GPU upgrade for Core2 e8400?

[Dutch]

My current system is an OCed e8400 with a GTX 260. I want to a video card that can get good eye candy on BF3, Crysis 2, and god willing a 2011 release of Old Republic.

Any thoughts on a good video card upgrade that wouldn't go to waste with my older CPU? Would an ATI 6950 be horribly bottlenecked by my CPU?

 

[DualOwn]

with crysis 2 you should be fine since the game is all about gpu.

with bf3 you will have major bottleneck.

 

[Pitbull]

It will be bottle necked but you will still get a nice bump, im running a similar setup but with the chip at 4250, i still play games at great rates, till i upgrade to ivy.

 

[Mav451]

If you're only playing at 1080P, I'd almost be inclined to say you want a better CPU first. If BF3 responds the way BF2 did, it will benefit from a higher IPC, particularly with lower resolutions (such as 1080P). And my belief is any MMO is going to be more CPU-limited anyway.

My question is how much you value maxing AA/AF and where your priorities are with balancing MP or SP play.

Anyway short answer - 6950 is a good jump for you, but you need to ask yourself what your priorities are.

 

[MacLeod]

I think your CPU is fine. Yes a fast quad core would help you in a couple games, but a E8400 with a healthy overclock is plenty of muscle for games at 1920x1080 when paired with a beefy video card like a 6950 or better. Im not saying you shouldnt upgrade to a quad core eventually, just that if its one or the other, moving up to a 6950 or better would give you a bigger jump in frame rates than simply adding a faster processor, especially at 1920x1080 where the GPU is doing most of the work anyways.

So I say get the fastest video card you can afford right now and start saving for tossing in a fast Core 2 Quad later on down the road or even better, upgrading to a Sandy Bridge platform.

 

[spengbab]

I don't know how much your CPU is oc'd but I had an e8200 that was oc'd. I didn't realize it at the time but a 5770 bottlenecks the e8200. Your CPU may just be barely able to hold the 260. Even at 3.2 GHz for me, when I upgraded to a core i5 system I noticed a HUGE improvement in gaming. My core 2 could simply not keep up. I would say stick with your 260 or do an overhaul. I upgraded my system to a core i5 for about $415, which isn't too bad.

 

[Dutch]

Good points, my monitor is 1920x1200 and I do like AA/AF. I don't need 16x AA but 4x seems to smooth things out enough for my eye not to be bummed out by all the jaggies, sweet graphics are a major enjoyment factor for me. I've put off Crysis 2 until I can get a system that can handle medium-high settings with some AA/AF.

Going a new mobo/cpu/ram is a big leap in cost though. What would be a good value upgrade in that department? I know sandy bridge 2500k is all the rage right now but that would be at least $500 for the big 3 plus another 200-300 for the GPU. Hmmm......

 

[MacLeod]

I still say youd be fine for now with that E8400. I went from a Phenom dual core to my Phenom 6 core and noticed very little frame rate increase. At resolutions above 1680x1050, CPU doesnt come into play that much as it does at lower resolutions.

Drop a 6970 in there and I guarantee you, you will see a BIG jump in performance. Then start saving for the new motherboard, RAM and all that and you can squeeze out a few more frames later. I just think its best to increase your performance by 20 fps now then add another 5 later with the new proc as opposed to increasing it by 5 now with a new proc alone.

 

[GotNoRice]

at 1920x1080 where the GPU is doing most of the work anyways.

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

OP said BF3. BF3 will laugh at Dual cores. While it's true that the games that will take advantage of 4 CPU cores are still in the minority, those games are also the newest and most demanding games a.k.a. the fun new games the OP probably wants to play.

 

[MacLeod]

Nope. Thats why CPU reviews always have the game benchmarks at 1680x1050 and usually with medium to low settings. At max or near max settings and higher resolutions, the CPU becomes less of a factor. Im not saying its not important, just not AS important as it is at lower resolutions.

For example, Overclocker's Club used to review their CPU's with games at max settings and resolutions up to 1920x1200 and they were usually always damn near dead even.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/athlon2_phenom2_2010/

Now theyve switched to staying under 1680x1050 and they use lowest settings possible.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom_2_x4_980/

 

[spengbab]

I can say that while playing BFBC2 I could definitely see a bottleneck at 1920x1080. The core i5 produces much smoother frames. Dutch I have a 2400 without unlocked multipliers and I'm not missing anything. A 3.9GHz 1 core to 3.6GHz quad core is enough to handle all games if need be. The stock clocks (3.1-3.4) run everything like a champ. It laughed at me when I had it encode a 30 minute sc2 video at 1080p resolutions (also working with 1080p footage).
Save up some money because it will be worth it. And you use ddr3 ram right? That will save you some money too. Unfortunately your CPU is showing it's age and there's really no way to upgrade the CPU without spending a little more coin because of the mobo.

 

[cannondale06]

with crysis 2 you should be fine since the game is all about gpu.

with bf3 you will have major bottleneck.

not true at all. Crysis 2 is way more cpu dependent than the first game. my E8500 at 3.8 was nearly pegged the whole time even at 1920x1080 with just a gtx260.

I think a lot of you do not realize how much his cpu will hold back a really high end card. I am not saying he should not get a faster card but certainly he will come no where near what a very high end card is capable of in more cpu intensive games.

 

[MacLeod]

Nobody is saying he'll never need a new CPU. Obviously a shiny new i5-2500 will unlock all the potential that GTX260 has but thats still not that much. A 260 is capable of about 25 fps in Crysis at 1920x1080. A 6950 will get in the upper 40's.

So while he certainly is due for a CPU upgrade, in this case its either a i5/GTX260 or Core2/6950 and the latter will be a much better performing setup.

 

[roki977]

I am for gtx260 combo. Rather that than bottlenecked 6950. Try to turn of two cores on SB cpus+high end GPU and play BF2. BF3 wont be any better and there are many CPU bounded games today and most of them are very good games.
It is 2011 and old reviews about cpu and gaming are not real scenario for todays and upcoming games(BF3, Skyrim, Rage etc). Every serious dx11 PC game will exploit all recourses, freqv, cores, even bandwidth.

 

[cannondale06]

Nobody is saying he'll never need a new CPU. Obviously a shiny new i5-2500 will unlock all the potential that GTX260 has but thats still not that much. A 260 is capable of about 25 fps in Crysis at 1920x1080. A 6950 will get in the upper 40's.

So while he certainly is due for a CPU upgrade, in this case its either a i5/GTX260 or Core2/6950 and the latter will be a much better performing setup.

by no means was I suggesting he upgrade the cpu while using the gtx260. I was just saying in cpu intensive games he will see very little improvement and wont come close fully utilizing a very high end card. he is at 1920 though and his cpu will provide playable framerates in everything so yes a gpu upgrade will be noticeable in most cases.

 

[jhokie]

It'll be a slight upgrade... but honestly I do not think you will see the return to justify the expenditure due to the overall system bottleneck. The GTX 260 is pretty well matched with the rest of your rig.

 

[MacLeod]

I wish somebody like [H] would do some actual benchmarks of stuff like this so we can put this to rest once and for all.

Get an E8500 and run some benchmarks with a GTX260 and then a GTX570. Then take an i5-2500K and run some with the GTX260 and GTX570. And none of this 1024x768 at low settings crap. Run them at real world resolutions like 1920x1080 and max settings. I think that would make for some interesting reading.

 

[cannondale06]

It'll be a slight upgrade... but honestly I do not think you will see the return to justify the expenditure due to the overall system bottleneck. The GTX 260 is pretty well matched with the rest of your rig.

yes and no. in some games such as Metro 2033 or Just Cause 2 he will see a massive increase by going with a faster card. for other games such as Prototype or GTA 4, he will see little to no improvement.

 

[cannondale06]

I wish somebody like [H] would do some actual benchmarks of stuff like this so we can put this to rest once and for all.

Get an E8500 and run some benchmarks with a GTX260 and then a GTX570. Then take an i5-2500K and run some with the GTX260 and GTX570. I think that would make for some interesting reading.

I tested several games with my E8500 at 3.8 using a gtx260 and an oced gtx470. it is really hit or miss and depends on the games being tastes. BC 2 and Far Cry 2 did not budge while Just Cause 2 was much faster.

really newer games such as Witcher 2, Crysis 2 and Deus Ex HR are fairly cpu intensive games but also require a decent gpu too.

 

[roki977]

Try Civilization 5, F1 2010, BF2, Starcraft, Witcher2 and even Crysis 2 and you will se that most important thing is "ballanceed gaming rig". Even cheap solution like h67 and i5 2310 + gtx 460/6850 will outperform C2D + any GPU in those games unitll GPU becomes limiting factor.

 

[MacLeod]

I tested several games with my E8500 at 3.8 using a gtx260 and an oced gtx470. it is really hit or miss and depends on the games being tastes. BC 2 and Far Cry 2 did not budge while Just Cause 2 was much faster.

really newer games such as Witcher 2, Crysis 2 and Deus Ex HR are fairly cpu intensive games but also require a decent gpu too.

I remember [H] did something similar a couple years ago, in fact it was one of the first articles I read on here and the one that caused me to discover this forum that Im on 100 times a day now.

It showed that at real world resolutions and max settings, that a bigger, badder processor does make a big difference. Allowing you to use more AA or higher settings.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/1

The thing about this particular case isnt so much rather or not a faster CPU will make a difference, its if you can only pick one upgrade, do you stick with the outdated Core 2 Duo and upgrade a faster video card or do you keep the outdated GTX260 and get a screaming fast i5-2500K?

My own personal experience says it doesnt make that big a difference cause when I went from 2 to 6 cores I noticed virtually no difference in game benchmarks and my 5870. Now granted mine were both Phenoms so I was just adding extra cores. The E8400 and i5 are two totally different processors with different architecture so it may be comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle.

 

[cannondale06]

I remember [H] did something similar a couple years ago, in fact it was one of the first articles I read on here and the one that caused me to discover this forum that Im on 100 times a day now.

It showed that at real world resolutions and max settings, that a bigger, badder processor does make a big difference. Allowing you to use more AA or higher settings.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/1

The thing about this particular case isnt so much rather or not a faster CPU will make a difference, its if you can only pick one upgrade, do you stick with the outdated Core 2 Duo and upgrade a faster video card or do you keep the outdated GTX260 and get a screaming fast i5-2500K?

My own personal experience says it doesnt make that big a difference cause when I went from 2 to 6 cores I noticed virtually no difference in game benchmarks and my 5870. Now granted mine were both Phenoms so I was just adding extra cores. The E8400 and i5 are two totally different processors with different architecture so it may be comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle.

that was 2.5 years ago and they still had nothing lower than 3 cores in that test. hardocp will sometimes do limited scoped testing yet make sweeping conclusions. almost as bad as the sights that disable cores on an i7/i5 an then come to a silly conclusion about how many cores are needed.

 

[Scheibler1]

I wish somebody like [H] would do some actual benchmarks of stuff like this so we can put this to rest once and for all.

Get an E8500 and run some benchmarks with a GTX260 and then a GTX570. Then take an i5-2500K and run some with the GTX260 and GTX570. And none of this 1024x768 at low settings crap. Run them at real world resolutions like 1920x1080 and max settings. I think that would make for some interesting reading.

My thoughts exactly. I've a Q6600 and don't plan on upgrading it anytime soon. Would like to see how far I can go with a gpu. I've a GTX 275 right now

 

[cannondale06]

My thoughts exactly. I've got a Q6600 and don't plan on upgrading it anytime soon. Would like to see how far I can go with a gpu. I've got a GTX 275 right now

if that is overclocked then you are in a much better position than dual core users.

 

[Scheibler1]

I don't notice my grammer when I'VE GOT multiple things goin on my comp ;P LOL

 

[cannondale06]

I don't notice my grammer when I'VE GOT multiple things goin on my comp ;P LOL

lol, I was trying to edit that out before anyone saw it. I am the last person that should be correcting grammar but for some reason the "have got" thing drives me nuts. it must give me flashbacks to being corrected in front of 30 other students...

 

[happymedium]

When BF3 comes out all the dual core cpu's on the planet will be for sale.
Thats when the dual core vs quad core thing will be over.

 

[MacLeod]

Really? This console multiplayer game is going to be that demanding that its going to stall dual core systems dead in their tracks? I just find that hard to believe.

 

[cannondale06]

Really? This console multiplayer game is going to be that demanding that its going to stall dual core systems dead in their tracks? I just find that hard to believe.

well for those that really want to use higher end cards and/or get anywhere near 50-60 fps in multi they will have to go quad or at least i3 with HT.

 

[MacLeod]

Maybe but Ill wait and see. I just find it hard to believe that a game thats going to be marketed 90% to the console market and have maybe a 3 hour single player game will care much at all about putting that much work into development to where itll tax a quad core system that much. Crysis 2 keeps popping to mind.

Hope Im wrong tho. We need more games pushing the graphics envelope.

 

[Mr Mean]

I want to a video card that can get good eye candy on BF3, Crysis 2, and god willing a 2011 release of Old Republic.

Any thoughts on a good video card upgrade that wouldn't go to waste with my older CPU? Would an ATI 6950 be horribly bottlenecked by my CPU?

For the other games you have listed, a dual core will be adequate. But for Battlefield 3. The game takes advantage of quad core processors. I would seriously consider a nice quad core upgrade for your motherboard.

From what I have read from tweets and battlefield forums. The game is being optimized for Nvidia videocards (that doesn't necessarily mean AMD cards are going to run like shit). They used a single GTX 580 for demonstration for Battlefield 3. If you're going to upgrade the videocard right now I would shoot for a high end card if possible. But that also depends on your resolution which your didn't specify. Or you could wait the last week before Battlefield 3 is released to see if AMD is going to have their new videocards out by that time.

 

[MacLeod]

Its been my experience that "optimized for Nvidia cards" basically just means Nvidia paid them a shit load of money to put that intro video with their logo and the chick whispering "Nvidia" at the beginning of the game.

 

[jhokie]

BF BC2 was known as a game that utilized a fair amount of cpu horsepower, not that it couldn't run okay on a dual-core. I would agree that if you want to run BF3 and high settings and get 50+ FPS you will need a decent quad core.

 

[happymedium]

BF3 will run on 4, 6 cores or mabe more, its a fully threaded game, dual cores will be crappy just like BBC2

 

[MacLeod]

I dunno. I remember this article from Bit-Tech last year that compare 1-6 core performance on a few games. Granted this is a year old but there wasnt that big a handicap in going with a dual core proc. Really wasnt much advantage to having more than 3 cores.

It did help more with Nvidia cores cause apparently Nvidia drivers are multi threaded where AMD drivers are not.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1

Maybe Battlefield 3 will be different but Im still kinda pessimistic about it. Way too many games coming out lately catering to the lowest common denominator (console market).

 

[cannondale06]

I dunno. I remember this article from Bit-Tech last year that compare 1-6 core performance on a few games. Granted this is a year old but there wasnt that big a handicap in going with a dual core proc. Really wasnt much advantage to having more than 3 cores.

It did help more with Nvidia cores cause apparently Nvidia drivers are multi threaded where AMD drivers are not.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1

Maybe Battlefield 3 will be different but Im still kinda pessimistic about it. Way too many games coming out lately catering to the lowest common denominator (console market).

lol, what did I just say earlier?

that was 2.5 years ago and they still had nothing lower than 3 cores in that test. hardocp will sometimes do limited scoped testing yet make sweeping conclusions. almost as bad as the sights that disable cores on an i7/i5 an then come to a silly conclusion about how many cores are needed.

two cores of the i7 will run rings around an E8400.

 

[MacLeod]

But wouldn't that be an exact measurement of how many cores you need? If you compare a Core 2 to a i7, you're comparing architecture. Obviously an i7 would run rings around a Core 2 Duo. Hell it will run rings around a Core 2 Quad!

We were talking about if games need more than 2 cores to get the best performance and according to this article, you dont.

 

[TIWizard]

For the other games you have listed, a dual core will be adequate. But for Battlefield 3. The game takes advantage of quad core processors. I would seriously consider a nice quad core upgrade for your motherboard.

From what I have read from tweets and battlefield forums. The game is being optimized for Nvidia videocards (that doesn't necessarily mean AMD cards are going to run like shit). They used a single GTX 580 for demonstration for Battlefield 3. If you're going to upgrade the videocard right now I would shoot for a high end card if possible. But that also depends on your resolution which your didn't specify. Or you could wait the last week before Battlefield 3 is released to see if AMD is going to have their new videocards out by that time.

IIRC, they used dual 580s for the Gamescom live demos/mutliplayer demo, but the single 580 was for the videos

 

[cannondale06]

But wouldn't that be an exact measurement of how many cores you need? If you compare a Core 2 to a i7, you're comparing architecture. Obviously an i7 would run rings around a Core 2 Duo. Hell it will run rings around a Core 2 Quad!

We were talking about if games need more than 2 cores to get the best performance and according to this article, you dont.

newer cpus are faster because they have more cores AND because they have better IPC. OP has an E8400 so of course just 2 cores of the i7 will easily provide a better experience. IF he had Core 2 quad then he could most certainly have a huge gain over his E8400 thus we say get a quad. if he was to get an i5/i7 quad then he gets the benefits of a quad AND the additional IPC the improved architecture brings.

 

[RamonGTP]

To say the CPU is "less of a factor" at higher resolutions really isn't accurate at all. It isn't like it's processing less data at higher resolutions. The GPU being less of a factor at lower resolutions or more of a factor at higher resolutions is a far more accurate description.

Example, if you're fps is lower than you'd like at 1280x1024 because of your CPU, going to to 1920x1080 isn't going to suddenly make your CPU a non factor. Your FPS will still at best be just as bad and at worst be even worse because now not only us your CPU underpowered but perhaps your GPU as well.