This is my first time ever posting something so i hope this is the right place to post? So I have a Q6600go oc to 3.4ghz and 6gb of 800mhz ram. My videocard died old 8800gt so its time to either upgrade PSU and GPU to say r9 280x and 750w psu or build a new rig. I love Battlefield 4 and wanted to know if simply upgrading my PSU and GPU will be fine considering my OC Q6600 at 3.4ghz or if it will be a big bottleneck. If indeed I need a new system I am torn between i5 3570k and FX8350. Seems 8350 runs BF4 well but im kinda afraid the 8350 and its boards are getting old now. I really like the idea of supporting AMD as they seem to care about gaming instead of Intel who seems to not give a crap and leaving everyone thankful they offer K series chips for OC. NE way I have never buit a AMD rig and my Intel has served me well over the years. The I5 seems to be the best from most people I talk to. Recently some game designers have started talking about how important the 8 cpu cores will be to modern games... Even more food for thought slowing me down from pulling the trigger.
Help choosing new cpu or stick with old Q660
- Thread starter LS_7
- Start date
Solution
- Nov 11, 2013
- 12,756
- 48
- 57,640
Whatever option you choose don't do a 3570k build it on haswell (4670K + Z87 board) the price difference isn't huge and the haswell rig will run better. I would upgrade the whole rig if BF4 is your plan, that cpu will definatly bottleneck a 280x. The amd vs intel arguement is up for you to decide I won't weigh in on that just if you're going to build intel build a haswell rig
Thanks for the answer. Most of my previous searches showed little to no differance between oc 3570k and 4670k and I have been able to find about $80 savings between board and cpu when looking. This is why I thought 3570k. As for FX 8350 I really like the idea of supporting AMD as they seem to actually care about the gaming market but that alone is not enough for me to pull the trigger. BF4 seems to show some great stats with the FX and even some game programers are talking on the web about the 8 core being important for future gaming. Cant decide
- Nov 11, 2013
- 12,756
- 48
- 57,640
It seems to me the haswell difference is starting to show a bit more with BF4 than it did with the games that existed at its launch, its not huge, but its enough I wouldn't build an Ivy system atm. Several things I've seen have shown the 8350 to actually beat or at least hang neck and neck with the I5s. Honestly I don't think the 8 core thing will matter much, I look at the two processors as nearly identical in newer games/programs, and intel has a pretty large edge in anything made before 2013. Both will certainly play any game you want throw at them.
jitpublisher
Splendid
- May 16, 2006
- 8,747
- 2
- 31,960
As someone who stuck with amd for 15 years until I built the system you see in my signature, I can honestly say that for now, or the foreseeable future, will not be building any more amd based systems.
- Nov 11, 2013
- 12,756
- 48
- 57,640
I honestly don't like them, I don't like the way they sit in the socket, and the only Issues I've ever had out of a computer were the 2 amd rigs I've built. Not enough to scare me away from the company, but enough that unless I honestly belive the AMD rig will be much faster I'll stick with intel.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,538
- 3,212
- 143,290
An FX 8320 is sufficient for BF4 and will match an FX 8350 in speed with just a multiplier bump. Costs considerably less than a 4670k as well. AM3+ is around for at least another year with a refresh of the Piledriver/Vishera line coming next year. It really just depends on how much you are willing to spend. 3570k is also a good option if it is considerably less than a comparable Haswell system. Haswell might be better, but not $40+ better. Often that is about the price difference between the two with comparable model motherboards.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,538
- 3,212
- 143,290
There is nothing wrong with going with an AMD system. Generally they are a better value for a gaming rig on a budget since they allow for more money to be spent on GPU.
- Nov 11, 2013
- 12,756
- 48
- 57,640
Of my last 10 build 4 amd 6 intel, I've just generally had more trouble with the AMD ones. So far the biggest Issue I had with an intel build was one came with a dead sata port (moved cable have 4 extras no biggie). Of the 4 amd builds I've had more memory compatibility issues, less successful OC of memory, and a bigger pain in the butt when any OC fails. Granted that is a pretty small sample size but I won't build one for myself for a while I don't think. And wouldn't build one for someone else unless they requested it specifically.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
I still have to argue what the point of a Haswell upgrade is in all cases, IPC falls over in the face of lower OC vs Ivy and Sandy Bridge and $80 for a 10% performacne increase sounds to me like a waste of money. Sure I can see games where a 280x would be bottle-necked by a Q6600 but you will be able to run BF4 maxed with a 280x and Q6600 no problem. Tis a symptom of FPS games in general that CPU load seems pretty inferior to GPU load.
You have to remember that even at Haswell's levels of IPC you're still getting mid i5 levels of performance from Q6600s OC'd. I still have one running in my bedroom (sig system is in the study/living room) and it's definitely not showing signs of wear and plays games great. Seeing as you'll need a new mobo and RAM, I would wait as the next gen from either companies may very well be DDR4 and you don't want to upgrade then feel that kind of burn.
If you must upgrade, get an AMD system and hold out, DDR4 is literally right around the corner and intel's one Arch per socket type will make it a LOT more expensive to do a quick upgrade if Skylake/Broadwell isn't as disappointing as Haswell.
EDIT: In fact, you don't even have to listen to our opinions. Nothing is making you buy them both at once. Buy a 280x and if you don't like the framerates you get then get a 8320 or 3730k. That's what I did and I decided my Q6600 was solid and bought a 3930k and new mobo for my main system that cost as much as as a full new gaming PC.
You have to remember that even at Haswell's levels of IPC you're still getting mid i5 levels of performance from Q6600s OC'd. I still have one running in my bedroom (sig system is in the study/living room) and it's definitely not showing signs of wear and plays games great. Seeing as you'll need a new mobo and RAM, I would wait as the next gen from either companies may very well be DDR4 and you don't want to upgrade then feel that kind of burn.
If you must upgrade, get an AMD system and hold out, DDR4 is literally right around the corner and intel's one Arch per socket type will make it a LOT more expensive to do a quick upgrade if Skylake/Broadwell isn't as disappointing as Haswell.
EDIT: In fact, you don't even have to listen to our opinions. Nothing is making you buy them both at once. Buy a 280x and if you don't like the framerates you get then get a 8320 or 3730k. That's what I did and I decided my Q6600 was solid and bought a 3930k and new mobo for my main system that cost as much as as a full new gaming PC.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,538
- 3,212
- 143,290
Q6600 is nowhere near an i5 in performance. In gaming, even a q9550 @ 3.4ghz is still below an i3 3225. Q9550 is slightly faster than a Q6600 at same clock speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
2 things. Average gaming performance takes in how many benchmarks in which a game is either single threaded or heavily dependent on 1 thread? Obviously a high clocked dual core is faster than a lower IPC quad in that case. Even by that margin that chip only manages to be 11% faster, and the top of the range 3570k only manages to be 60% faster than a nearly 10 year old OC chip that costs $350 -$400 to upgrade to.
In other words, there's one core of an e8400 worth of power between a Q9550 and a 3570K.
That's miniscule for a decade worth of improvement when you think that in 1995 - a decade before the Q6600 - the fastest CPU was a 120mhz Pentium 1.
One more thing, the Q9550 performed admirably in all the games there except Starcraft and Crysis 3. Starcraft only uses 3 threads which cuts possible performance from the C2Q by 25% (see: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/08/18/how-many-cpu-cores-does-starcraft-2-use/2) and Crysis 3 which is VERY CPU heavy, moreso that BF4.
And even in both of those CPU heavy games it averaged well above 40fps@Med1080p so Ultra in BF4 will not be an issue.
Thanks for all the help. I see what you guys are saying. I really like the idea of holding on to the old Q6600 a bit longer but I really want 60fps on 144x900 at med-high settings and I am not sure she can do that.... But I like what was said just before about buying the new PSU and GPU and trying it out to see how it does I might try that before dropping $350 extra to get a 3570k CPU/MB combo oh plus another $75 for memory... I assume the older PCI E slot I'm running on the P5k-E won't bottleneck the card?
I notice a few of you use the CM 212 Hyper Evo color. I was going to go with the Noctua NHU14s for my next build but really like the price of the EVO. Can you get solid OC out of that EVO and is it easy to install. The Noctua is supposed to be very easy.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
It's won't bottleneck the card. PCI-E 2 is plenty unless you SLi.
And I'm pretty sure at 1440x900 you'll be fine with the Q6600. At 1080p is where you start to see it drop below 60fps, and that's 3/4 of a million more pixels.
Note though, due to the nature of how BF4 was written, it will max out your CPU to get the highest framerate possible at all times. Some people think this is a bottleneck but it's just cos it tries to use 100% of all cores at all times.
Adroid
Distinguished
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,763
- 0
- 20,160
I just upgraded from a overclocked Q6600 g0 that ran like a champ for a good 5-6 years.
It's time to upgrade man, take the plunge. I am extremely happy with my i3570k @ 4.3 ghz. I would not dump any more cash into an old system. Go for an ivy bridge system and if you are short on cash upgrade the graphics card afterwards. Multiplayer BF3 is notoriously CPU taxing. I imagine BF4 is no different, though I haven't read enough reviews to comment definitively.
Wait for black Friday if you are patient enough, try to snag a i5 3570K on the cheap, and do it right.
You will be much happier with a new cpu and mobo than with a new graphics card on an old system. If you go with a graphics card, your system will be majorly bottlenecked. If you go with a new cpu, mobo, and DDR 3 your rig will boot faster, run faster, and chew through anything you throw at it. Sure it will still be bottlenecked for some games, BUT it will run smooth as butter on lower detail settings. 8800 GT still has enough gas to power most any game with lower settings. AND your rig will be major future proof, so when the time comes you can slap the new card in and it will but top of the line.
i5 3570K will run ANY game at max resolution once you are ready to dump some more cash for the graphics card. Don't settle for less, it will be less future proof.
The guys that write Toms Hardware articles recommend the 3570K for good reason - and they collectively know a heck of alot more than the other people responding to your post here.
It's time to upgrade man, take the plunge. I am extremely happy with my i3570k @ 4.3 ghz. I would not dump any more cash into an old system. Go for an ivy bridge system and if you are short on cash upgrade the graphics card afterwards. Multiplayer BF3 is notoriously CPU taxing. I imagine BF4 is no different, though I haven't read enough reviews to comment definitively.
Wait for black Friday if you are patient enough, try to snag a i5 3570K on the cheap, and do it right.
You will be much happier with a new cpu and mobo than with a new graphics card on an old system. If you go with a graphics card, your system will be majorly bottlenecked. If you go with a new cpu, mobo, and DDR 3 your rig will boot faster, run faster, and chew through anything you throw at it. Sure it will still be bottlenecked for some games, BUT it will run smooth as butter on lower detail settings. 8800 GT still has enough gas to power most any game with lower settings. AND your rig will be major future proof, so when the time comes you can slap the new card in and it will but top of the line.
i5 3570K will run ANY game at max resolution once you are ready to dump some more cash for the graphics card. Don't settle for less, it will be less future proof.
The guys that write Toms Hardware articles recommend the 3570K for good reason - and they collectively know a heck of alot more than the other people responding to your post here.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,538
- 3,212
- 143,290
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
They also collectively need to sell relatively new hardware to a lot of users for a lot of reasons. Intel wouldn't be happy if the biggest hardware website on the net was still quoting a 3 year old chip as the best option, nor would they be happy if users who had 2600Ks didn't ever upgrade, they would eventually stop supplying Tom's with free hardware which makes their job much less profitable... maybe not profitable at all. Toms hardware wouldn't be happy if people stopped upgrading (technically the need to upgrade drives a large amount of website views: what's the first thing you do when you want to upgrade? You look at prices, and a performance comparison website), they wouldn't be happy if their suppliers stopped giving them stuff and they wouldn't be happy if their website shut down as a result of nothing to talk about.
As for Tom's forum folks, some of them really really over-zealously want people to spend money... not the people that are here mind, but there are certain respected (Master) characters I have seen recommend 650W PSUs for Haswell systems with no GPU, people I've seen recommend people upgrade from Ivy or Sandy to the Haswell K equivalents... all kinda wasteful madness.
Not saying they don't know more than me, just that you buying is to their benefit (however small), so be aware.
Adroid
Distinguished
- Jul 2, 2009
- 1,763
- 0
- 20,160
I don't follow your logic. You are suggesting that Tom's benefits from telling people to upgrade to the 3570K over the 4670K?
And reading up on your other posts you are clearly misinformed... The Q6600 will be a major bottleneck with a 280X, especially in multiplayer for BF3/BF4. Saying that you can run the game maxxed with a Q6600 is ridiculous.
**EDIT** It is well known that BF3/BF4 is notoriously proccessor dependent in multiplayer. Check other websites - do a little research.
It might run great most of the time in single player, and I'm sure you will see high frame rates.... But MINIMUM frame rates will be worlds lower, and there will be massive stuttering in busy scenes.
Anyway I won't be debating this subject with you any further. You seem to be quite convinced of your own understanding.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
No. I'm suggesting that Tom's benefits from telling people to upgrade period. You mixed that up with my second comment about forum users likeing to upgrade so much that they tend to suggest it when it is blatantly obvious taht it is not needed. The only time I've heard someone actually told not to upgrade was a 2600k user that wanted a 4670k.
At 1080p, sure. But at 1440x900 I don't see why it's not possible to make it run well. That's nearly half the pixel pushing. Hell I used to make Crysis 1 run at Ultra on my old 1280x1024 display Athlon X2 6000+/8800GT system and that wasn't that different in my eyes, especially seeing as the CPU optimization on early Crysis 1 was bad enough to have everyone moaning much more than they are now with BF4.
I think I have already addressed that. Let me requote it.
I havent read all the replies is-7, but find it interesting you have run an intel machine overclocked by 40%
for 6 or 7 years, then say intel dont seem to give a crap and think we should be grateful for k series chips.
Modern cpu's are speed binned and picked more carefully for their potential than they used to be. They have less headroom left unused. There is a good chance any intel cpu you buy will still work in 7 years time,weather its a clocked k series or not. I believe any modern intel quad will suffice for gaming for the next 5 years, as developers cant sell games that wont run on them. The console chips only run at 1.6 gig, so the
ported games wont stress any hi end pc either. In your shoes I would buy a haswel locked quad and be glad I have twice the performance of you old pc for less money. AMD will do the job, but long term its not a choice I would make.
for 6 or 7 years, then say intel dont seem to give a crap and think we should be grateful for k series chips.
Modern cpu's are speed binned and picked more carefully for their potential than they used to be. They have less headroom left unused. There is a good chance any intel cpu you buy will still work in 7 years time,weather its a clocked k series or not. I believe any modern intel quad will suffice for gaming for the next 5 years, as developers cant sell games that wont run on them. The console chips only run at 1.6 gig, so the
ported games wont stress any hi end pc either. In your shoes I would buy a haswel locked quad and be glad I have twice the performance of you old pc for less money. AMD will do the job, but long term its not a choice I would make.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Can´t open BIOS because no keyboard input is received.
- Started by Blatscher
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 4
Latest posts
-
-
Question What is the difference between the Pulsar Superglide vs Superglide 2?- Latest: Westley The questionnair.
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram