Replace GPU or Everything?

[timoseewho]

Hello! I have a 2.5ish-year old system that kind of goes like this:
CPU: Intel E8400
RAM: OCZ DDR2-800 4GB
MOBO: Asus P5K-E P35
GPU: EVGA GTX 260
PSU: OCZ StealthXStream 500W
SW: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit.
I've been thinking about either replacing just my GPU with the HD 6870 or the whole system. I'm not sure if my CPU/MOBO/etc. will bottleneck my system. I don't play any really graphics demanding games, just WoW, SC2, and possibly D3 mind you, but even when playing WoW/SC2 I feel that I can't put my settings to the highest without working my PC hard heh. What do you think?

 

[ieatdonuts]

I feel like your system is good enough to wait a little longer (till next-gen GPUs).

The closer we get to Q4 '11 and Q1 '12 the more sense it makes to wait.

If you can't wait until March-April of next year (with the same rig) then a 2500k + new mobo right now would be a good choice.

 

[dma0991]

Sell the whole PC and build a new one from scratch if you have have the budget. A SB based Core i5 2400 or Core i5 2500/2500K shouldn't cost a lot and the performance boost is well worth the complete overhaul.

 

[timoseewho]

Okay, thanks!

 

[RussianSensation]

WOW is just a pig that loves GPU and CPU speed. But generally speaking, Blizzard games love processors with fast cache, amazing instructions per clock / single core throughput performance.

So if you have $ to spend, get a 2500k and overclock it to 4.5-4.6ghz. You can carry over the GTX260 for now and then upgrade it when GTX6xx or HD7xxx series come out. There really isn't much point in waiting to do a platform upgrade because:

1) Core 2 Quad CPUs won't help you with single core throughput performance in the games you play
2) Ivy Bridge is unlikely to be much faster than 2500k is today and Haswell next generation CPU is still 1.5-2 years away.

In other words, getting a SB system now is pretty much optimal now that Z68 chipset is available.

The closer we get to Q4 '11 and Q1 '12 the more sense it makes to wait.

If you can't wait until March-April of next year (with the same rig) then a 2500k + new mobo right now would be a good choice.

I disagree. With Intel, the best time to upgrade is during Tocks, not Ticks, because that's when you get the largest performance increases in IPC/core performance/watt.

Pentium D (Tick) ---> Conroe (Tock) (HUGE increase = 2x IPC)
Conroe/Yorkfield (Tock) --> Penryn/Wolfdale (Tick) (minor increase of 5% IPC)
Penryn/Wolfdale (Tick) ---> Nehalem/Lynnfield (Tock) (15-20% IPC increase)
Nehalem (Tock) --> Westmere (Tick) (almost nothing)
Westmere (Tick) ---> SB (Tock) (15-20% IPC increase).

SB is not hot and loud like Fermi was; so there is no point in waiting for its refresh, which if history is indicative of Tick/Tock strategy is unlikely to bring any serious performance increase.

Ivy Bridge to 2500k is going to be like E8400/E8500 series vs. E6600 series. There won't be much difference aside from higher clock speeds. Certainly, not worth waiting for.

Also, August -> April is 9 months of waiting.....

It makes sense to get Sandy Bridge now and wait for Haswell in 2013.

 

[ieatdonuts]

Gains in IPC are irrelevant for ticks because its largely a boost in clock speed. So if you can actually measure changes in overall performance and then make a comparison, then your point would hold more weight. It's not just a shrink to 22 nm, this time it's also a tri-gate transistor, and that in itself could make the processor more power efficient.

9 months is a long time, sure, but he's got a decent rig for something like WoW. My advice was to wait for next-generation GPUs (which surely you do not disagree with?) so he's going to be waiting until November-December at the earliest. If he is satisfied, why not milk it out another six months?

Plus, I'd make a bet that Haswell is a long, long ways out after Ivy Bridge. New architectures generally are, and no doubt there's a good chance of delays (2014 Haswell maybe?). So an Ivy Bridge will last a long time. Even a Sandy Bridge, but in the end there's the old technology adage - it always pays to wait.

 

[taltamir]

WOW recently got the large address aware flag. This means that if you switch from 32bit windows to 64bit it will increase the amount of ram WOW can use from 2GB to 4GB (it is still a 32bit exe so no more then 4GB)... this is important because at max settings it crashes with out of memory errors if it is limited to 2GB of ram.

So when building your new machine make sure its 64bit windows (which is faster anyways) and has 6-8GB of ram.

 

[RussianSensation]

Gains in IPC are irrelevant for ticks because its largely a boost in clock speed. So if you can actually measure changes in overall performance and then make a comparison, then your point would hold more weight.

Ticks have never brought a sizeable performance increase on Intel side over Tocks. So why would I bet that IB will be any different? Intel has clearly outlined that it focused on architectural improvements every 2 years. As such, IB won't be 15-20% faster in IPC over SB. In other words, it won't be any better for Blizzard games than SB is today.

9 months is a long time, sure, but he's got a decent rig for something like WoW. My advice was to wait for next-generation GPUs (which surely you do not disagree with?) so he's going to be waiting until November-December at the earliest. If he is satisfied, why not milk it out another six months?

I told him to keep the GTX260 and upgrade the CPU platform only. That was pretty clear in my post. I wouldn't advise a $250-300 GPU upgrade right now since we haven't had a huge performance increase since September of 2009.

Plus, I'd make a bet that Haswell is a long, long ways out after Ivy Bridge.

I still don't understand why anyone should wait 9 months for IB when SB is here and now and will provide a huge performance increase in CPU limited games. Obviously, if you "afford" to wait, newer/faster/cheaper technology will always come out. But you are making it sound like IB will be some major re-worked architecture from Intel. Sure it might add 5-10% IPC at most, but that's about it. It's still a quad-core...

New architectures generally are, and no doubt there's a good chance of delays (2014 Haswell maybe?).

Why? Because BD has gotten delayed 5x, Haswell is going to be following the same path? You keep insisting that people wait for IB but SB has been available since January 2011. With your logic, you'd be waiting forever.

Gains in IPC are irrelevant for ticks because its largely a boost in clock speed.

That actually contradicts your view of waiting then. Even if IB overclocks to 5.5ghz, that's only a 17% performance increase over a 4.7ghz 2500k. 2500k is 75-100% faster than E8400 in CPU limited games. So you recommend waiting 9 months for a 15-20% performance increase when you can get 100% today that you get to use for 8-9 months?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm with RussianSensation on this one. Why wait? Get a 2500K now, and enjoy it for months, instead of waiting.

I've been tempted to do that, but my C2Q rigs are going to have to last me for a while.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

+2 for RussianSensation

 

[SickBeast]

I still scoff at paying $200 for a processor.

Sandy Bridge is great, sure, but not at the prices they sell them at.

 

[toyota]

I still scoff at paying $200 for a processor.

Sandy Bridge is great, sure, but not at the prices they sell them at.

you think 200 bucks for what is essentially the fastest cpu for gaming out there is a rip off? with all its overclocking headroom, it will not be a limitation for 2-3 years so 200 bucks for that that kind of performance seems like an insane deal. when is the last time AMD had the fastest gaming cpu for just a little over 200 bucks?

 

[BFG10K]

I have to agree with Toyota here. Especially since a 2500K has no competition from AMD, yet Intel still fairly prices it. It’s also lot cheaper than high-end Nehalem processors while beating them soundly in gaming.

 

[lehtv]

I agree with most of the others here, upgrading to 2500K makes sense for an LGA775 based system, as long as you have the cash. An OC'd 2500K will probably not bottleneck graphics card upgrades four times as powerful as 6870, so you're all set for Maxwell, or even beyond.

As for the PSU... 500W will handle a 6870 and OC'd 2500K. If you can find 560 Ti for a similar price as 6870, I'd recommend that instead. Why? Better tessellation performance, more games are NVIDIA optimised as far as I can tell, NVIDIA control panel allows program-specific settings, and 560 Ti is known to be very cool and silent and overclockable.

 

[Jacky60]

I'd agree with Russian, I used to have that cpu and you'll see a huge performance increase going to 2500K. As he said keep the 260 for now and upgrade gpu when 7000 series/kepler release.

 

[Meghan54]

I agree with the ones suggesting to upgrade to the 2500k. While you'll get a platform with at least some legs on it for longevity vs. your dead platform, and you'll get a speed boost from the upgrade, you also face the fact your old parts are rapidly declining in value on the used market. The longer you wait, their worth is going to steadily decline.

I just upgraded to a 2500k platform a few weeks ago myself. I moved from an X58 platform---i 7 920, Asus RII Gene motherboard, 6GB (3 x 3GB) Corsair Dominator memory. I listed the stuff on Criagslist for sale as separate pieces. Within a day, I had someone agree to my listed prices, and I ended up upgrading essentially for free. (I did make some $$ off the upgrade as the buyer of my parts wanted me to complete the build for him, assemble it, and deliver it. I made around $75 or so out of the deal after my upgrade.)


Not sorry I upgraded one bit. More memory for cheaper prices, cpu was cheaper than the 920 was with better performance, etc., etc.

Do the upgrade....you won't regret it once while you're using it.

 

[SickBeast]

you think 200 bucks for what is essentially the fastest cpu for gaming out there is a rip off? with all its overclocking headroom, it will not be a limitation for 2-3 years so 200 bucks for that that kind of performance seems like an insane deal. when is the last time AMD had the fastest gaming cpu for just a little over 200 bucks?

For $149 I got a decent motherboard and a Phenom II almost a year ago. It doesn't bottleneck me in games, even with a highly overclocked GTX 460 SLI setup.

Traditionally you could purchase a ~$100 CPU that would overclock like a beast and give you the ultimate gaming rig for relatively little money.

With the lack of competition from AMD at the high end, Intel is running roughshod, charging at least $200 for a CPU that can even be overclocked. It's a joke, and I'm not going to support their desecration of the enthusiast community.

 

[toyota]

SickBeast, perhaps instead of blaming Intel you should blame AMD for not being competitive. but congratulations on buying a slower cpu for less money. its amazing how simple that works. and for about 25-30 bucks more you have a 2100 i3 that out performs your X4 while using half the power. yes you could oc that X4 but that will mean even more power and heat just to match or barely beat a lowly i3. plus the i3 comes with super quiet cooler where as you need to throw an aftermarket cooler to even oc that X4.

now lets get to the i5 you keep bitching about. a 2500 is 209 bucks and will run rings around anything AMD makes. and you can oc it a bit by raising the turbo. the 2500k is only 10 bucks more than that and has fully unlocked multi. again what does AMD have for that price? well you could save 25 bucks and get a hotter running slower X6. sure you can oc that but again that noisy cooler will have to be replaced and you still will not match even a 2300 i5 that can be had for CHEAPER. and do not forget the massive amount of additional power that AMD cpu will need if overclocked.

and again if you want to bitch about price buy the 2300 i5 that's 5 bucks cheaper than a slower 1100t. you also need to factor in another 20-30 bucks to replace that noisy ass cooler on the 1100t though. and you can oc the 2300 i5 using turbo but its already faster than an 1100t while being quieter and consuming much less power.

so Intel basically matches or even beats AMD across the board for under 200 bucks and then for a measly 25 bucks more than an 1100t gives you a much faster, lower power consuming, cpu that has tons of headroom and can even be oced decently on the quiet factory cooler. and really if you factor in the aftermarket cooler needed on the 1100t that makes the already far superior 2500k the SAME price in the end. lol

how dare Intel do that....

 

[RussianSensation]

Traditionally you could purchase a ~$100 CPU that would overclock like a beast and give you the ultimate gaming rig for relatively little money.

I don't recall in the last 10 years that I built computers where I could have purchased a ~ $100 CPU and gotten nearly top-of-the line performance out of it. Generally, such a scenario required a $200-300 CPU to match a performance of $900-1000 offerings, and even then it was often unattainable.

An overclocked Phenom II X4 is only as fast as an overclocked Q6600 from 2007. So while it won't severely bottleneck GTX460 SLI setup in most modern games at 1080P or higher, that's not to say there is no difference. If you use your system for gaming mostly, then invest more in videocards. Obviously, it's better to get Phenom II + GTX570 than say 2500k + GTX275. Still, you get what you pay for. If you play MMOs, strategy games like SC2, the Phenom II isn't as fast as an i7 / SB setup.

I agree that Phenom II X4 + mobo for $149 is an awesome deal vs. $280 that it costs for a 2500k + mobo combo at MicroCenter. However, you already know that with higher performing parts there is a diminishing marginal utility for every additional dollar as you get closer to the premium category (i.e., $150 HD6870 vs. $250 HD6920 2GB vs. $440 GTX580, etc.).

I also have a feeling that you'll be upgrading that Phenom II to BD on that mobo, while the 2500k user will continue chugging along. So the initial savings may shrink over time.

 

[3DVagabond]

Until fairly recently CPU's outperformed GPU's for gaming. When the fastest GPU was a GTX-285 (or less), most games were truly GPU limited. Now GPU's are so much faster that it requires more CPU to feed it. Dx11 might have something to do with that too.

 

[SickBeast]

SickBeast, perhaps instead of blaming Intel you should blame AMD for not being competitive. but congratulations on buying a slower cpu for less money. its amazing how simple that works. and for about 25-30 bucks more you have a 2100 i3 that out performs your X4 while using half the power. yes you could oc that X4 but that will mean even more power and heat just to match or barely beat a lowly i3. plus the i3 comes with super quiet cooler where as you need to throw an aftermarket cooler to even oc that X4.

now lets get to the i5 you keep bitching about. a 2500 is 209 bucks and will run rings around anything AMD makes. and you can oc it a bit by raising the turbo. the 2500k is only 10 bucks more than that and has fully unlocked multi. again what does AMD have for that price? well you could save 25 bucks and get a hotter running slower X6. sure you can oc that but again that noisy cooler will have to be replaced and you still will not match even a 2300 i5 that can be had for CHEAPER. and do not forget the massive amount of additional power that AMD cpu will need if overclocked.

and again if you want to bitch about price buy the 2300 i5 that's 5 bucks cheaper than a slower 1100t. you also need to factor in another 20-30 bucks to replace that noisy ass cooler on the 1100t though. and you can oc the 2300 i5 using turbo but its already faster than an 1100t while being quieter and consuming much less power.

so Intel basically matches or even beats AMD across the board for under 200 bucks and then for a measly 25 bucks more than an 1100t gives you a much faster, lower power consuming, cpu that has tons of headroom and can even be oced decently on the quiet factory cooler. and really if you factor in the aftermarket cooler needed on the 1100t that makes the already far superior 2500k the SAME price in the end. lol
how dare Intel do that....

An i3, even overclocked to 4.3ghz (which you can't even do on the "Sandy Bridge" ones), is still not as fast as my Phenom II X4 at 3.75ghz. Sure, there will be a bunch of games where the i3 will score 200fps versus 100fps on my system, but those games are few and far between, and I'm capped at 60hz anyway.

Intel still has nothing to compete with the plethora of Phenom II options that gamers have with a $100 budget.

I'm not saying I'm completely happy with the situation. Like I said, I used to get CPUs for $100 that were better than anything else on the market, sometimes by close to an order of magnitude once I overclocked them.

I just see all you guys swarming for Sandy Bridge 2500K chips that you don't even need, thinking you're getting a good deal when traditionally you could have a chip like that for half as much. I don't understand it.

 

[RussianSensation]

I just see all you guys swarming for Sandy Bridge 2500K chips that you don't even need, thinking you're getting a good deal when traditionally you could have a chip like that for half as much. I don't understand it.

Ok let's examine how true your statement is.

1. An overclocked $225 2500k is faster than an overclocked $999 Core i7 990X in games.

2. An overclocked $320 2600k is not much faster than the overclocked 2500k (see same review).

3. Even outside of games, stock vs. stock or overclocked vs. overclocked, the 2500k delivers similar performance to the $999 980/990X for 1/4 of the price. Outside of video rendering and other professional applications that thrive on > 6 threads, the 2500k pretty much renders the 980/990X models worthless.

See Review 1 and Review 2.

Question: When was the last time we could have purchased an AMD CPU that could be overclocked to reach the flagship/fastest CPU from either camp?

Answer: Athlon X2 3800+ released in 2005. When overclocked, this CPU was able to beat anything from Intel and match / reach the flagship X2 4800+.

But, let's take a closer look at the details:

1) Athlon X2 3800+ cost $354 vs. $902 for the flagship at the time (X2 4800+). So $130 more than what 2500k costs today.

2) In overclocked state, the X2 3800+ likely consumed as much power as the X2 4800+. 2500k in idle and overclocked states consumes far less than the 990X.

3) 2500k also comes with a couple unique features such as Quick Sync and a GPU inside. In other words, if you need processing horsepower but don't play games, you are getting a "free" workable GPU that can be hooked up via DVI/DisplayPort/VGA through Z68 mobo. That saves you $ from getting a $25-40 GPU and still lets you encode videos on your smartphone/tablet faster than the $999 i7-990X!

In conclusion, in my mind the last time when AMD's lower end CPU was in a position where it was able to reach top-of-the line performance in the CPU segment was 6 years ago. Yet, it still cost $130 more than what 2500k costs today, and didn't have any power consumption advantages or onboard GPU.

So I am going to say that traditionally, there actually hasn't been a CPU like the $225 2500k for a looooooooooooong time. The Q6600 came close but it still hovered around the $300 mark. Perhaps the i5-750 is a noteable runner-up.

I am not sure what $100-125 CPUs you are referring to in the last 6 years that could be overclocked to reach near flagship SKU offerings in the majority of tasks.

And here is another point: you can resell the i5-750s, i7-860s, i7-920s, 2500ks, etc. and recoup some of the investment cost. For example, lets say you can sell the Phenom II X4 for $75 in 2 years, I bet you can sell that 2500k for $120. So the differnece in the total cost of ownership between these 2 CPUs over 2 years is probably even less than $100.

These are some of the reasons why we keep recommending the 2500k.

 

[SickBeast]

I am not sure what $100-125 CPUs you are referring to in the last 6 years that could be overclocked to reach near flagship SKU offerings in the majority of tasks.

And here is another point: you can resell the i5-750s, i7-860s, i7-920s, 2500ks, etc. and recoup some of the investment cost. For example, lets say you can sell the Phenom II X4 for $75 in 2 years, I bet you can sell that 2500k for $120. So the differnece in the total cost of ownership between these 2 CPUs over 2 years is probably even less than $100.

These are some of the reasons why we keep recommending the 2500k.

There was my Mobile Barton 2500+ that overclocked to 2.6ghz on air. At that speed it absolutely destroyed anything on the market, and it was still beating everything released for a good 6 months or more afterward.

I also had a pair of Celeron 300mhz chips that I ran at 450mhz each in a dual socket Abit BP-6 motherboard.

Those are just two examples.

I just wish we had gems on the market like the Mobile Bartons were. They would probably still be useful today for somewhat modern games.

 

[RussianSensation]

There was my Mobile Barton 2500+ that overclocked to 2.6ghz on air. At that speed it absolutely destroyed anything on the market, and it was still beating everything released for a good 6 months or more afterward.

I also had a pair of Celeron 300mhz chips that I ran at 450mhz each in a dual socket Abit BP-6 motherboard.

Ok that's going way back. Also, it looks like Barton XP2500+ settled in at $130 at the end of its life, when we already had Athlon 64 3200+. When the 2500+ first debuted, it was $239.

Keep in mind, back then RAM was very expensive and if I pretty sure you needed a FSB 400 capable chipset motherboard on the AMD side to get your 166 FSB 2500+ to 200 FSB 3200+ speeds. My VIA KT333 chipset MSI KT3-Ultra 2 couldn't do it. I am also pretty sure the lowest FSB:RAM ratio on the XP platform was 1:1 (but correct me if I am wrong), which means to get your XP2500+ @ 200 FSB, you would have needed DDR 400 mhz ram? A lot of variables there. With multiplier overclocking on SB and much more flexible CPU:RAM ratio, you no longer need a $175-200 motherboard and expensive RAM to overclock the 2500k. Also, accounting for inflation, the 2500k @ $225 setup is still much cheaper.

Also, back then processors reached obsolescence much faster. Sure the 2 examples you listed could be overclocked to reach top-of-the line performance but even within 18-24 months of their release, both of those CPUs were at least 50-100% slower than what followed. With most games being GPU limited nowdays and most programs still unable to take advantage of more than 4 cores, you can be rest assured that a 2500k @ 4.5ghz system will be kicking strong in 2-3 years from now. The same couldn't have been said for the Celeron or XP2500+ back then. So I think the value proposition is even stronger with this processor.

 

[SickBeast]

That Mobile Barton 2500+ at 2.6ghz lasted me a *long* time. Years and years. I eventually moved on to an Opteron 144 because someone on here gave me one and I needed to go to PCI-E so I could upgrade my GPU. There was actually very little difference between the barton and the opteron to be honest, even with the opteron running at 2.7ghz.

Then I dropped in a used opteron 165. It was decent. I didn't realize how much faster my current system would be. I thought quad cores were overkill until I tried one.