CPU help ( please )

I currently have the GTX 970 GPU and love it....my current CPU is the i5 2300 ( 2.8 GHz ) and my MOBO is socket type 1155. I am looking to upgrade the CPU and the i5 3570K is at a good price right now on Amazon...I compared the benchmarks but being a novice they are just numbers to me.

Is this a good upgrade? Will it be what I need to max out most games? Or would it be better to wait for some of the i7's to come down in price?

Any advice would be appreciated!

Hello.

Judging from your CPU, your mobo wouldn't have a Z68/P67/Z77 chipset, so I guess overclocking wouldn't be an option.

Jumping from Sandy 2,8GHz to Ivy 3,4GHz would give you somewhat an upgrade but if you are going to give $230 for such a low upgrade is worse than from i5 giving $100 more for an i7 in gaming.

So if I were you, I would go for i7 (i7 3770 or i7 3770K) or I wouldn't upgrade at all.

Second, your cpu is a sandybridge quad core. It shouldn't have any problem in running smoothly any game atm. Why do you want to upgrade it?

And third. If you plan to do any upgrade at all, UPDATE THE BIOS.

:)

That's what I was afraid of...I don't want to spend that much money for a small upgrade, so thanks for the info.

The reason I want to upgrade my CPU is because I was ticked that I couldn't run FC4 on ultra at 60FPS lol...it dips into the 30's and I figured my CPU was holding me back. But it looks like I should wait for my tax return and do it right.

Even a core i3 can run FC4 at Ultra with 60FPS:

As you can see this is how a GTX980 would perform. Even with core i3 it can run with 48FPS min and 61FPS avg...

Your CPU should be even higher like 60FPS min...

edit: This is from Tom's Hardware Conclusion:

As far as your CPU goes, the Dunia 2 engine scales well with increasing core count. Still, a lowly Core i3-3220 or FX-4170 can push more than 40 FPS minimum at 1080p with the highest details enabled. It's unlikely that you'll see a bottleneck from your platform unless you're running an old dual-core processor that isn't Hyper-Threaded.

FC4 is a heavy GPU depended game. And since is a new game, always try to have your GPU drivers up to date...

Well let's see...

It seems like patches made a lot of difference in framerates when you look at tomshardware cpu chart and techspots cpu chart. It also seems that the games prefers faster cores over more cores, even 2 core with hyperthreading don't show any big difference with 6 cores and 8 cores.

Since the game will use your four cores it won't go any higher than 2.8 ghz and that will surely impact performance, a faster sandy or ivy will give you better results. I would not pick any i7 since i7 costs way more than i5's and the extra hyperthreading isn't doing much for games, but you're still paying a lot extra. Still if you can't overclock and your motherboard doesn't support ivy the i7-2700 will be a significant upgrade over the i5-2300, since it runs at much higher clock speeds and has hyperthreading.

STill , the gtx 970 doesn't seem to crunch the game either , so it's kinda normal you will have framerate dips into '30 's with your cpu. A much faster sandy or ivy would give you a lot of results though. What kind of motherboard you have?

Thanks @commander, I completely forgot Techspot.

Techspot is a great game performance review site cause apart from testing a lot of CPUs/GPUs, they are doing something else too.

They are testing frequency...

So in their tests a 4770K Haswell at 2,5Ghz manage to pull 77FPS in FC4. Jumping even to 4,5Ghz (we are talking about 80% clock difference) only raised the FPS to 90 (not even 20% increase).

So from 2,8Ghz to 3,4Ghz would be so tiny (20% clock difference) that it should be like 5% FC4 performance, like you can see in the chart below...

@chikenfriedrice: Just to mention, the charts we are posting are without AA as you can see. If you applied heavy AA it would go down to 30FPS as the AA tax the GPU a lot (which I think is the reason you are getting such low FPS).

@commander: this is my MOBO

http://www.findlaptopdriver.com/acer-ipisb-vr-rev-1-01/

sounds like I would be better off to upgrade my MOBO and CPU at the same time.

@Coseniath I will have to check the AA because that might be the case. When the game is optimized via Geforce Experience ( which pretty much sets it to ultra ) I get those dips which drives me nuts, so I had to set everything to very high for a smooth 60fps..I will play with it a little more.

I read a lot of complains for the Geforce Experience that enables 2xTXAA(edit: 2xTXAA is for GTX780, since GTX970 scales better with FC4, it might use 4xTXAA) which is more taxing than other AA.

Try SMAA it provides smoother frame rates (what people say...).

Dammit. Completely forgot HardOCP too...

SMAA as you can see here, taxes the GPU a little:

Like MSAA, TXAA is very taxing on the other hand...

@Coseniath: Oh nice....good info. I appreciate you guys helping me with stuff.

@Coseniath said:

Thanks @commander, I completely forgot Techspot.

Techspot is a great game performance review site cause apart from testing a lot of CPUs/GPUs, they are doing something else too.

They are testing frequency...

So in their tests a 4770K Haswell at 2,5Ghz manage to pull 77FPS in FC4. Jumping even to 4,5Ghz (we are talking about 80% clock difference) only raised the FPS to 90 (not even 20% increase).

So from 2,8Ghz to 3,4Ghz would be so tiny (20% clock difference) that it should be like 5% FC4 performance, like you can see in the chart below...

@chikenfriedrice: Just to mention, the charts we are posting are without AA as you can see. If you applied heavy AA it would go down to 30FPS as the AA tax the GPU a lot (which I think is the reason you are getting such low FPS).

The i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz is still faster than the i5-2300 and this chart is with a gtx 980.

Your comparison doesn't really work when you look at the difference in framerates between the fx 4320 and the fx 4100. It's the same with the i5-2300. At 2.8 ghz, the cpu is already bottlenecking, so an upgrade would give him a significant performance increase. Even an i5-2500 at stock clocks would give him a lot more than 5 percent

Not really , you can pick up a second handed i7-2600, i7-2700 or i5-2500.

If you want it new then you will have to upgrade the motherboard as well, since sandy bridge cpu's are hard find and your motherboard doesn't support ivy bridge. You could go for haswell too, but they run hotter than ivy, the socket is newer though and broadwell will still release on it this year.

A second hand i5 sandy can be found pretty cheap. An i7 will be bit more expensive , but it will still be less than half the price of a new mobo and cpu. I also have to add that sandy runs a lot cooler than ivy, so way way cooler than haswell.

But ivy and haswell are faster clock for clock. Haswell is even faster than ivy clock for clock. Both ivy and haswell are overclockable, but you'll need a custom cooler. Sandy can be overclocked as well, but not on your motherboard.

You do know that having a better GPU in the benchmarks while testing a CPU, means that the CPU will bottleneck the slower GPU even less?...

I compared apples to apples. I gave you the same CPU with different framerates (from 2,5GHz to 4,5GHz).

You said urself that hyperthreading doesnt help in FC4.

So lets go to architecture performance. Haswell 2,5GHz vs SandyBridge 2,8GHz. We are talking about 12% clock difference.

So we want the Haswell to overcome SandyBridge by 12% or more.

Cinebench is one of the best benchmarking CPU tests.

Unfortunately, Haswell architecture is only 9,1% faster (I am saying unfortunately cause I have a Haswell CPU :P).

Sometimes 2,5GHz Haswell will be faster than 2,8Ghz Sandybridge and some other times will not be.

Using FX 4xxx series in comparison is completely irrelevant...

So TLDR: Haswell 2,5GHz is around the same as Sandybridge 2,8GHz. (in some games will be faster and in some games will not be...)

@Coseniath said:

You do know that having a better GPU in the benchmarks while testing a CPU, means that the CPU will bottleneck the slower GPU even less?...

I compared apples to apples. I gave you the same CPU with different framerates (from 2,5GHz to 4,5GHz).

You said urself that hyperthreading doesnt help in FC4.

So lets go to architecture performance. Haswell 2,5GHz vs SandyBridge 2,8GHz. We are talking about 12% clock difference.

So we want the Haswell to overcome SandyBridge by 12% or more.

Cinebench is one of the best benchmarking CPU tests.

Unfortunately, Haswell architecture is only 9,1% faster (I am saying unfortunately cause I have a Haswell CPU :P).

Sometimes 2,5GHz Haswell will be faster than 2,8Ghz Sandybridge and some other times will not be.

Using FX 4xxx series in comparison is completely irrelevant...

So TLDR: Haswell 2,5GHz is around the same as Sandybridge 2,8GHz. (in some games will be faster and in some games will not be...)

Your understanding of a bottleneck is wrong in this scenario. In the benchmark with the i7-4770k running at 2.5 ghz, it does indeed bottleneck the gtx 980 and go any lower and the bottleneck will increase significantly. Still the frames are a lot more determined by the gpu than by the cpu in this case.

You can see it when you compare the gpu benchmarks. The i7-3770k at 3.5 ghz paired with the gtx 970has 71 fps, while the i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz paired with the gtx980 has 77 fps. The cpu bottleneck isn't significant enough to nullify the difference in performance between the gtx 970 and the gtx 980 otherwise the last example would never outperform the previous one.

As for the hyperthreading, it's not worth it to spend 100$ more on an i7 just for the hyperthreading if you already have a fast i5, but it will increase performance especially when you downclock your cpu. Your chart gives a warped image as well, it's single threaded and it's only one bench. In the closing thoughts in that article you got that chart from, they say haswell is overall 5-15 percent faster than ivy and ivy is faster than sandy. Add the hyperthreading on top of that and you can be sure the i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz is significantly faster than the i5-2300 in all scenarios.

It's obvious when look at the cpu benchies as well. The i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz has 77fps, the i5-3470 has 80fps and the i5-3570 83 fps, yet the i7-3770k at 3.5 ghz has only 84fps. You can see that a bottleneck is starting to form here. The i5-3470 and i5-3570 only differ 200mhz which is about 3 percent yet the performance difference in this chart is already more than 3 percent. Deduct another 100mzh on the i5-3470 and it will have about 77fps like the i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz, yet the i5-3470 is still running at 3,1 ghz. Well there's that difference between the haswell and ivy architecture and the hyperthreading in a cpu bottleneck scenario.

The i5-3470 is also significantly faster than the i5-2300, even while its running at than 3.1 ghz instead of 3.2. That difference will even be more significant in this test since a bottleneck is forming. Yet the bottleneck isn't enough to nullify the difference between the gtx 980 and gtx 970. Far from it actually and that's why the fx 4xxx series are (also) relevant. The fx 4320 with a gtx 980 still manages to nip at the heels of a i7-3770k at 3.5 ghz with a gtx 970 (69 fps vs 71 fps).

The comparison with the 4xxx series is also relevant because it shows how much clock speeds can differ in performance when you go to extremes. In your case the cpu speed was already too high to compare it with the i5-2300, and the fx 4xxx series are too low to compare it with the i5-2300. Even here, with a big cpu bottleneck, the difference in performance between the gtx 980 and the 970 still has a big influence on performance.

So TLDR: there's a huge difference between an i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz paired with a gtx 980 and an i5-2300 paired with a gtx 970, in this scenario. The i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz will be faster than the i5-2300 in all scenarios and it's not because you have a big cpu bottleneck that a better gpu can't increase the fps. A bottleneck is (almost) never absolute in pc hardware like it is with a real bottleneck (or it is you use extreme scenario's, like pairing a single core with a gtx 980)

Your overclocking will be so limited if you stay with the motherboard

Put 20 dollars a month a side for the next year and upgrade when skylake comes out.

Yeah, it's the best CPU you could get for gaming with that socket.

Its more than obvious you didn't read or pay attention to any of my posts. Or you might misunderstand my posts.

I clearly said in all my posts that this game is heavy GPU depended. No CPU upgrade from i5 2300 can justify $230 for FC4.

Unless ofc, $230 is nothing for you...

Last time I check 1,55 (Haswell 3,5GHz) is only 9,1% more than 1,42 (Sandybridge 3,5GHz). With math, we humans know ofc...

So your theory of 15% difference of Haswell to Ivybridge is illogical (not to mention that in the charts you posted Ivybridge = Haswell both stand at 84FPS). And then you add more percent difference for Sandy?...

The total difference is 9,1% and in some cases the difference will be smaller...

Only at cases where AVX2 instructions come to play Haswell will be miles away.

Add Hyperthreading??? In your chart again it shows difference between i7 and i5 is 1FPS and thats probably by the 100Mhz difference....

Your logic of "the i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz is significantly faster than the i5-2300 in all scenarios" is based on false facts, disproven by even your own posted charts....

Seriously? 3,2GHz (i5 3470) and 3,4GHz (i5 3570) differ only 3%?

Either you don't know simple math or you are trying to troll...

I hope its the first scenario. Their difference is 6,2%.

Lets say in order to reach 77FPS with core i5 Ivybridge, you will need near 3GHz.

But here taken in consideration that previous benchmarks show i7 3770K = i7 4770K. We can say that Hyperthreading is giving the advantage.

Your theory of being GPU bottlenecked (I am refering to "You can see that a bottleneck is starting to form here."), would be true, if overclocking the CPU wouldn't give more FPS.

But as you can see more CPU horsepower gives more FPS even at 4,5GHz, unlike other trully GPU bottleneck game scenarios Techspot has tested and show with extra o/c they didn't get a single FPS...

I was obviously reffering to FX4xxx not to Haswell series... Cause AMD CPUs are an other story too long to discuss here...

Again there is no "big CPU bottleneck", when a low core i3!!! has 76 FPS, 6!!! FPS less than a top core i5 (83FPS) or 7FPS less than a core i7 (translated to 8-9%)...

Nope. It seems you are not reading the Techspot you linked. Or you are new to PC gaming.

There are absolute bottlenecks without going to extreme scenarios (like 1 core CPU or Geforce 2 MX)

There are scenarios that even the top CPU can be absolute bottlenecked by the top GPU.

TLDR: Its not TOP SECRET, unless the gaming software companies decide to take advantage of more than 4 cores, any quad core CPU from sandybridge architecture (or should I say "Revolution") and later, is enough for gaming.

How did I misunderstand your posts, the game is heavily gpu dependent but when the cpu is bottlenecking a cpu upgrade is viable, especially when you buy one second handed

That 9.1 percent difference is relative , especially with a cpu bottleneck . It's the same with hyperthreading, it all depends what tests you do.

The i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz has 77 fps, the i5-3570 has 83 fps , the i5-3470 has 80 fps. The only difference between the i5-3570 and i5-3470 is 200 mhz. It's clear that decreasing the mhz a bit more will give you the same fps as the i7-4770k at 2.5 ghz. The i5-3570 and i5- 3470 run respectively at 3.4 and 3.2ghz The comparison is not illogical at all it makes perfect sense in this test.

When I said that 200 mzh is 3 percent of 3.4 ghz then that was a typo . I meant 3 percent performance difference but that typo is irrelevant, the comparison still stands and when you say it will be near 3 ghz , it will certainly be above 3 ghz. Because deducting 200 mhz of 3.4 ghz is a smaller percentage than deducting 200 mhz of 3.2 ghz and there is a bottleneck starting there, so I think I would be pretty close with my 100 mhz decrease to have 77 fps, a lot closer than deducting 200 mhz or more.

It's more than the hyperthreading only, the haswell is faster clock for clock than the ivy. But again it doesn't really matter. The chart shows that the i5-3470 running at 3.1 ghz will have the same fps, and that's faster than a i5-2300 in all scenario's. An i5-3470 at 3.2 ghz is even faster than a i5-2500. I know because i had them both and I bought the i5-3470 for the lower power consumption yet i still wanted at least the same performance. The i5-2300 is significantly slower than the i5-2500 and since we have a cpu bottleneck in this scenario a cpu upgrade is very interesting for the op.

If he can get his hands on an i7 sandy the clock rate is even higher, add the hyperthreading and he would see a (even more) significant jump in performance.

I was referring to the fx 4xxx series as well. It's clear when you look at the context and the next sentence (where i'm refering to fx 4xxx), but it would have been clearer if i mentioned fx 4xxx the first time.

This chart shows that faster cpu speeds are more important than hyperthreading and multiple cores when you're in that cpu speed region ((i already posted that chart for that reason)

Besides I could be that the fps number for that i3-3220 isn't correct because tom's hardware test shows a completly different number, it could also be because of a patch. Either way , that 76 fps from that i3-3220 doesn't mean anything in our comparisons.

The numbers I've given you prove what i say. I don't know what else I can do so you would understand it. I only gave the absolute bottlneck as an example, there's not absolute bottleneck here and I'm not advising the op to buy more than four cores.

And sadly while most sandy bridges are still viable for gaming, the slowest sandy isn't enough to give the op 60 fps in far cry 4 at ultra detail settings (with a gtx 970). Buying a better second handed sandy bridge cpu is the cheapest solution and he can also sell his i5-2300. The faster cpu will give him better performance in most games, even an i5-2500 would already give him a jump.

What he wants to do is up to him, I'm just showing him what's what.

@commander@Coseniath not sure what you arguing about but I can run Far Cry 4 on max settings with no drops in frames on 1080p with 4xMSAA, the game actually runs way smoother than Far Cry 3.

If you're arguing if going from one i5 to a stronger one is worth the money, well I wouldn't say that going for SLI with that GTX970 instead, without a modern i5 will be smart move because it'll bottleneck a bit.

Your i5-4670 is way faster than the i5-2300 we're talking about.

Only because of the clock rates, clock per clock that i5 4670 is only 10-15% faster. 2.8 ghz i5 is enough for awhile.

Well it's a bit of both, it has higher clock rate and clock for clock it's faster. The combination of the two makes the i5-4670 about 30 percent faster than the i5-2300. I'm not saying your statement is wrong, but it can be a bit confusing.

The i5 2.8 ghz doesn't seem to be enough for the op , he wants 60fps in fc4 on ultra. An i5-2500 will give him that (or at least something very close). A second handed i7-2700 would be ideal or even better yet, upgrade the whole thing and overclock the cpu, but that will be a lot more work and more expensive.

2nd handed 3570 or 3570K?

his motherboard doesn't support it

H61 MOBO can support 3570 and even 3570K - but it won't OC that well.

He's got H67, the 3570 can turbo up to 3.8Ghz which is pretty good for today, specially if it's i5.

Sure but he needs a bios that supports it as well and that doesn't exists, not for his motherboard.

He can modify his bios manually , because that is possible but it isn't without risk

What he said. If you have a Z mobo that allows overclocking then getting tha 3570k and a decent cooler and overclock it around 4ghz then sure it will be a decent upgrade but if your motherboard does not support overclocking then it will at best be a modest upgrade ( certainly not one worth 230 ).

An i7 will make more sense not so much on account of performance gains for gaming though but on account of future proofing ( as hopefully more games will start taking advantage of more than 4 cores/threads ) . Add to that quite a jump in video,photo editing and that i7 makes more sensible upgrade

@commander: Sorry about the delay of answering, health issues didn't let me reaching my PC.

I see that we cannot communicate, not because we might disagree on something, but we are saying other things and we are answering others.

@PredatorRules,@04dcarraher,@adamosmaki: I agree with you guys, its actually what I am saying...

Nope, not worth it. At least wait for Skylake.