CPU worth upgrading?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by yodude1026 (184 posts) -

hello i was going to get the i5 3570k as an upgrade from my i3 3220 as i thought it wa going to be a great upgrade and that it would improve my gaming performance by quite a bit i then talked to my friend who was quite computer savvy and he said that i wasnnt going to see much of a gaming perfmorcance increase as i should improve my GPU until it bottlenecks my cpu... is he right ? and will it improve my gaming performance in games like AC3 Crysis 2?

also i am getting some lag on AS3 in Boston on top of buildings but none in new york so i got revelations and i had the same problem on top of high buildings in cities... i have a gtx 660 which i thought would be more than capable... was i wrong or is it the cpus fault? please give me some advice...

#2 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

hello i was going to get the i5 3570k as an upgrade from my i3 3220 as i thought it wa going to be a great upgrade and that it would improve my gaming performance by quite a bit i then talked to my friend who was quite computer savvy and he said that i wasnnt going to see much of a gaming perfmorcance increase as i should improve my GPU until it bottlenecks my cpu... is he right ? and will it improve my gaming performance in games like AC3 Crysis 2?

also i am getting some lag on AS3 in Boston on top of buildings but none in new york so i got revelations and i had the same problem on top of high buildings in cities... i have a gtx 660 which i thought would be more than capable... was i wrong or is it the cpus fault? please give me some advice...

yodude1026

I upgraded to an i5 3570k cos I was getting major lag in some games (AC III definitely being one of them) and when I put in the new CPU all the problems went away. Now I blitz through any game. I have a 670.

#3 Posted by yodude1026 (184 posts) -
thx but what was ur previous CPU?
#4 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

thx but what was ur previous CPU?yodude1026

AMD Phenom II x4 955 clocked at 3.6GHz. People told me on the hardware borad constantly that I wouldn't see a big difference. They said that over and over again and I was contemplating not getting a new CPU because of that. But I finally just did it and they were all completely wrong. I'm speaking from experience rather than just what's on paper.

Now I max AC III at a constant 60 fps

#5 Posted by ionusX (25716 posts) -

[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thx but what was ur previous CPU?seanmcloughlin

AMD Phenom II x4 955 clocked at 3.6GHz. People told me on the hardware borad constantly that I wouldn't see a big difference. They said that over and over again and I was contemplating not getting a new CPU because of that. But I finally just did it and they were all completely wrong. I'm speaking from experience rather than just what's on paper.

Now I max AC III at a constant 60 fps

lulz my phenom II x4 wuz doing jsut fine when i retired it. and no you wont. would you like to see the avg fps tables on this? @ 1200p, 1600p and any resolution above the fps is within 1fps of eachother. @ 1080p their within 7fps of each other (on average), at resolutions udner 1080p its more noticeable but its more than enough. idk wut ur on aboot.

Untitled-3.png

the only time your right is in RTS's but its not exactly a huge blow b/c now your whining over the diff between 80fps and 100fps

Untitled-2.png

im not saying that you dont have some kind of differnce. but im telling you the end result is the same on paper

#6 Posted by KHAndAnime (14921 posts) -

So what we learned from those charts is that the effect that CPU has on performance differs from game to game, yet you're trying to tell him that CPU doesn't make a difference? What planet are you from dude?

If the videocard wasn't the strongest, it's obvious that one's CPU would clearly make a significant difference in Anno 1404. Assassins Creed 3 is a taxing game both on the CPU and GPU. I wouldn't be surprised if Assassin's Creed 3 is more taxing on the CPU than Anno (it's unoptimized, a console port, and has a lot of AI processing and such), so the CPU likely makes even a bigger difference here.


EDIT: Here's a chart. Looks like I was right...

#7 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thx but what was ur previous CPU?ionusX

AMD Phenom II x4 955 clocked at 3.6GHz. People told me on the hardware borad constantly that I wouldn't see a big difference. They said that over and over again and I was contemplating not getting a new CPU because of that. But I finally just did it and they were all completely wrong. I'm speaking from experience rather than just what's on paper.

Now I max AC III at a constant 60 fps

lulz my phenom II x4 wuz doing jsut fine when i retired it. and no you wont. would you like to see the avg fps tables on this? @ 1200p, 1600p and any resolution above the fps is within 1fps of eachother. @ 1080p their within 7fps of each other (on average), at resolutions udner 1080p its more noticeable but its more than enough. idk wut ur on aboot.

the only time your right is in RTS's but its not exactly a huge blow b/c now your whining over the diff between 80fps and 100fps

im not saying that you dont have some kind of differnce. but im telling you the end result is the same on paper

That's why I said "on paper" because everyone spouted back this stuff at me when I asked and advised me against a new CPU saying I wouldn't see a noticeable difference and that it wasn't bottlenecking my GPU, then I got it and everything changed and every one of those comments were wrong.

Mitu123 told me similar stuff from his experience going against everyone else and I never believed him until I saw it for myself too. Always better to go from people who actually have the experience changing like this over the people who think they know everything from charts

#8 Posted by yodude1026 (184 posts) -
thanks guys ;) sooooo i should get it?
#9 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

thanks guys ;) sooooo i should get it?yodude1026

I think you should. Get the k model and overclock the hell out of it.

#10 Posted by SAGE_OF_FIRE (15590 posts) -
Isn't Intel and AMD releasing their new processors later this year?
#11 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

AMD Phenom II x4 955 clocked at 3.6GHz. People told me on the hardware borad constantly that I wouldn't see a big difference. They said that over and over again and I was contemplating not getting a new CPU because of that. But I finally just did it and they were all completely wrong. I'm speaking from experience rather than just what's on paper.

Now I max AC III at a constant 60 fps

seanmcloughlin

lulz my phenom II x4 wuz doing jsut fine when i retired it. and no you wont. would you like to see the avg fps tables on this? @ 1200p, 1600p and any resolution above the fps is within 1fps of eachother. @ 1080p their within 7fps of each other (on average), at resolutions udner 1080p its more noticeable but its more than enough. idk wut ur on aboot.

the only time your right is in RTS's but its not exactly a huge blow b/c now your whining over the diff between 80fps and 100fps

im not saying that you dont have some kind of differnce. but im telling you the end result is the same on paper

That's why I said "on paper" because everyone spouted back this stuff at me when I asked and advised me against a new CPU saying I wouldn't see a noticeable difference and that it wasn't bottlenecking my GPU, then I got it and everything changed and every one of those comments were wrong.

Mitu123 told me similar stuff from his experience going against everyone else and I never believed him until I saw it for myself too. Always better to go from people who actually have the experience changing like this over the people who think they know everything from charts

You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k.
#12 Posted by Bikouchu35 (7652 posts) -

Go sell your cpu. Buy that, ???, profit!

#13 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

AMD Phenom II x4 955 clocked at 3.6GHz. People told me on the hardware borad constantly that I wouldn't see a big difference. They said that over and over again and I was contemplating not getting a new CPU because of that. But I finally just did it and they were all completely wrong. I'm speaking from experience rather than just what's on paper.

Now I max AC III at a constant 60 fps

seanmcloughlin

lulz my phenom II x4 wuz doing jsut fine when i retired it. and no you wont. would you like to see the avg fps tables on this? @ 1200p, 1600p and any resolution above the fps is within 1fps of eachother. @ 1080p their within 7fps of each other (on average), at resolutions udner 1080p its more noticeable but its more than enough. idk wut ur on aboot.

the only time your right is in RTS's but its not exactly a huge blow b/c now your whining over the diff between 80fps and 100fps

im not saying that you dont have some kind of differnce. but im telling you the end result is the same on paper

That's why I said "on paper" because everyone spouted back this stuff at me when I asked and advised me against a new CPU saying I wouldn't see a noticeable difference and that it wasn't bottlenecking my GPU, then I got it and everything changed and every one of those comments were wrong.

Mitu123 told me similar stuff from his experience going against everyone else and I never believed him until I saw it for myself too. Always better to go from people who actually have the experience changing like this over the people who think they know everything from charts

Don't worry man. I went from a 965 BE to i5-2500k, and people told me the same. As long as you're getting the better performance you were looking for, who cares what these people spew at ya, and dem chartz. Haha...
#14 Posted by geitenvla (960 posts) -
Whether it is better for the cause you're using it for, remains to be seen but in general: "mid-end" is faster than low-end, high-end is faster than "mid-end"; yeah get it! Switching I3 for I5 is ALWAYS better.
#15 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

Mitu123 told me similar stuff from his experience going against everyone else and I never believed him until I saw it for myself too. Always better to go from people who actually have the experience changing like this over the people who think they know everything from charts

seanmcloughlin

Exactly, once I went back to Intel, it put my AMD cpu to shame, never going back to AMD cpus for gaming either.

And lol at using benchmarks, personal experience is always the best way to go as games can use the cpu quite a bit, I mean look at Planetside 2.

#16 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. trastamad03
Another sees the light.

#17 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. mitu123

Another sees the light.

we all switched and see better results. That's why you can't always go by what you see on benchmarks. :-) I think even Sean and Mitu doubted me.:P People started pulling up on these AMD vs Intel CPu charts. Drove me nutz. Soon you realize, it's better to just ignore it and play video games. :D

#18 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Check out this Far Cry 3 benchmark:

fc3-test-cpusp5r0v.png

This weekend I upgraded from a Q6600 OC to an i5-3570K. I haven't played much but Far Cry 3 indeed runs a lot better and stuttering is gone in every game.

#19 Posted by wis3boi (32065 posts) -

Now my amd 1100 feels like a piece of sh!t :(

#20 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. Elann2008

Another sees the light.

we all switched and see better results. That's why you can't always go by what you see on benchmarks. :-) I think even Sean and Mitu doubted me.:P People started pulling up on these AMD vs Intel CPu charts. Drove me nutz. Soon you realize, it's better to just ignore it and play video games. :D

BTW how much better is your Intel cpu compared to your AMD one?

#21 Posted by theshadowhunter (2956 posts) -

get the i5 or if you want to spend more money (like I did) get the i7 (make sure you get the K model and an aftermarket cooler so you can overclock) and overclock it to like 4.0ghz or more (its easy and simple to do) and enjoy.

#22 Posted by Bikouchu35 (7652 posts) -

The benchmarks doesnt really account for 64 player multiplayer, servers w/100+ mod plugins, or skin mods. Also when I had the q6700 I experienced dips and lower maximum frames (slight bottleneck to gpu) in games like bf3 multiplayer, but none of the testing methods I guess reflects this, so we get a false sense of security that older cpu still fairs close to newer ones when is really not.

I mean I loved my q6700 (sold it :\) and can hold its own, but the games just weren't as smooth as it should be, but after I upgraded despite using the same gtx 570 my frames went up.

#23 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

I had a PII x4 955 overclocked to 3.7ghz until recently. It was still running all of my games pretty darn well. However, I got a 3570k and it has shown a big difference. Overclocked to 4.5ghz it's on a different planet from my beloved 955. Far Cry 3 has shown one of the biggest improvements.

#24 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. mitu123

Another sees the light.

It's been a while since I switched. Now I'm just waiting for the next GPU lineup... D:
#25 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -
[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="trastamad03"] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. trastamad03

Another sees the light.

It's been a while since I switched. Now I'm just waiting for the next GPU lineup... D:

770 or 780? What's it gonna be??? D:
#26 Posted by Elann2008 (33028 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Another sees the light.

mitu123

we all switched and see better results. That's why you can't always go by what you see on benchmarks. :-) I think even Sean and Mitu doubted me.:P People started pulling up on these AMD vs Intel CPu charts. Drove me nutz. Soon you realize, it's better to just ignore it and play video games. :D

BTW how much better is your Intel cpu compared to your AMD one?

Big difference mate. :] I still love the phenom II x4 955/965 BE's though. Great CPU's for price/performance. I turned it into a keychain (seriously) lol.

#27 Posted by dreamerdonkey (82 posts) -

It will be more helpful for us if you give us your full spec. Because you don't tell us about your graphics card. And graphics card is the first one who get blame for occasional game lag.

#28 Posted by RyviusARC (4933 posts) -

If the game is already running heavy on your GPU then having a better CPU won't increase performance by much.

#29 Posted by RyviusARC (4933 posts) -

So what we learned from those charts is that the effect that CPU has on performance differs from game to game, yet you're trying to tell him that CPU doesn't make a difference? What planet are you from dude?

If the videocard wasn't the strongest, it's obvious that one's CPU would clearly make a significant difference in Anno 1404. Assassins Creed 3 is a taxing game both on the CPU and GPU. I wouldn't be surprised if Assassin's Creed 3 is more taxing on the CPU than Anno (it's unoptimized, a console port, and has a lot of AI processing and such), so the CPU likely makes even a bigger difference here.


EDIT: Here's a chart. Looks like I was right...

KHAndAnime

That is mainly because Assassin's Creed 3 is horribly optimized for CPUs.

It only fully uses one core and barely uses any of the other cores.

So of course the newest intel CPUs will pull ahead because core for core they decimate the AMD side.

But this won't be as apparent in games that actually utulize multiple cores well.

#30 Posted by BattleSpectre (7543 posts) -

Biggest mistake i made with my build (i didn't even know that much when i built it) was the fact i didn't spend the $20 more and get the "K" unlocked model of the i5 2500.

I have no complaints with my CPU and even at it's stock speed it handles every game perfectly fine but in the future it would of been nice having a piece of mind knowing i could get more power out of it by overclocking.

The clerk behind the counter asked me "Would you like the unlocked model, it's about a $20 difference or so?" to which i turned around and looked over at my friend and thought to myself "Nah i probably won't even overclock it anyway". But i tell you what it still hurts to this day knowing i turned that down :cry:

But hey we win some and we lose some, i'll definitely know for next time to ask for advice on here before i make another big purchase. I guess i had to learn the hard way lol.

But yes i say go for it mate.

#31 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

[QUOTE="trastamad03"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Another sees the light.Elann2008
It's been a while since I switched. Now I'm just waiting for the next GPU lineup... D:

770 or 780? What's it gonna be??? D:

Most probably SLI 770. I'll see though. I'm kinda cautious due to the overheating issue i'm having with my current GTX 560Ti-s though. So I'll just get 1, see if it can handle 2560x1440 without overheating, then if all is well, get a 2nd one.

#32 Posted by Ben-Buja (2796 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"] lulz my phenom II x4 wuz doing jsut fine when i retired it. and no you wont. would you like to see the avg fps tables on this? @ 1200p, 1600p and any resolution above the fps is within 1fps of eachother. @ 1080p their within 7fps of each other (on average), at resolutions udner 1080p its more noticeable but its more than enough. idk wut ur on aboot.

the only time your right is in RTS's but its not exactly a huge blow b/c now your whining over the diff between 80fps and 100fps

im not saying that you dont have some kind of differnce. but im telling you the end result is the same on paper

trastamad03

That's why I said "on paper" because everyone spouted back this stuff at me when I asked and advised me against a new CPU saying I wouldn't see a noticeable difference and that it wasn't bottlenecking my GPU, then I got it and everything changed and every one of those comments were wrong.

Mitu123 told me similar stuff from his experience going against everyone else and I never believed him until I saw it for myself too. Always better to go from people who actually have the experience changing like this over the people who think they know everything from charts

You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k.

Same here. Going from a Q9650 to a i7 3930K gave me a huge boost in plenty games. Of course not every game out there is that CPU dependant, but it's making sure even CPU heavy console ports run great.

BF3 multiplayer also really benefits with a strong CPU, but people will post that utterly useless SP CPU test to try to prove the opposite.

#33 Posted by jwsoul (5315 posts) -
Get an I7 K mate. Its the better of the current line. After much research its what i chose in this beast i am typing on.
#35 Posted by KHAndAnime (14921 posts) -

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

So what we learned from those charts is that the effect that CPU has on performance differs from game to game, yet you're trying to tell him that CPU doesn't make a difference? What planet are you from dude?

If the videocard wasn't the strongest, it's obvious that one's CPU would clearly make a significant difference in Anno 1404. Assassins Creed 3 is a taxing game both on the CPU and GPU. I wouldn't be surprised if Assassin's Creed 3 is more taxing on the CPU than Anno (it's unoptimized, a console port, and has a lot of AI processing and such), so the CPU likely makes even a bigger difference here.


EDIT: Here's a chart. Looks like I was right...

RyviusARC

That is mainly because Assassin's Creed 3 is horribly optimized for CPUs.

It only fully uses one core and barely uses any of the other cores.

So of course the newest intel CPUs will pull ahead because core for core they decimate the AMD side.

But this won't be as apparent in games that actually utulize multiple cores well.

Well, he does want to play AC3.There are a lot of games where an upgraded CPU can make a good difference in framerate if the current CPU isn't up to snuff. How optimized these games are is completely irrelevant because in the end, an upgraded CPU will score you more frames if your current CPU isn't relatively up to date. There are always going to be games that barely use the CPU and make it seem pointless to upgrade, and then there are always going to be games that rely on it heavily and are unoptimized. You can't just focus on the former, you must consider the latter as well. Here's a benchmark for Crysis 2, another game the OP specified. Anyone with eyes can plainly see that CPU gives you more frames.
#36 Posted by RyviusARC (4933 posts) -

Well, he does want to play AC3.There are a lot of games where an upgraded CPU can make a good difference in framerate if the current CPU isn't up to snuff. How optimized these games are is completely irrelevant because in the end, an upgraded CPU will score you more frames if your current CPU isn't relatively up to date. There are always going to be games that barely use the CPU and make it seem pointless to upgrade, and then there are always going to be games that rely on it heavily and are unoptimized. You can't just focus on the former, you must consider the latter as well. Here's a benchmark for Crysis 2, another game the OP specified. Anyone with eyes can plainly see that CPU gives you more frames.  KHAndAnime

Yah but if a game is already heavily stressing your GPU then a better CPU won't really show an improvement.

So it depends on your system as a whole.

For example one of my older PC builds with a GTX 570 and Phenom II x4 965 doesn't really show much of an improvement in Crysis 2 when I put the GTX 570 in my i5 2500k 4.0ghz build.

Unlike the benchmark you posted I ran the game at max directx 11 settings and even modded it.

If you have a high end GPU then sure the new CPU will help but usually in the games that it makes a difference you are comparing an already smooth 60fps+ to some 78fps+.

#37 Posted by Ben-Buja (2796 posts) -

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Well, he does want to play AC3.There are a lot of games where an upgraded CPU can make a good difference in framerate if the current CPU isn't up to snuff. How optimized these games are is completely irrelevant because in the end, an upgraded CPU will score you more frames if your current CPU isn't relatively up to date. There are always going to be games that barely use the CPU and make it seem pointless to upgrade, and then there are always going to be games that rely on it heavily and are unoptimized. You can't just focus on the former, you must consider the latter as well. Here's a benchmark for Crysis 2, another game the OP specified. Anyone with eyes can plainly see that CPU gives you more frames.RyviusARC

Yah but if a game is already heavily stressing your GPU then a better CPU won't really show an improvement.

So it depends on your system as a whole.

For example one of my older PC builds with a GTX 570 and Phenom II x4 965 doesn't really show much of an improvement in Crysis 2 when I put the GTX 570 in my i5 2500k 4.0ghz build.

Unlike the benchmark you posted I ran the game at max directx 11 settings and even modded it.

If you have a high end GPU then sure the new CPU will help but usually in the games that it makes a difference you are comparing an already smooth 60fps+ to some 78fps+.

In most games that were bottlenecking my CPU I noticed a "look in one direction, 60 fps, look in the other 20-30 fps" issue. I don't know about you but that is extremely annoying to me, especially if you turn and it feels like everything is slowing down for a second.

A CPU upgrade is definitely worth it to get rid of those annoying low dips. Games like short after launch Skyrim were the worst. You could have pretty much 60 fps everywhere but everytime you entered a city it dropped in the 20s.

#38 Posted by wis3boi (32065 posts) -

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Well, he does want to play AC3.There are a lot of games where an upgraded CPU can make a good difference in framerate if the current CPU isn't up to snuff. How optimized these games are is completely irrelevant because in the end, an upgraded CPU will score you more frames if your current CPU isn't relatively up to date. There are always going to be games that barely use the CPU and make it seem pointless to upgrade, and then there are always going to be games that rely on it heavily and are unoptimized. You can't just focus on the former, you must consider the latter as well. Here's a benchmark for Crysis 2, another game the OP specified. Anyone with eyes can plainly see that CPU gives you more frames.Ben-Buja

Yah but if a game is already heavily stressing your GPU then a better CPU won't really show an improvement.

So it depends on your system as a whole.

For example one of my older PC builds with a GTX 570 and Phenom II x4 965 doesn't really show much of an improvement in Crysis 2 when I put the GTX 570 in my i5 2500k 4.0ghz build.

Unlike the benchmark you posted I ran the game at max directx 11 settings and even modded it.

If you have a high end GPU then sure the new CPU will help but usually in the games that it makes a difference you are comparing an already smooth 60fps+ to some 78fps+.

In most games that were bottlenecking my CPU I noticed a "look in one direction, 60 fps, look in the other 20-30 fps" issue. I don't know about you but that is extremely annoying to me, especially if you turn and it feels like everything is slowing down for a second.

A CPU upgrade is definitely worth it to get rid of those annoying low dips. Games like short after launch Skyrim were the worst. You could have pretty much 60 fps everywhere but everytime you entered a city it dropped in the 20s.

Indeed, my skyrim does that a lot. Can't tell if it's a VRAM issue though, I have to look into it more...since I use an ENB + 2k res textures

#39 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

Indeed, my skyrim does that a lot. Can't tell if it's a VRAM issue though, I have to look into it more...since I use an ENB + 2k res textures

wis3boi

Modded Skyrim is a VRAM hog.

#40 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

For example one of my older PC builds with a GTX 570 and Phenom II x4 965 doesn't really show much of an improvement in Crysis 2 when I put the GTX 570 in my i5 2500k 4.0ghz build.

Unlike the benchmark you posted I ran the game at max directx 11 settings and even modded it.

RyviusARC

Isn't Crysis 2 gpu extensive anyways?

#41 Posted by RyviusARC (4933 posts) -

Isn't Crysis 2 gpu extensive anyways?

mitu123

It is when you enable the DX11 features and add mods.

It all comes down to what is the bottleneck for your system.

For me it is rarely the CPU.