CPU Upgrade to i5 3570k (worth it?)

[Sphynx91]

I'm currently using an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE @3.8Ghz. I recently bought an Asus GTX 670 but I am planning on upgrading my CPU to an Intel i5 3570k in the future because I feel I am still not getting the performance I am looking for in some games. Would upgrading from a Phenom II X6 to an i5 3570k be worthwhile? Do you guys think my current CPU is bottlenecking my new video card?

 

[henydiah]

GTX 670 + to 1090BE is still very worth to play the latest games, the bottleneck ... I think not because the OC to 3.8GHz and it would be great if 4GHz, although performance will be inferior to the i5 3570k, to upgrade to a intel mobo + cpu .. a lot of money: D

 

[13thmonkey]

+1, there will be some benefit but not much i'd suggest. my 3570k at 4.3Ghz is running at 40-50% on BF3, so unless its twice as quick as your x6 you'll not see much of a difference.

 

[nekulturny]

The only benefit is having an excellent way of wasting $300+. Yes the 3570K is stronger, but no, not strong enough to justify an "upgrade" for gaming, or anything else from a 1090T. You have to have at least a ~10% difference to be noticeable, and simply in most games this 10% difference will not exist.

 

[Sphynx91]

If I were to upgrade to water cooling and over clocked my CPU higher would it make a big performance increase?

 

[nekulturny]

Phenom IIs tend to top out at 4.0-4.4GHZ typically, they usually don't get hot enough to justify a watercooling solution. An air cooler like a CoolerMaster 212 Evo is all you should need to max out your chip.

 

[Sphynx91]

I'm using a Cooler Master 212 Plus at the moment and anything above 3.87Ghz is unstable.

 

[Guest]

I'm glad I found this thread because I was also thinking of building a 3570k gaming PC and I have a similar setup to Sphynx only I have an 1100T, Sapphire 6950 2GB and a Corsair A70. I think I'll save up for a Haswell rig instead then.

 

[nekulturny]

Think Broadwell before your 1100T really can't get the job done for you, possibly even Skywhatevercomesafterthat. Yes intel is ahead, but for gaming, not that much, since most games aren't very picky about the CPU, and thats not likely to change anytime soon. Console games still dictate how fast the market evolves for the most part.

 

[Sphynx91]

Alot of benchmarks I've seen indicate that Intel is quite a bit ahead of AMD at the moment but a lot of people can argue that benchmarks don't say much. My current rig is pretty powerful but I feel it needs a little more of an upgrade. I have come to realize, by reading forums and experience, that six core isn't really the best choice for gaming but I have also heard that it is better for the long run, for games that will be coming out in the future. But the way I see it now, console ports will be quite common for the pc in the years to come.

This may be a stupid question; but does the speed of one's hard drive effect fps in any way?

 

[nekulturny]

Intel is ahead yes, the reason I say not "that much", is because, guess what, it might be nice to see 100FPS on your FRAPs, but anything over 60 is completely irrelevant. Why? Because most computer monitors are 60hz. 60hz=60FPS, which means your computer could send 1000FPS to the computer monitor, you'll only ever see 60 of em.

Such as it is now, theres maybe a handful of games where the difference between Intel's performance and AMDs is really apparent. And even then, its not as though those games are not playable on an AMD CPU. AMD did have a bit of a misstep with their new Bulldozer CPUs, and yes, thats a bit of an understatement. But Phenom IIs are still a very viable, and currently cheaper alternative.

As far as day to day computing activities, how much CPU power do you *really* need to run MS office, check your Facebook, or watch Netflix streaming? Pretty much any CPU can do that. Now some people do a lot of intensive things, and really do see an advantage in the superior power from Intel's CPUs. For example, someone who does video editing, 3d rendering, or CAD design for a living, probably should be looking at Intel products.

Some of us might dabble in the occasional use of those programs "just for fun", but the average computer user, gaming is by far the most CPU demanding activity they will undertake on a regular basis. And most games are just not that CPU intensive, and as you pointed out, console gaming has been and still will be retarding the evolution of PC gaming.

PCs have the potential to be far more powerful, play games at far greater detail and realism than a console ever could, but to do so would cost a ton more and for companies in the business of making PC games, they just couldn't do it and stay competitive. I mean hell, look at the Xbox 360 specs. Its a Tri-core CPU made by IBM with a 512mb GDDR3 VRAM. A computer could own that all day long.


In answer to your question, no hard drive speed does not effect the FPS rates. It merely has an impact on how long it takes for your game to load, or loading when a new stage of the game is reached.

 

[nekulturny]

All I can say is, if you have soaked all that in, and still want to ditch your Thuban, I'll be more than happy to take it off your hands. And yes, I'm serious.

 

[Sphynx91]

I want to be able to play games at max if not slightly less than max with a minimum of 50 fps and my current rig doesn't seem to do that. This is why I want to upgrade to an intel 3570K because I have read that the 3570K is currently one of the best CPUs for gaming in the market. Also, I am planning on upgrading sometime beginning of next summer so there is still quite some time. Would you recommend waiting for the Haswell or just going with the 3570K?

 

[nekulturny]

Well, its too soon to say going for Haswell is a good bet. Intel has had "Faildozers" of their own (Pentium 4, Pentium D hell 2000-2005 AMD *** on Intel pretty bad), while its not likely, its not impossible either.

I would say that you should buy what is available when you're ready to put the money on the table. If Haswell is ready by then (which next summer is when its set to be), then probably thats what you're going to buy.

If next week, you'll be faced with the choice of Sandy or Ivy Bridge. Honestly IB doesn't really have anything on SB for gaming, but if you find the Thuban inadequate, and going through all the trouble of replacing the mobo and CPU then you should get the "best" you can get, that would be the 3570K.

3570K/2500K aren't "one of the best gaming CPUs", they are the best. i7s can't do anything that i5s can't in terms of gaming performance. (The difference is something ridiculous like 1%)

 

[Sphynx91]

Best answer selected by Sphynx91.

 

[Sphynx91]

Ok. Thank you for all of your very informal and helpful replies. I really appreciate the detail and effort you put into your them. I will look more into the Haswell when they are close to release. How much would you presume the price range for them would be? And would they be using different motherboards? Also how much could I sell me current motherboard+cpu for?

 

[nekulturny]

You're welcome.

I would presume them to have a small increase in price from Ivy. Such as the trend. i5-2500Ks were around $220, 3570Ks are about $230-240, so if that format continues the comparable Haswell i5 K model might be $250. Too soon to tell.

Yes they will be using different motherboards, LGA1150 socket is set to be the socket for Haswell/Broadwell.

As to how much could you sell your 1090T for, well, I would give you 50 bucks for it, but honestly, people have been paying ridiculous prices for them on ebay even for used ones last I looked. I don't know if that will continue next year, but..I just checked, the hoopla might have finally died down on it, these things were going for almost $300 there for awhile with people actually bidding on em. The mobo, if you get half what you paid for it consider yourself lucky.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=1100t&_sacat=0