# Advice please? Which is the best CPU for my graphics card to reach full potential?



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2011)

Current specs are in my system specs.

 I tend to upgrade slowly, and preferring graphics card updates over cpu ones, since I always manage to oc the hell out of a cpu much better than oc'ing graphics...

So far my games always ran great. 
Oblivion when I had an E4300 @ 3Ghz (from 1.86Ghz) then I upgraded from 8600GTS to 8800GT, using 1680x1050 resolution. 

Then later I upgraded to E8400 which I oc'd to 4Ghz (from 3Ghz), bought a new 850W PSU, and a 5970. And a 2560x1440 monitor. 

Fallout New Vegas still ran fine @ 60 fps maxed out @ 2560x1440 though there were still areas which dropped to the high 30's.. but that never bothered me since the game was still ok-ish........

Today I tried Alice Madness Returns. Full 2560x1440 resolution, no AA, all other settings maxed except shadows. Fps was 30 max all throughout the game , and then it dropped to 14. 

___________________________________

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my cpu which is stifling performance, isn't it?

___________________________________

I play the same game at a lower resolution on a laptop with a single 8800M GTX and it renders better. The laptop's got a Q9450 at stock though..  Which means that a quad at 2.67Ghz nowadays is better than a dual @ 4Ghz  right?

*Can I be sure that it's the cpu in my main rig which is throttling the 5970? Or am I missing something out here and a core 2 duo @ 4Ghz is enough to make a 5970 get its full power?*

___________________________________

Now that I'm in the market for a new CPU (and motherboard and ram...) what would you suggest?
I've got nothing against AMD (in fact I prefer AMD graphics)... but regards CPU's an Intel would be more familiar, especially since I plan to oc the chip to the max, on air-cooling. I'm more confident working with Intel cpu's when overclocking.

___________________________________

What are your suggestions?
Just tell me everything. I'll decide on what to budget for it later  


I've lost my touch somehow lately. *I know that in both eras of the E4300 and the E8400 there were chips which performed better at stock than either of them. But which when overclocked, the cpu's beat the better chips hands-down.

I'm looking for a good, overclockable cpu which is good value for money and gives great performance to last a couple of years or more.*


----------



## qubit (Oct 28, 2011)

I'd always go for the fastesy affordable CPU I can get. I'm about to upgrade my trusty E8500 system and I would now go for the i7-2700K hands down. However, with SB-E released in a couple of weeks, I'm gonna wait for the reviews and the market to settle down before deciding what to get.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Oct 28, 2011)

I would go with the 2500k. That card should still push all games really well.

Edit: qubit's suggestions are valid as well.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 28, 2011)

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/alice_madness_returns_performance/2.html

^^ that chart might help...

"There were some issues observed with the game that lead us to believe Alice was either released too early, or was designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. *The first issue we ran into was an FPS limitation that only allowed the frame rates to vary from 22 to 31FPS*. These are essentially the target frame rates for consoles, and it is unfortunate to see a game released for the PC with frame rates below 60FPS. *Additionally, there is no option to disable Vsync from within the in-game menu, which makes the process hard for those with only minimal knowledge on how to do so through the game's .ini file.*"

*5# Alice Madness Returns Framerate Fix – 60 FPS Tweak*
 Open Alice.ini in text editor, you can find the file located here:

\Documents\My Games\Alice Madness Returns\AliceGame\Config\AliceEngine.ini

and Set these to your desired values for framerate boost:

MaxSmoothedFrameRate=60
 UseVsync=False

(source: Guru3d Forums)

You definitely need a new CPU soon - but see if that helps your game.  Also the game lacks crossfire support (as per that same source), but you still should be more than fine even with half of that 5970.

More tweaks: http://segmentnext.com/2011/06/14/a...s-freezes-errors-no-sound-and-controller-fix/


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2011)

I'll definitely try the Alice tweaks. But I'm also getting Skyrim on release, and I want to get full performance for that game. It's a game I know I would be addicted to for long months, hence it's worth..


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 28, 2011)

definitely wait for SB-e if anything but for the price drops.  As far as CPU choice, I doubt anyone is gonna roll in with an FX suggestion...  Any of the 2K series depending on budget would be eons ahead of the dual core.

If you really want to save some dough, second hand 1156 would work to get some perf out of that card.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 28, 2011)

could you change the e8400 with the q9450 in your laptop, making your desktop a quad core and your laptop a dual core? If you dont want to do that, build yourself a 2500k or 2600k system.


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 28, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> could you change the e8400 with the q9450 in your laptop, making your desktop a quad core and your laptop a dual core?



Thought about that but had doubts on whether the performance increase would be worth the trouble. Also, I don't know much on the overclockability of the Q9450.

So you guys can confirm that although the 5970 used to run most games fine on a E8400 @ 4Ghz... now the cpu is too weak for todays' games and is bottlenecking them?


(C'mon I just need a tad of a push to... do it... you know...  )

________________________

Oh and while you're at it, suggestions for a good and reliable mobo won't hurt either


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 28, 2011)

That card can pretty much take advantage of as much CPU as you can give it.

http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/cpu_scaling_with_the_radeon_hd_5970,1.html


----------



## qubit (Oct 28, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Thought about that but had doubts on whether the performance increase would be worth the trouble. Also, I don't know much on the overclockability of the Q9450.
> 
> So you guys can confirm that although the 5970 used to run most games fine on a E8400 @ 4Ghz... now the cpu is too weak for todays' games and is bottlenecking them?
> 
> ...



My E8500 is at 4GHz and it doesn't feel slow at all on any modern game, it's just that newer processors are incredibly fast. Having said that, I've recently got myself a 120Hz monitor and it can't always reach that frame rate, so it's giving me the itch to upgrade.

But make sure to wait a bit as I suggested in post 2.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Oct 28, 2011)

i5-2500K and ASRock Z68 Extreme4 Gen 3, get some cheap DDR3 RAM and you'll have a machine twice as fast as what you have today for under 500$. Alice is the problem there, I mean the game.


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 29, 2011)

I'll try to hold on for a bit longer.
I kinda suspected that Alice is the problem since Fallout NV runs fine @2560x1440...

I'll wait till 11-11-11 for Skyrim.
I don't think I'll manage to hold on then if Skyrim runs badly, it's a game I plan to enjoy for long months


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 29, 2011)

2500k plus a noctua nh-d14 and z68 Asus board.


----------



## n-ster (Oct 29, 2011)

If you are looking for price vs performance as you are suggesting a little bit, go 2500K

But knowing your history with hardware etc, I think a quad-core SB-E will serve you much better. SB-E comes out 11-15-11 I think, so you will have to wait before playing Skyrim the the best of its potential. I know you don't want to, but please do wait, as you will be keeping this CPU for a long time and the platform probably even longer. LGA 2011's IVY Bride-E processors are rumored to have up to 8 cores, by then you could upgrade to an SB-E 6-core or IB-E 6-core (or 8 but I doubt you would need the performance)

TL;DR
Suck it up and wait for SB-E and grab yourself that nice quad. If SB-E is underwhelming, you can always go the 2500K route


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 29, 2011)

I don't think you have to wait - doesn't look like much of an improvement vs. overclocking a 2500k to 4.6-4.8ghz, take a look at some SB-E numbers:
http://coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=276465


----------



## n-ster (Oct 30, 2011)

LagunaX said:


> I don't think you have to wait - doesn't look like much of an improvement vs. overclocking a 2500k to 4.6-4.8ghz, take a look at some SB-E numbers:
> http://coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=276465



You can't really get much from that... BP will be more interested in the 38XX series as 6 cores is probably wayyyyy overkill and expensive.

Also note those are the performance at stock. Also, I don't trust chinese sites  LGA 2011 is coming out in LESS than 2 weeks, we will know it's OCing abilities and performance by then


----------



## LagunaX (Oct 30, 2011)

Dude it's Coolaler the original benchmaster since core 2 duo.
Anyways you're right it's just a matter of weeks plus cyber Monday...


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 30, 2011)

That game does have a lot of issues, so in that particular case it's not the CPU. The game is not CPU intensive, it was just put together very poorly for PC - and it's quite clear when playing it on PC. I had to use my PS3 controller to play it because the mouse support was freakin awful. I can't say I had framerate problems, but I played it on an i7 950 at 4GHz with really fast RAM and a 6970 at the time.

Your CPU is definitely not feeding the 5970 100%. Think about it. Do you think that CPU would scale 100% with two 5870's? Nope, so why would it scale well with a 5970 which is essentially the same (5850's I guess, but still).

I am planning on building an LGA2011 6 core build in Q1 2012, so that's what I would personally recommend  Get a good LGA2011 quad core and an X79 board. I'm eye balling the Gigabyte X79 UD3 and UD5 for my crossfire setup right now. The future is looking good...


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 30, 2011)

Personally id go z68 for all its new features, some may be handy, some may not but at least one has the option, and thats always good.
2500k is plenty for most people, and it overclocks nicely, im well stable @ 4738 24/7 and its been at that since i bought it a few months back.
Low end liquid  setup is great too, like antec or coolermaster range, im very impressed with the liquid cooler i have,and i paid under 100$ for it too.
At 4738 mhz my temps are idle 24-30c and never go above 45c even when gaming .


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 30, 2011)

Z68 and 2500K would do you some good BP.

And not just through sheer CPU performance, multi-GPU performance is also much improved with Sandy Bridge compared to Nehalem and the Core 2 series.


----------



## cdawall (Oct 30, 2011)

Push your FSB up some more on the dual core. With all of the highend parts you might be bottlenecking a bit with that old FSB setup. Upgrade wise wait for the -e's to drop prices.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Oct 30, 2011)

I do with my friend before two days ago on eye test with BF3, we know BF3 need quad core, but he already have q9650 and run it at 4ghz, we setup new system with z68 and core i5 2500K, i didn't expect crazy different in frams, cuz booth of them quad core and q9650 have higher cash but sure 2500k will be better with new technonlogy chipset and ddr3 run, after new setup he have 5850 and we run the 2500k withou OC just defualt guess what? I am shoket with big jump in frams to be sometimes reach double, many many tests after that the resualts are holy different, more than 20 frams jump somwtimes more up to 30.
I think better if you think about one.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2011)

Go 2600k or better, or go home.

I would wait to see what SB-E offers tho.


----------



## subhendu (Oct 30, 2011)

no point in upgrading every 6 months ,but I really like op's upgrading style ..from E4300 to E8400 then to quad ...the best vfm choice is i5 2500k or wait till x mas , you can find good deals ...


----------



## HalfAHertz (Oct 30, 2011)

Why not get a bulldozer?


----------



## v12dock (Oct 30, 2011)

I feel like sandybridge-e will not scale as well as people think


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 30, 2011)

Which socket is SB-E? (I've lost touch with modern processors recently). I really like that AsRock Z68. I'm already building in my dreams, putting that mobo inside a Corsair 800D... 

Edit: I think I'd have to forget Z68 if I decide to wait for SB E...



> Next is Sandy Bridge 'E' (Enthusiast or Extreme, take your pick) 'Patsburg' platform, which features a huge *new LGA2011 socket* to replace LGA1366 in Q3 next year [that's now since article is dated 2010] (although right now that seems dubiously convenient given the year of launch). The larger socket is to accommodate the new four channel DDR3 memory controller this platform will offer, as well as the first outing for PCI Express 3 - of which we'll get 32 lanes bolted into the CPU itself. The lanes can be split between 2x16 and 4x8 for multi-GPU, but again, there's no details about CrossFire or SLI support at this early stage.
> 
> Like LGA1156/1155 motherboards, LGA2011 motherboards will have only a Southbridge, but whether this Southbridge is called 'X68' (as some Taiwanese manufacturers are saying), we don't yet know. The new Southbridge seems like a complete update with a real focus on the single-socket workstation and server market as it houses two SATA 3Gbps and ten SATA/SAS 6Gbps ports. The interconnect is still a 4x PCI-E 2.0 DMI link between this and the CPU, providing some 2Gbit/s of bandwidth.



Source


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Oct 30, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Thought about that but had doubts on whether the performance increase would be worth the trouble. Also, I don't know much on the overclockability of the Q9450.
> 
> So you guys can confirm that although the 5970 used to run most games fine on a E8400 @ 4Ghz... now the cpu is too weak for todays' games and is bottlenecking them?
> 
> ...



OC'ing the q9450 is the same as OC'ing the e8400. The only difference is the q9450 only has a multi of 8 while the e8400 has a multi of 9. Oh,and about if it'll be strong enough, I get 60 fps in BF3 with all settings on high. I get 30 fps in BF3 with all settings on ultra, running 1920*1200 res, see my system specs. Anyways, it was just a suggestion.


----------



## Black Panther (Oct 30, 2011)

BarbaricSoul said:


> OC'ing the q9450 is the same as OC'ing the e8400. The only difference is the q9450 only has a multi of 8 while the e8400 has a multi of 9. Oh,and about if it'll be strong enough, I get 60 fps in BF3 with all settings on high. I get 30 fps in BF3 with all settings on ultra, running 1920*1200 res, see my system specs. Anyways, it was just a suggestion.



But would you think the Q9450 would show a good performance improvement over the E8400? Considering it has 4 cores vs the E8400's 2 cores? I'm just speculating here too.

I want something which will give me a visible improvement in gaming. I know any i7 would give me better benchmarks, but as much as I love benchmarking I won't upgrade unless I can see visible improvement in gaming.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Oct 30, 2011)

a multicore x8 plus the addition of ddr3 would make bf3 a fair bit better for you id imagine in fact their are a few games that should fly given the bandwidth increase of ddr3 alone


----------



## n-ster (Oct 30, 2011)

Both LGA 1155 (SB) and LGA 2011 (SB-E) will show very visible improvements in multi-GPU scaling and CPU power.

SB-E will have the advantage of bigger processors available and quad-channel RAM and more PCI-E lanes and the possibility to get an 8 RAM slot mobo. Also note that LGA 2011 is suppose to be closer to OC older intel platforms compared to SB, where it is COMPLETELY different (just uping the multi). It may not be a big deal to most, but coming from lga 1366, I prefer lga 2011 OCing than lga 1155.. too simple  For someone keeping their CPU for as long as you do, and knowing you like to get the best GPUs, SB-E seems like a great option.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> But would you think the Q9450 would show a good performance improvement over the E8400? Considering it has 4 cores vs the E8400's 2 cores? I'm just speculating here too.
> 
> I want something which will give me a visible improvement in gaming. I know any i7 would give me better benchmarks, but as much as I love benchmarking I won't upgrade unless I can see visible improvement in gaming.



Swapping your cpus will see an improvement, but upgrading to SB or SB-E will see a bigger improvement, due to the increased bandwidth available on the platform(s).

Swap your cpus for right now, then upgrade when SB-E releases. It's gonna be a monster. Maybe even go 6 core when you do go SB-E.


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 30, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Swap your cpus for right now, then upgrade when SB-E releases. It's gonna be a monster. Maybe even go 6 core when you do go SB-E.



Don't spend any money now, and don't do incremental upgardes, if possible. Either wait for SB-e to launch, and buy into that platform, or buy into SB right now, with Z68 and a PCIe 3.0 motherboard, so that furutre upgrades are possible, and you don't waste cash on tech you're gonna upgrade away from soon anyway.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Don't spend any money now, and don't do incremental upgardes, if possible. Either wait for SB-e to launch, and buy into that platform, or buy into SB right now, with Z68 and a PCIe 3.0 motherboard, so that furutre upgrades are possible, and you don't waste cash on tech you're gonna upgrade away from soon anyway.



She already has the Q9450 in her Sager/Clevo laptop, while her desktop sits on an E8400.

I'm merely suggesting she swap them until SB-E releases, then she can


----------



## LordJummy (Oct 30, 2011)

v12dock said:


> I feel like sandybridge-e will not scale as well as people think



Why do you feel that?


----------



## cadaveca (Oct 30, 2011)

Wile E said:


> She already has the Q9450 in her Sager/Clevo laptop, while her desktop sits on an E8400.
> 
> I'm merely suggesting she swap them until SB-E releases, then she can
> http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/8/13/edb6e424-7d77-45f1-af94-e4435225844f.jpg



OMFG, I spit my drink all over when I scrolled down to the pic. 

Yeah, but then the lappy is left with less of a chip. I mean, sure, E8400 is enough for a lappy, for sure, but...

2500K and a decent board can be had for ~$350, or less, or more...

To me, that's a wise investment, and wil lamke for a better computing experience all around. Since BP is already asking about SB-E, i fugre she's in the market to spend som ecash, so why not get the best combo possible?

Your advice is not wrong...I'd just take a different approach.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 30, 2011)

Well, considering she has sat on an E8400 this long, I don't think she would go the route you suggest. I think holding out for the SB-E is her wisest bet, unless she does want to do the back to back upgrade you mentioned, which, being the tech nerd I am, am not opposed to. lol.


----------



## phanbuey (Oct 31, 2011)

^^ im for the incremental upgrades.  Although going to the q9450 route will be a mixed bag since you lose clockspeed, and then in the end you will end up putting it back in the laptop anyways...

I would get a second-hand 2500K, as everyone will be dumping them for SB-E, and a cheap-ass board, spend the little $$ now it will get you 98% there and will last easily through the next 18 months - then go Ivy bridge once its been out for a few months.  A quick and dirty OC on the 2500K will get 100% of the power out of that 5970.

You never know how many problems the X79 is liable to have and you might be waiting a few months until it all gets resolved before you can upgrade...  If you're building a rig for purely gaming, spending all that money to be part of the "excited first adopter" crowd is rarely worth it.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 2, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> ^^ im for the incremental upgrades.  Although going to the q9450 route will be a mixed bag since you lose clockspeed, and then in the end you will end up putting it back in the laptop anyways...
> 
> I would get a second-hand 2500K, as everyone will be dumping them for SB-E, and a cheap-ass board, spend the little $$ now it will get you 98% there and will last easily through the next 18 months - then go Ivy bridge once its been out for a few months.  A quick and dirty OC on the 2500K will get 100% of the power out of that 5970.
> 
> You never know how many problems the X79 is liable to have and you might be waiting a few months until it all gets resolved before you can upgrade...  If you're building a rig for purely gaming, spending all that money to be part of the "excited first adopter" crowd is rarely worth it.



9450's OC great. She'll get plenty of clock speed out of it. And it will perform better than the 8400, hands down.

I still say wait for SB-E. And if she decides to just go with SB instead, I say 2600 or better. Don't bother with the 2500.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 2, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> ^^ im for the incremental upgrades.  Although going to the q9450 route will be a mixed bag since you lose clockspeed, and then in the end you will end up putting it back in the laptop anyways...



That logic is astonishingly bad.  Who cares about losing 200-600MHz when you can 2 fully functioning cores capable of running additional threads that new games offer?  Not to mention the increased usability of multitasking in day-to-day tasks.  If the better CPU is readily available, USE IT.  Who cares if you need to spend 30-45 minutes swapping CPU's around?  If the performance gain is substantial (which it is) then it's definitely worth it...


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 2, 2011)

wow panther should know better 

Ma`m you need a core system upgrade
IE a z68 board and a 2500k 
this is not late 2006 when a fast dual core was better then a slower quad
EVERYTHING is multi-threaded now there 90% of all games can use at least 3 threads at time most can use 4+
this is 2011 a dual core is slow for anything but the most basic of tasks


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 3, 2011)

Since I'm not going to buy a new motherboard, ram and cpu exactly on the date of release of SB-E I think I'll go for the other suggestion of swapping cpu's (and release the kraken later ).

It won't make a difference for me on the laptop whether I have the Q9450 or the E8400 installed. (Since I had 2 laptop gpu's die on me I have up intensive gaming and now am using it only for mild games, old games and for browsing/office work.) 

*But* I don't want to go through the trouble of reinstalling both cpu's, and reinstalling both operating systems, backing up and restoring stuff etc etc... if I don't get a visible performance increase on the desktop worth taking the trouble for a couple of months. 

I wouldn't mind the laptop going slower with the E8400. The bios is locked and I can't oc the laptop (though I do not want to).

*If* the Q9450 would make a visible performance increase on the desktop, my plan would be to use it for a month or so on the desktop, overclocking it (hmmm would it reach 4Ghz on air like the E8400?) Then when sufficient reviews are out on the performance of SB-E I'll decide which cpu, motherboard, ram (and also cooler) to buy.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 3, 2011)

if you got money to burn then install the q9450 ... but a 2500k will still trounce it
you should not need todo a os reinstall if you are changing the motherboard and cpu ( well at least on a windows 7) system
a q9450 will *should* do 4ghz with some effort ( its gonna draw mad power and get hot as a bitch in heat but it should do it )
shoot for something more sane like 3.2 or so it really won't matter much anyway a q9450 is still pretty slow even at 4ghz
you can try for 4 if you got good cooling and are brave about voltage


----------



## n-ster (Nov 3, 2011)

When changing CPUs, I never backed up anything, nor did I reinstall Windows. Don't quote me on this, but there should be 0 problems swapping CPUs without doing anything else.

You plan seems logical and reasonable, go for it


----------



## CJCerny (Nov 3, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Since I'm not going to buy a new motherboard, ram and cpu exactly on the date of release of SB-E I think I'll go for the other suggestion of swapping cpu's (and release the kraken later ).
> 
> It won't make a difference for me on the laptop whether I have the Q9450 or the E8400 installed. (Since I had 2 laptop gpu's die on me I have up intensive gaming and now am using it only for mild games, old games and for browsing/office work.)
> 
> ...



If a "visible performance increase on the desktop" is your main goal, it would be much better served by replacing a mechanical hard drive with a SSD than it would by a CPU upgrade.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 3, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> if you got money to burn then install the q9450 ... but a 2500k will still trounce it
> you should not need todo a os reinstall if you are changing the motherboard and cpu ( well at least on a windows 7) system
> a q9450 will *should* do 4ghz with some effort ( its gonna draw mad power and get hot as a bitch in heat but it should do it )
> shoot for something more sane like 3.2 or so it really won't matter much anyway a q9450 is still pretty slow even at 4ghz
> you can try for 4 if you got good cooling and are brave about voltage



She's not burning any money at all by swapping


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 3, 2011)

n-ster said:


> She's not burning any money at all by swapping



True.



CJCerny said:


> If a "visible performance increase on the desktop" is your main goal, it would be much better served by replacing a mechanical hard drive with a SSD than it would by a CPU upgrade.



I already run the OS and my games off the SSD. 
I use the Seagate and the Lacie only for storage, photos, videos, backups etc...


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 3, 2011)

this should be common sense but laptop cpu's are not compatible with desktop chips ... different voltages package ect ect ...  i didn't even see that post .....


----------



## LordJummy (Nov 3, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> this should be common sense but laptop cpu's are not compatible with desktop chips ... different voltages package ect ect ...  i didn't even see that post .....



Not always. Some laptops use regular desktop chips actually. Specifically, gaming and desktop replacement notebooks do. They have laptops with desktop i7 990x's in them and such...

I don't see any "laptop" version of that cpu. It seems to be the same CPU in desktops. Why would they not be compatible if they have the same socket and everything? I'm assuming they do, as I don't know what the internal motherboard of her laptop is.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 3, 2011)

Core i5-2500K.

Your platform needs an overhaul. Merely upgrading to a faster LGA775 processor won't help. There's PCI-Express 1.1 bus and slow memory holding it back. Give it i5-2500K, any cheap 120€ Z68 motherboard, and cheap 50€-ish 8GB dual-channel DDR3-1600 kit.

With motherboard, I recommend ASUS, because even its cheapest boards have UEFI firmware. Other manufacturers avoid UEFI on cheaper boards.


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 3, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> Some laptops use regular desktop chips actually.



My laptop does in fact. It's regular LGA775. Hence why I am considering swapping cpu's as a temporary measure.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 3, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Core i5-2500K.
> 
> Your platform needs an overhaul. Merely upgrading to a faster LGA775 processor won't help. There's PCI-Express 1.1 bus and slow memory holding it back. Give it i5-2500K, any cheap 120€ Z68 motherboard, and cheap 50€-ish 8GB dual-channel DDR3-1600 kit.
> 
> With motherboard, I recommend ASUS, because even its cheapest boards have UEFI firmware. Other manufacturers avoid UEFI on cheaper boards.



+1 sandy-bridge_E inst expected to be faster then sandy-bridge by any real measure ..


----------



## btarunr (Nov 3, 2011)

I wouldn't recommend SnB-E simply because it's expensive, and that BP's performance needs are mostly gaming-related, and that Battlefield 3 and Skyrim will be more GPU-limited than CPU (all you need is a fast enough quad-core chip). If the nightmarish prices of Sandy Bridge-E I'm seeing at the moment turn out to be true, BP will be spending about 1200€ on the upgrade. 

i5-2500K + 120€ Z68 board + 50€ 8GB DDR3-1600 is the way forward.


----------



## LordJummy (Nov 3, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> My laptop does in fact. It's regular LGA775. Hence why I am considering swapping cpu's as a temporary measure.



That's what I thought. I think it's worth switching the CPU. You WILL get a performance boost in some areas, regardless of your platform. It really just depends on what's most important to you, but I'm sure you realize all of this.

I hope it all works out whatever you decide to do. Have you made a decision?


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 3, 2011)

Thanks Bta and LordJummy. To be honest I haven't even checked on what the prices on SB-E would be... and that's one of the reasons I want to wait before buying the system.
I'll be trying out swapping the laptop Q9450 with my desktop's E8400, and oc'ing the quad.

I'm looking forward to Skyrim (but not BF3 at all )


----------



## n-ster (Nov 3, 2011)

From what I have seen so far, SB-E prices should be as follows for a 4 core setup:

i7 38XX should be around the price of a 2600K, perhaps even ~20$ cheaper
Motherboard should be roughly double that of Z68
RAM will be about the same

So if prices aren't too bad, you'd be paying 100~120 euros for the X79 chipset (quad-channel RAM, PCI-E lanes etc). I think it is worth it for an enthusiast like BP who doesn't have money problems and who keeps her CPUs for a very long time. Also don't forget that IB-E will come out in the distant future, with rumors of 8-core processors. This means that in many years, a CPU upgrade to a SB-E 6 core perhaps or an IB-E one etc would be cheaper and POSSIBLE. X79 is in beginning of line, while once IB comes out, LGA 1155 will stop innovating and be stuck at 4 cores that probably won't be faster than an LGA 2011 quad

My 2 cents


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 3, 2011)

xenocide said:


> That logic is astonishingly bad.  Who cares about losing 200-600MHz when you can 2 fully functioning cores capable of running additional threads that new games offer?  Not to mention the increased usability of multitasking in day-to-day tasks.  If the better CPU is readily available, USE IT.  Who cares if you need to spend 30-45 minutes swapping CPU's around?  If the performance gain is substantial (which it is) then it's definitely worth it...



It is not about logic... ive done it.  For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.

When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards.  That is not logic, that is experience.  My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place.  @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 3, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> It is not about logic... ive done it.  For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.
> 
> When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards.  That is not logic, that is experience.  My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place.  @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.



and you are talking about WHAT games and HOW long ago
I am gonna pick that apart here to make a point 
a: GTX 260's ARE OLD (dx10 is bad at mulithreaded rendering ) 
b: a Q9650 is not much of a upgrade (socket 775 is old and people should just it let die ) 
c: pcie 1.1 ?


----------



## Wile E (Nov 4, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Since I'm not going to buy a new motherboard, ram and cpu exactly on the date of release of SB-E I think I'll go for the other suggestion of swapping cpu's (and release the kraken later ).
> 
> It won't make a difference for me on the laptop whether I have the Q9450 or the E8400 installed. (Since I had 2 laptop gpu's die on me I have up intensive gaming and now am using it only for mild games, old games and for browsing/office work.)
> 
> ...


There will be a significant increase in performance in multithreaded games. Hell, even games without multithreading will likely see an increase just because the drivers can benefit from more cores on many systems.

No need to reinstall anything windows related.



OneMoar said:


> if you got money to burn then install the q9450 ... but a 2500k will still trounce it
> you should not need todo a os reinstall if you are changing the motherboard and cpu ( well at least on a windows 7) system
> a q9450 will *should* do 4ghz with some effort ( its gonna draw mad power and get hot as a bitch in heat but it should do it )
> shoot for something more sane like 3.2 or so it really won't matter much anyway a q9450 is still pretty slow even at 4ghz
> you can try for 4 if you got good cooling and are brave about voltage



The Q9450 won't cost her a dime. She already has it in her laptop. Completely free upgrade.



OneMoar said:


> this should be common sense but laptop cpu's are not compatible with desktop chips ... different voltages package ect ect ...  i didn't even see that post .....



Q9450 is a desktop chip. She has a Clevo/Sager gaming laptop.



btarunr said:


> I wouldn't recommend SnB-E simply because it's expensive, and that BP's performance needs are mostly gaming-related, and that Battlefield 3 and Skyrim will be more GPU-limited than CPU (all you need is a fast enough quad-core chip). If the nightmarish prices of Sandy Bridge-E I'm seeing at the moment turn out to be true, BP will be spending about 1200€ on the upgrade.
> 
> i5-2500K + 120€ Z68 board + 50€ 8GB DDR3-1600 is the way forward.



Unless she want's a 6 core, so she can wait another 4-5 years before she upgrades platforms again. That would be my path (and actually is the path I'm on. This 980X will be with me for a while yet.). Going with a 2500k setup does not buy her that longevity. If she is going to only go with a quad, at least recommend one with hyperthreading to buy a little extra longevity.



phanbuey said:


> It is not about logic... ive done it.  For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.
> 
> When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards.  That is not logic, that is experience.  My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place.  @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.



Newer games and drivers benefit more from the additional cores.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 4, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Unless she want's a 6 core, so she can wait another 4-5 years before she upgrades platforms again. That would be my path (and actually is the path I'm on. This 980X will be with me for a while yet.). Going with a 2500k setup does not buy her that longevity. If she is going to only go with a quad, at least recommend one with hyperthreading to buy a little extra longevity.



This is what makes LGA 2011 so attractive. LGA 1155's best CPU will be a IB quad with at most the CPU power of the LGA 2011 SB-E quad. LGA 2011's best CPU is unknown but it is at least an IB-E hexa, perhaps even an octo with 8 cores perhaps even available at launch under Xeon.

That and the insane memory bandwidth will make sure that it is enough for a long time, and the PCI-E lanes will makes sure that the best card of even 2 or 3 generations forward will be able to run.

Another thing that sells ME but won't affect BP much is the 8 DIMM availability. I will have 8x 4GB RAM for sure 

However, I would probably go 4-core LGA 2011, as I'm thinking the hexa core will lose its value much faster than the 4-core, and so far, the quad would be better bang/buck. I would only consider the hexa if it is priced at 500 or below


----------



## btarunr (Nov 4, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Thanks Bta and LordJummy. To be honest I haven't even checked on what the prices on SB-E would be... and that's one of the reasons I want to wait before buying the system.
> I'll be trying out swapping the laptop Q9450 with my desktop's E8400, and oc'ing the quad.
> 
> I'm looking forward to Skyrim (but not BF3 at all )



Even if the laptop uses desktop LGA775 processor, I'm not sure if it has the integrated heatspreader (IHS). Laptop designers use heat pipes to make direct contact with the dies, with no IHS in the way. A Q9450 with IHS removed could be very fragile (there are two dies on one chip).


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 4, 2011)

Wait for SB-E to release, and sniff around for price drops on a 2500k and motherboard.  DDR3 is fairly cheap.  Your 5970 will carry you through for a while, and when you get enough cash you can replace it when it's needed.


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 4, 2011)

btarunr said:


> I'm not sure if it has the integrated heatspreader (IHS). Laptop designers use heat pipes to make direct contact with the dies, with no IHS in the way. A Q9450 with IHS removed could be very fragile (there are two dies on one chip).



I replaced the TIM paste of the Q9450 a couple of months ago. It does have an IHS thankfully.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 4, 2011)

Go with a new board and 2500K I, in the same boat


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 4, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> and you are talking about WHAT games and HOW long ago
> I am gonna pick that apart here to make a point
> a: GTX 260's ARE OLD (dx10 is bad at mulithreaded rendering )
> b: a Q9650 is not much of a upgrade (socket 775 is old and people should just it let die )
> c: pcie 1.1 ?



I'm talking about the switch to the q9450 , you're talking about the general upgrade, which if you read, ive been stating 2500K and a nice cheap mobo with some DDr3 is the way to go.

a:  GTX 260's in SLI require CPU and platform input to make them run well.  The coding of the game is what determines how well it scales with cores not the DX version. ex. Supreme commander.  No its not the same card and yes it will be different but the comparison is still somewhat helpful.

b:  Im talking about her q9450, which is the same chip.

c:  look at b.


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 4, 2011)

phanbuey said:


> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/alice_madness_returns_performance/2.html
> 
> ^^ that chart might help...
> 
> ...



Well, I tried that tweak on the laptop (Q9450, 4GB RAM & 8800M GTX @ 1920x1200) and it worked. I started getting fps in the 50's, but the game did stutter a bit..

Now I'm at home and am currently testing it out on the desktop (E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB RAM & 5970 @2560x1440) and this fix didn't work. My max fps was still 30/31.  Does this fix work only on Nvidia and not AMD cards?

What's worse is that on the desktop (with or without the fix) my minimum fps drop to 12 

So I changed resolution to 1920x1080. 
The game definitely runs better but it hurts my eyes. Max fps is 30 and the minimum is in the 20's ugghh. This is confusing. My laptop at a higher res of 1920x1200 and using a much much worse card than the 5970 always keeps over 30fps.

I know my E8400 is old and only dual core but please tell me it's just this game? Before Alice I played Dirt 3 at 2560x1440 with most settings maxed and it was as smooth as butter?


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 4, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Well, I tried that tweak on the laptop (Q9450, 4GB RAM & 8800M GTX @ 1920x1200) and it worked. I started getting fps in the 50's, but the game did stutter a bit..
> 
> Now I'm at home and am currently testing it out on the desktop (E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB RAM & 5970 @2560x1440) and this fix didn't work. My max fps was still 30/31.  Does this fix work only on Nvidia and not AMD cards?
> 
> ...



Maybe you had PhysX on High?


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 4, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> Maybe you had PhysX on High?



There isn't a specific physx option.

The graphic options I'm using right now are:

resolution: 1920x1080
AA: Off
3dStereo: On
Motion Blur: On
Post Processing: On
Dynamic Shadows: Off

(I don't exclude that due to my lack of tech-jargon knowledge any of the above means precisely physx though  )


----------



## JrRacinFan (Nov 4, 2011)

In my recent chat with BP, I was rather leaning towards for her to go the 2500K route. We mainly had a discussion about the more modern architectures and in I explained it to her that with the "northbridge on the cpu" would give her better minimum fps rates.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Nov 4, 2011)

A sandy bridge setup for her would be perfect. In the meanwhile she can move the quad out of her lappy to the desktop for some nice gaming.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 4, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> There isn't a specific physx option.
> 
> The graphic options I'm using right now are:
> 
> ...



I guess it only appears when an Nvidia card is detected? So it's probably not like Mafia II where there is still a PhysX option even with an AMD card?

Here's a screenshot regardless:


Spoiler


----------



## n-ster (Nov 4, 2011)

Even if she does go 2500K/2600K which is great, she should wait to see what SB-E brings out...


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 4, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> I guess it only appears when an Nvidia card is detected? So it's probably not like Mafia II where there is still a PhysX option even with an AMD card?
> 
> Here's a screenshot regardless:
> 
> ...



Yup you're right. I didn't have a PhysX option on the desktop with the AMD card. So that's not the reason for my low fps.

Now I'm on the laptop, and I just checked and found that I had been playing with PhysX on high on the laptop. And getting better fps @1920x1200 with one 8800M GTX with 4GB ram and Q9450 than I get @ 1920x1080 on 5970 with 4GB ram and E8400 4Ghz and no physx option available. 

Anyway, I'm just hoping it's just this one game.
I'll see how it all goes when I get Skyrim on 11-11-11 and proceed from there


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 4, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> Yup you're right. I didn't have a PhysX option on the desktop with the AMD card. So that's not the reason for my low fps.
> 
> Now I'm on the laptop, and I just checked and found that I had been playing with PhysX on high on the laptop. And getting better fps @1920x1200 with one 8800M GTX with 4GB ram and Q9450 than I get @ 1920x1080 on 5970 with 4GB ram and E8400 4Ghz and no physx option available.
> 
> ...



Hook the lappy up to the big monitor and game away .


----------



## Wile E (Nov 6, 2011)

I still say a 2500k is pointless for someone that likes to wait long periods between cpu and board upgrades.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I still say a 2500k is pointless for someone that likes to wait long periods between cpu and board upgrades.



I'll add to that...

The 2600K isn't a good alternative to the 2500K because it adds little benefit with the HT, and most of all, price/perf compared to a 2500K is not interesting. Also note that for a bit/medium size amount of $$ you probably can go LGA 2011

To me, it is 2500K and upgrade earlier, or LGA 2011 3800 series (quad) and keep longer and upgrade only the CPU in the distant future etc etc


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 6, 2011)

the long upgrade path is dead now adays
at the pace both gaming tech and hardware is moving it makes no sense to drop a large chunk of change on a multicore multi gpu monster and expect it to "last" because it won't in 2 years that brand-new LGA 2011 and your 5970 will be as slow and as dated as my grandma's p4
the 5970 is already a gen behind .-.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 6, 2011)

OneMoar said:


> the long upgrade path is dead now adays
> at the pace both gaming tech and hardware is moving it makes no sense to drop a large chunk of change on a multicore multi gpu monster and expect it to "last" because it won't in 2 years that brand-new LGA 2011 and your 5970 will be as slow and as dated as my grandma's p4
> the 5970 is already a gen behind .-.



CPUs don't age as fast, and note that the LGA 2011 has a big upgrade path unlike the LGA 1155

LGA 775 wasn't that long ago, yet her dual-core LGA 775 satisfied her until now! I jst see no proof that it is dead, I only see proof that it will be long for 2011. Consider also that CPUs are far ahead when you talk about gaming needs.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 6, 2011)

with a new gen of consoles just around the corner and various game developers poised to make a leap in graphical agility. I don't expect a cpu to last very long  and intels upgrade paths are subject to more change then your sisters mood's


----------



## n-ster (Nov 6, 2011)

the tick-tock is being respected now, and I am sure that having 50% more core option to upgrade will help tremendously in the future. After that, Intel is sure to have a die shrink, and the upgrade path is even larger! I've also heard that there will be SB-E Xeon 8 cores, so there will at least be IB-E Xeon 8 cores, if not normal retail 8 cores! (2x the cores ie 100% more processing power available) The upgrade path exists.

The next console generation is far away still btw. It is at BEST over 1 year away. Probably 2 years.

Also note that games are much more GPU limited than CPU limited


----------



## Black Panther (Nov 6, 2011)

n-ster said:


> LGA 775 wasn't that long ago, yet her dual-core LGA 775 satisfied her until now!



And don't be amazed because if Skyrim runs fine I might keep the E8400 for another year!


----------



## phanbuey (Nov 6, 2011)

Black Panther said:


> And don't be amazed because if Skyrim runs fine I might keep the E8400 for another year!



I wouldn't bet against the E8400 running it just fine.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 6, 2011)

She does use a very high res though, also runs a multi-GPU setup


----------



## OOZMAN (Dec 18, 2011)

E8400 running a 5970?! are you serious? That wouldnt be utilizing even half the performance of such a beast card. Should've got a 6970 and 2500k for the same price.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 18, 2011)

I just got my 2600K running to its full potential and I must say! I LOVE IT!


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 18, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> I just got my 2600K running to its full potential and I must say! I LOVE IT!



gah so jealous...


----------



## n-ster (Dec 18, 2011)

I have to say SB looks like a better option then even the i7 3820 SB-E  if only it were an it 3820K


----------



## Wile E (Dec 18, 2011)

OOZMAN said:


> E8400 running a 5970?! are you serious? That wouldnt be utilizing even half the performance of such a beast card. Should've got a 6970 and 2500k for the same price.



She bought the 5970 on launch.


----------

