Might upgrade CPU later this year

Ok so later on in the year, when the "next gen" type games start appearing, I may decide to upgrade my CPU/Motherboard. Also, I may finally decide to switch from AMD to Intel, since it has to be said, their CPUs are significantly faster comparted to their AMD counterparts. 

I currently have an AMD Phenom X4 955 which I have overclocked to 3.7GHz (not 3.8 like in my sig, I did have it at that but it wasnt too stable and I dont think ive changed my sig yet)

For current games, this CPU seems to cope fine, though it can just about handle Crysis 3 at near max settings, I normally get around 35fps. 

However, I dont feel confident that my CPU will fair too well with new games that come out later in the year. 

My question is, would upgrading from my current CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570k be worthwhile? 

PS: I have a GTX570 GPU :)

Thanks in advance!

I think that you should! I'm not SUPER familiar with AMD, so I dont know how old your CPU is, but I just got my i5 3570k, and it's been absolutely wonderful! I'll be good for upgrades for a few years down the road yet! Not to mention you can get one for about $230 on Newegg. I think that it would be a very worthwhile upgrade. These are what I have:

 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157293


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504 

Overclockable and wonderful! :) The mobo may be different for you, however, depending on your setup.

Ok so later on in the year, when the "next gen" type games start appearing, I may decide to upgrade my CPU/Motherboard. Also, I may finally decide to switch from AMD to Intel, since it has to be said, their CPUs are significantly faster comparted to their AMD counterparts. 

I currently have an AMD Phenom X4 955 which I have overclocked to 3.7GHz (not 3.8 like in my sig, I did have it at that but it wasnt too stable and I dont think ive changed my sig yet)

For current games, this CPU seems to cope fine, though it can just about handle Crysis 3 at near max settings, I normally get around 35fps. 

However, I dont feel confident that my CPU will fair too well with new games that come out later in the year. 

My question is, would upgrading from my current CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570k be worthwhile? 

PS: I have a GTX570 GPU :)

Thanks in advance!

Chris_53

as haswell seems to be a flop preformance wise.

ionusX

Have you got more info on this as all i have read has suggested you are getting the normal 10%ish increase as per most CPUs in similar socket but just with a new generation along with much better power comsumption and intergrated graphics that rival a 650........

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

as haswell seems to be a flop preformance wise.

5SI-GonePostal

Have you got more info on this as all i have read has suggested you are getting the normal 10%ish increase as per most CPUs in similar socket but just with a new generation along with much better power comsumption and intergrated graphics that rival a 650........

as for this hd 5100 series intel gpu i have a serious doubt about its preformance. and even if im wrong AMD"s offering on richland is = hd 6790 so all this work by intel jsut for amd's apu gpu side to start taking off

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

as haswell seems to be a flop preformance wise.

5SI-GonePostal

Have you got more info on this as all i have read has suggested you are getting the normal 10%ish increase as per most CPUs in similar socket but just with a new generation along with much better power comsumption and intergrated graphics that rival a 650........

Ok so later on in the year, when the "next gen" type games start appearing, I may decide to upgrade my CPU/Motherboard. Also, I may finally decide to switch from AMD to Intel, since it has to be said, their CPUs are significantly faster comparted to their AMD counterparts. 

I currently have an AMD Phenom X4 955 which I have overclocked to 3.7GHz (not 3.8 like in my sig, I did have it at that but it wasnt too stable and I dont think ive changed my sig yet)

For current games, this CPU seems to cope fine, though it can just about handle Crysis 3 at near max settings, I normally get around 35fps. 

However, I dont feel confident that my CPU will fair too well with new games that come out later in the year. 

My question is, would upgrading from my current CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570k be worthwhile? 

PS: I have a GTX570 GPU :)

Thanks in advance!

Chris_53

So what you both said is exactly what i thought - Haswell is to Ivy, what Ivy was to Sandy.  So if you have either a Sandy or an Ivy its not worth upgrading unless you are coming from a low end to a high end and even then needing to buy a new mobo is a pain.  Which also means if the price of 4570 is similar to 3570 (as it was with the 2500 for the first 6 months) and a z87 mobo to a z77 and you are wanting to upgrade then Haswell is the way to go.

[QUOTE="Chris_53"]

Ok so later on in the year, when the "next gen" type games start appearing, I may decide to upgrade my CPU/Motherboard. Also, I may finally decide to switch from AMD to Intel, since it has to be said, their CPUs are significantly faster comparted to their AMD counterparts. 

I currently have an AMD Phenom X4 955 which I have overclocked to 3.7GHz (not 3.8 like in my sig, I did have it at that but it wasnt too stable and I dont think ive changed my sig yet)

For current games, this CPU seems to cope fine, though it can just about handle Crysis 3 at near max settings, I normally get around 35fps. 

However, I dont feel confident that my CPU will fair too well with new games that come out later in the year. 

My question is, would upgrading from my current CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570k be worthwhile? 

PS: I have a GTX570 GPU :)

Thanks in advance!

04dcarraher

Ok so later on in the year, when the "next gen" type games start appearing, I may decide to upgrade my CPU/Motherboard. Also, I may finally decide to switch from AMD to Intel, since it has to be said, their CPUs are significantly faster comparted to their AMD counterparts. 

I currently have an AMD Phenom X4 955 which I have overclocked to 3.7GHz (not 3.8 like in my sig, I did have it at that but it wasnt too stable and I dont think ive changed my sig yet)

For current games, this CPU seems to cope fine, though it can just about handle Crysis 3 at near max settings, I normally get around 35fps. 

However, I dont feel confident that my CPU will fair too well with new games that come out later in the year. 

My question is, would upgrading from my current CPU to an Intel Core i5 3570k be worthwhile? 

PS: I have a GTX570 GPU :)

Thanks in advance!

Chris_53

I feel like one of the most well-qualified people to answer this question, since my situation 2 months ago was nearly identical to yours.  I had a 3.7ghz PII X4 955 and a Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC, which trades blows with a stock GTX 570 in most games.  I kept my GPU and upgraded to a 3570k, then OC'd it to 4.5ghz.  

The answer is YES.  You will see a small to moderate performance gain in most games, but it will be huge in others.  The 3570k is much better-suited to handling CPU-intensive games, and will push more data to your GPU.  When you eventually upgrade your GPU, the difference will get even bigger.  I'm very happy with my decision to upgrade.  

I'll likely upgrade to a high-end Haswell when they're out.

Should be a nice step up from my 2600k.

I'll likely upgrade to a high-end Haswell when they're out.

Should be a nice step up from my 2600k.

FaustArp

I'll likely upgrade to a high-end Haswell when they're out.

Should be a nice step up from my 2600k.

FaustArp

It doesn't seem like it will be much of a step-up, from what I've read.  

I'll likely upgrade to a high-end Haswell when they're out.

Should be a nice step up from my 2600k.

FaustArp

Nope - you will see very little + you need a new mobo so not cost effective either

Where are you guys reading up on Haswell performance?

I haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks.  :)

Where are you guys reading up on Haswell performance?

I haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks.  :)

FaustArp

Well that sucks, I was kinda hoping for a CPU upgrade this year.  

Well that sucks, I was kinda hoping for a CPU upgrade this year.  

FaustArp

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

Well that sucks, I was kinda hoping for a CPU upgrade this year.  

04dcarraher

Lol...

Very few games are that CPU intensive in the sense that the CPU you have now at that clock speed wouldn't be able to handle them at a very solid frame rate. If you upgrade the CPU you will also need a new motherboard, all in you are probably looking at close to $400. There are some RTS games and a few demanding others where you will gain 20-25 FPS but keep in mind that the gain is going to be from 60FPS to 80 FPS which in reality is a very meaningless bump. Now if we are talking about going from 35FPS to 60FPS that is a huge difference. If you have a good GPU this is not going to be the case, IMO you are going to be throwing away money that you should spend in a year or two. There isn't a game out there that I know of that your CPU is going to hold you back from playing at atleast 45-50 FPS which is more than acceptable. You have to decide if it's worth $400 of your dollars to play games at 75 FPS over 50 FPS and in most cases the gain won't even be that unless you have a top end GPU like a 7970 or 680.

I would wait until haswell comes out. I'd say wait until the benchmarks to see how much of an improvement haswell is.

I would wait until haswell comes out. I'd say wait until the benchmarks to see how much of an improvement haswell is.

way2funny

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

I would wait until haswell comes out. I'd say wait until the benchmarks to see how much of an improvement haswell is.

04dcarraher

So if your gonna get an Ivy why not wait and get that extra 15%? Its not like he'd be waiting a long time, its set to come out before summer

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="way2funny"]

I would wait until haswell comes out. I'd say wait until the benchmarks to see how much of an improvement haswell is.

way2funny

So if your gonna get an Ivy why not wait and get that extra 15%? Its not like he'd be waiting a long time, its set to come out before summer

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Intel already stated dont expect more then 15% on average over ivy04dcarraher

So if your gonna get an Ivy why not wait and get that extra 15%? Its not like he'd be waiting a long time, its set to come out before summer

amd rpomising a much better result but their behind. imo steamroller will be a heck of a show. we may even see AMD catch up to ivybridge right before haswell shows up on da scene. they defied the odds and beat neahelm and have given sandy a run for her money. now we will see in june if AMD can finally match wits with the megalith that is intel's current gen cpu's if nothing more than in preformance

I myself am kinda torn on the whole Haswell business.  I want to upgrade my 2600k.  There is no point in upgrading to 3770k, the difference is minuscule.

So I'm gonna wait to see what Haswell brings to the table.  I won't upgrade if I can't get a 20% (or more) difference though, so I might just have to stay with my 2600k.  Which kinda bums me out, I want to upgrade.

We'll see I guess.

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

Where are you guys reading up on Haswell performance?

I haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks.  :)

04dcarraher

that is almost a useless quest.  The only ones going to benefit from this are laptop users, which I admit is pretty awesome to have a laptop with intel igpu capable of playing alot of great games out there at medium settings.  But for their desktop users this means nothing.  I will be interested in getting an ivy laptop, but my lenovo x120e is still plenty for my uses.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="FaustArp"]

Where are you guys reading up on Haswell performance?

I haven't seen anything yet.

Thanks.  :)

blaznwiipspman1

that is almost a useless quest.  The only ones going to benefit from this are laptop users, which I admit is pretty awesome to have a laptop with intel igpu capable of playing alot of great games out there at medium settings.  But for their desktop users this means nothing.  I will be interested in getting an ivy laptop, but my lenovo x120e is still plenty for my uses.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] From intel themselves, their focusing the IGP portion with haswell giving it nearly 2x the performance over ivy's IGP "HD 4000's"04dcarraher

that is almost a useless quest.  The only ones going to benefit from this are laptop users, which I admit is pretty awesome to have a laptop with intel igpu capable of playing alot of great games out there at medium settings.  But for their desktop users this means nothing.  I will be interested in getting an ivy laptop, but my lenovo x120e is still plenty for my uses.

That is DAMN impressive.  People will be able to build a PC for sub-1080p gaming using just an APU and no discreet GPU.  Obviously they will have to sacrifice on some detail settings, but still..  That's quite an accomplishment for the red team.  

Wait for the new consoles. The new consoles will most likely render anything you could buy right now completely obsolete. 

Wait for the new consoles. The new consoles will most likely render anything you could buy right now completely obsolete. 

bigfoot2045

Wait for the new consoles. The new consoles will most likely render anything you could buy right now completely obsolete. 

bigfoot2045

Not from what we've seen about them.  

Wait for the new consoles. The new consoles will most likely render anything you could buy right now completely obsolete. 

bigfoot2045

Wait for the new consoles. The new consoles will most likely render anything you could buy right now completely obsolete. 

bigfoot2045

You guys do realize that you need much more powerful PC hardware to achieve similar results to the consoles? They have minimal OS's and the games are much better optimized. You don't want to end up like people who built Pentium D/Geforce 7800 systems in 2005 only to realize that wasn't going to cut it, or people who built Pentium 3/Geforce systems in 2000. I've seen this all before, and guys like you are always proven wrong. 

The best time to build a new system is usually about a year or two after the consoles launch. Then you know exactly what you'll need to run games, and by that point PC hardware will have far surpassed what the consoles are running to the point where you'll be able to achieve much better results on PC. 

Right now is a horrible time to build a new system, especially if what you have is already decent like the OP. 

You guys do realize that you need much more powerful PC hardware to achieve similar results to the consoles? They have minimal OS's and the games are much better optimized. You don't want to end up like people who built Pentium D/Geforce 7800 systems in 2005 only to realize that wasn't going to cut it, or people who built Pentium 3/Geforce systems in 2000. I've seen this all before, and guys like you are always proven wrong. 

The best time to build a new system is usually about a year or two after the consoles launch. Then you know exactly what you'll need to run games, and by that point PC hardware will have far surpassed what the consoles are running to the point where you'll be able to achieve much better results on PC. 

Right now is a horrible time to build a new system, especially if what you have is already decent like the OP. 

bigfoot2045

Sorry to burst your bubble that no amount of "magic" will allow a 7850 to match a 7970 or GTX 680 let alone any gpu release in the near future or around consoles release dates. At best with some tweaks and work you can only expect them to gain 15-25% more performance with coding. And for the cpu's they are AMD based being a 8 core at 1.6 ghz or four core being at 3.2 ghz which means no real gains over pc.

Now fact is that even with a 7850 type of gpu a 7970ghz is almost 2.5x faster, which you could compare it to the 360's Xenos to the 8800, where the gpu have well over 2x the performabce over 2x the memory and bandwidth and is able cream the 360 to this day with multiplats.

The 8800 also came out a year after the 360. The 360 launched at the end of 2005, while the Geforce 8800 came out at the end of 2006. You couldn't even get a PC GPU with unified shaders like the 360 when it launched. You kind of just proved my point. It's better to wait at least a year after the consoles come out before building something. 

The 8800 also came out a year after the 360. The 360 launched at the end of 2005, while the Geforce 8800 came out at the end of 2006. You couldn't even get a PC GPU with unified shaders like the 360 when it launched. You kind of just proved my point. It's better to wait at least a year after the consoles come out before building something. 

bigfoot2045

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/20/next-gen-consoles-will-struggle-to-beat-pc-say-industry-insiders/

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

And as I recall, there were very similar articles on tech sites last time around saying that the Xenon CPU and Cell CPU would be weaker than Pentium 4s. There was even an article like that on Anandtech of all places, which they've long since removed. Those kinds of articles look laughable in restrospect. 

The 8800 also came out a year after the 360. The 360 launched at the end of 2005, while the Geforce 8800 came out at the end of 2006. You couldn't even get a PC GPU with unified shaders like the 360 when it launched. You kind of just proved my point. It's better to wait at least a year after the consoles come out before building something. 

bigfoot2045

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

bigfoot2045

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

And as I recall, there were very similar articles on tech sites last time around saying that the Xenon CPU and Cell CPU would be weaker than Pentium 4s. There was even an article like that on Anandtech of all places, which they've long since removed. Those kinds of articles look laughable in restrospect. 

bigfoot2045

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

darksusperia

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

And as I recall, there were very similar articles on tech sites last time around saying that the Xenon CPU and Cell CPU would be weaker than Pentium 4s. There was even an article like that on Anandtech of all places, which they've long since removed. Those kinds of articles look laughable in restrospect. 

04dcarraher

All I can say to this is LOL. I know this is absolute BS because the Cell CPU can handle full 1080p video playback. You can't even play back a 720p file on a Pentium 4. 

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

We don't know that for certain. We know next to nothing about these consoles other than vague rumors. If the console makers have any aces up their sleeves like last time around with the unified shaders on the 360 GPU, or the PS3's heavily threaded Cell CPU, anything you build now would be a waste of money. 

And as I recall, there were very similar articles on tech sites last time around saying that the Xenon CPU and Cell CPU would be weaker than Pentium 4s. There was even an article like that on Anandtech of all places, which they've long since removed. Those kinds of articles look laughable in restrospect. 

bigfoot2045

All I can say to this is LOL. I know this is absolute BS because the Cell CPU can handle full 1080p video playback. You can't even play back a 720p file on a Pentium 4. 

How do you figure? While it's hard to do direct comparisons of console and PC CPUs, I can compare them in real world usage, like playing back video files. The Cell CPU in the PS3 has no issues with Blu-ray or 1080p video files. Try doing either of those things on a Pentium 4 and you'd be watching a clip show. 

How do you figure? While it's hard to do direct comparisons of console and PC CPUs, I can compare them in real world usage, like playing back video files. The Cell CPU in the PS3 has no issues with Blu-ray or 1080p video files. Try doing either of those things on a Pentium 4 and you'd be watching a clip show. 

bigfoot2045

Its not hard to compare pc cpu's vs console cpu's. Xenon can do 6 cpu clock cycles per second (2 per core) while the Cell "PPE" can only do 3.2, and an Athlon X2's can do 7.3(3.65 per core) cpu clock cycles per second. MIPs is another way to compare, Xenon(3.2 ghz) can do 19,000 while PS3's PPE can only do 10,000, and an Athlon X2 6000 3.0 ghz can do 22,000 MIPs.  Now even with the might of the Cell's SPE's cant even match an intel C2Q Q6600 in Folding@home is 2x faster.  Also Not sure why you like to keep comparing the Pentium 4's since it was designed and released in 2000.....  its 2003/2004 era brothers are able to send the video data to the gpu for decoding just fine. Heck an old laptop using a P4 at 2.6 ghz and a FX 5200 can do 720 video play back. As long as you have a gpu that able to decode bluray your not going to have any trouble.

guys

1080p video playback can be done on cell phones nowadays.  It was possible from around 2009- maybe even earlier.  I also know for SURE that a pentium 4 cpu is actually more powerful than an ARM processor...you simply cant compare the two.  An a5 processor in an iphone is much more powerful than an xbox cpu or a cell processor.  An a5 processor is similar in power to a 1995 pentium processor.  The only reason an A5 can run 1080p properly is because of the design of ARM cpus is alot easier to do some tasks.  Try running windows xp, hell even windows 98 would have an absurd amount of difficulty running on an ARM cpu.  Which is why you get these garbage wannabe OS's like Android and ARM that are incredibly stripped down.  So lets just say that youre comparing apples to oranges/