Whoch setup will yield better game performance?
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
- Performance
- Crossfire
-
Graphics
- Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
nano134
February 14, 2012 6:21:29 PM
I have a build with an am3+ socket that has an Athlon II x4 640, with an XFX HD 5770. I only have enough money to either get a Geforce 560 Ti and keep the Athlon, or Crossfire my 5770 and upgrade to an FX-4100. It also has a 630 watt PSU with a single 12V@50A, sufficient for the crossfire.
Which will yield better performance?
I have 8gb RAM, and game at 1440x900.
Which will yield better performance?
I have 8gb RAM, and game at 1440x900.
More about : whoch setup yield game performance
The 560TI is more powerful than the 5770 (almost double). However at your resolution - I don't think a crossfire solution would be that great.
In your shoes I would go with the 560TI, less hassle than setting up a CFX. IMO single card solutions are better than dual card setups - less problems, less energy use.
In your shoes I would go with the 560TI, less hassle than setting up a CFX. IMO single card solutions are better than dual card setups - less problems, less energy use.
Score
0
Well, I do think a single card upgrade would be better than crossfire, generally. However, the Athlon 640 is a pretty out dated CPU these days. To be honest, I'd like to suggest a Phenom II X4 955 but those appear to be out of stock. In gaming, the PII is better than an FX CPU. At least for now. The PII 970 is only $20 more than an FX4100 and features 4 real cores instead of 2 core pairs... basically, it's better.
A second 5770 would definitely let you max out games at your resolution, as would a 560 Ti. But with a CPU upgrade as well, you'll see all around more benefits.
Keep in mind that a pair of 5770s will perform roughly as well as a 6870 or GTX 560 (non Ti).
A second 5770 would definitely let you max out games at your resolution, as would a 560 Ti. But with a CPU upgrade as well, you'll see all around more benefits.
Keep in mind that a pair of 5770s will perform roughly as well as a 6870 or GTX 560 (non Ti).
Score
0
Related resources
- Got a decent computer, new cpu would yield better performance? - Forum
- Two hard drives, which setup will yield best performance? - Forum
- How to setup a SSD drive for better game/System performance? - Forum
- i'm just curious when playing pc games should i install the game in SSD to have better performance than hard disk? - Forum
- Will getting a better CPU improve my game performance? - Forum
Chainzsaw said:
The 560TI is more powerful than the 5770 (almost double). However at your resolution - I don't think a crossfire solution would be that great.In your shoes I would go with the 560TI, less hassle than setting up a CFX. IMO single card solutions are better than dual card setups - less problems, less energy use.
I agree, particularly when you are talking about lower end Crossfire. Tom's Hardware conducted a study showing that microstuttering is definitely an issue with lower end Crossfire. Add in the recent failure of Crossfire driver support for new games and the fact that the AMD 5000 series is a failure at tesselation performance... well the GTX 560 Ti is definitely the way to go.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfire...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...
http://www.behardware.com/articles/838-7/crysis-2-dx11-...
Score
0
Or maybe sell the 5770 for $50, buy a PII X4 (or the FX 4100 if you must) and buy a 6850, 560, or 6870 for a pretty closely comparable price. IMO a 560 Ti is a bit over kill for that resolution. Well, ok, nothing is overkill (moar FPS!!!) but lesser cards will play very, very nicely at that setting.
Score
0
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 7:49:14 PM
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 7:51:24 PM
Chainzsaw said:
The 560TI is more powerful than the 5770 (almost double). However at your resolution - I don't think a crossfire solution would be that great.In your shoes I would go with the 560TI, less hassle than setting up a CFX. IMO single card solutions are better than dual card setups - less problems, less energy use.
some how I think thay CF 5770 and 560ti are pretty close in performance so CF 5770 would work great at any res cause it is like 560ti/570 performance which would be good at any res up to 1920x1200 IMHO!
Score
0
^^^dont be a jacka$$^^^ he said "gaming performance"
i agree... your best option for the money is to upgrade that cpu...newegg has an OEM cheap
overclock this badboy to 4.2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
than buy your second 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
and game away....
ps....yes your psu will handle that
i agree... your best option for the money is to upgrade that cpu...newegg has an OEM cheap
overclock this badboy to 4.2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
than buy your second 5770
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
and game away....
ps....yes your psu will handle that
Score
0
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 8:01:14 PM
cbrunnem said:
Any upgrade that involves upgrading with an AMD cpu is a bad upgrade. DONT do it.I run a BD FX - 8120 and there is NO discernible difference between it and my i5 2500k OCed rig. I will try out fx-4100 in my sons rig just based on how much the performance blew me away with Bull Dozer FX - 8120 OCed
Score
0
fistoffoo said:
I run a BD FX - 8120 and there is discernible difference between it and my i5 200k OCed rig. I will try out fx-4100 in my sons rig just based on how much the performance blew me away with Bull Dozer FX - 8120 OCedare you saying that there is a difference? discernible can mean a few things.
Score
0
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 8:22:12 PM
fistoffoo said:
Sorry about that what I mean is there is no ( Discernible - able to be discerned; perceptible ) difference to me between my i5 2500K and my Bull Dozer fx - 8150in what games? are you playing skyrim and BF3, two games were the game needs and intel cpu or needs an overclock (BF3 Mp)?
how overclocked is your fx and is your i5 stock?
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
according to that benchmark it looks like skyrim really benefits from more REAL cores not hyperthreaded cores...
Score
0
cbrunnem said:
according to that benchmark it looks like skyrim really benefits from more REAL cores not hyperthreaded cores...
No... no it does not.
i5 750 and i7 920 are pretty much the same, but the 920 has HT. It performs 3fps faster. Meanwhile an i3 2120 is a HT dual core and performs 1fps better than the true quad i5 750. The Phenom X4 980 is below any of those, and higher than a FX 6120 ("6" core) and 8150 ("8" core). The PII X2 560 is even faster than the FX 4100 ("quad" core).
Anyway, the game benefits from a faster architecture and more speed. Physical cores vs HT cores doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
Score
0
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 9:13:38 PM
cbrunnem said:
in what games? are you playing skyrim and BF3, two games were the game needs and intel cpu or needs an overclock (BF3 Mp)?how overclocked is your fx and is your i5 stock?
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
according to that benchmark it looks like skyrim really benefits from more REAL cores not hyperthreaded cores...
Ya both games play smooth now that I upgraded to 7970. Both CPU are now run at stock they have to much power already so why try and push it.
Score
0
cbrunnem said:
in what games? are you playing skyrim and BF3, two games were the game needs and intel cpu or needs an overclock (BF3 Mp)?how overclocked is your fx and is your i5 stock?
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
according to that benchmark it looks like skyrim really benefits from more REAL cores not hyperthreaded cores...
bf3 runs great on bulldozer, one of the only games where it runs well on.
Skyrim with patch 1.4 or w/e runs much better. Skyrim doesn't benefit from cores at all 2,3,4 cores all run the same, stop pulling out bs.
Score
0
nano134
February 14, 2012 9:26:55 PM
So it seems pretty even either way. I think I'll rock my older cpu just a little longer, because the 560 Ti will
- run cooler, no microstutter, always support for games.
- use CUDA (I am a 3d artist as well, and realtime rendering in Blender only supports CUDA as of now, no openCL.)
- leave room for SLI in the future.
Besides, who doesn't want overkill when it means more fps?(;
- run cooler, no microstutter, always support for games.
- use CUDA (I am a 3d artist as well, and realtime rendering in Blender only supports CUDA as of now, no openCL.)
- leave room for SLI in the future.
Besides, who doesn't want overkill when it means more fps?(;
Score
0
nano134 said:
So it seems pretty even either way. I think I'll rock my older cpu just a little longer, because the 560 Ti will- run cooler, no microstutter, always support for games.
- use CUDA (I am a 3d artist as well, and realtime rendering in Blender only supports CUDA as of now, no openCL.)
- leave room for SLI in the future.
Besides, who doesn't want overkill when it means more fps?(;
Post results. I'm curious about what you'll experience. There's a decent chance you won't see a lot of FPS increase if your CPU is what is bottlenecking performance.
Score
0
nano134
February 14, 2012 9:30:03 PM
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 9:33:29 PM
bystander said:
Post results. I'm curious about what you'll experience. There's a decent chance you won't see a lot of FPS increase if your CPU is what is bottlenecking performance.In the research I have compiled there seems to be little difference in most games concerning CPU perhaps GPU would be far more critical in far more games from the research as I have side I have compiled. http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scalin...
Score
0
fistoffoo
February 14, 2012 9:35:39 PM
nano134
February 14, 2012 9:41:41 PM
wolfram23 said:
No... no it does not.i5 750 and i7 920 are pretty much the same, but the 920 has HT. It performs 3fps faster. Meanwhile an i3 2120 is a HT dual core and performs 1fps better than the true quad i5 750. The Phenom X4 980 is below any of those, and higher than a FX 6120 ("6" core) and 8150 ("8" core). The PII X2 560 is even faster than the FX 4100 ("quad" core).
Anyway, the game benefits from a faster architecture and more speed. Physical cores vs HT cores doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
i7 3960 84 fps 6 cores
i7 2600k 70 fps 4 cores
i5 2500k 67 fps 4 cores
i3 2120 57 fps 2 cores
esrever said:
bf3 runs great on bulldozer, one of the only games where it runs well on. Skyrim with patch 1.4 or w/e runs much better. Skyrim doesn't benefit from cores at all 2,3,4 cores all run the same, stop pulling out bs.
i7 3960 84 fps 6 cores
i7 2600k 70 fps 4 cores
i5 2500k 67 fps 4 cores
i3 2120 57 fps 2 cores
it looks like this is only the case with intel cpu's though verified by
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-...
http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/p...
i was never and neither should you compare an old gen i5 to a new gen i3. of course they are close in performance the new sandy bridge architecture is a lot faster.
Score
0
fistoffoo said:
In the research I have compiled there seems to be little difference in most games concerning CPU perhaps GPU would be far more critical in far more games from the research as I have side I have compiled. http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scalin...It certainly depends on the games, but those benchmarks do show that the CPU he has is good enough, although I'd like to see things like Skyrim and CPU sensitive games.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 3:13:37 AM
bystander said:
It certainly depends on the games, but those benchmarks do show that the CPU he has is good enough, although I'd like to see things like Skyrim and CPU sensitive games.Actually even on my current setup with the slightly overclocked 5770 (940/1400) and my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.45GHz, I have my Skyrim.ini tweaked to the max, higher-res shadows, high-res textures (I think it's applied, I downloaded and installed it, but don't know for sure) and more ugrids, 4xAA, 16xAF, 1440x900; I only notice stutters in Solitude when looking towards one direction. Other than that it's pretty smooth, not perfect, but playable.
Score
0
nano134 said:
Actually even on my current setup with the slightly overclocked 5770 (940/1400) and my Athlon II x4 OCed at 3.45GHz, I have my Skyrim.ini tweaked to the max, higher-res shadows, high-res textures (I think it's applied, I downloaded and installed it, but don't know for sure) and more ugrids, 4xAA, 16xAF, 1440x900; I only notice stutters in Solitude when looking towards one direction. Other than that it's pretty smooth, not perfect, but playable.Depending on the type of stuttering, that may not improve with a GPU increase. Most stuttering problems, not to be confused with low FPS, are a result of CPU/memory issues. Then again, if you just mean things get low on FPS, then the GPU will make the big difference.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 4:32:33 AM
bystander said:
Depending on the type of stuttering, that may not improve with a GPU increase. Most stuttering problems, not to be confused with low FPS, are a result of CPU/memory issues. Then again, if you just mean things get low on FPS, then the GPU will make the big difference.By studders I mean a consistently lowered FPS when looking in a certain direction. I'm guessing it's a little of both. GPU and CPU. Which still makes me wonder if I should crossfire 5770 and get a phenom II x4 960T or just a 560 Ti.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 12:55:03 PM
nano134 said:
By studders I mean a consistently lowered FPS when looking in a certain direction. I'm guessing it's a little of both. GPU and CPU. Which still makes me wonder if I should crossfire 5770 and get a phenom II x4 960T or just a 560 Ti.Skyrim ini tweaks can cause havok. I was playing with ugrids at 11, then 7, and now I'm back down to 5 because it offers the smoothest performance. I don't know what the problem is, my CPU and GPUs barely use over 50% of their power yet the game has issues at ugrids 7. So instead I play it at 5, and then I put shadows back to default ultra resolution (2048) because all my texture mods use up so much VRAM I end up getting slow downs with higher res shadows. But I don't mind because even at 4096 the shadows look like crap lol.
FYI I'm using an i5 750 @ 4ghz and a pair of 5850s OCed 25%.
The game looks fantastic, though
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 2:39:55 PM
30-50 consistantly? Yeah... honestly, well of course this is subjective, but I really really think a smooth experience is much better than having buildings in the far distance add a few polygons. I was always running 60fps average, but with ugrids at 7 there was just weird slow downs and even near-pauses in framerate that got frustrating.
But then again we all have different tolerances for this kind of thing.
But then again we all have different tolerances for this kind of thing.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 4:38:33 PM
nano134 said:
Yeah I've always been on a budget, so I'm used t lower framerates. You dont consider 30-50 playable?I personally don't consider 30-40 FPS playable, but I still notice improvements up to 75 FPS or higher. Of course I didn't notice those improvements until I had a 120hz monitor. The main issue I have with FPS between 30-40 is that I get motion sickness issues within a few minutes of playing. I used to power through it and after a few days of queeziness and lots of breaks, I'd be able to play for maybe an hour at a time. After 40 FPS, things are better, but I still suffer from motion sickness until I reach 75+ FPS, which also requires a monitor that can deliver at least 75hz.
For myself, I always try to be over 50 FPS at least, and will often turn down settings if I can get up to 75 FPS.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 4:54:31 PM
Do either of you get headaches, sore eyes or motion sickness when playing games at 30 FPS? Mainly I'm referring to 1st person or over the shoulder games with a mouse. It's less of an issue with a game controller as it keeps everything more level and isometric games don't give issues either.
About half of the population experiences some form of simulator sickness from playing these types of games as learned in a study by the Air Force with their flight simulators.
About half of the population experiences some form of simulator sickness from playing these types of games as learned in a study by the Air Force with their flight simulators.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 5:09:38 PM
Then you probably don't have this issue. Like I said, studies have shown half the population with this issue. You must be part of the other half.
That said, now that I've gotten used to having over 75 FPS, lower than that looks choppy to me these days. It's amazing how our mind registers change, as the same games that feel choppy now at 50 FPS, did not used to feel choppy.
That said, now that I've gotten used to having over 75 FPS, lower than that looks choppy to me these days. It's amazing how our mind registers change, as the same games that feel choppy now at 50 FPS, did not used to feel choppy.
Score
0
nano134
February 15, 2012 5:30:20 PM
nano134 said:
So if i'm getting, say, 30-50 fps (20-40ish in a couple cities) in skyrim currently... What do you think it'll be at with the 560 Ti?I'd expect 30-70+.
In most games you'll see more improvements, but Skyrim is known to be bottlenecked by your CPU for the most part. The reason wolfram23 has mentioned his CPU won't show more than 50% usage, is because it only uses 2 cores but likes fast cores.
Score
0
Related resources
- Solvedshould I be Getting better Performance? (gaming pc) Forum
- SolvedBetter Gaming Performance Forum
- question about game performance with this setup Forum
- SolvedWhich Graphic Card Will be better & give better performance in 1080p gaming.? Forum
- SolvedWhich RAM setup would be better for gaming? Forum
- Solvedwhich Setup Is Better For Me?? Gamer With Old Games Not New,TMNT,Matrix Path Of Neo Etc... Forum
- SolvedWhich is a better partition setup? OS first then gaming, or gaming first then OS? Forum
- SolvedWhat Should I Upgrade For Better Gaming Performance? Forum
- SolvedI want to get better performance in games is my CPU bottlenecking me? Forum
- SolvedWhich is better all around (gaming, performance, interface)? Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 Forum
- SolvedWhich laptop is better for gaming and performance? Forum
- SolvedBad Gaming Performance With Gaming Setup. Forum
- SolvedWould it be a better plan to upgrade my GPU or CPU for gaming? My current setup hasn't measured to my hopes. Forum
- SolvedLooking at 1800$ for a gaming rig I need better expertise for the same performance at around $1500 if possible need assistanc Forum
- SolvedHelp with the better gpu would be for gaming performance Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!