1.OC cpu
2.Get 570
3.????
4.Profit
Q6600 bottleneck? What would be the better upgrade?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Actually how are xfire 5770s? I originally had a 4870 but that died on me and a friend of mine sold me his 5770. He's got another one and is willing to sell it to me for $50. I could go for option one and add $50 to xfire them.
Actually how are xfire 5770s? I originally had a 4870 but that died on me and a friend of mine sold me his 5770. He's got another one and is willing to sell it to me for $50. I could go for option one and add $50 to xfire them.
Former_Slacker
They are quite good in Xfire. I'm not positive that your PSU could handle Xfire 5770's, but I'm leaning towards yes.
[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]
Actually how are xfire 5770s? I originally had a 4870 but that died on me and a friend of mine sold me his 5770. He's got another one and is willing to sell it to me for $50. I could go for option one and add $50 to xfire them.
hartsickdiscipl
They are quite good in Xfire. I'm not positive that your PSU could handle Xfire 5770's, but I'm leaning towards yes.
5770 for $50 not bad at all , You could just pick up a Corsair 750-850w psu and you would be good to go there.Do eeeet. Much better upgrade for that price. As another user said get a new PSU as well just in case.Actually how are xfire 5770s? I originally had a 4870 but that died on me and a friend of mine sold me his 5770. He's got another one and is willing to sell it to me for $50. I could go for option one and add $50 to xfire them.
Former_Slacker
Hmm but I wouldn't have the money to buy the corsair if I spend all of it on option number 1 + 5770. And with school starting up, my hours will have to be cut back significantly too.
So if he is not a high end gamer why the hell would he want to upgrade a Q6600? He doesnt need to upgrade anything at all in that case....sigh....how many times do I and the original poster have to say it?? He doesn't care about the AA/ AF and he'll be happy with high settings no need for ultra. So with that in mind his 5770 is completely fine for even playing battlefield 3.
blaznwiipspman1
They were all 16x10 charts...:|Half a dozen games, half of which MIGHT be worth playing. I could throw in 3dmark11 in there and it would probably fit too.
And for all the nay sayers saying 5770 can't run BF3 based on that chart, IT IS 1920X1080, NOT 1680x1050. He could very well achieve 35fps avg on 1680x1050 - since when wasn't that playable? Hell, if I got 35 fps avg in a game I wouldn't even think about upgrading.
kaitanuvax
They were all 16x10 charts...:|
Gambler_3
Wasn't referring to your charts, was referring to the BF3 Alpha one, the one where it showed a 5770 achieving 30 fps avg at 1920x1080 with everything maxed, DX11. (Yes this is directed at carraher's fail statement at saying 5770 can only do medium on BF3)
$50 for 5770 is highway robbery. Your Corsair 550w could easily handle them in crossfire:
In performance they equal to about a GTX 470.
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]
They were all 16x10 charts...:|
kaitanuvax
Wasn't referring to your charts, was referring to the BF3 Alpha one, the one where it showed a 5770 achieving 30 fps avg at 1920x1080 with everything maxed, DX11. (Yes this is directed at carraher's fail statement at saying 5770 can only do medium on BF3)
Why are you being like this? like a misinformed console gamer........ The alpha is not the finished product it is missing all kinds of high end textures, and effects , and and other aspects.... so your wrong.... Dice has stated that the finished product will be more demanding then the alpha. So if the 5770 is only averaging 30 fps it will be lower when the full game comes out at same trying to run it on high settings.... So again how is sub 30 fps average good?[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Nope that chart is so off, you do not know which cpu is where on that chart, again you blowing smoke to cover your own mistakes, Also it shows O wait look!!!! a 5770 cant run the alpha at max settings and the alpha does not even have all the bells and whistles.
neatfeatguy
hmm it seems you will never admit you're wrong even with the evidence shoved in front of your face. No matter.
Anyways to the OP. You can still get hte 570 gtx if you'd like you will definitely get a boost in frames. However you will be completely fine playing battlefield 3 with your current 5770 at more than 30 frames per second at your resolution. I personally wouldn't spend $350 on a video card especially if my budget was restricted. Here is a core i5 2500k plus motherboard for $330. You can buy 8gb ram for like $40 now adays. Also by next year you will be able to buy a card for less than $150 that will near max out battlefield 3 either way. Make your decision. IMO you can still get away with you're 5770 and q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz until next year when ivy bridge comes out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.660241
The OP stated several times that the BIOS is locked and is unable to OC. Now, if the OP could OC the Q6600, I'd strongly suggest a GTX 570 or HD 6970 if the 5770 couldn't run the game at acceptable levels after it comes out.
But since the BIOS is locked and OC'ing is out of the question, a stronger GPU will help offset things more then just throwing in a faster CPU. The HD 5770 can only do so much and if the Alpha benchmark chart shows us anything, that GPU could have problems in the official released version once all the bells and whistles are included. A more powerful GPU would be best, then after a new CPU and MB are introduced (be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer), the more powerful GPU will maxmize upon it and a greater boost in performance will come into play.
I for certain had a boost in performance when I added a second 8800GTS 512 to run in SLI on my old dual Athlon 64 x2 5600+ that ran @ 3.15GHz. I knew I would bottleneck the GPUs, but the boost in performance was worth it. About 6 months later or so, I was able to afford my Phenom II x4 940 and new MB - pairing up the same two cards in SLI I gained nearly a 25% gain in performance in all games and even more when I OC'ed the CPU up to 3.4GHz.
That is why I recommed a better GPU first. There will be a performance boost and once the new MB/CPU is added, the OP will get yet another performance boost.
So your basically saying that Sandry Bridge is old technology and that he should wait for Ivy bridge? Wow.[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
hmm it seems you will never admit you're wrong even with the evidence shoved in front of your face. No matter.
Anyways to the OP. You can still get hte 570 gtx if you'd like you will definitely get a boost in frames. However you will be completely fine playing battlefield 3 with your current 5770 at more than 30 frames per second at your resolution. I personally wouldn't spend $350 on a video card especially if my budget was restricted. Here is a core i5 2500k plus motherboard for $330. You can buy 8gb ram for like $40 now adays. Also by next year you will be able to buy a card for less than $150 that will near max out battlefield 3 either way. Make your decision. IMO you can still get away with you're 5770 and q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz until next year when ivy bridge comes out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.660241
robertoenrique
The OP stated several times that the BIOS is locked and is unable to OC. Now, if the OP could OC the Q6600, I'd strongly suggest a GTX 570 or HD 6970 if the 5770 couldn't run the game at acceptable levels after it comes out.
But since the BIOS is locked and OC'ing is out of the question, a stronger GPU will help offset things more then just throwing in a faster CPU. The HD 5770 can only do so much and if the Alpha benchmark chart shows us anything, that GPU could have problems in the official released version once all the bells and whistles are included. A more powerful GPU would be best, then after a new CPU and MB are introduced (be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer), the more powerful GPU will maxmize upon it and a greater boost in performance will come into play.
I for certain had a boost in performance when I added a second 8800GTS 512 to run in SLI on my old dual Athlon 64 x2 5600+ that ran @ 3.15GHz. I knew I would bottleneck the GPUs, but the boost in performance was worth it. About 6 months later or so, I was able to afford my Phenom II x4 940 and new MB - pairing up the same two cards in SLI I gained nearly a 25% gain in performance in all games and even more when I OC'ed the CPU up to 3.4GHz.
That is why I recommed a better GPU first. There will be a performance boost and once the new MB/CPU is added, the OP will get yet another performance boost.
So your basically saying that Sandry Bridge is old technology and that he should wait for Ivy bridge? Wow. he's not really saying that Sandy bridge is old , he's saying why buy current tech now when its not needed and buy whats out when you do upgrade which will be better then what was out before.Why are you being like this? like a misinformed console gamer........ The alpha is not the finished product it is missing all kinds of high end textures, and effects , and and other aspects.... so your wrong.... Dice has stated that the finished product will be more demanding then the alpha. So if the 5770 is only averaging 30 fps it will be lower when the full game comes out at same trying to run it on high settings.... So again how is sub 30 fps average good?
04dcarraher
It's not ideal and IHAVE said that if he wants to pay up $300 just for this one game he is more than welcomed. But I'm trying to make the point that overall the graphics in the gaming scene isn't improving much at all, that the majority of games really don't warrant a $250+ card as most ppl are getting. I just find it unbelievable when ppl are recommending 6970s and GTX 580s when even a 6850/460 will demolish 99% of games. Heck, even a 5770 is barely good enough is he really wants to.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Why are you being like this? like a misinformed console gamer........ The alpha is not the finished product it is missing all kinds of high end textures, and effects , and and other aspects.... so your wrong.... Dice has stated that the finished product will be more demanding then the alpha. So if the 5770 is only averaging 30 fps it will be lower when the full game comes out at same trying to run it on high settings.... So again how is sub 30 fps average good?
kaitanuvax
It's not ideal and IHAVE said that if he wants to pay up $300 just for this one game he is more than welcomed. But I'm trying to make the point that overall the graphics in the gaming scene isn't improving much at all, that the majority of games really don't warrant a $250+ card as most ppl are getting. I just find it unbelievable when ppl are recommending 6970s and GTX 580s when even a 6850/460 will demolish 99% of games. Heck, even a 5770 is barely good enough is he really wants to.
It's all personal opinion about what is enough, but the point is that the 5770 is aging and isnt able to keep up with new Pc releases of games with high/highest or even "maxed" settings. And your chart and gamblers charts shows that, My old 8800GT's in SLI in most games beat the 5770 and I still upgraded to a $200 gpu and the few new games I couldnt run on high or highest settings now I can. Thats the point in upgrading , but the people recommending a cpu upgrade over a gpu upgrade at this point just dont understand that the TC would be gpu limited for what he wants to be able to do. His Q6600 isnt holding back that 5770 at all so getting a an i5 now with a 5770 would pretty much be in the same boat as he was with his Q6600. Getting a new gpu it doesnot even have to a GTX 570 it be a GTX 560ti or 6950 , That Q6600 with a much better gpu will yeild better results then an i5 and a 5770 would with almost all games. And with a newer post made by the TC he has an option to crossfire 5770's for $50 and so all he would need to do is buy a better psu to handle the load and he would be set.
[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
hmm it seems you will never admit you're wrong even with the evidence shoved in front of your face. No matter.
Anyways to the OP. You can still get hte 570 gtx if you'd like you will definitely get a boost in frames. However you will be completely fine playing battlefield 3 with your current 5770 at more than 30 frames per second at your resolution. I personally wouldn't spend $350 on a video card especially if my budget was restricted. Here is a core i5 2500k plus motherboard for $330. You can buy 8gb ram for like $40 now adays. Also by next year you will be able to buy a card for less than $150 that will near max out battlefield 3 either way. Make your decision. IMO you can still get away with you're 5770 and q6600 overclocked to 3.0ghz until next year when ivy bridge comes out.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.660241
robertoenrique
The OP stated several times that the BIOS is locked and is unable to OC. Now, if the OP could OC the Q6600, I'd strongly suggest a GTX 570 or HD 6970 if the 5770 couldn't run the game at acceptable levels after it comes out.
But since the BIOS is locked and OC'ing is out of the question, a stronger GPU will help offset things more then just throwing in a faster CPU. The HD 5770 can only do so much and if the Alpha benchmark chart shows us anything, that GPU could have problems in the official released version once all the bells and whistles are included. A more powerful GPU would be best, then after a new CPU and MB are introduced (be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer), the more powerful GPU will maxmize upon it and a greater boost in performance will come into play.
I for certain had a boost in performance when I added a second 8800GTS 512 to run in SLI on my old dual Athlon 64 x2 5600+ that ran @ 3.15GHz. I knew I would bottleneck the GPUs, but the boost in performance was worth it. About 6 months later or so, I was able to afford my Phenom II x4 940 and new MB - pairing up the same two cards in SLI I gained nearly a 25% gain in performance in all games and even more when I OC'ed the CPU up to 3.4GHz.
That is why I recommed a better GPU first. There will be a performance boost and once the new MB/CPU is added, the OP will get yet another performance boost.
So your basically saying that Sandry Bridge is old technology and that he should wait for Ivy bridge? Wow.I'm not sure where you got that from my post, no where in there did I say Sandy Bridge was old technology. I made reference as to why he should upgrade the GPU first and then pick up a better CPU/MB "(be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer)".
So I'm not sure where you picked it up from. I read through my post several times to make sure I didn't come off saying that and I can't see that I did. So step back, re-read and enjoy your day....?
It's all personal opinion about what is enough, but the point is that the 5770 is aging and isnt able to keep up with new Pc releases of games with high/highest or even "maxed" settings. And your chart and gamblers charts shows that, My old 8800GT's in SLI in most games beat the 5770 and I still upgraded to a $200 gpu and the few new games I couldnt run on high or highest settings now I can. Thats the point in upgrading , but the people recommending a cpu upgrade over a gpu upgrade at this point just dont understand that the TC would be gpu limited for what he wants to be able to do. His Q6600 isnt holding back that 5770 at all so getting a an i5 now with a 5770 would pretty much be in the same boat as he was with his Q6600. Getting a new gpu it doesnot even have to a GTX 570 it be a GTX 560ti or 6950 , That Q6600 with a much better gpu will yeild better results then an i5 and a 5770 would with almost all games. And with a newer post made by the TC he has an option to crossfire 5770's for $50 and so all he would need to do is buy a better psu to handle the load and he would be set.
04dcarraher
Well I do believe the 5770 is able to keep up with newer games as per my earlier posts - for every one new game that it can't max, there would be ten others it can.
I'm just saying he doesn't HAVE to upgrade, there is nothing wrong with staying put with a 5770. The money would be better kept until the majority of games actually start being demanding - which clearly isn't the case now.
He's not gonna freak out because he can only pull off 30 fps on BF3 (yes I do acknowledge that it's going to be more demanding but what you need to do is acknowledge that he is running 1680x1050 not 1920x1080) on max/near max settings - in fact, thats exactly what TC says he can stand.
kaitanuvax I think you need to sit back and re look at the 5770 with BF3 The TC wants to play BF3 on high with fluid frame rates not struggle along at 30 fps average with all medium settings or a mix of medium and high. 1920 vs 1680 is less then a 20% difference so I doubt it will make much of a hit in performance. Also the TC's performance in BF:BC 2 is only averaging in the low 40's with his 5770 and BF3 is going to be more demanding. The TC wants to play BF3 on high with more then 40 fps average which means that he cant use his 5770. It dont matter what you think is acceptable and saying a single 5770 is good enough for this or for that, the point is the single 5770 wont be able to do what the TC wants in BF3.
kaitanuvax I think you need to sit back and re look at the 5770 with BF3 The TC wants to play BF3 on high with fluid frame rates not struggle along at 30 fps average with all medium settings or a mix of medium and high. 1920 vs 1680 is less then a 20% difference so I doubt it will make much of a hit in performance. Also the TC's performance in BF:BC 2 is only averaging in the low 40's with his 5770 and BF3 is going to be more demanding. The TC wants to play BF3 on high with more then 40 fps average which means that he cant use his 5770. It dont matter what you think is acceptable and saying a single 5770 is good enough for this or for that, the point is the single 5770 wont be able to do what the TC wants in BF3.
04dcarraher
The reason I'm doing this though is for bf3. BC2 was a cpu intensive game and bf3 looks to be the same. I want to get high/max at 1680 x 1050 with no aa at a stable fps of at least 30.
Former_Slacker
1920 vs 1680 is less then a 20% difference so I doubt it will make much of a hit in performance.
04dcarraher
Oh cmon now stop being so stubborn.
I've got a Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (stock due to locked down bios) with a 5770 1gb and 4gb of ddr2 800 RAM. The rest of my system specs are an acer matx mobo, 750gb cavair black HDD, corsair tx550w psu and a fractal design arc midi. I am planning on upgrading to a 570 for BF3 and future games but I don't know if it would be worth it due to a possible bottleneck. Also, would I need a new psu for it too? The corsair ax850w is on sale for $151 after rebate right now. Alternatively, I could go for an i5 2500k, asrock extreme4 gen3, samsung spinpoint f3 and 8gb of ddr3 1333 RAM. Which would be the better upgrade? Both upgrades would be within the same price range and I wouldn't be able to do the other until earlier next year. Also, I play at 1680 x 1050.
Former_Slacker
I just did the same exact upgrade for the CPU and the mobo. I'll let you know how it comes out.
...... kaitanuvax a 5770 wont be able do high settings at 30+ fps at 1680 or 1920 so who's the being stubborn? if he's getting low 40's with bc 2 there isnt no way he will get 30 fps on high with BF3 do you understand now?04dcarraher
No I don't understand because you're pulling all this out of your ass. I'm actually basing this on the alpha benchmark. So what if it's alpha? At least I'm not pulling it out of my ass.
So your basically saying that Sandry Bridge is old technology and that he should wait for Ivy bridge? Wow.[QUOTE="robertoenrique"][QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]
The OP stated several times that the BIOS is locked and is unable to OC. Now, if the OP could OC the Q6600, I'd strongly suggest a GTX 570 or HD 6970 if the 5770 couldn't run the game at acceptable levels after it comes out.
But since the BIOS is locked and OC'ing is out of the question, a stronger GPU will help offset things more then just throwing in a faster CPU. The HD 5770 can only do so much and if the Alpha benchmark chart shows us anything, that GPU could have problems in the official released version once all the bells and whistles are included. A more powerful GPU would be best, then after a new CPU and MB are introduced (be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer), the more powerful GPU will maxmize upon it and a greater boost in performance will come into play.
I for certain had a boost in performance when I added a second 8800GTS 512 to run in SLI on my old dual Athlon 64 x2 5600+ that ran @ 3.15GHz. I knew I would bottleneck the GPUs, but the boost in performance was worth it. About 6 months later or so, I was able to afford my Phenom II x4 940 and new MB - pairing up the same two cards in SLI I gained nearly a 25% gain in performance in all games and even more when I OC'ed the CPU up to 3.4GHz.
That is why I recommed a better GPU first. There will be a performance boost and once the new MB/CPU is added, the OP will get yet another performance boost.
neatfeatguy
I'm not sure where you got that from my post, no where in there did I say Sandy Bridge was old technology. I made reference as to why he should upgrade the GPU first and then pick up a better CPU/MB "(be it Ivy/Sandy Bridge or Bulldozer)".
So I'm not sure where you picked it up from. I read through my post several times to make sure I didn't come off saying that and I can't see that I did. So step back, re-read and enjoy your day....?
Yea ur right I`ve had a sucky day, ill try to enjoy the rest of it.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]...... kaitanuvax a 5770 wont be able do high settings at 30+ fps at 1680 or 1920 so who's the being stubborn? if he's getting low 40's with bc 2 there isnt no way he will get 30 fps on high with BF3 do you understand now?kaitanuvax
No I don't understand because you're pulling all this out of your ass. I'm actually basing this on the alpha benchmark. So what if it's alpha? At least I'm not pulling it out of my ass.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I OR OTHERS HAVE TO SAY THIS . the Alpha does NOT have all graphics settings in the game, its missing effects and other options like high textures. Which means that the final version will be more demanding. What is so hard in not understanding that? jeez, even with the alpha "benchmarks" it shows that the 5770 cant handle the game to stay above 30 fps at all times at 1920... And if the full version is more demanding even at 1680 his performance on high setting wont be what he wants 30+ all the time What im pulling out my butt, it is not nothing or just hot air its common sense and facts from Dice themselves and other people who actually know what their talking about. If Dice says that you will need a GTX 580 to play the game on high settings at 1080 with 60 fps average their isnt no way and no how a 5770 will play BF3 on high with 30+ fps at 1680...[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
It's all personal opinion about what is enough, but the point is that the 5770 is aging and isnt able to keep up with new Pc releases of games with high/highest or even "maxed" settings. And your chart and gamblers charts shows that, My old 8800GT's in SLI in most games beat the 5770 and I still upgraded to a $200 gpu and the few new games I couldnt run on high or highest settings now I can. Thats the point in upgrading , but the people recommending a cpu upgrade over a gpu upgrade at this point just dont understand that the TC would be gpu limited for what he wants to be able to do. His Q6600 isnt holding back that 5770 at all so getting a an i5 now with a 5770 would pretty much be in the same boat as he was with his Q6600. Getting a new gpu it doesnot even have to a GTX 570 it be a GTX 560ti or 6950 , That Q6600 with a much better gpu will yeild better results then an i5 and a 5770 would with almost all games. And with a newer post made by the TC he has an option to crossfire 5770's for $50 and so all he would need to do is buy a better psu to handle the load and he would be set.
kaitanuvax
Well I do believe the 5770 is able to keep up with newer games as per my earlier posts - for every one new game that it can't max, there would be ten others it can.
I'm just saying he doesn't HAVE to upgrade, there is nothing wrong with staying put with a 5770. The money would be better kept until the majority of games actually start being demanding - which clearly isn't the case now.
He's not gonna freak out because he can only pull off 30 fps on BF3 (yes I do acknowledge that it's going to be more demanding but what you need to do is acknowledge that he is running 1680x1050 not 1920x1080) on max/near max settings - in fact, thats exactly what TC says he can stand.
Well, I want to maintain at least 30 fps on high/max at my res with no aa.
[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Why are you being like this? like a misinformed console gamer........ The alpha is not the finished product it is missing all kinds of high end textures, and effects , and and other aspects.... so your wrong.... Dice has stated that the finished product will be more demanding then the alpha. So if the 5770 is only averaging 30 fps it will be lower when the full game comes out at same trying to run it on high settings.... So again how is sub 30 fps average good?
04dcarraher
It's not ideal and IHAVE said that if he wants to pay up $300 just for this one game he is more than welcomed. But I'm trying to make the point that overall the graphics in the gaming scene isn't improving much at all, that the majority of games really don't warrant a $250+ card as most ppl are getting. I just find it unbelievable when ppl are recommending 6970s and GTX 580s when even a 6850/460 will demolish 99% of games. Heck, even a 5770 is barely good enough is he really wants to.
It's all personal opinion about what is enough, but the point is that the 5770 is aging and isnt able to keep up with new Pc releases of games with high/highest or even "maxed" settings. And your chart and gamblers charts shows that, My old 8800GT's in SLI in most games beat the 5770 and I still upgraded to a $200 gpu and the few new games I couldnt run on high or highest settings now I can. Thats the point in upgrading , but the people recommending a cpu upgrade over a gpu upgrade at this point just dont understand that the TC would be gpu limited for what he wants to be able to do. His Q6600 isnt holding back that 5770 at all so getting a an i5 now with a 5770 would pretty much be in the same boat as he was with his Q6600. Getting a new gpu it doesnot even have to a GTX 570 it be a GTX 560ti or 6950 , That Q6600 with a much better gpu will yeild better results then an i5 and a 5770 would with almost all games. And with a newer post made by the TC he has an option to crossfire 5770's for $50 and so all he would need to do is buy a better psu to handle the load and he would be set.My current mb will not allow me to xfire or sli as it only has 1 pcie 1.0 slot.
[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]
I've got a Q6600 @ 2.4 Ghz (stock due to locked down bios) with a 5770 1gb and 4gb of ddr2 800 RAM. The rest of my system specs are an acer matx mobo, 750gb cavair black HDD, corsair tx550w psu and a fractal design arc midi. I am planning on upgrading to a 570 for BF3 and future games but I don't know if it would be worth it due to a possible bottleneck. Also, would I need a new psu for it too? The corsair ax850w is on sale for $151 after rebate right now. Alternatively, I could go for an i5 2500k, asrock extreme4 gen3, samsung spinpoint f3 and 8gb of ddr3 1333 RAM. Which would be the better upgrade? Both upgrades would be within the same price range and I wouldn't be able to do the other until earlier next year. Also, I play at 1680 x 1050.
airshocker
I just did the same exact upgrade for the CPU and the mobo. I'll let you know how it comes out.
Do you have bc2? Frostbite is cpu intensive so testing the upgrade on heavy metal or atacama desert on a 32 player conquest server would be best to see what the difference is.
It's all personal opinion about what is enough, but the point is that the 5770 is aging and isnt able to keep up with new Pc releases of games with high/highest or even "maxed" settings. And your chart and gamblers charts shows that, My old 8800GT's in SLI in most games beat the 5770 and I still upgraded to a $200 gpu and the few new games I couldnt run on high or highest settings now I can. Thats the point in upgrading , but the people recommending a cpu upgrade over a gpu upgrade at this point just dont understand that the TC would be gpu limited for what he wants to be able to do. His Q6600 isnt holding back that 5770 at all so getting a an i5 now with a 5770 would pretty much be in the same boat as he was with his Q6600. Getting a new gpu it doesnot even have to a GTX 570 it be a GTX 560ti or 6950 , That Q6600 with a much better gpu will yeild better results then an i5 and a 5770 would with almost all games. And with a newer post made by the TC he has an option to crossfire 5770's for $50 and so all he would need to do is buy a better psu to handle the load and he would be set.[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]
It's not ideal and IHAVE said that if he wants to pay up $300 just for this one game he is more than welcomed. But I'm trying to make the point that overall the graphics in the gaming scene isn't improving much at all, that the majority of games really don't warrant a $250+ card as most ppl are getting. I just find it unbelievable when ppl are recommending 6970s and GTX 580s when even a 6850/460 will demolish 99% of games. Heck, even a 5770 is barely good enough is he really wants to.
Former_Slacker
My current mb will not allow me to xfire or sli as it only has 1 pcie 1.0 slot.
Then picking up a GTX 560ti, 6950 or GTX 570 is only only option then
[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
[QUOTE="kaitanuvax"]
Why do you keep shoving that statement down my throat? Is that the only argument that you think you have against me? I never even said that it could. I said a 5770 could max most recent games, which IS the big picture, contrary to what you claim - no, not "many" new games, but "FEW" new games are pushing GPU hardware.
And the rest of your post just completely ignores my last post, good job. You name 3 games? I'll name like 15. The 5770 is STILL GREAT.
I also love the fact that you completely ignored my post that flat out said to TC to get a 570 if he wants to for BF3.
Oh and guess what? I was too lazy to go and find out if the 5770 is really that inferior in Battlefield 3, but look what I found?
Granted, its with a Phenom II X4 @ 4.0 GHz, but a Q6600 can near that performance with a good OC. Note that this is MAX, with DX11, at 1920x1080. And it STILL achieves an avg of 30 fps. Imagine it with NO useless AA, NO useless AF, at 1680x1050.
04dcarraher
ouch ownage approved, 04cadarrher just got it
Nope that chart is so off, you do not know which cpu is where on that chart(are those averages between each cpu), again you blowing smoke to cover your own mistakes, Also it shows O wait look!!!! a 5770 cant run the alpha at max settings with a minimum of 30 fps and the alpha does not even have all the bells and whistles. I can a name a handful of games of 5770 cant use max or highest settings , and with newer games that take advantage of Pc hardware that card will show its age and unable to max new games that come out. I never said a 5770 was a bad card but its not a card where you expect to max newer games and that chart posted proves the point with or without AA.Yeah. HD 5770 can't handle Crysis 2 @1080P with all settings maxed.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/crysis-2-directx11_3.html
^^ It chokes pretty badly.
I don't know how is it so difficult to understand that a GTX 570 is the best choice for TC.
As for the BF3 benches I will wait and see for the final version to see how it performs.
off topic, but.... This was one of the most entertaining threads I've read for a while on the boards. Why did you guys stop? I want more entertainment.neatfeatguy
Buy me some more free time at workand I'll gladly spice up threads ; )
But yeah, not going to argue more on what is pure speculative stuff at the moment. TC, if what you are saying is that you want a minimum FPS of 30, then you'd have to get at least a GTX 560 TI / HD 6950 as well asa i5 2500k, as its the CPU that stabilizes your minimum frames.
Q6600 is still plenty fast for gaming. going with a GTX 570 would only cause a slight bottleneck, but it wont affect you in a big way (only will lose a few fps). You could get an aftermarket cooler and overclock your your Q6600 to 3 ghz and you will remove any bottlenecking.
04dcarraher
I've had a Q9650 @ 3GHz previously and it was not plenty fast for gaming. Lots of CPU heavy games slowed down a lot in more crowded scenes. TDU2 for example, 60 fps in the countryside and choppy 25-30 fps in the cities. F1 2010, races with full grid were problematic, same in Dirt 3.
BF3 online servers with 64 people ran in some areas only at 30 or lower fps. Skyrim prepatch, every time I entered a city fps went down to 20-30 and that was with draw distance set to half. Same in Fallout New Vegas.
Wow, why did someone revive this old thread? I ended finding a way to overclock the q6600 to 3.4, after buying a new cpu cooler, and I also bought a 6970 ($270 after rebate) to go with it.
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Q6600 is still plenty fast for gaming. going with a GTX 570 would only cause a slight bottleneck, but it wont affect you in a big way (only will lose a few fps). You could get an aftermarket cooler and overclock your your Q6600 to 3 ghz and you will remove any bottlenecking.
Ben-Buja
I've had a Q9650 @ 3GHz previously and it was not plenty fast for gaming. Lots of CPU heavy games slowed down a lot in more crowded scenes. TDU2 for example, 60 fps in the countryside and choppy 25-30 fps in the cities. F1 2010, races with full grid were problematic, same in Dirt 3.
BF3 online servers with 64 people ran in some areas only at 30 or lower fps. Skyrim prepatch, every time I entered a city fps went down to 20-30 and that was with draw distance set to half. Same in Fallout New Vegas.
Yeah, I never believed those older cpus are good enough for demanding games that demand a powerful cpu. While gpu is the most important, skimping on the cpu is never a good idea if you want to run demanding games the best.[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Q6600 is still plenty fast for gaming. going with a GTX 570 would only cause a slight bottleneck, but it wont affect you in a big way (only will lose a few fps). You could get an aftermarket cooler and overclock your your Q6600 to 3 ghz and you will remove any bottlenecking.
mitu123
I've had a Q9650 @ 3GHz previously and it was not plenty fast for gaming. Lots of CPU heavy games slowed down a lot in more crowded scenes. TDU2 for example, 60 fps in the countryside and choppy 25-30 fps in the cities. F1 2010, races with full grid were problematic, same in Dirt 3.
BF3 online servers with 64 people ran in some areas only at 30 or lower fps. Skyrim prepatch, every time I entered a city fps went down to 20-30 and that was with draw distance set to half. Same in Fallout New Vegas.
Yeah, I never believed those older cpus are good enough for demanding games that demand a powerful cpu. While gpu is the most important, skimping on the cpu is never a good idea if you want to run demanding games the best.thats strange, there are plenty of people on these forums that have a phenom II 955 oc'd which is actually weaker than the q9650 and they haven't reported any of the problems that poster above stated.
Old thread
Yeah, I never believed those older cpus are good enough for demanding games that demand a powerful cpu. While gpu is the most important, skimping on the cpu is never a good idea if you want to run demanding games the best.[QUOTE="mitu123"]
[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]
I've had a Q9650 @ 3GHz previously and it was not plenty fast for gaming. Lots of CPU heavy games slowed down a lot in more crowded scenes. TDU2 for example, 60 fps in the countryside and choppy 25-30 fps in the cities. F1 2010, races with full grid were problematic, same in Dirt 3.
BF3 online servers with 64 people ran in some areas only at 30 or lower fps. Skyrim prepatch, every time I entered a city fps went down to 20-30 and that was with draw distance set to half. Same in Fallout New Vegas.
blaznwiipspman1
thats strange, there are plenty of people on these forums that have a phenom II 955 oc'd which is actually weaker than the q9650 and they haven't reported any of the problems that poster above stated.
That's because they're fine with what they have.[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yeah, I never believed those older cpus are good enough for demanding games that demand a powerful cpu. While gpu is the most important, skimping on the cpu is never a good idea if you want to run demanding games the best.
mitu123
thats strange, there are plenty of people on these forums that have a phenom II 955 oc'd which is actually weaker than the q9650 and they haven't reported any of the problems that poster above stated.
That's because they're fine with what they have. Nope, even with my Phenom 2 I never have had BF3 drop below 40 fps even with mostly ultra setting . Clearly something was wrong with that guy's configuration.[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]
[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yeah, I never believed those older cpus are good enough for demanding games that demand a powerful cpu. While gpu is the most important, skimping on the cpu is never a good idea if you want to run demanding games the best.
mitu123
thats strange, there are plenty of people on these forums that have a phenom II 955 oc'd which is actually weaker than the q9650 and they haven't reported any of the problems that poster above stated.
That's because they're fine with what they have.Follow that logic to it's end point. They're fine with what they have because it's still plenty of CPU for the vast majority of games.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment