Should I get 7970/7970Ghz?

[p0rkguy]

I'd like to spend the least amount while gaining the most performance from my upgrade. Sooner or later I will have to upgrade CPU/MB/RAM but I don't believe the time is now. I believe that if I upgrade CPU/MB/RAM the best I can get is medium and if I upgrade GPU the best will be high or even ultra while maintaining 50+fps.
Getting both will probably give me an extra 10 fps at most at double the price over just the GPU.

Edit - If a good 9 series GPU comes out capable of Ultra for $X, I would definitely get it over CPU/MB/RAM/GPU for $X. I understand everybody's reasoning to upgrade CPU to prevent bottlenecking but it's spending the same amount for two different performance and picking the lower performance seems like the bigger "bottleneck".

 

[ocre]

RS, if u have been paying any attention at all you would see that my recommendations were of a 7950/760/7870 max, which happens to be what you then say as if yur sonehow correcting me. There are plenty of people out there sporting amd cpus and his ipc is only passed by the highest clocked piledriver cpus. These are not the most popular amd cpus as only a small percent have them. As you can see even if your worst case cherry picked benchmarks, his cpu sits right in the (upper) middle of the amd pack. There is no doubt that you can get more performance out of an intel cpu. Any one with an amd cpu can.

My words are in regard to the people saying that there is no point in a gpu more powerful than a 6850 for his cpu. That is total bs. 100% bs. And if you think that way then do say it cause. I am sure you know ver well that his cpu will scale past the 6850 . I think he will be fine with a 760/7950. As a matter of facth e will get 80 to 90% of the performance he would with an intel cpu 98% of the time. Sure their are heavy cpu titles, but even then its not like he wont be able to play it.


Remember, he doesnt want to spend the money on a cpu now. His cpu will be okay with a 760/7950. Fine for what he needs.

 

[RussianSensation]

Getting both will probably give me an extra 10 fps at most at double the price over just the GPU.

It really depends on the games you play.

In many games, upgrading to 4770K overclocked will increase fps by 75-100% over a 955/965 processor. You can easily gain 30-40 fps. It just depends what titles you play.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35232900&postcount=38

You would be better off reselling your AMD CPU + DDR2 + mobo while it still has any value and grabbing an i5 + $250 GPU than getting an HD7970GE for $370-400.

 

[ocre]

Why stop there? Why not dual intel extreme processors and 4 HD7990s in octa-Fire?

Surely you read the part where the OP said mulitple times he isnt interested in buying a completely new setup (cpu) right now. But i guess thats not important. He asked for advice and set specific conditions.

OP, there are countless people out there doing fine with AMD CPUs. You will be okay for the largest majority of games out there. You will see increased performance. I know you know that you can get better results with an entirely new intel system.

But with the CPU you have, you will get more performance with a more powerful GPU in 99% of the games out.

 

[RussianSensation]

But with the CPU you have, you will get more performance with a more powerful GPU in 99% of the games out.

Again, you missed my point. If the OP sells his parts for say $100 and gets a $250 GPU + i5 system, that will be barely more $ than a $400 GPU especially from HD9xxx series. But at least this system would be balanced. No one is saying he won't benefit from a 7950 in some games but if he intends to get a CPU in the $400 range like 7970GE, it's a total waste of $ for the CPU he has for the games he mentioned. If he doesn't want to upgrade his CPU, then anything above GTX760 is complete waste. You are giving way too much credit to 955-965 and AMD CPUs in general.

For example in Skyrim, 3770K's minimums are 57% higher than 965's:

Phenom II X4's IPC is only at 65nm Kentsfield quad level. 955 isn't going to be faster than Q9550 @ 3.0ghz or Q6600 @ 3.5ghz. Would you recommend anyone buy a 7970/GE to pair with a Q9550 @ 3.0ghz? Not a chance. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-920-overclocking_8.html#sect0

And just because there are "millions of people" running AMD gaming systems, doesn't mean anything. There are millions of people who think a Ford Mustang is a real sports car and that Dunkin Donuts coffee is actually good. The point is a 955-965 level of CPU is a major bottleneck for cards like GTX680/7970GE and if someone decides to pair this platform with that level of GPUs, they are simply wasting $ on the GPU.

I also paid very close attention to the games the OP wants to upgrade for. He said BF4, which like BF3, is likely going to be one of the most CPU limited games in 64 player matches.

Since you do not believe me, let's look at the facts for BF3 to show you how limiting any X4 CPU is in BF3.

BF3 End Game

HD6870 is getting 52 fps but 955 CPU can only manage 44 fps with 64 people on the map.
Source

Therefore, upgrading the GPU is a waste of time in this level.

BF3 Aftermath

HD7850 is getting 60 fps but 955 CPU can only manage 49 fps with 64 people on the map.
Source

BF3 Armored Kill

HD7870 is getting 48 fps with no AA but the 955 CPU can only manage 45 fps.
Source

What about frame times? Phenom II X4 980 is the 2nd worst CPU for BF3 among modern CPUs tested at TechReport. The GPU they used was XFX Radeon HD 7950.

GTA4 was a notorious CPU pig.

Phenom X4 is a joke for GTA4 compared to even a stock i7 920.

It's interesting how you say that the OP will be fine in 99% of the games out there but the 2 games he specifically is mentioning are most likely going to be in the 1% of the most demanding CPU titles on the PC considering their predecessors were. Ironically, the 965 CPU would be a major bottleneck in those 2 titles.

I totally understand how people may not be up-to-date with CPU based benchmarks in modern titles but simply stating that Phenom X4 965 is good enough for modern games is misleading. In many modern titles, it's literally 75-100% slower than i7 4770K would be.

If the CPU in question was i5 750-760 that could be overclocked, that would be a different story. Honestly, even when Phenom II X4 965 came out, it was already really far behind the competition in CPU demanding gaming situations. Anecdotal evidence of some $1,300 PC loading games slower than an $800 PC with Phenom II X4 could simply be a matter of the storage sub-system (i.e., 5400-5900 rpm hard drive vs. 7200 rpm). That doesn't actually mean Phenom II X4 was a good gaming CPU. It never was.

In the end, it's the OP's $, not mine. I provided the information so that the OP saves $ or considers selling his system and upgrading the CPU+GPU. Otherwise, he'll continue to become even more CPU limited over time as Skylake is still 2 years away. I don't know how his system even has a hope for playing next gen games with a 965 CPU for that long even with a GPU upgrade.

 

[ocre]

I never suggested anything over a 760/7950. Since he has a 500watt psu i would say he is better off with a 760 and bumping his multiplier up a couple notches. The op can upgrare his entire system if he chooses but has stated that he doesnt want to now. There you have it, without upgrading his cpu would he gain performance with a more powerful gpu than yhe 6850. To this my answer is yes. In more cases than not. Even in your extremely cpu bound example, there was perfomance gained.

If he chooses to play huge 64 player matches with his cpu, performance will suffer. He knows his cpu will need to be upgraded but he dosnt want to now. This is where he stands. With his cpu now he still will be able to play just about anything he wants. Perhaps in some cases he wont be able to play on ultra but high or med. It is what it is. But most games are not cpu bound. You should know this. Just as the op knows his cpu isnt top of the line.