# New build advice cpu vs gpu



## Anath (Aug 21, 2009)

Hey guys so i am looking into building a new computer for windows 7/dx11 cards. Unfortunately, I will not have the funds to build a new computer. So my question is should i upgrade my cpu to a core i7 920? Or does my processor still have enough juice left to not cause a bottleneck if i go for the new dx11 cards from ati when the come out?

my current system:
e6750 @ 3.2ghz
4gb patriot ram
sapphire 4850x2
750 watt pcpc
gigabyte p35 ds3r


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 21, 2009)

wait for i7 8XX


----------



## Frick (Aug 21, 2009)

Yeah, you're system is pretty solid as it is.


----------



## Anath (Aug 22, 2009)

so do you think my e6750 @ 3.2 will bottleneck the 5870x2 when it comes out?


----------



## LittleLizard (Aug 22, 2009)

Anath said:


> so do you think my e6750 @ 3.2 will bottleneck the 5870x2 when it comes out?



not only that but almost anything will be bottlenecked by that. but your pc is fine now. i would upgrade to i5 when it comes out


----------



## trt740 (Aug 22, 2009)

Anath said:


> so do you think my e6750 @ 3.2 will bottleneck the 5870x2 when it comes out?



No at 3.2 ghz it won't bottle neck a new GPU. Of course a new cpu will help but that cpu at 3.2ghz should produce good frame rates with any video card.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 22, 2009)

Anath said:


> Hey guys so i am looking into building a new computer for windows 7/dx11 cards. Unfortunately, I will not have the funds to build a new computer. So my question is should i upgrade my cpu to a core i7 920? Or does my processor still have enough juice left to not cause a bottleneck if i go for the new dx11 cards from ati when the come out?
> 
> my current system:
> e6750 @ 3.2ghz
> ...


Well you have a 775 mobo now a i7 is a 1366 Cpu, so no chance for upgrade unless you do mobo and Cpu...anyways ur fine with what you got


----------



## sneekypeet (Aug 22, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Well you have a 775 mobo now a i7 is a 1366 Cpu, so no chance for upgrade unless you do mobo and Cpu...anyways ur fine with what you got



Dont forget DDR3


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 22, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> Dont forget DDR3


YEAH THAT TO


----------



## Anath (Aug 22, 2009)

Yea thats why i was either considering upgrading my cpu to the i7/i5 or upgrading my gpu to a 5k series. Which would give me better results do you think?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 22, 2009)

You can always pickup a single 4850 to go along with the X2. Oh and take a peak into the AM3 builds, you could migrate to a new proc and board and keep your same ram if you wish.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 22, 2009)

4890/5850 depends on if you want wait


----------



## 3volvedcombat (Aug 22, 2009)

I say to you this. Any Dual core at 4.0Ghz will bottle neck a 4870-4850x2 and up.
Now i would wait for p55 boards. Im planing on either getting a i3-i5, just waiting to see how things play out for them. Basicly im headed for some ddr3, Top air cooling, 32nm proc. I would suggest a Phenom II 940-955 a xtreme hpase asus board, xiggy heatsink, and some 60-40 dollar sticks of DDR3 ram. I would get the 955 to 3.9Ghz . OR wait for sata 3 p55 boards with 32nm rape overclocking chips with ddr3 to . Just get a 5800 something, I probable get there single fastest card setup .


----------



## Anath (Aug 23, 2009)

Yea i was defintely looking at the am3 brings for their price/performance but when i look at the tests by tpu and other sites the i7 just seems to wipe the floor with amd's proc's.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 23, 2009)

Anath said:


> Yea thats why i was either considering upgrading my cpu to the i7/i5 or upgrading my gpu to a 5k series. Which would give me better results do you think?



The video card will give you better gaming results than the cpu, period.


----------



## erocker (Aug 23, 2009)

For gaming i5 will be the way to go.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 23, 2009)

yea, i'd definitely wait and see what i5 can do, which according to "released" previews that hopefully are somewhat accurate. the i5 will perform very close to that of current i7. I myself just sold my HD 4870 to save for an HD 5870 along with an i5/p55/ddr3 build. gonna take some time but i'm saving till probly oct time and then purchasing.

As for your CPU bottlenecking, i definitely think it would bottleneck an HD 5870x2 as results have already shown that the c2d e8X00 series bottlenecks multi-gpu's so your CPU will definitely bottleneck a next gen multi-gpu. I'd personally save and see what the very soon to be released hardware can do and see comparison to your current performance.


----------



## trt740 (Aug 23, 2009)

a_ump said:


> yea, i'd definitely wait and see what i5 can do, which according to "released" previews that hopefully are somewhat accurate. the i5 will perform very close to that of current i7. I myself just sold my HD 4870 to save for an HD 5870 along with an i5/p55/ddr3 build. gonna take some time but i'm saving till probly oct time and then purchasing.
> 
> As for your CPU bottlenecking, i definitely think it would bottleneck an HD 5870x2 as results have already shown that the c2d e8X00 series bottlenecks multi-gpu's so your CPU will definitely bottleneck a next gen multi-gpu. I'd personally save and see what the very soon to be released hardware can do and see comparison to your current performance.



if it produces playable frame rates then it's not bottle necked.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 23, 2009)

ok let me refrase. Anath, your CPU will keep an HD 5870x2 or any current multi-gpu setup from the maximum potential performance it could provide. lol


----------



## trt740 (Aug 23, 2009)

a_ump said:


> ok let me refrase. Anath, your CPU will keep an HD 5870x2 or any current multi-gpu setup from the maximum potential performance it could provide. lol



I believe a I7920 at 4.0 ghz will produce a few higher frames than a Qx9650 at 4.0ghz with the same video card but is that a bottle neck? If a cpu gives you decent frame rates with any video card it's fine and his cpu is fine for now, a better gpu is way more important, even more so as the resolution gets higher.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 23, 2009)

a_ump said:


> ok let me refrase. Anath, your CPU will keep an HD 5870x2 or any current multi-gpu setup from the maximum potential performance it could provide. lol



Who cares, as long as it still maxes everything at playable framerates? The only thing effected would be benches.


----------



## Anath (Aug 23, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Who cares, as long as it still maxes everything at playable framerates? The only thing effected would be benches.



Thats all i care about...cuz right now my card does a pretty good job at all the current games, however i have noticed when i max out the games my card isnt performing as well as it used too. It looks like i will wait to see what the i5 can do and see if i can get both a new i5 cpu, motherboard, ddr3, with the new 5k i want to buy. Thanks a lot guys!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 24, 2009)

i don't know if i going to confused you but i say x58 with core i7 920 right now will be best chose like news say about i9 seems x58 will be stand up for a long time and you find best performance with x58 with overclocking core i7 
or you can switch to AMD , phenom II 955 with good mobo will be cool and i see better than i5 idea 
last thing i want to say "if you don't have big jump for score better stay on ground" so you have good system right now and no need to change it


----------



## Crazykenny (Aug 24, 2009)

Anath said:


> Yea i was defintely looking at the am3 brings for their price/performance but when i look at the tests by tpu and other sites the i7 just seems to wipe the floor with amd's proc's.



Looks can be deceiving. If your on budget you'll be better of buying a good AM3 mobo, CPU and RAM. Whilest the I7 is a awesome CPU its pricetag is still on the hefty side. Not to mention the 1366 motherboards.


----------



## CDdude55 (Aug 24, 2009)

Your system is already great for gaming, 4850 X2 is a great GPU.


----------



## Anath (Aug 24, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Your system is already great for gaming, 4850 X2 is a great GPU.



Im not arguing that the 4850x2 is a great gpu...it was my first amd gpu and has been great so far (i used to be an nvidia fanboy) I am just saying that recently it has been performing under my expectations ie settings maxed with 4xaa and 8xaf.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

What res u play @ Anath?


----------



## EarlZ (Aug 24, 2009)

Anath said:


> Im not arguing that the 4850x2 is a great gpu...it was my first amd gpu and has been great so far (i used to be an nvidia fanboy) I am just saying that recently it has been performing under my expectations ie settings maxed with 4xaa and 8xaf.



There wont be a massive difference even if you get the best possible CPU and upgrade to a GTX295/4870X2


----------



## Anath (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> What res u play @ Anath?



Well right now i am at 1680x1050 but i was thinking about buying a new 24" monitor once i upgraded which would be playing at 1980x1200...

hypothetically if i did not upgrade my monitor and just kept my 22", do you think a good setup would be a phenom II 955 paired with a 5870 would be a good improvement over what i have now?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Nope not really. Upgrade your display first, cpu second(if you want), then gpu 3rd. Just saying even I myself can max** a few titles (NFS: Pro Street, GRID, NFS Undercover, GRAW2, Mirror's Edge -Physx Disabled) @ 1080p and I have in theory half the gpu power.




**_2xAA with all visuals on high_


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Nope not really. Upgrade your display first, cpu second(if you want), then gpu 3rd. Just saying even I myself can max** a few titles (NFS: Pro Street, GRID, NFS Undercover, GRAW2, Mirror's Edge -Physx Disabled) @ 1080p and I have in theory half the gpu power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to disagree. Take it from someone who made the mistake, always upgrade your gpu before you upgrade your monitor. The extra resolution ends up very disappointing in games when you realize that it actually looks worse because you have to lower details.

Upgrades for gamers with a relatively modern cpu (Core2 equivalent or better) should always go GPU first, then monitor, then cpu. The cpu matters the least in gaming out of all of them. The only exception to this, is if the gamer plays primarily RTS games, where there is a lot of AI. Then the cpu makes a huge impact on gameplay. Otherwise, it does not. As an example, at 1440x900 with an AMD 6400+ X2 and an 8800GT, going from 3.2GHz, all the way down to 2GHz made a difference of 1-2fps in Crysis on my secondary rig. If any res was going to be effected by changing the cpu, it would've been that res. Go higher on the res, and the cpu matters even less.

As far as the OP not being able to max stuff, I'd look at my Windows install, or perhaps using a different driver. 4850X2 should handle just about anything at that res, short of maybe GTA4 and Crysis.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I have to disagree. Take it from someone who made the mistake, always upgrade your gpu before you upgrade your monitor. The extra resolution ends up very disappointing in games when you realize that it actually looks worse because you have to lower details.
> 
> Upgrades for gamers with a relatively modern cpu (Core2 equivalent or better) should always go GPU first, then monitor, then cpu. The cpu matters the least in gaming out of all of them. The only exception to this, is if the gamer plays primarily RTS games, where there is a lot of AI. Then the cpu makes a huge impact on gameplay. Otherwise, it does not. As an example, at 1440x900 with an AMD 6400+ X2 and an 8800GT, going from 3.2GHz, all the way down to 2GHz made a difference of 1-2fps in Crysis on my secondary rig. If any res was going to be effected by changing the cpu, it would've been that res. Go higher on the res, and the cpu matters even less.
> 
> As far as the OP not being able to max stuff, I'd look at my Windows install, or perhaps using a different driver. 4850X2 should handle just about anything at that res, short of maybe GTA4 and Crysis.


I agree a good gpu makes all the difference in games


----------



## Anath (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I have to disagree. Take it from someone who made the mistake, always upgrade your gpu before you upgrade your monitor. The extra resolution ends up very disappointing in games when you realize that it actually looks worse because you have to lower details.
> 
> Upgrades for gamers with a relatively modern cpu (Core2 equivalent or better) should always go GPU first, then monitor, then cpu. The cpu matters the least in gaming out of all of them. The only exception to this, is if the gamer plays primarily RTS games, where there is a lot of AI. Then the cpu makes a huge impact on gameplay. Otherwise, it does not. As an example, at 1440x900 with an AMD 6400+ X2 and an 8800GT, going from 3.2GHz, all the way down to 2GHz made a difference of 1-2fps in Crysis on my secondary rig. If any res was going to be effected by changing the cpu, it would've been that res. Go higher on the res, and the cpu matters even less.
> 
> As far as the OP not being able to max stuff, I'd look at my Windows install, or perhaps using a different driver. 4850X2 should handle just about anything at that res, short of maybe GTA4 and Crysis.



Yea my 4850x2 does a really good job...I play most of my games maxed out...however Its time for me to upgrade again just to make my rig a little more future proof. I think i will pick up a new gpu first then a new monitor and then upgrade my cpu.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I have to disagree. Take it from someone who made the mistake, always upgrade your gpu before you upgrade your monitor. The extra resolution ends up very disappointing in games when you realize that it actually looks worse because you have to lower details.
> 
> Upgrades for gamers with a relatively modern cpu (Core2 equivalent or better) should always go GPU first, then monitor, then cpu. The cpu matters the least in gaming out of all of them. The only exception to this, is if the gamer plays primarily RTS games, where there is a lot of AI. Then the cpu makes a huge impact on gameplay. Otherwise, it does not. As an example, at 1440x900 with an AMD 6400+ X2 and an 8800GT, going from 3.2GHz, all the way down to 2GHz made a difference of 1-2fps in Crysis on my secondary rig. If any res was going to be effected by changing the cpu, it would've been that res. Go higher on the res, and the cpu matters even less.
> 
> As far as the OP not being able to max stuff, I'd look at my Windows install, or perhaps using a different driver. 4850X2 should handle just about anything at that res, short of maybe GTA4 and Crysis.



Well I agree to disagree, we aren't talking about a the OP having let's say an 8600GTwith a 1024x768 CRT upgrading to a 1200P LCD but keeping the 8600GT. We are talking the low of the high end. He doesn't need to upgrade his gpu.

@Anath

Future-proof: No such word.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Well I agree to disagree, we aren't talking about a the OP having let's say an 8600GTwith a 1024x768 CRT upgrading to a 1200P LCD but keeping the 8600GT. We are talking the low of the high end. He doesn't need to upgrade his gpu.



By that logic, he doesn't need to upgrade his cpu either.

And 2 4850s won't max out everything at 1920x1200, trust me.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> By that logic, he doesn't need to upgrade his cpu either.
> 
> And 2 4850s won't max out everything at 1920x1200, trust me.



Did not say that, but it darn well would come within inches of doing so and you are correct, I don't see the cpu needing upgraded either.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Did not say that, but it darn well would come within inches of doing so and you are correct, I don't see the cpu needing upgraded either.



So, if he has to lower detail, what was the benefit of the larger monitor?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> So, if he has to lower detail, what was the benefit of the larger monitor?



That much of a res bump shouldn't constitute a bump down in detail levels.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> That much of a res bump shouldn't constitute a bump down in detail levels.



It does. I said to trust me because I speak from experience. At very least, you lose some AA, in games like Crysis, you lose a whole lot more.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It does. I said to trust me because I speak from experience. At very least, you lose some AA, in games like Crysis, you lose a whole lot more.



Who plays Crysis still  ... 

Oh and 80fps bumped down to let's say 45fps is still PLAYABLE.


----------



## Anath (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Future-proof: No such word.



Yea i know...a poor choice of words on my part


----------



## Anath (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Who plays Crysis still  ...
> 
> Oh and 80fps bumped down to let's say 45fps is still PLAYABLE.



If thats the minimum fps then i would really have a problem however i see stuttering in my future if its the average


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> Who plays Crysis still  ...
> 
> Oh and 80fps bumped down to let's say 45fps is still PLAYABLE.



To who? To you? Not to me it isn't. I notice anything below 60fps easily. The exceptions are the games like Crysis that offer well implemented motion blur to compensate, then I need 35fps or more.

And just a fyi going from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 is a 30% increase in pixels needed to be rendered.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> To who? To you? Not to me it isn't. I notice anything below 60fps easily. The exceptions are the games like Crysis that offer well implemented motion blur to compensate, then I need 35fps or more.
> 
> And just a fyi going from 1680x1050 to 1920x1200 is a 30% increase in pixels needed to be rendered.



I know and understand all this. If you look back at my few past posts you are contradicting my personal experience.  

What my point I was saying to all this, if your going to upgrade a gpu and no for a fact you have new parts being released within the month, why spend your hard-earned cash when it could drop by 25% and you even have newer stuff out already? 

You remember that 8600GT I had? Yeah, good case of it, spent $120 a month before releasing 9600GT _edit_ Or wait was it 8800GS. Bam 8600GT's drop to a ridiculous $75, that's $45 I could have used for what.... New ram? Better PSU?

That's why at *this point in time* I say monitor, cpu, gpu. Although what I had said in my above posts I truly do mean. A 4850X2 should very well max most (95%) titles out to date with 4xAA @ 1080p.



Anath said:


> If thats the minimum fps then i would really have a problem however i see stuttering in my future if its the average



I meant that as an example not truth in fact.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> I know and understand all this. If you look back at my few past posts you are contradicting my personal experience.
> 
> What my point I was saying to all this, if your going to upgrade a gpu and no for a fact you have new parts being released within the month, why spend your hard-earned cash when it could drop by 25% and you even have newer stuff out already?
> 
> ...


He plans to upgrade to the HD5k series when it releases. Price drops don't apply. And he said he wants 1920x1200, so 1080p doesn't apply either. 1920x1200 is 11% higher than 1080p.


You are speaking from your budget roots, and don't mind playing at medium (and I respect that), but many of us are not like that, and only want maxed settings.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 24, 2009)

Wile E said:


> He plans to upgrade to the HD5k series when it releases. Price drops don't apply. And he said he wants 1920x1200, so 1080p doesn't apply either. 1920x1200 is 11% higher than 1080p.
> 
> 
> You are speaking from your budget roots, and don't mind playing at medium (and I respect that), but many of us are not like that, and only want maxed settings.



OK and how much longer does he have to wait for 5k's or rumored "Evergreen" XT/Pro?  I am asking becuz unsure, not trying to be an a** about it. LOL .. I was talking 1080p the whole time.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 24, 2009)

JrRacinFan said:


> OK and how much longer does he have to wait for 5k's or rumored "Evergreen" XT/Pro?  I am asking becuz unsure, not trying to be an a** about it. LOL .. I was talking 1080p the whole time.



Paper launch with limited availability seems to be Sept 22. Full retail availability is supposed to happen in Oct sometime. http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=102342


----------

