Money Well Spent...

[xeopherith]

I'm interested in increasing my gaming performance.

Currently my setup is:

AMD Phenom II 555 X2 3.2GHz unlocked to X4 and at 3.7GHz
16GB GSkill Ripjaw DDR3 1333MHz
60GB OCZ Vertex SSD
2 Powercolor AMD 5770 (512MB) in Crossfire
Dynapower 750W 80 PLUS Bronze certified PS (Crossfire and SLI certified)

My thoughts are to either buy a new motherboard and processor and get a somewhat slight gaming performance increase (or major in some CPU intensive titles) OR to get a new video card.

I'm leaning towards either the new Intel i2500 processor and ASUS P67 Motherboard or the AMD 6970.

Which would you choose and why?

I do not have a preference as to Nvidia or AMD/Intel AMD. Usually I just want to go with whichever will be money best spent.

 

[sandorski]

Screen Resolution? The 6970 should give you a big boost on your current setup.

 

[xeopherith]

Oh yea, good point. I run 1680x1050.

One thing for sure is my resolution is my current problem. I know that I'm running relatively low compared to Anand's benchmark tests (lowest resolution normally tested). Currently with 512MB Graphics Cards I have gotten quite a good use out of them but now I'm running into games that run at 50-60FPS normally and you change a setting from High to Ultra and the performance dips down to 3-5FPS. I know I'm running into a memory problem on the video card.

I guess if I stay with this motherboard I want to prefer ATI cards so that I can go crossfire in the future. I was hoping if I picked up a 6970 that in the future I could get another. (Will I have difficulty running two brands in crossfire if one isn't available a year down the road?)

Thanks!

 

[sandorski]

Not sure about the 2 Brands XFire question, but I think whether the cards are the AMD Reference design or some custom Brand design is where mismatch becomes the biggest issue.

Also not 100% sure, but a single 6970 should be more than sufficient at that Resolution, it may even be overkill(part I am least confident about)at that resolution. Certainly XFire at that resolution is unnecessary.

 

[magomago]

whta are you looking to play or do? if you are going to upgrade, atleast list the games...is it WOW/SC2 and you HAVE to have 60fps? Are you doing lots of video encoding? Are the games you play other games where a gpu upgrade makes more sense? Do you want more speed even though you are getting ~50-60FPS anyways and it isn't to keep up with games as much s it is about raw performance?
Quad core AMD at those speeds is no slouch despite Intel being much faster...

 

[xeopherith]

I am a pretty big gamer and that Steam sale over Christmas didn't help. I play everything from the humble bundles up to Metro 2033 (I just name that game because it is the highest requirement game I believe I have).

I know that if I go with a processor upgrade I'll get better performance in Starcraft 2 (which I don't think I need too much because it always is at least over 45fps now) and Supreme Commander 2 which I haven't started to play yet.

The processor upgrade would also really really help all the video encoding I do but I don't mind making batch jobs and letting my computer go over night so that isn't all too important.

Overall I was leaning the direction of the Video Card upgrade. I like to play games at 45+ FPS.

Past history back with Nvidia 6X and 7X series I have owned 4 SLI setups. Back then I only ran 1280x1024 and back then SLI did nothing for that resolution. Also just as an FYI, I only owned so many setups because I had to RMA both cards twice (EVGA memory issue).

Since then however Crossfire has really given a performance boost even at lower resolutions. Although nowhere near the benefit as a higher resolution. But later down the road if I buy a new monitor I would like the option of playing at those higher resolutions.

 

[magomago]

imo i'm still not getting it.

SC2 works just fine according to your own claim

Supreme Commander 2 should be fine http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...q2-high-quality/Supreme-Commander-2,2129.html dual crossfire 5750s were doing almost 100fps (although they had 1 gig of ram) and a single 9800gtx 512 meg was still pushing 30 fps at 1900x1200 with 4xAA

And metro 2033 is going to own you no matter what (note: a hyperbole has been used)

the other games arne't listed, but i really can't think of a case where you are going to be crying that your CPU is too slow....
seems to make WAAAY more sense to get a videocard upgrade, especially when you've already said that pushing up the texture levels cause a complete crash in your FPS --> which is a good sign that you are then memory limited.
Anything with 768 megs of ram or more should be fine up to 1900x1200, I haven't seen a gtx460 768 meg (for example) crash and burn due to memory until 2560x. Therefore, a 6970 will be no problem at all...


but since you are running at a 1650x1080, isn't there a "weaker" card that'll still give you the performance you want? A 6970 is clearly going to be res bound. i'm concerned that cheaper cards at that resolution will give the same performance (although i suppose you could REALLLY crank the AA) at your res.

edit:

maybe my statement wasn't that much of a hyperbole...

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6970/18.html
paired with a i7 920 @ 3.8 Ghz, it is BAREEELY pushing 30 fps @ 1280x1024 with zero AA on high setting....

 

[richierich1212]

Yeah with that resolution you're not going to see much improvement upgrading hardware. Best money spent? New monitor + GPU. And you can clock that 555 higher.

 

[xeopherith]

I run into problems clocking the CPU any higher than 3.7. It's completely stable for 24 hours running prime 95 at the current clock but any higher and I have other cores fail.

 

[xeopherith]

Well the decision should be somewhat future-proof. As I said I'm leaning towards video card and if I go less than a 6970 then it will be a 6950.

If I do get a new monitor sometime in the future I don't want to have to immediately buy a new graphics card. The exception to that is when I buy a monitor if I can go crossfire with a cheap 69x0 because of the time span that will have passed since the present.

I'm a huge performance buff but getting a house and getting married has forced me to make more sensible solutions. So far all the comments have re-enforced the video card position.

Also I forgot to mention that I'm budgeting around 350 for this project.

 

[richierich1212]

Personally a nice monitor goes a long way. 23"-24" is optimal. Video cards are always dropping in price.

 

[magomago]

even at 3.7 ghz its no slouch...

its a balance between how often you rebuild and how often you upgrade....imo 1680x1050 would still resbound a 6950, I'd go down to something else to be sensible. I like performance too, but not if I'm not taking advantage of the card's potential. I feel its like driving a bugatti in NYC traffic...lots of wasted potential lol

 

[richierich1212]

Samsung 2494LW Monitor $149.99 Dell Daily Deal:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A3904006&baynote_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0&~ck=baynoteSearch&dgc=CJ&cid=24471&lid=566643&acd=10550055-1225267-u183778t0f0fp0c0s441

 

[soccerballtux]

yeah I'd go video card before bothering with a proc upgrade.

 

[xeopherith]

Currently I do have a 22 inch and personally I don't feel I need a higher resolution. Even with just 2 or 4 AA it's hard to notice any jaggies.

Because for the most part my performance is around a 5850, with the exception of a game that needs more vram, I won't buy anything less than a 6950 or 6970 because it wouldn't be worth the upgrade. I do completely understand the idea about being "res bound."

When you look at these two graphs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4061/amds-radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950/15

What you will see is a 6970 running Metro 2033 at roughly 60FPS at 1680x1050 and only 40 FPS at 1920x1200. This helps me to lean towards a 6950 because it only lags slightly behind and saves quite a bit of money. However I wouldn't really call it "res bound" when the performance drops 38% with one resolution increase.

If I could simply swap my 512MB version for the normal 1GB reference design I wouldn't even be looking at getting new video cards at all. I convinced myself to save the 20-30 bucks (for each card) back when I bought these because I was only going to be running 1680x1050. I have learned my lesson the hard way that the memory is really required more and more especially with the new DX features.

 

[airdata]

I don't know how much performance you're going to see above your current specs.

The highest gains I would think would be if you went with an i7 setup. probably would offer more of a gain than upgrading your video cards to a 480 or 580 imho.

 

[xeopherith]

I don't know how much performance you're going to see above your current specs.

The highest gains I would think would be if you went with an i7 setup. probably would offer more of a gain than upgrading your video cards to a 480 or 580 imho.

Part of my "Oopsies" was simply going with the 512mb 5770's. I should be right around the 5850 when you see most of Anand's performance charts but the problem is my lack of RAM is sometimes bumping me down below quite a bit. When RAM isn't a problem the games run great. For example Mass Effect 2 runs everything maxed with 4xAA at roughly 50-60FPS. The game runs so smooth.

Right now I'm playing Divinity II http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/2010/007/reviews/952260_20100108_screen008.jpg

This game I have to turn shadows completely off and lighting down a notch. Even with those settings I still have to bump textures down one notch.

If I bump anything up one notch it goes from great smooth performance down to nothing. I just imagine that I'm running into a vram barrier.

Also it isn't just Divinity II that's a problem. I do run into this somewhat often. In fact SC2 I run almost completely at max settings with maybe one exception. I can't remember the setting but instead of Ultra I'm on High just to keep my FPS above 30 in match games.

 

[xeopherith]

Turning the topic a bit would you go with a:
GTX 570
HD 6970
or
HD 6950

For my resolution I'm leaning towards the 6950.

I have my two 5770's listed on ebay for $149 and my old 4970 for $39 (starting bids with higher buy out). So if I sell these cards I should have around half already paid for.

 

[xeopherith]

After re-reviewing all the 1680x1050 graphs in the 6970 6950 review I'm looking towards the GTX 570 as it wins the majority of the performance tests.

That also would allow me to run my small 9600GSO as a secondary card for Physx... hmmm That really has me thinking..

What do you guys think?

 

[magomago]

After re-reviewing all the 1680x1050 graphs in the 6970 6950 review I'm looking towards the GTX 570 as it wins the majority of the performance tests.

That also would allow me to run my small 9600GSO as a secondary card for Physx... hmmm That really has me thinking..

What do you guys think?

don't even bother with a 9600GSO as a secondardy physx card. you'll probably slow down your overall performance with that card.

btw i thought you said you have 5750s, now its 5770s all the sudden?

The way i see it for you, its a 6950 @ 280 or a gtx570 @ 350 (lowest price i found casually glancing at newegg). Your call lol.

 

[xeopherith]

btw i thought you said you have 5750s, now its 5770s all the sudden?

In Firefox just hit CTRL+F and type 5750 and you'll see you were the only one mentioning 5750's


So you think using that 9600GSO will slow down my setup for Physx? Are you saying to just not use Physx or that using Physx with just the GTX 570 would be faster?

I know I have seen a review on such a thing but maybe with GTX 480/470 and secondary cards so I guess I will have to look for it again and read it over.

 

[mizzou]

I just upgraded to basically what you have.
So far i havent run into perf issues but i am running at 1280x1024.

Dirt2 and grid totally maxed out on highest settings , no issues
I do have a 5850 though

 

[xeopherith]

Can anyone give me more information about Physx? I know there are ways of getting it to work with ATI or Nvidia cards as primary but I'm curious about my 9600GSO.

 

[Rhoxed]

First of all, I really don't see a reason at all to upgrade your processor - 3.7ghz Quad Phenom II is no slouch at anything. Upgrading the processor with your video card bottleneck will not make anything that was previously unplayable become playable.

So, for biggest wow factor its gonna be the video card if you really want to be able to play things you couldn't before - I would lean towards 6950 this way you can x-fire in a year or so when you need the performance, or if you switch to a faster processor at some point, 6950's in x-fire are quite nice.

 

[xeopherith]

First of all, I really don't see a reason at all to upgrade your processor - 3.7ghz Quad Phenom II is no slouch at anything. Upgrading the processor with your video card bottleneck will not make anything that was previously unplayable become playable.

So, for biggest wow factor its gonna be the video card if you really want to be able to play things you couldn't before - I would lean towards 6950 this way you can x-fire in a year or so when you need the performance, or if you switch to a faster processor at some point, 6950's in x-fire are quite nice.

It's impressive how much better the i2500 is but I'm with you. I'm thinking about the 6950 pretty hard.