What games do you play, which games do you play that are having FPS issues, and what are your typical CPU/GPU/RAM % of usage?
Ive used a 1055T & 1090T for years playing many games, and never really considered teh CPU to be that large of a bottleneck. At least not at 1080P with a GTX680.
Considering both the new AMD Zen FX and Intel Kaby Lake i7 7XXX chips will be out by the you will certainly be bottlenecked by a 7 year old CPU at 4K with a high end modern graphics card.
Yes, that is one slow CPU. Although there are some games that have very good multithreading. In general, your entire platform is very obsolete.
If you must stay on that platform, I would suggest RX 470 or RX 480. If you want Nvidia, I would look at the upcoming GTX 1060 or a GTX 970.
Big Volta will be held back substantially by that CPU.
If you can, a Skylake i5 would be a solid upgrade; and the i3 could work fine in a pinch.
AMD has no CPU worth buying until Zen.
It's not going to be a bottle neck. People just love to toss this term "bottleneck" around. Compared to what? A CPU you do not have?
The faster your video card the faster your system will be. There isn't a brick wall that says, "no man sorry. You cannot go any faster because your CPU is stopping you man."
No offense, but...
GTA series
Fallout series
Every racing simulator
Every Flight simulator
ARMA series
Basically any DX9 game
Any physics heavy calculation during an intense scene
Total War series
Crysis 3 grass
Red Faction series
Elite: Dangerous galaxy map and asteroids
Emulation
virtually every old RTS
World of warcraft
You might be able to get 60fps max/average, but it's the minimums that count, seeing as how ya cap your framerate to the minimum you experience, to avoid getting horrid judder.
Ain't no way a Piledriver CPU is pulling 60fps minimum at all times.
No offense, but you're wrong. Being CPU is like hitting a brick wall in performance.
There are so many games AT doesn't test or test properly. I'm sorry, but it is being completely delusional to think you won't be CPU limited with such an old CPU.
In most games, single thread performance is king. The games that are well threaded do exist, but many of them demand strong cores as well.
Trying to use such an obsolete platform is only viable if OP picks and chooses games that are not demanding. I can spend all day listing old and new titles that that poor CPU would be choking on.
GTA series
Fallout series
Assassin's Creed series
Every racing simulator
Every Flight simulator
ARMA series
Basically any DX9 game
Any physics heavy calculation during an intense scene
Total War series
Crysis 3 grass
Red Faction series
Elite: Dangerous galaxy map and asteroids
Emulation
Starcraft 2 and virtually every old RTS
World of Warcraft
Watch_Dogs
Having a more powerful GPU enables higher IQ and increased resolution. Being CPU bottlenecked means his FPS wouldn't be able to go higher even when lowering the visuals. Being CPU bottlenecked also results in horrible stuttering and erratic frametimes.
If OP only plays non demanding titles such as Battlefield 3 or Red Orchestra 2, then getting a more powerful GPU would be worth it. But is it a good idea to invest more money in a platform that is guarenteed to be far too slow for the majority of games?
Seriously??? Maybe I should pair an atom with a GTX1080, if there is no such thing as a cpu bottleneck. This has to be one of the most absurd and inaccurate statements ever to grace these forums. On top of it, you used incorrect information to accuse another poster of bias. BTW, I hope you arent attached to your chickens. Witcher 3 cpu scaling.
94 FPS with a 3970x and 61 FPS with an 8350, *with the same gpu setup*.
Isn't C2Q a bit faster than Nehalem at the same clocks? Just the latter was less of a power guzzler and didn't have that multi-die latency.
You're comparing the best C2Q against one of the lesser Phenom IIs. Keep it fair, laddie; compare top beast ta top beast, stock vs stock (a la 965 BE vs i7 920).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=362
But even then, @ 3GHz on both, it's a toss-up, except for Sysmark and Far Cry. Everything else is within the margin of error.
Isn't C2Q a bit faster than Nehalem at the same clocks? Just the latter was less of a power guzzler and didn't have that multi-die latency.
I don't agree, every i3 Intel has ever made for desktop is better than quad and oct core AMD counter-parts. Probably even first gen i3 or second gen T-version of i3 is better for games and multi-threaded applications.If you're gaming, AMD just isn't that viable, really. You want an intel CPU, unless you're budget constrained at want to play the latest games. An i3 is just bad, and I'd take the Phenom II over it, but if the option's there, an i5 is much beter.
Hell, a Nehalem i7 920 will do damn fine for gaming. Four cores, eight threads, good draw call perf, cheap.
Trick would be to get a good condition motherboard and not break the bank in gettin' it.
Sell? Whom to?Jesus Christ, the 1100T goes for ~$180 on Ebay.
Anybody should fly, not run to sell those suckers and upgrade to Skylake if they even remotely value their bang-for-buck.
You're comparing the best C2Q against one of the lesser Phenom IIs. Keep it fair, laddie; compare top beast ta top beast, stock vs stock (a la 965 BE vs i7 920).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=362
But even then, @ 3GHz on both, it's a toss-up, except for Sysmark and Far Cry. Everything else is within the margin of error.
Isn't C2Q a bit faster than Nehalem at the same clocks? Just the latter was less of a power guzzler and didn't have that multi-die latency.