Hello everybody! Since there are some new GPUs came and new CPUs coming I think about upgrade. I have old PC: Asus P35+Quad 9550-3.6Mhz+6Gb RAM+Asus DCuII 2Gb 6950... I don't like benchmarks. But I know that I have Avg 40 FPS (without MSAA but with SMAA injector ) in BF3. I don't have any problems with speed in games. I can't see bottleneck in CPU or GPU. They are working at 90%. So, what is best profit? Change GPU on GTX 680 OR change CPU+mother+DDR? For exemple: 1) I can sell GPU for 200$ + my own 300$ = new GTX680. OR 2) my own 500$ and I have i5-2500K and so on. From wich point I will receive more FPS for my money?
If I were you I would have gone MB+CPU+RAM way. This i5-i7 generation totally blows the competition (and old generations) away. It will give you much more "breathing space" in performance and future proof your PC. As of your current GPU - I think it is still pretty decent, and if (as you said) you are still satisfied with it, then keep it for a while.
That's a tough choice, are you really getting 90% cpu load in BF3? That may account for your low fps.... I avg about 50fps at ultra but only 70% cpu load and 99% GPU. I would say upgrade the GPU, but don't go CF cuz that CPU prob won't run 2 cards. Why not overclock that 6950 to a 6970?
Unfortunately I can't make it as 6970. I tried several times and several ways. Together with guys from this forum. I can only overclock it. I will make screenshot later with cpu and gpu load.
Yeah I meant overclock it - not unlock. Should be able to do 900/1350 easy at stock voltages. I should add my card is really a 6950 running 6970 clocks...
Let me give you a third offer. Your CPU is not half bad, and upgrading your GPU is just a waste of money at the moment. Your 6950 is not as fast as the 680, but its no slouch. I say, get an SSD. With your specs (assuming you dont have an ssd at the moment) You will actually feel the most performance boost. My 2 cents. NoamM
2smnoamls Let me disagree, SSD won't give him that much (if any) extra FPS. Load times will improve -yes, but FPS - no.
Well, indeed I did not focus on FPS per se, but seeing as he wants to upgrade, I gave him an alternative. Also, while games might not have higher FPS, some large texture streaming games and high load time games such as skyrim / fallout and so on, will run much better. TL;DR FPS will not be measurebly faster, but the computer and load times will be much faster.
SSD is good Sorry I didn't write about it just cuz I think this is must have item The best way is compare Fro example smnoamls could make test. Just use Fraps in BF3 and screenshots with CPU/GPU loading. In multiplayer and set Ultra settings. I will do the same. After this test we will know CPU dependence at least. If difference (for example) will be more than 50% then I need to upgrade CPU... P.S. I need GTX680 or AMD7970 for test
I am afraid I don't have much time... My CPU is good but old. It's on 3rd stage after i5... I think practicability of upgrade starts after 2nd stage. P.S. almost all of us speak Russian, no?... UK and US is sleeping
Why? We have same cards but diff CPU. Yes, I can wait for Ivy but do you think Ivy will be much faster than Sandy? I don't think so therefore my question will be the same.
Exactly, so therefore the results will be different. Don't you want to find out if your CPU is a bottleneck? You need to test your own rig to find that out.. All you need to do is play a round of BF3 and leave Task Manager minimized so it logs CPU load while you play. 10 mins should be plenty of time - then just tab out and take a screenshot of the performance graph. Edit- Here's an example - this is what BF3 MP looks like on my PC. 75% CPU and 99% GPU means no bottleneck.
Ivy will be 10-15% faster than Sandy. The CPU+mobo upgrade is to provide a good base for future upgrades. I think GTX 680 would be bottlenecked by your Q9550, especially in games that are both GPU and CPU intensive (BF3 multiplayer for example). 2500K vs Q9550: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=50 6950 2GB vs 680: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/555?vs=510 Unfortunately I'm not sure what the test hardware is above... But rest assured if anandtech bench is doing it right, the hardware is fast enough to minimize bottlenecking in order to get accurate performance comparisons. Therefore if your GTX 680 was bottlenecked by Q9550, the fps difference wouldn't be as stark as indicated here.
The RBE bios unlock doesn't work on the Asus HD6950 DCII, you have to use the W1zzard script The HD6970 DCII bios does kinda work, but the HD6950 DCII bios unlocked is more stable (despite the HD6970 bios appearing to be able to clock higher). The 'bottleneck' is the CPU, I'd wait for the Ivy bridge CPU's to come out then upgrade. Although a faster GPU will be faster, you will by no means be able to take advantage of it. If you do upgrade your video card, consider the HD7870 and overclock it.
Of course different But I will see how much this difference. I admit that my CPU will be a bottleneck with GTX 680 BUT maybe I will have more FPS with GTX than with i5-2500k+my GPU. That is the question... As I said before CPU load is around 90% and GPU also around 90%. I will test them later one more time.
^I understand...Well if it's any help I get about 50fps avg in BF3 but using ultra settings and 4xMSAA.... drops to 35fps though when zooming in. Tbh I don't play BF3 anymore but that's what I used to get...oh yeah my CPU was only running 3.7Mhz then also my NB was slower.
