Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Can I upgrade this or should I build a new system from scratch?

Last response: in Systems
Share
December 13, 2013 8:47:47 PM

PSU: CX600M
Motherboard: ASRock Z75 Pro3
GPU: HIS AMD Radeon 7750
CPU: Intel i2400

I think I might want to upgrade the CPU, probably to an AMD I was thinking 6300? Although I'm not sure if the PSU is enough, and since I want it for gaming I'd probably want to improve my GFX card, any recommendations for this?

My budget is about ~$900, excluding windows, case, optical drive, monitor, and an HD/SD. So basically, I know I have to upgrade my RAM, and would like to know how I could upgrade my computer to be the most cost effective.

Thanks a ton for reading, and extra thanks for helping in any way if you can!
December 13, 2013 9:05:53 PM

for 900 you could build a new computer like this one, and sell the one you have .
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($98.99 @ Mac Mall)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 270X 2GB Video Card ($215.91 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 Elite (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($46.16 @ Mwave)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($88.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $892.95
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-14 00:05 EST-0500)
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 9:07:37 PM

AMD FX-6300 is much slower than an Intel core i5 2400.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Your graphics card is what you want to upgrade.
You can put almost any available graphics card with that mother board and power supply.
Just check the length of the video card to ensure it will fit in your case.
Consider a Nvidia GTX 650 Ti boost or AMD Radeon 7850 as a minimum upgrade from the card you already have.
Nvidia GTX 770 or AMD Radeon R9 280X are good options if you want a much faster card.

If you only have 4GB of RAM, you should also upgrade this to 8GB.
Use a 64-bit operating to support this memory (32-bit limited to 4GB).
Games are also starting to be released that don't support 32-bit operating systems.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 13, 2013 9:11:08 PM

bodeen2012 said:
for 900 you could build a new computer like this one, and sell the one you have .
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2jZIi/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($139.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($98.99 @ Mac Mall)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 270X 2GB Video Card ($215.91 @ Newegg)
Case: NZXT Source 210 Elite (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case ($46.16 @ Mwave)
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($88.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $892.95
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-14 00:05 EST-0500)


Core i5 2400 is faster than the FX-8320.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...
It also uses less power in the process.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 9:18:27 PM

no point in getting a new cpu. yours is good enough, up the graphics
m
0
l

Best solution

December 13, 2013 9:18:42 PM

No reason to upgrade the CPU. That i5 CPU is on par with the FX 6300 actually a bit ahead than the FX 6300. So, stick with the same CPU + Motherboard config. The only thing that you need to upgrade is the GPU.

Grab the AMD R9-280x. It is a very good GPU and would be awesome for this CPU since there are no bottlenecks. It would cost

Better save the rest of the money for the future when you really would need to upgrade. As for now, just bump up the GPU up to an R9-280x and you are good to go.

As for the RAM. How much RAM do you already have on there? If you have 8GB RAM, then you already have plenty of RAM. If you have less than 8GB, then upgrade your RAM to 8GB.

This upgrade is more than enough, if you ask me. Spending any more would be wastage of money. R9-280x offers plenty of performance for $300. For single monitor. It is more than enough.

This is the upgrade, you should get. There is no point in spending more for upgrade when you already have a nice rig.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

Memory: G.Skill Sniper 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($52.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus Radeon R9 280X 3GB Video Card ($319.99 @ B&H)
Total: $372.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-14 00:25 EST-0500)

I hope this helps.
Have fun :) 
Share
December 13, 2013 9:19:59 PM

to be honest, if the r9-280x and the gtx 770 are close in price i would go for the 770 because its more efficient, has physx, and shadowplay
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 9:26:57 PM

Stick with the motherboard and cpu you have . The AMD options are better in some situations and worse in others so it really isnt worth changing .

Your psu is fine for a very good graphics card too

How much you should spend on your graphics card is really about the resolution of your monitor . If you are at 1080p then but an AMD R9 280X .
Gigabyte or ASUS as preferred brands IMO

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/asus-video-card-r9280xdc2t...
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-video-card-gvr928...

These are about the most powerful graphics cards your psu can comfortably run , and that it has power connectors for
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 10:16:43 PM

Wow I did not expect so many responses so quickly thank you all very very much!
I'm surprised (but glad, hehe) to hear that my CPU is fine- I figured that since it was released pretty much 3 years ago, it would be coming into obsolete territory at this point. Great news to hear that it's still better than alternatives!

I looked at that hierarchy chart and am surprised to see the 2400 up there. (If anybody has time, is there a reason it's still good? Is it because gaming isn't much use for multiple cores past 4 which recent CPUs seem to be? If I wanted, at some point to run a recording software alongside a game, would a different CPU be recommended or woudl the quad-core be enough?)

But thanks for setting me straight, as for GFX cards it looks like I'll be taking the ASUS R9 290X, thanks for the recommendations!

And yes I'll be upgrading my RAM, I currently have a 4GB stick and I had 8GB but one of them bugged out, so I guess this time around I'll have 12 which should help performance even more :D .


m
0
l
December 13, 2013 10:30:00 PM

avatarair said:
Wow I did not expect so many responses so quickly thank you all very very much!
I'm surprised (but glad, hehe) to hear that my CPU is fine- I figured that since it was released pretty much 3 years ago, it would be coming into obsolete territory at this point. Great news to hear that it's still better than alternatives!

I looked at that hierarchy chart and am surprised to see the 2400 up there. (If anybody has time, is there a reason it's still good? Is it because gaming isn't much use for multiple cores past 4 which recent CPUs seem to be? If I wanted, at some point to run a recording software alongside a game, would a different CPU be recommended or woudl the quad-core be enough?)

But thanks for setting me straight, as for GFX cards it looks like I'll be taking the ASUS R9 290X, thanks for the recommendations!

And yes I'll eb upgrading my RAM, I currently have a 4GB stick and I had 8GB but one of them bugged out, so I guess this time around I'll have 12 which should help performance even more :D .




The core count you see on the AMD CPUs are misleading.

An Intel core i7 has four physical cores with hyper-threading, so it looks like 8 CPUs to Windows.
This gives about a 30% performance boost over a 4 core CPU (core i5).
Intel labels this a four core CPU.

The AMD FX series CPUs labelled as 8 cores are actually 4 "modules".
Each module looks to Windows like two CPU cores, but only parts of the pipeline are reproduced very much like Intel's hyper threading.

So barring a handful 6 core enthusiast CPUs from Intel, there isn't much benefit over 4 cores.

The sandy bridge architecture you have was a big step from the generation before it.
The original Core series CPUs before that were an even bigger step from previous generations.
Since then Intel has increased clock speeds through shrinking the die size (Ivy Bridge), but not made any great leap in architecture.
AMD can't get close to these CPUs for efficiency.

An Ivy Bridge or Haswell core i7 cpu (Core i7 3770 or Core i7 4770) could give you a CPU performance boost of about 40%, but you just don't need it at the moment.
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 10:33:51 PM

Wonderful, thank you for that in-depth explanation :) !
m
0
l
December 13, 2013 11:29:30 PM

The i5 2400 is still good because intel havent managed to improve their processors very much in the last few years
m
0
l
December 14, 2013 10:00:56 PM

Wow...looks like there are absolutely no AMD R9 280x in stock O_o
m
0
l
December 14, 2013 10:10:15 PM

Yes, AMD has 4 modules, but each module has 2 cores. Hence it is essentially just a 8 core. Nothing more nothing less.

Though AMD still need to work on their Single Threaded performance, but that is now becoming something not so important since everything is going multi threaded.

Also I would prefer the R9-280x over the Nvidia 770 because :

--> It has more VRAM 3GB vs 2GB. This would avoid VRAM bottleneck on games that take a lot more VRAM. Skyrim with mods for example. Also BF4 which is just barely under 2GB VRAM utilization. Hence if any game goes above 2GB in VRAM utilization, then the 770 would see frame drops since it would have none extra VRAM left, but the AMD's R9-280x with 3GB RAM would have no affect whatsoever.

--> It is cheaper, about $30-$50

--> It has more overclocking headroom than the Nvidia 770. It might be something to consider if you are overclocking your stuff.

--> It comes with free BF4 (The best FPS game right now). Well.. actually some models do come with that. Check manufacturer's site for that.


Also I have no idea that what do you mean by Nvidia is more efficient? Both AMD and Nvidia are neck to neck when it comes to performance and quality.
m
0
l
December 14, 2013 10:49:26 PM

Sangeet Khatri said:
Yes, AMD has 4 modules, but each module has 2 cores. Hence it is essentially just a 8 core. Nothing more nothing less.

Though AMD still need to work on their Single Threaded performance, but that is now becoming something not so important since everything is going multi threaded.

Also I would prefer the R9-280x over the Nvidia 770 because :

--> It has more VRAM 3GB vs 2GB. This would avoid VRAM bottleneck on games that take a lot more VRAM. Skyrim with mods for example. Also BF4 which is just barely under 2GB VRAM utilization. Hence if any game goes above 2GB in VRAM utilization, then the 770 would see frame drops since it would have none extra VRAM left, but the AMD's R9-280x with 3GB RAM would have no affect whatsoever.

--> It is cheaper, about $30-$50

--> It has more overclocking headroom than the Nvidia 770. It might be something to consider if you are overclocking your stuff.

--> It comes with free BF4 (The best FPS game right now). Well.. actually some models do come with that. Check manufacturer's site for that.


Also I have no idea that what do you mean by Nvidia is more efficient? Both AMD and Nvidia are neck to neck when it comes to performance and quality.


Each module contains one complete core with some parts of the pipeline duplicated.
Each module does not contain two complete cores.
An AMD "8 core" CPU has 8 logical cores but only 4 complete physical cores.
An Intel "4 core CPU with hyperthreading" has 8 logical cores but only 4 complete physical cores.
Intel is more efficient because it can produce higher performance at a lower clock rate and with much lower power usage.
AMD doesn't have a single CPU that can compete in the top tier on the CPU gaming hierarchy:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Even on cost, AMD can't compete:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graph...
This shows the core i3-3220 outperforming the more expensive fx-4170 and the core i5-2400 out performing the more expensive fx-8350.
The intel CPUs above also use substantially less power (55W, 95W) than the AMD CPUs (125W).
After taking the motherboard into account, the AMD CPU or APU system may come out cheaper.

airplanegeek made the following comment:
airplanegeek said:
to be honest, if the r9-280x and the gtx 770 are close in price i would go for the 770 because its more efficient, has physx, and shadowplay


The GTX 770 is more efficient in that in produces similar performance with lower power usage.
The R9 280X does have the advantage of 3GB of video memory.
Benchmarks at 1920x1080 have not shown this to be an advantage, but above this resolution it is useful.
Skyrim is only ever benchmarked without mods, but these do increase memory usage quite substantially.
The additional memory is a selling point for the R9 280X.
m
0
l
December 15, 2013 12:10:45 AM

FX 8350 is made up of 4 modules.

Each module has 2 Integer Processing Units and 1 Floating Point unit. Hence overall the CPU has 8 Integer Processing Unit (commonly known as cores) and 4 Floating Point Unit (FPU).

In every module, two cores share one FPU. Each core simultaneously uses the FPU.

Suppose 1st core is working with the FPU, then 2nd core is waiting. Then the 2nd core works and the first one waits. They work simultaneously.

But with Intel, there are only four Integer Processing Units and hyperthreading is nothing but intelligent scheduling. It is like 4 strong cores and 4 weak cores. Whenever a core is idle, at that point it is scheduled in such a way that it starts working as a virtual core. Like the 5th core.

When the 2nd core is idle at any point of time, it starts working as the 6th core. Hence it is just intelligent scheduling.


Conclusion :

AMD - 8 Cores, 8 Threads
Intel - 4 Cores, 8 Threads (More like 4 strong threads, 44 weak threads)

The problem with Intel can come when an application uses all 4 cores at full load without idling them at all. Then there is no place to do intelligent scheduling (which Intel calls HyperThreading). Hence in that situation, there is no difference between an i7 and i5.

But with AMD there are and will be 8 real cores. Even though two cores are sharing the same FPU, but they are processing the data simultaneously and hence it works just like a 8 core would. Nothing more, nothing less.

m
0
l
December 15, 2013 8:00:50 AM

but those are 8 weak cores
m
0
l
December 15, 2013 9:28:55 AM



airplanegeek said:
but those are 8 weak cores


An i7 core is identical to an i5 core but can run two threads .
Each of those threads is on average half as powerful as an i5 thread .
So they are weak virtual cores [ actually much weaker than an FX core on average ]
Yet the i7 gets more work done than an i5
m
0
l
December 15, 2013 10:41:13 AM

First of all, there is nothing like weak cores or strong cores. It is the architecture and the way the resources are distributed and the way the cores work that affects or increases the performance.

Another thing is that Virtual Cores are not so good as real cores.

As I mentioned before the problem with Intel's Hyper Threading approach. I will just quote it.
Quote:
The problem with Intel can come when an application uses all 4 cores at full load without idling them at all. Then there is no place to do intelligent scheduling (which Intel calls HyperThreading). Hence in that situation, there is no difference between an i7 and i5.


But there is no such problem ever with AMD's 8 cores. Also AMD is designed in such a way so as the reduce the cost and it is by far successful in that approach.

The 8350 which offers just a little less Multi threaded performance costs $100 less than the i7 4770k.

the 8320 which is basically just a 8350 clocked at 3.5 Ghz which can overclock the same as an 8350 costs $150 more for about the same Multi Threaded performance. 8320 costs half as much as the i7 4770k, but is on par with the Intel's CPU, when overclocked.

Hence for Multi Threaded tasks options AMD is the more viable option since it offers better Multi Threaded performance for a fraction of the price of Intel.
m
0
l
!