PDA

View Full Version : Upgrade my GPU, CPU, motherboard or all of them!?



One Pigeon
28-11-2012, 11:27 AM
Hi all,

Having played Planetside 2 (and enjoying it) it's got me thinking that it's probably about time to start upgrading my rig.
I know that they're attempting to optimise it at the moment and people with far better pc's than me are having fps issues in the zerg but I'd like to be able to stop running the game on lower settings with maybe a few more fps than I have now.
This would also have a nice knock on effect of making Arma 2 and all the other games I enjoy and will enjoy in the future, play a lot better.

So, my current setup is:

Gigabyte P43T-ES3G motherboard
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz
Corsair (2 x 4GB) 8GB DDR3 1333MHz XMS3
Radeon HD5770 1GB
Samsung HD103SJ Spinpoint F3 1TB Hard Drive SATAII 7200rpm
OCZ Stealth Xtream 500W PSU

My initial thoughts were to get a new GPU as this Radeon is looking a little old right now but then I'm not sure if this would necessitate a new PSU as well.
Then if I wanted to upgrade my processor to something faster I don't know whether this would mean a new motherboard too.
Basically my knowledge is fairly limited, although Google has been a good friend in the past but I find asking for first hand advice and suggestions far better than many tutorials that come up.

I haven't put a price but anything you think would definitely be necessary or at least the absolute minimum to make it worth spending my money would be a good start.

Thanks in advance.
OP

Sakkura
28-11-2012, 12:08 PM
A new processor would indeed mean a new motherboard. You could at least still recycle the RAM.
Upgrading the graphics card wouldn't necessarily mean upgrading the PSU. You can get more performance at, heck, even a lower power consumption than the HD 5770. I'm not a fan of the OCZ StealthXStream PSUs though. Their quality is so-so at best.

For most games, a new graphics card would make the biggest difference. Your Q8400 isn't perfect by today's standards, but it'll manage in most games. I don't know how CPU-intensive Planetside 2 is though (nor does anyone, really, if it's still being optimised).

A Radeon HD 7850 would be a major improvement over your HD 5770 and only draw a little bit more power. It also only requires a single 6-pin PCIe power connector like the 5770, so it would work with your PSU in that regard as well.
It comes in two overall versions, with 1 GB or 2 GB. If you play at 1080p you should try and get the 2 GB version if possible, but the 1 GB should mostly be fine. If you play at lower res you don't need the 2 GB; if you play at higher res (2560x1440?) you'll need the 2 GB.

Grizzly
28-11-2012, 12:13 PM
To see if your PSU is up to scratch for your upgrades: Use this page (http://images10.newegg.com/BizIntell/tool/psucalc/index.html)

Your system is basically the same as mine, except that it has a slightly faster CPU, and that you have DDR3 ram.
The problem is that I really can't recommend what you should upgrade first, as your system is actually pretty well balanced.

Any processor you can buy today requires a new motherboard, so you are out of luck there (the Q8400 is already top of the line for the mobo it was made for).
However, the new Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge i5 CPUs (The i5 is basically the spiritual successor to your CPU) all draw less power then the Q8400 you have now. If you upgrade your motherboard and your CPU, you get less power consumption, thus giving you more headroom for a more powerfull GPU whilst being able to keep your Power supply and the same power bill. However, according to that calculator I gave you, you already have quite a bit of headroom.

On the other hand, upgrading your GPU will probably get a (much) more noticable performance increase in almost any game, since most games these days are not CPU intensive (Except probably Arma 2 and Planetside...). I don't think power supply will be a big problem as detailed above.

As for recommendations for what you want to upgrade to, check out Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com), which have a neat Graphic's Card buying guide (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html) and a neat CPU buying guide (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html).

Be advised that the equivalents of your card and your processor are actually being sold as lower-end components today (the 5770 falls between the 7770 and the 7750 in performance, for example, and your CPU is the equivalent of the Pentium Gseries being sold today. Except that it is a quad core).

Tl;Dr - You probably have the best luck upgrading your GPU, I think your PSU will handle it just fine.

One Pigeon
28-11-2012, 12:43 PM
Thanks for all the information guys, both extremely useful.

Looks like GPU is the way to go then. I guess if my processor isn't that outdated then it seems more sensible for me to wait a while longer until upgrading becomes more necessary!

The 7850 looks a decent bet so I'll have a look into it

Sakkura
28-11-2012, 12:52 PM
You could also start saving up some money for the upcoming launch of Intels Haswell processors (expected circa April). That's one nice thing about desktops, you can upgrade them in stages.

Finicky
28-11-2012, 01:26 PM
First of all @ op, a 500W psu is more than fine unless you go crossfire/SLI. Don't throw your money away.
Even a gtx 670 doesn't use more power than a gtx 260, which is a card most people used with a 400W PSU 4 years ago. A 7850 uses like 40W less than a gtx 260...




For most games, a new graphics card would make the biggest difference. Your Q8400 isn't perfect by today's standards, but it'll manage in most games. I don't know how CPU-intensive Planetside 2 is though (nor does anyone, really, if it's still being optimised).

A Radeon HD 7850 would be a major improvement over your HD 5770 and only draw a little bit more power. It also only requires a single 6-pin PCIe power connector like the 5770, so it would work with your PSU in that regard as well.
It comes in two overall versions, with 1 GB or 2 GB. If you play at 1080p you should try and get the 2 GB version if possible, but the 1 GB should mostly be fine. If you play at lower res you don't need the 2 GB; if you play at higher res (2560x1440?) you'll need the 2 GB.

It's extremely, ridiculously cpu intensive, it's the single only game that seems to not run on amd cpus at all.
I get 10-25 fps with my phenom II x3 @3.4 ghz in the zerg in planetside 2 on lowest possible settings (cpu bottlenecked so settings don't matter) , 40-100 fps in every other game with the same cpu.

Even on a 4.5 ghz i5 ivy bridge it barely stays above 35 fps in zergs from what I hear.


If op wants to play planetside (and zerging is the only reasonable way to farm certs, yay for f2p grinds taking a shit on what would otherwise be a good game) then he'll get more value out of a better cpu.

It really isn't that demanding gpu wise unless you turn on AO, I get 35-50 fps on a hd6870 on highest settings outside of zergs.

@ sakkura, isn't haswell supposed to only be a 5-10 percent performance increase again? It's pretty safe to assume there will also be at least a 10 percent price premium for those cpus in the first year.

Sakkura
28-11-2012, 02:45 PM
It's extremely, ridiculously cpu intensive, it's the single only game that seems to not run on amd cpus at all.
I get 10-25 fps with my phenom II x3 @3.4 ghz in the zerg in planetside 2 on lowest possible settings (cpu bottlenecked so settings don't matter) , 40-100 fps in every other game with the same cpu.

Even on a 4.5 ghz i5 ivy bridge it barely stays above 35 fps in zergs from what I hear.


If op wants to play planetside (and zerging is the only reasonable way to farm certs, yay for f2p grinds taking a shit on what would otherwise be a good game) then he'll get more value out of a better cpu.

It really isn't that demanding gpu wise unless you turn on AO, I get 35-50 fps on a hd6870 on highest settings outside of zergs.

@ sakkura, isn't haswell supposed to only be a 5-10 percent performance increase again? It's pretty safe to assume there will also be at least a 10 percent price premium for those cpus in the first year.
The way the game runs now isn't necessarily representative of how it will run later, since it's obviously not optimised.

Haswell is a tock, so I'd expect between 10 and 15 percent more performance. Price will probably go up, but not by as much. They'll probably also cut prices on Ivy Bridge CPUs.

trjp
28-11-2012, 03:44 PM
The OP is in the opposite situation to me really - I could easily upgrade ANY part of my system and see a benefit but he can't really do that.

First thing I'd do is install a decent overlay and see what's being hammered - you want to monitor CPU usage by core, memory usage and GPU utilisation.

I recommend an overlay tool like PlayClaw (free version will work) or MSI Afterburner (not restricted to MSI products but faffy to get CPU readings from). PlayClaw is self-explanatory - Afternurner you'll need to Google to setup for CPU monitoring using HW64.

I have a feeling that any problems you're seeing are just a overall lack of oomph tho - changing CPU means changing Motherboard (and reinstalling everything).

You could get a better GPU on your current PSU tho - GPU power reqs have dropped quite a bit and almost any single card will run on a 500W PSU (power connectors permitting).

Sdoots
28-11-2012, 07:32 PM
I hope it's alright for me to piggyback on this thread, as I'm in the same situation as the OP.

Nothing on the PS2 forums is giving me any help, and with Christmas coming up I figured I'd ask for some money to go buy some PC parts. My current rig is starting to show its age, and PS2 just chugs on anything but absolute low.

So right now, I'm using:

AMD Phenom II X4 840
GeForce GTX 560 1023MB
MSI 880G-E45
Corsair CX500 500W PSU
12 GB DDR3 RAM 668 MHZ

I was thinking of picking up an Intel Core i5 2500K, the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-D3H Motherboard, and a 7950 for the GPU. Does that seem like something that would run PS2 fluidly?

I have an additional 4 gigs of RAM I can drop in, for what it's worth. A bit of plastic from the anti-static sleeve got caught between the heat shield and the chips, so I need to get some air and blow it out before I can actually use it.

trjp
28-11-2012, 07:49 PM
Let me just say one thing - no game on earth will notice the difference between 12 and 16Gb of RAM because I'll be amazed if any game uses much more than 2Gb of RAM (remember, they have to work on systems which only have 3 available in total!)

As people have said, loads of people having issues with PS2, even on high-end kit - using it as an excuse to upgrade is fine but expecting a result - well, maybe not so likely :)

Sakkura
28-11-2012, 07:59 PM
I was thinking of picking up an Intel Core i5 2500K, the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-D3H Motherboard, and a 7950 for the GPU. Does that seem like something that would run PS2 fluidly?
Might as well make it a Core i5-3570k, unless it's significantly more expensive. There's little sense in getting a more expensive CPU for gaming. The graphics card is high-end as well.


Let me just say one thing - no game on earth will notice the difference between 12 and 16Gb of RAM because I'll be amazed if any game uses much more than 2Gb of RAM (remember, they have to work on systems which only have 3 available in total!)

As people have said, loads of people having issues with PS2, even on high-end kit - using it as an excuse to upgrade is fine but expecting a result - well, maybe not so likely :)
Yeah, some games just want to watch the world burn.

As for the RAM, you definitely don't need more than 12 GB. Heck, you don't even need more than 8. However, adding the last stick will get you a pure dual-channel configuration, which is nice.

If you're on a spending spree you could switch to faster RAM though. 800 MHz (= 1600 MT/s, often called 1600 MHz) is standard today, and 933 MHz (1866 MT/s) is a little better and still reasonably priced.

Sdoots
28-11-2012, 11:11 PM
I'm not sure I follow. Do I go for the 3570k or no? You say to do so, and then say there's little sense in going for a more expensive CPU. I just checked, it'd only cost me another $10. As for the GPU, that was the intent.

Thank you for the reality check on PS2. I've kind of known all along that it wouldn't be as simple as "Buy this stuff, and it'll work well!", but a guy can dream, right? That said, other recent releases have made the need of an upgrade apparent, if not now than soon, so I figured I'd get it over with when I had the money to do it.

RAM wise, it's probably going to stay where it is in terms of speed unless I can find some for a really good price. I just recently bought these sticks, so I'd like to try to make them last.

Thank you so much for the help you guys, I appreciate it a lot!

Sakkura
29-11-2012, 01:06 AM
I meant more expensive than the Core i5-3570k, sorry.
A lot of people buy Core i7s for gaming, which is frankly a waste of money.

Herkimer
29-11-2012, 02:20 AM
I wonder if I could piggyback as well; I'd love some advice.

Bought this about 2.5 years ago:

ATX mid tower case
GIGABYTE GA-H55M-S2H LGA 1156 Intel H55 HDMI Micro ATX Intel Motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128420)
Radeon HD5770 1GB
Intel Core i3-530 Clarkdale 2.93GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115222)
400w Corsair PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231277)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Grizzly
29-11-2012, 10:44 AM
I wonder if I could piggyback as well; I'd love some advice.

Bought this about 2.5 years ago:

ATX mid tower case
GIGABYTE GA-H55M-S2H LGA 1156 Intel H55 HDMI Micro ATX Intel Motherboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128420)
Radeon HD5770 1GB
Intel Core i3-530 Clarkdale 2.93GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115222)
400w Corsair PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231277)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Your computer is basically on par with the OP, except that you have less, albeit faster, RAM, and a 400 wat PSU as opposed to a 500 watt PSU. Basically, follow the advise on the above posts, with two caveats:

Your PSU might need upgrading.
8GB DDR3 is slowly becoming the new standard in gaming, although I think you will do just fine with your 4gb, Planetside 2 might disagree.

Sakkura
29-11-2012, 10:54 AM
If it's a Corsair CX 400, it's actually more powerful than their newer CX 430.

Herkimer
29-11-2012, 03:56 PM
Thanks for the advice, guys. Basically I'm waffling between updating the CPU (which probably requires a new mobo, which probably requires a new PSU anyway, which means rebuilding the whole damn thing, etc.) and doing the GPU + new PSU + some RAM route. The reason I'm waffling is that although Planetside and ArmA are currently the only games I'm playing that appear to be CPU-limited, I play them a fair amount.

Meh. I think I'll probably just do the graphics card, then. CPU can wait another year. Thanks all!

edit: I think it's overkill for now, but this PSU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139010) should last me through another couple of decent upgrades, no?

Jesus_Phish
29-11-2012, 04:03 PM
You could give it a while and see what the game runs like when they get to optimizing it properly? Though that could take months.

Sakkura
29-11-2012, 05:14 PM
edit: I think it's overkill for now, but this PSU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139010) should last me through another couple of decent upgrades, no?
Yeah. That'll let you pick and choose pretty freely, most configurations with two graphics cards would still be viable with that PSU. Even three graphics cards as long as they're not too power-hungry.

Grizzly
29-11-2012, 09:33 PM
Thanks for the advice, guys. Basically I'm waffling between updating the CPU (which probably requires a new mobo, which probably requires a new PSU anyway, which means rebuilding the whole damn thing, etc.) and doing the GPU + new PSU + some RAM route. The reason I'm waffling is that although Planetside and ArmA are currently the only games I'm playing that appear to be CPU-limited, I play them a fair amount.

Meh. I think I'll probably just do the graphics card, then. CPU can wait another year. Thanks all!

edit: I think it's overkill for now, but this PSU (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139010) should last me through another couple of decent upgrades, no?

I think it is fair to say that it is overkill now, and overkill forever. The main aim on tech these days is not performance, but power effeciency, with newer generations of hardware requiring less and less power (Look at, say, the power difference between the Q8400 and the Ivy Bridge i5 - the latter is faster but requires less power).

On the other hand, having a 750 watt PSU will mean that you probably will never have to upgrade that thing ever again. And, as a side bonus, a PSU that can perform reliably at 750 watt will most certainly perform extremely reliably at 500 watts, and reliability is all you want when getting more expensive components (PSUs have a nasty tendency of doing splash damage when they go down). It will probably also last quite a bit longer.

Personally, though, I'd rather go for a 600 or 650 watt PSU, and invest the money you save on the other components. A 750 watt PSU is only requiered when you plan to build a computer with the high end i7s or AMD processors, and if you crossfire or SLI two or more graphics card. But if you had the buying power to do that, you wouldn't be here asking if you should upgrade your CPU or GPU first.

There is, unfortunately, no defintive answer I can give you on that point.

trjp
29-11-2012, 09:45 PM
On power supplies - there's almost nothing sensible a decent 500W can't power these days. PSUs above that are a mixture of 'marketting' and 'mentalists running mad overclocks and 3 GPUs and liquid cooling and shit'.

Power Supplies do have a finite life tho - even the best PSUs will lose 20-25% of their effective power over 3-5 years (crap ones lose 20% a year) which means even good PSUs are less than ideal as they approach the 4/5 year old mark (I've yet to see an PSU pass 6 without issues).

To the OP - I'd say that a new GPU will be useful when you decide to upgrade everything else anyway - that 5770 would be sub-par for a nice shiny-new i5+mobo tho so perhaps that's where you should start - you'll see some benefits for sure (and I'll have your 5770 :) ) :)

Sakkura
29-11-2012, 10:27 PM
As long as the caps are quality, PSUs can live a very long time.

And also: 450-550W is regular system territory. 650-750W is SLI/Crossfire territory. If you want SLI/Crossfire, a 750W PSU is a good choice.

Finicky
30-11-2012, 09:32 AM
I think it is fair to say that it is overkill now, and overkill forever. The main aim on tech these days is not performance, but power effeciency, with newer generations of hardware requiring less and less power (Look at, say, the power difference between the Q8400 and the Ivy Bridge i5 - the latter is faster but requires less power).

On the other hand, having a 750 watt PSU will mean that you probably will never have to upgrade that thing ever again. And, as a side bonus, a PSU that can perform reliably at 750 watt will most certainly perform extremely reliably at 500 watts, and reliability is all you want when getting more expensive components (PSUs have a nasty tendency of doing splash damage when they go down). It will probably also last quite a bit longer.

Personally, though, I'd rather go for a 600 or 650 watt PSU, and invest the money you save on the other components. A 750 watt PSU is only requiered when you plan to build a computer with the high end i7s or AMD processors, and if you crossfire or SLI two or more graphics card. But if you had the buying power to do that, you wouldn't be here asking if you should upgrade your CPU or GPU first.

There is, unfortunately, no defintive answer I can give you on that point.

It's overkill but if you upgrade you'll probably never have to upgrade!
Derp.

OP stick with your 500W psu till it someday breaks or you want to go SLI. You need a better psu as much as your tv needs a monster cable.

Sdoots
30-11-2012, 04:11 PM
Okay, cool. Thanks for the clarification.

Last night, I tried something with PS2. With all low graphics settings, in a full blown massive scale battle, I was getting 3 fps.
Out of some hybrid of frusturation and curiousity, I turned everything on high, enabled motion blur, whatever the fancy lighting filter is called, and restarted the game.

I'm now consistently getting 14 fps or so in large scale battles, and 30-40 in smaller skirmishes. It's also actually using my GPU sometimes now, sometimes during those big fights.

Anyone else thinking of upgrading for the sake of PS2, try putting it all on high. You might get even better results than I did.

Finicky
01-12-2012, 10:33 AM
It's because the game was coded by monkeys and if you play on low settings in cpu heavy battles, your gpu will go into idle clocks mode. You want to turn up the settings untill it says 'gpu' next to the fps counter when you are at a low pop area to avoid that.

Grizzly
01-12-2012, 04:00 PM
It's because the game was coded by monkeys and if you play on low settings in cpu heavy battles, your gpu will go into idle clocks mode.

Actually, Monkeys wouldn't even think of doing that.

Jenda
08-08-2013, 11:24 AM
Hi folks, mind if I highjack this thread a little bit with the same question the OP had?

I'm considering an upgrade with a budget of about $500 (the prices may be different here, though - a GTX 760 costs around $310). I'm definitely getting an SSD (64 or 120, not sure yet), but I'm not sure if I should upgrade to a GTX 760, or if I need to upgrade the MB and CPU. Also, I could go the cheap way and get two more GTX 260s for a 3-way SLI, but that doesn't seem worth it (it's probably going to cost around $250 anyway).

My setup is:
MB: ASUS M4N82 DELUXE - nForce 980a SLI, AM3/AM2+, DDR2, VGA, GLAN, 1394, ATX
CPU: AMD ATHLON II X2 240 (2,8GHz, 2MB, AM3, 65W)
GPU: Point Of View nVidia GeForce GTX260 896MB Premium, 2x DVI, TVout, PCIE2.0
Cooling: CPU AMD Arctic-Cooling FREEZER 64 PRO (soc. 754,939,AM2)
RAM: 2x DIMM DDR2 2048MB 800MHZ
HDD: SAMSUNG F2 1,5TB SATAII/300 32MB 5400 ECO Green

Thoughts? Tips? Opinions? Thanks!

Sakkura
08-08-2013, 03:49 PM
What kind of games do you play?

By modern standards you've got a low-end GPU and an even more low-end CPU. Which is more in need of an upgrade depends on the type of games you play, since some games are more GPU-heavy and some are more CPU-heavy.

Jenda
08-08-2013, 08:03 PM
Hey Sakkura and thanks for response. It's a 4 years old computer. I mostly intend to play RPGs and strategies - I'm guessing Rome 2 will be wanting a better CPU, but my wife's Dragon Age 3 will want a GPU upgrade, no? I occasionally play a shooter, but I wouldn't base the decision on that.

I'm thinking something along these lines: buy GTX 760 + SSD now, and upgrade MB + CPU in about a year from now; would that work?

Jambe
09-08-2013, 12:07 AM
I'm thinking something along these lines: buy GTX 760 + SSD now, and upgrade MB + CPU in about a year from now; would that work?

That'd work but your old CPU won't like compute-heavy strategies and your SSD will be bottlenecked by the SATA revision on your motherboard (though this kind of thing is inevitable when mixing old & new hardware). If you're playing at 1920x or lower you could do with a lesser GPU (e.g. 7870 or 660) and that'd afford you money for CPU/mobo/RAM.

Personally I'd save until I could get CPU/mobo/RAM/GPU altogether and worry about an SSD later even though I'm super-bullish on SSD adoption; my suggestion there would be Samsung's non-Pro 840 or their upcoming replacement for it, the 840 EVO. There's only so much you can do with $500 especially with the state of your market & currency (760s start at $250 in the US).

Sakkura
09-08-2013, 12:43 AM
Yeah I would probably also consider postponing the SSD in favor of a platform upgrade along with a new GPU. Might be possible with $500, or you could at least upgrade the mobo/CPU/RAM and save some money for a new GPU within the next few months. Rumor has it AMD will release their next generation of GPUs within that time frame, and then you can get more performance for your money (even with Nvidia, since they'd most likely be forced to respond with price cuts).

Jenda
09-08-2013, 09:13 AM
Hmm, very good points, thank you. I'd prefer to get a 760 than a lower-grade GPU, so I can SLI it next time I feel an upgrade is in order and still be ahead (I intended to do this when originally buying the 260, but obviously ended up not upgrading for four years). So perhaps it would be better to turn the order around and upgrade MB/CPU/RAM, and then either get an SSD and postpone the GPU, or get a cheaper GPU and postpone the SSD.
What MB/CPU would you recommend?

Jenda
09-08-2013, 11:03 AM
On the other hand, if I upgrade the MB/CPU/RAM now, but keep the antiquated 260, I probably won't see much of a noticeable improvement in gameplay, will I?
As for CPU/mobo, would AMD Vishera FX-8320 and Gigabyte 970A-DS3 be a good choice? (I didn't pick these entirely at random - it's the combination I found in a gaming rig I might theoretically buy if I was buying a new one) If I added a GTX 760 to this order and skipped RAM for now, I could probably stretch the budget to fit.

Jambe
09-08-2013, 05:59 PM
The GPU would probably produce more gameplay improvement but I'm not really sure; in any case, your CPU would be hobbled by strategy games with lots of units crawling around. That processor was a budget-class unit when it was new.

Your CPU/mobo choice is fine, or you could get e.g. an i3 3250 and ASRock H77-M for a touch less (in the US market, anyway) and come out ahead in single-threaded performance. You could OC the 8320, ofc.

You'll need new RAM for a current-generation CPU/mobo as they use DDR3.

Again, I'd just save until I could get the whole kit at once, but I guess I'm weird; I'd rather get the whole improvement at once than languish with spanking new silicon stuck in a clunker. Barring that (and given your apparent preferences) I'd get a 760 now and save until I could upgrade the core. By that time AMD's Steamroller might be out, which may be worthwhile even in relation to the current FX series and/or might cause some Intel competition at the same price tiers. I'd then worry about an SSD later on.

Sakkura
09-08-2013, 06:51 PM
On the other hand, if I upgrade the MB/CPU/RAM now, but keep the antiquated 260, I probably won't see much of a noticeable improvement in gameplay, will I?
Not always, no. But the same applies the other way around; a GTX 760 would end up being held back by your current CPU most of the time.

If you're getting an FX-8320 I would recommend the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3. Better voltage regulation, basically a better power supply for the CPU. Alternatively you could get a cheaper FX-6300 which is going to be just as good in most current games, and use the money for other upgrades.

Hanban
13-08-2013, 12:08 PM
Hello! Hijacking this thread to ask advice about CPU upgrades.

I'm looking into buying a completely new desktop for gaming. From the page I'm getting it there are "templates" in which you can configure the setup from a few choices. The computer I'm looking at uses the following i5 as standard:

Intel Core i5-4670, Quad Core, 3.4GHz, 6MB, 84W, HD4600, Boxed w/fan, Haswell

I can get the following two i7s by adding cash:

Intel Core i7-4770 Quad Core, 3.4GHz, 8MB, 84W, HD4600, Boxed w/fan +~129$
Intel Core i7-4770K Quad Core, 3.5GHz, 8MB, 84W, HD4600, Boxed w/fan, Haswell +~184$

Are the i7 processors worth getting? Imagine I'm gonna be playing Planetside 2 and Rome 2 - will the i7 give me a significant boost in framerate etc. or are they only marginally better?

I'll be using a Gainward GeForce GTX 770 2GB as my GPU.

Edit: I could afford buying the processors since I have some money to spare. But perhaps I should throw some cash on something more worthwhile like the GPU?

Boris
13-08-2013, 12:39 PM
As far as I'm aware, the i7s aren't worth the extra cost. The performance per dollar is really low on that upgrade. If you don't have an SSD, use the 130 dollars for that. Otherwise, stick it in the bank for the next upgrade. That's what I'd do.

Sakkura
13-08-2013, 12:58 PM
What kind of motherboard are you getting? You could get a Core i5-4670K instead of the plain 4670. That allows for overclocking only limited by the performance of the silicon, whereas the plain 4670 is artificially limited to a 400 MHz overclock. But overclocking requires a Z87 motherboard (and a good cooler).

Overclocking will make a bigger difference than hyperthreading, which is what the Core i7s bring to the table.

Hanban
13-08-2013, 03:03 PM
The motherboard is the "MSI Z87-G45 Gaming, Socket-1150 ATX, Z87, DDR3, 3xPCIe-x16, SLI/CFX, VGA,HDMI,DP,Killer 2200,SB Cinema, Haswell "

There are several to choose from. The 4670k was actually the standard one in the setup. The 4670 costs 16 SEK extra which made me figure it was better. Thanks for the info!

The computer is delivered with a "Cooler Master Seidon 120M CPU Cooler BULK" by default so I'm guessing I can clock it a bit then.

Sakkura
13-08-2013, 03:51 PM
That's a pretty good motherboard (as long as you're okay with MSI - and with a fairly large dose of bling). Along with that cooler, overclocking should work well.

Hanban
13-08-2013, 04:22 PM
Excellent! Thanks for the information!

Jenda
14-08-2013, 12:09 PM
Not always, no. But the same applies the other way around; a GTX 760 would end up being held back by your current CPU most of the time.

If you're getting an FX-8320 I would recommend the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3. Better voltage regulation, basically a better power supply for the CPU. Alternatively you could get a cheaper FX-6300 which is going to be just as good in most current games, and use the money for other upgrades.

I'll probably go for the FX-6300, plus mobo, plus RAM and maybe plus SSD now, and get a GPU later this year. Although I might go for FX-8320 and put off the SSD for later too instead... still unsure.

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

Moraven
15-08-2013, 03:12 PM
Wait on the SSD if you simply lookng to run games well. SSD is more quality of life upgrade allowing you to load applications and games faster, but little effect on in game quality for most games.

Jenda
16-08-2013, 03:56 PM
What kind of motherboard should I get, IF I decide to go for the FX6300 CPU and a GeForce 760 GTX? The one I mentioned before only has 2 RAM slots, and I want 4 (ideally with support for 2133 Hz RAM, since I'm buying two sticks off a friend)? Ideally, I'd like the option to SLI the GPUs in the future. Most of the mobos with an AM3 socket I see seem to only support SLI AMD GPUs, is this correct? And if it is, this doesn't necessarily mean incompatibility with NVidia GPUs (non-SLI), does it?

Sakkura
16-08-2013, 05:00 PM
The GA-970A-DS3? That does have 4 RAM slots. No SLI or DDR3-2133 though. The GA-970A-UD3 I mentioned is similar in those respects, though it does offer better overclocking and reliability due to the better VRM setup.

Lots of motherboards only support Crossfire, which is AMDs equivalent of SLI. That's because Crossfire only requires an x4 connection, while SLI requires x8. Perhaps AMD Crossfire also seems a bit more attractive for motherboard vendors making motherboards for AMD CPUs. But SLI is certainly possible. It may look like it costs a lot more for a SLI-capable board than a Crossfire-capable one, but that's slightly deceptive; a board with x16/x4 is generally cheaper to make than one with x8/x8, but the latter offers superior Crossfire performance (as well as SLI support). So you're really comparing "bad Crossfire" to "good Crossfire" and "good SLI".

Oh, and you can use a single Nvidia card on a motherboard without SLI support.

Anyway, the cheapest board that offers DDR3-2133 and SLI support is probably the MSI 970A-G46. But it's mediocre quality at best. If you can step up to something like an MSI 990XA-GD55 you've got a much better board that will handle overclocks or processor upgrades, or just life in general, significantly better.