CPU vs GPU upgrade for my E8400/Radeon 5850 system?

M

mkygod

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
150
I have an E8400 o/c to 3.6ghz mated to Radeon 5850.

I want to upgrade my computer for Skyrim and have 2 routes i could possibly go:

1) Upgrade my cpu/mobo/memory to an i5/i7 system
2) or just upgrade my video card to whatever the fastest single gpu card is at the time Skyrim is released, knowing that the newest gen video cards from amd/nvidia would be around the corner early next year. A dual gpu card might have a tough time fitting in my case (my 5850 barely fits).

From my experience with WItcher 2, the cpu was the obvious bottleneck for me even with the moderate overclock. So I'm worried that it would be similar thing with Skyrim, even with an upgraded video card.

Which upgrade route should I take? For reference, I run all my games at 1080p with either 2x or 4x AA.
 
Strictly in terms of gaming, get the fastest GPU you can afford. Thatll offer better performance than a CPU upgrade.

The new Sandy Bridge procs are screaming fast but unless youre gaming at 1024x768, your GPU is gonna be much more important and the E8400 with a good overclock is no slouch and should be able to handle any chores you throw at it.
 
If Oblivion is any indicator...GPU first, then SSD.

I also think any Dual Core 2.4GHz and above will handle the CPU side of things perfectly well for Skyrim.
 
You guys are nuts. The CPU is CLEARLY the bottleneck here and what needs to be upgraded for todays games.
 
RamonGTP said:
You guys are nuts. The CPU is CLEARLY the bottleneck here and what needs to be upgraded for todays games.
Click to expand...

+1 Newer games are starting to really open up to extra cores. Three cores or Dual with HT like the new i3 monster. Honestly though, at your current Rez upgrade the main then go for the GPU next.
 
RamonGTP said:
You guys are nuts. The CPU is CLEARLY the bottleneck here and what needs to be upgraded for todays games.
Click to expand...

Omegas said:
+1 Newer games are starting to really open up to extra cores. Three cores or Dual with HT like the new i3 monster. Honestly though, at your current Rez upgrade the main then go for the GPU next.
Click to expand...

Not to mention his CPU is probably bottlenecking his GPU. I bet if he used a GPU monitoring utility he will see his GPU is not even close to 100% usage. If he is only on one 24" monitor at 1080p resolution, he most likely won't need a GPU upgrade for a while...or atleast until some super hi res texture mod for Skyrim is released.
 
On my setup Oblivion (no mods) gets 300+ fps in caves, but in the main Town with the shops and roaming around the overworld gets lows of 40-50fps. Skyrim on High/Max will need a high end GPU imo 480/570/580 or even 2 in SLI...but this is coming from a guy that has a 120Hz refresh (1280x720p res), and I'm only 100 percent happy when I'm pulling 120fps minimums. Most people love their 60 Hz, so meh. If 60 is your thing then your GPU should do it for ya.

Also without an SSD there is hitching as the Overworld map loads new territory's in Oblivion, it's only 1-2 seconds but it's there.

And these guys are right your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU's performance, if I had to guess your losing 25 percent of that 5850's performance. You need to move up to any Quad and get 3.7-4.0Ghz to eliminate GPU bottlenecking on that 5850. Like I said though if 60 fps is your bread and butter then don't worry about it, get a SATA 3 SSD and have a blast! (that is if your mobo does Sata 3 speeds.)
 
Stick with the 5850 for now, as it is perfectly competent at giving good performance at your resolution. Ditch that CPU and trade up.
 
id go for the Z68, 8gb RAM and an i3 until ivybridge comes along...then upgrade the processor then, ive got a 5850 as well and noticed a difference going from my Q6600...much smoother overall
 
Yeah a E8400 is no match for a sandy bridge proc but a E8400/GTX570 will outperform a i5/5850 in games.

Looking at this Anand benchmark comparison the i5 only runs off and leaves the 8400 on one game.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=288

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying he doesn't need a CPU upgrade, I'm just saying if he can only pick one, a big dawg video card would do more for gaming performance.
 
MacLeod said:
Yeah a E8400 is no match for a sandy bridge proc but a E8400/GTX570 will outperform a i5/5850 in games.

Looking at this Anand benchmark comparison the i5 only runs off and leaves the 8400 on one game.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/55?vs=288

Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying he doesn't need a CPU upgrade, I'm just saying if he can only pick one, a big dawg video card would do more for gaming performance.
Click to expand...

The i5 wins in every game in that link and those aren't even games that need a lot of CPU power either. If he can pick one, its the CPU. If he can pick two, it's the CPU and save your money. Sounds like some of you haven't played a CPU demanding game in a while on a Core 2 Duo. It's not pretty. I suggest you experience it before giving advise.
 
No I haven't gamed on a Core 2 Duo. I have gamed on an Athlon dual core, a Phenom dual core and now a Phenom 6 core. Plus I can read benchmarks. Everytime I moved up my framerates improved slightly. I picked up 3 fps from my old X2 to my current X6 on average. I didn't see jumps in framerates worth a shit til I moved up to a bigger gpu. Unless the OP is playing at 1280x1024, he's not going to see a huge jump in frames by adding 2 more cores and definitely not as big a jump as he would see with a shiny new GTX570 in his case which is what he could get for the cost of an i5/mobo/RAM setup. Hell, he could almost get a GTX580 for that!

Now if OP is just wanting decent graphics settings on console ports then I totally agree with you guys that a 5850 is perfectly fine but if he's wanting to max out Crysis 1, 2, Metro, Stalker and BF3 at 1920x1080 then a 5850 ain't gonna cut it. I know cause Im rolling a 5870 and it wont max out those games.
 
Play a demanding game. I'd love to see you play BC2 MP or even Black Ops MP on an Athlon X2 and come back and tell me it was only 3 fps less than your X6. I can assure you that isn't going to happen.

I can read benchmarks too, but I don't need to. I have an Athlon X2, a Core 2 Duo and a quad core and have played demanding games on all three. I know the difference. You seriously would not be giving the advise you are if you you knew better.
 
I did play BC2 on a dual core. Phenom II X2 555. Played it for about a year. Noticed very little difference when I got my X6. I can assure you that happened.

Im not saying a better cpu makes no difference just that I just dont see how its better to spend $400 on a new CPU, motherboard, RAM and possibly Windows7 to upgrade to a new processor but keep the lower midrange gpu when you could spend less than that on a GTX570 or 6970. The E84000 is still a very capable prof especially with a healthy overclock and if my lowly Phenom 2 dual core could handle any game I threw at it, so should hat C2D.
 
RamonGTP said:
The i5 wins in every game in that link and those aren't even games that need a lot of CPU power either. If he can pick one, its the CPU. If he can pick two, it's the CPU and save your money. Sounds like some of you haven't played a CPU demanding game in a while on a Core 2 Duo. It's not pretty. I suggest you experience it before giving advise.
Click to expand...

The only game that it "runs off and leaves it" Is far cry and thats a stock clock c2d The Core2 series is still fairly powerful for games and skyrim wont be the hardest thing in the world to play in fact im sure his current computer will play it just fine.
 
MacLeod said:
I did play BC2 on a dual core. Phenom II X2 555. Played it for about a year. Noticed very little difference when I got my X6. I can assure you that happened.

Im not saying a better cpu makes no difference just that I just dont see how its better to spend $400 on a new CPU, motherboard, RAM and possibly Windows7 to upgrade to a new processor but keep the lower midrange gpu when you could spend less than that on a GTX570 or 6970. The E84000 is still a very capable prof especially with a healthy overclock and if my lowly Phenom 2 dual core could handle any game I threw at it, so should hat C2D.
Click to expand...

Then we have a vastly different opinion on what constitutes smooth gameplay. I find BC2 and Black ups completely unplayable on my Athlon X2 and pretty painful on my Core 2 Duo's and get at least double the fps on my Q6600.
 
RamonGTP said:
Then we have a vastly different opinion on what constitutes smooth gameplay. I find BC2 and Black ups completely unplayable on my Athlon X2 and pretty painful on my Core 2 Duo's and get at least double the fps on my Q6600.
Click to expand...

Really? the q6600 is kinda a dog at stock clocks that is, The C2 over clock quite well But the 1333mhz fsb on the new c2ds helped out quite a bit as i have 2 friends one has the q6600 and the other has a e6550 and the 6550 gets better fps on most games save for gta iv
 
MacLeod said:
I did play BC2 on a dual core. Phenom II X2 555. Played it for about a year. Noticed very little difference when I got my X6. I can assure you that happened.

Im not saying a better cpu makes no difference just that I just dont see how its better to spend $400 on a new CPU, motherboard, RAM and possibly Windows7 to upgrade to a new processor but keep the lower midrange gpu when you could spend less than that on a GTX570 or 6970. The E84000 is still a very capable prof especially with a healthy overclock and if my lowly Phenom 2 dual core could handle any game I threw at it, so should hat C2D.
Click to expand...

The move from a 3.2GHz C2D E7300 to a 3.4GHz C2Q Q9550 was an INCREDIBLE jump in performance for BC2. These were both mated to the same 5870. Plenty of users in the BC2 thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum can also attest to such a dramatic difference when moving from a dual to quad core for that specific game.

For the OP I'd say the 5850 still has plenty of clout at this point. It might struggle with Skyrim, but I get the impression that the C2D will struggle even more and your computer can only perform as well as it's lowest common denominator. It might cost a bit more to upgrade an entire platform, but I definitely think it's worth it especially if he's looking at Sandy Bridge with the extremely low price of DDR3 memory right now.
 
mannyman said:
Really? the q6600 is kinda a dog at stock clocks that is, The C2 over clock quite well But the 1333mhz fsb on the new c2ds helped out quite a bit as i have 2 friends one has the q6600 and the other has a e6550 and the 6550 gets better fps on most games save for gta iv
Click to expand...

Really.

My Q6600 isn't at stock clocks for one. Any game that may play better on a dual core will be marginal. Games that can actually use quads (of which there are a lot of today) will play much better on the quad. I'll gladly play at 100fps vs 110fps for those older non-demanding games when it means I'll be playing at 50fps vs <30 fps for the demanding ones. This debate was settleed about 3 years ago.

Not to mention, we're not talking about getting a Q6600 for the OP, but a Sandy Bridge which will be leaps and bounds better.
 
CPU without question, went from a q9400 to my i7 950 and words can not describe the boost in BFBC2 performance.
 
fochkoph said:
The move from a 3.2GHz C2D E7300 to a 3.4GHz C2Q Q9550 was an INCREDIBLE jump in performance for BC2. These were both mated to the same 5870. Plenty of users in the BC2 thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum can also attest to such a dramatic difference when moving from a dual to quad core for that specific game.

For the OP I'd say the 5850 still has plenty of clout at this point. It might struggle with Skyrim, but I get the impression that the C2D will struggle even more and your computer can only perform as well as it's lowest common denominator. It might cost a bit more to upgrade an entire platform, but I definitely think it's worth it especially if he's looking at Sandy Bridge with the extremely low price of DDR3 memory right now.
Click to expand...

But yes OP if you can afford it go buy a 2500k and 8 gigs of ram.
 
You didn't mention what motherboard you are on - another option would be to grab a used Q9550 and drop that in your existing motherboard, if it supports it. That would probably give you most of the performance gain of going to an i3, but cutting your cost outlay. Then you could look to upgrade the GPU at a later point.
 
fochkoph said:
The move from a 3.2GHz C2D E7300 to a 3.4GHz C2Q Q9550 was an INCREDIBLE jump in performance for BC2. These were both mated to the same 5870. Plenty of users in the BC2 thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum can also attest to such a dramatic difference when moving from a dual to quad core for that specific game.
Click to expand...

Right, I totally agree with this. Using he same gpu, an i5 will run circles around a C2D. But in this case its either i5/5850 or C2D/GTX570. Given those 2 options, the latter will be the best performing......assuming "latter" means the C2D/GTX570 option. I can never remember how that works. :D
 
fochkoph said:
The move from a 3.2GHz C2D E7300 to a 3.4GHz C2Q Q9550 was an INCREDIBLE jump in performance for BC2. These were both mated to the same 5870. Plenty of users in the BC2 thread in the PC Gaming sub-forum can also attest to such a dramatic difference when moving from a dual to quad core for that specific game.

For the OP I'd say the 5850 still has plenty of clout at this point. It might struggle with Skyrim, but I get the impression that the C2D will struggle even more and your computer can only perform as well as it's lowest common denominator. It might cost a bit more to upgrade an entire platform, but I definitely think it's worth it especially if he's looking at Sandy Bridge with the extremely low price of DDR3 memory right now.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Quad owners were happily playing the game without issue, even lower end quads owners like myself while the dual core owners were screaming "console port" and crappy optomizations. The higher end C2D's did ok in the SP campaign but MP was a whole lot more demanding.
 
RamonGTP said:
Really.

My Q6600 isn't at stock clocks for one. Any game that may play better on a dual core will be marginal. Games that can actually use quads (of which there are a lot of today) will play much better on the quad. I'll gladly play at 100fps vs 110fps for those older non-demanding games when it means I'll be playing at 50fps vs <30 fps for the demanding ones. This debate was settleed about 3 years ago.

Not to mention, we're not talking about getting a Q6600 for the OP, but a Sandy Bridge which will be leaps and bounds better.
Click to expand...

Look here did i say your proc was at stock clocks? Don't get rude on the forum, Second i suggested that if the op wanted a upgrade to grab the 2500k.
 
mannyman said:
Look here did i say your proc was at stock clocks? Don't get rude on the forum, Second i suggested that if the op wanted a upgrade to grab the 2500k.
Click to expand...

lol, who's being rude? You asked "really?" and proceeded to discuss stock clocked q6600's and I replied with "really" and told you mine wasn't stock. I'm not sure how politely you expect me to respond but I make no apologies for my previous post as there was nothing at all rude about it.
 
ok stop bickering geez...cheap route used q6600 or q9550, that will hold you for a year with minimal cost...rig upgrade will last you quite a bit longer depending on which route you go...i3,i5 or i7...but with Ivy Bridge around the corner i wouldnt spend toooo much on a processor at this point, because the Z68 boards are compatible. I went with a 2500k and love it. but moving from a dualcore...you will def notice a difference any way you go. DDR3 is crazy cheap right now...8gb for $40? insane...

Up to you, look at the funds and decide from there...but you are holding the 5850 back a little on your current setup
 
I know this is mainly focused on gaming, but in just general use (the majority of anyones computer use), you will notice the difference in daily computing tasks with a cpu change. I think it's the most beneficial change, even if you are only switching to an old 775 quad core. If you have been camping with a dual core and 5850 this long, just get that 775 quadcore (used/nib cheap) and wait for Bulldozer and Ivy Bridge to land and then make the big change.
 
I played the Witcher 2 and that is probably the most demanding game that i've played on my system, even with the uber settings turned off. i get like 25fps average on that game with 1080p w/ 4x AA.

Also the game engine is farily modern and is optimized for quad-core or higher systems

What makes this a hard decision to me is the lack of CPU scaling testing in most video card reviews. I seems that many review sites including Hardocp fail to bench new video cards with older CPUs. This makes it harder for enthusiasts to figure out their best upgrade path if they are a generation behind w/ their CPU.

THanks for the suggestion with the Q9550. I'm using the abit ip-35pro which is one of the last enthusiast Abit boards before Abit went under and it does support this CPU. That is a tempting route to take just becuase of the new CPUs and GPUs coming out early next year that I don't want to miss the boat on. The only thing I am worried about with the Q9550 is that it may not overclock as high as my e8400. So while the Quadcore may be faster with games optimized for that many cores, it will likely be slower with other games due to the lower frequency. The e8400 is clocked at 3ghz stock, o/c easily to 3.6ghz. Q9550 is 2.83ghz stock.
 
if you got 3.6 out of your e8400, a q9550 should see 3.4 with no problem. That's really not a very high FSB to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top