Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,774
2600 OC'd and single GPU? Yeah definitely go for it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Myself and a bunch of my buddies all built rigs at the same time; 2011 when the i7-2600K was all the rage. The PC has been solid since then. The specs are in the sig but other than maybe some more Ram, it's held up with everything...
After getting married, buying a house, having a kid...I transitioned from PC gaming to console gaming just due to cost. However, with some newer titles coming out (Doom, BF1, etc) I'm contemplating on what it would take to get back in the game on the PC end.
With that said, I have:
i7-2600K @ 4.2
Asus P8P67-Pro
8GB Ram
256GB Samsung Pro SSD
750W PCP&C PSU (way back in the day!)
If I was to buy a card such as the GTX 970 or GTX 1070 when released...how much am I bottlenecking it due to the CPU? I currently game at 1080p. No desire for 4k anytime soon...maybe a new monitor at 1440p but that would be a while...
Thanks!
I'm talking about something like a i7-930 and up. The 750 is 50% less powerfull than this i7. For most games a CPU upgrade will offer the worst price/performance upgrade. And GPU upgrade will be the best price/performance upgrade.I finally upgraded recently, from an i5 750 to an i7 6700k. The minimum frame rates and stuttering were terrible, and that's the real benefit of moving to a new processor. You may be able to have high frame rates a lot of the time, even with an older CPU such as the i5 750, but the real advantage of newer processors is not only the higher average frame rate, but most importantly the higher minimum frame rate, and complete lack of the related slowdown and stutter.
A lot of people don't seem to notice or mind the difference, but I'm extremely sensitive to this sort of thing, so I guess it depends on where you fall along the spectrum. Personally I can hardly stand anything under 90 FPS, though I can notice a difference until about 110 - 120 or so.
I finally upgraded recently, from an i5 750 to an i7 6700k. The minimum frame rates and stuttering were terrible, and that's the real benefit of moving to a new processor. You may be able to have high frame rates a lot of the time, even with an older CPU such as the i5 750, but the real advantage of newer processors is not only the higher average frame rate, but most importantly the higher minimum frame rate, and complete lack of the related slowdown and stutter.
.
doom is going to support SLI.I would just upgrade the RAM to 16GB and of course a video card, assuming it's pretty dated if you haven't used it for gaming for the last several years. CPU is fine, I don't think the chipset will hold you back much really. I'd avoid SLI, not because of the chipset but because of inherent issues with SLI. Doom for example doesn't even support it.
That article brought up an interesting alternative. Sandy Bridge is starting to show its age there is no question but i7 3770K Ivy Bridge does not, not yet atleast. As far as CPU dependent situations go it keeps up with Skylake remarkably well when overclocked. Now, Ivy may be notoriously worse overclocker than Sandy was but despite that it is still newer and faster CPU and it is a simple drop-in replacement. You will still have to deal with PCIe 2.0 limitations though.
Here's another benchmark comparison.
2600k? That's a Sandy Bridge CPU, most likely running on a P67 or Z67 chipset.
Well, I'd say the CPU is fine, but the P67/Z67 chipset is showing its age. I think you'll be fine with a single card, but if you want to run SLI, I'd upgrade for PCI-E 3.0. Running a card at PCI-E 2.0 x16 is like running one at PCI-E 3.0 x8... which is roughly the performance hit people take from SLI, barely enough to hurt the card's performance. But SLI would be a bad idea because then you're cutting that in half again.
Here's my little reference/cheat sheet...
Yorkfield/Core 2 Extreme -- You're really pushing it. Upgrade soon.
Gulftown/Core i? 9xx (1st gen) -- You're kind of pushing it. Upgrade when you have about $800.
Sandy Bridge/Core i? 2xxx (2nd gen) -- The CPU is fine, but the P67/Z67 chipset is showing its age.
Ivy Bridge/Core i? 3xxx (3rd gen) -- You're probably okay, although that could change any year now.
Haswell/Core i? 4xxx (4th gen) -- You're definitely okay, this processor is being used by OEMs in new computers.
Broadwell/Core i? 5xxx (5th gen) -- You're ahead of the curve, this is a fairly new architecture.
Skylake/Core i? 6xxx (6th gen) -- This is the newest architecture, and it will be until later this year.
/looks at cheat sheet
/looks at signature
/hangs head in shame
I'm still getting 60+ FPS in The Witcher 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider at 3440x1440 with everything but motion blur (cause I hate it) on.
you moved from an i5 , that's why you got a good increase.. OP already has an i7 , he wont see nearly as much improvement and its hardly worth it.
It will help with min frames.
yeah, the pentium 4 had hyperthreading, too. i guess i should have upgraded to one of those.
2600k? That's a Sandy Bridge CPU, most likely running on a P67 or Z67 chipset.
Well, I'd say the CPU is fine, but the P67/Z67 chipset is showing its age. I think you'll be fine with a single card, but if you want to run SLI, I'd upgrade for PCI-E 3.0. Running a card at PCI-E 2.0 x16 is like running one at PCI-E 3.0 x8... which is roughly the performance hit people take from SLI, barely enough to hurt the card's performance. But SLI would be a bad idea because then you're cutting that in half again.
There is no Z67 chipset and the PCI-E limitations are on the CPU, not on the chipset, I have the Z68 chipset and when I sidegraded from the 2600K to the 3770K, I got PCI-E 3.0 support. PCI-E performance scaling is overrated. Even PCI-E 2.0 at 4X, barely gets a dent on a Fury X or GTX 980 Ti.
I meant Z68, sorry. I was thinking of P67 and Z77. And I thought the way it worked was that you had to have both a Z77 chipset AND an Ivy Bridge CPU. That is, if you had either a Z68 and an Ivy Bridge, or a Sandy Bridge and a Z77, you would be limited to PCI-E 2.0. I was pretty sure some of the PCI-E lanes were provided by the chipset and not by the CPU, although the first 16x slot is definitely CPU powered.
But what you're saying is... I could hypothetically drop an Ivy Bridge CPU into any old Sandy Bridge motherboard and get PCI-E 3.0 if I wanted it? Or is that just on the Z68?
Thanks for correcting that, it's been too long...
yeah, the pentium 4 had hyperthreading, too. i guess i should have upgraded to one of those.
My friend recently upgraded his core2quad to an i3 w/ 16GB ram and new motherboard for under $200 for a pretty good budget system. I gave him my old GTX 580, and he went from 4 fps playing rust to about 50 fps (this is at a less than 1920x1080 resolution)./looks at cheat sheet
/looks at signature
/hangs head in shame
I believe that an admin should hold composure and behave by leading example, and not doing cussing like this cause that is the kind of stuff that gives us infraction points, and then how an admin can get away with it?
2600k was a great CPU but it's not the mythical beast it's made out to be. That award goes to the 3930K.
There's already a number of games that take advantage of 6 cores and with DX12 around the corner there's the potential that higher core CPU's will deliver even more. If it's within your budget I'd suggest considering a broadwell E once the reviews come out. As others have mentioned it will prevent and reduce frame pits which you'll definitely want to avoid in BF1 64 players.
...and if you aren't playing BF 1 or GTA V (like most of us) it won't matter. At all.
In other words, don't spend on what you don't give a fuck about, OP.
The person wasn't even replying to you, I think like I said before, back then in 2009 I got two infractions due to cursing, so time changes it seems, still quite unprofessional, but just speaking out my mind.