worth it to upgrade my older CPU?

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
25,837
I'm a big PC gamer and I frequently upgrade my GPU (currently have a GTX 1070) but I've been using the same CPU for 7 years now...it's an i7 980X 6 core Gulftown...I've had zero issues with it but I keep hearing people talk about the CPU being a bottleneck...what does this mean exactly?...by getting a newer CPU how much of a noticeable improvement will I get in my games?...will frame rates increase?...basically is it worth it to my upgrade my CPU?

if I were to upgrade the CPU I would also have to upgrade the motherboard, memory and CPU cooler as well which would get close to $700 which I don't really want to spend...I'd rather spend $400 for the upcoming Nvidia RTX 2070 GPU...won't I always get more noticeable improvements by upgrading the GPU and keeping my older yet still effective CPU?
 
If all the games you play seem to be running fine then I wouldn't worry about it personally. Sure a newer CPU may help your frames in some games, but if the gameplay already feels smooth then what's the point?

Is your 980x at stock clocks? You could overclock the CPU a bit and check your frames. If they go up then you have a CPU bottleneck. If they go up drastically then it may be worth an upgrade.

polonyc2 said:
won't I always get more noticeable improvements by upgrading the GPU and keeping my older yet still effective CPU?
Click to expand...

This is true as long as the CPU is still adequate, eventually you will reach a point that the new GPU is waiting on the CPU before it can pump out the next frame. When that happens you're at a fps dead end until you upgrade the CPU.
 
So what games do you play and at what resolution? Just to confirm you're still on 1920x1200 as whats in your sig.

Assuming you don't have an insane (for that generation) overclock of about 4.5ghz, you will probably be seeing/noticing higher minimum frame rates with a decent CPU upgrade.

If you don't notice any jitters, chug away. That 980X is still a beast.

That said, plugging in the so called/rumored 2070 may not help as much IF you're CPU limited. Going back to the first question... what games do you play and at what res?

I feel the want to upgrade as well, but as I'm still on a 1080p/ 60hz monitor and most of the games I play are doing well @ high settings, I think I can hold off for another year or two.
 
It all depends on the games you play, the resolution you play at, and to a lesser extent if you have your CPU overclocked. Nehalem i7 are still capable CPUs especially Gulftown and Westmere hexacores.

Gulftown and Westmere overclocked similarly and 4Ghz was effortless. My Xeon X5675 does 4.6Ghz easily and can push 5Ghz+ for brief benching.
 
mda said:
So what games do you play and at what resolution? Just to confirm you're still on 1920x1200 as whats in your sig.

Assuming you don't have an insane (for that generation) overclock of about 4.5ghz, you will probably be seeing/noticing higher minimum frame rates with a decent CPU upgrade.

If you don't notice any jitters, chug away. That 980X is still a beast.

That said, plugging in the so called/rumored 2070 may not help as much IF you're CPU limited. Going back to the first question... what games do you play and at what res?

I feel the want to upgrade as well, but as I'm still on a 1080p/ 60hz monitor and most of the games I play are doing well @ high settings, I think I can hold off for another year or two.
Click to expand...

I haven't updated my sig...a few months back I got a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor...everything else in my sig is current...I'm running my i7 980x at stock...games I like to play are Tomb Raider series reboot, Arkham Batman series, Dark Souls, Witcher, Crysis, Fallout...and upcoming ones like Metro Exodus, Cyberpunk, Rage 2 etc

someone told me about a site called Bottlenecker and when I input my current specs it tells me: 'Bottleneck detected: Your CPU is too weak for this graphic card...Average bottleneck percentage: 11%'

http://thebottlenecker.com/
 
You need to OC that bad boy. It will make a big difference. I still run its little brother.
 
polonyc2

Watch this video comparing a 4 core sandy bridge I7 2600K and a six core 8700K in games.

It’ll be reasonably similar to your setup for games especially if you overclock your CPU.

 
I recommend overclocking your CPU to at least 4Ghz. If your system runs the games smoothly for you I wouldn't worry about it.
 
As others have said, OC your CPU. You can still get a little more life out of it. Start putting savings away for this 9th gen that will be coming out or Ryzen 2 and as the prices start coming down pick something up.
 
I recently upgraded to the 980X sister chip, the Xeon W3680 in my Dell Precision T3500. I get mine to 4ghz by just bumping the multipliers in software.

FWIW, I only continue to run mine due to Win 7 support. and getting a faster Win 7 supported system costs more than a Ryzen system... The old 1366 chips really can't support more than a GTX 1080 or so
 
I'm not a big fan of upgrading GPU's every generation. I'd say take a look at the price of your power since that chip is very old at this point. Overclocking it will lead to even higher power draws and it could cost you more than its worth over the next couple years. Don't forget some of the other things you can gain like USB3 and nvme drives. yeah you can get pcie versions of both but I'm sure there's some other nice reasons to just upgrade. at some point pcie2 may be an issue. Do you ever even use the present 6 cores? Hold out to see what happens with these 9th gen chips because even an 8th gen I3 is pretty great. If you actually need a lot of cores Ryzens are beasts but stick with actually verified RAM/mobo combos because you really don't want to go down the road so many of us went with ram issues.
 
the reason I bought the 'extreme' i7 980X back in 2010 was because I wanted it to last for many years...it definitely lasted...I just looked at my purchase history on Newegg and I bought that in March 2010, so 8.5 years...maybe it is time to upgrade to a newer Intel platform...the older instruction sets are becoming an issue in certain games where they require newer ones to run

the 8th gen Intel chips have gotten a lot of praise with people saying it's the biggest generational leap since the 2600K in 2011...so maybe I'll strike gold and the 8700K will last another 8+ years...hard to believe that this is the first mainstream 6-core CPU release from Intel...which was another main reason why I bought the 980X back then- it was the first 6-core
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
the reason I bought the 'extreme' i7 980X back in 2010 was because I wanted it to last for many years...it definitely lasted...I just looked at my purchase history on Newegg and I bought that in March 2010, so 8.5 years...maybe it is time to upgrade to a newer Intel platform...the older instruction sets are becoming an issue in certain games where they require newer ones to run

the 8th gen Intel chips have gotten a lot of praise with people saying it's the biggest generational leap since the 2600K in 2011...so maybe I'll strike gold and the 8700K will last another 8+ years...hard to believe that this is the first mainstream 6-core CPU release from Intel...which was another main reason why I bought the 980X back then- it was the first 6-core
Click to expand...
Go for 10 years!

Only having to buy like 8 CPUs in your life would be a pretty stellar track rating. ;)
 
I would recommend waiting on the 9900k (octocore) before plunking down for an 8700k just yet. I'm on a sandy Bridge 2600k @ 4.3ghz, and thinking of upgrading myself. I got it on launch day Jan 2011.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I would recommend waiting on the 9900k (octocore) before plunking down for an 8700k just yet. I'm on a sandy Bridge 2600k @ 4.3ghz, and thinking of upgrading myself. I got it on launch day Jan 2011.
Click to expand...

the 2 extra cores might not be useful for me as I mainly use my system for gaming...can the 9000 series hope to match the universal praise of the 8700K or even the 2600K from 2011?...unless you're into video editing or other tasks which use the extra cores I think the 8th gen sounds like a real winner

plus doesn't Intel phase out the older gen once they release new chips?...so I'm not sure if the 8700K will be widely available for too much longer
 
polonyc2 said:
the 2 extra cores might not be useful for me as I mainly use my system for gaming...can the 9000 series hope to match the universal praise of the 8700K or even the 2600K from 2011?...unless you're into video editing or other tasks which use the extra cores I think the 8th gen sounds like a real winner

plus doesn't Intel phase out the older gen once they release new chips?...so I'm not sure if the 8700K will be widely available for too much longer
Click to expand...
The next generation of consoles will likely have 8 core Ryzens in them. Since console development drives many PC games for the dev cycle, 8 cores should probably keep you relevant longer after the new console wave comes out. I think GoldenTiger advice is sound. Especially since you keep your processors so long.
 
I'd say a 9900K would be a worthwhile upgrade.

For now, just get your 980X to an easy 3.8 Ghz "all-core" (should take 10 mins to google/setup) and wait for the new releases....

As you can see from my sig, I'm STILL running Nehalem architecture as well!! :) (I am expecting an x3470 in the mail, so I'll have HT - I mean, for $25 bucks why the hell not right)
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
the 2 extra cores might not be useful for me as I mainly use my system for gaming...can the 9000 series hope to match the universal praise of the 8700K or even the 2600K from 2011?...unless you're into video editing or other tasks which use the extra cores I think the 8th gen sounds like a real winner

plus doesn't Intel phase out the older gen once they release new chips?...so I'm not sure if the 8700K will be widely available for too much longer
Click to expand...
one school of thought is buy an 8th gen I3 or I5 and some popcorn. They say the 9th gen will be dropping into those 8th gen mobos right? I think NVME raid is a thing on some boards. 1tb nvme drives are getting reasonable in pricing too. I think that HP 1tb is around $200.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I would recommend waiting on the 9900k (octocore) before plunking down for an 8700k just yet. I'm on a sandy Bridge 2600k @ 4.3ghz, and thinking of upgrading myself. I got it on launch day Jan 2011.
Click to expand...

Planning on the same. Got my 2500k around that time as well.
 
Archaea said:
The next generation of consoles will likely have 8 core Ryzens in them. Since console development drives many PC games for the dev cycle, 8 cores should probably keep you relevant longer after the new console wave comes out. I think GoldenTiger advice is sound. Especially since you keep your processors so long.
Click to expand...

but will the 9700K be similar in price to what the 8700K is today?...since it's an 8 core chip I'm guessing Intel will raise prices...and the 9700K will apparently not come with hyperthreading...so to get the 'full' chip they want you to buy the i9 9900K...
 
Last edited:
here's a very interesting article benchmarking the 2600K vs 8700K in 1080p and 1440p gaming benchmarks using both a GTX 1070 and a GTX 1080Ti...there's literally almost no noticeable difference with the 1070 and even with the 1080Ti there's only a few frames and nothing really noticeable...the 2600K is not the same as my i7 980X but it's close enough...

"The i7-2600K paired up with a GTX 1070 proved to be a very, very potent combination particularly at higher resolutions where it matched up evenly against the i7-8700K. I’ll even go out on a limb and recommend avoiding Coffee Lake unless you absolutely need the additional connectivity offered on the Z370 platform. The framerate uplift just isn’t there and the money you save could easily be put towards a better GPU

Coffee Lake may be a real barn-burner for general applications but in gaming scenarios it is certainly not the best upgrade choice for your money. Right now that distinction falls to unadulterated GPU power. For a number of reasons, games just don’t need a modern processor and as holistic DX12 / Vulkan optimized games continue to roll out, that situation may become even more evident"

https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for...7-2600k-vs-i7-8700k-upgrading-worthwhile.html

 
cpu.jpg


Boom. I should be able to hit 3.8 with barely any additional voltage :)

(it actually came out to $24 in the end)

Looks like I'll be sticking with Nehalem/Lynnfield a lil while longer....
 
I spent almost the entire weekend researching parts for a new build...now I'm seriously thinking about leaving everything as is and waiting for the new 2000 series Nvidia cards as well as the new Intel 9000 series chips...I would not be gaining much (in terms of gaming performance) by upgrading...going from 120 fps to 140 fps makes no real difference...or even 65 fps to 80 fps....or like horrorshow maybe I'll look into a lesser CPU, maybe the i5 8400
 
ssnyder28 said:
Please overclock that 980x now. You can still squeeze a ton of performance out of it.
Click to expand...

so overclocking my 980X (or even using it at stock for a bit longer) would give me more noticeable overall improvements (gaming and desktop usage) then upgrading to an 8700K system?

what's a 'safe' overclock for my 980X?...I might give it a try...
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
so overclocking my 980X (or even using it at stock for a bit longer) would give me more noticeable overall improvements (gaming and desktop usage) then upgrading to an 8700K system?
Click to expand...

No, of course upgrading to a new system would be better overall since the 8700k is almost 7-8 years newer and has the same amount of cores/threads and big IPC improvements. But if your system is working fine at stock why not overclock it? 1366 in general is one of the best overclocking platforms ever made and the 980x is one of the top cpus from that platform. A 20-25% overclock would be way easier than completely overhauling your system.
 
polonyc2 said:
so overclocking my 980X (or even using it at stock for a bit longer) would give me more noticeable overall improvements (gaming and desktop usage) then upgrading to an 8700K system?

what's a 'safe' overclock for my 980X?...I might give it a try...
Click to expand...

Safe overclock, as I stated before.... 3.8 Ghz should be super easy and temps/voltage should be under 75c/1.3v Prime95 loads (worst case scenario). - Depends a lot on what cooler you have, my 212+ does quite well etc.

You could always leave voltage and everything else at Auto, just turn off Turbo Boost, and set the bclk/multiplier to hit 3.6 (which is your max turbo boost speed)

This looks like a good thread for ya: https://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/652544-i7-980x-slight-overclock-noob-pls-help

and this:
 
polonyc2 said:
so overclocking my 980X (or even using it at stock for a bit longer) would give me more noticeable overall improvements (gaming and desktop usage) then upgrading to an 8700K system?

what's a 'safe' overclock for my 980X?...I might give it a try...
Click to expand...

980X together with another same kind of chips of the xeon family are great overclockers, you should be able to reach 4.0ghz - 4.2ghz without any major issue with a nice cooler.. actually we have a good 1366 x58 Xeon club

it should point you in the best direction to follow.. primetime its one heck of a nice guy which can also help you directly.
 
horrorshow said:
Safe overclock, as I stated before.... 3.8 Ghz should be super easy and temps/voltage should be under 75c/1.3v Prime95 loads (worst case scenario). - Depends a lot on what cooler you have, my 212+ does quite well etc.

You could always leave voltage and everything else at Auto, just turn off Turbo Boost, and set the bclk/multiplier to hit 3.6 (which is your max turbo boost speed)

This looks like a good thread for ya: https://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/652544-i7-980x-slight-overclock-noob-pls-help

and this:
Click to expand...


but will 3.8GHz really offer any noticeable performance improvements in my games compared to the normal clock speed?...I think the Turbo Boost on the 980X is 3.6GHz and normal core clock is 3.33Ghz
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
but will 3.8GHz really offer any noticeable performance improvements in my games compared to the normal clock speed?...I think the Turbo Boost on the 980X is 3.6GHz and normal core clock is 3.33Ghz
Click to expand...

With all six cores loaded at stock, you will be at 3.33, 3.4 max. (our generations Turbo Boost is pretty sh*tty honestly)

So yeah 3.33 to 3.8 gives you 13.5% more performance.

- Not as great as my i5-750 2.66 to 3.6 Ghz aka 27% but really the reason to oc your 980x is to MAINTAIN high clock speeds with all cores loaded etc

If I were you, I would pick up a 212 Evo or equivalent and shoot for 4.2.... (but that'll be a decent amount of work/tweak-time)

- that techyes city video should be SUPER helpful, along with talking to primetime throughout your overclock process
 
Last edited:
I have the Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler so temps are not an issue...I just checked Core Temp and my temps are excellent...

4cF0Bpf.jpg
 
Last edited:
polonyc2 said:
I have the Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler so temps are not an issue...I just checked Core Temp and my temps are excellent...

View attachment 98929
Click to expand...

Yeah those temps are gravy.

Load up your CPU using prime95 and post back so you/I can see the frequency/temps at full load.

With that cooler, 4.2 Ghz should be TOTALLY possible. (a sweet, sweet 21% increase)

- For reference, my cores avg 43ish at idle and 58-64 at full tilt gaming. (prime95 reaches 72, which is pretty normal when OCed)

The "rule" is keep it up under 80, but I'd prefer to keep it in the low 70s during Prime.
 
I mean, it's a free performance increase that should take very little time and effort. Why would you NOT try to increase your current clock speeds?
 
polonyc2 said:
I haven't updated my sig...a few months back I got a 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitor...everything else in my sig is current...I'm running my i7 980x at stock...games I like to play are Tomb Raider series reboot, Arkham Batman series, Dark Souls, Witcher, Crysis, Fallout...and upcoming ones like Metro Exodus, Cyberpunk, Rage 2 etc

someone told me about a site called Bottlenecker and when I input my current specs it tells me: 'Bottleneck detected: Your CPU is too weak for this graphic card...Average bottleneck percentage: 11%'

http://thebottlenecker.com/
Click to expand...

The bottlenecker is crap and dont take it serious. But: Yes, you are CPU bottlenecked and yes, you will still be CPU bottlenecked after overclocking your CPU. Getting a new GPU will be a more obvious change, but its not like you wont benefit from a new CPU too. Its sound advice though to wait for the I7-9000 series, so you can get one that holds for years again and hopefully also is soldered.
I am not talking about loosing some FPS after you reach 100fps, but the 1% and 0.1% frametimes. 80fps average doesnt nessesarily mean smoother then 60fps average:



I would recommend you to download MSI afterburner and activate frametime monitoring as combo (instead of text) as shown in the video below. Check for spikes and if games are fluid. Witcher 3 in Novograd is a good test spot. The youtube user in the video below have an I7-8700k coupled with a GTX 1050TI, not high average framerates, but smooth frametimes and therefore still very fluid in modern games. :)

 
But, he doesn't want to spend $700 for a new system (well, the core components - i.e. cpu, mobo, cooler etc. - memory?) I could be mistaken but it appears that he's still on DDR3. So, add DDR4 memory to that equation, too. Anyway, you want him to wait to see about $400 - $500 i7-9000 series processors? I am just asking, that's all.

I would suggest a new system - buy used or buy cheaper retail but 'weaker' processor and then do as you suggest. That way, bottleneck or no bottleneck, the cpu will still be higher performance to what he has, wouldn't it? Also, consider a Ryzen build - pairing up a R5 Ryzen cpu might be an option? But, if going with Intel, look at benchmarks with i3-8100 and i5-8400 compared to what you have, OP? Some of those might be available used someplace. Then, check around for (used?) Z370 mobo and you'd just have to pay retail prices + taxes for the memory. I wonder if the GTX 1070 would be fine with those components?
 
pavel said:
But, he doesn't want to spend $700 for a new system (well, the core components - i.e. cpu, mobo, cooler etc. - memory?) I could be mistaken but it appears that he's still on DDR3. So, add DDR4 memory to that equation, too. Anyway, you want him to wait to see about $400 - $500 i7-9000 series processors? I am just asking, that's all.
Click to expand...

No, I dont want him to do anything. :) I would suggest he test his system for the issues mentioned above and see if frametimes still are fluid enough for him. Afterburner with a frametime graph is a great tool to visualize and identify easier issues with bottleneck in HIS system and the games that HE playes. There is always a bottleneck somewhere in the system, but not always a point to throw money at them to fix the bottlenecks. If his system is good enough now, I would suggest to wait until the I7-9000 series at least for future Proofing, since he need to replace so many parts anyway.

I would suggest a new system - buy used or buy cheaper retail but 'weaker' processor and then do as you suggest. That way, bottleneck or no bottleneck, the cpu will still be higher performance to what he has, wouldn't it? Also, consider a Ryzen build - pairing up a R5 Ryzen cpu might be an option? But, if going with Intel, look at benchmarks with i3-8100 and i5-8400 compared to what you have, OP? Some of those might be available used someplace. Then, check around for (used?) Z370 mobo and you'd just have to pay retail prices + taxes for the memory. I wonder if the GTX 1070 would be fine with those components?
Click to expand...

I5-8400 is a pretty decent gaming gpu and personally I was going for a Ryzen build myself when I reccently upgraded, but it wasnt available at the time of purchase, so I got an intel system instead. If he is on a tight budget, you have good suggestions there. Personally, I would just buy a high end system to begin with, so it takes longer before I need to replace it. :)
 
OP, you said you "don't have any issues" in your original post. You also stated you would rather spend the money on a GPU upgrade when the 2070 is available. You already have one of the best aftermarket air coolers installed on your CPU and you have people giving advice to overclock your CPU if you want more CPU power. Why start the thread if you're going to ignore the help and recommendations?
 
pavel said:
But, he doesn't want to spend $700 for a new system (well, the core components - i.e. cpu, mobo, cooler etc. - memory?) I could be mistaken but it appears that he's still on DDR3. So, add DDR4 memory to that equation, too. Anyway, you want him to wait to see about $400 - $500 i7-9000 series processors? I am just asking, that's all.

I would suggest a new system - buy used or buy cheaper retail but 'weaker' processor and then do as you suggest. That way, bottleneck or no bottleneck, the cpu will still be higher performance to what he has, wouldn't it? Also, consider a Ryzen build - pairing up a R5 Ryzen cpu might be an option? But, if going with Intel, look at benchmarks with i3-8100 and i5-8400 compared to what you have, OP? Some of those might be available used someplace. Then, check around for (used?) Z370 mobo and you'd just have to pay retail prices + taxes for the memory. I wonder if the GTX 1070 would be fine with those components?
Click to expand...

I don't mind spending $$ on a completely new system...my only issue was how big of an upgrade would it be in gaming/everyday use vs the CPU I have now...I linked a benchmark earlier in the thread which showed the i7 980X still getting 60+fps with a good GPU in games like Far Cry 5...

https://www.techspot.com/article/1666-old-1000-cpu-vs-budget-ryzen/

seems like people are saying that because I have a 144hz 1440p monitor that 60fps should not be the end-goal and that a complete upgrade would involve getting closer to 144fps...overclocking my 980X is an option if I decide to keep the CPU for awhile longer but I'm also thinking about the overall system I have now...with my current chipset/motherboard/CPU I have PCI Express 2.0, triple channel DDR3, SATA 3 (with a Marvell SATA6 controller which is not the same), USB 2.0, missing a lot of the recent CPU instruction sets (which might be an issue in gaming going forward), no AVX instruction set (started with Sandy Bridge), no NVMe support etc etc

the links Tamlin_WSGF were interesting...I never quite understood what the term 'bottleneck' actually meant in terms of real-world usage in games etc...I think the introduction of 144hz+ monitors changed the landscape as far as using an older top of the line CPU...overclocking my 980X would be a nice band-aid but I'm leaning towards getting the 9700K or 9900K as that would give me the best path to riding that for another 6+ years...someone in this thread mentioned the next gen consoles using 8 cores so PC games will most likely follow that path and the 8-core chips would be somewhat future-proof
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top