If your a gamer, what's the point in upgrading to Sandy Bridge?

[the1gooner]

This is all well and good for people with quad core machines, I am still running a C2D 3Ghz, for me sandy bridge at 4.5 Ghz would be a really big increase!

For something like video encoding and a few games yes it would be.

You could pick up a Q6600 for cheap and that would do you fine in your current setup.

I was running an i5 750 a little while ago but I am now running an i3 540 and I have noticed no difference in anything i do and gaming fps hasn't been affected that I can see.

 

[Ixon]

These days you don't need top end hardware, or upgrade every 6 months to run latest software like you once had to do 10 years ago.

Basically a 2 year old PC can pretty much handle 90% what out today, & if you upgrade graphics card to something like a GTX460 onwards then it get around 98%.

I've had my i7 setup now for over a year, only thing i've changed in that time apart from adding SSD is the graphics card.

Im still using the first released X58 mobo aswell as i still don't find any reason atm to upgrade to USB3 or SATA3 X58A mobo, when i have no need for them atm.

I intend keeping my current setup most if not all of next year, as even as we get to the end of 2011, i don't think there would be much out that put's any pressure on a 4Ghz i7, the only thing i proberly change by then is for a next gen SSD ie higher capacity & faster read/writes, & proberly a GTX680.

 

[kedge]

Basically a 2 year old PC can pretty much handle 90% what out today.

Depends what gaming hardware is inside that two year old pc, and what resolution and in game graphics and sound settings are enabled. i7's and p2's A GeForce 580 or a AMD 5970 can struggle with todays games at very high game settings. But it does depend if the individual is not bothered by low graphics settings and even low framerates on higher settings like 30fps for example.

 

[nitram100]

I suppose it depends on what res you play at. I game at 1440x900 so my setup will be good for years to come.

 

[subbytna]

It's worth upgrading CPU for gaming if you have a dual core. To be honest, a triple core athlon II is quite adequate for most games.

I run an athlon x2 5000+ 45nm overclocked from 2.2 GHz to 3.1 GHz (can squeeze 3.3 out of it if I overvolt my RAM) and that's satisfactory in most games. It unlocks to a Phenom FX-5000 (same as Phenom II but only cost me £36) but the majority of time games run perfectly without unlocking the extra 2 cores and 6MB l3 cache. Of the games I own, I only see a real difference unlocking for Ghostbusters and GTA IV.

As a gamer, buying a better CPU right now would be a complete waste of money.

you have a 4850 gpu 512MB - You not finding that the gpu is slowing you down a bit?

 

[iamtheoneneo]

only crysis lol

wonder why i got a xbox at christmas games are 90 percent ported. no one is willing to take a risk on big games look at crysis going console the pcs benchmark game . says it all .

It's crysis 2 NOT crysis. The 2 games are completely different tech wise..crysis can not be played on a console full stop.

 

[SonicUK]

I've only just upgraded from a P4 that refused to admit defeat (and was still running Mirrors Edge and Crysis at 1280x768 with a fully playable frame rate) to a 2.4 E6600 Core 2 Duo which I intend to oveclock shortly. I have no intention of upgrading my Cpu again for years now as it can now handle pretty much anything I can throw at it.

 

[Klo]

Well I deliberately play on a lowish res screen (1440x900) so I don't have to keep upgrading. My rig is over 3 years old, and apart from adding more RAM still works fine for nearly all games (bar Crysis on full, but that doesn't matter).

 

[xiphrex]

Personally my reasons for not upgrading the CPU are mostly to do with the fact that I have to buy a new motherboard, new memory, and probably new power supply, and have to reinstall windows and programs etc and tweak it all again. Just cant be bothered to do that when my Q6600 is doing a fine job at the moment.

 

[Exsurgo]

Newer CPU's are improving in speed by a fair amount. Thing is games are not increasing in CPU demand much. The scope and scale of games has not changed at all in the last 3 years, and developers are putting more emphasis on carrying out operations on the GPU. Supreme Commander I is still probably the most CPU intensive game out there when playing on large teams on huge maps, and any Quad core will do just fine.

The only recent game I can think of which is decently optimized and needs a Quad core with decent clock speeds is BC2. The total war games also like 4 cores and good clock speeds, but thats about it really.

 

[Klo]

GTA 4 requires a quadcore to play at acceptable frame rates usually.

 

[Uriel]

you have a 4850 gpu 512MB - You not finding that the gpu is slowing you down a bit?

Yes, but this thread is about CPUs. Adding a better GPU doesn't help much with a CPU related bottleneck.

To be honest the HD4850 is still able to run most of my games at 1920x1200 on the highest settings with varying levels of AA and AF with most options maxed. At the moment any upgrade would be down to features (DX11 or physX/cuda) rather than performance requirements.

 

[subbytna]

A friend of mine , whom I've not seen in a while, has the same card as you and almost the same rig too with a dual core and he is starting to feel the gpu is holding him back a bit in games

 

[Uriel]

A friend of mine , whom I've not seen in a while, has the same card as you and almost the same rig too with a dual core and he is starting to feel the gpu is holding him back a bit in games

Yes, but if the CPU is the bottleneck (which with a dual core it sometimes is), upgrading the GPU won't help.

I'm not saying it doesn't hold me back. I picked up Metro 2033 in a steam sale and am holding off playing it until I get a better graphics card. No rush though - I've got plenty of other stuff to play though. If I could get GTX 470 performance for under a hundred quid I'd upgrade today. In the mean-time I'll enjoy the various other games where an HD4850 doesn't hold me back.

 

[~>Dg<~]

It's crysis 2 NOT crysis. The 2 games are completely different tech wise..crysis can not be played on a console full stop.

i know that but hes asking what the point is and im saying that there isnt much point when th games your going to be playing for the next few years are console games .

crysis WAS the benchmark for pc now its gone CONSOLE . that says it all . is this ok ? do you understand what im saying ?.

if the most elite game on the pc has gone the way of the console then it cant be too good for what we got to come on pc.

 

[kristmace]

UEFI means faster boot times, means you can spend more time gaming.

In seriousness, not a lot of point if you already have a decently clocked quad core. Only the appeal of new shiny stuff that's tempting me. (skipped the nehalem generation).

^ This

 

[Michaeljcox24]

In my machine I can put most games on max settings, problems happen when I start upping AA.

Would a faster CPU help this? Or would SLI'd cards, or one beast of a card overclocked?

What would I best be spending my money on

(or just accept that I shouldn't spend my money chasing tech all the time)

 

[Richy1204]

Folding@Home & other Distributed Computing projects

 

[SpoonedurI]

I'm not too bothered about Sandy Bridge (although something that runs quiter/cooler/more energy efficient that my current Q6600 is definetly a plus), but I am itching to get my hands on a UEFI motherboard

 

[ahenners]

Unless Sandy Bridge can offer a serious performance upgrade from a Q6600 3.6ghz then I won't be upgrading. As mentioned already, with gaming you're probably more likely to run into gpu bottlenecks before cpu bottleneck unless you are running top end cards in sli/xfire