• 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.

Is my CPU OK to run the current gen?

Im not sure I want an AMD card I've never had an issue with NVIDIA or is that shooting myself in the foot?

Not sure by the comments if its worth changing at this point, might just stick with the 560 until the next gen consoles come out

I didn't realise I liked some foods till I tried them :p

I know what you are saying but AMD drivers are pretty good since the release of 12.11 and bring them ahead of Nvidia in speed.

The 560TI is still a capable card (not sure if yours is the TI) and will cope with a few settings turned down. It isn't a bad shout to hold off untill the next GPU's are released.
 
depends on game older ones or gpu limted maybe close but on cpu intense games youll notice a big difference .

for eg in arma 2 my fps has doubled from similar set up to you and i3570k. with same card. same in skyrim literally double fps on same settings. arma 2 loves intel and arma 3 will be same.

in things like cod 4 , bf3 haven't noticed too much difference . bf3 is up a little but nothing spectacular.
 
Some games will be bottlenecked if they are CPU heavy,although you will still see an improvement over what you have as the card is faster anyway.

However,there is at least some circumstantial evidence to show that Nvidia drivers don't do so well on slower CPUs,as they are quite multithreaded now unlike the AMD ones.
 
Out of interest, how do the i3's stack up with some of these high end cards?
From the benchmarks I've seen, depend on which i3 it is they are around on par with Phenom II X4 at 3.6-3.9GHz, but faster in older games or poorly coded/ported new games that don't use all 4 cores fully.

So it goes without say both would bottleneck high-end card in lots of situations, except may be linear single player games.
 
Out of interest, how do the i3's stack up with some of these high end cards?

TBH,they are not massively different from a Phenom II X4 running at 3.4GHZ to 4GHZ and I have had a Core i3 2100 myself and mates with similar AMD CPUs. Not only FPS games,but online MP ones and even games like SC2 and the like and I suspect the cards we have are more of a limitation. Even Sins of a Solar Empire could be a limitation in its initial versions as it seemed to load one thread,but the latest version has solved that issue,and even with mega battles runs fine now.

I was looking at some of the results of the latest SC2 expansion and it seems that a Core i3 2100 or even a FX6100 are within 10% of each other,although I am now getting the impression that Blizzard with its newer expansions for its popular games,is starting to work on the CPU side too,not only the GPU side.
 
Last edited:
Here's my example-Resi evil 5,by no means a system breaker,with a q6600 @3.4 and 580 was getting me decent framerates in the benchmark but when i switched to an i7 920 they almost doubled.Now I know this is only one game but it gives you an idea of whats what I think. My opinion is you might find it playable but the difference will be huge going to,say,an Ivy b i5.
 
Just to say,I also had a 955 black edition at the time and found it to be on par with the q6600. That's why I brought that into it.

Its around Q9550 level or thereabouts and that had the 12MB L2 cache instead of the 6MB L2 the lower end models had. I can still remember the debates at the time about the two. BTW,I had a Q6600,another mate who had a Q9300 and mates who had Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4 CPUs,so we could get a rough indication of their relative performance,during LANs when we playing MP or online games.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom