Your upgrade fettish

[soccerballtux]

My only guess is because I know more about CPU architecture than GPU architecture.
Second guess is I feel upgrading the CPU will keep me happy longer-- Graphics cards become useless faster. My 9800GT can't even keep up with wow full settings. However, I don't foresee a q9450 Penryn OC'd to 3.8Ghz running out of steam within the next 5 years.

 

[cmdrdredd]

My guess is CPU upgrades are immediately noticeable in just about everything you do. DC apps, MP3 encoding, video encoding, photoshop, benchmarks etc.

Video card upgrades are limited to a few specific benchmarks and games. Games you may not even notice a difference in. Sure you can measure 60fps vs 40fps, but gameplay wise it's close. With a CPU getting a faster time on your MP3 encoding is noticeable.

 

[Concillian]

GPU, I'm a gaming guy.

Anything I do nowadays that I really notice CPU performance on is something I setup and walk away from the computer and go do something else (mp3 encoding or video encoding) while the computer does it's thing. I only upgrade my CPU when it's not cutting it for whatever game I'm interested in at the moment.

CPUs seem to last like 2-3 years for me. GPUs see significantly more immediate gains in games.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Concillian
GPU, I'm a gaming guy.

Anything I do nowadays that I really notice CPU performance on is something I setup and walk away from the computer and go do something else (mp3 encoding or video encoding) while the computer does it's thing. I only upgrade my CPU when it's not cutting it for whatever game I'm interested in at the moment.

CPUs seem to last like 2-3 years for me. GPUs see significantly more immediate gains in games.

You can see FPS without a ticker or benchmark running? That was my point, you can see that it only takes 2min to encode that file when before it took 5. FPS? Well, if you go from 40 to 60 you might not even notice it. That is unless you waited over a year+ to upgrade at all in which case you went from a slideshow to playable.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I voted CPU's cause they are more worth the money if you play the cards right. GPU's get outdated too fast for my liking. I usually buy new architect when I buy a new Vid card. Say when the 5870 comes out, if its called that...

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Concillian
GPU, I'm a gaming guy.

Anything I do nowadays that I really notice CPU performance on is something I setup and walk away from the computer and go do something else (mp3 encoding or video encoding) while the computer does it's thing. I only upgrade my CPU when it's not cutting it for whatever game I'm interested in at the moment.

CPUs seem to last like 2-3 years for me. GPUs see significantly more immediate gains in games.

You can see FPS without a ticker or benchmark running? That was my point, you can see that it only takes 2min to encode that file when before it took 5. FPS? Well, if you go from 40 to 60 you might not even notice it. That is unless you waited over a year+ to upgrade at all in which case you went from a slideshow to playable.

I would assume that most people do take over a year between upgrades. There aren't a whole lot of scenarios where it would make sense not to.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Concillian
GPU, I'm a gaming guy.

Anything I do nowadays that I really notice CPU performance on is something I setup and walk away from the computer and go do something else (mp3 encoding or video encoding) while the computer does it's thing. I only upgrade my CPU when it's not cutting it for whatever game I'm interested in at the moment.

CPUs seem to last like 2-3 years for me. GPUs see significantly more immediate gains in games.

You can see FPS without a ticker or benchmark running? That was my point, you can see that it only takes 2min to encode that file when before it took 5. FPS? Well, if you go from 40 to 60 you might not even notice it. That is unless you waited over a year+ to upgrade at all in which case you went from a slideshow to playable.

I would assume that most people do take over a year between upgrades. There aren't a whole lot of scenarios where it would make sense not to.

Well, there are many people who upgrade for the sake of the upgrade and to have the next new card. There are many who will buy the next Nvidia card no matter what and they may have a GTX260 now. Simply because they don't ever feel satisfied.

 

[Tempered81]

i love em both. I like hunting for cpu & gpu hot deals. Damnit!

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
My 9800GT can't even keep up with wow full settings . . .

It should be more than enough to handle WoW. My old Radeon X1900XT handled WoW at 1680x1050 with all max settings and 2x AA just fine. I don't recall the actual numbers, but I know I never suffered any GPU/CPU related slowdowns, only lag from Blizzards servers.

 

[Denithor]

I try to do the tick tock method Intel follows for upgrades. One year I upgrade my GPU and the next my CPU. For now I'm satisfied with my e8400, I won't upgrade that until late next year or early 2010 when Westmere launches. But I seriously doubt my GTX 260 will last me another year plus...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
I voted CPU's cause they are more worth the money if you play the cards right. GPU's get outdated too fast for my liking. I usually buy new architect when I buy a new Vid card. Say when the 5870 comes out, if its called that...

Lol if you "play the cards right" you are a clever one.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
My 9800GT can't even keep up with wow full settings . . .

It should be more than enough to handle WoW. My old Radeon X1900XT handled WoW at 1680x1050 with all max settings and 2x AA just fine. I don't recall the actual numbers, but I know I never suffered any GPU/CPU related slowdowns, only lag from Blizzards servers.

They increased the settings for view distance to _a long ways away_. I need more Vram, 512MB isn't cutting it.

 

[nyker96]

I'm CPU mostly, don't game as much nowadays. but a game like D3 or SC2 might get me upgrade again.

 

[AdamK47]

Both

 

[CurseTheSky]

Computer cases and peripherals.

The case is usually something you buy with the intent to upgrade the innards many times before you upgrade the shell. I seem to go through cases faster than I go through CPUs OR GPUs.

I love getting new mice, keyboards, speakers, and monitors, too.

 

[imported_Champ]

well I would call it equal but because CPU's are more likely to be still top of the line in 3 months I upgrade them more often...the next nvidia archtecture change or maybe a GTX280GX2 I might fall for but recently I have had a lot of dreams about nehlam

 

[JMapleton]

I don't game very often, but even if I did, I would still say cpus. They're just more interesting.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

You can see FPS without a ticker or benchmark running? That was my point, you can see that it only takes 2min to encode that file when before it took 5. FPS? Well, if you go from 40 to 60 you might not even notice it. That is unless you waited over a year+ to upgrade at all in which case you went from a slideshow to playable.

I notice when I'm playing and my FPS dips below about 30. I've done extensive FRAPS testing of what is happening when I am playing and go "man, that sucked right there with the whole stuttering" and it always correlates with minimum frame rates in the 25-30ish range.

So yes, I notice FPS. I don't notice average FPS, but I do notice minimum FPS.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
It should be more than enough to handle WoW. My old Radeon X1900XT handled WoW at 1680x1050 with all max settings and 2x AA just fine. I don't recall the actual numbers, but I know I never suffered any GPU/CPU related slowdowns, only lag from Blizzards servers.

Wrath of the Lich King expansion re-wrote what is adequate or not for WoW performance. They changed available video settings pretty dramatically and the people who used to have computers that were "good enough" are needing to upgrade. If you are speaking of pre 3.0.2 (~mid-October this year), then it's pretty safe to disregard any of your previous experiences.

 

[JimiP]

Personally, I find CPU's much more interesting. However, I had to vote for GPU's as I'm a gamer and will generally upgrade that more often than my CPU. Using a Q6600 and an HD4850, things are pretty good right now.

I definitely have the itch to go with Nehalem but I couldn't possibly justify that right now. I'm thinking I'll wait until the dual-socket motherboards come out. Just think of it, 2x Core i7 920's & a HD4870X2. Mmm mmm mmm. That's nice. Excuse me while I go to the restroom for a brief moment.

 

[Kraeoss]

well i personally prefer to upgrade both. but @ different intervals like a cpu will last about 1.5-2 yrs for me and a card will go close to 2 yrs (small monitor) but i prefer the cpu better to strain the video card than have the cpu straining...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: JimiP
Personally, I find CPU's much more interesting. However, I had to vote for GPU's as I'm a gamer and will generally upgrade that more often than my CPU. Using a Q6600 and an HD4850, things are pretty good right now.

I definitely have the itch to go with Nehalem but I couldn't possibly justify that right now. I'm thinking I'll wait until the dual-socket motherboards come out. Just think of it, 2x Core i7 920's & a HD4870X2. Mmm mmm mmm. That's nice. Excuse me while I go to the restroom for a brief moment.

If I had the dough I'd love to do the same-- I was thinking 2 octo-cores for a total of 32 threads.

 

[RaptureMe]

I voted CPU as I usually upgrade every year but lately its been every 2-3 months.
If damn intel would slow down and let me catch my breath soon as I get one of there new cpu's. LOL
I know I have a problem I am a upgrade junkie.
lets see so far this year I went from E6600<E6700<Q6600<E8400<Q6600GO<Q9450<x3350EO<E8600<Q9650 and it ends from there for a while.
I figure the E8600 at 4.0 Ghz and the Q9650 at 4.0Ghz should last me for 24/7 use till the true octo-cores come out at the end of the year.
I would have opt'ed to go with Core I7 but they are not going to be that much faster then what I currently have and it didnt pay for me to take a loss on a $3000+ system I just put together to turn arround and shell out another $1500 for core I7.
Besides this way it will give a chance for the new ddr3 to drop in prices.
Cause I would really like to see something like 12-24GB DDR3 in my new build.
Well ok thats enough of my babbeling...

 

[taltamir]

i cannot vote, i do NOT upgrade one of the two and not the other... i like to keep them balanced... also ram and mobo.

 

[Gillbot]

CPU, it's the biggest bang for the buck for me. I mean, better CPU's get me into windows faster so I can play solitaire!

My REAL weak spot is bargain priced network hardware and ram. I don't NEED either but when I see a bargain price, I am never able to turn it down!