I need upgrade path advice

C

Crapgame

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
182
My current system:

[email protected]
ip35pro
6 gigs DDR2 800 [email protected]
8800GT
WD Caviar Black 1TB HD

It does all I need it to do right now although I am seeing SOME need for improvement in SOME games and know I'll need more video/cpu horsepower soon.

Options:

1) e8400 and overclock, wait for i5
2) 4890 and wait to go i5
3)e8400 and 4890 and wait even longer for i5
4)buy an i7 920 now and hold on to it till I can afford mobo/DDR3/new video card

My primary gaming is Source engined stuff so I have few problems now but I intend to play a lot of SC2 and a couple of games coming by year's end. Any suggestions or better options than I listed? The wife and I are saving up house down payment money at the moment so I don't do the constant upgrading like I used to do.
 
Wait until you absolutely have to build (e.g. when you start noticing games not performing as you want them to). That's the best advice I can give. An i7 coupled with two GTX 275s in SLI would be the sweet spot, but who knows how much cheaper you can get that setup now compared to end of the year when you say you might need it. I see no reason to buy an i7 processor now and wait until you get the other parts. Only buy the i7 if you can afford everything all at once.
 
8800GT is getting to be a bit old. I'd simply do GPU. A 3.0GHz Core2 should be plenty of CPU for the most part.

SC2 will not be a system pig. Blizzard always makes their games run very well on low end hardware, a system far worse than yours better be able to acceptably run SC2.
 
616 said:
Wait until you absolutely have to build (e.g. when you start noticing games not performing as you want them to). That's the best advice I can give.
Click to expand...

this.

few thoughts:
in my experience, CPU upgrades don't do a lot for gaming performance, unless your CPU is terribly outdated (like missing a full SSE revision or two), of course YMMV depending on usage and whatnot (I don't pretend to know everything you need out of your computer on a daily basis)

why not a HD 4870? the performance gap between the 4870 and 4890 isn't overly dramatic, especially if you don't have a big huge monitor, and the 4870 is less money
 
obobski said:
this.

few thoughts:
in my experience, CPU upgrades don't do a lot for gaming performance, unless your CPU is terribly outdated (like missing a full SSE revision or two), of course YMMV depending on usage and whatnot (I don't pretend to know everything you need out of your computer on a daily basis)

why not a HD 4870? the performance gap between the 4870 and 4890 isn't overly dramatic, especially if you don't have a big huge monitor, and the 4870 is less money
Click to expand...


I've been debating between the XFX 4870 and 4890 ($149 and $199 respectively) and am leaning towards a simple GPU upgrade. I've been wondering though, if an overclocked e8400 would permit me to hold off on a full upgrade for another 18-24 months. So far, very few games show an improvement with 4 cores versus 2 but clockspeed DOES make a difference and an overclocked e8400 (along with 6megs cache) should make a noticeable difference.
 
6 MB of cache is great and all but games care about clock speed in games. E6300 will get to 4.2 GHz easy. Extra 5 fps isn't worth spending another 90 bucks on.
 
Start with the GPU upgrade as that should yield the most noticeable improvement. I think even an upgrade to a HD 4850, HD 4870, or GTX 260 would be enough assuming you game at 1920x1200 or less. Your current setup paired with one of those will tide you over for at least 12-18 months and help you save for an i5 system. When it comes time to buy the i5 system there will be video cards twice as fast as the top card today at midrange prices.
 
AMD is moving over to Direct X 11 in oct. He should wait and see what the performance bump is over 48xx series.
 
lt_shiro said:
AMD is moving over to Direct X 11 in oct. He should wait and see what the performance bump is over 48xx series.
Click to expand...
We won't see DX11 games for at least a year after that and he will have to pay premium prices for the new tech. And there is no guarantee that the price war that is going on now will continue into the next generation. If the past DX launches have taught us anything its that the first generation of cards from one company generally dominates the first generation of cards from the other company. The 9xxx series from ATI owned DX9 at launch, the 88xx series from Nvidia onwed DX10 at launch. Chances are one company will be incompetent with their first generation of DX11 parts eliminating the price war for roughly 6 months.

Based on historical precedent the original poster can buy an excellent midrange card today for $150 and another midrange card in 12-18 months for the same price, or spend at least twice that on a DX11 midrange card in October. His current card is showing its age and he would easily get 18 months out of a HD 4870 or GTX 260.

If he waits there is a good chance that he just saves $20 or less on the card he could get today because the new tech is overpriced.
 
AMD last top of the card was priced at $249... So overprice is not a big issue as you say. AMD has been field testing its new 40nm parts on its current 4770 to work out production bugs before launch. So its just 3 months wait with 8800 GT, which is still good video card by standard is not such a waste of time.
 
lt_shiro said:
AMD last top of the card was priced at $249... So overprice is not a big issue as you say. AMD has been field testing its new 40nm parts on its current 4770 to work out production bugs before launch. So its just 3 months wait with 8800 GT, which is still good video card by standard is not such a waste of time.
Click to expand...
AMD's last top of the line card was also just an overclocked version of its previous flagship model and there is also a price war going on that benefits the consumer. If one company launches a successful DX11 part and the other company does not than we will see an end to the price war for a period of time and a return to $600 flagship cards and $400 midrange cards. And recent history has shown that this will probably occur as it did occur with the last two DX launches.
 
4890 was layout change of GPU from 4870 too increase its clock rate. Why would AMD move from its current business model which has been printing them money? I don't see AMD giving up its pricing advantage over Nvidia as AMD needs to sell as many video cards as possible too keep the doors open.
 
lt_shiro said:
4890 was layout change of GPU from 4870 too increase its clock rate. Why would AMD move from its current business model which has been printing them money? I don't see AMD giving up its pricing advantage over Nvidia as AMD needs to sell as many video cards as possible too keep the doors open.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that the market will remain competitive and that AMD will continue to make a profit on its video cards. Both of which are unknowns at this time. Based off of recent history it is safe to say that we will probably see an end to the competitive landscape we have all benefited from over the last several months. AMD also will need to recoup high R&D costs for their latest line of cards (something that they did not have to do with the 4890).

And then there is the fact that DX11 games won't be mainstream anytime soon. So waiting for a DX11 card who's performance and price are unknown is just stupid when the current products available will offer a huge benefit to the buyer.

And what if AMD's launch is ho-hum, then he waits a few months for Nvidia's launch, then he waits a few months for the AMD refresh, and the Nvidia refresh, etc., etc., etc. The point is that better technology is constantly around the corner, and for graphics cards especially if you can get a 100% performance boost at an excellent price, why would you wait?
 
just a question or two from reading the latest replies:

is DirectX 10/10.1 even really "mainstream" when you consider the majority of games? does that mean a DirectX 10/10.1 graphics adapter is a bad call? I'm fairly sure that whatever the next product is, it will be faster, by how much is unknown, but very likely faster nonetheless , honestly I don't see the point of nitpicking 4870 to 4890's differences, or DX9 to DX10/10.1 to DX11

secondly, is 4870/4890 really a 100% performance boost? and if OP doesn't need the upgrade today, why spend the money today? things have a way of getting cheaper over time

to the OP, on 4870 vs 4890, the performance differences aren't huge IMO (Guru3D has a review here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/powercolor-radeon-hd-4890-pcs-review/9, an overclocked board and a stock board), at least not $50-$100 huge, but YMMV and its entirely your call what is and isn't "huge" for you
 
obobski said:
just a question or two from reading the latest replies:

is DirectX 10/10.1 even really "mainstream" when you consider the majority of games? does that mean a DirectX 10/10.1 graphics adapter is a bad call? I'm fairly sure that whatever the next product is, it will be faster, by how much is unknown, but very likely faster nonetheless , honestly I don't see the point of nitpicking 4870 to 4890's differences, or DX9 to DX10/10.1 to DX11
Click to expand...
The next generation of cards from at least ATI or Nvidia will probably be significantly faster than the current generation, but unless they both come to market with competing products (and recent history has shown that they will not) there will no longer be a price war for some time and prices are sure to rise significantly as well.

obobski said:
secondly, is 4870/4890 really a 100% performance boost? and if OP doesn't need the upgrade today, why spend the money today? things have a way of getting cheaper over time
Click to expand...

It depends on the game, the resolution, and the settings used, but in many instances the 4879/4890 will offer a 100% performance boost over the 8800GT. If the OP is noticing that his current card isn't meeting his standards than today's cards offer an excellent opportunity to upgrade at a reasonable price.

obobski said:
to the OP, on 4870 vs 4890, the performance differences aren't huge IMO (Guru3D has a review here: http://www.guru3d.com/article/powercolor-radeon-hd-4890-pcs-review/9, an overclocked board and a stock board), at least not $50-$100 huge, but YMMV and its entirely your call what is and isn't "huge" for you
Click to expand...
I agree and would recommend the 4870 or GTX 260 over a 4890 unless the 4890 carried a $25 or less price premium.
 
With i5 and the DirectX 11 cards just around the corner I'd be sitting tight to see how things play out.
 
Just letting you all know I'm reading everything being said here and it's been really interesting and informative, thanks!
 
weuntouchable said:
The next generation of cards from at least ATI or Nvidia will probably be significantly faster than the current generation, but unless they both come to market with competing products (and recent history has shown that they will not) there will no longer be a price war for some time and prices are sure to rise significantly as well.
Click to expand...

ah. good point there :eek:

I agree and would recommend the 4870 or GTX 260 over a 4890 unless the 4890 carried a $25 or less price premium.
Click to expand...

:)

regarding the performance increase:
alright (no reason to argue/disbelieve you, just reading "100% increase", pretty dramatic (then again, my last upgrade was GeForce 7900 to HD 4870, and that was roughly 4x in all of my newer games, so, your statement seems to carry water :cool:))


"
 
Just wanted to reply one more time. I picked up a GTX275 yesterday. If I hadn't gotten a pretty good deal on this card, I was going to get a 260 simply because I wanted to stay Nvidia this time around. I appreciate all the help and discussion.
 
Go with a Q9550 OC to 3.4Ghz you will be set for years with that.. for gaming the i7 is not any better then a C2Q.. For Video go with a HD 4870 1GB, they are in the relm of the GTX 275 in some games even closer to the GTX 280..

I just did a system rebuild.. I lost my PSU,Mobo and Ram in a power surge (I have a UPS now)

I have it all rebult and a HD 4870 1GB.. Im running a C2D @ 3Ghz but am getting a Quad Q9550.. I pretty much got new everything cept for my CPU that is on the way and should be here in about 2 weeks.. only reason I say go with a Quad is you will be set for alot longer.. all games are going Multicore.. TF2,L4D are already Multicore and MW:2 will be.. (top 3 games) anyway.. if the Core 2 Quads are just as fast as the i7 then they will be just as fast as the i5's so there is no need to wait and you will spend less money Q9550 $220 bucks.. it will OC right to 3.4Ghz and you will be set for a good 2 years there will be no games that will not run on a Quad core.. if anything you might need to upgrade your video card in a year (maybe)
 
Battl3fr0nt said:
Go with a Q9550 OC to 3.4Ghz you will be set for years with that.. for gaming the i7 is not any better then a C2Q.. For Video go with a HD 4870 1GB, they are in the relm of the GTX 275 in some games even closer to the GTX 280..

I just did a system rebuild.. I lost my PSU,Mobo and Ram in a power surge (I have a UPS now)

I have it all rebult and a HD 4870 1GB.. Im running a C2D @ 3Ghz but am getting a Quad Q9550.. I pretty much got new everything cept for my CPU that is on the way and should be here in about 2 weeks.. only reason I say go with a Quad is you will be set for alot longer.. all games are going Multicore.. TF2,L4D are already Multicore and MW:2 will be.. (top 3 games) anyway.. if the Core 2 Quads are just as fast as the i7 then they will be just as fast as the i5's so there is no need to wait and you will spend less money Q9550 $220 bucks.. it will OC right to 3.4Ghz and you will be set for a good 2 years there will be no games that will not run on a Quad core.. if anything you might need to upgrade your video card in a year (maybe)
Click to expand...



Yes, I plan to also get a Q9550 and overclock it to go along with the GTX275. It's going to end up about $100 more than I had wanted to spend, but like you said it'll last a couple of years before I need to upgrade. Once again I appreciate everyone's input.
 
Im glad I came across this thread. I am in a similar boat with similar system specs and was debating on upgrading..

[email protected]
GA-EP45-DS3L
4gb G.Skill DDR2 1066 [4-4-4-10]
VisionTek Visiontek HD 4870x2
x2 WD6400AAKS

I was debating about doing a CPU upgrade, maybe a Q9550 or Q9650. But I think I may just hold off until I absolutely need to upgrade. I cant get my E4500 past 3.2ghz for the life of me. It takes some crazy volts to get it past 3ghz and at 3.2ghz im running at 1.504v idle in windows. 1.488v under load. I dont think I can go much further than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top