Firstly, I apologize if this is posted in the wrong sub-section. Currently I have decent rig that can handle Planetside on medium to high settings at 45-60 fps overall and 25-30 in fights from medium and up. I will post the specs further down. I am considering to upgrade but I could really use some third party feedback on which part that needs upgrading over others etc. Current main specs: Motherboard: Asus IV Formula CPU: AMD Phenom II x6 1100T 3.3GHz GPU: GTX 580 1,5gb (factory OC) RAM: 16gb Kingston (4x4gb) 1600Mhz OS: Win7 64x If more specific info is needed i'll happily provide. Specifically what I am asking for is what should I upgrade to up my frames. I'm considering a GTX 760 or at max a 770 since 780 and up are out of my price range. I am also looking at the option of switching intel going with an i5 3570k but seeing as this would require a new Motherboard the price goes up. I'm Unsure if theres an AMD cpu that fits the Formula's socket that would be an upgrade (removing the need of a new motherboard) I would rather not go ATI when it comes to graphics though but if the price is right for the power then why not? The end goal is to be able to run PS2 at 60fps as often as possible. and while i doubt ill afford both a CPU and GPU upgrade straight off the bat, knowing which part to upgrade first is a step in the right direction. Any input is greatly appreciated.
According to the Asus website, it states your motherboard only has beta support for FX Bulldozer processors, and no support for Piledriver cores. This is a direct comparison between the top of the line Bulldozer chip (FX-8150) and what you have: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=434 This would be a direct comparison if your motherboard supported the Piledriver line, which would be an FX-8350: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/203?vs=697 As you can see, the 8150 is a wash, and simply not worth the money, so my suggestion would be to invest in a decent cooler and start overclocking what you have. Your chip is a Thuban model, 6-core chip based on the last of the K10 architecture. It's about on par with a Core 2, but with higher clock speed. It's going to pull some wattage if you start overclocking, but you should be able to raise it a few hundred megahertz just on air. Here is a comparison between the 760 and your 580. It's a bit faster and uses a lot less power, although honestly 760's are *not* the best bang for the buck right now. If you can spend ~$70 more, you can get a 770, which are better performance for the dollar. 760 and 580: (what you're proposing) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/767?vs=854 770 vs 580 (what I'm proposing) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/767?vs=829 760 ($250) vs 770 ($320): (why I'm proposing it) http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/854?vs=829
Firstly I'd like to thank you for a reply. Seems like if you're not ******** about **** fps with and allcaps title and don't leave any specs no one bothers to reply I got an h60 cooling my CPU atm, I will look into OC'ing it a tad and see if that helps. lookign at your link the 770 looks like the obvious pick between the two but the 770 is very on the cost limit. I wonder if buying into an i5 4670k and a new MoBo (which ends up being cheaper than a 770) would be an overall better upgrade. Again thanks for your reply.
To be completely honest with you, the 4670k+580 combo would undoubtedly be a better gameplay experience than a 1100T+770 simply due to how often Planetside 2 is limited by CPU performance. Not to mention, graphics settings can always be turned down to accommodate framerate issues, whereas no such option exists for CPU limitations. Aside from being very power hungry, Geforce 580's are still quite fast and capable of delivering fluid framerates with very high / ultra settings in PS2. Here's a comparison between the 4670k and the 1100T: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=203 There aren't as many parameters on this one to compare from, but Intel's Haswell architecture found in the 4670k is going to be vastly superior in every way to your 1100T in terms of performance and reduced power consumption. And, in the event your 580 fails, you'll at least have a fallback option of using the HD4600 GPU built into the Haswell die for non/light gaming duties.
For clarity's sake, the AMD Thuban cores are about on par clock-for-clock with the Intel Core2 series, which were released back in 2006. No doubt pretty decent in multi-threaded situations due to the 6 available cores, Intel has released Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, and most recently Haswell as successors following Core 2. I have an 3770k Ivy Bridge CPU myself, and there is an enormous performance difference between it and my previous Core 2. You'll see similar performance gains with the 4670k too.
It is your CPU that is your problem. You need to buy a new mobo and an i5 3570k. I am on an AMD X6 1090T at 3.8Ghz with a GTX570 and it is always always CPU bound.. Why are people recommending Haswell chips? The 4670k doesn't overclock as well as the i5 3570k. Going from a GTX580 to a GTX760 would be a downgrade. Stick with your 580. You want 60fps? You need an i5 3570k overclocked to 4.5GHZ.
What kind of power supply do you have first of all? I don't think the issue with overclocking Haswell is that big of a deal, since they're more efficient at the same clock speed. Why not use a Haswell CPU? Haswell and Ivy Bridge both use thermal interface compound instead of solder, and they both have 22nm transistors, and high power density as a result, so neither are as good for overclocking as Sandy Bridge. The Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge-E chips also use solder. I'd personally recommend that this guy get a new PSU if he needs it, and a Haswell i5 with a decent motherboard. Keep the 580 for a while, and upgrade to a 660 when you can. That will be a much better balanced system than a 760 with that CPU.
Just curious, why the need for a new PSU? I thought new PSUs were only required to take advantage of some of the deep state power savings abilities that Haswell has, but not for standard usage. Is this correct? (This is an area I'm not very knowledgeable with)
After reading waht people have been posting it seems clear a new MoBo and CPU is the way to go. guess the problem will be if i am to pick the haswell or ivy bridge. I'm kind of leaning towards the haswell because its cheaper (got discount at my part dealer). My power supply sits at 700w. And judging by LibRevolution statement id probably want to OC to ~4.5 regardless of haswell or ivy. Afaik 700 should last me but please correct me if I'm wrong. Is there a reason for the 660 being "better" than a 760?
If you intend to run at stock speeds, Haswell will be fine, if you're looking to OC the CPU, go for Ivy Bridge. The smaller 22nm architecture of the Haswell means all the CPU components are closer together and more prone to hotspots when overclocked. Ivy Bridge will OC higher than Haswell (Haswell does not like going above 4.4Ghz) and will last longer as an OC'd component because the heat will cause less long term damage to the Ivy Bridge CPU. Haswell although newer was developed to be more power efficient (for next -gen laptop use) not an enthusiast grade CPU, hence the older CPU out punches it when it comes to being OC'd for gaming. As for PSU, I'm running a 750w, but a good quality 700w should be ok as long as you don't plan to SLI anything high end in the future.
Well yeah, basically Intel is the way to go if u wanna play games these days, even thought i hate intel and like AMD more. MY CPU costed around 230e and basically is the same than i7 4770(just alot cheaper) and the MOBO was super cheap 60e, rest the things u already have. And about PSU, u rly dont need some 750w power, just buy good quality lower one and u are good to go, my setup hardly takes even 250w when playing ps2 and i did run my old setup with a 450w power with no problem, only took 370w when playing games which mean the power was pretty much using 90% of the power it could do(i7 2700k@4.8ghz and hd 7950.) So my point is that good quality 550w is enough for most setups(gold/platinum rated).
If you have a turd for a PSU, it's just as likely to catch on fire as it is to power your system properly. Ivy Bridge is 22nm as well. Both OC at a subpar level due to the silly thermal compound they used instead of soldering it properly. A 760 is better than a 660. A 580 is also better than a 660 since it's on par with a 660Ti if you ignore the 660Ti's slower 192-bit memory bus. A 660Ti and a 760 have very similar performance numbers except when major memory bandwidth needs come into play - there the 760 will always win. A 580 is perfectly fine for now. Upgrade your processor first. 700W means nothing. OEM and efficiency are what's important. You should be fine with either Haswell or Ivy Bridge. The differences aren't that extreme.
I still can't quote. Get a new PSU to protect your new components. Ivy Bridge and Haswell are both 22nm. Neither overclocks as well as Sandy Bridge for two reasons, like I stated earlier: power density because of the 22nm trigate transistors, and the fact that they used TIM instead of solder.
Well the one I have is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817341018 and it is getting a bit old by now. Maybe a new one would be for the better together with MoBo/CPU upg.
How old? Those are totally okay today, but pre-2007 (I think? can't recall the year for sure) they were pretty terrible.
I would suggest the same as the others in this thread, get an intel i5 cpu. Preferably the i5 3570K, if you can't find one then the i5 4670K. The 3570K because it runs cooler and clocks better, the only advantage of the 4670K is a slightly better built in GPU which you won't need.. About the GPU, if you have the money you could try an R9 290X and stick a custom cooler on it like this one Arctic Accelero Hybrid. Or you could go with the more standard GTX 770 / GTX 780, the 760 has more performance pr dollar, but as they said it isn't that much of an upgrade from a 580 (abt 13% faster vs 34% for the 770). I really reccomend you check out techpowerups reviews if you want to swap GPU as they usually include a long list of cards for performance comparison at various resolutions and the performance per dollar. I can also add that my wife has the X6 1090T with a HD7950 and I don't really notice any/much performance difference between that one and my FX-8320 and GTX 760. So If you want more fps, go for intel or OC the CPU you have. Personally I run at 4.5Ghz and that grants me about 50-60 fps in all combats with fps smoothing on.
iirc 3 years tops. will confirm when I get home (cause receipts) EDIT: I think I may have misunderstood your query. the PSU I have, I have used for about the past 3 years tops. Where as I do believe the model itself came out around 08.
90% of the 4670k runs only 4.4ghz, 90% of the 3570k runs only 4.5ghz .. Haswell is faster in clock to clock, see where im going? SO u need an ivy that runs around 4.7-4.8 ghz to be competetive with 4.4 ghz Haswell ... if someone is updating machine it always pays of to buy the newest hardware and not 2-3 year old.
I'm going to play the devil's advocate here and say his PSU is fine. If it's capable of providing power to a 1100T, it is more than capable of providing power to a Haswell 4670k or 4770k, as they both use less power. Also, there's no point in going backwards just for the sake of overclocking. Neither Ivy Bridge nor Haswell overclock as well as Sandy Bridge due to being on different die nodes, but Haswell is still ~5-10% faster per clock than Ivy Bridge (which is about 3-5% faster per clock than Sandy Bridge), so while your clocks may not be as high, it's still faster overall. Also, Haswell overclocks about as well as Ivy Bridge anyways due to being on the same die node and having crappy thermal interconnects. Bottom line is, if you want to seriously OC with Ivy Bridge or Haswell, you need to de-lid your processor. Go Haswell or go home. You won't be disappointed.
That might be so, but from what I heard the 4670K achieves the same frequency at 10-20 celcius more requireing a much heftier cpu cooler. (it might be less of a difference). Also the fps difference isn't much since you get GPU necked in most games, here is a nice comparison made by OCholic of the 4670/3570/2500K. The conclusion is: Apparently when reducing resolutions drastically, or in other words opening the bottleneck of the VGA, then you clearly see that there have actually been improvements made. Never the less it was rather interesting to see, that it isn't the 4670K, which, at stock clocks and even overclocked, isn't the quickest out of the three CPUs we tested. It's actually the 3570K which is able to outperform the 2500K by almost 10.5 percent and the 4670K by a mere 0.6 percent.
