This forum is considered a sanctuary for PC and Mac Gamers. Anti-PC and Mac game discussions will be moderated as a type of forum invasion. Keep your discussions about the games and those who play them.
PC & Mac Forum Rules
- Read the Terms of Use and FAQ.
- Illegal activities not permitted; admitting/requesting piracy and defeating copy-protection will result in the removal of privileges.
- No hardware specific discussions allowed. Use the Computer Hardware forum.
- Platform comparison discussions belong in the System Wars forum.
CPU worth upgrading?
- Jan 14, 2013 7:47 am GMT
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...
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 7:57 am GMT
[QUOTE="yodude1026"]
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...
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 8:30 am GMTthx but what was ur previous CPU?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 8:40 am GMT
[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thx but what was ur previous CPU?[/QUOTE]
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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 8:56 am GMTlulz 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.seanmcloughlin wrote:yodude1026 wrote:thx but what was ur previous CPU?
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
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
steam id: ionus123, PSN: ionusx,BLOG
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]
[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thx but what was ur previous CPU?[/QUOTE]
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
[/QUOTE] 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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 9:30 am GMT
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...
Edited on Jan 14, 2013 9:33 am GMT
JOIN SYSTEMWARS 2 NAMALSK DAYZ SERVER (Whitelist - Apply at Link)
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...[img]http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Assassins%20Creed%20III/ac3%20proz.png[/img]
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 10:05 am GMT
[QUOTE="ionusX"]
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]
[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thx but what was ur previous CPU?[/QUOTE]
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
[/QUOTE] 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
[/QUOTE]
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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 11:15 am GMTthanks guys
sooooo i should get it?thanks guys ;) sooooo i should get it?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 11:54 am GMTyodude1026 wrote:thanks guys sooooo i should get it?
I think you should. Get the k model and overclock the hell out of it.
[QUOTE="yodude1026"]thanks guys ;) sooooo i should get it?[/QUOTE]
I think you should. Get the k model and overclock the hell out of it.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 12:32 pm GMT
Asus P8Z68-V PROGeForce GTX 570Intel Core i5 2500K8.00 GB DDR3
Isn't Intel and AMD releasing their new processors later this year?- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 12:35 pm GMT
______________________________
Cooler Master HAF XB ~ MSI Big Bang MPower Z77~ i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz ~ G.Skill Sniper 16GB DDR3 1600
EVGA GTX670 4GB FTW SLI ~ ADATA XPG SX900 512GB ~ 2TB Hitachi GST Deskstar 5k3000
Catleap Q270E 1440p@120Hz ~ Corsair TX750 750W PSU
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"][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
[/QUOTE] 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
[/QUOTE]
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
[/QUOTE] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 2:59 pm GMT
Steam id: Biko is L1nsani7y Rig: i5 2500k 4.1ghz + 9700cnps Nvidia ed. l GTX 570 Evga (960/1920/2400~max) l 2x4gb PNY Optima l Corsair HX520 l e7dac/e9amplifier > Ultrasone Dj1 l Alienware M11x r1
Go sell your cpu. Buy that, ???, profit!
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 3:03 pm GMT
intel i5-2500k @ 4.4 GHz l MSi Z77-G43 l 8GB G.Skill 1333 MHz l EVGA GTX 670 l CM Hyper 212+ l Corsair TX750 l CM HAF-932 Advanced l Razer Deathadder l DAS Keyboard l Audio Technica ATH-AD700 l Asus Xonar DG l Asus 27-inch 1200p[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"][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
[/QUOTE] 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
[/QUOTE]
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
[/QUOTE] 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...- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 3:10 pm GMT
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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 4:11 pm GMT
[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]
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
[/QUOTE] 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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 4:11 pm GMT
[QUOTE="trastamad03"] You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. [/QUOTE] Another sees the light.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 5:07 pm GMTwe 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.mitu123 wrote:Another sees the light.trastamad03 wrote:You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k.
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. 
Edited on Jan 14, 2013 5:10 pm GMT
intel i5-2500k @ 4.4 GHz l MSi Z77-G43 l 8GB G.Skill 1333 MHz l EVGA GTX 670 l CM Hyper 212+ l Corsair TX750 l CM HAF-932 Advanced l Razer Deathadder l DAS Keyboard l Audio Technica ATH-AD700 l Asus Xonar DG l Asus 27-inch 1200p[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. [/QUOTE] Another sees the light.
[/QUOTE] 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
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 5:16 pm GMT
Check out this Far Cry 3 benchmark:
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.
Check out this Far Cry 3 benchmark:
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 5:37 pm GMT
Now my amd 1100 feels like a piece of sh!t
Now my amd 1100 feels like a piece of sh!t :(
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Jan 14, 2013 5:38 pm GMTBTW how much better is your Intel cpu compared to your AMD one?Elann2008 wrote: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.mitu123 wrote:Another sees the light.trastamad03 wrote:You can add my vote about switching CPUs having a major impact. Went from Phenom II X4 940 to i5 2500k. 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.
[QUOTE="Elann2008"]
[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. [/QUOTE] Another sees the light.
[/QUOTE] 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
[/QUOTE] BTW how much better is your Intel cpu compared to your AMD one?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
