If it was me I'd upgrade the GPU to a 1060 or RX480 (I'd go 480 as I think it will age better if you keep the gpu a long time) You will see an increase in FPS, there's always going to be something bottlenecking, but it will be better than you have now. Then in the future upgrade the CPU, mobo and ram, whenever you can afford it.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel i7 930 and GTX 900/1000 series - bottleneck?
- Thread starter Bungah
- Start date
For clarification, is my mobo above (Gigabyte Ultra Durable UD3) compatible for modern CPU's or would I require an upgrade on that front as well?
Perhaps it is best for me to wait and top up the budget a bit and make the whole upgrade at the same time. My GTX 770 is still pushing out good frame rates. It's just that difference between 45-60fps and rock solid 60fps and slight increase in graphics settings.
Perhaps it is best for me to wait and top up the budget a bit and make the whole upgrade at the same time. My GTX 770 is still pushing out good frame rates. It's just that difference between 45-60fps and rock solid 60fps and slight increase in graphics settings.
your mobo wont take any modern cpus only 1366 socket cpu;s I'm using a 1060 with an i7 920 at 1080p not aware of a bottleneck, bf4 and doom all running on ultra with CPU going no higher than 65%. I would get the GPU, you must get an SSD it makes a hell of a diiference to the speed of your system even at SATA2 speeds. I would also consider sawpping the ram out, the fastest ddr3 your board supports. this may only be 1600 or 1866mhz. your board is triple channel, so you need to buy a dual kit and a single chip on its onw. not much drop in speed for Dual channel so you could just get an 8gb kit.
you will always be able to use the new GPU and SSD in a new system
you will always be able to use the new GPU and SSD in a new system
This is interesting re no obvious bottleneck Kurgen, thanks. Thanks for the confirmation re my mobo too. Have you played anything more CPU intensive like Witcher 3/GTA V?
I read that SSD really only makes a difference to load speeds in terms of gaming, as in new levels, first loading your save game etc. and that it doesn't really translate into FPS? Is this true? If so, I'm not really bothered, everything loads and Windows runs at a pace I'm happy not spending money on.
I must confess I know absolutely nothing about RAM other than more is better and that the sticks have to match?? I thought that my VRAM would be a problem and not RAM in this instance - what's happening with RAM these days that its requiring more? Just bigger games?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 375
DX12 games don't need such a good cpu and if you got the amd rx480 that also is good for the new low level api's. For dx11 games though it's a different matter altogether.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 893
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You have to consider what you are playing as well. for instance Iracing is around 20% CPU usage at 5760x1080 144Hz my 6700k 4.5ghz hardly breaks into a trott. Project cars however displays typically 65-72% 5760x1080 144hz usage and works the CPU and temps harder than many benchmarks. if you got a game like that using that much resource from the current latest chip, then your chip at that speed will certainly hit performance.
I have the gigabyte UD5 and have read the UD3 is compatible also, i went from a i7 920 to a Xeon X5660 for £50 from ebay and damn it made a huge difference (I have a Nvidia 780 along side it).
In Witcher 3 my 920 was almost always maxed out, with the Xeon it sits at about 60%, also runs super cool.
Check the Xeon thread and maybe post if you have any questions but its a super cheap upgrade i highly recommend.
In Witcher 3 my 920 was almost always maxed out, with the Xeon it sits at about 60%, also runs super cool.
Check the Xeon thread and maybe post if you have any questions but its a super cheap upgrade i highly recommend.
Your i7 offers around the same performance as a FM2 Athlon X4 and that chip can keep up with a card around R9 290-290X performance. So yes at 3.8Ghz you probably will see a fair frame rate cap. You might not get the most performance possible from the system, but I would think the frame rate would be pretty consistent and you can level out a GPU top heavy system with resolution.
Slap in a X5650 and overclock it. They are beasts.
Slap in a X5650 and overclock it. They are beasts.
Last edited:
Thanks again for the advice and guidance all.
@chickadee - see that's weird - I downloaded MSI afterburner for the in game overlay yesterday and ran Witcher 3. CPU usage was at 65% maximum whereas GPU was at 99% at all times. Why would yours be 100% CPU and mine not?
Surely the above means I'm GPU limited and not CPU?
@chickadee - see that's weird - I downloaded MSI afterburner for the in game overlay yesterday and ran Witcher 3. CPU usage was at 65% maximum whereas GPU was at 99% at all times. Why would yours be 100% CPU and mine not?
Surely the above means I'm GPU limited and not CPU?
Im guessing because I have a 780 and you a 770 I was running at higher settings? Also my 920 was not overclocked at all and slightly slower.
If your at 100% GPU usage then yes thats GPU limitation.
You could always grab a new GPU and if your CPU does limit you get a Xeon 5650/5660/5670 from ebay for about £50 and it should give you a good boost.
This is what I would do in the OP's shoes. Buy the best graphics card you can afford. Play the games you want, monitor performance and if your cpu is negatively affecting performance buy a Xeon off Ebay
Hmmm, thanks for the advice lads. I do think upgrading the GPU, seeing how things are then considering a cheap CPU upgrade is probably the best way forward.
To just go back to something earlier in the thread, almost everyone has recommended a Xeon x5650 but one person mentioned that my motherboard might not support it. I've looked into my mobo in more detail and it is a Gigabyte Ultra Durable 3 X58A-UD3R. Is anyone able to tell me if it will be compatible with a Xeon x5650? Thanks again guys, been a big help so far.
EDIT: Googling seems to reveal that whilst not expressly supported, some users have found that a Xeon 5650 does indeed run on the above motherboard?
To just go back to something earlier in the thread, almost everyone has recommended a Xeon x5650 but one person mentioned that my motherboard might not support it. I've looked into my mobo in more detail and it is a Gigabyte Ultra Durable 3 X58A-UD3R. Is anyone able to tell me if it will be compatible with a Xeon x5650? Thanks again guys, been a big help so far.
EDIT: Googling seems to reveal that whilst not expressly supported, some users have found that a Xeon 5650 does indeed run on the above motherboard?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 238
- Location
- Newport South Wales
I run a 5650 on that motherboard. You just need to find out the (Rev no) to flash to the appropriate version needed to support six core processors.
The revision number can be located on the bottom left hand corner of your motherboard.
http://uk.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3103#ov
One of these sounds like your board you mentioned. I run mine on on rev 1.6 flashed to Bios version FF. I couldn't do any later version because it wants you to flash through windows which i wasn't willing to do.
The revision number can be located on the bottom left hand corner of your motherboard.
http://uk.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3103#ov
One of these sounds like your board you mentioned. I run mine on on rev 1.6 flashed to Bios version FF. I couldn't do any later version because it wants you to flash through windows which i wasn't willing to do.
Wow okay, thanks for the information - good to hear somebody who has actually done it on my board!
I have no idea about flashing Bios, is it a difficult task? What is the problem with flashing through Windows, just googled and it seemed the simplest way to do it.
![Pyr0m@nI@]{](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,588
- Location
- Wirral
I switched a Gigabyte X58A UD3R with a Xeon 5650 and 980 GTX to a Skylake system and kept the same GPU.
IMHO you'll see more improvement in gaming from a new GPU than you will upgrading the rest of the system.
IMHO you'll see more improvement in gaming from a new GPU than you will upgrading the rest of the system.
Last edited:
I've done a bit more research and it seems that at 1080p a CPU bottleneck will be much more noticeable because an upgraded GPU will be capable of drawing frames much faster at the lower resolution than say 4K, and the old CPU can't keep up (i.e. bottleneck).
With me not having a higher resolution monitor, is it possible to therefore use Nvidia's DSR technology to DSR a much higher resolution, intentionally alleviating a CPU bottleneck whilst actually improving image quality? It sounds like a win-win on paper but maybe it wouldn't work like this, am I just theorycrafting now in desperation? Lol.
With me not having a higher resolution monitor, is it possible to therefore use Nvidia's DSR technology to DSR a much higher resolution, intentionally alleviating a CPU bottleneck whilst actually improving image quality? It sounds like a win-win on paper but maybe it wouldn't work like this, am I just theorycrafting now in desperation? Lol.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I have a similar cpu and the later technology will save money on energy used. Your'll generally be better off moving to a newer cpu, its quite obvious by looking at the category for Lithography on the intel site, its more then halved I think. Less heat also
http://ark.intel.com/products/90729/Intel-Core-i3-6100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_70-GHz?q=6100
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/inde...790-4-core-3-6ghz-vs-core-i7-920-quad-2-67ghz
http://ark.intel.com/products/90729/Intel-Core-i3-6100-Processor-3M-Cache-3_70-GHz?q=6100
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/inde...790-4-core-3-6ghz-vs-core-i7-920-quad-2-67ghz
Last edited:
Hi
Sorry if my last post confused - there will be a bottleneck at the CPU, but it'll just limit you getting 100% out of the card. But it will still be a huge upgrade and one well worth doing...
e.g. upgrade 770 to 1060 without bottleneck might be 1.5x faster. With bottleneck maybe it's 1.2x faster. I made the numbers up but you get the idea
Sorry if my last post confused - there will be a bottleneck at the CPU, but it'll just limit you getting 100% out of the card. But it will still be a huge upgrade and one well worth doing...
e.g. upgrade 770 to 1060 without bottleneck might be 1.5x faster. With bottleneck maybe it's 1.2x faster. I made the numbers up but you get the idea
Hi
Sorry if my last post confused - there will be a bottleneck at the CPU, but it'll just limit you getting 100% out of the card. But it will still be a huge upgrade and one well worth doing...
e.g. upgrade 770 to 1060 without bottleneck might be 1.5x faster. With bottleneck maybe it's 1.2x faster. I made the numbers up but you get the idea
Thanks for clarifying, makes total sense.
I've found an article that replicates my situation fairly well (http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers)
On an old i5 vs a newer processor, there's gains on average of about 20fps seemingly, which is pretty considerable.
I think my plan is to get a GTX 1060, I'd love a 1070 ideally but it's just too far out of budget, especially if I need a CPU upgrade as well. I can then sit on the 1060 and try it out for a bit and see if my CPU is indeed getting rekt quite badly, if the performance is what I want then great, but if not, then I can look into get Xeon 5650 everyone seems to recommend.
Last edited: