completely different architecture, which required a transition to other power subsystems. This circumstance forced AMD to switch to the new Socket FM2 platform. However, owners of desktop PCs with the FM1 platform are unlikely to be satisfied with this decision.

FM1 and FM2 socket outlook

AMD has earned the recognition of users not only for its performance and cost-effective solutions, but also for the fact that it has always strived to maintain one design for several generations of its processors. This provided users with the ability to easily and quickly upgrade their PC by purchasing and installing a new processor. Thus, the frequent socket change policy has never been AMD's hallmark. That is why the rejection of the FM1 platform actually gave rise to a lot of dissatisfaction among a serious part of AMD product supporters.

With the advent of the new FM2 platform, the company's management de facto recognized the Llano hybrid processors and their accompanying motherboards with the FM1 socket as a "dead end" solution. It is clear that the platform of the previous generation with the lack of the possibility of an upgrade is unlikely to have any success with users. It can be assumed that the FM1 socket, which was released, it would seem, not so long ago, will wait for a short life on the market.

With the FM2 platform, as AMD claims, everything will be different. This processor socket will not become "single serial", as happened with FM1, but will be focused on supporting several future generations of AMD processors. However, given the not very pleasant history with the release of first-generation APUs, potential consumers may have concerns and questions to AMD about whether the FM2 platform is really serious and for a long time. Perhaps in the near future, in connection with the development of new more productive solutions, the company will again have to switch to a completely different processor socket.

Whatever the case, currently whole line manufacturers have already announced the release of socket FM2 motherboards for new AMD processors. These are, for example, the flagship model GA-F2A85X-UP4 from Gigabyte and the Hi-Fi A85W board from Biostar. Everything speaks in favor of the fact that the choice of motherboards with an FM2 connector will become quite wide in the near future.

All motherboards with FM2+ and FM2 connectors are fully compatible with Socket FM2 processors(AMD Trinity and Richland, Ax-5000. Ax-6000 and AMD Athlon X4 7x0 / X2 3x0 series APUs) and CPU with Socket FM2+. But the Socket FM2+ processors themselves (AMD Kaveri Ax-7000 and Athlon X4 8x0) can only be installed on motherboards with a similar socket, but they cannot be run on FM2 boards.

Specially Socket FM2+ boards were developed for AMD Kaveri solutions on AMD A58, A68, A78 and A88 chipsets. They remain compatible with Socket FM2 processors, so we recommend buying them for a possible further upgrade (if you decide to go this way).

Is it worth building a computer on Socket FM2+?

Yes, is it even worth it to do such things? Now it is May 2016, when Intel released high-performance Skylake, and AMD is preparing to introduce completely new AMD Zen and APU Excavator for Socket AM4. The new platform should be some kind of revolutionary step, as marking time has led AMD to surrender its position in the market for both processors and video cards. Therefore, we do not recommend buying those processors that are sold now, since the competition towards the end of the year will be able to dot the "i" and lower the price tags to the proper level. If you really want to update your desktop in the near future, and replacing the processor with a more powerful one is not in your plans in the future, then you can take a closer look at Socket FM2+. But we are waiting AMD Zen...

AMD processors use different sockets than Intel-supplied models. Therefore, the choice of the processor itself is so important - it determines the set additional components, like a motherboard, and at the same time can bind the user to one platform.

This is a connector designed for new group Phenom processors II, as well as Athlon II, Sempron and Opteron. Entered the market in 2009. The most important change was the introduction of support for the DDR3 memory controller. AM3s are not compatible with older versions, even though the design difference is just the addition of a single pin.

socket AM3+

The AM3+ socket is a new, modified version of its predecessor (AM3), prepared with AMD Bulldozer architecture-based processors in mind. Unlike most Intel stands, the AM3+ is AM3 compatible, which means that processors based on the new socket can be installed in an AM3 socket. The only condition is a BIOS update if the manufacturer decides to release it new version. However, keep in mind that not every processor will work in an AM3 package. Among the design differences, you can specify the addition of one contact. The new stand also introduces improved power regulation.

The processor families that can be installed in the AM3+ socket are Phenom II, Athlon II, and FX.

AT motherboards with socektem AM3+ also introduced new 990FX and SB950 logic chips, which provide support for octa-core processors. Support for HyperTransport technology version 3.1 has also been added. In addition, the first of them introduces the possibility of combining video cards in SLI.

The FM2 connector is used in motherboards designed to serve desktop APUs based on the Piledriver architecture. These include the Athlon 2 and Athlon X4 processors. Appeared also new chipset– A85X. Compared to the FM1 connector, several contacts have been removed, leaving them in the amount of 904.

Socket FM2+

The new socket was created with the new Kaveri platform in mind. Contrary to previous company policy, FM2+ is only partially compatible. This means that owners will not be able to install new processors, however, nothing prevents them from installing an old processor in the FM2+ socket. There is also a new chipset: A88X.

Historical study of the company's first integrated platform

As experience shows, articles devoted to testing "old" (by the standards of the computer market) systems are usually no less popular than reviews of "hot" new products. And no wonder: even when their owners are no longer satisfied with the current level of performance, it is still interesting to compare it with the demonstrated new computers - at least in order to understand what is worth switching to (and whether it is worth it). Of course, it is impossible to test absolutely everything released by manufacturers at least in the last five years, but some iconic processors are quite. Especially when they are interesting in themselves as stages in the development of the industry or allow us to draw conclusions about some other products. In particular, that is why we decided (since the opportunity arose) to repeat one test of the year before last, but using modern software. Yes, yes, we will again talk about the AMD FM1 platform.

Why go back to her? First, despite its short life, it was, one might say, a turning point in the development of the market: this is the first platform whose integrated graphics were not implemented on the principle of "what was", but really suitable for (albeit limited) gaming or "non-graphic computing". In 2011, this was fresh and relevant - we recall that the then Intel proposals supported technologies already existing in discrete GPUs only to an extremely limited extent. AMD, on the other hand, has implemented full functionality and performance at the level of junior discrete graphics cards of the same year, and not some distant past. Actually, even later, performance competition continued to remain only intra-company - especially if we consider the budget segment, in which FM1 could fully replace only FM2, and later FM2 +, but not the updated LGA1155 or LGA1150. Last year, however, processors with a more powerful GPU were released for the latter than in any AMD APUs, but they are significantly more expensive. And what about the budget processors for the latest LGA1151? Something is possible, but for this it is desirable to compare the solutions of both companies directly and on an equal footing.

The processor component of the first AMD APUs is also interesting in its own way, albeit archaic: it goes back to the 2009 Athlon II. Despite their venerable age, such processors are still used by many, so they are also worth testing. But it's not really necessary to do so. As earlier tests showed, the performance of the A4-3400 roughly corresponds to the younger Athlon II X2 215/220, while the analogue of the A8-3870K is the older processors on the same chip, already sold under the Phenom II X4 840/850 brand. Moreover, the correspondence in this case is almost complete: the same number of cores similar in microarchitecture (and, accordingly, in supported technologies) allows us to expect that even when the software changes, the processors will still behave in a similar way. So, having tested the two mentioned processors for FM1, we will get an estimate of the performance range of budget processors for AM3. And accurate enough. And Intel processors for the LGA775 platform also fall into the same range - somewhere from Pentium E5x00 to Core 2 Quad Q9500. Here the comparison, of course, is already more rough, but also worthy of attention.

In general, no matter how you look at it, it's worth spending some time on the very first generation of AMD APUs. Today we will deal with this.

Test stand configuration

For the reasons mentioned above, we are most interested in two processors, but we will test three (since they already exist), adding the A6-3500 to the list of test subjects. Also interesting in its own way, since it occupied a special position in the model line: a three-core (the only one of all) with a good (if not the best) GPU, TDP 65 W and massively available (unlike exotic quad-cores for this platform with such a heat pack). And again, in terms of gaming performance, at least some We need A6, but there are no others.

We will compare this trio first of all with the A8-7650K: this is a much more modern and serious solution from the company, but the slowest of the newer generations of processors we tested. Over time, we plan, if possible, to test cheaper offers for FM2 + (fortunately, in this segment this platform still retains good positions), but so far they are not there - we will limit ourselves to an estimate from above: the old A8 against the new one.

Plus three Intel processors: a modern Celeron and two Pentiums - one is just as modern, and the second is a little outdated, but processors for the LGA1150 platform are still popular. Why choose the Pentium G4500T? We need some Intel processor with a GT2 video core (which is now also available in the Pentium), but the older G4520 is a clear overkill, because in terms of processor performance it very often overtakes even modern A10s. So we decided to take a slower model, even if it was energy efficient - AMD and Intel's proposals have already diverged so much in this parameter that it still makes no sense to compare them directly.

Test Methodology

The technique is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:

• Methodology for measuring power consumption when testing processors
• Methodology for monitoring power, temperature and processor load during testing

BUT detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with the results (in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format) . Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. In particular, this applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by the areas of application of the computer.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

Four "full" cores of the A8-3870K still allow it to compete with dual-core Intel processors in these programs. entry level, but they are already slower than a couple of dual-stream modules of modern FM2+ solutions. The successes of the rest of the subjects, of course, are much more modest. And the most noteworthy is that the A4-3400 is already about twice as slow as the Celeron G3900. What's wrong here? Both processors are commonplace dual-core models without any SMT technologies and operating at almost the same frequency, but they differ by half. So just counting the cores says nothing about performance even in a multi-threaded environment: the level of old dual-core devices (recall that the A4-3400 is also comparable to Athlon II X2 or Celeron/Pentium for LGA775) is about half that of modern ones. But we have not yet taken the oldest model - the first representatives of this class (such as Athlon 64 X2 or Pentium D) are even slower. And the first quad-core processors only roughly correspond to modern dual-core ones, which also gives food for thought.

Especially in those conditions when they fail to "turn around in full force" - as in Photoshop, for example. Note that in this group of applications, generally speaking, modern Celeron and Pentium do not shine for many reasons. But they “do not shine” against the background of peers, and not at all representatives of outdated architectures.

A single-threaded (mostly) application, where the new AMD microarchitectures do not look the best. The old ones are even more convincing to some extent - 3870K almost caught up with 7650K, despite the significantly lower clock frequency. But this has long been a struggle in the "basement", so you can not pay much attention to it: it works - and okay.

Audition is slightly more loyal to multi-core processors, although in principle this does not change anything - only the A4-3400 in the end looks even worse than in the previous case.

But in a simple multithreaded integer, the old A6 and A8 are still not bad - despite their very advanced age, they can somehow compete with budget processors. But if there are only two cores (as in all A4s) or three low-frequency ones (a feature of the A6-3500), nothing good comes of it. As expected.

Due to the lack of a common cache memory, "athlon-shaped" and "during life" did not shine in such tasks, but, nevertheless, older models, as we see, can now compete at least with Celeron. The younger ones (which do not have a head start in terms of the number of cores, which affects the packing time) behave worse, but it cannot be said that it is completely terrible.

Already within the framework of AM3, the company provided its chipsets with support for the SATA interface, which was also preserved in the FM1 disk controllers, so, in principle, processors for the latest platform can normally “load” a fast solid-state drive with work, almost as good as modern devices. In more complex scenarios, nuances are possible, but from the point of view of normal domestic use, there are no problems.

As we have already noted, this program does not take too well to "virtual multithreading" technologies, which played a bad joke on AMD's new A8: it turned out to be almost indistinguishable from the old one. However, the computing capabilities of either one or the other, and even more so of junior processors for FM1, are generally low from the point of view of today, so “serious work” is not their forte. But they get the job done. Slowly but surely.

So, what do we have in the bottom line? Even the A8-3870K is generally comparable only to modern Celerons. Of course, there are cases when it looks more or less good against the background of the latter, thanks to the presence of four cores, but it also happens that quantity can not be used, but with the quality, everything is clear. The funnier thing here, however, is not this, but the fact that AMD's progress in improving integrated platforms in general turned out to be almost worse than that of Intel, although the latter company is most often criticized. A8-7650K, of course, is not the fastest processor in the family, but even from Athlon X4 880K with a discrete video card and 16 GB of memory we got only 129.5 integral points - the A8-3870K already gave out only 20% less. Moreover, this is not a top segment at all - even initially, the processors were positioned approximately as competitors to the Core i3. The latter, we recall, grew up one and a half times, so they left to fight on other fronts. Mostly with themselves or with Intel processors of a higher class, but of earlier release years. But the "APU" remained almost at the same level in terms of processor performance, despite the change in architecture and other improvements. But perhaps progress has been more noticeable in other areas?

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

Actually, it is clearly visible - for the sake of which everything was started: the faster A8-7650K consumes energy much more carefully than the A8-3870K. Moreover, we note that the technical processes are in principle comparable: the processors for FM1 were the first to use the 32 nm process technology, and they managed to improve it only by one step. Moreover, it is small: Intel immediately switched from 32 to 22, and now to 14 nm, and AMD has mastered only the transition from 32 to 28 nm. Therefore, now there is no direct competition between companies. But do not forget that AMD also managed to limit the needs of their devices somewhat - it used to be even worse.

True, of course, against the background of what Intel has achieved, all successes are too lost. But they did something - so, well done. The first "APUs" were not only slow, but also very inefficient. For comparison - Core i3-2120 even in a system with a discrete graphics card (which, as we know, only spoils the results) had an "energy efficiency" score of 2.15 points, i.e. more than one and a half times higher than that of "peers » family A8. But so far we have practically not touched on the graphics, which are just in the early Intel processors was very weak, and AMD integrated platforms were mainly purchased for its sake. Let's see what's good for now.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

Usually we present in the articles the results of only those games that at least one of the participants copes with at least one resolution. In this case, we decided to move away from this practice, since we initially have a notorious favorite in the form of the A8-7650K, to which all the rest are not competitors. Therefore, we will consider in detail only those games that the A8-3870K can somehow cope with - there are not so few of them.

For example, the “tanks” that not the newest Intel processors can cope with in the minimum settings mode. When using the same video cards, they also turn out to be winners - because of the high "single-threaded" performance. But the power of integrated graphics is still different, which leaves its mark. In particular, in FHD mode, even the old A8-3870K easily beats all Intel processors with GT1 GPUs. Moreover, even the low-frequency A6-3500 under the same conditions outperforms the most modern Celeron, and, moreover, the Pentium for LGA1150. A4-3400 cannot accomplish such "feats", but you can play on it. And even try to do it in the "full" resolution mode - peers from Intel were not capable of this.

Things are much worse with "ships", however, in general, older models for FM1 cope with them better than modern Celerons, not to mention the "previous" Pentiums. The latter are completely inferior to the younger A6. Pentium G45x0 is faster, of course, and how many years newer. In general, only the A4-3400 unambiguously lost its position, but no one doubted this - even “during its lifetime” it belonged to the budget segment itself.

What new Celerons, what slightly older Pentiums in this, to put it mildly, is not new game, if they can compete with someone, then only with the A4-3400. And in order to somehow catch up with the A8-3870K, representatives of the G45x0 family are already needed. So far this is how it is. What fades a little except perhaps against the background of the indicators of the new A8, but new ones - after all, we are studying five-year-old processors (if anyone has forgotten).

The A8-3870K nominally handled the game in HD - the Pentium G4500T did the same. It's clear that it doesn't matter will not be enough, but more - for processors for FM2 +, for example. And the Pentium G3260, announced at the beginning of 2015, looks very funny, but has not managed to catch up with the youngest A6 of 2011 in any way :)

In this case, things look a little better for Intel, but only if you do not remember the difference of several years. AMD also did not stand still, after all, so the new A8 went far ahead. Intel processors too - but in comparison with their own predecessors in the main.

The picture is already familiar: the Celeron G39x0 lags even behind the younger old A6, the Pentium G32x0 still loses to the no less ancient A4, the G4500T somehow struggles with the A8-3870K, and the A8-7650K rises menacingly above all this :)

Is it generally possible to consider FM1 a gaming platform as of today? No, of course not. Actually, even FM2+ is suitable for this role only conditionally - we have always adhered and continue to adhere to the opinion that if gaming is one of the intended purposes when purchasing a computer, a discrete video card has no alternative. But you can play some games (if restraint) play on the IGP. From the point of view of today's article, the most important thing is that to this day this five-year-old platform, in general, is not inferior to modern low-end Intel solutions. More precisely, Pentium and Core i3 with HDG 530 GPU are no worse than the older A8 for FM1, but all models up to HDG 510 inclusive (and the old “numberless ones”) at best reach the level of the younger A6. And then A4. That is, the backlog at one time was very good, which is not surprising - after all, even the A4-3400 has a complete analog of the Radeon HD 6450, which is still de facto sold under the name Radeon R5 230. The built-in Radeon 6550D in the older A8 is closer to video cards of a slightly different level - about the Radeon HD 5570. In general, in those years such discrete video cards were in demand, but here an integrated solution. Which looks pale against the background of the new proposals of AMD itself, but after all, how many years have passed. And Intel processors are reaching this level only now, i.e., almost five years after the appearance of the FM1 platform, or about six years - if you count from the company's first GPUs integrated "under the cover" of the processor (albeit on a separate chip).

Total

The first thing to be sure to note in the conclusions is that we did not encounter any problems during testing, despite using latest version Windows and a modern set of programs. Yes, of course, video drivers for older "APUs" are already available only through windows update, but they are installed, and everything works fine - as in the case of Intel's Ivy Bridge (but with Sandy Bridge of the same 2011 as FM1, there are already some rough edges).

And in terms of hardware configuration, everything is also simple: completely standard (so far) DDR3 memory, conventional drives with SATA600 interface, built-in USB 3.0 support, and expansion cards are used PCI bus and PCIe - there were no significant changes in the market. The latter, by the way, allows you to "spur" the gaming performance a little if necessary, simply by adding a discrete graphics card. Of course, it makes no sense to set the expensive one, since the performance of solutions for this platform is still low - the expensive one will not be fully used.

To be fair, if we had tried this experiment in 2011, but with the 2006 system, we would have basically succeeded, too. Problems could arise with memory (due to the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 that occurred at the end of the 2000s), but not with other peripherals. But with a computer of 2001 in 2006, everything would be very difficult ... AGP for video cards, Parallel ATA for drives, already exotic SDRAM or RDRAM memory - why go far: in 2006, we used the x64 version of Windows for testing XP (and after all, Vista came out at the end of the year), and the first processors suitable for its operation appeared only in 2003. In general, just about 2005-2006. processes in the market were quite turbulent. After - one and a half changes in the type of memory (transition from DDR2 to DDR3 and the ongoing process of introducing DDR4), and leapfrog of processor sockets. Other interfaces have evolved already evolutionarily and with the preservation of compatibility. Software more or less stabilized in their requests, which grew only quantitatively (which was solved taking into account the compatibility of interfaces), but not qualitatively. And in some areas - and no quantitative changes were observed: the computer on which it was possible to install and comfortably use Vista, copes with the "top ten" not in the worst way.

In general, there is nothing surprising that systems from five or even ten years ago are still in operation. Interestingly, the performance of processors from 2006 to 2011 grew faster than from 2011 to 2016, so it is, in general, far from it (despite crying and moaning about this in various forums and others like them). It is clear that all those processors are already either slow or very slow - a lot depends on the year. In particular, if we return to our today's heroine, the AMD FM1 platform, then in 2006 it would have been a top one (this is, of course, a hypothetical comparison, but according to earlier tests, processors for FM1 just correspond to the level of the best Core 2 Duo / Quad, and their video part is worthy of comparison with good discrete video cards of that time), in 2011 - budgetary and already only conditionally gaming, but today ... you yourself saw :) However, all investments in themselves such systems have long been recaptured, so what if the performance "does not press" - then why fix something that isn't broken? If something really breaks and / or ceases to suit for other reasons, then when buying a new computer, you can no longer worry about the choice. As you can see, even the integrated graphics of Intel processors have already risen to given level, and AMD's new "APUs" are even faster. In terms of processor performance, both those and others also "grew up" - albeit to varying degrees, but still. Thus, whatever you buy to replace the old system with FM1 will be at least as good, but at the same time cheaper. And if you are not limited to the cheapest offers, then definitely better. In general, you can not think about what was, but just buy what you need - as if there was no computer at all. Good news, in general.