Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Time for upgrade..? :)
Hi,
I was thinking lately about upgrading my system. I am no avid gamer so I am not focusing on performance much but rather go after value for money.
Here is what I got now:
Seasoninc SS-500ET 500W
Gigabyte EP45-DS3L
Intel Dual-Core E2160 @ 2,42 GHz
Corsair cm2x2048-8500c7 1066MHz DDR2, 2x2GB
Radeon 5770
I was looking for 120 USD range card upgrade such as Radeon 7770 but then I dunno what CPU+MB to get along since CPU is getting a bit behind.
Also, any use for my DDR2? 
Comments
To be honest 7770 isnt that much of an upgrade (I have a 5770) if you want to save money personally I would look at getting an old quad core in that mobo you can get a q6600 on ebay pretty cheap (not sure about dollars) get a good heatsinc and overclock it.
Although you can get premade bundles with the new ddr3 boards pretty cheap you should look into that can't tell you where to look since i'm in the UK.
Radeon 7770 was rather a price range than aimed model. I think I can get nvidia GTX650ti or for little extra GTX560.
Yeah, the board is a pain and getting some older cpu would probably be the best solution.
Time to start saving for a whole new rig. A 7770 or 650Ti would upgrade the graphics a bit, but your still trying to do that on a 1.8G Allendale that was released in 2006.
To put that in some perspective, upgrading a video card that was released in 2009 to run it on a 2006 CPU doesn't make a lot of sense, regardless of if the new video card is faster or not.
Not saying that age alone is the only factor, or that older hardware can't perform, but both of those parts are far from top-end, even when they were new, and the fact that you've been playing on that CPU for as long as you have is impressive, but it's time to save up for a new one if you want to get much better performance out of anything.
I did say I am also looking for MB+CPU upgrade, just not sure what to pick. I was thinking about Intel Dual-Core G2020 with some cheap B75 board.
On the other hand as Freeaked suggested, getting Quad core for my current MB sounds tempting, despite I am not very excited in buying used parts, it would be still around 100 USD save tho.
Nah, it is not impressive at all, just that impact of CPU on gaming is overrated :-P
In any decently coded game and even most mediocre to very bad ones, the GPU load can be brought very low by turning graphical settings to the minimum, at least outside of some corner cases where you have an enormous amount of stuff on the screen--which also puts a very heavy load on the CPU. Regardless, if you're GPU limited at minimum settings on a Radeon HD 5770, it will probably be at something ridiculous like several hundred frames per second.
That's not at all true for a CPU, however. Changing graphical settings can have some impact on the CPU load, but rarely is it nearly as dramatic as the effect on the GPU load.
That leaves a simple rule of thumb in determining what to upgrade: if every game you play runs great at minimum graphical settings but only starts to choke once you turn settings up, then a faster video card will probably fix that. If some games are struggling even at minimum settings, then a faster video card might not do you much good, but a faster processor sure will. While that's not always true, it's usually pretty close to it.
While it's debateable what exactly you ought to do, what you certainly should not do is to spend a bunch of money on marginal upgrades that you'll be looking to replace entirely very soon. If you don't have the money available to get an $800+ new computer, then you ought to at least get the CPU right this time, even if it means having to leave the GPU upgrade for another day.
An Intel Pentium G2020 most certainly does not constitute getting the CPU upgrade right. While it might be double the performance of your current processor at stock speeds, your overclock has eaten up a lot of that gap, so it might be only 50% faster than what you have now. Also, it has a locked multiplier, so it can't be meaningfully overclocked. Buying a new CPU, motherboard, memory, and OS license for only a 50% upgrade over a nearly 7-year-old processor is doing it wrong.
Rather, I'd recommend getting an AMD FX-6300, together with an AMD 970 chipset motherboard and 8 GB of DDR3 memory. Keep your Radeon HD 5770 a while longer; it will already run basically anything at moderate graphical settings and most games at high settings, even today. That way, next time you decide to upgrade, it will be a simple matter of buying a new video card while keeping the processor, motherboard, and memory.
If you got everything else in the computer at the same time as the processor, except that the video card was a later upgrade, then you might also want to think about how long you want to rely on aging components. In particular, hard drives are only built to last about five years. If you're running a 6+ year old hard drive, then it's already living on borrowed time, so you might want to replace it just on general principle rather than waiting for it to die.
New VGA, MB, CPU and RAM I asked advice for does not count as a new system?
I appreciate your explanatory reply, I understand every single point you made but I disagree
100 USD difference in VGA can be rather noticeable, not so much with CPU and that is why I am so long with my old Dual-Core 2160(it's not Core 2 Duo!).
Imho, FX-6300 and 8GB of RAM will cost me about 3x times as much, yet it is something I will unlikely have use for(or notice), probably in whole life cycle of those parts.
That "50% performance" increase you talk about is something I assume I need to get my CPU performance in line with CPU requirements and better VGA? I guess everyone likes to run their favourite game on higher settings
The only difference that a faster video card makes is that, if your game is playable at lower settings, it lets you play it at higher graphical settings, too. Unless you're looking at something very low end, it's not the difference between a game being playable and not.
The CPU, on the other hand, often is the difference between a game being playable and not. Go play the games you play, and try turning everything to minimum settings. See if you're happy with the frame rates--and in every single game, not just some of them. If not, then it's unlikely that you'll be happy with your proposed upgrade, either.
Your current processor is a Pentium dual core, not a Core 2 Duo, but it's basically a Core 2 Duo with less L2 cache. It's the same architecture, and the L2 cache does make a difference, but it's not a huge difference. In particular, it's not a Pentium D or Pentium 4 or some such, which would have awful performance at 2.4 GHz.
-----
A general rule of upgrades is that you shouldn't do small upgrades. Do a big upgrade, or don't upgrade at all. Paying 50% more up front to get an upgrade that lasts you 5 years is a lot better than paying a little less up front and then having to replace it all again in a year. The Pentium dual core that you're looking at will struggle with some games that you might want to play today, and isn't going to get better as time passes. An FX-6300 will last you for years to come.
And no, it's not a difference of paying three times as much. Assuming you're looking at a cheap motherboard from either side (which will prevent you from properly upgrading the processor without replacing the motherboard and buying a new OS license yet again), the cost there is about the same. If you want to get a decent motherboard (for Intel, that means Z77), going AMD actually saves you quite a bit of money, as AMD charges motherboard manufacturers less for the chipset. The FX-6300 does cost maybe $80 more than the low end CPU you're looking at. You get the same memory whether you go AMD or Intel, so that's not a price difference.
But because you'd keep your current video card longer rather than buying a new one, on net, what I'm proposing would be cheaper than what you were planning on doing. And that's in addition to being a far more worthy upgrade that will last you far longer.
Meanwhile, you're looking at replacing the video card with something that is only slightly faster. A Radeon HD 5770 is about as fast as a Radeon HD 7750, which is the next bin down of the same Cape Verde chip that the 7770 is based on. Your Radeon HD 5770 actually has more memory bandwidth than the 7770. The GPU chip itself in the 7770 is faster, but that will get you what, maybe an extra 20% or 30% performance? Unless you've got more money than sense, I generally recommend not upgrading unless you can at least double the performance of your old card.
-----
A completely new system would involve a new case, power supply, optical drive, hard drive, and likely SSD. It would also leave the old computer functional, so you could either sell it or use it as a backup. That doesn't seem to be what you're looking to do.
And this is where you are imo wrong.
The difference between high-end and low-end CPU can be 50% frame rate loss at most extreme cases but even then low-end CPU will be running at more than satisfying FPS and won't bottle neck the system. CPU bottleneck is rather rare.
And for last:
Weirdest advice I have heard.
Upgrading in a bulk means you have performance spike at the start of the cycle and deep drop at the end.
More frequent upgrades on the other hand means you upgrade what is needed, your performance curve is smoother and you can keep much better value for money ratio, thus save money.
Only FX-6300 cost as much as G2020+B75 mobo+4GB DDR3. The performance gain wouldn't be noticeable for daily use of any home/office computer so why should I spent extra money on it?
If the CPU doesn't matter, then why not just keep the CPU that you have until it dies and upgrade the video card only?
Ultimately, it's your money. If you want to spend it on hardware that isn't much faster than what you had, and is close to needing to be replaced the day you buy it, I can't stop you. But when you have to replace it all again not to far in the future, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
I don't agree. I used to do that for many years and I would spend almost double times as much per year than i would now. Basically I used to buy new parts every generation and upgrade to gain small performance boosts which were not so worthy of my money. When you wait 2-3 generations you will 1) Save a ton of money 2) See tremendous increase 3) Be more pleased that you spend more money on a better system than spend less money on upgrading for little extra performance. Oh and if you spend $1000+ on new parts in current generation you will still run new games 3+ years from now fine. But go ahead and spend money on little performance gain if you want to.
Because lately we could see quite an increase in CPU demands mostly due extended use of physics in games and my CPU is just really too old to cover those new demands. However I do not think we will see similar "jump" in upcoming years so if I get lower end CPU now, it should be fine for quite a while.
A quick google how little CPU demands for games are can be found here:
http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-gaming-performance-with-today-cpus/3
I certainly appreciate your input tho, it made me think it over a bit more.
I never implied anything like that. On the contrary I am against any upgrades in bulk - upgrade what is needed and provide good value for money.
As of now, I am upgrading after several generations, see my specs. I cannot recall how long I have each part of my system but I think newest iteration was HDD 2 years back, everything else is much older and yet I can run all things I play once in a while just fine(Tera, SWTOR, EVE, Defiance, NWNO, etc.).
I do feel and acknowledge my CPU is starting to lose breath when I want to run some shooter and generally I lacking FPS when I want high settings, thus I am considering upgrade of both.
What we seem to differ in opinion s here is how far my upgrade should go. You keep saying that I should spend 300 USD and keep the system for 3-4 years, I say that I can spend 2x 150USD and keep the system for 4-5 years.
Just a matter of opinion, I guess.
First, CPU needs vary wildly from one game to the next. Some games will run great on the processor you have now. Some will struggle on the brand new Pentium dual core that you're looking at buying.
Second, you're looking at buying a new processor that would lose very badly to every single one in that review. Every single processor on that list has at least four logical cores, and all but one has at least four real physical cores. You're looking at buying a simple dual core. On top of that, all but two of the processors on that list are stock clocked higher than what you're looking at. Most of them also have some sort of turbo to further increase the clock speeds. You're not debating between picking one relatively higher on the list and one that is relatively slower. You're looking at buying one way off of the bottom of the list.
Third, tech review sites almost invariably try to pick games that aren't that heavy on CPU usage, as excessive CPU requirements make it hard to see the impact of video cards. When they do occasionally try to benchmark CPUs, they usually use whatever games they're used to benchmarking, rather than trying to create a whole new review suite. Look at how so many processors are nearly tied, even though some are dramatically faster than others. That's a video card bottleneck, not a processor one.
Yes, I am aware of that. Still the game listed are mostly I am interested in - MMO, RPG, shooters. What is CPU demanding are strategy game, something I have no interest in.
My point still stands.
There are only a few games out there that can make benefit of more than 2 cores. However you make good argument to consider.
G2020 performance is definitely above that X4 850, not sure about more specific position. Also, Intel does much better in games than AMD.
Thanks for the input.
That CPU inside the second chart is interesting.
Too bad none of those CPUs go down as low as either of the older Pentium models your considering. The difference between Ivy Bridge, Sandy Bridge, and the one Lynnfield processor is about exactly as you'd expect it - about 15% per generation, and following along clock speeds.
The AMD's fall in line about where you would expect them too as well.
So, umm, if you wanted to look at your older Allendale-level technology, you'd probably be someplace waaaaay off the chart to the right, so that page does in fact pretty much tell what everyone has been saying: CPU performance matters insomuch that you need ~enough~ to not bottleneck you at minimum settings, then your GPU takes over from there to throw the eye candy on top of that.
Also, the little upgrade all the time versus big upgrades rarely:
Here's an example:
Let's player A went out and spent the $500 for a GTX5870 when it was brand new.
Player B bought a 5770 (~$150).
And then upgraded to a 6870 (~$180).
And then upgraded to a 7850 (~$200) - which is roughly the same performance as a 5870.
Both players will probably upgrade again for the 8000 series, Player A probably spending another ~$500, player B another $150-$250. Player A will go from top tier to top tier, and see a huge jump (more than double likely). Player B will see another 15-20% increase. And in another 3ish years, Player B will again have spent more money to finally end up at the same place.
So you started at much lower performance, ended up at the same level of performance, and spent $30 more getting there, upgrading a little bit along the way to "smooth" your performance curve.
Now I understand that not everyone may have the cash to throw out $500 for a video card, and those prices for those cards have all fluctuated widely over time, but the point remains the same. If you want to do small, incremental upgrades, it costs you more over time than doing big, meaningful upgrades.
The Radeon HD 5870 was $380 at launch, not $500. You may have been intentionally making up fictional cards, though, since AMD doesn't use the GTX moniker.
This is why economists use "widgets": you can price them however you want, and no one will say, "Hey, that's not what it costs!"
A 500+500 = 1000 USD
B 150+180+200+250 = 780 USD
Again, I never said you should upgrade with each new generation.
Good input so far, thanks.
I will reconsider AMD but I know they tend to be lacking in gaming performance...or I just wait for new intel socket since 1155 is already at the end of it's cycle, I think.
You're forgetting that person B is going to buy two more new cards before person A gets his next one. You should count those, too.
If your next CPU upgrade after this one is the same percentage upgrade as what you're planning on this time, it will take you about three upgrade cycles to end up with something competitive with an FX-6300. At $65 CPU + $55 motherboard + $40 memory + $100 OS license, that's $260 for this upgrade, and presumably about that for your next two, for about $780 in total. Make that $140 CPU + $70 motherboard + $60 memory + $100 OS license this time and you get the same end performance, much better performance today, and spend less than half as much as you would have in total with a smaller upgrade.
You say that games don't benefit from more than two cores. Often that's because the video card is a bottleneck first. Often it's because the game doesn't need much CPU power. The latter can easily happen when game developers feel the need to keep hardware needs down so that people still running an aging dual core can play the game.
But what happens when game developers start feeling comfortable with assuming that customers have at least a quad core? That could happen soon, as even tablets and cell phones are starting to commonly get quad core processors, let alone desktops. The dual core Pentium could completely choke. The FX-6300 will still be plenty good, as it has six cores.
A Pentium G2020 may well be able to run nearly everything decently today. But then, even your old processor from 2006 can run the bulk of games decently today. What do you think will happen five years from now? It's a near lock that five years from now, there will be a ton of games that run very well on an FX-6300 but poorly on a Pentium G2020, and essentially none the other way around. If you buy an FX-6300 today, you'll be able to still use it then. If you buy a Pentium G2020, you'll need to have replaced it at least once long before then.
For that matter, in games that scale well to many cores, an FX-6300 can roughly keep pace with the enthusiast standard Core i5-3570K--whether you're comparing stock clocks to stock clocks or max overclock of each. Making a game scale well to many cores isn't hard to do, and future games that need a lot of CPU power will probably mostly do it.
What I think you're doing is comparing a high end Intel part to a high end AMD part, seeing that Intel wins at the high end, and assuming that a low end Intel part also beats a high end AMD part. To put it in video card terms, it's like seeing that a GeForce GTX Titan beats a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, concluding that Nvidia cards are all better than AMD cards, and then going out and buying a GeForce GT 640, thinking that it must be a lot faster than, say, a Radeon HD 7870, because it has an Nvidia sticker on it.
It's the particular part that matters, not the brand name on the label. Atom offers absolutely dismal gaming performance, in spite of the Intel sticker. Recent Intel architectures offer higher IPC than recent AMD architectures, which means better performance at the same clock speed. That's why a Core i5-3570K will beat an FX-8350 in single-threaded performance, in spite of being clocked slightly lower.
But that's something that you can make up for with higher clock speeds, if the clock speed gap is big enough. And an FX-6300 at 4.2 GHz (max turbo) might well beat a Pentium G2020 at 2.9 GHz even in purely single-threaded performance, as that's a pretty big gap in clock speed. For comparison, the max turbo on the Core i5-3570K is something like 3.8 GHz or 3.9 GHz, and it also has a lot more cache than the Pentium G2020.
If we are getting into "Just Sayin'", there was a GTX 5870...
It did exist
But yeah - a ~mostly~ hypothetical example using ~mostly~ hypothetical cards - it's rare that a top-tier card doesn't cost ~$500 at release, the actual AMD 5870 was somewhat of an exception.
And to follow up to the OP - yeah, your forgetting about the 2-3 more cards that Player B would continue to purchase, while Player A would continue to play very happily on their second card, and enjoy better performance over all the entire time until Player B finally catches up on their 3rd-4th card. It's a perpetual circle, at least until you decide you want out of the PC gaming racket and go do something silly like grow up and stop playing video games (or sigh softly and give in to the dark side of the console).
But all in all, it's your money, and this thread has pretty much degenerated into trollbait, and I'm partially ashamed that I fell for it.
No, I should not.
The way I put the numbers together is correct. The difference is that cycle of more frequent upgrades will be longer(ie. 500 USDF card will last me 3 years before next upgrade but 3 continuous upgrades will last me 4 years).
Your numbers are totally off. There is no reason to replace MB and RAM all the time, you only replace CPU and even if I was silly enough to buy OEM, I will only need 1 in 2-3 upgrade cycles, not each one. Also, my system will be most likely moving due work to linux distro anyway.
Then again, smaller upgrades cycles are longer.
As I said before, you make good point on multicore CPU and I will definitely consider this. You made me rethink my plans for CPU. The only concern for me now is to pick the right platform that will last long enough to support further CPU upgrades. I guess I will need to be more concerned about market cycles and not only my system needs
As you said, my Dual-Core low end CPU from 2006 last me about 7 years and I am not expecting much change in the pattern, if any, the demands will be relatively lower for reasons I talked about in earlier post. CPU performance grows much faster than CPU demands for many years(my CPU is a proof of that) so I am not worried.
Hm...I am not sure why you get such impression. Only what concerns me is value for money which means I pretty much ignore any high end, it's awful in that regard. What matters is stuff I can buy for my budget.
On the other hand, I should honestly make more research on AMD CPU to have something solid, so far I think it is my vague believe - I believe I remember the charts right