which to upgrade first? (GPU or CPU)

C

Cliff Couser

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,862
Finally got some funds in place for an upgrade.

Will be upgrading both GPU and CPU within 4 months. Just don't know which one to do first.

My gut tells me get the CPU first as GPUs seem to depreciate in cost much faster.

Here's the plan.

e6600 ----> e8600 ( I can't OC on my Intel board, and I just want 1 last chip for this mobo. I'm not giving this board up either. I use it for home office and I need the stability)

9600GT ----> GTX 260 (216) I only game on a 22" (1680x1050) so don't need much more for my shooters.

I already have 8Gb of DDR2. So I'm good with that. HD isn't really a priority as my 7200RPM Samsung won't be a bottleneck.

I don't encode, rip DVDs or FOLD, so Quad really isn't ideal for me. I'm looking to use the *upgraded* box for another 18-24 months, then I'll go the latest-greatest route.

What do you think?
 
why exactly are you upgrading? The GTX 260 may be overkill if you are staying at that resolution. Are you happy with the gaming now?

I guess if it was me, I'd save the money, and wait a year and pimp-up to an i7, rather than 18-24 months.
 
Yeah, your rig is just a bit better than mine (6300 + 8800GT) and I'm fighting to find a reason to upgrade because I can pretty much do/play anything reasonably now and any upgrade within my budget isn't going to be all THAT significant.

You could always try to pad mod your CPU :) that would be my $.02

edit: that mod may be specific to the e4300 sooo nm
 
freakyhair said:
why exactly are you upgrading? The GTX 260 may be overkill if you are staying at that resolution. Are you happy with the gaming now?
Click to expand...
QFT

Also what mobo do you have?
What PSU do you have?

Also, the E8600 is a horrible buy. It's only 333Mhz faster than the E8400 yet costs $105 more. That 333Mhz increase in speed is not worth the extra $105 unless you love wasting money. So I recommend going with the E8400 if you do decide on a GPU upgrade. You can use the extra $100 towards a HD4830 (about 10 to 15% faster than your 9600GT) if you still feel like spending money.
 
in regards to a stable motherboard and OC:

I cant even remember the last time I BSOD'd on my 2.8GHz E6300 w/ Asus Maximus Formula X38 (dont buy this board). I cant get the reliabillity monitor built into windows to scale far enough back to show me the last time I BSOD'd. Obtaining 100% stabillity on an overclock is possible. So when you say you need the stabillity your no more stable than I am, so seems to me, even if you need the stabillity, a nice P45 board shouldn't be out of the question.
 
the last game I played was COD Word at War. It was slow at the resolution I mentioned.

I tried playing Stalker CS...No dice. slide-show city.

As much as possible, I play games on highest settings. This is happening less and less on my 9600GT.

I can't OC the *Intel DP35DP*

Will probably just get an e8500 then.

Corsair HX-620
 
Danny Bui's right.

I like my E8400 a lot, and I haven't even started OC'ing it yet.
 
Cliff Couser said:
the last game I played was COD Word at War. It was slow at the resolution I mentioned.

I tried playing Stalker CS...No dice. slide-show city.

As much as possible, I play games on highest settings. This is happening less and less on my 9600GT.

I can't OC the *Intel DP35DP*

Will probably just get an e8500 then.

Corsair HX-620
Click to expand...

If you want to continue the slide-show, go ahead.

If you want to improve your gaming performance significantly, buy the GTX260. There's no such thing as "overkill for your resolution" until game developers stop producing more demanding games.
 
Sure there is overkill - when framerates peak over playable. Or when price per framerate doesn't justify the cost. GTX295s, 2xGTX260s and whatnot come to mind.

GPU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS x infinity bottlenecks before CPU provided the CPU is relatively recent - the E66 is relatively recent.

You are saying the 9600GT is bottlenecking your games more and more, and yet you are going for a CPU. I'm not understanding this logic at all.
 
A 295 would be overkill for now, but what about in 24 months like the OP talked about? I'm not suggesting he buy a 295(it's probably not in the budget), but a 260 is hardly overkill if he wants it to last 2 years. But of course it depends on your desired settings etc.

Go for the 260, you'll be very happy.
 
In 24months the GTX295 would be underwhelming. Don't feel like copying and pasting the explanation to this. GTX260 is a good card for the resolution, just don't expect it to last over 6 months and still expect to keep full settings + native resolutions; same applies for the GTX295.
 
Spewn said:
If you want to continue the slide-show, go ahead.

If you want to improve your gaming performance significantly, buy the GTX260. There's no such thing as "overkill for your resolution" until game developers stop producing more demanding games.
Click to expand...


True. I still don't know why people keep saying a 9600GT is fine, when I know from experience that at my resolutions, games aren't playing smooth.

Thanks everyone!
 
lowteckh said:
GPU ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS x infinity bottlenecks before CPU provided the CPU is relatively recent - the E66 is relatively recent.
Click to expand...

There are some exceptions such as GTA, and FSX but they are fewer and further between than the vast majority of games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top