Upgrading Rig for Crysis 3

[Termie]

Not true for Crysis 3. The FX 8350 outperformed the 3770K but in other games the i7 would be a little faster but i wouldn't recommend it over a i5-3570K.

Guys, I'm surprised it's taken this long to provide the OP useful information.

A Phenom II x4@3.4 is going to terribly bottleneck a 6990. It just isn't even a question. Sure, he needs to have the latest GPU drivers, but that's not his problem. He has a huge amount of GPU power running with way too little CPU to back it up. Frankly, a Phenom II@3.4 could potentially bottleneck a single 6970 in some games.

OP, you were on the right track the first time. Your CPU is going to have a hard time keeping up with your high-end GPU in Crysis 3, as shown in the chart above, but also in every other modern game.

In theory, I would recommend you make a simple upgrade to the FX8350. Unfortunately, according to the Asus website, it doesn't look like your board supports the FX8350: http://support.asus.com/Cpusupport/...79T Deluxe&p=1&s=24&hashedid=lhJiLTN5huPfCVkW. Your board is about 4 years old and the BIOS hasn't been updated in over a year.

So, based on that finding, I'd recommend you go the route of an i5-3570k, cheap z77 board, and 8GB of DDR3. It will cost about $380, but it should really fix the issues you're having. Unfortunately, while you've invested a lot in your GPU, your system really has gone as far as it's going to go without a full upgrade.

If you're not that interested in overclocking, though, an FX8350 and new AMD motherboard will cost a bit less and will likely outperform a stock 3570k in Crysis 3 and come close to it in other games, while being about $30-50 cheaper total. It doesn't have a lot of overclocking headroom, though, unlike the 3570k, and will use a lot more power.

 

[crashtech]

I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to an 8350. I think it's been established that Crysis3 can utilize more than 4 cores, plus the 8350 has better single threaded performance, even accounting for clock speed. If you have a mobo that can handle it power wise, it's not a bad way to go.

Ah, didn't notice Termie did some of the OP's homework. Even so, given the fact that Crysis seems to want more than 4 cores, at least under certain circumstances, going with something that is capable of 6-8 threads seems prudent, and that's not the 3570K.

 

[crashtech]

An overclocked Phenom II X6 might be something to try if there is a budget. His board supports those.

 

[notty22]

I just run whatever the Catalyst software suite tells me to >.<

At the moment, its the 13.1 driver. But 13.2 is in beta stage 6 and should be out within a few weeks.

I'm not sure what a CAP config is?

Am I running the wrong drivers? I hadn't really thought of that...

Guys !!

You should definitely try the 13.2 newest beta. You are using a driver that was released before Crysis 3 was launched (even the mp beta). The driver might not have functional crossfire working? I don't know, but they came out with a beta driver after the MP beta and again after the actual game launch, claiming performance gains both times.



edit: driver link and notes
http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst132BetaDriver.aspx

AMD Catalyst 13.2 Beta Release Notes
(Please note that AMD Catalyst 13.2 Beta 6 includes all of the fixes found in previous versions of AMD Catalyst 13.2 Beta)
Crysis 3 multi-player Beta: Improves CrossFire scaling by up to 40%

 

[Tinsley847]

Thank you to everyone for helping me.

I will be upgrading to the ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 & the FX-8350

Motherboard

CPU

Memory

Also, until my parts get in. I will pick up the 13.2 beta drivers.

It will be win/win, as I will be able to push my old MB & CPU to my 2nd rig.

You guys are amazing!

 

[Termie]

Thank you to everyone for helping me.

I will be upgrading to the ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 & the FX-8350

Motherboard

CPU

Memory

Also, until my parts get in. I will pick up the 13.2 beta drivers.

It will be win/win, as I will be able to push my old MB & CPU to my 2nd rig.

You guys are amazing!

This will definitely bring you a lot more performance. You can get similar performance with a cheaper motherboard, but that decision is ultimately up to you - if you have the budget for it, you might like some of the extra perks of the Sabertooth - performance, however, will be similar to a cheaper model, like this ASUS M5A99FX PRO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813131851

 

[Durvelle27]

Here you go bud:


RAM <--- cost less than what you chose and i tend to like G.Skill ram and Corsair better than other company's do to experience

G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231460


Mobo <--- either is fine just trying to help you save a few bucks.

GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ AMD 990FX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128514


CPU FX8350 or FX 8320. 8320 if you want to save some cash

 

[guskline]

Good luck Tinsley847. BTW I Love Crysis3 on my FX 8350 with a Sabertooth Rev1 and a GTX680

 

[Face2Face]

OP, shouldn't you have upgraded your drivers before you plopped down a bunch of money on a new setup? Your 6990 should be very capable even with the Phenom II running this game at HQ with 2XMSAA. What settings were you running that made you want to upgrade?

 

[2is]

OP, shouldn't you have upgraded your drivers before you plopped down a bunch of money on a new setup? Your 6990 should be very capable even with the Phenom II running this game at HQ with 2XMSAA. What settings were you running that made you want to upgrade?

Drivers aren't going to help when the problem is with the CPU. Take a look at the graph Durvelle27 posted. Phenom X4 955 getting minumum fps of 25 which is a bit on the painful side depending on how often it gets there. His 965 is only 200MHz more so not much better.

That said, I WOULD have tried overclocking first. A good aftermarket cooler would have been well worth it, especially since you'd have been able to use it on the new build if you went that route. If you could have gotten 4GHz, i'll bet it would have provided for adequate performance.

 

[notty22]

OP, shouldn't you have upgraded your drivers before you plopped down a bunch of money on a new setup? Your 6990 should be very capable even with the Phenom II running this game at HQ with 2XMSAA. What settings were you running that made you want to upgrade?

I can't imagine upgrading hardware before, you get the correct driver for a new game. AMD simply has not released a whql driver with Crysis 3 inclusive yet.

 

[notty22]

Drivers aren't going to help when the problem is with the CPU. Take a look at the graph Durvelle27 posted. Phenom X4 955 getting minumum fps of 25 which is a bit on the painful side depending on how often it gets there. His 965 is only 200MHz more so not much better.

That said, I WOULD have tried overclocking first. A good aftermarket cooler would have been well worth it, especially since you'd have been able to use it on the new build if you went that route. If you could have gotten 4GHz, i'll bet it would have provided for adequate performance.

That chart, also was with a GTX 690, a generation newer gpu. AMD's own notes , state large gains in crossfire with the current driver for Crysis 3. How can you NOT install and test it?

 

[Face2Face]

Drivers aren't going to help when the problem is with the CPU. Take a look at the graph Durvelle27 posted. Phenom X4 955 getting minumum fps of 25 which is a bit on the painful side depending on how often it gets there. His 965 is only 200MHz more so not much better.

That said, I WOULD have tried overclocking first. A good aftermarket cooler would have been well worth it, especially since you'd have been able to use it on the new build if you went that route. If you could have gotten 4GHz, i'll bet it would have provided for adequate performance.

Take a look at these charts -1080P VHQ no AA

The first two graphs are not showing a big jump in performance. It's actually looks very GPU limited for the most part. I am not saying the 8350 won't help, but I can't imagine it's going the be what he is expecting in a performance increase. I guess he can report back when he gets the setup going.

 

[2is]

But look at the difference between what the OP had and what he is going to have. He didnt upgrade from a 3570 to a 3770. Your graph only reinforces this was a good upgrade path.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd go with an i5, it's still the best value for your dollar in a gaming system.

8350 has at least a 600MHz clock speed advantage in that test and would not enjoy anything close to that on equal cooling against an overclocked i5.

Keep in mind this is one of the very few games where AMD is really actually competitive, if you're playing one of the other 99% of games on the market the 8350 isn't in competition with the i5.

 

[2is]

I'd go with an i5, it's still the best value for your dollar in a gaming system.

8350 has at least a 600MHz clock speed advantage in that test and would not enjoy anything close to that on equal cooling against an overclocked i5.

Keep in mind this is one of the very few games where AMD is really actually competitive, if you're playing one of the other 99% of games on the market the 8350 isn't in competition with the i5.

While I agree the i5 would be the better choice, the clock speed "advantage" isn't really an advantage. Both are running at their stock clocks, and that's how they should be compared, and that's why no legitimate reviewer is going to overclock an i5 to match the speed of a stock 8350 and call it apples to apples.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Perhaps "advantage" was the wrong word?

I guess I'll try rewording it...

The 8350 is a 180w+ chip rated at 125w, there are boards that support 125w chips that do not support 8350 because of it's inaccurate TDP rating.

Presuming you were going to overclock some, given the 8350's already grossly oversized wattage budget on something like say a hyper 212+, the i5 would no longer have a hindrance in clock speeds against it, and would most likely actually gain some over the 8350.


Anyways I scrolled up to look at the overclocked 8350 losing to stock Ivy with a single card and noticed the OP already went with a 8350 (wouldn't have paid extra for factory OC).

 

[SolMiester]

I personally wouldn't recommend a CPU on the performance of one multi thread coded game, when most responsd better to single core IPC and speed. If the OP has to replace the board as well as the CPU, might as well go intel IB with cheap Z77 combo as already suggested IMO.

 

[3DVagabond]

If the OP plans on hanging on to the system for a while the 8350 should perform better as apps/games take advantage of more threads. Or, if he uses something now that can utilize all 8 "cores".

 

[2is]

If the OP plans on hanging on to the system for a while the 8350 should perform better as apps/games take advantage of more threads. Or, if he uses something now that can utilize all 8 "cores".

Wishful thinking at beat. Single threaded performance will always be a big benefit and IB dominates there, add to that HT which further reduces then "8 core" advantage. Applications are not going to be coded in a way that the 8350 is going to suddenly be the better chip. If that ever does happen it will be so far into the future that both these chips will have been well past their useful lifespan many generations past.

I heard this same argument about how Phenom (original) was going to beat Core 2 once apps were optimized for it. It never happen, and still hasn't.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Wishful thinking at beat. Single threaded performance will always be a big benefit and IB dominates there, add to that HT which further reduces then "8 core" advantage. Applications are not going to be coded in a way that the 8350 is going to suddenly be the better chip. If that ever does happen it will be so far into the future that both these chips will have been well past their useful lifespan many generations past.

I heard this same argument about how Phenom (original) was going to beat Core 2 once apps were optimized for it. It never happen, and still hasn't.

They aren't? It has already happened. Now, imagine come next holiday season all games are being designed for 8 core cpu's? Single threaded performance doesn't seem to matter nearly as much anymore.

AMD may actually force intel to release a mainstreak six to eight core CPU.

 

[3DVagabond]

Wishful thinking at beat. Single threaded performance will always be a big benefit and IB dominates there, add to that HT which further reduces then "8 core" advantage. Applications are not going to be coded in a way that the 8350 is going to suddenly be the better chip. If that ever does happen it will be so far into the future that both these chips will have been well past their useful lifespan many generations past.

I heard this same argument about how Phenom (original) was going to beat Core 2 once apps were optimized for it. It never happen, and still hasn't.

It's being compared to an i5. No HT. I already use apps that take advantage of the extra threads. Not everyone is the same.

 

[3DVagabond]

They aren't? It has already happened. Now, imagine come next holiday season all games are being designed for 8 core cpu's? Single threaded performance doesn't seem to matter nearly as much anymore.

AMD may actually force intel to release a mainstreak six to eight core CPU.

Considering PS4 reportedly uses an 8core APU, it's likely to happen.

I can remember when people were being told that all they needed was 2 cores for gaming. Things do change.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Did you miss his post Vega?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34674251&postcount=36


Here is the problem with AMD's x8... It's only on par/slightly faster than a lower clocked quad core that uses less than half the power - in multithreading at stock.

This is great to see, games need to move past Core2Duo area rigs, but AMD's product is a turd no matter how you slice it.

It's just not enough for it to be as good as a quad core in highly threaded apps. Not with it's power consumption, it's just a poorly designed cpu. It's only saving grace is that it's priced slightly below the i5, but when you look at it he pretty much had to get a $200 board just to support the power draw of that chip.

Haswell is supposed to be out next month, I just don't see the logic in the 8350.

 

[2is]

It's being compared to an i5. No HT. I already use apps that take advantage of the extra threads. Not everyone is the same.

What percentage of the world do you think would benefit more from an AMD "8 core" vs an Intel quad? My guess is this numer is in the single digits judging by the small amount of programs that benefit combined with the smaller number of people who use said programs. So you made a recommendation based on a fringe case. Extremely fringe at that.