Sandybridge era build - weighing pros cons of new platform versus a GPU upgrade

[newconroer]

As per system specs that is in fact my current setup ..still

I am acutely aware that CPUs, particularly at 1440p and higher are not something you purchase every year - as the architecture changes are not frequent.
Additionally performance is often marginal and worse, the power draw TDP tends to keep rising

As a result, from a gaming perspective, good CPUs can often be 'competitive' for years

Where I do find that you start to experience draw backs are within the other associated components such as motherboard, memory, storage devices etc.

Often though the biggest upgrade persons experience comes from the GPU. What bothers me about continuously updating the GPU and not the underlying platform is it's similar to putting a super charger on an engine and not improving other components. This is reducing the potential performance of the super charger


I feel it's appropriate to finally look at upgrading the platform for this computer, however knowing where to start is difficult - given that as aforementioned CPU changes don't often bring much in terms of grunt output
Though the rub comes in as mentioned before about the GPU. I am not naive to think that a new CPU and motherboard setup is going to bring the same frame rate jump as a new GPU, though it seems I have to get this done at some point as well as if nothing else, to ensure I am getting full value for the GPU

If budget only allowed a GPU upgrade or a platform upgrade but not both, do I continue down the path of the GPU on top of a weak platform, or finally update th platform and wait on the GPU?



For my requirements :

• Day to day use
• Gaming
• Some video watching (movies)

Other considerations: I don't stream, nor do large file transfer frequently however I have notied that my system has a bit of higher than desired latency when doing file transfers or internet downloads/torrents
Particularly when I get past a certain speed on my torrent download, the computer struggles noticeably, with pauses every few seconds until the download ends



In summary, am I better off finally updating teh platform and keeping my 1080TI, or jumping up a GPU
If I do it's likely a 4070 TI. It draws similar power and while I never cared about that before, I think I want to stay keeping it under 300 watts this time around
(I also have to consider that I won't be able to acquire a waterblock for a new GPu for a time, therefore something cool and capable out of the box is desirable)

As for Intel vs AMD I am not fussed
Budget (depends on what I choose, platform or GPU. For the former £500sh, for the latter £600-700sh)

Recommendations welcome

Thank you

 

[Toothless]

Do a platform bump. My overclocked 4790k held back my 1080ti enough to see a difference once I got my 3700x.

 

[Fouquin]

Additionally performance is often marginal and worse, the power draw TDP tends to keep rising

Performance is almost never worse and power draw may be true for Intel but even they have 65W chips stilll that thwomp what was available even 2 years ago. AMD has been consistently delivering substantial performance gen over gen at the same or lower power since Zen 2 in 2019, though. Check out some reviews of the Ryzen X3Ds and see just how far things have progressed, then look at power draw numbers.

I think your outlook on the incline of CPU performance is woefully out of date, and it would be a wise idea to look into some modern reviews that show a wide selection of CPU models in your desired games. Even 5 years ago the 2600K with your tier of overclock (4.8-5GHz) was starting to languish at the bottom of the charts when paired with any then-modern high end GPUs, with games running as much as 2.5x faster on the newest chips of the time. And we've made 5 years of progress since.

Upgrade the platform. I love Sandy Bridge as much as the next person, but the sun has set for it for all but the most casual use cases.

 

[meatwar]

Yes i agree with previous post, i had to finally last year to gave up of my Asus M5F (Z77) with a 3770, served me well for a decade, i already knew that there was a visible performance hold.
Off course, due the current SSD market values and available M.2 interface, dropped also the 840 EVO and got a new WD SN750 Black NVMe for the OS.
The platform is the priority here against the 1080Ti, my opinion only, cheers.

 

[wNotyarD]

Sandies and Ivies have long served their primary mission, and if you do upgrade now a new platform may serve you just as long. Just make sure then to get then a R9 or i9 to try assuring some longevity.

 

[newconroer]

Great, appreciate it thus far

Performance is almost never worse and power draw may be true for Intel but even they have 65W chips stilll that thwomp what was available even 2 years ago. AMD has been consistently delivering substantial performance gen over gen at the same or lower power since Zen 2 in 2019, though. Check out some reviews of the Ryzen X3Ds and see just how far things have progressed, then look at power draw numbers.

I think your outlook on the incline of CPU performance is woefully out of date, and it would be a wise idea to look into some modern reviews that show a wide selection of CPU models in your desired games. Even 5 years ago the 2600K with your tier of overclock (4.8-5GHz) was starting to languish at the bottom of the charts when paired with any then-modern high end GPUs, with games running as much as 2.5x faster on the newest chips of the time. And we've made 5 years of progress since.

Upgrade the platform. I love Sandy Bridge as much as the next person, but the sun has set for it for all but the most casual use cases.

Did something happen between 2019 and recently, as there are plenty of articles about 'whether to upgrade Sanybridge' as last as 2019 and find that in gaming scenarios and average use, there was very marginal benefit in a CPU change(and I presume platform change as that would be required due to the sockets)
Any reports or illustrations you could share to support your point about a performance increase, particularly a noticeable one? I struggle to find modern benchmarks that include the 2600k or anything from that era that might be of similar performance


Curious though should that be accurate, then about performance budget value options in terms of a previous generation or models
I am also OK with buying used.

Just mindful that CPU and motherboard costs are a bit silly in some places compared to how they used to be(granted not like the GPUs).



Thinking someone is about to drop a PartsPicker link, because people love to do that

 

[Fouquin]

Curious though then about performance budget value options in terms of a previous generation or models

Depends on the budget I suppose, but even the lowliest i3-12100F put up fantastic numbers against older chips with the same core configuration (4c/8t). The i5-13400F is to my eye the current budget performance champion (though occupies what may be considered more of an "enthusiast" price point), check out TPU's review of it to get an idea of the power efficiency it has as well. On average it should be well over 3x faster than a 2600K and uses equal or less power.

 

[Toothless]

Great, appreciate it thus far




Did something happen between 2019 and recently, as there are plenty of articles about 'whether to upgrade Sanybridge' as last as 2019 and find that in gaming scenarios and average use, there was very marginal benefit in a CPU change(and I presume platform change as that would be required due to the sockets)
Any reports or illustrations you could share to support your point about a performance increase, particularly a noticeable one?


Curious though should that be accurate, then about performance budget value options in terms of a previous generation or models
I am also OK with buying used.

Just mindful that CPU and motherboard costs are a bit silly in some places compared to how they used to be(granted not like the GPUs).



Thinking someone is about to drop a PartsPicker link, because people love to do that

There has been pretty big jumps in gaming performance, and daily usage performance coming off Sandy. I've got an i5 2400 on the shelf and it really can't hold a candle to say, an i5 6500/7500 that I've used and built for other people.

First gen Ryzen was comparable to Haswell/Broadwell in single threaded performance, so that might be what you saw.

 

[Calenhad]

Sandy Bridge is out of date by now. You should look at something with at least 6 cores 12 threads, preferably 8/16 if you can afford it, to maximise the years you get out of it. If your budget is limited enough that you can only afford GPU or other upgrades, I would get CPU/Motherboard/ram first, NVMe ssd second, and then look at a new GPU. The 1080ti have more juice left than an i7 2600K.

 

[newconroer]

Depends on the budget I suppose, but even the lowliest i3-12100F put up fantastic numbers against older chips with the same core configuration (4c/8t). The i5-13400F is to my eye the current budget performance champion (though occupies what may be considered more of an "enthusiast" price point), check out TPU's review of it to get an idea of the power efficiency it has as well. On average it should be well over 3x faster than a 2600K and uses equal or less power.

Thanks

note : Updated my post above after your reply I believe

What do you mean by 3x faster? I think we have to remember the CPU isn't what's (solely) affecting the framerate especially at higher resolutions
The only way I know how to see raw CPU performance in numbers is via those synthetic tests and for things such as file transfer rates, throughput, latency tests etc.

But how that translates to gaming..

There has been pretty big jumps in gaming performance, and daily usage performance coming off Sandy. I've got an i5 2400 on the shelf and it really can't hold a candle to say, an i5 6500/7500 that I've used and built for other people.

First gen Ryzen was comparable to Haswell/Broadwell in single threaded performance, so that might be what you saw.

Possibly though as mentioned in prior post I find it difficult to see modern benchmarks/articles that list the 2600ks or Sandybridge in the testing

As for performance as mentioned to Fouquin,for enough years it was clear that updating the CPU wasn't making much difference in gaming and that has prevailed late into the 2010s
So what happened in the past several years that change that? Did I miss some architectural jump?


Ya going to have to look at Ryzen again, but also will check out that 13400f recommendation

 

[Toothless]

Thanks

note : Updated my post above after your reply I believe

What do you mean by 3x faster? I think we have to remember the CPU isn't what's (solely) affecting the framerate especially at higher resolutions
The only way I know how to see raw CPU performance in numbers is via those synthetic tests and for things such as file transfer rates, throughput, latency tests etc.

But how that translates to gaming..



Possibly though as mentioned in prior post I find it difficult to see modern benchmarks/articles that list the 2600ks or Sandybridge in the testing

As for performance as mentioned to Fouquin,for enough years it was clear that updating the CPU wasn't making much difference in gaming and that has prevailed late into the 2010s
So what happened in the past several years that change that? Did I miss some architectural jump?


Ya going to have to look at Ryzen again, but also will check out that 13400f recommendation

AMD came out with good stuff and got Intel off their @sses to actually do something. FX chips were too far behind to scare Intel, which same era as your 2700k.

 

[AusWolf]

The 1080 Ti is still a bloody fine card. I'd do the platform upgrade.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Thanks

note : Updated my post above after your reply I believe

What do you mean by 3x faster? I think we have to remember the CPU isn't what's (solely) affecting the framerate especially at higher resolutions
The only way I know how to see raw CPU performance in numbers is via those synthetic tests and for things such as file transfer rates, throughput, latency tests etc.

But how that translates to gaming..

Well, games these days are moving towards 6 core/12 thread. Regardless of how well a quad core can run, you'll see major performance degradation going forward. Your memory bus is also affected by your CPU, and sandy's DDR3 bus is not very impressive today.

If you compare your sandy bridge to something modern on a current day game test, you'll be surprised. I remember, back in 2019 gamer nexus found the 2500k could barely manage 60 FPS even with an overclock in newer software. That was 4 years ago.

Possibly though as mentioned in prior post I find it difficult to see modern benchmarks/articles that list the 2600ks or Sandybridge in the testing

As for performance as mentioned to Fouquin,for enough years it was clear that updating the CPU wasn't making much difference in gaming and that has prevailed late into the 2010s
So what happened in the past several years that change that? Did I miss some architectural jump?

Consoles moved to 8 cores in 2013. They have since upgraded to 8 much faster cores with the PS5/series x. Sandy bridge could cope with having fewer threads by virtue of having much better perf/core then the consoles. Now the consoles not only have 8 cores but they are zen 2, which is notably faster then sandy was.

Ya going to have to look at Ryzen again, but also will check out that 13400f recommendation

13100 and 13400 make way more sense for budget builds, and given how long CPUs last I doubt the extra money spent on AMD would matter. Occasionally you will find non Fs cheaper then Fs.

 

[Fouquin]

What do you mean by 3x faster? I think we have to remember the CPU isn't what's (solely) affecting the framerate especially at higher resolutions

I mean 3x faster in general, but still not far off in games. Improvements to core count, core architecture, cache design, cache amount, IMC, included fixed function accelerators, improved instructions, MORE instructions, better code using more cores/threads, better use of core features and instructions... The list is long. You called out 1440p which is still affected by pure CPU performance. Again, reference that 13400F review where you can see some chips from 2018/2019 with more cores than your 2600K are still being outperformed by 2x at that resolution when paired with a modern GPU. Will you experience such a drastic increase while still running the 1080 Ti? No, probably not. But I expect you will see a noticeable improvement in smoothness and sustainable performance regardless.

As for performance as mentioned to Fouquin,for enough years it was clear that updating the CPU wasn't making much difference in gaming and that has prevailed late into the 2010s
So what happened in the past several years that change that? Did I miss some architectural jump?

Intel got stuck on Skylake and 14nm for 5 full years, where the only changes to performance were from directly increasing clock rates. Skylake (2015) was not a huge jump over Sandy Bridge at the same clocks, roughly 15% on its best day, and since the underlying architecture remained largely unchanged there were no dramatically improved instructions that came about. So I understand why you have the outlook you do, but like I said it's outdated.

Crash course on recent advancements: AMD released Zen 2 which just barely eclipsed Skylake, then Zen 3 which further exceeded Zen 2/Skylake by 5-10%, then Zen 3 with 3D V-Cache which exceeds regular Zen 3 by nearly 20%, then Zen 4 which is a smaller 5-10% bump but with a larger 10-15% clock increase, and now finally Zen 4 with 3D V-Cache which steps back in clocks but can deliver yet another 5-15% more performance in games. Intel released Rocket Lake which eclipsed Skylake by 5-15%, then Alder Lake which again eclipsed Rocket Lake by 5-15%. Both companies all the while have dramatically increased operating clocks with each architectural step, AMD going from ~4.1GHz peak turbo up to 5.3GHz or beyond, and Intel going from 5.1GHz to now 6GHz. So in a short ~4 year window average architectural performance is up a minimum of 35%, core clocks are up another 25%, and other overall improvements compound to this period of time being some of the fastest advancement in raw CPU performance since the 2006-2011 era that delivered you the i7-2600K you currently use.

 

[Nawdir]

my older build is i5 2500k, so its even worse than OPs build. but i really2 dont regret jumping to i3-12100. the 1% low in some games is like 3-4 times* better than my old i5. and that was me pairing that with 1070! so yeah please upgrade the platform.
2600k with 4070 ti is like, idk, the kind of flex which dont really impress anyone. i mean 20-40$ CPU with 800$ GPU?

*(note:based on my feeling)

 

[Dr. Dro]

You definitely should upgrade from Sandy Bridge. Get yourself either a 13th gen Core i5 or an equivalent Ryzen, a nice 32 GB RAM kit and the bottleneck will turn into the GPU instead. You will probably get more frames than you currently do with the 1080 Ti as is, but will also be ready for a GPU upgrade in the future.

Also, always nice to see older members of the forum return

 

[newconroer]

Reading through stuff now, will give it a better review later

my older build is i5 2500k, so its even worse than OPs build. but i really2 dont regret jumping to i3-12100. the 1% low in some games is like 3-4 times* better than my old i5. and that was me pairing that with 1070! so yeah please upgrade the platform.
2600k with 4070 ti is like, idk, the kind of flex which dont really impress anyone. i mean 20-40$ CPU with 800$ GPU?

*(note:based on my feeling)

I understand what you are saying and that is my concern as well
At what point do I stop throwing 2,000 rims on a car worth 400 so to speak

I think I will make the effort to platform upgrade, just have to get my ducks in a row
Decide

• Which motherboard/CPU combination
• RAM (oh boy, gotta go figure out what I should be using versus what is reasonable cost)
• Possible move to PCI E SSD (?)

Should I be worrying about K series Intel chips, I read your summary Fouquin thanks though didn't see mention about F, vs K vs X and others

 

[wNotyarD]

Should I be worrying about K series Intel chips, I read your summary Fouquin thanks though didn't see mention about F, vs K vs X and others

K-suffix are overclockable, with unlocked multipliers when using a Z series chipset. May also carry an S suffix (KS) for especially binned models.
F-suffix means no integrated graphics (not exclusive with K suffix - KF models).
X-suffix was for HEDT, and it's been some generations since the last model (10980XE).

 

[Dr. Dro]

The Intel Extreme series have been effectively replaced by the KS lineup. I've purchased a 13900KS (current team blue flagship) and received it recently, it's a beast of a CPU and I upgraded from the previous-generation Ryzen 16-core processor. Coming from the 2600K, you'll be mesmerized by these new chips' performance.

Buying an NVMe SSD is a must nowadays - they are not expensive and perform orders of magnitude faster than the traditional SATA SSD, even the cheapest options such as the WD Green line exceed SATA drives by a factor of 5-6, this is very very worth it.

As for the RAM, the sweet spot is universally recognized to be DDR5-6000. This is for both Intel (general board compatibility) or AMD (reasonable CPU memory controller limit), although you won't be missing much on anything else.

Do you have a budget in general? We could make you a pcpartpicker list

 

[N/A]

My 3.2ghz 14 core Xeon or the equivalent of 4.0ghx Sandy's IPC is limiting even a GTX 760 to 100Fps at 720p, but at $50 plus another 50 for motherboard with h81 chipset is unbeatable, save your money for new intel when they get into the 1nm era.

 

[newconroer]

The Intel Extreme series have been effectively replaced by the KS lineup. I've purchased a 13900KS (current team blue flagship) and received it recently, it's a beast of a CPU and I upgraded from the previous-generation Ryzen 16-core processor. Coming from the 2600K, you'll be mesmerized by these new chips' performance.

Buying an NVMe SSD is a must nowadays - they are not expensive and perform orders of magnitude faster than the traditional SATA SSD, even the cheapest options such as the WD Green line exceed SATA drives by a factor of 5-6, this is very very worth it.

As for the RAM, the sweet spot is universally recognized to be DDR5-6000. This is for both Intel (general board compatibility) or AMD (reasonable CPU memory controller limit), although you won't be missing much on anything else.

Do you have a budget in general? We could make you a pcpartpicker list

Ya I have some NVME SSD already around here though it was about whether to use a PCI E version. I cannot remember how to describe them NVME or M.2 or... I thought some go into M.2 slots and others into PCI E
I also dubious about whether SSD in a PCI E slot takes any bandwidth from the GPU(or other components)
Saw this on TPU's review of the 13400F
"Only PCIe x8 graphics when Gen 5 M.2 slot in-use"



As for budget, around £500-600 Sterling, give or take



Speaking ofpartpicker, I noticed the 12400F is on discount(?) currently vs 13400F
Any reason to avoid that one in favor of the latter?
For seventy or so more I can go with 13600k

And I cannot find any DDR 5 capable motherboards..?

I know Z690 can do them though they only show Z690 DDR4 capable products

My 3.2ghz 14 core Xeon or the equivalent of 4.0ghx Sandy's IPC is limiting even a GTX 760 to 100Fps at 720p, but at $50 plus another 50 for motherboard with h81 chipset is unbeatable, save your money for new intel when they get into the 1nm era.

I almost felt like this was in part a tongue in cheek comment about waiting for 1nm!

 

[wNotyarD]

Speaking ofpartpicker, I noticed the 12400F is on discount(?) currently vs 13400F
Any reason to avoid that one in favor of the latter?
For seventy or so more I can go with 13600k

12400F has no E-cores, it is a 6 P-cores/12 threads cpu. 13400F has 4 E-cores (same as a 12600K, sans unlocked multiplier), so it is 6P+4E/16T.
13600K goes even beyond, it's 6P+8E/20T and it has unlocked multiplier. It does get a bit toasty though. If the 13600 non-K is available a little cheaper it may be a nicer option with the same 6P+8E and a lower power draw.

 

[newconroer]

12400F has no E-cores, it is a 6 P-cores/12 threads cpu. 13400F has 4 E-cores (same as a 12600K, sans unlocked multiplier), so it is 6P+4E/16T.
13600K goes even beyond, it's 6P+8E/20T and it has unlocked multiplier. It does get a bit toasty though. If the 13600 non-K is available a little cheaper it may be a nicer option with the same 6P+8E and a lower power draw.

Only seeing 13600k for sale

 

[wNotyarD]

Only seeing 13600k for sale

Well, the 13600 is listed on Intel Ark as launched Q1'23 but not even US websites have them listed for sale. Paper launch at its finest.
Is the 13500 available for you? Also 6P+8E/20T, just lower clocks.

 

[newconroer]

Well, the 13600 is listed on Intel Ark as launched Q1'23 but not even US websites have them listed for sale. Paper launch at its finest.
Is the 13500 available for you? Also 6P+8E/20T, just lower clocks.

Checking...

Ya we have 13500 for about sixty less than 13600k and twenty more than 13400
( I think I'd prefer non F's so there's some graphics option if my card dies /stops working)

Though I could not see 13500's performance,am I over looking it here?

If going with 13600k
I landed on this

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/HsNmbK

Goes over budget, might be skimping on the quality of the motherboard and RAM?
I looked at Wizzard's DDR5 round up and I saw less than five frames between 4800 and 6000 (and am assuming I could overclock the RAM if needed). Think I'd be more worried about the motherboard quality at that low end. I almost considered micro ATX to cut costs