Upgrade for BF3. Currently have an E6750

[innociv]

I keep checking andandtech benchmarks now and then. If I don't see an E6750 or so on there, there usually is a Q6600, which is pretty comparable.

It's a processor that came out 4 years ago, but it seems we've hardly advanced in power since then. It makes me want to wait. Is the next architexture going to be significantly faster? After that? I haven't really seen the breakthrough.

The i5 2500k does look nice, but with that, motherboard, and ram is it worth $550?
I would get a SSHD for that.

I really want to play Battlefield3 where it looks as beautiful as the trailers.

My current system is E6750, 4gb of OCZ DDR2, Radeon 5770 Vapor-X. No overclocking, stock fans.

I just upgraded to the 5770 a year or so ago, so I'm not interested in replacing that. I tend to do a 1/2 or 1/3rd upgrade every 2-3 years, but I haven't seen a "wow I need that" upgrade to processor since I got my E6750.

Is waiting going to do me any good, or should I see how the BF3 beta runs and possibly upgrade then? If I upgrade, I can't budget another for a while.

Thanks in advance!

//edit I forgot to ask: The next intel chips at 22nm and 14nm are going to require new motherboards than a 2500k right? That's the biggest issue.. having to upgrade both motherboard and cpu.

 

[bart1975]

I would wait and see how it runs on your system. You can always upgrade later.

 

[innociv]

I doubt i'll be able to run it high, though. I do need an upgrade, I just don't know if it should be SandyBridge, Bulldozer, or Ivy.
My system already struggles with some games that aren't nearly as beautiful.

I can't find much information on Bulldozer, no expected performance, when it's supposed to be out soon.

 

[KingstonU]

I believe that your current system is very well balanced right now, but overall probably doesn't have the horsepower to run BF3 on high settings. The problem with that is that any individual component you upgrade is going to just present another big bottleneck in your system.

Also note that the one component that will improve your ability to play BF3 is a better video card, but anything that is a worthwhile upgrade over your 5770, say a GTX560 or a 6850, might be held back by the rest of your system. Others might chime in here as well.

 

[KingstonU]

Double Post. But I might as well mention that I believe that Ivy Bridge is supposed to be drop in compatible with Sandy Bridge motherboards.

Bulldozer should be out with benchmarks in the next 1 to 2 months (unless the rumors of further delays are true). Ivy Bridge is supposed to be available in ~February/April 2012.

 

[nenforcer]

BF3 isn't due out until October 25th, 2011 so you've got some time to make your decision.

There will be some newer video cards and the AMD FX CPU's will have proper benchmarks in a few months.

DICE hasn't released the system requirements for BF3 yet either so just wait a bit.

 

[innociv]

Yeah, Bulldozer should be out for then. Even if they aren't a big leap forward, I guess it'd drive prices down.
I find it odd that this close to coming out, there is no preview. Weren't there usually demos of chips months in advance years back?

I wouldn't be able to buy both a new graphics card and processor, and I already upgraded to the 5770 Vapor-X a year ago. Seems odd that the newer graphics card would be what I'm behind on.

With BF3's physics, I imagine it'll need a powerful processor.

 

[toolbag]

BF3 isn't due out until October 25th, 2011 so you've got some time to make your decision.

There will be some newer video cards and the AMD FX CPU's will have proper benchmarks in a few months.

DICE hasn't released the system requirements for BF3 yet either so just wait a bit.

By the looks of your sig you have been waiting a bit for a long long time.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

I have a Q9550 coming tomorrow, should be a nice little boost over my 6750.

 

[RussianSensation]

I would look at the landscape once the game is actually released and is tested with modern processors. Should Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer come out on top, you'll always be able to upgrade to the faster setup. Also, your GPU probably won't be fast enough even if you do upgrade to the most modern 4-8 core CPU. Of course, there is always a small chance that the game may also be delayed (hence I advise for you to wait if that's the only game that you are willing to upgrade for).

 

[sm625]

An i3-2100 has 60% more single threaded performance than a E6750. It is literally twice as fast in multithreaded. The cheapest sb pentium is going to be faster than the fastest overclocked E6750. Some games would see a 50% increase in fps. I wouldnt call that insignificant.

 

[apathy_next2]

As people have been saying, wait on it a bit. Bulldozer or Ivy are not even out yet, but bulldozer is right around the corner. I would wait, there should be a refresh with the graphics cards before or around BF3 comes out so there is not much point in upgrading right now for BF3

 

[yottabit]

I don't think your system is "balanced" for BF3 at all personally. I have an i5 750 with a 5770 and I find that acceptable for BF:BC2. I imagine if BF3 is anything like BC2 it will be a heavy toll on the CPU as well as GPU w/ the destructible environments. Unless you have your 6750 oc'd really high then I think it will choke. BC2 = mandatory quad core from my perspective. I think something like a 2500k will be great. If you are okay with overclocking then the 2500k will stay relevant even through Ivy Bridge, much like I feel my 750 @ 3.8 Ghz is still relevant compared to SB

Best advice is likely to wait and find out though

 

[Arachnotronic]

I am of the opinion that your machine is probably extremely under-powered in the CPU department for BF3.

You're saying the E6750 is comparable to the Q6600? No. E6750 is a dual core CPU and Q6600 is a quad core CPU, and the Battlefield games LOVE (need) CPU power.

I'd pick up an i5-2500k (and the motherboard IS compatible with Ivy Bridge if you get a p67 and z68 based board) and be done with it

 

[Topweasel]

With SB-E, IB, and BD all around the corner and two of them will probably be out when you want to play BF3 then I would just wait till then and make a choice, unless you are having other performance issues.

I thought I read something about how BF2 loves CPU cores, so that might impact choices as well.

Intel has made it clear to their OEM's that a platform was going to last 18 months in the future. So yeah die shrinks and new architectures will bring about new board requirements.

 

[innociv]

I currently have BFBC2 as well, and it runs rather well, though I can't max it.

I am of the opinion that your machine is probably extremely under-powered in the CPU department for BF3.

You're saying the E6750 is comparable to the Q6600? No. E6750 is a dual core CPU and Q6600 is a quad core CPU, and the Battlefield games LOVE (need) CPU power.

I'd pick up an i5-2500k (and the motherboard IS compatible with Ivy Bridge if you get a p67 and z68 based board) and be done with it

I thought I said the Q6600 was pretty much a quad core E6750? Maybe I left that out of a post.
Anyway, when I see a Q6600 on benchmarks I can just figure my E6750 is 15-30% slower than that. So, I can figure a 2500k would give me like a 50-70% boost.

After 4 years though, yeah I do find that to be less than I'd expect if I had upgraded from 2002 to 2006.

 

[Arachnotronic]

E6750 is a dual core CPU...OH! do you mean that a Q6600 is essentially 2x E6750, right?

 

[ss284]

bfbc2 on dual cores vs quad cores was like a night and day difference. You will have to upgrade. Sadly, Ivy bridge won't be out yet.

 

[skipsneeky2]

bfbc2 on dual cores vs quad cores was like a night and day difference. You will have to upgrade. Sadly, Ivy bridge won't be out yet.

Yup i had a amd x2 555 and i unlocked it to a triple core.

Had a increase in performance.

Kinda hard to justify $500 in parts for a game.

Find a used q6600 or something and clock it or buy a amd triple core cpu and a mobo idk

 

[OCGuy]

A SB or even a i7 940 will play the game just fine, and will last for years.

 

[gramboh]

What mobo? If it supports the newer S775 Quads, try to find a used Q9550 or 9450, although they are going for $150+ these days. Even with that, the 5770 is highly unlikely going to be powerful enough for BF3 at max settings. My rig struggles with BC2 at 1920x1200 maxed out if I push AA over 4X and I have OC'd both CPU and video. I am planning on building a new system a few months after BF3 (waiting for Ivy).

 

[innociv]

Maybe I should get a 6750 and crossfire it?
The stream processors, memory, and gpu clock are the same. I can get a 6750 for $120.
A 6870 would cost $200. I would think and hope that a 5750+6750 would be as fast as a 6870 or 6850 at least.
I forget whether I have a 5750 or 5770. It's a Sapphire Vapor-X.

My motherboard is a P35-DS3R.

Support for an Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme processor/ Intel® Core™ 2 Quad processor/Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor/ Intel® Pentium® processor Extreme Edition/Intel® Pentium® D processor/ Intel® Pentium® 4 processor Extreme Edition/Intel® Pentium® 4 processor/ Intel® Celeron® processor in the LGA 775 package
(Go to GIGABYTE's website for the latest CPU support list.)
L2 cache varies with CPU
1600 (O.C.)/1333/1066/800 MHz FSB
Chipset	
North Bridge: Intel® P35 Chipset
South Bridge: Intel® ICH9R

It does not have crossfire, but if I'm to upgrade to a SandyBridge, Bulldozer, or Ivy Bridge I would probably get crossfire.


I play BFBC2 smoothly at 1400x1050 except on a few maps that just seem to be less optimized.

E6750 is a dual core CPU...OH! do you mean that a Q6600 is essentially 2x E6750, right?

That's what I meant. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they were similar architexture and specs except that Q6600 had 4cores instead of 2.

I think the Q9550 idea is very sound except I'm stuck with 4gb of ram, of which I only tend to have 2.5-3gb actually available.
I could get a Q9505 even for a sensible $240.. but then my graphics card isn't fast enough, and I can't crossfire.

I'd be looking at $440 for a 6870 and Q9505.
An i5 2500k is the same $240, but then I'm adding $125 or so on RAM, $150 for a motherboard, and $120 for the 6750. That's almost $200 more.

The best option would seem to be if I could ebay a Q9505, Q9550, or Q9650 processor, and maybe buy a 6870 graphics card. Then I can wait for 2012 or 2013 chipsets to upgrade my motherboard for and get a crossfire board for a second 6870..

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think you best option would be go to AMD. Phenom II X4 955 BE + 6870 + Mobo + memory.

CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-808-_-Product

GFX: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...6&Tpk=m3a770de

Video: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-349-_-Product

RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellS...1-_-06132011_1

There's currently a $10 off promo code for the CPU, and the RAM is on a shell shocker deal (8GB for $60).

 

[TemjinGold]

OP: A few things:

1) There's nothing wrong with 4 gigs of ram. You don't need more than that.
2) If you go the 2500k route, you can routinely find a deal that gets you 8gb of ddr3 (if you want that much) for like $80 or less (there's a newegg shellshocker today that gets you 8 gbs of ddr3 for $60.) 4gb ddr3 you can find for like $40 or less easy. You should be spending nowhere NEAR $125 for new ram.
3) I wouldn't crossfire with something as weak as a 5770. If you want more gfx performance, just sell it and buy a better card.
4) I used to have a very similar motherboard to yours and it does indeed take a nice quad. I also happen to be gathering parts for a 2500k build myself and will be ebaying my X3350 (Q9450 essentially) when I do.

 

[Termie]

I currently have BFBC2 as well, and it runs rather well, though I can't max it.


I thought I said the Q6600 was pretty much a quad core E6750? Maybe I left that out of a post.
Anyway, when I see a Q6600 on benchmarks I can just figure my E6750 is 15-30% slower than that. So, I can figure a 2500k would give me like a 50-70% boost.

After 4 years though, yeah I do find that to be less than I'd expect if I had upgraded from 2002 to 2006.

OP, unfortunately, your assumption is not actually correct in regard to the boost of quad-core CPUs in core-limited applications. In fact, a Q6600 is approximately 95% faster than your CPU in such applications.

This is the only benchmark you really need to understand: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20486/5.

Your CPU is pretty close to the e6400 used in that test, and a q6600 is close to the q9400 used in that test, i.e., the quad-core is providing double the performance of the dual-core. Plain and simple, your CPU is holding you back very badly in BC2. You may be experiencing fine gameplay (although frankly, I doubt it, as you're probably limited to 35fps regardless of settings), but with a quad-core CPU, you'd open up whole new gameplay options, even with your HD5770.

You guessed that a 2500k is 50-70% faster than your CPU. In BC2, it's 250% faster. I'd honestly say that if you're ok with performance now, save up for a full system upgrade (minus GPU if that's beyond your budget) once BF3 comes out.

On a technical note, the q6600 was in fact two e6600's on the same chip. The bus speed and multiplier were different than the e6750 (which was at 333x8, rather than the older chip's 266x9).