Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Looking for an upgrade...

Tags:
  • Intel
  • RAM
  • CPUs
  • Standard
  • Graphics
  • GPUs
  • HD
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 6, 2013 4:12:32 PM

Current System

GPU: HD 7750
CPU: INTEL G850 @ STOCK CLOCKS
MOBO: Standard 1155 mobo
RAM: 2x4gb Ram
PSU: 600W Modular Power Supply

I want to get higher frame rates in BF3, would it be more beneficial to me to get an HD 7870, or Pick up an I5 3570?

More importantly, It seems that a 7870 would be more beneficial for gaming. Just I am worried about a potential bottleneck. Would I be at risk?

Finally don't try and disuade me from going with the AMD gpu, the next generation will be ruled by AMD Radeon, due to next gen consoles. :D 

Thanks everyone!

More about : upgrade

July 6, 2013 4:19:51 PM

Hello, you would benefit more from the HD 7870 than the i5 3570 (K variant?). Even though your CPU will bottleneck it, you will see a better fps. However, that is for the immediate benefit. I would actually go with the 3570K if you want a better upgrade path in the future. What games are you playing and what kind of games do you want to play? If it is important for you, you should actually get the HD 7870 first and then upgrade to a better CPU later. If you play CPU dependent games, get the better CPU, otherwise get the better GPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2013 4:22:01 PM

Remember BF3 is heavily reliant on CPU muscle in multiplayer (I'm assuming that's what you're interested in since the campaign is pretty brief :-)). I'd consider your current GPU much better than your current CPU.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b å Intel
a c 379 à CPUs
July 6, 2013 4:23:55 PM

BF3 is more graphics limited in single player. It is more cpu limited in multiplayer.
In single player, a 7870 class upgrade would be good. In multiplayer, I would go with a 3570, or preferably a 3570K if your motherboard allows overclocking.
And... your faith in AMD is touching.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:27:28 PM

He's not an AMD fanboy. If he was he would have an AMD proc. Anyways, with regards to BF3, If he plays huge maps, he should get the better CPU, otherwise get the better GPU. Perhaps when he saves up enough money, he could go for a cheaper used i5 down the road.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2013 4:30:05 PM

Using a 6990 the 850 wasnt too far behind the I3 so a 7870 would be fine for it.

m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:42:09 PM

@Basch Thanks, your insight is much appreciated. I have a standard mobo, so no K for me.
Also, cpu vs gpu dependent I have no idea. I just am looking for the immediate benefit as I will not be able to upgrade any other parts for about 3-5 months... I seldom get 200$

@Felt, its not just my faith, the 7870 Isn't too far behind the 660 TI, and the next gen consoles will be AMD powered... :\

So... Thanks Intel god, that shows me bottlenecking will not be an issue.

Also, for 220$ is the 7870 my best option? or should I save cash and get a 7850? (I want the 7870, I just don't wanna get screwed like I did with my 7750, vs 7770)

EDIT: I play huge 64 player maps on bf3 now, and see about 20 fps loss. On medium-small 64 player maps, I see maybe 10. So If I am getting a 40-50 fps increase, as I am seeing with these benches, it won't matter... I am just looking for an all around increase in performance, via a single unit. That will not bottleneck.

EDIT 2: I also am leaning toward the GPU option, because I want to game at 1920x1080

Benches:

BF3 HUGE 64 Med/ultra textures 16x aaf no aa 1920x1080

min: 22
Avg: 35
Max: 45

1360X768

min: 29
avg: 40
max: 45

32 player matches

1920x1080

min: 30
avg: 45-50
max: 75

1360x768

min: 30
avg: 45-50
max: 75-80
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:45:20 PM

nah, get the HD 7870. The upgrade is worth it. You want abit more future proof out of your system, don't settle for an inferior card.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2013 4:47:15 PM

chaotixblade said:
@Basch Thanks, your insight is much appreciated. I have a standard mobo, so no K for me.
Also, cpu vs gpu dependent I have no idea. I just am looking for the immediate benefit as I will not be able to upgrade any other parts for about 3-5 months... I seldom get 200$

@Felt, its not just my faith, the 7870 Isn't too far behind the 660 TI, and the next gen consoles will be AMD powered... :\

So... Thanks Intel god, that shows me bottlenecking will not be an issue.

Also, for 220$ is the 7870 my best option? or should I save cash and get a 7850? (I want the 7870, I just don't wanna get screwed like I did with my 7750, vs 7770)

EDIT: I play huge 64 player maps on bf3 now, and see about 20 fps loss. On medium-small 64 player maps, I see maybe 10. So If I am getting a 40-50 fps increase, as I am seeing with these benches, it won't matter... I am just looking for an all around increase in performance, via a single unit. That will not bottleneck.



Are you in the states?

Theres always the 660. It trades blows with a 7870 and is 189 AR

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:48:19 PM

Yeah, my account seems to be glitched. I notice off and on, it says "Tomshardware.co.uk" dunno why it does that...

Edit: Check my benches above

Edit 2: Thanks basch

Edit 3: I am pretty dead set on amd man.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 4:53:38 PM

No. Don't get the GTX 660. Gosh. Either pony up and get the GTX 760 for 250 or get the HD 7870. The HD 7870 has a higher memory bandwidth 256 bit vs 192 bit. The price is worth the difference.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 6, 2013 4:55:10 PM

basch99 said:
No. Don't get the GTX 660. Gosh. Either pony up and get the GTX 760 for 250 or get the HD 7870. The HD 7870 has a higher memory bandwidth 256 bit vs 192 bit. The price is worth the difference.


7870 and 660 are 2% apart at 1920X1080

m
3
l
July 6, 2013 4:57:50 PM

Alright, well it seems my questions have been answered.

Just to verify, a HD 7870 will perform better with my G850, than a HD 7750/I5 combo, in games such as bf3?

Also, my g850 will bottleneck a little bit, but not so bad it ruins the investment? (As in its faster than the i5 alternative)? (I am picking up one of the 2 now, and the other near christmas/january)
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 5:00:29 PM

Get the HD 7870. AND you get Crysis 3. AND you could sell that and bring down that price by about 20 bucks. And then save up and grab an i5.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 5:04:24 PM

Thanks man, I really dont want to be offensive, but although you've helped me the same if not more than intel god, he has brought me benchmarks, and was nice enough to follow me from the cpu forums out here in the gpu section. So godbless you both! Thanks for all the help.

Point being, I have to mark (one) best answer.
m
0
l
July 6, 2013 6:17:05 PM

Nah don't worry. Sometimes I felt that there is competition for Best answer but sometimes it's really doesn't matter. I used to care more, but now it doesn't matter as much as long as I contribute in this forums. Of course, it would be better if you picked me, but we aren't juveniles here. Congrats on your decision! You will have an good gaming pc!
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 6:32:06 AM

Hey, I deselected the answer, to open this back up.

My boot up has gotten rather slow circa 22-24 fps from bios until start. And once I get logged in, it takes 15 seconds for it to become useable because it is opening Steam, and Origin.

So in this case, if I was putting the GPU off, and just minned out the textures to free up some VRAM, would a cpu be a better choice for me?

(Just to rephrase, I am finding myself more interested in a snappier computer than I would enjoy a faster BF3... I can always get a gpu later)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2013 6:57:27 AM

For a general and genuinely noticeable performance boost, you want to get an SSD in there. I'd recommend the Plextor M5S or Sandisk Ultra Plus (two best bang-for-buck) or Samsung 840 Pro if you want the absolute best (and actually cheaper than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc best). An i5 would also be an excellent idea though :-)
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 379 à CPUs
July 7, 2013 7:42:16 AM

For a snappier pc, buy a SSD. It will make everything you do feel so much quicker.
Larger ssd's perform a bit better, look at 120gb at least. With 240gb, you can hold the os and quite a number of games. Use your hard drive for storage and overflow. Discount synthetic benchmarks. All modern ssd's perform about the same. It takes a synthetic benchmark running at high queue depths to detect any minor differences. I think Samsung 840 and Intel currently seem to be more trouble free.
The Samsung 840 PRO is a fine unit. It has more endurance than the 840. That means that when the 840 runs out of update capabilities in 15 years, the pro will still be running long after it has become obsolete. If there is a big price difference, buy the 840.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2013 7:48:20 AM

Yeah the TLC NAND is worth keeping in mind - though it will probably last as long as you're using the drive, why not buy an excellent performing drive like the Sandisk Ultra Plus or Plextor M5S for the same price that doesn't sacrifice any endurance?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2013 8:22:03 AM

Like I just said, it will probably last as long as you're using the drive. But why make the sacrifice when it's unnecessary? It's not like there aren't equally cost-effective options that don't make that sacrifice (even if it isn't a big sacrifice). The point you seem to be missing is:

Why pay X for 99% when X can buy you 100%?

EDIT: By the way, I'm certainly not saying the Samsung 840 is a bad choice - they're good drives. But why not take MLC if it costs the same?
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 8:53:31 AM

Yes, the SSD is a great start. The two biggest factors in computing is the SSD AND the CPU for non gaming related tasks. I would go for the CPU. The SSD reduces load times - programs and games alike. The CPU is more permanent. Get the better CPU AND SSD if you want to prioritize a better overall computing experience.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 9:25:03 AM

Guys, I am not necesarrily talking about a bootup. My brothers build is a 1tb hdd, i5, and a 7870. His boots up and is ready to use, fully functional, steam, origin everything open. In about 20 seconds... And is quick as anything... No ssd. Mine on the other hand, is sluggish and takes 40 seconds to be usable... SSD's are clearly not the issue here... What is slowing me down?

EDIT: No viruses, avg. I have had slow issues over the last year, and I just reinstalled WIN7 about a month ago... I seem to be doing it every three months...
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 9:51:55 AM

then I think it's clear you should get the CPU ASAP.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2013 10:04:32 AM

basch99 said:
then I think it's clear you should get the CPU ASAP.


A 3570 isnt going to make him game better. His 7750 is the limiting factor
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 10:07:20 AM

chaotixblade said:
Hey, I deselected the answer, to open this back up.

My boot up has gotten rather slow circa 22-24 fps from bios until start. And once I get logged in, it takes 15 seconds for it to become useable because it is opening Steam, and Origin.

So in this case, if I was putting the GPU off, and just minned out the textures to free up some VRAM, would a cpu be a better choice for me?

(Just to rephrase, I am finding myself more interested in a snappier computer than I would enjoy a faster BF3... I can always get a gpu later)


I know. But he said he wanted a better computing experience overall first. He said he could always get another GPU later.
m
0
l
July 7, 2013 10:44:51 AM

Yeah, :p  CPU it is, then is it safe to say go for the 7870? I think after that it pretty much wraps it up for good.
m
0
l

Best solution

July 7, 2013 11:41:48 AM

Right, once you get that i5 in there, your PC will be ready for any graphics card out there (I'm pairing my GTX 780 with my 3570K currently). I feel excited for your upgrade. You will see a HUGE difference. I went from a lowly AMD Athlon X2 4400+ Brisbane 2.2Ghz Dual Core processor to something like my i5. It's a night and day difference!
Share
July 7, 2013 12:38:09 PM

cool bro thanks :p 
m
0
l
!