Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

QX9770 upgrade to i7 980X worth it?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 27, 2010 11:12:13 PM

Thinking about upgrading my Windows PC from:

QX9770 @ 4.0 Ghz - 4GB DDR2 @ 1600Mhz (Asus P5E3)

to

i7 980X @ 4.0 Ghz - 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz (Asus Rampage II Extreme)

Primary application is gaming:
1. iRacing
2. SCII (crash intensive)
3. FSX (CPU intensive)
4. AOEIII
5. Dirt2
6. CoDII

Worth the upgrade? My guess is that FSX and SCII are the only games that might benefit from this upgrade.

Video cards are two 5870's (hopefully Cat 10.8 will be more stable).

August 27, 2010 11:28:32 PM

You already have a very high end system. There is no need to waste the money for a six core. Gaming will see no advantage from it. I'd recommend waiting until the games you want to play stop working as well as you want them to.

Are you not satisfied with your current system?
a b à CPUs
August 27, 2010 11:30:01 PM

What is your monitor resolution?

The extra 2 cores are not worth the ~$700 premium over an i7 930. The games that do benefit from 6 cores show very low performance increases. You'd be better off spending the cash on a 3rd 5870. :) 

Yorksfield @ 4ghz should be just enough for most games with 5870 crossfire.

Where are you unhappy with your current performance?

New intel CPUs / sockets are around the corner, that might be worth waiting for.
Related resources
August 28, 2010 1:06:23 AM

your cpu is too powerful i dont see that there is need to upgrade it since the load on your cores is 100% and your ram is 1600 MHZ as you mentioned there is no need to upgrade it since your going to ddr3 1600 too dont get third card your 2 5870 will do just perfect in thier crossfire if you want to upgrade or insist on it i reccomend you to check your abilities first check your case demensions first then the power supply compatibilty and remmeber your cpu have 12 MB of cache this will make it better than any of today i7 processors except the hexa core it have 12 mb too
good luck
August 28, 2010 5:01:43 AM

Sounds like I'll should just stick with what I have for now. The only game/simulation that lags is FSX which uses the CPU more than most current games/sims (it is supposed to run better with additional CPUs). FSX runs at about 20 fps on average with maxed out detail.

I run 2560 x 1600 on a single 30" HP LP3065 monitor.

Get a lot of BSOD with SCII, but "I think" that is more to do with ATI drivers, gonna try the Cat 10.8 drivers tonight.

I was a little concerned that perhaps my motherboard/CPU just isn't up to snuff for SCII duty ... hence all the BSOD's.
a c 131 à CPUs
August 28, 2010 5:20:35 AM

V8VENOM said:
Sounds like I'll should just stick with what I have for now. The only game/simulation that lags is FSX which uses the CPU more than most current games/sims (it is supposed to run better with additional CPUs). FSX runs at about 20 fps on average with maxed out detail.

I run 2560 x 1600 on a single 30" HP LP3065 monitor.

Get a lot of BSOD with SCII, but "I think" that is more to do with ATI drivers, gonna try the Cat 10.8 drivers tonight.

I was a little concerned that perhaps my motherboard/CPU just isn't up to snuff for SCII duty ... hence all the BSOD's.


How did you go about stability testing your CPU after overclocking? What about RAM?
August 28, 2010 6:31:49 AM

I used the standard set of tools for overclocking stabilty:

Prime95 (ran for 24 hours straight)
3DMark Vantage (repeated for 24 hours)
SiSoftware Sandra Pro 2010 burn in tests
Monitored with OCCT and RealTemp

BUT, BSOD with SCII happens with stock clock settings also, just as frequently. But BSOD are strictly limited to SCII, no other games on my system trigger BSODs (stock clock or overclocked).

Have the Cat 10.8 drivers and 10.8 profiles, testing SCII now...
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2010 5:45:31 PM

Quote:


BUT, BSOD with SCII happens with stock clock settings also, just as frequently. But BSOD are strictly limited to SCII, no other games on my system trigger BSODs (stock clock or overclocked).

Then it's a problem with the game or drivers most likely.
August 28, 2010 5:56:32 PM

I think it was driver related -- moved up from Cat 10.7a to Cat 10.8 with the Cat 10.8 profiles and was able to play SCII for 3 hours last night without a single problem. Hoping that solved it for SCII.
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2010 10:20:26 PM

^ Good luck. Btw, how is the campaign for SC2? I haven't played the real SC2 yet (only did the beta, cause a friend sent me a key), not exactly my type of game, but it looks quite good.
August 29, 2010 4:15:15 AM

SCII is good, but not "great" -- but maybe I just need more time to learn it. It would seem Terran race is at a big disadvantage to early initial attacks from other races -- at least for Multiplayer side. I haven't done a campaign yet, next on my list.

I was hoping to see more "special" items, units, places that could add some different strategy to the game other than "build your armies as fast as you can".

Bunkers seem way too weak even when upgraded. Infantry units are VERY weak in small groups. From what I can tell, Terran is the worst race to select, the other races seem far superior -- just more work to do with Terran.

For $60 I expected more.
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 6:56:57 AM

FSX will love a 980X. The other games aren't going to see a real benefit (except maybe SCII, I have no idea how CPU-intensive that is).
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 8:23:01 AM

On FSX I agree with randomizer however the faster 990X will be coming out I think sometime in Q1 2011.You might want to wait a bit.Someone before posted this link which shows the difference between some CPU's in FSX.
http://www.jetlinesystems.com/performance.html
FSX doesn't like graphics cards in crossfire or SLI though.I am surprised that the 5870 shows so well in their benchmarks.
a c 131 à CPUs
August 29, 2010 4:42:47 PM

jj463rd said:
On FSX I agree with randomizer however the faster 990X will be coming out I think sometime in Q1 2011.You might want to wait a bit.Someone before posted this link which shows the difference between some CPU's in FSX.
http://www.jetlinesystems.com/performance.html
FSX doesn't like graphics cards in crossfire or SLI though.I am surprised that the 5870 shows so well in their benchmarks.

A bit off topic, but I was wondering if anyone could think of a reason why jetline systems seems to think that having a faster hard drive will increase FPS in games?
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2010 7:05:23 PM

randomizer wrote:
Quote:

FSX will love a 980X. The other games aren't going to see a real benefit (except maybe SCII, I have no idea how CPU-intensive that is).


+1! The 980X will absolutely excel with a flight simulator, weather it be FSX, flight gear...etc. I think FSX uses as many cores as it gets. Your system is already powerful as is, but a 980x will definitively bring improvement to the flight simulator.

Enzo Matrix wrote:
Quote:

A bit off topic, but I was wondering if anyone could think of a reason why jetline systems seems to think that having a faster hard drive will increase FPS in games?


I read it and I think by performance they mean load times, because some of the maps in a flight simulator are massive and takes a very long time to load. Plus if the simulator's maps are on a grid, as you fly into a new grid/world i think it has to load everything in it so a faster hard drive helps. I don't think they mean it will increase fps.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 12:45:23 AM

The graphs are pretty poor. "Relative disk drive performance" is just access time. They do reckon there's a framerate boost when using a faster drive so I can only assume it's because FSX probably streams the world rather than loading it at the start (or you'd be able to make dinner while waiting to begin), and a faster drive will reduce framerate drops due to HDD thrashing. i can't see many people installing FSX on their SSD though.
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 12:51:36 AM

Quote:
i can't see many people installing FSX on their SSD though.

Why not? It all depends on what else you got on the SSD and how big the SSD is. I think one with a 60-80GB+ SSD will be able to install FSX with room to spare.
a c 131 à CPUs
August 30, 2010 1:34:29 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
randomizer wrote:

Enzo Matrix wrote:
Quote:

A bit off topic, but I was wondering if anyone could think of a reason why jetline systems seems to think that having a faster hard drive will increase FPS in games?


I read it and I think by performance they mean load times, because some of the maps in a flight simulator are massive and takes a very long time to load. Plus if the simulator's maps are on a grid, as you fly into a new grid/world i think it has to load everything in it so a faster hard drive helps. I don't think they mean it will increase fps.

If you scroll down to the hard drive section, they have a graph claiming the "difference" for FSX SP2

Mushkin SSD: 34FPS
Velociraptor: 32FPS
WD Black, 64mb cache: 30FPS
WD Black, 32mb cache: 29FPS
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2010 1:47:25 AM

Randomizer and Shadow703793 lol, I thought you were the same person double posting! The picture confuses me.

And thats weird, storage devices shouldn't affect FPS at all.
August 30, 2010 2:52:49 PM

I do have FSX loaded on a 128GB SSD drive, it doesn't increase FPS at all. BUT it does prevent stutters -- so one gets the feeling of a smoother flight experience keeping the average FPS steady. Actually 128GB is small when you start loading up any quality scenery and other add-ons -- I've filled my 128GB SSD pretty quick with FSX + scenery, wish I had gone with 256GB SSD.

I have noticed that turning On/Off Crossfire makes little to no difference in FSX, the sim appears to have less graphical issues with Crossfire OFF in most cases.

I'll wait for 990X and add another 128GB SSD to load Win7 64 on.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 4:41:27 AM

If you look at the (outdated) charts here on THG you'll see that the slowest cards aren't that far behind the fastest cards in FSX. I don't know why Crysis always holds the title of being the most demanding game when it doesn't come close to FSX.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 5:06:33 PM

^ Because FSX is CPU bound? Crysis on the other hand pushes GPUs. Two different things imo.

Quote:
I do have FSX loaded on a 128GB SSD drive, it doesn't increase FPS at all. BUT it does prevent stutters -- so one gets the feeling of a smoother flight experience keeping the average FPS steady. Actually 128GB is small when you start loading up any quality scenery and other add-ons -- I've filled my 128GB SSD pretty quick with FSX + scenery, wish I had gone with 256GB SSD.

Damn! Exactly how big is FSX?!?!?! And here I though WoW was too big.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 7:45:35 PM

Randomizer: I guess FSX is a simulator so maybe people think its different from crysis..? Not sure though.

Shadow703793: Crysis does push GPU's quite well to their limits but the CPU also gets a good workout from it.
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2010 8:00:06 PM

^True, but the point I was trying to make is that Crysis isn't as CPU bound as FSX.
August 31, 2010 8:14:11 PM

Yeah FSX was not re-written ... it's using the same code base used in FS 2000 I believe ... they tried to make FSX DX10 with limited success and a few bugs, they did add some multi-CPU support so it should benefit from more cores ... but again I think this is more to do with stutter free operations and not pure frame rate performance. A lot of rendering is still done via CPU.

FSX itself isn't too big, your initial estimate is pretty accurate -- <20GB to install. BUT, start adding quality scenery and you'll consume GB's real fast. I have some tiles from California and Washington and Utah and New York and Arizona that consumes all the rest of my 128GB SSD ... and those are NOT full states, covers about 40-60% of those states. This is 1 meter resolution scenery -- for reference Google maps is 0.41 meter resolution.
a b à CPUs
a b Ĉ ASUS
August 31, 2010 8:16:03 PM

...why? 1366 is basically becomming EOL at the end of the year when SB and socket 2011 releases; it doesn't make any sense to upgrade your system at this point.
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 12:12:13 AM

Online it says that SB will be released Q3 of 2011...thats a whole year.
a c 131 à CPUs
September 1, 2010 2:30:57 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
Online it says that SB will be released Q3 of 2011...thats a whole year.

What? Last I checked it was Q4 THIS year. Can you link me to that information?
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 2:46:07 AM

SB is coming soon, its BD thats MIA, oh or ahm sometime 2011= 4th quarter ? :) 
http://www.pcworld.com/article/201041/intel_to_ramp_up_...
Quote:
Intel started sending sample chips from the Sandy Bridge family to customers last quarter, giving them a chance to see what the chips can do, he said. Strong feedback prompted the company to speed up the factory ramp up.

Otellini declined to say when laptops and desktops with Sandy Bridge chips inside will hit the market, though he did say Intel will ship Sandy Bridge for revenue late this year
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 2:55:27 AM

notty22 said:
SB is coming soon, its BD thats MIA, oh or ahm sometime 2011= 4th quarter ? :) 
http://www.pcworld.com/article/201041/intel_to_ramp_up_...
Quote:
Intel started sending sample chips from the Sandy Bridge family to customers last quarter, giving them a chance to see what the chips can do, he said. Strong feedback prompted the company to speed up the factory ramp up.

Otellini declined to say when laptops and desktops with Sandy Bridge chips inside will hit the market, though he did say Intel will ship Sandy Bridge for revenue late this year


Did AMD kick you when you were a baby or something?! Always against AMD! SB should be out soon, as little as a few months, maybe less. BD should likely start out around christmas, and then go into Q1 2011. To be honest, BD is split up into many smaller parts, so we could see server BD out Q4 2010, mobile Q1 2011, desktop Q2 2011, or any combination of that, but not Q4 2011.
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 2:58:31 AM

Quote:

FSX itself isn't too big, your initial estimate is pretty accurate -- <20GB to install. BUT, start adding quality scenery and you'll consume GB's real fast. I have some tiles from California and Washington and Utah and New York and Arizona that consumes all the rest of my 128GB SSD ... and those are NOT full states, covers about 40-60% of those states. This is 1 meter resolution scenery -- for reference Google maps is 0.41 meter resolution.

Damn... that's impressive scenery, esp. for an older game like this.
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2010 5:31:17 PM

enzo matrix said:
What? Last I checked it was Q4 THIS year. Can you link me to that information?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_2011

^Maybe I confused something...or maybe its just wikipedia being unreliable lol.
September 8, 2010 5:38:10 AM

Computer Pilot Magazine just did a review of 980 CPU, gain was about 12-14% which equated to about 2 fps more. Think I'll wait. SSD, and many very fast CPUs is the key to making FSX "smooth" (no stutters or waiting for scenery to paint). Maybe a Dual 6 core setup at 4GHz will help. If I purchased all the scenery available for FSX, I would easily need 512GB SSD (maybe two).

If GEVision ever becomes a reality for FSX, then we'll have Google earth level of detail for terrain. Problem is FSX is a 32bit thread, so we're limited to 2GB (effective, 3GB with OS switches but not very stable) -- as a result FSX is constantly thrashing at the HD to swap scenery tiles in and out, hence why SSD is such a huge benefit for FSX.

I believe the entire earth at 1 meter resolution is about 20 TB (compressed) of scenery data that FSX could use. Google's resolution varies from 15 meter to 15 cm.

GEVision demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48cAT6lqgJo

ORBX FTX demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmZNMjn30XQ&feature=rela...

It's a shame there is no more future for FS series ... it's being kept alive with 3rd party developers like this. But I can only image if it were updated to 64bit code base and DX11 ... oh well not to be.

or is it?

!