So i have some upgrade decisions to make and need abit of help deciding i have some spare cash atm which im wanting to sink into my rig. My budget atm is around 230 pounds, im wanting to get abit more performance out my system in terms of FPS with games out atm and up comming games. my current system is an amd phenom II 920 OC'ed to 3.1gz with 4gb of ram and a gtx 460 ive had it around 3 years maybe more. My decisions are either buy a gtx 660 ti with my current cpu and get another 4gb of ram or buy a AMD FX 8320 with 8gb of ram and a new motherboard. I know the FX doesnt really match up to the intel cpu's but im just trying to keep within budget. Which would lead to gaining better FPS's in games? games i've currently been playing are bioshock farcry 3 and planetside 2.
Upgrade Help On Decisions please?
- Thread starter cooto
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 11,881
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Wooahh.. The 8320 is certainly outclassed by the 3570k but it won't bottleneck a 660.
A forum member (snips) has a 6300 and SLI 660's.. He has a bit of a bottleneck with these but didn't with a single card.
The 3570k is worth the extra..
This thread should actually be in GH..
Wait... 20 - 30 fps from a new cpu... Hmmm
People are really too quick to talk about CPU bottlenecks but if you have any kind of quad core most games will not be bottlenecked by it..
Here is the easy way to decide what to do, boot up msi afterburner and play your games, check how much your GPU is being used, if it is at 100% in the games you want more fps in then you will gain very little from upgrading your CPU alone. If you are getting less than 100% then you will get a boost from a new cpu.
If you are getting 100% usage then you should definitely upgrade the graphics card, it is possible that the GPU will be bottlenecked but I doubt by much...
People are really too quick to talk about CPU bottlenecks but if you have any kind of quad core most games will not be bottlenecked by it..
Here is the easy way to decide what to do, boot up msi afterburner and play your games, check how much your GPU is being used, if it is at 100% in the games you want more fps in then you will gain very little from upgrading your CPU alone. If you are getting less than 100% then you will get a boost from a new cpu.
If you are getting 100% usage then you should definitely upgrade the graphics card, it is possible that the GPU will be bottlenecked but I doubt by much...
yes i went from similar cpu p2 955 3.7 oc to a 3570k and my fps doubled in some games with same gpu. arma 2 double fps cod 4 i get a lot higher fps skyrim was nearly double.
so i do think in certain games hell get a big jump.
not only this his cpu is starting to age a bit now and it benefits his whole system.
so i do think in certain games hell get a big jump.
not only this his cpu is starting to age a bit now and it benefits his whole system.
I'm surprised about COD 4 but Skyrim is notoriously CPU heavy and I can imagine that Arma 2 would be too...
This is why I advised trying out the games he wanted more FPS in.
Though looking at it, he is playing Planetside too... >.<'
This is why I advised trying out the games he wanted more FPS in.
Though looking at it, he is playing Planetside too... >.<'
planetside 2 doesn't run great but thats defo because of my cpu because its a cpu intensive game and showing the framerate tells me its my cpu where its struggling in busy warzones. i ran farcry 3 and bioshock on high settings without many problems just looking for abit more performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 11,881
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Cheers thats what i was looking for
What? someone talking rubbish..
A cpu wont affect FPS that much.. It will by about 5%-10% but mostly what it does it negate the bottleneck on the GPU.
the 920 would have had very little bottleneck on the GPU so putting a 8320 in would only increase this by 5% at most..
If you want to do it in stages go GPU first then CPU..
what you mean it wont benchmarked lol 
have a look arma 2 benchmarks skyrim benchmarks wow benchmarks it does.
any modern cpu intense game will show the rewards. sometimes its better to just upgrade your cpu as youll get more of a fps boost than a new gpu.
skyrim for eg
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3970x-sandy-bridge-e-benchmark,3348-12.html
arma 2
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6
have a look arma 2 benchmarks skyrim benchmarks wow benchmarks it does.
any modern cpu intense game will show the rewards. sometimes its better to just upgrade your cpu as youll get more of a fps boost than a new gpu.
skyrim for eg
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3970x-sandy-bridge-e-benchmark,3348-12.html
arma 2
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2012/05/01/intel-core-i5-3570k-cpu-review/6
ahah murray you love trolling me 
just posted benchmarks showing you it does yet it wont.
heres comparison
nearly twice as fast in aps progs
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=698 plus you can oc the 8320 more !
oh and by the way i have the same cpu as yours in a rig at side of me lol.
just posted benchmarks showing you it does yet it wont
.heres comparison
nearly twice as fast in aps progs
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=698 plus you can oc the 8320 more !
oh and by the way i have the same cpu as yours in a rig at side of me lol.
Last edited:
I have seen plenty of benchmarks showing how one CPU can give more FPS than another but (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here) if your GPU is already running at 100% capacity to give you X fps then you're only going to see a marginal difference in FPS probably due to frametime.
But if your GPU is already maxed out, how can it render more frames?
Personally I would not recommend a CPU upgrade first unless you have already tested or perceived a bottleneck. If there is no bottleneck currently then he will gain FPS from upgrading the card almost unequivocally.
I haven't really read up much on Planetside but I would imagine that is CPU intensive.
I still think the smart route is to go GPU first. But again, it would be smart to test the games you're playing now.
But if your GPU is already maxed out, how can it render more frames?
Personally I would not recommend a CPU upgrade first unless you have already tested or perceived a bottleneck. If there is no bottleneck currently then he will gain FPS from upgrading the card almost unequivocally.
I haven't really read up much on Planetside but I would imagine that is CPU intensive.
I still think the smart route is to go GPU first. But again, it would be smart to test the games you're playing now.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Definitely upgrade your GPU first.
People are obsessed with the idea of GPU bottlenecks but you will notice more improvement if you upgrade your graphics card before you upgrade your CPU (in your case - if your CPU was *really* old/rubbish then it might be different).
Even if your new GPU is limited by your CPU the increase in performance in general will be higher than if you just upgraded your CPU now and then got a better GPU later. I'm not saying that you shouldn't also consider upgrading your CPU but unlike some on here have said, GPU should be your first port of call.
Awesome. You've linked to some benchmarks that compare the CPU at tasks such as encoding and synthetic benchmarks. I don't doubt that they are correct - the newer CPU would walk all over the older at those tasks. This means very little in regards to gaming though. In fact, clock-for-clock, phenom IIs often do better than their bulldozer equivalents in games.
Just looked at the other benchmarks you linked. Here's another example. The BD CPU when clocked ~10% higher gives about ~10% higher FPs. Conclusion: Minimal benefit, and then only if you push the limits of overclocking.
People are obsessed with the idea of GPU bottlenecks but you will notice more improvement if you upgrade your graphics card before you upgrade your CPU (in your case - if your CPU was *really* old/rubbish then it might be different).
Even if your new GPU is limited by your CPU the increase in performance in general will be higher than if you just upgraded your CPU now and then got a better GPU later. I'm not saying that you shouldn't also consider upgrading your CPU but unlike some on here have said, GPU should be your first port of call.
ahah murray you love trolling me
just posted benchmarks showing you it does yet it wont
heres comparison
nearly twice as fast in aps progs
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/81?vs=698 plus you can oc the 8320 more !
oh and by the way i have the same cpu as yours in a rig at side of me lol.
Awesome. You've linked to some benchmarks that compare the CPU at tasks such as encoding and synthetic benchmarks. I don't doubt that they are correct - the newer CPU would walk all over the older at those tasks. This means very little in regards to gaming though. In fact, clock-for-clock, phenom IIs often do better than their bulldozer equivalents in games.
Just looked at the other benchmarks you linked. Here's another example. The BD CPU when clocked ~10% higher gives about ~10% higher FPs. Conclusion: Minimal benefit, and then only if you push the limits of overclocking.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
hehe gold i have the same system as his sitting at side of me
have a look around and good luck with your decisions.
what games do you actually play ?
You can't beat what exactly? Can't beat you posting links to benchmarks proving that you are wrong?
edit:
As I'm bored and avoiding work, here's the other benchmark you posted, also proving you wrong.
I've highlighted two areas in red where the clock speed of the newer BD processor is *higher* than that of the older phenom II yet performance is almost exactly the same. Conclusion: Changing to a BD would actually be a *downgrade* unless the user OCs massively.
Last edited:
in real world progs the difference is close to twice a fast.
his is at 3ghz not 3.7 also. i have one in a machine at side of me you argue all you want i have benched played the games and progs
the cpu is decentish still and could be oc but i wouldnt buy a 200 pound card for that cpu i would upgrade his mobo and cpu and 8gbdd3 then what he sells his mobo cpu for and ram and card buy a card with that
basically a whole new system for same price he has which will be faster in everything.
he could probably buy a 7850 with sales of his mobo cpu and ram and 460 gtx
so which is better now ?
his 940 with a 660
or
8320 8gb ddr 3 and a 7850 .
his is at 3ghz not 3.7 also. i have one in a machine at side of me you argue all you want i have benched played the games and progs
the cpu is decentish still and could be oc but i wouldnt buy a 200 pound card for that cpu i would upgrade his mobo and cpu and 8gbdd3 then what he sells his mobo cpu for and ram and card buy a card with that
basically a whole new system for same price he has which will be faster in everything.
he could probably buy a 7850 with sales of his mobo cpu and ram and 460 gtx
so which is better now ?
his 940 with a 660
or
8320 8gb ddr 3 and a 7850 .
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
in real world progs the difference is close to twice a fast.
his is at 3ghz not 3.7 also. i have one in a machine at side of me you argue all you want i have benched played the games and progs
the cpu is decentish still and could be oc but i wouldnt buy a 200 pound card for that cpu i would upgrade his mobo and cpu and 8gbdd3 then what he sells his mobo cpu for and ram and card buy a card with that
basically a whole new system for same price he has which will be faster in everything.
he could probably buy a 7850 with sales of his mobo cpu and ram and 460 gtx
so which is better now ?
his 940 with a 660
or
8320 8gb ddr 3 and a 7850 .
I can argue with you all day, yeah..especially when you try to prove your point and then backtrack when the 'proof' you post proves you wrong. Backtracking on the validity of benchmarks also shows how little truth there is in what you've been saying.
He is indeed only at 3.1ghz. The far more sensible approach would be to improve that overclock (most PIIs can hit 3.6 or higher ghz fairly comfortably) rather than throw money needlessly at a sideways upgrade.
If he is going to upgrade his CPU at all it shouldn't be to a BD. It's *not* a major upgrade and despite your bogus claims, even when overclocked massively the difference in games vs a reasonably clocked PII is not huge. The only worthwhile CPU upgrade would be to some i5 SB or higher, or any generation i7. Selling everything and getting an old i7 920 second-hand might be worthwhile, but once again a lot of hassle.
Spending the money on a GPU now will give tangible benefits immediately. Later on the OP should consider moving to another CPU but once again, that CPU should *not* be a BD unless he manages to do the entire upgrade for very little money (I'd be unhappy spending even £50 on that).
edit: "In real world progs the difference is close to twice as fast" is such a misleading statement. What do you mean by "real world progs"? Clearly not games, as you have posted benchmarks proving that is wrong...and games are all that the OP has mentioned any interest in. In terms of real-world usage of his computer (browsing, loading windows/programs, music, films, etc) there will be almost zero difference between the two CPUs.
Last edited:
The first one, by miles. Unless all he does is SuperPi for fun.