I have a GTX 670 & a PhenomII X6 1100T @ 3.8, how would a 2500k benefit me?

[poohbear]

Hey all, i have a chance to upgrade to a new 2500k and a used Z68 mobo for $300 total (shipped and includes taxes) from my current PhenomII 1100T @ 3.8ghz & AM3+ setup (i'd just transfer the 8gb ram i have).

However, i just purchased a Gigabyte OC 670 and this things SMOKES every game i play @ 1080p @ 60hz!! (i upgraded from a 5870). I mean this video card is a BEAST for everything, even BF3 in MP.

Now, i'd love to upgrade to a 2500k & a Z68 because i know my CPU is outdated & i got a chance @ upgrading for cheap, but is it just a waste of a $300? For normal desktop use my CPU is already a beast, and for gaming i just don't see what else a 2500k can do for me since the GTX 670 is already killing everything. I'm not made of money, so would it really just be throwing away $300? Should i just save my cash and wait for Haswell?

Aside from reduced power consumption, please sell the 2500k setup for me! Thanks in advance.

[AtenRa]

Since you have an AM3+ motherboard with 970 chipset i would wait for 8-core Piledriver, you will not get any performance increase in BF3 MP going to 2500K from 6-core Phenom at 3.8GHz.

[richierich1212]

Just wait now if you're happy with the performance.

[richaron]

Originally Posted by poohbear

...this things SMOKES every game i play @ 1080p @ 60hz!!

Upgrade why?? Wait for Vishera or Haswell. Or longer if your PC is running fine.

[inf64]

300$ is a waste of money if you are coming from 3.8Ghz X6.

[SlowSpyder]

I have this completely irrational tick in my head... I was thinking about buying an Intel setup, but something stops me because I like six cores and don't want to go to four. I could get a six core Intel setup, but that is pricey. And I know a 2600K with HT will out do my 1090T most of the time, if not all the time. But like I said, it's an irrational thing about six real cores vs. four and it stops me from doing anything right now. Which isn't all bad because it leaves money in my wallet.

Anyway, for you it would be an upgrade, but I don't know that it'd be worth the money it cost for the upgrade. But, I think the used Thuban market is pretty strong since Bulldozer was mostly a flop. So you could probably sell your setup for a nice chunk of that $300. But then again, if you're already getting 60FPS in everything you play, why bother? But, new tech is a lot of fun, too!

Sorry I was basically zero help.

[poohbear]

thanx all for the feedback!

so, aside from reduced power consumption, a sandy bridge setup would provide no upgrade benefits for me yea? awesome! i'll just hold tight for haswell then....

thanx guys!

[bigystyle84]

This is crazy.

An 1100T is no slouch. It will handle 1080p gaming just fine at 3.8GHz.

If you have the upgrade itch, wait for Piledriver.

As games are developed to use more Cores/Threads, AMD's performance is only improving.

Did you see how well AMD's 8150 is performing in the new Medal of Honor Warfighter? It's beating a 2600k. Hope this is a sign to come, I like having AMD around.

[poohbear]

yea i saw that, hope more games in future use more cores so the 6+ core cpus shine!^^

[Rvenger]

Your bf3 performance should be good with the 6 cores.

[KingFatty]

Maybe you need to get a 120Hz monitor, that way you can really see the boost to frames over 60 Hz and better justify the $300 cost?

Also, maybe calculate what your cost per frame increase would be. If you get 10 extra frames per second, that's $30 per frame, not a very good cost/benefit ratio.

[bigystyle84]

Originally Posted by KingFatty

Maybe you need to get a 120Hz monitor, that way you can really see the boost to frames over 60 Hz and better justify the $300 cost?

Also, maybe calculate what your cost per frame increase would be. If you get 10 extra frames per second, that's $30 per frame, not a very good cost/benefit ratio.

Better justify the cost by doubling the price of the upgrade?

[Smoblikat]

Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.

[Hatisherrif]

Originally Posted by Smoblikat

Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.

Good thing you know it for sure so you can state that so boldly.

[poohbear]

Originally Posted by Smoblikat

Id say if all you do is play BF3 then it would be a down/sidegrade. If you play other games and max them then SB would be a HUGe upgrade. Dont wait for piledriver, its going to suck.

huh? can you give me an example of this HUGE upgrade? You do realize the Gigabyte Windforce OC GTX 670 is a monster yea? (It performs almost the same as a GTX 680 when Turbo Boost is activated). All my other games are hitting 50-60 FPS completely maxed out. What exactly is a 2500k gonna do for me? My monitor is 60hz, anything beyond 60fps wouldn't even register.

Originally Posted by adam_the_giant

Better justify the cost by doubling the price of the upgrade?

lol too funny!

[KingFatty]

Originally Posted by poohbear

All my other games are hitting 50-60 FPS completely maxed out. What exactly is a 2500k gonna do for me? My monitor is 60hz, anything beyond 60fps wouldn't even register.

I guess the question is using your current monitor would you notice an increase from your current 50-60 FPS to perhaps 70-90 FPS? (sorry that's just a guess based on foggy recollections of benchmarking scores)?

I'm thinking that without upgrading your monitor, you probably wouldn't see much of a change moving between those FPS ranges pre/post 2500K. Certainly not worth paying $300 for.

But if you already plan to get a 120 Hz monitor, then maybe that would enable you to appreciate that type of change by being capable of seeing it. But only if it's inevitable that you plan to move to 120 Hz. If you want to stay with your current monitor, I don't see this being a good upgrade now and maybe save your money for newer/future upgrades later.

[amenx]

1100t vs 2500k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by poohbear

Now, i'd love to upgrade to a 2500k & a Z68 because i know my CPU is outdated & i got a chance @ upgrading for cheap, but is it just a waste of a $300? Aside from reduced power consumption, please sell the 2500k setup for me! Thanks in advance.

I would wait until Haswell in your case. If you say your system runs well enough, no point in wasting $ right now. Haswell should launch around April 2013 on a new socket (1150).

Now if you played specific genres that love fast CPUs (MMOs, strategy), then it would be different. For most FPS games, especially the modern ones, you'll be mostly GPU limited at least until you get up to 2x GTX670s.

[bl00tdi]

The 2500k is the better processor. Lower TDP and massive IPC advantage which more than offsets the fewer number of cores in most cases. When you take overclocking into consideration, it's no contest. A mildly overclocked sandy bridge is better at pretty much everything, multithreaded or not. This is coming from a 1090T owner. Now whether or not there is real value in you upgrading is another story. You could sell the 1100T and recoup some of that money.

[Hatisherrif]

Originally Posted by amenx

1100t vs 2500k

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=288

They are actually pretty close after you get through all the synthetic bullfeces and get to some compression or games (except in certain ones).

To the OP: Upgrade only if you can find a better deal, like $100 max. Since I know this is highly unlikely, just wait for a new generation of CPUs. No need to rush.

[poohbear]

Originally Posted by bl00tdi

The 2500k is the better processor. Lower TDP and massive IPC advantage which more than offsets the fewer number of cores in most cases. When you take overclocking into consideration, it's no contest. A mildly overclocked sandy bridge is better at pretty much everything, multithreaded or not. This is coming from a 1090T owner. Now whether or not there is real value in you upgrading is another story. You could sell the 1100T and recoup some of that money.

Well then lets stick to my story as you say, is there any real value in me upgrading? I already know the 2500k is better, but in my situation, with this ridiculously powerful OC 670 that i have, i just don't see any benefits, even if the 2500k is overclocked. How exactly, please be specific, would it benefit me? Nobody's answering this question, i already know the 2500k is better, but in my situation it just goes to show some "upgrades" are pointless.

i HATE IT when i upgrade and see next to no performance improvement. I've had that happen going from a 64gb C300 to a 240 Vertex 3 Max Iops (best of best SSD until recently). Despite the crazy numbers on paper it simply didn't show a noticeable performance increase. I have a feeling if i upgraded to a 2500k the same thing would happen. For web browsing and general computer use i'd notice no difference, in games i'd notice no difference, so what's the point? seems like none at all (aside from power consumption)

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

Now if you played specific genres that love fast CPUs (MMOs, strategy), then it would be different. For most FPS games, especially the modern ones, you'll be mostly GPU limited at least until you get up to 2x GTX670s.

ok, can you give me an example of a strategy game that a GTX 670 can't handle well with a X6 1100T? i'm looking @ starcraft 2 benchmarks which have it running @ 130 FPS @ 1080p with a sandy bridge @ 4.7, so with my set up it'll drop to 80-90fps? lol that's still way over 60fps. Shogun 2 is the only RTS game that gets 65fps @ 1080p, so i imagine it'd drop to 40-50 in heated battles, which is still perfectly fine as its not an FPS. I don't play MMOs so that doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by KingFatty

I guess the question is using your current monitor would you notice an increase from your current 50-60 FPS to perhaps 70-90 FPS? (sorry that's just a guess based on foggy recollections of benchmarking scores)?

I'm thinking that without upgrading your monitor, you probably wouldn't see much of a change moving between those FPS ranges pre/post 2500K. Certainly not worth paying $300 for.

But if you already plan to get a 120 Hz monitor, then maybe that would enable you to appreciate that type of change by being capable of seeing it. But only if it's inevitable that you plan to move to 120 Hz. If you want to stay with your current monitor, I don't see this being a good upgrade now and maybe save your money for newer/future upgrades later.

yes but the human eye can't notice any difference beyond 50-60fps, you simply can't perceive any difference and anyone that says they do is just fooling themselves. So it'd really just be for bragging rights if i'm playing @ anything beyond 60fps. i certainly don't care for 3D stuff so there's no point in getting a 120hz monitor.

[Hatisherrif]

From an owner of Phenom II X4 955 who still has a much weaker graphics card than you: even an HD4890 was bottlenecked by the Phenom II in some games. I am not talking about a 10fps difference, I'm talking about the minimum framerate going from 9 to 40. I cannot say that your CPU is exactly the same as mine, but in badly threaded games that require high IPC and good single-core performance, the i5 2500K would probably blow your Phenom away. And it would be noticeable.

But, as I mentioned already, only in some games. Some remained absolutely the same. It all depends on which component bottlenecks your system in a specific case.

[AtenRa]

Yes there are games like SC2, Skyrim, Civ V and F1 2011 that will get a nice performance boost over the Phenom X6. If you play that games and you want to spend $300 then an Intel IvyBridge (3570K) will be a nice upgrade.

But, if you dont play that games or you dont want to spend that $300 now your Phenom X6 at 3.8GHz will be just fine, especially for BF3 MP.

[poohbear]

Originally Posted by Hatisherrif

From an owner of Phenom II X4 955 who still has a much weaker graphics card than you: even an HD4890 was bottlenecked by the Phenom II in some games. I am not talking about a 10fps difference, I'm talking about the minimum framerate going from 9 to 40. I cannot say that your CPU is exactly the same as mine, but in badly threaded games that require high IPC and good single-core performance, the i5 2500K would probably blow your Phenom away. And it would be noticeable.

But, as I mentioned already, only in some games. Some remained absolutely the same. It all depends on which component bottlenecks your system in a specific case.

well thats certainly not the case with me, if my x6 @ 3.8ghz is bottlenecking a 670 @ the fps im getting @ 1080 (avg 60fps), then a 2500k is a completely pointless upgrade. I'll just stick with what i have till haswell.

@ atenra, i fail to see how playing SC2 @ 130fps on an ivy bridge instead of my current 90fps would qualify as a "nice upgrade"?

[Hatisherrif]

It would in cases where you get 50fps.