Will this upgrade give a noticeable boost on the performance?

Hi, I currently own an LGA 775 rig(see rig for full info) and I would like to know if I'll get a big performance boost by upgrading to a LGA 1155 setup. I'm planning to get an Intel I5 2500k with a motherboard that supports PCI-E 2. So that's going from q6600 to i5 2500k, ddr2 to ddr3 and from pcie 1 to pcie 2. My current video card is an HD 6950 and it's always in a 75-80% usage range when playing games like battlefield 3 I think thats a bottleneck?. Thanks alot.

I have a phenom II 955 with a 6950 and I don't really see any need to upgrade yet.

Going from ddr2 to ddr3 is not a huge deal

going from pci-e 1 to pci-e 2 is not a huge deal

In January I had a similar rig to you. Upgraded and never looked back. Do itacanofcoke

In January I had a similar rig to you. Upgraded and never looked back. Do itacanofcoke

youll notice a considerable boost in games with the 2500k, especially when you overclock it. probably in the region of 20 extra fps in most games.

youll notice a considerable boost in games with the 2500k, especially when you overclock it. probably in the region of 20 extra fps in most games.

seercirra

[QUOTE="seercirra"]

youll notice a considerable boost in games with the 2500k, especially when you overclock it. probably in the region of 20 extra fps in most games.

kraken2109

tick the 2500k and the q6600 then scroll down and click compare

2500k beats q6600 by almost 100% in most tests without even being overclocked. 248fps in left 4 dead 2 vs 138fps for the q6600.

the gain from new ram and mobo wont be much but the cpu change will make a big difference. i know i went from e7300 to 2500k at 4.5ghz and for example in skyrim went from playing comfortably in medium/high to having everything on max with loads of mods and ini tweaks and still having better performance than i had before.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="seercirra"]

youll notice a considerable boost in games with the 2500k, especially when you overclock it. probably in the region of 20 extra fps in most games.

seercirra

tick the 2500k and the q6600 then scroll down and click compare

2500k beats q6600 by almost 100% in most tests without even being overclocked. 248fps in left 4 dead 2 vs 138fps for the q6600.

the gain from new ram and mobo wont be much but the cpu change will make a big difference. i know i went from e7300 to 2500k at 4.5ghz and for example in skyrim went from playing comfortably in medium/high to having everything on max with loads of mods and ini tweaks and still having better performance than i had before.

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

seercirra

Now going from a Q6600 to a i5 2500k and actually seeing an improvement in performance (without benchmarking) can be hit or miss. If you take BF3 for example you would not see too much of a difference or any game that you seen 60 fps+ with the old cpu before. Now if you try a game like Shogun 2 or Star Craft 2 yes you will see a difference because of the fact that both games can not utilize more then two threads/cores, which means brute processing power from the i5 will out perform older cpu's. As long as the game is gpu bound and the cpu can provide the gpu with the data it needs you will not see major differences between cpu's. Cpu prone games like RTS's yea you can and will see differences with heavy loads.

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

seercirra

But there's no way you'll get 20 more fps in games like Metro or Crysis where the GPU is the bottleneck. If the GPU is struggling to put out 30 or 40 fps it's not going to magically perform 50-75% better just because you upgraded the CPU.

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

seercirra

The game may take only 2 threads, but what about the OS and all the backround processes? Windows is mutlithreaded and now when you are running fraps or vent or firefox you aren't taking cycles away from your game.

[QUOTE="seercirra"]

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

GummiRaccoon

The game may take only 2 threads, but what about the OS and all the backround processes? Windows is mutlithreaded and now when you are running fraps or vent or firefox you aren't taking cycles away from your game.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I have the itch to move from my X3 720BE to an i5 2500k. I do plenty of video-editing and transcoding. So, i think an i5 2500k will benefit me immensely.

I could upgrade to an i5 2500k now and skip assembling a totally new PC next year. Only the video card will get an upgrade next year.

I have a phenom II 955 with a 6950 and I don't really see any need to upgrade yet.

Going from ddr2 to ddr3 is not a huge deal

going from pci-e 1 to pci-e 2 is not a huge deal

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I have a phenom II 955 with a 6950 and I don't really see any need to upgrade yet.

Going from ddr2 to ddr3 is not a huge deal

going from pci-e 1 to pci-e 2 is not a huge deal

Diwashb

PCI-E x1 is completely different from PCI-E 1.0; a PCI-E 1x means it's a PCI-E slot that only has 1 lane to transfer data. Whereas a PCI-E slot for a PCI-E video card is a x16 - which means the card has 16 lanes to transfer data.

He's got a PCI-E 1.0 slot (or maybe 1.1) and has a data transfer rate of 250MB/s per lane.

If you have a PCI-E 2.0 slot you have a data transfer rate of 500 MB/s per lane.

A lot of GPUs cannot hit the data transfer limit in PCI-E 1.0/1.1 and I'm not sure if any have hit the PCI-E 2.0/2.1 limit yet. So going from 1.0 to 2.0 isn't going to make a difference.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's kind of a basic explaination

[QUOTE="Diwashb"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

I have a phenom II 955 with a 6950 and I don't really see any need to upgrade yet.

Going from ddr2 to ddr3 is not a huge deal

going from pci-e 1 to pci-e 2 is not a huge deal

neatfeatguy

PCI-E x1 is completely different from PCI-E 1.0; a PCI-E 1x means it's a PCI-E slot that only has 1 lane to transfer data. Whereas a PCI-E slot for a PCI-E video card is a x16 - which means the card has 16 lanes to transfer data.

He's got a PCI-E 1.0 slot (or maybe 1.1) and has a data transfer rate of 250MB/s per lane.

If you have a PCI-E 2.0 slot you have a data transfer rate of 500 MB/s per lane.

A lot of GPUs cannot hit the data transfer limit in PCI-E 1.0/1.1 and I'm not sure if any have hit the PCI-E 2.0/2.1 limit yet. So going from 1.0 to 2.0 isn't going to make a difference.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's kind of a basic explaination

[QUOTE="seercirra"]

itll be 20 atleast.

and no, jumping from dual to quad for games makes little difference. e7300 @3ghz is very similar to q6600. you can expect similar results in all games. i could give another example with shogun 2 before/after. before i could have all on high now i can have all max with all dx11 effects and 8x aa and still have more fps than i did before with no graphics card change.

04dcarraher

Now going from a Q6600 to a i5 2500k and actually seeing an improvement in performance (without benchmarking) can be hit or miss. If you take BF3 for example you would not see too much of a difference or any game that you seen 60 fps+ with the old cpu before. Now if you try a game like Shogun 2 or Star Craft 2 yes you will see a difference because of the fact that both games can not utilize more then two threads/cores, which means brute processing power from the i5 will out perform older cpu's. As long as the game is gpu bound and the cpu can provide the gpu with the data it needs you will not see major differences between cpu's. Cpu prone games like RTS's yea you can and will see differences with heavy loads.

This thread's still on? Btw I upgradd to an i5 3570k and yes I do see a huge noticeable boost in performance, I was getting an fps of 30's in B2k maps in BF3 now The fps went to 60-70, I can even play on ULTRA settings now(AA off) with an average fps of 50.