'Max' GPU for a 5 yo PC? i7-920 etc

[CP5670]

Those six core Xeons are very interesting. They're making me rethink the idea of upgrading to a quad Haswell now. They should be way better for some compute work I do, but won't be any faster in single threaded programs like older games or many emulators or compilers. X58 is also a somewhat dated platform these days (no USB 3, SATA 3 or PCIE 3, although it has triple channel memory). I also have some specific requirements that rule out a lot of Z97 and X99 boards for my purposes, and right now might be the last time I can do a platform upgrade for cheap.

Yeah, the speed is there. But like I said earlier, the only problem is power consumption. My 4770K at load consumes less power than 920 at idle. That 6-core Xeon might fare better, though.

The power usage depends a lot on the voltage needed to reach that speed. Mine does 4.0 at 1.265v with HT enabled and I get about 160W idle and 330W load on Prime for the whole system. I don't care that much about the load power but the idle is quite high, maybe partly due to having to disable Speedstep for overclocking. It's another reason the Haswell looks attractive to me.

 

[ocre]

maybe you should pay more attention before making your comments. I was saying it was not much faster than the Core 2 QUAD. which it clearly isnt in those reviews as it even lost to it a couple cases even at same clockspeed. those acting like it was some massive jump over Core 2 quads for gaming are living in fantasyland. HT rarely will help the i7 and you know that and can still actually slow down a game by couple fps.

WOW,
what a set up!!!

Maybe you should pay attention to the post you, yourself, make

I guess I am thinking of the pre DO 920 cpus. and at well over 4.0 we are talking way more than just another 150 watts.

and I already linked to a review clearly showing that even at the same clocks, the first gen i7 cpus were hardly any faster for gaming and in some cases were no faster and even could lose to the Core 2 quads.


EDIT: I knew 3.8 was about the max on the very first i7 cpus so some of you are just exaggerating. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-920-overclocking_11.html#sect0

"But to our great disappointment, it refused to work at 4GHz even after a serious increase of the Uncore voltage."


EDIT 2: and another review showing little to no improvement in gaming. heck the i7 loses in Far Cry 2 on settings thay used. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2008/11/03/intel-core-i7-920-945-965-review/5

"Our Far Cry 2 numbers offer surprising results to say the least. We checked and double checked these numbers and even upgraded to using the latest Nvidia 180.43 drivers (which are the results shown above) but it made no difference. It seems that the Far Cry 2 engine just doesn't like the Core i7 architecture as much as it likes the previous generation Penryns, as they are a lot faster. Even the significantly cheaper Q6700, E8500 and AMD hardware outperform the Core i7s that all sit at the bottom of the table."

You brought it up,
the link, as well as the quotes.

The game in your example, you brought it up. It so happens to not be very well threaded and a dual core core 2 was faster than the Hyperthreaded i7 920.

So yeah, I paid attention enough. Perhaps you should do the same.

As my point, which is much more valid, stands firm.

The situation is very different today. Today, where games are well threaded. Today where drivers are aimed at multicore CPU with Hyperthreading. Today the situation is very very different.

Dont be throwing up quotes from 6 years ago using game engines that couldnt possibly take advantage of an 8 thread CPU and making wild claims. Those engines work just as well on dual cores and are not relevant at all today. Take a good look at what i posted, reread what you did and take a look at the games in those links,
And try again.

 

[toyota]

WOW,
what a set up!!!

Maybe you should pay attention to the post you, yourself, make



You brought it up,
the link, as well as the quotes.

The game in your example, you brought it up. It so happens to not be very well threaded and a dual core core 2 was faster than the Hyperthreaded i7 920.

So yeah, I paid attention enough. Perhaps you should do the same.

As my point, which is much more valid, stands firm.

The situation is very different today. Today, where games are well threaded. Today where drivers are aimed at multicore CPU with Hyperthreading. Today the situation is very very different.

Dont be throwing up quotes from 6 years ago using game engines that couldnt possibly take advantage of an 8 thread CPU and making wild claims. Those engines work just as well on dual cores and are not relevant at all today. Take a good look at what i posted, reread what you did and the games in those links,
And try again.

what I would like to say to you would get me an infraction but again learn to read more carefully instead of making a fool of yourself. the E8500 was in the middle of a quote from the bit tech review where other cpus where also mentioned. not once did I personally say anything about the core 2 DUO or any dual cores at all.

 

[AtenRa]

Thief is using UnrealEngine 3, a very CPU limited gaming engine.

Two things here,

1: Core i7 920 at default (2.6GHz) is faster than Core 2 Quad OC to 3.2GHz
2: Core i7 920 at 3.8GHz is very close to Ivy Bridge Core i7 3770K at default 3.7GHz (3770K can maintain 3.7GHz in most games)

and lastly, power consumption in gaming between the two is not that much as many people would believe. Well in this particular game, may be different in other games.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2370857&page=6&highlight=thief+mantle

ps: Core i7 920 CO or C1 would not reach more than 3.6GHz easily. The Core i7 920 DO could reach more than 4GHz with a very high-end Air or Water cooling. My 920 is a DO and could do 4.4GHz with Noctua NH-D14

http://hwbot.org/submission/928256_aten_ra_3dmark03_radeon_hd_5970_137380_marks

 

[Blue_Max]

I'll be keeping my eye on this while I look for an easy-to-acquire X5650!

 

[Magic Carpet]

The power usage depends a lot on the voltage needed to reach that speed. Mine does 4.0 at 1.265v with HT enabled and I get about 160W idle and 330W load on Prime for the whole system.

In Ryse: Son of Rome (everything set to the max, vsync off) my Haswell system with an R9 270 equipped, never crosses the 180w mark (160w on avr). I can run it from a quality 300w power supply, no problem (not recommend if you overclock, though). What kind of power draw do you get during intensive gaming?

I don't care that much about the load power but the idle is quite high, maybe partly due to having to disable Speedstep for overclocking. It's another reason the Haswell looks attractive to me.

The whole platform is just not power efficient, with all the undervolting and stuff I wasn't able to go below the 90w mark when I had my X58 system years ago (i7 950 stock with all power saving enabled). Now my 4770K with integrated graphics idles around 25 watts with 650w power supply, 1xSSD and 1xHDD. Add ~15w for a modern discrete video card. Talking about "from the wall values" here, with a more efficient PSU (like Pico, not recommend though), you can go lower (at least 10w less). One may not care for the power bill, but things like heat, noise and dust are hard to ignore. Good luck with your next build, and choose system board wisely

 

[CP5670]

In Ryse: Son of Rome (everything is set to the max, vsync off) my Haswell system with an R9 270 equipped, never crosses the 180w mark (160w on avr). I can run it from a quality 300w power supply, no problem. What kind of power draw do you get during intensive gaming?


The whole platform is just not power efficient, with all the undervolting and stuff I wasn't able to go below the 90w mark when I had my X58 system years ago (i7 950 stock with all power saving enabled). Now my 4770K with integrated graphics idles around 25 watts with 650w power supply, 1xSSD and 1xHDD. Add ~15w for a modern discrete video card. Talking about "from the wall values" here, with a more efficient PSU, you can go lower (at least 10w less). One may not care for the power bill, but things like heat, noise and dust are hard to ignore. Good luck with your next build, and choose system board wisely

Mine goes up to 440W or so in modern games, measured at the outlet (the power supply is 80-85% efficient). This isn't really a problem though since I only game or do other intensive tasks for a hour or two per day, and the CPU mostly idles for internet/email/etc. However, the idle power is higher than I would like. I put it on sleep at night and while I'm at work, but it stays on otherwise.

You're probably right that the platform itself is power hungry compared to Z97 or X99. The extra heat is noticeable and inconvenient during the summer, although noise is less of a concern since the fans run at a constant speed anyway and are pretty quiet. The only noisy component used to be my old GTX 280 blower, which became very loud in games even through my open headphones, but the 980 cooler is barely audible.

 

[rakenven]

Ok first of all: WOW
I've seen many communities treating noobs and people asking questions but this is BY FAR the most warm welcome (ok heated discussion too). Thank you all for your replies!

Now, to the point, I'm happy to see that most of you suggest a $250+ GPU. I mean, this shows that I don't need to upgrade the whole rig ASAP. Also, a 290 is the max I could pay for this. Even the 290X goes too high, more on that later.

Thanks to all pointing out power consumption issues. Fortunately this rig is only used for gaming, which is 4-6 hours per week, so power consumption is not a problem, as long as the PSU can handle it I'm also very picky with noise (like some of you), but while gaming I really don't care (speakers will cover it up ) so Increased fan RPMs will be fine.



So I think I'll go with the Sapphire R9 290 or 280X, then overclock the CPU to ~3.3 and observe CPU usage during gameplay... I'm not sure if it's D0 or C0 yet, I don't have access to it rigth now. Bios under cpu info shows "Module Version:01.0D" but can't be sure. I'll download cpu-z soon.

Well, later I may look into the 6-core Xeons, but they're much more expensive where I live (Europe). My 920 would sell for $50, but the xeons go for $125. $110 if I order from ebay (shipping+customs incl.).
Nvidia is also an option, but it looks like the cpu won't be a problem yet, so I won't bother since so many people vote for AMDs.
XLer8or's comment about PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0 froze my blood for a moment... until I saw the benchmarks so ok I can afford .5 FPS lower


And here's a follow-up question: How important would the difference between 3 and 4 GB of GPU ram be? I mean, obviously 4 is better, but is it worth the money?

So, my options:
Sapphire R9 290 4GB GDDR5 OC TRI-X - 280 (EUR/USD it doesn't matter)
Sapphire R9 280X 3GB GDDR5 TRI-X OC - 240
Sapphire R9 280 3GB GDDR5 OC DUAL-X with Boost - 180


Thanks all again for your replies!

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I have an i7-860 OC'ed to 4.0GHZ and just switched from a AMD 5870 to a nVidia GTX 770.

I can see this system lasting me another 5 years with minor side upgrades at this rate.

 

[Headfoot]

Upgrade to a X5650.

Get either the 290 or the 970 depending on whats cheaper where you live. If the 970 is only 20 more, then get the 970. Don't get the 280x or 280. It's only a little more money to get the 290 for a very respectable increase in speed

 

[rakenven]

The cheapest 970 is almost the same as the Sapphire 290X which is out of my budget.


BTW I checked, I have D0! So I should achieve almost 4Ghz, right?

 

[ronbo613]

I have an i7-860 OC'ed to 4.0GHZ and just switched from a AMD 5870 to a nVidia GTX 770.

I can see this system lasting me another 5 years with minor side upgrades at this rate.

I don't want to derail the video card thread, but 4.0Ghz? Water cooled? Is it stable?

 

[KaRLiToS]

Get a R9 290 then, the Tri-X from sapphire preferably.

http://www.overclock.net/t/538439/guide-to-overclocking-the-core-i7-920-or-930-to-4-0ghz/0_30

You can easily do 3.8 - 4GHz on air with minimal voltage bump.

 

[rakenven]

Get a R9 290 then, the Tri-X from sapphire preferably.

http://www.overclock.net/t/538439/guide-to-overclocking-the-core-i7-920-or-930-to-4-0ghz/0_30

You can easily do 3.8 - 4GHz on air with minimal voltage bump.

Lol I just OC'd to 3.36Ghz 5' ago, using this http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rmp_i7_920_overclocking

I changed fan profiles from silent to standard in bios (just to be safe) and my idle temps are around 37 C now. Will load it now and check again.
EDIT: 10' 100% load, cores at 62-63 deg C.
I'll game tonight to verify stability, and go higher tomorrow
I wish I could clock the GPU like that... But anything over 810mhz core, 1040 ram gives artifacts...

Thanks guys!!!

EDIT2: Clocked to 3.779Ghz. 20' of Prime and no BSOD yet. Temperature is at early 80s. I could drop it using higher fan speeds but I won't for now. I'll monitor in-game temps and decide later. Time to start saving for the GPU

 

[AznAnarchy99]

I don't want to derail the video card thread, but 4.0Ghz? Water cooled? Is it stable?

Man I've had it for so long I completely forgot about what cooling I had on it. I had to look it up right now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835242001

Prolimatech Megahalems with push/pull Corsair fans on it. It's been stable at this since I got it back in 2009. I actually just cut it down to 3.8 GHZ cause I got tired of how hot it was making my room.

 

[ronbo613]

Man I've had it for so long I completely forgot about what cooling I had on it. I had to look it up right now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835242001

Prolimatech Megahalems with push/pull Corsair fans on it. It's been stable at this since I got it back in 2009. I actually just cut it down to 3.8 GHZ cause I got tired of how hot it was making my room.

Nice

 

[Headfoot]

Lol I just OC'd to 3.36Ghz 5' ago, using this http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rmp_i7_920_overclocking

I changed fan profiles from silent to standard in bios (just to be safe) and my idle temps are around 37 C now. Will load it now and check again.
EDIT: 10' 100% load, cores at 62-63 deg C.
I'll game tonight to verify stability, and go higher tomorrow
I wish I could clock the GPU like that... But anything over 810mhz core, 1040 ram gives artifacts...

Thanks guys!!!

EDIT2: Clocked to 3.779Ghz. 20' of Prime and no BSOD yet. Temperature is at early 80s. I could drop it using higher fan speeds but I won't for now. I'll monitor in-game temps and decide later. Time to start saving for the GPU

Awesome. Increasing fan speeds may be worth it because there is a feedback loop effect in overclocking... more heat = worse clocks = more voltage to get to higher clocks = more heat = worse clocks ... etc.

 

[ocre]

what I would like to say to you would get me an infraction but again learn to read more carefully instead of making a fool of yourself. the E8500 was in the middle of a quote from the bit tech review where other cpus where also mentioned. not once did I personally say anything about the core 2 DUO or any dual cores at all.

fool out of myself?

The evidence you are using to support your very aged view comes from very outdated articles benchmarking outdated games on outdated engines.

If you took the time/effort to absorb the data you are posting, your quotes from the aged article clearly offer something important that seems to be flying straight over your head.

Think about what you are posting as evidence in your 2008/9 view, read it again and let it absorb. If you still are having issues, the most important clue in your quote is that dual core core 2. As stated clearly and quoted by you, it is beating out an 8 thread 920 CPU. These are ancient engines that arent well threaded at all. So to this conversation, that is extremely relevant. And your completely not comprehending this. Your data does a very poor job in supporting your position and to realize this, look no further than what you quoted.

Today is a completely different world in PC gaming. You cannot prove your position with outdated reviews from old game engines that are a joke when it comes to threading. In your example, a dual core is leading over 95% of the quads. It is setting up there with the top extreme editions in a time when clock speed ruled more than core count.

The world has changed.
Back then, you might have been fine with a dual core but it is a totally different scenario today. If you have been under a rock, take your time to read AtenRa's very clear example of a not so demanding game in the year 2014: Thief.
Jere lately there have been some really demanding and extremely threaded games. A lot has changed since dual cores were all you needed. Not only have games engines become much more multithreaded, so has our operating systems load capabilities become top notch. Today, we take advantage of threads in an extremely profound way. From the driver to the game engine to the OS, its a very different landscape than when the first i7 launched.

So, i know you want to disregard that little core 2 dual core in your quote you posted. Of course you would pretend it is irrelevant. To everyone else, it shows how these older engines just werent able to take good advantage of multicore/multithread CPUs yet. I am sure a lot of people remember the days when a fast dual core is all one needed for PC gaming. Most of those people know those days are long long gone.

 

[Denithor]

Drop in an x5650 (available on eBay for around $65), overclock to 4GHz and then likely use a GTX 970. Then you're good to go on both CPU and GPU fronts for several years.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2335636

EDIT: Nevermind, posted after read the first page without realizing there were two more pages.

 

[Makaveli]

Grab one of the Xeon's for cheap will be a nice upgrade.

And sorry toyota I agree with the rest the IMC alone in nehalem made a huge difference.

 

[tygeezy]

Is there a cheap Xeon processor I can upgrade my i7 860 to? My gf just ordered me a geforce 970 for xmas. I currently have my 860 at 3.5 ghz, but i'm wondering if there might be a cheap processor upgrade for my platform that would be worthwhile.

 

[RussianSensation]

Grab one of the Xeon's for cheap will be a nice upgrade.

And sorry toyota I agree with the rest the IMC alone in nehalem made a huge difference.

Alienbabeltech's review of a 4.2Ghz i7 920 vs. 4.8Ghz 3770K shows we are 90-95% GPU limited in most games with any single modern GPU, aside from Titan Z or 295X2. A lot of people want to justify why they spent money on i7 3770/4770/4790K but fact of the matter is if we are only strictly speaking about performance, those are not real upgrades for 290/290X/980 level card for most games. Sure, you might get 15-20% faster in some odd game like the Evil Within, but for the most part while IPC has improved a lot, most games punish the GPU too much for this to matter.

Turn on maximum IQ and MSAA in DAI, FC4, ACU, Crysis 3, and you are 99% GPU limited even with a 980. That's why I haven't bothered upgrading the CPu yet.

For 120-144Hz gaming argument, good luck getting those frames without Triple 290/980s or you must be super competitive where you will go all the way down to Medium IQ just to get those frames. I am not a competitive/professional gamer so no way will I want to play PC games on Medium-Medium/High settings just to get 120 FPS. At this point we start getting into niche IPS 120-144 overclocked monitors or TN (yuck). For someone coming from an old card like the 4870, 920@ 3.8/3.9Ghz will be a great CPU for a 290/970 without needing to drop hundreds of dollars on the 4790K. The 32nm 6-core option is a solid stop-gap until Skylake. At this point in the game no way would I build a Haswell system as its over 2 year old architecture. It's simply too old in a technology sense. The best time to buy Haswell was 2 years ago when 4770K came now. Anyone now not on Haswell should just wait until Skylake unless there is some must have game on your current CPU tanks imo.

I would only consider Haswell-E if one must build now as at least 5820K has 6 cores which is a safer bet for keeping it for 4-5 years over the 4790K.

 

[Enigmoid]

Alienbabeltech's review of a 4.2Ghz i7 920 vs. 4.8Ghz 3770K shows we are 90-95% GPU limited in most games with any single modern GPU, aside from Titan Z or 295X2. A lot of people want to justify why they spent money on i7 3770/4770/4790K but fact of the matter is if we are only strictly speaking about performance, those are not real upgrades for 290/290X/980 level card for most games. Sure, you might get 15-20% faster in some odd game like the Evil Within, but for the most part while IPC has improved a lot, most games punish the GPU too much for this to matter.

Turn on maximum IQ and MSAA in DAI, FC4, ACU, Crysis 3, and you are 99% GPU limited even with a 980. That's why I haven't bothered upgrading the CPu yet.

For 120-144Hz gaming argument, good luck getting those frames without Triple 290/980s or you must be super competitive where you will go all the way down to Medium IQ just to get those frames. I am not a competitive/professional gamer so no way will I want to play PC games on Medium-Medium/High settings just to get 120 FPS. At this point we start getting into niche IPS 120-144 overclocked monitors or TN (yuck). For someone coming from an old card like the 4870, 920@ 3.8/3.9Ghz will be a great CPU for a 290/970 without needing to drop hundreds of dollars on the 4790K. The 32nm 6-core option is a solid stop-gap until Skylake. At this point in the game no way would I build a Haswell system as its over 2 year old architecture. It's simply too old in a technology sense. The best time to buy Haswell was 2 years ago when 4770K came now. Anyone now not on Haswell should just wait until Skylake unless there is some must have game on your current CPU tanks imo.

I would only consider Haswell-E if one must build now as at least 5820K has 6 cores which is a safer bet for keeping it for 4-5 years over the 4790K.

Your logic is incorrect. Sure you can turn up settings to become GPU limited but nobody who spends those kinds of $ plays at 30 fps. Your CPU needs to be good enough to hit 60 fps (or whatever minimums you require); CPU over that threshold is not needed. The question is not "Are you GPU limited?" but "Is the CPU capable of driving the sufficient minimum fps you desire?". GPU limited or not IMO the CPU needs to be enough of driving 60 fps in most if not all titles.

Never mind this stupid obsession for "MAX SETTINGS + MAX AA". You can get 95% of the IQ and twice the performance by turning down a few things (such as AA in DA:O where many have said its not really needed).

 

[Rezist]

I'd recommend a 280/280x there very cheap right now, that way if you don't get a good OC your not really out nothing, if you plan on doing any changes over the next few years maybe get something better that you could move to the new machine.

 

[Makaveli]

\ Sure, you might get 15-20% faster in some odd game like the Evil Within, but for the most part while IPC has improved a lot, most games punish the GPU too much for this to matter.

True.

When I tried evil within on my machine the numbers were good enough. I was hitting 40fps lows and 60 average with Vsync on. And yes haswell and may do 60fps lows and 80 average but it won't feel much faster in game.

Never mind this stupid obsession for "MAX SETTINGS + MAX AA". You can get 95% of the IQ and twice the performance by turning down a few things (such as AA in DA:O where many have said its not really needed).

Good point.