Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD < Intel Upgrade?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 30, 2011 4:42:37 PM

Here's my rig:

Asus Crosshair IV
Ultra 1050W PSU
x2 Sapphire 6970s
AMD X6 Phenom II 1100t (turbo boost 3.8 GHZ) with ZULMAN aftermarket cooler
Samsung 1TB hd
HAF 932


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,295...

I want to squeeze out as much fps as possible from this setup, and I've been told numerous times that my CPU is major bottleneck. Is this worth the investment:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... - ASROCK Z68 *future proof for Ivy Bridge?*
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... - Intel i7 2000k

I've got the funds. But it would mean eating chicked peas for the rest of the month. Will it make a considerable difference in fps? Especially in games like GTA IV, Just Cause 2, BF3, and more importantly (to me, at least) SKYRIM?

I eventually wanna make the switch to NVIDIA as I'm not happy with AMD's drivers.

Let me know if you guys need any more details to make an accurate assessment. I'm really trigger happy to make this purchase, and could use some sense talking.


More about : amd intel upgrade

a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 5:16:41 PM

2500K + a simple OC to 4.3-4.4 on air
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 5:25:13 PM

Are you running 1920x1080? If so, though a 2500K (NOT 2600K) might get you, say, 85 fps instead of 75, I think you'll be able to stay above 60fps with no problem with no upgrade, and save the chickpeas for later famines :p 
At a higher resolution, this might make more of a difference.
a c 81 à CPUs
October 30, 2011 5:27:33 PM

Enjoy your life dude. Don't compromise especially when you don't need to. You have a pretty decent rig already. The X6 1100T is not a slouch. Keep saving until the Ivy Bridge fully turns up and think about upgrading then.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 5:34:17 PM

If you tweak your HT settings (overclocking, basically) and get a little more bandwidth to the CPU, you might get more of an improvement for the Thuban. If I recall, part of the issue with the six core chips was that the cores were all fighting for bandwidth and cache.

I agree that you should probably wait for Ivy Bridge, but if you want to overclock now the i2500k is an attractive choice. The 2600k really won't offer that much of an improvement vs the 2500k.
a c 101 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 30, 2011 5:38:05 PM

What resolution do you play at?
October 30, 2011 6:04:42 PM

WoW. Thank you all for the quick and diverse replies! My resolution is 1680x1050. Not that great.
October 30, 2011 6:08:38 PM

The reason I was aiming at the i7-2600K was to avoid having to upgrade. Will Ivy Bridge be considerably faster than then the current intel cpu's on the market? I produce music as well, and I know a good CPU affects the amount of plugins I can layer.

My knowledge of overclocking is minimum, and I'd like to buy a CPU that I could just go into BIOS and tap on the turbo boost and be done with it.
October 30, 2011 6:10:12 PM

tajisi said:
If you tweak your HT settings (overclocking, basically) and get a little more bandwidth to the CPU, you might get more of an improvement for the Thuban. If I recall, part of the issue with the six core chips was that the cores were all fighting for bandwidth and cache.

I agree that you should probably wait for Ivy Bridge, but if you want to overclock now the i2500k is an attractive choice. The 2600k really won't offer that much of an improvement vs the 2500k.


I could sound like a total noob, and I know tolerance for noobiness is very low these days - but would you recommend I turn off two of my cores? Will that improve performance?
a c 459 à CPUs
a c 112 À AMD
October 30, 2011 6:11:44 PM

I don't think you need two Radeon HD 6970 for that resolution. One should be fine. If it isn't... then at that point buy the 2nd HD 6970.


EDIT:

Nevermind, I neglected to notice that you already have the Radeon HD 6970s.
October 30, 2011 6:15:23 PM

With my current setup, I can run BF3 at HIGH settings with 70-80 fps average. ULTRA slags me down 30-40 fps. Also, The Witcher 2 (this game never ceases to confuse me), on medium without vsync, hits 40-50 average fps, occasional dips to 30. Surprisingly, when I raise it to ULTRA it doesn't make much of difference, staying roughly round the same measurements. I wonder if its a CPU issue, or just that that game is poorly coded.

a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 6:45:25 PM

Could be that Witcher is more CPU-heavy. A 2500K would help with that. You won't need more CPU power than it can give until the triple-580 range of GPU performance, which you probably won't be upgrading to for years, when that's not such a big deal any more.
a c 142 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 30, 2011 6:52:39 PM

jaguarskx said:
I don't think you need two Radeon HD 6970 for that resolution. One should be fine. If it isn't... then at that point buy the 2nd HD 6970.


EDIT:

Nevermind, I neglected to notice that you already have the Radeon HD 6970s.



Yes so what he could do is upgrade to a new monitor running at 1920 X 1080. Then he would have two high
end video cards being used to its fullest on a high res monitor.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 7:11:22 PM

^Yep. That would make a significant difference.
October 30, 2011 7:20:07 PM

But doesn't higher resolution = less fps/better visuals.
a c 142 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 30, 2011 7:32:04 PM

That I'm not sure of maybe someone else can answer that for sure. I'm still using a low res 10+ year old monitor so I'm still learning about the new 1920 X 1080 monitors and what they can do. I'm hoping to get a new one soon so I can use my dual 6970's to thier fullest.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 7:39:46 PM

Yes, you'll get fewer fps at the same settings. You may have to downgrade your setting to maintain a decent fps rate, but it'll be worth it. Remember that what matters here is your overall gaming experience, not what settings you have enabled. IMO (maybe not yours - your choice) it's more visually impressive to run med/high on a 23" screen than to run ultra on a 17-incher.
a c 142 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 30, 2011 7:44:34 PM

So if I get a monitor with a 1920 X1080 res then I probably won't get the fps I'm getting now. Right now I'm getting 333 on COD how much of a drop will I get.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 7:45:57 PM

With what kind of hardware lol? You know very few monitors can handle more than 60fps? No matter how much your GPU is doing, 60 is all you'll see. You won't drop much.
October 30, 2011 7:46:46 PM

Hmm. So what's the verdict?

Go intel? Stay AMD?

If I go Intel, I'm going to go with the I5-2500K right? What's the difference between the i7 2600k and the i5 when it comes to gaming?

Best solution

a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 7:47:22 PM
Share

Not much, except at the very high level.
2500K for sure.
October 30, 2011 7:50:58 PM

Best answer selected by jon_the_faun.
a b à CPUs
October 30, 2011 7:52:19 PM

You know it.
a c 142 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 30, 2011 7:58:53 PM

kajabla said:
With what kind of hardware lol? You know very few monitors can handle more than 60fps? No matter how much your GPU is doing, 60 is all you'll see. You won't drop much.


You mean 60 Ghz refresh time? That I know. I didn't know if there would be a major drop in, in game fps.

For me personally it would be:

I5 2500k
Dual Radeon 6970's
8 gigs of vengenance ram
1TB HDD
128MB SSD
!