Benchmarking my very, very imbalanced build

[escrow4]

You want to buy a top end card for an office PC? As that is all Core 2's are good for in 2015 (barely too, a Haswell Celeron would dump way less heat and suck way less power). The IPC and arch performance is rubbish compared to a modern Haswell.

Might as well buy a 4460 (or 4590 if its cheaper where you live), H81 board, 8GB RAM and a 390 non X. H81 may be cut back but mobo performance is irrelevant now anyway. Or go for a fuller featured H97 board. It makes no sense to buy a high end card and stick it in a fully gimped setup.

 

[moonbogg]

I was in this position with the GeForce 4 TI 4600. I bought the card and not knowing any better I stuck it in my HP computer (which totally sucked but I just didn't know any better). My performance was way off from what that card was supposed to get. I asked my friends why it sucked, and they put their hands up and said, "Um, I dunno. Maybe 'cause HP?" I wrote them off as being sarcastic, but they were right.
I built a PC for the first time from the ground up and put that card in it and it was like night and day. You are doomed to a similar fate until a new platform is built.

 

[soccerballtux]

not that imbalanced.

 

[amenx]

Horribly imbalanced.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

Although Q9550 not listed, even the lowest ranked CPU on the list is newer and better than it. I would think in CPU bound games, performance will tank badly. Even not heavily CPU bound titles will suffer. A list of game benchmarks with CPU performance:

http://www.techspot.com/features/gaming/gaming-benchmarks/

I would think you could build a decent low to mid range rig incl a $250-300 GPU that could outperform a Q9550 + FuryX. Its not just the CPU, the whole system (memory, CPU, chipset) is miles behind todays stuff and will drag it down badly.

 

[Valantar]

The problem is that you will look for another graphics card in two years. But the chances are that you will not have to look for a new platform in two years if you start by upgrading the platform. As you pointed out, your HD 6950 is still usable today (probably equivalent in performance with a R7 370 card). Your Core 2 Quad is much more outdated.

Why on earth would I be on the lookout for a new GPU in two years? You have seen what GPU I've been using so far, right? And for how long? What makes you think that an R9 Fury X will last me half as long as my (relatively cheap) HD 6950? Sure, the C2Q is more outdated, but the CPU requirements of most games are still quite limited compared to the GPU requirements. And besides, the 6950 has been struggling with 1440p for years, forcing me to move down a couple of resolutions in some games. Which is what I'm looking to avoid. I don't mind stepping down to high/medium settings in a few years, but unless the Fiji architecture turns out to be utter sh*t I'll be keeping this card for quite a while.

Also, the HD 6950 isn't equivalent to an R7 370 - it's more like an R7 260X. Which isn't exactly a feasible 1440p card, right?

Although Q9550 not listed, even the lowest ranked CPU on the list is newer and better than it. I would think in CPU bound games, performance will tank badly. Even not heavily CPU bound titles will suffer.

While that is true, my CPU still beats the minimum requirements of The Witcher 3 - the Phenom II X4 940: http://cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1050&cmp[]=374&cmp[]=367 (I've used the Q9650 there as that is the closest to my current score in that benchmark). Sure, it won't perform perfectly or get the most out of the GPU, but it'll be a significant upgrade still, and it lets me avoid the wasteful and stupid process of buying a stopgap GPU. And it will shine when I upgrade the rest of the PC next year.

 

[MongGrel]

You are running the Fury X for a year on your current platform? Or is it less than a year? I have a concern and it is this: By the time you buy your new platform with the hopes of finally getting good performance from your SIX HUNDRED FIFETY DOLLAR GPU, there will be newer, faster GPU's out for the same price and this will really tarnish this entire experiment and waste money in a very literal way.
If it were me in your position, I would buy a used R9 290 and just hold out (and hold onto a lot of cash for that matter) and wait until I can buy both a new platform and a GPU. A 290 will already be a heavy match for your platform.

+1

 

[Seba]

Why on earth would I be on the lookout for a new GPU in two years? You have seen what GPU I've been using so far, right? And for how long? What makes you think that an R9 Fury X will last me half as long as my (relatively cheap) HD 6950?

Usually the people willing to buy high end graphics card want to continually keep their computers on a high level of performance.

So for a year you will use your new high end graphics card nowhere near it's full potential and when you finally will have a new capable platform/CPU, the graphics card will no longer be a top performer (compared to current cards at that time).

What is the point of buying a high end graphics card then?

You would be better serverd by a $200 graphics card bought now and upgraded to a $200-$300 graphics card when you replace the platform.

 

[Silverforce11]

VSR 4K.

GPU bottleneck. Enjoy the superior IQ.

Surely an OC C2Q can get 45+ fps in most games?

 

[Valantar]

You are running the Fury X for a year on your current platform? Or is it less than a year? I have a concern and it is this: By the time you buy your new platform with the hopes of finally getting good performance from your SIX HUNDRED FIFETY DOLLAR GPU, there will be newer, faster GPU's out for the same price and this will really tarnish this entire experiment and waste money in a very literal way.
If it were me in your position, I would buy a used R9 290 and just hold out (and hold onto a lot of cash for that matter) and wait until I can buy both a new platform and a GPU. A 290 will already be a heavy match for your platform.

That is a valid point. However, buying a 290 will put me in the market for a new GPU - again - in a couple of years, as its 1440 performance will start lagging. Put lightly, I'm not a fan of the stupid and wasteful mantra of biannual GPU upgrades that most PC builders seem to stick to. I really don't want to replace any non-broken part of my PC unless I have to, and thus I'd rather go overkill now and have it last significantly longer, buy a card now that I know will be obsolete in just a couple of years. The age of the Hawaii GPU doesn't exactly allay my fears. Of course a GTX 970 is better in that regard, but again, Nvidia doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to longevity.

Will the 14/16nm GPUs of next year be far better than even a Fury X? Probably, yes. Will that make the Fury X a bad card? Not at all. The sad thing is, as my situation is now, there is no logical upgrade path. I won't settle for a GPU that will last perhaps two years, which is all I'd be able to afford if I went for a full platform upgrade. And upgrading the CPU, mobo and RAM without replacing the GPU would be pretty stupid as well. Thus, this is the only option I'm left with. Sure, I could have gotten a 390X or GTX 980, gotten the same performance today, and saved some money. But I could afford the Fury X right now, and as I'm going for longevity, the Fury X is definitely a better bet than the 390(X).

 

[moonbogg]

Just keep in mind that 4GB of ram will start to kill you at 1440p much sooner than later. Just trying to help here.

 

[AtenRa]

VSR 4K.

GPU bottleneck. Enjoy the superior IQ.

Surely an OC C2Q can get 45+ fps in most games?

yea +1

For 1440p with VSR 4K and you are set.

The C2Q 9450 @ 3.2GHz + Fury X at 1440p (even without VSR 4K) will be faster than a Core i5 Haswell @ 4.5GHz + HD6950 in almost every 2013 onwards game, especially the latest 2015 games.

 

[Seba]

I had a Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz and upgraded the HD 4850 graphics card to a GTX 660 2GB. Even the GTX 660 was limited by that CPU (I know this because I upgraded the platform to a Core i5 4440 3,1 GHz Haswell and got significant improvements in games with the same GTX 660).

 

[Mondozei]

Put lightly, I'm not a fan of the stupid and wasteful mantra of biannual GPU upgrades that most PC builders seem to stick to.

This is a somewhat curious logic. If we assume you'll buy the Fury X and keep it for 4 years, by the time you get to halftime, someone could buy a 320 dollar GPU which will perform better than your GPU. Already next year, Pascal with the huge 28 nm > 14 nm jump, with HBM2 on top of it, will almost certainly best the Fury even on the midrange GPU SKU. And that is just 1 year in.

Add one or two more years on top of that year and now you can perhaps see why the biannual upgrade path is much more intelligent than getting a very expensive GPU and upgrading it once every four years. Of course, real enthusiasts who want nothing but the best spend top dollar to get the best performance every year.

This isn't trivial. Witcher 3 on 1080p at ultra even gets the mighty 980 Ti down on its knees at sub-60 in most benchmarks I've seen. Forget 1440p. And imagine the games we'll play in 3-4 years time. Factor in VR. It's easy to dismiss it now, if it turns out to be amazing everyone will want the best GPU they can afford to play it, not just the base minimum.

But for those who want to spend about 650-700 dollars over a stretch of four years, it's much more intelligent to do it in a balanced way than the frontloaded idea you have, which will saddle you with an inferior GPU in the outgoing years over someone who placed his/her bets more strategically.

 

[Gikaseixas]

OP if you get a 4790k now, it will boost your Radeon 6950 performance by as much as 50% in some cases. You will see huge improvements. Your biggest bottleneck right now is the CPU/Mobo you have.

 

[sm625]

Put lightly, I'm not a fan of the stupid and wasteful mantra of biannual GPU upgrades that most PC builders seem to stick to.

I tend to buy a new card every 3 years. But we're in a unique situation at the moment. We've been stuck on the 28nm process forever. For-freakin-ever. It will be 4.5 years before we see a new process node, maybe longer. It's just not wise to buy a high end gpu at the tail end of a process node. It makes more financial sense to buy something like a 290 and then sell it when the next generation finally launches. You only lose a max of $15 a month by doing that. Over the next year, you're guaranteed to lose at least $20 a month off the value of a Fury X, possibly up to $30 a month depending on how dense 14nm ends up being.

 

[TemjinGold]

OP: When you say "wasteful," are you referring to wasting MONEY or wasting PRODUCT? If your concern is that you don't ever resell your used gear and your card would simply end up in a landfill as a result, I totally get your view. However, if you are referring to wasting money because you are buying and then so quickly buying again, the problem with that logic is that if you buy say a 290 now and something nice in a year, you will end up with something that is no slower now on your rig (because of the bottleneck) and something much quicker in a year (because of 14/16). AND you will have quite possibly spent LESS total money doing it this way. Basically, if you think you are SAVING money by buying overkill now and keeping it, you are actually wrong--you are basically paying more for less by doing that.

This is also why I advocated you do the platform upgrade to Skylake next month and get the GPU next year. The platform upgrade will significantly improve your 6950 (to the point where current stuff plays well--my 580, which is not that different from your 6950 was getting by really nicely) and then in a year, you will end up with a much better card than the Fury X.

 

[Valantar]

OP: When you say "wasteful," are you referring to wasting MONEY or wasting PRODUCT? If your concern is that you don't ever resell your used gear and your card would simply end up in a landfill as a result, I totally get your view.

My point exactly. The used components market in Norway is virtually nonexistent (and shipping anything out of the country is way too expensive), so selling anything is for all intents and purposes a no-go. And being a computer enthusiast, I've already caused far too much of various hazardous chemicals and other crud to be dumped into landfills or shipped to Africa and burned. So, I'm definitely paying a little extra to not be wasteful. Money is, after all, a renewable resource. Call me sentimental, but I prefer my gaming to give cancer to as few poverty-stricken people as possible.



On a sadder note, the benchmarks will have to wait a bit. After installing everything, the computer was working just fine, running for a day or so while downloading games and some other light use. I managed to run 3DMark 11 once (giving me a good demonstration of my CPU bottleneck), and set it to run through 3DMark when I went to bed. When I woke up, the PC wouldn't turn on at all, and I'm pretty sure my PSU has died. Haven't gotten around to testing it yet, but given that all LEDs on the motherboard and other parts light up, but nothing happens when I try to turn on the PC, that seems likely. Given that the PSU was as old as the rest of the PC, it's not that surprising, although I was hoping that it would hold out until the platform upgrade next year.


For the 3DMark 11 results: I can't get the exact numbers right now as I can't turn on the PC, but I got a score in the high 9000s, with a graphics score of ~17000 and a physics score of ~4000. Goes to show, I guess.

 

[happy medium]

A q9450 @ 3.2 will push up to a gtx 580/gtx750ti speed gpu anything faster will be bottlenecked. Overclock the CPU to 3.8/4.0 and you can push a gtx960/gtx760.
Once you get a core 2 quad above 3.6,it can play most modem games at a decent clip.

 

[Seba]

What power supply do you have (had)? It seems that you will make a new contribution to a landfill. Maybe not just the PSU.

 

[Headfoot]

Why on earth would I be on the lookout for a new GPU in two years? You have seen what GPU I've been using so far, right? And for how long? What makes you think that an R9 Fury X will last me half as long as my (relatively cheap) HD 6950? Sure, the C2Q is more outdated, but the CPU requirements of most games are still quite limited compared to the GPU requirements. And besides, the 6950 has been struggling with 1440p for years, forcing me to move down a couple of resolutions in some games. Which is what I'm looking to avoid. I don't mind stepping down to high/medium settings in a few years, but unless the Fiji architecture turns out to be utter sh*t I'll be keeping this card for quite a while.

Also, the HD 6950 isn't equivalent to an R7 370 - it's more like an R7 260X. Which isn't exactly a feasible 1440p card, right?.

Dude. Upgrading to the top end card, at the end of a very long 28nm generation, with a 2 node jump on the way, and acting like its a good idea to buy and hold is absolutely, 100% ridiculous.

When 14/16nm FinFET drops the Fury X and 980 Ti are going to look pathetic.

It will be 1000000x smarter to buy a 390 now, save the remaining $400 and get whatever is best at $400 in 14/16nm FinFET, ESPECIALLY considering how old and outdated your platform is. Much, much better to save for the $400 14/16nm on a new platform than try and put a Fury X on a C2Q.

Or go ahead and waste money for literally no gain or reason at all. Not my money.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I'm normally in strong support of these types of things, but you'd be better off getting a new CPU, mobo, DDR3 setup now, then and new GPU next year. You'll see big gains now and even larger gains later.

OK, I misread it thinking you hadn't made the purchase yet. Good luck and I look forward to benches!

 

[Valantar]

I do love how everybody seems to think this is a build advice thread. The purchase is made, I have no intention of returning the card. Think me stupid if you will, but please, keep it to yourself unless you have anything to add regarding real world benchmarks and/or logging system resource usage.

On a positive note, it seems my system escaped unscathed from the great PSU death of 2015. Although my budget goes out the window, I'll have to get a new one. On the other hand, I'm snarkily pleased thinking that the exact same thing would have happened if I got a 2/390(X) like you're all clamoring for, as it uses just as much power as the Fury X. Heck, the ~300W spikes of the 980 might have done the same.

 

[AtenRa]

OP if you get a 4790k now, it will boost your Radeon 6950 performance by as much as 50% in some cases. You will see huge improvements. Your biggest bottleneck right now is the CPU/Mobo you have.

nope, i just used my Core i7 3770K @ 4.44GHz + HD6950 1GB in 12 games and its completely GPU limited at 1080p with very high settings. It produces almost the same fps as Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 3.2GHz.

I will provide you all the results when i finish running the Core 2 Quad 9450 @ 3.2GHz with the HD7950.

 

[Hitman928]

Enjoy your hardware Valantar, this is just the nature of the internet. While I agree you could have been more "efficient" with your upgrade path, with VSR and the new features of GCN, I think you'll be able to enjoy your card just fine. I will look forward to your results. Glad the PSU didn't seem to take anything with it.

 

[Blue_Max]

I've been in this boat before. Yes, the CPU will be the bottleneck... BUT the video card will also be able to do a lot your current one can't - for "free".

To be specific, because the CPU is the bottleneck, 1440p would get 30fps with no AA. The same 30fps with 2xAA, and almost the same 30fps with 4xAA. The video card is champing at the bit to run free, so just turn up all the options that demand video performance (not CPU) all the way up and enjoy them for "free".

Keep your eyes open for a CPU/mobo deal and jump on it when you can (I just missed out on a Z77 + 2500k for a lousy $100!) but go ahead and enjoy the video card here and now.

BTW: here's the AT comparison of your CPU overclocked to a stock 2500k.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=49

Some games will show more benefit than others, but it's not the enormous night-and-day difference you might think.