AM3 vs LGA1156 longevity as a gaming platform

[konakona]

A few days ago, I got into a little debate with someone at another site. It really started with another member there taking suggestions for his upgrades. He said it plain and simple - no encoding or folding (he doesn't even know what it is), just pure gaming as far as demanding tasks go. Since they were residing outside of US, I figured it would be unwise for them to go for intel CPUs when the price difference was nearly $200 for comparable setups in the gaming context. Then that other guy came along and claimed 1156 is the worst choice now, simply and solely because there is no upgrade path due to intel's intention to kill the platform soon enough. He went on to say that with AM3, you would be set for another upgrade down the road.

Now, these guys are really on budget and have to be pinching pennies to consider a 5770 a huge spending, partly because pricing on parts where they live is substantially higher than it is in the US. I argued that for gaming, you need a GPU upgrade more often than CPU upgrades. There have been some oddball cases like 9700pro or the early stages of GF 8 series in the past where the gain in video performance idled for whatever reason (competition not being strong enough, etc), but for the most part I don't think GPUs ever outlasted CPUs upgrade wise for ideal gaming experience. It is true you won't fare well with an A64 these days, but C2D/C2Q's are still very solid foundation for a gaming PC even these days. At worst, from my own experience and observation of others in general, I think people tend to sell/give away/relegate to a secondary rig more often than they do a drop-in upgrade for the CPU only when they upgrade.

Of course I am no Ms. Cleo and can't tell what the future will exactly hold, but here are some clues that let's me take an educated guess on the likelihood of upgrading just the CPU:

1) GPUs still are the limiting factor at higher resolutions, there isn't much to gain from higher clocked / many-cored CPUs in current games past a certain thresold
2) About the only relevant point of performance for CPUs at the moment, physics calculations, seems to favor GPUs - reglardless of how successful physx becomes. I only see it going two ways - either GPU-based physics takes off and CPUs are further freed from physics calcuations, or physics in gaming continues to maintain status quo more or less and things don't get any more demanding for CPUs in the larger scheme of things
3) If the Bulldozer is truly something revolutionary, I would guess you might need to upgrade the rest of the components to take a full advantage of it. Just a guess. Hybrid systems in the past worked, but not in a stellar fashion.
4) With so many dual/quads out there, are the developers really going to push multicore so hard that the hexas are going to shine big time? So far, there has been all the talk of multi-core being future proof.. The fact is duals still game fine; there are subjective yet repeated accounts of quads being noticeably smoother than duals - something not reflected in fps averages and extreme values. Can hexas have a similar impact in gaming? Doubtful.

So, if you really must put together a new computer now, do you really think i5 750 is such a terrible choice, longevity-wise? Personally I think it provides great value for gaming now, and does perform somewhat better than a comparable AMD setup price/performance factor aside. The chances are you won't need a CPU upgrade for gaming alone either way sooner than you would need a GPU upgrade. I thought AMD has nothing planned on AM3 between the Thurban and the Bulldozer (that, if Bulldozer turns out AM3 compatible)? Why not get a i5 750 now and be done with it for a while? Realistically, PhII is no slouch, especially if your local vendors offer it much cheaper compared to the i5's so that you could pour those savings into GPU dept. The point, however, is that it is not the upgrade path that makes AM3 sooooo much better than LGA1156, is it really?

I could be totally of the mark, will eat my humble pie if proven wrong. I am genuinely curious about what you guys think on the matter.

I am not looking for your advice on what these guys should buy, it is very obvious to anyone given their situation with pricing and I have already told what they needed to hear accordingly. What I am really doing here is questioning the logic behind regarding AM3 more future proof for its ability to accept future AMD CPUs. If you are a gamer (AND on budget), you know GPUs matter more and the trend will most probably continue. Why would you want to upgrade a CPU alone anyway? I just don't think any CPU upgrade on AM3 will beat i5 750 anytime soon, and when the BD is out you might as well get a new and better mobo. I just don't believe in buying stuff for being future-proof looking as far as few years ahead.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, looking at this objectively, there are several things that we know to be true:
Intel is canning 1156 next year, for 1155 and SB.
AMD is supporting Bulldozer on AM3, according to their roadmaps.
GPUs seem to be developed on a faster schedule than CPUs, as far as upgrade-worthy improvements go.
AMD is generally cheaper than Intel too, for a build.

So I think that AM3 has several things going for it, besides the upgrade path arguement.

Motherboards for AM3 are a lot cheaper, and a good 790FX or 890FX board will sport 42 (!) PCI-E 2.0 lanes, enough for full-on crossfire and more.

Oh, I forgot one benefit for Intel, 1156 and 1366 boards often support both SLI and Crossfire, whereas AMD boards don't support SLI.

So really, the way I see it is, unless someone has their heart set on SLI, then Crossfire and a cheaper AMD rig is really the way to go, because it allows you to spend more on a GPU, and the GPU is the most important thing for a gaming rig right now.

 

[konakona]

well, I definitely agree on a cheaper cpu + better GPU being the winning formula.

Perhaps I should have framed the question a little better. I didn't mean that i7 would be better overall for most folks. Rather, with these guys being so short on cash, if they had to upgrade one thing, it would be the GPU right? Do you see them upgrading a CPU, if they were to go with AM3? If so, why would that be?

Wouldn't they be better off performance-wise to stay with a stronger CPU now, and for sometime in the future?

It really was a question based on the hypothetical situation, not really trying to get a reasonable recommendation; I have recommended them a AM3 system myself, for the very reason you stated (GPU is more important). I just happen to disagree with that guy I mentioned claiming that being able to upgrade the CPU alone trumps whatever LGA1156 got going for it.

Have you ever kept everything the same and upgraded the CPU only for a strictly gaming rig? I just don't see that happening with too many people, especially when they are strapped on cash.

The point is, being able to upgrade your CPU is nice and all, but until BD comes along AMD cpus are likely to be slower with upgrade or not, not to mention they wouldn't really need a CPU upgrade anytime soon. If they are getting an AM3 now looking to pair it up with BD... well I would rather sell my by-then outdated mobo or turn it into a secondary, but that could be just me.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

In general, I agree with the OP.

I consider myself a "moderate" computer upgrader. I usually do a full CPU/GPU upgrade every 2 yrs or so, give or take.

In the early days, I upgraded my CPU at least once before getting a new mother board. This was back when new CPUs provided a huge performance boost for ALL computing tasks, and were being released quite often.

Today, I usually wait until it is justified for me to replace the entire mainboard/ram/cpu assembly before upgrading anything, and then I get it all at once.

Thus, to me, socket longevity is no longer as important as it once was.

 

[RussianSensation]

If the price difference between a similar setup (i.e., Phenom 965 vs. i5 750 - quad core vs. quad core) is $200, then I would definitely pick the AMD system and save the $200 to upgrade the graphics card in 2 years. If the system is going to be pared with a 5770, then it makes a lot more sense to get the cheaper CPU and get a 5850 or GTX470 for example.

Of course if you are comparing a dual core AMD vs. a Core i7 860 for example, then it's a different story. So you would need to provide more information to be able to make an informed recommendation.

 

[konakona]

true, back in the days there was no such thing as a GPU and CPU processing power was still quite lacking. I wonder when we stopped worrying about CPUs quite as much, maybe circa the first K8s?

 

[konakona]

If the price difference between a similar setup (i.e., Phenom 965 vs. i5 750 - quad core vs. quad core) is $200, then I would definitely pick the AMD system and save the $200 to upgrade the graphics card in 2 years. If the system is going to be pared with a 5770, then it makes a lot more sense to get the cheaper CPU and get a 5850 or GTX470 for example.

Of course if you are comparing a dual core AMD vs. a Core i7 860 for example, then it's a different story. So you would need to provide more information to be able to make an informed recommendation.

I should probably go back and edit the first post somewhat. Again, I am not looking for recommendations here, I am totally there with you and already told the exact same thing to those who were seeking advice.

My question here is, rather if socket longevity is a valid reason to stick with AM3, in case you are on a tight budget and only game, don't plan to upgrade often. I see plenty other things going for AM3, mainly the immediate benefit of cost savings that could strengthen your GPU just as you say, but do you really upgrade CPUs that often leaving everything else intact? I have never done that myself in past few years. Why would a gamer need more CPU power in the future when even physics **might** move onto the GPU front?

The thing is, the guy I was arguing against was suggesting a future CPU upgrade as the main and predominant reason for going AM3. I pointed out to him that it is the money saved on the CPU being siphoned into GPUs is what makes AM3 more attractive, not some obscure upgrade in the future which they wouldn't be in much need of. It's not which CPU they should get now that we diverged on, more like the reasoning behind it.

 

[bunit]

I realized this while deciding my $1500 build (peripherals, monitors, everything)
With the help of MC, I can basically spend the same amount (within $30) for each setup. (PII vs i5, splurge a bit more for i7 860 if I wanted) Granted I'm not counting Fry's deals right now but yeah.


Anyways, here was my logic:
I figured I might as well get something that is good for games right now. Future upgrades really isn't an issue because the GPU is always the first thing to go, and like you said dual cores still game fine on the vast majority of modern games. Sure, being able to drop in a new CPU into an AM3 socket a year from now is great, but will it really make a significant difference in GAMING? ..that's doubtful, and I honestly don't want to have to upgrade things every single year, especially after dropping THAT MUCH on a computer.
Or being able to drop a new CPU into an AM3 socket 3 years from now? Sounds neat, but at that point a completely CPU/Mobo/RAM replacement isn't out of the question. Not to mention your GPU will be awfully dated by then, and theres no guarantee three years from now AMD will support your socket. IMO it would take at least 2 years for me to rationally consider upgrading my CPU at this point for games, especially seeing how everything is GPU limited nowadays.

So basically - socket upgradability probably doesn't matter too much. It's still pretty lame that Intel is purposely changing their sockets every year, but for most people, it's not too much of an issue.
Like you said, its all about the GPU. For gaming, a great CPU is just icing on the cake.

 

[cbn]

AMD is supporting Bulldozer on AM3, according to their roadmaps.

I thought it said "AM3 rev 2" for Bulldozer?

 

[Rhoxed]

Im not sure I agree with either side really. Yes AM3 will hold a CPU cycle upgrade compared to 1156, but as someone said you will most likely upgrade gpu before CPU.

On the other hand, i build my system to last for years (exception, my 3870's that were paired with a 9850BE to go to 720BE unlocked) And my CPU can be replaced just as easily as my GPU(S) creating the same bottleneck.

I see no reason to upgrade my 3x4850's and if i did, i would do a massive upgrade (5970 or 2) and i would want more than a 3.8-3.9ghz cpu to match that.

IMO spend 25% of what you spend on GPU on your CPU, and you will be set for years.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I've always liked the idea of CPU socket longevity, and I've stuck with LGA 775 for the better part of three years now. I was planning on one more upgrade to a Yorkfield quad before changing sockets again, but now that Thuban has come out, I may skip quads entirely. Not sure this addresses the question. I do think if the OP's subject had a decent CPU to begin with then with a limited budget a GPU upgrade is probably best...

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Depends what you play too. If its RTS you will be needing a very capable four-core cpu and possibly more as new games come out. Starcraft II is a good example. Yes I know you can get by on a dual core on that but as mods come out, I suspect it won't be that rosy anymore. Some W3 mods are taxing even for computers today (albeit quite low-end ones).

 

[hans007]

i think if its just for gaming a PII 965 is probably mostly equivalent to an i5 750 and cheaper.

why would you get the i5 750. even in america is a huge cost differenec as an x6 1055 costs about the same as a 750 (if you aren't counting microcenter or frys deals, and theres tons of frys phenom II deals as well).


Personally the video card upgrade is probably the better idea anyway. I am not sure about the particular country's prices, but saya $130 quad that is slower than a i5 750 (say a phenom 925 or 945) plus a much faster video card would be better.

i mean if you have $170 to spend on avideo card that is a 5770. if you spend say $250 and stretch your budget since you skimped on a cpu you might be able to get a 5850 and thats a much more significant difference than say a phenom ii 925 vs a 750.

 

[melek-taus]

I dont think socket longlivety is a valid arguement. If i would have bought a am3 system and want to upgrade in lets say 2 to 3 years then i would need a new motherboard aswell. As the motherboard would be anchient too.
So every time i do a upgrade i pick the platform with the best chipsets and layouts/colour scheme i like. And look at price performance. And thats how i found the 1156 to be the best bang for buck atm. And the i5 750 is one hell of a cpu tbh.

BTW i always stay with intel as the intel chipsets are just the best out there. I wont touch mobos with nvidia chipsets or any other chips in it.

 

[mv2devnull]

Well, looking at this objectively, there are several things that we know to be true:
Intel is canning 1156 next year, for 1155 and SB.
AMD is supporting Bulldozer on AM3, according to their roadmaps.

But, as already stated, we do not yet know which current AM3 boards can take BD, whether those boards are reasonably priced now (in the referred context), and whether the BD will present a significant affordable upgrade to whatever one buys now.

Furthermore, while the 1156 might be "canned" soon, that does not mean that the system bought today instantly stops operating. As noted, GPU upgrades tend to be more significant and frequent, and those should surely be available for a 1156-system for a good while.

Thus, IMO, the "likely upgrade paths" are not terribly different.

 

[konakona]

well here is a better question then, which one would you pick if the i5 750 and an equivalent AMD setup were to cost exactly the same right now? Would you still go with a Ph II simply in the hopes of upgrading the CPU before the mobo becomes obsolete?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

the best platform is the one with the fastest chips. that would be intel

 

[mv2devnull]

I would not. The "equivalent" is a bit vague though. So there would unavoidably be some aspects of personal interest that do tip the scale one way or another.

 

[konakona]

my assumption is such that multi-core gaming won't take off so soon if it ever does in the near future. haven't seen any thurban benches with comprehensive results in gaming, but I doubt it trumps the 750. So by equivalent I meant whatever you can muster out of AM3 to beat or rival 750 in gaming.

 

[melek-taus]

p55

i would choose the intel p55 setup. As its the fastest out there. but as u see in my sig i even paid full pound for it knowing an amd could do almost the same for less cash. But its just the chipsets of intel are faster better etc. And the boards have more options and well who would want an old system socket. The processing rate will never be equel to newtech sockets.

 

[konakona]

for what it's worth, I have a i7 860 as my main gaming rig and a 965BE as a secondary gaming / surfing / data storage machine myself.

 

[Lonbjerg]

If the price difference between a similar setup (i.e., Phenom 965 vs. i5 750 - quad core vs. quad core) is $200, then I would definitely pick the AMD system and save the $200 to upgrade the graphics card in 2 years. If the system is going to be pared with a 5770, then it makes a lot more sense to get the cheaper CPU and get a 5850 or GTX470 for example.

Only if you don't factor in time.
As in lower performace = more time spent waiting.

"Bang for buck" is a fallacy, saving now...but paying ever second later on...that is not saving...especially not in the long run.

Mine time isn't free.

 

[konakona]

Only if you don't factor in time.
As in lower performace = more time spent waiting.

"Bang for buck" is a fallacy, saving now...but paying ever second later on...that is not saving...especially not in the long run.

Mine time isn't free.

most people here, or at lest this thread most certainly caters gaming and gaming only. How does a faster CPU save you any time in gaming? I must assume you mean tasks outside of gaming, fine.

What do you exactly do with your computer(s) so you can notice several seconds' difference if there is any at all??? Realistically, an AMD cpu + SSD from money saved would spank any intel system in day to day usage. Of course I still have no idea what you do with your computer to get ahead in life with those few seconds that you might have saved.

 

[classy]

Now, these guys are really on budget and have to be pinching pennies to consider a 5770 a huge spending, partly because pricing on parts where they live is substantially higher than it is in the US. [/b]

Once I hit this statement I really didn't have to read anything else. Regardless of all the aspects, including longevity, the platform this person should be buying is AMD, period. Regardless of how long the platform will last, the money a person would save on the cpu alone would allow them to buy a better video card. Now video cards last longer than cpus. A good video card can provide good gaming for 3-5 years depending on that individual's gaming resolution. Any of these cpus today, even the dirt cheap $100 ones can provide enough frame rate power for even the most demanding game, provided they are paired with a good video card.

The most lacking part of this discussion is the actual costs of the different parts. Now as for which platform is most future proof is clearly unknown. My guess is bulldozer will probably find its initial way into AM3 boards. Future products of Intel are always far more expensive than AMD. So a cpu upgrade will more than likely provide some boost in the future and will be cheaper with AMD. Who will be better is unknown. Intel is the performance leader, no question. But their lead is just not substantial enough to warrant building on a "budget". But best bang for the buck is clearly an AMD based system. To really make sense of the whole thing, I would like to know what are the actual prices for the parts they are looking at as compared to their budget.

 

[konakona]

Once I hit this statement I really didn't have to read anything else.

I am not looking for your advice on what these guys should buy, it is very obvious to anyone given their situation with pricing and I have already told what they needed to hear accordingly. What I am really doing here is questioning the logic behind regarding AM3 more future proof for its ability to accept future AMD CPUs.

methinks you should have read on