Upgrading my PC

[salti]

My rig's 4 yrs old going too throw some money at it , views or help you guy's wanna throw at me first ,

For the following ,

Mainboard - MSI or ASUS ?
Processor - Intel or AMD ?
Grafic - ?

 

[Flogger23m]

CPU should be Intel unless you are on a budget.

 

[Floyd]

How much money are you going to spend?

Personally:

Asus, Intel, nVidia. Don't get the latest and greatest of any of them and you'll save a bundle.

I like ATI cards, but I don't know of RO2 does.

 

[User Name]

I don't know why people hate on AMD so much. Processors are so fast today they aren't nearly the limiting factor a GPU can be. The money I saved getting a $109 Phenom II 960t (which unlocked to a six-core) allowed me to go for a higher priced graphics card. When it comes to games the graphics card is more important than the processor. I've never ran into a game I can't max out at 1920x1080 with this system.

 

[Derbysieger]

@Salti:
It would really help to know what you want to do with your PC (what games do you want to play, what other things do you want to do on it - i.e. photoediting, videoediting etc.) and what your budget is.

I don't know why people hate on AMD so much. Processors are so fast today they aren't nearly the limiting factor a GPU can be. The money I saved getting a $109 Phenom II 960t (which unlocked to a six-core) allowed me to go for a higher priced graphics card. When it comes to games the graphics card is more important than the processor. I've never ran into a game I can't max out at 1920x1080 with this system.

Depends on what kind of games you're playing and if you're on a budget or not. I play a lot of simulations like DCS and simulation games like Take On Helicopters and Arma 2 - guess what, they all profit from very fast CPUs. And in that regard Intel is way ahead. Good luck overclocking an AMD processor to 4.5Ghz under air - with an i5 2500k/i7 2600k no problem at all. And trust me the games I mentioned really like raw processing power (especially Arma 2 and TOH).

I just build a gaming/benchmarking rig for a friend with an i7 2600k, GTX580, 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD. I overclocked it to 4.8GHz under air no problem (24h Prime) and I think I could have cranked it up to 5GHz but he didn't want me to. He's now running the CPU at 4.5GHz

For the upcoming Arma 3 I'm thinking about building a new rig this summer/autumn and I won't even consider AMD for the reasons I mentioned.
That beeing said, I don't think AMD is bad or anything, I actually think it's a great choice if you're on a budget and you can then spend the rest of your money on a faster GPU or even a SSD, but for me there is no way I'm buying AMD unless they come up with something amazing.

So the question isn't really AMD vs Intel (or AMD vs NVidia on the GPU side of things) but what do I want to do with my PC and what can I afford.
When you know that, you can start building your PC or ask for advice on forums.


I know for a fact that when I'm going to build a new PC for A3 I will go to geizhals.at/de and the first things I will add to my wishlist are going to be Intel processor + mobo and a SSD. I will then add the other components with GPU beeing the last thing on the list.

 

[Reise]

It's turning into a trend to have a modestly sized SSD for your primary OS and a select number of programs (games lol) you use a lot so you can get the loading benefit from it. Then you can have large traditional drives for storage.

It's what I'll be doing when I build my next PC.

 

[Flogger23m]

I don't know why people hate on AMD so much. Processors are so fast today they aren't nearly the limiting factor a GPU can be. The money I saved getting a $109 Phenom II 960t (which unlocked to a six-core) allowed me to go for a higher priced graphics card. When it comes to games the graphics card is more important than the processor. I've never ran into a game I can't max out at 1920x1080 with this system.

Depends on the game you are playing. My AMD 965 is still very limiting in a lot of the games I play (flight sims, ArmA). And a faster CPU = faster everything else, even outside of games. Intel CPUs also use less power, run cooler, and OC better currently. I don't hate AMD, but you get what you pay for. If you have the money, go with Intel.

CPUs tend to be harder to upgrade to, often times requiring new motherboards, or worse, new RAM ect. It is best to get the best you can up front. A GPU is much easier to swap out.

It's turning into a trend to have a modestly sized SSD for your primary OS and a select number of programs (games lol) you use a lot so you can get the loading benefit from it. Then you can have large traditional drives for storage.

It's what I'll be doing when I build my next PC.

If you have the money this would be a good route to go. Then again, with 128GB drives being $128 or so, the majority of your programs won't benefit from it. I would hope the price drops significantly in the next few years.

 

[User Name]

I've never played ARMA, but this system plays RO2, and Crysis 2 DX11 w/ high resolution textures at maximum settings.

You guys can say what you want. You may be right, but I haven't run into anything I can't max out. It's not that I can't afford it either. I just can't justify spending three times the price for extra performance I won't really benefit from.

On Newegg.
2600k=$329 (current)
2500k=$229 (current)
(Unlocked six-core) 960T=$109 (when I bought it).

Now if I clock my 960T to 1100T speeds, which is easy since that's only 3.3 GHz. Here are two bench marks that compare that to a 2600k.
This is Bad Company 2:

At 1920x1080 there is a 2 F.P.S. improvement for the extra $220 I could have put toward a better graphics card.

Here is Far Cry 2.

Now here we see a vast improvement going to the 2600K, but you wouldn't notice since both processors are still well over 60 F.P.S.

You could say that the Intel CPU won't need replacing as soon, but I could go through another upgrade cycle, and still have less in both processors (at the same price point) than one 2600K. Also AMD has kept the same socket layout, and is backwards compatible with older generations of boards. So if you wanted you could keep your old board, and memory. Simply upgrade your BIOS. No need to even reinstall the O.S. if you don't want to. That's even more money toward a better GPU.

I still say that $220, or even $120 if you went with the 2500K, toward a graphics card is much better spent than on these processors when it's a gaming rig.

Go on, bash me. In the end we aren't going to change each others minds.

As for over-clocking. As a four core I've had my 960T Prime95 stable up to 4Ghz at stock voltage on air. I'm not an extreme overclocker though so I'm sure it could do more with someone who was. I never tried to go higher, and keep it at 3.6Ghz with all six unlocked simply because I don't see a need to go faster.

 

[Flogger23m]

No one is bashing you, I am not sure why you get offended when people suggest Intel is better. The last Intel CPU I used was 350MHZ. I've been using AMD for years.

Your choice of Crysis 2 is rather poor as that is a GPU bound game. I also think you are inflating your results, as on my PC (GTX 560ti 2GB, 8GB DDR2, AMD 965, Win 7 64bit) I can get as low as 23 frame rates in large explosions, though the average is around 33-40. This is with DX11/ high res textures, 1680x1050, and 8x AA/AF if I am not mistaken. Not terrible, but considering it drops below 30 every now and then it is not what I would consider great.

[url]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288[/URL]

Crysis 1/Warhead is more CPU bound, and you can see the performance difference between the 2500K and AMD 1100T, 78 VS 114.

If all you play are basic shooters/console ports then the AMD 965 is plenty. But if you play real PC games and simulators, you'll see the performance difference. The 2500K is also $180 at Microcenter though I think that sale ends today.

And if you plan on OCing and unlocking that CPU in a comparison, then you should also note the large performance increase when you OC a 2500/2600K to 4.8GHZ or more.

Again, you get what you pay for.

 

[User Name]

Nah, you weren't bashing me. Some people are so fanatical on both sides it was more of a nod to any possible bashers to come. I've owned Intel before. In fact I still have a Q6600 overclocked to 3Ghz running in my other machine.

As for inflating performance. I'm not. I have a 5970 (Newegg Black Friday for $300), and 16GB DDR3, which I paid for most of the way with the money saved going with the 960T, and can run Crysis 2 at 1080p on max settings smoothly. As for being GPU bound, that is kinda' my point. When a game is running smooth anyway more performance gains you nothing. That holds true for overclocking as well. You can overclock as high as you want, but it's pointless if it doesn't improve the experience.

Crysis 1/Warhead is more CPU bound, and you can see the performance difference between the 2500K and AMD 1100T, 78 VS 114.

The Far Cry 2 graph I posted above shows a larger difference between the two, but again they are both over 60 F.P.S. You won't notice the difference when playing the game. Overall the Intel chip is ~20% better at stock settings, and will over-clock to much higher performance. I'll never deny that. My main thing is better GPU's can be bought with the cash saved going with AMD. Which makes for improved gaming. Especially at higher settings where the CPU makes less of a difference.

I was using those graphs because they were the closest equivalent graphs available. If you really wanted to be fair though I could compare it to an Intel quad core that costs the same. Oh wait, the cheapest Intel quad is $70 more. Never mind...

 

[Flogger23m]

My main thing is better GPU's can be bought with the cash saved going with AMD. Which makes for improved gaming.

In those few games. If you load up a CPU demanding game, the money is better spent towards the CPU rather than the GPU. So your statement is only true if you play basic games (Crysis 2, CoD and whatnot).

In edition, a better use of your money would have been going with 8GB of RAM and putting the saved money into a better Intel CPU. The performance increase in and out of games would have been noticeable, where as the extra 8GB of RAM is worthless for games and only helpful if running highly RAM intensive applications (UE SDK, 3DS MAX ect.). But if your PC was intended for doing those tasks, an Intel CPU would be well worth the extra cost.

It just seems odd to suggest going with a cheaper, slower, more power hungry AMD CPU and then blow $40-50 on RAM that will not be used in games. Each to their own though.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

dunno flogger.

I would like to see someone do some tests based completely on price.

So for the price you get a 2500K and say a 570. Get an AMD Phenom x6 and then put all the extra money into an AMD and NVidia card. Then test to see which one performs better for the same price.


Also, you are true, it really does depend on the game. Some games are very cpu heavy, others gpu heavy. It is also worth noting that in almost all the benchies i have seen the AMD chips are beaten at low resolutions, but the scores flatten out at higher resolutions. Only bother with benchmarks around your actual resolution. ( do people still use 1024x768? )


I want to upgrade as well, but I am sitting as long as I can.

22nm 3d transistors from Intel ( overclocking megatime ) in ivy bridge. ( or waiting longer for a tock and a new architecture with haswell.

And the piledriver cores coming out q2-q3 from amd which should clean up the current bulldozer arch quite nicely.

 

[Reise]

I'm not sure why anyone would pay attention to console ported games for benchmarking.

Try comparing performance graphs with some PC exclusive titles. You know, ones that may actually be made to take advantage of the hardware they're being played on?

 

[Oldih]

So how come relatively innocent question about PC upgrades turned into yet another accidental AMD vs Intel bull**** when the massive AMD "hate" is simply statement like if you have good budget go with Intel?

Maybe it's just my mental retardation but I've still yet to find a game besides Shogun 2 (and Arma 2 if I put everything as high as possible, aka 10km view distance, very high, maxed AA etc, which was for teh lulz test to begin with. Fun fact: it was roughly playable by my standards) that makes my Radeon 6870 go bat**** and even in Shogun 2 that took over 13k soldier battle begin with with genuine frame skipping starting to pop up if I zoomed close enough, otherwise perfectly playable.

But then again I am not that bad of a graphics whore so maybe my statement is invalid because I wouldn't dream of pushing say Crysis 1 or Metro 2033 to ultrahypersupermegabadasshd +700% High res custom textures and everything as high as possible that you'd need three GPUs to even run it stable.

 

[User Name]

In edition, a better use of your money would have been going with 8GB of RAM and putting the saved money into a better Intel CPU. The performance increase in and out of games would have been noticeable, where as the extra 8GB of RAM is worthless for games and only helpful if running highly RAM intensive applications (UE SDK, 3DS MAX ect.). But if your PC was intended for doing those tasks, an Intel CPU would be well worth the extra cost.

DDR 3 is dirt cheap now. I started with 8GB, but it is so cheap I decided to buy another 8GB just because.

I'm not sure why anyone would pay attention to console ported games for benchmarking.

Try comparing performance graphs with some PC exclusive titles. You know, ones that may actually be made to take advantage of the hardware they're being played on?

DX11 Crysis 2 is much more graphically than a console port. It's poorly coded though when it comes to tessellation so it needs more horse power than it should. Why is a rectangular concrete barrier made of that many tessellated polygons? I also doubt anything currently out there is coded for use of all six cores in my processor. For now a quad is enough, but they are there so I activated them.

As for the bashing comment. No one has so far, but I've seen where these kinds of threads can go. Be it Intel, or AMD fanatics, eventually the wrong person finds the thread, and BOOM. As I've already said. I own both an Intel Q6600, and an AMD 960T so I'm not trying to say Intel is bad. To the contrary, 2500K and 2600K processors are definitely better performing overall.

My main point was improving gaming performance on a budget. If you have unlimited funds than by all means, buy the 2600K. I personally don't see a need. I'm not spending 100% to 200% more for 15% to 20% more benchmarking performance when you don't notice much of a difference in real world gaming, but to each his own.

Also I am trying to help the original poster by showing them a cheaper alternative, and reasons why it works.

Good day gentleman!

 

[Derbysieger]

@User Name: Why bother? The OP doesn't even mention what he wants to do with his PC and what his budget is.

It is true that for most games a 2500k is overkill but there certainly are games that profit from fast processors with Arma 2 beeing the prime example for a game that can't have enough processing power.

If he can afford Intel there is no reason he shouldn't consider a 2500k or if he's doing a lot of videoediting even a 2600k.

On the other hand if he's not interested in games/applications that depend on (very) fast processors there is no point in buying an Intel processor. A SSD or a better GPU would be far better choices.

So why don't you guys wait for a reply instead of having a discussion thast leads nowhere?

 

[Flogger23m]

But then again I am not that bad of a graphics whore so maybe my statement is invalid because I wouldn't dream of pushing say Crysis 1 or Metro 2033 to ultrahypersupermegabadasshd +700% High res custom textures and everything as high as possible that you'd need three GPUs to even run it stable.

I used to think 30-35 frame rates were good. Now that looks slow and stuttery (it is a real word now) to me. Though if I am getting a solid 30-35 I will not complain, but it is not optimal.

It is true that for most games a 2500k is overkill...

Maybe not so much. I realize the GTX 560ti 2GB is not an extremely fast GPU, but the fact that my PC can drop to as low as 22-24 frame rates in BF3 and Crysis 2 suggests that my AMD 965 is a bit on the slow side.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

DDR 3 is dirt cheap now. I started with 8GB, but it is so cheap I decided to buy another 8GB just because.



DX11 Crysis 2 is much more graphically than a console port. It's poorly coded though when it comes to tessellation so it needs more horse power than it should. Why is a rectangular concrete barrier made of that many tessellated polygons? I also doubt anything currently out there is coded for use of all six cores in my processor. For now a quad is enough, but they are there so I activated them.

As for the bashing comment. No one has so far, but I've seen where these kinds of threads can go. Be it Intel, or AMD fanatics, eventually the wrong person finds the thread, and BOOM. As I've already said. I own both an Intel Q6600, and an AMD 960T so I'm not trying to say Intel is bad. To the contrary, 2500K and 2600K processors are definitely better performing overall.

My main point was improving gaming performance on a budget. If you have unlimited funds than by all means, buy the 2600K. I personally don't see a need. I'm not spending 100% to 200% more for 15% to 20% more benchmarking performance when you don't notice much of a difference in real world gaming, but to each his own.

Also I am trying to help the original poster by showing them a cheaper alternative, and reasons why it works.

Good day gentleman!

how would you compare the q6600 and the amd thuban series? I was quite highly considering upgradeing to a six core chip because they are so cheap and do perform quite well in games / multimedia. ( I also thought at that time that AM3 would be around for more then two generations of BD ).

 

[User Name]

@User Name: Why bother?

I don't know. I like to debate I guess? This forum has some pretty intelligent people in it. Not all forums can say that.

As for Crysis 2 being maxed with my 5970. I was wrong. I also found out I'd only put 12GB of memory in there instead of 16GB. I had put 16 in my friends computer which we built at the same time. I had tessellation on but had left the hi-res textures off without realizing it. I turned them on, and went from an average of 57 to 60 FPS to right at 30 FPS. I figured out that I was GPU memory limited. So I pulled my GTX 570 out of my Q6600 machine and tried it. Here are the results.

Now I'm sure it probably is higher with a 2600K, but 48 FPS avg is still smooth gameplay and obtained with less money in the CPU, putting that money toward more GPU. It also shows that 1GB of GPU memory is not enough. So think about that in your upgrade O.P.

Oh, and I'm leaving the 570 in there. It's much faster in this machine than the old one, and has proven it can handle more than my 5970 due to having more memory.

 

[Flogger23m]

I would also recommend over 1GB of video RAM. I find the 1280 of the 570/560ti 448 too little. Some games at 1680x1050 that I own that use over 1GB of video RAM:

ArmA 2 - 1,180MB
Rise of Flight - uses all 2GB
BF3 - 1,100 or more (don't recall off the top of my head)
Crysis Wars - 1,049, maybe more when playing with others or in the SP campaign

I have not checked Crysis 2 yet. I am pretty sure that IL-2 CloD will use about as much as ArmA 2, if not more. If you play at a larger resolution than 1680x1050 you really need more than 1,280MB of video RAM IMO.