Or spend the hypothetical money on other upgrades?
The thing is a truly decent video card with some future proofing is $300 anyway.
Looking at CPU scaling benches, the CPU typically has little effect anyway, as must games are GPU limited.
The Q6600 is overclocked to 2.8 and I'd imagine I could do 3.0 with no problem.
I guess the only fly in the ointment is the few games that are CPU dependent, Skyrim is one, and I there's at least another I cant think of right now...
Overall I can rebuild my whole rig with an i5 2500k and budget $300 for the GPU, for $800, with obviously a $300 GPU (nothing attractive now at 300, would wait for $300 HD 7000 series).
But it seems simpler, cheaper, and possibly just as good performance if not better in games, to spend $550 on a 7970 and keep my CPU? See what I'm saying? The former system would be "better balanced", but OTOH in reality does CPU even matter much (within reason of course)? I'm at 1080P btw.
The thing is a truly decent video card with some future proofing is $300 anyway.
Looking at CPU scaling benches, the CPU typically has little effect anyway, as must games are GPU limited.
The Q6600 is overclocked to 2.8 and I'd imagine I could do 3.0 with no problem.
I guess the only fly in the ointment is the few games that are CPU dependent, Skyrim is one, and I there's at least another I cant think of right now...
Overall I can rebuild my whole rig with an i5 2500k and budget $300 for the GPU, for $800, with obviously a $300 GPU (nothing attractive now at 300, would wait for $300 HD 7000 series).
But it seems simpler, cheaper, and possibly just as good performance if not better in games, to spend $550 on a 7970 and keep my CPU? See what I'm saying? The former system would be "better balanced", but OTOH in reality does CPU even matter much (within reason of course)? I'm at 1080P btw.