# should i upgrade my cpu+mobo+ram for better gaming performance?



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

I want to upgrade to the following:

1. Intel core i5 750 2.66ghz
2. Gigabyte p55a-ud3 (usb3.0 and sata 6gbps support)
3. A-data ddr3 4gb(2*2gb) 1333mhz

now i want to know that is it worth the upgrade or not.
i'm already using a sapphire 5870
what i'm thinking is my current setup is pretty old(except the 5870 ofcourse) and after upgrading the following my overall performance could gain a lot...

what u guyz think???

pls help me decide.....thanks.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

is my system bottlenecking my gpu??? coz i'm getting some occasional choppyness in AVP @1920*1200, very high, dx11


----------



## Black Haru (Mar 11, 2010)

run a program to log your systems performance while you game and see what maxes out first. (I use GPU-Z, CPU-Z and realtemp) then run off that. I suspect that your CPU is bottle necking if you have a 5870...

If I were you and I had the money I would upgrade. (but that's me)


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Black Haru said:


> run a program to log your systems performance while you game and see what maxes out first. (I use GPU-Z, CPU-Z and realtemp) then run off that. I suspect that your CPU is bottle necking if you have a 5870...
> 
> If I were you and I had the money I would upgrade. (but that's me)




i'm using sapphire 5870 1gb for the last three months....it's been great so far
i think u r right, maybe my cpu bottlenecking my gpu
but should i upgrade the cpu only or the cpu+mobo+ram?


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 11, 2010)

Yeah CPU could be the bottle neck, tis a older gen one you got there.


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

Normally the core i5 you want to upgrade is the best cpu you can choose for the 5870, i mean for money and performance. I recommend buying first the cpu, than if you are not satisfied, upgrade the mobo and ram.


----------



## Black Haru (Mar 11, 2010)

What's your cpu/mobo/ram  specs? (sorry I can't access users system specs from the schools comp)

if your system is fairly old, then a mobo replace would be first.  then base your cpu and ram off of that.

a simple cpu replacement would probably not be a good long term investment (since your mobo limits what cpu you can have)


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Normally the core i5 you want to upgrade is the best cpu you can choose for the 5870, i mean for money and performance. I recommend buying first the cpu, than if you are not satisfied, upgrade the mobo and ram.




if i upgrade the cpu only which one(quad core ofcourse) do you suggest?


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

*Don't Upgrade*

Before upgrading anything, and since you will have to reinstall your operating system when you do upgrade your hardware. Get your processor to 3.6ghz, do a Windows resinstall. Check performance then. With your system and your CPU at 3.6ghz running at a higher resolution (1920x1080, etc.) there will be no "bottleneck".


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Black Haru said:


> What's your cpu/mobo/ram  specs? (sorry I can't access users system specs from the schools comp)
> 
> if your system is fairly old, then a mobo replace would be first.  then base your cpu and ram off of that.
> 
> a simple cpu replacement would probably not be a good long term investment (since your mobo limits what cpu you can have)




core2 duo e6750 2.66ghz@ 3.41ghz, gigabyte p35c-ds3r, 4gb ddr2 800 @852mhz ........


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> Before upgrading anything, and since you will have to reinstall your operating system when you do upgrade your hardware. Get your processor to 3.6ghz, do a Windows resinstall. Check performance then. With your system and your CPU at 3.6ghz running at a higher resolution (1920x1080, etc.) there will be no "bottleneck".



i hate doing reinstall but i'll do it anyway with 64bit. btw my monitor res. is 1920*1200


----------



## niko084 (Mar 11, 2010)

Indeed that clock is WAY slow for that card, especially being it's a dual core.

An i5 or if you can bounce it the i7-860 would make a huge difference.
Even really going to like a q9550/q9650 that would be awesome and you wouldn't need much new stuff.


----------



## r9 (Mar 11, 2010)

The real question is do you have smooth gameplay as it is. There always be bottleneck. The amount of it is what matters. Who cares if the CPU is bottlenecking from 100 to 80 FPS.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

r9 said:


> The real question is do you have smooth gameplay as it is. There always be bottleneck. The amount of it is what matters. Who cares if the CPU is bottlenecking from 100 to 80 FPS.



in AVP with very high, dx11, 1920*1200 some areas in predator mode my fps sometimes drop to below 40 but most of the time it's well above 60. but it feels annoying and disturbing coz i already have the most powerful single gpu.

and i'm facing similar choppyness in Avatar game at ultra setting with AA

all other games run just fine with ultra setting like bioshock 2, mass effect 2, dirt2 etc...


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Abir053 said:


> i hate doing reinstall but i'll do it anyway with 64bit. btw my monitor res. is 1920*1200



Well, if you were going to upgrade your system you would have to do it anyways. From what you are explaining, I don't see a bottleneck issue. Why not try to save money, reinstall the O/S and who knows? Maybe things will be good. If not, at least you tried and you can then go ahead and upgrade with confidence. Just throwing money at new hardware is a lazy way to go about it. People love to give advice on buying new hardware.


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> Before upgrading anything, and since you will have to reinstall your operating system when you do upgrade your hardware. Get your processor to 3.6ghz, do a Windows resinstall. Check performance then. With your system and your CPU at 3.6ghz running at a higher resolution (1920x1080, etc.) there will be no "bottleneck".



Running such a powerful card with that processor and saying that there will be no bottleneck  :shadedshu
Anyway in this forum at the time i wanted to upgrade to 5770, which is half of power of the 5870, the forum members suggested me at least a phenom X2 II 555, which is much better than the procesor he is running the 5870! In all forums i have seen till now, all tests, reviews, all people have said that the core i5 750 is the best buy for that card.
What is more, is that an increment of 190mhz will not "stop" bottleneck.
So with the cpu you have, lets say that the 5750 is the best buy. You cannot understand the bottleneck if you dont see the reviews and compare them with your rig. Normally myself recommends core i7 860, but most people say that the core i5 is better because of a lower price. Anyway it is really foolish to think that with core2duo E6750 processor you wont have bottleneck.


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Running such a powerful card with that processor and saying that there will be no bottleneck  :shadedshu
> Anyway in this forum at the time i wanted to upgrade to 5770, which is half of power of the 5870, the forum members suggested me at least a phenom X2 II 555, which is much better than the procesor he is running the 5870! In all forums i have seen till now, all tests, reviews, all people have said that the core i5 750 is the best buy for that card.
> What is more, is that an increment of 190mhz will not "stop" bottleneck.
> So with the cpu you have, lets say that the 5750 is the best buy. You cannot understand the bottleneck if you dont see the reviews and compare them with your rig. Normally myself recommends core i7 860, but most people say that the core i5 is better because of a lower price. Anyway it is really foolish to think that with that processor you wont have bottleneck.



No it's not foolish, it's logical. At higher resolutions the workload is placed on the GPU, not the CPU. Sorry to say, but your PII 555 isn't that much better than his Core2duo. I think you need to do your research before calling something foolish. Do your homework. Show me evidence that this "bottlenecking" will happen or that it is happening. 

*Abir053, please open your task manager in the performance tab. Then run a game. How much of your CPU is being used?* This will easily tell us all if you need to get a i5, which in itself is not what I would go for, for a gaming rig on a budget.


----------



## BraveSoul (Mar 11, 2010)

see if u can get ur hands on a used quad core , like q9550/q9650 ,,even q6600 .,ur mobo should support it no problem ,,maybe u could borrow it from someone for a few days and do some testing,,,, personally went from dual athlon2.8ghz to phenomII 3.0ghz and saw noticeable difference in games using ati 4850


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

Ok, let's wait than for abir053 to show us the workload of his cpu...


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

my IQ says that i should upgrade right away if i wanna get the full potential of my gpu....but at the same time i don't wanna spend a lot of money for uprading those stuff. i'm so confused!!!


Ok guyz i just checked my task manager when i'm in Avp @ highest setting and my cpu usage is 78% to 83%


----------



## epicfail (Mar 11, 2010)

Abir053 said:


> my IQ says that i should upgrade right away if i wanna get the full potential of my gpu....but at the same time i don't wanna spend a lot of money for uprading those stuff. i'm so confused!!!



Hey the more help you get on this the better the chance of doing the right choice,


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

Let's say this time i did the homework, cuz it reveals clearly that core i7 gives 3 times more fps (at least 1280x1024) in some cases. For the games that can run smoothly it does not mean that it is not bottlenecking.
Anyway this review is "one" of houndreds reviews that show clearly the potential of what the cpu has to do. I have to say that if you dont do the homeworks, you will wait for others to do them
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_4.html#sect1


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Abir053 said:


> my IQ says that i should upgrade right away if i wanna get the full potential of my gpu....but at the same time i don't wanna spend a lot of money for uprading those stuff. i'm so confused!!!
> 
> 
> Ok guyz i just checked my task manager when i'm in Avp @ highest setting and my cpu usage is 78% to 83%



If it were a bottleneck it would be pegged at 100%. Like I said, try putting a little more OC on your CPU if possible, and reinstall your O/S to get rid of the bloat.



Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Let's say this time i did the homework, cuz it reveals clearly that core i7 gives 3 times more fps (at least 1280x1024)



Of course! At a lower resolution, the workload is offloaded more to the CPU. Since 1920x1080 is being used, it doesn't matter.


----------



## JATownes (Mar 11, 2010)

I have to agree with erocker here.  A dual @ 3.4 might bottleneck your 5870 a little, but the only way you would notice is benchmarking it.  I don't think you will notice "dramatic" gaming improvements from a new CPU/MB/Ram combo.   

If you are just looking to upgrade something, if I were you I would do like bravesoul recommended: Find a cheap used/new quad to slap in your board and you should be good.


----------



## epicfail (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Let's say this time i did the homework, cuz it reveals clearly that core i7 gives 3 times more fps (at least 1280x1024) in some cases. For the games that can run smoothly it does not mean that it is not bottlenecking.
> Anyway this review is "one" of houndreds reviews that show clearly the potential of what the cpu has to do. I have to say that if you dont do the homeworks, you will wait for others to do them
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_4.html#sect1




from what you posted, theres not much difference at high res but at low res theres a bigger difference so i guess depends what he plays at.

i know for a fact my system is bottle knecked but it works fine i have 50-70 fps on mostly high and some medium in bc2 so.


----------



## JATownes (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Let's say this time i did the homework, cuz it reveals clearly that core i7 gives 3 times more fps (at least 1280x1024) in some cases. For the games that can run smoothly it does not mean that it is not bottlenecking.
> Anyway this review is "one" of houndreds reviews that show clearly the potential of what the cpu has to do. I have to say that if you dont do the homeworks, you will wait for others to do them
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_4.html#sect1



So at 1920x1200 the i7 @ 3.4 vs Core2Duo @ 3.4 gains 5fps average?  That is alot of money for 5 more frames.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 11, 2010)

Instead of upgrading, why don't you downgrade your resolution? Problem solved without much hassle.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Let's say this time i did the homework, cuz it reveals clearly that core i7 gives 3 times more fps (at least 1280x1024) in some cases. For the games that can run smoothly it does not mean that it is not bottlenecking.
> Anyway this review is "one" of houndreds reviews that show clearly the potential of what the cpu has to do. I have to say that if you dont do the homeworks, you will wait for others to do them
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_4.html#sect1




thanks for a link of a great review, it clearly shows the benefit of i7 setup. but what about i5 750??


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Instead of upgrading, why don't you downgrade your resolution? Problem solved without much hassle.



My head is going to explode in this thread. If you downgrade the resolution you WILL need a more powerful processor as the workload will be put on the CPU as I've already stated twice in this thread and is indeed fact. I've said what I needed to say, I guess. There's just way too much bad information and ignorance going around.  What the hell is happening to TPU? :shadedshu

Let me highlight something from the forum guidelines:


> Do not:
> Posting useless/wrong information in response to a serious topic.



*Understandable FourStaff.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Instead of upgrading, why don't you downgrade your resolution? Problem solved without much hassle.



what r u saying man??? we all know that lcd monitor must be used at native res.(highest) for best picture clarity.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> My head is going to explode in this thread. If you downgrade the resolution you WILL need a more powerful processor as the workload will be put on the CPU as I've already stated twice in this thread and is indeed fact. I've said what I needed to say, I guess. There's just way too much bad information and ignorance going around.  What the hell is happening to TPU? :shadedshu



My bad, I didn't read your previous posts. I am just used to gaming with a weak graphics card and a more powerful processor.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> My head is going to explode in this thread. If you downgrade the resolution you WILL need a more powerful processor as the workload will be put on the CPU as I've already stated twice in this thread and is indeed fact. I've said what I needed to say, I guess. There's just way too much bad information and ignorance going around.  What the hell is happening to TPU? :shadedshu




u r right, man. lower resolution means more cpu bound


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

I think it has to do more with your own resolution 1920x1200 than with the cpu, but anyway your cpu is not the kind who "eats" that card. Normally you can change the resolution. Try changing the resolution asfourstaff says if you dont want to spend money for nothing. Either way your resolution is the most "bottleneck" you have for now. If you lower the resolution you will have higher fps and you can see clearly the difference if you buy a new cpu. Here is a review about core i5 750, core i7 860 (my preferred one) and core i7 870, which costs too much for what it does
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/18


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 11, 2010)

Abir053 said:


> what r u saying man??? we all know that lcd monitor must be used at native res.(highest) for best picture clarity.



Means get a monitor that runs 1280x1024


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I think it has to do more with your own resolution 1920x1200 than with the cpu, but anyway your cpu is not the kind who "eats" that card. Normally you can change the resolution. Try changing the resolution asfourstaff says if you dont want to spend money for nothing. Either way your resolution is the most "bottleneck" you have for now. If you lower the resolution you will have higher fps and you can see clearly the difference if you buy a new cpu. Here is a review about core i5 750, core i7 860 (my preferred one) and core i7 870, which costs too much for what it does
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-870-processor-review-test/18



Again, you are absolutely wrong. For the 4th time now, if he would lower his resolution with his current system, the graphics would become more CPU bound resulting in lower FPS and worse image quality. And yet again, you are suggesting him throwing money away on hardware he doesn't need.


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

Well it is not my fault the review show it so clearly that at lower resolutions the game runs smoother.


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Well it is not my fault the review show it so clearly that at lower resolutions the game runs smoother.



1920x1080 is not a low resolution, hence it doesn't matter and is not relevant.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 11, 2010)

According to OP's second post, he plays AVP at max settings. Perhaps turn down some to reduce the workload of the cpu? I cannot suggest which option will reduce the workload of the cpu by the most, someone might?


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> According to OP's second post, he plays AVP at max settings. Perhaps turn down some to reduce the workload of the cpu? I cannot suggest which option will reduce the workload of the cpu by the most, someone might?





Abir053 said:


> Ok guyz i just checked my task manager when i'm in Avp @ highest setting and my cpu usage is 78% to 83%



Nope.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> According to OP's second post, he plays AVP at max settings. Perhaps turn down some to reduce the workload of the cpu? I cannot suggest which option will reduce the workload of the cpu by the most, someone might?



i think by reducing shadow effects the cpu offload a bit, but not that much to notice any real time difference.


----------



## JATownes (Mar 11, 2010)

Here lets make this simple for those that CLEARLY do not understand:

Low Resolution (1024x768, 1280x1024) = Fast CPU > Fast GPU
High Resolution (1920x1080, 1920x1200) = Fast CPU < Fast GPU

Erocker is RIGHT!!! Please listen or you will end up wasting A LOT of money needlessly.  

Your CPU @ 3.4 with a 5870 should run most games without any issues.  Re-install Windows to get rid of the junk stuck in over time and I bet it takes off smooth.  If anything, grab a quad to stick in your current board.  

Too much bad info is floating in this thread.  Take the advice or leave it, after all, it is your money.


----------



## BraveSoul (Mar 11, 2010)

try turning off AA ,,, in the benchmarks it shows a gain


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Going back to my recommendation earlier. This is a great site to guide you through a proper Windows reinstall, and will get your system running smooth as butter. http://www.blackviper.com/

I generally reinstall my O/S every few months or so. I'm primarily a gamer and doing this will get rid of some bloat, driver conflicts, application conflicts that like to slow down a system. Seriously though, if you need any help along the way, just let me know. 

@FourStaff & Alexander. You two really need to learn some things before giving advice. I'm not ripping on your or trying to put you guys down, but giving out bad advice does a lot of harm to a thread and makes things confusing for both the people trying to give help and the one seeking help. I sincerely hope you will take this advice, as those who are trying to help using factual information are getting annoyed. This is something that is watched by moderators here, please think things through better before posting advice.  Thanks.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 11, 2010)

JATownes said:


> Here lets make this simple for those that CLEARLY do not understand:
> 
> Low Resolution (1024x768, 1280x1024) = Fast CPU > Fast GPU
> High Resolution (1920x1080, 1920x1200) = Fast CPU < Fast GPU
> ...



I would go for this advice, especially the Re-installing Windows bit. It tends to clear out all the programs running in the background, freeing up CPU power. 

Edit: It depends from user to user though, how much junk they accumulate in the background.


----------



## GSquadron (Mar 11, 2010)

Well if erocker is that right, for me dont buy anythink, just remove the junk
What about defragmentation? Normally if you dont want to reinstall windows i think this is a good idea


----------



## Frick (Mar 11, 2010)

Go for overclocking a bit more and a fresh install. That system is fine for gaming.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> Going back to my recommendation earlier. This is a great site to guide you through a proper Windows reinstall, and will get your system running smooth as butter. http://www.blackviper.com/
> 
> I generally reinstall my O/S every few months or so. I'm primarily a gamer and doing this will get rid of some bloat, driver conflicts, application conflicts that like to slow down a system. Seriously though, if you need any help along the way, just let me know.



thanks a lot for ur advice, i just wanted to know how good and reliable 64bit os are. coz i'm currently in 32bit win7(my ram shows 3.5gb). i mean is there any issue or conflict with 64bit os?


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Abir053 said:


> thanks a lot for ur advice, i just wanted to know how good and reliable 64bit os are. coz i'm currently in 32bit win7(my ram shows 3.5gb). i mean is there any issue or conflict with 64bit os?



Not at all. Win 7 x64 has been nothing but good to me so far.  Really though, you won't notice much of a difference so go with what you have if it will save you money.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> Not at all. Win 7 x64 has been nothing but good to me so far.  Really though, you won't notice much of a difference so go with what you have if it will save you money.



ok then, i'll install a fresh copy of win7 64bit by formatting my c drive.
i'll let u guyz know but i need a couple of days coz i'm also busy with my classes.


----------



## Fourstaff (Mar 11, 2010)

erocker said:


> Not at all. Win 7 x64 has been nothing but good to me so far.  Really though, you won't notice much of a difference so go with what you have if it will save you money.



Win7 x64 was a royal pain in the a** when I started using it, driver conflicts for printer and so on. Its allright now that I have sorted everything (took me half a day of dedicated work trying to hunt all the drivers, I didn't know I could run virtual then). I will still recommend win7 x64 over the 32bit version though, but just to warn you that there might be some problems that require some time to fix, but not unfixable.


----------



## Abir053 (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Win7 x64 was a royal pain in the a** when I started using it, driver conflicts for printer and so on. Its allright now that I have sorted everything (took me half a day of dedicated work trying to hunt all the drivers, I didn't know I could run virtual then). I will still recommend win7 x64 over the 32bit version though, but just to warn you that there might be some problems that require some time to fix, but not unfixable.



let's see what happens to me with 64bit os, but if my reinstall process doesn't help much to improve performance then i might consider the upgrade. but if it does then i'm going to save a lot of money


----------



## erocker (Mar 11, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Win7 x64 was a royal pain in the a** when I started using it, driver conflicts for printer and so on. Its allright now that I have sorted everything (took me half a day of dedicated work trying to hunt all the drivers, I didn't know I could run virtual then). I will still recommend win7 x64 over the 32bit version though, but just to warn you that there might be some problems that require some time to fix, but not unfixable.



If you use older stuff, yeah. I use older peripherals and I had some issues. I guess working with computers for over 25 years helped me though.


----------



## r9 (Mar 11, 2010)

To sum up. You definitely don`t need to upgrade. But how many of us upgrade when they need/must. The pure joy of buying/assembly/ocing/benching ahh. I work at computer shop 6-7 years now it is not the same feeling to put together hardware for customer or for my self. Only reason for upgrading that I ever needed was money. So if you have enough of those go for it .


----------



## a_ump (Mar 12, 2010)

alas, erocker's advice shines bright lol. just now saw this thread and i too almost lost it reading some of the stuff.

1: do erocker stuff like you said you are
2: your not being bottlenecked since your CPU is still in eht 70- low 80%'s. 
3: overclock more if you can for the hell of it cause its fun


----------

