Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    Upgrading my GPU (Would love some input)

    First of all, here's my current system:

    AsRock mATX motherboard, some cheap crap (AM3+ socket, can't remember the product name)
    AMD Phenom II X4 960T 3,0 Ghz
    8 Gb 1600 Mhz Corsair XMS3 RAM
    Gigabyte Windforce OC HD6850 1 Gb

    I'm currently playing WoW at High settings with around 45-60 in leveling zones, and only around 18 fps in 25-man raids So I'm looking to upgrade!
    Basically, I only play WoW (like 90% of my gaming on the pc is WoW) and I'm looking for the cheapest card that will run WoW at Ultra settings smoothly...

    I've narrowed down my search to three different cards;
    - AMD HD7870 Ghz edition, heard great things about this card, plus it's cheap
    - Nvidia GTX 660 (non-ti), same price range, heard that WoW favours Nvidia, although I'm not certain this particular card can max WoW? (help!)
    - Nvidia GTX 660Ti, very powerful, but more expensive

    Which one would you guys recommend?

  2. #2
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Which one would you guys recommend?
    A better CPU. I'm sorry but that CPU is just not enough to provide enough fps on 25-man ultra.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Majesticii View Post
    A better CPU. I'm sorry but that CPU is just not enough to provide enough fps on 25-man ultra.
    Really? Is it already bottlenecking my system :/? All my friends told me graphics cards are like 80% of the performance in games, and as such I should just focus on getting a new graphics card...
    I'm a student, so not a ton of cash laying around, don't think I can afford both a CPU and a GPU upgrade :/

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Aftonflickan View Post
    Really? Is it already bottlenecking my system :/? All my friends told me graphics cards are like 80% of the performance in games, and as such I should just focus on getting a new graphics card...
    I'm a student, so not a ton of cash laying around, don't think I can afford both a CPU and a GPU upgrade :/
    Clearly your friends doesn't understand how WoW works then.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  5. #5
    I would definitely agree with the processor upgrade. While a graphics card upgrade may make certain games run faster, everything will be bottlenecked hard by the cpu. The 6850 isn't a bad card at all, but yeah... that processor.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Do you guys think an AMD FX-6200 3.8 Ghz would be enough for Ultra? It's cheaper seeing as I won't have to replace the motherboard as well...

  8. #8
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Aftonflickan View Post
    Do you guys think an AMD FX-6200 3.8 Ghz would be enough for Ultra? It's cheaper seeing as I won't have to replace the motherboard as well...
    amd + wow = not a good combo performance wise. (even though amd has improved they are still quite behind on performance for cpu bound games)

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    amd + wow = not a good combo performance wise. (even though amd has improved they are still quite behind on performance for cpu bound games)
    But he doesnt have the money going with Intel, so sticking with AMD isnt a bad thing.
    Get the 6300 instead of the 6200. The 6300 is an updated version which increased performance quite a lot. And if you get a proper cooler, you might reach 4,5 - 5 Ghz on it and it will be on par with an i3 3225.

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-17.html

  10. #10
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    amd + wow = not a good combo performance wise. (even though amd has improved they are still quite behind on performance for cpu bound games)
    ORLY?





    ^^ LFR on non-oc AMD 6 (probably 6100 or 6300), Ultra settings



    Same guy in Stormwind on high settings, but according to the comments it will do Ultra as well (Hell, if it could handle LFR it could probably handle SW)



    AMD Phenom II x4 in LFR

    Bear in mind that all of these videos are done with the 7770, which is considered an entry level/low end GPU. Under the circumstances, the performance shown here of the AMD processors, both new and last gen, is more than satisfactory even with the added load of Fraps, and on top of all that, I don't think any of them are OC'ed.

  11. #11
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    it may worth but fps is atleast a good chunk less vs an intel cpu setup. (on gpu field the differences are smaller)
    also i question if that is ultra on some settings or everything. (details of importance)
    at this point 25man raiding full ultra barely hits 60 fps steady in combat with a overclock i5 @4,5 Ghz, no way in hell amd counterparts can keep up with a worse core architecture in regards to single core threading.

  12. #12
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    it may worth but fps is atleast a good chunk less vs an intel cpu setup. (on gpu field the differences are smaller)
    also i question if that is ultra on some settings or everything. (details of importance)
    at this point 25man raiding full ultra barely hits 60 fps steady in combat with a overclock i5 @4,5 Ghz, no way in hell amd counterparts can keep up with a worse core architecture in regards to single core threading.
    I posted multiple examples above of non-overclocked and essentially outdated AMD cpu's in lfr performing extremely well, even with bargain bin GPU's behind them.

    But if you must break it down numbers wise instead of just looking at how the game actually plays, here you go:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-15.html

    Sure the AMD processors finish behind the Intels, but when you're talking about the difference between 90 something fps vs. 80 something fps...is that really such an incredibly game breaking lack of performance that you should overspend on your cpu, especially when the AMD will handle so many other computing tasks better than the Intel? Honestly when you're up at that amount of fps, what's the difference? The only reason to spend the extra on an Intel would be just because you have some kind of bee in your bonnet mentally telling you that you NEED those extra 7 or 8 fps to be happy.

    I admit I'm by no means an authority on the subject, but just as somebody who's kind of on the outside looking in, I don't feel the need to spend an extra $100 to have the game at 100 fps vs. 86 fps. Honestly I can't even tell the difference between 100 and 86 fps.

  13. #13
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoZ View Post
    I posted multiple examples above of non-overclocked and essentially outdated AMD cpu's in lfr performing extremely well, even with bargain bin GPU's behind them.

    But if you must break it down numbers wise instead of just looking at how the game actually plays, here you go:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-15.html

    Sure the AMD processors finish behind the Intels, but when you're talking about the difference between 90 something fps vs. 80 something fps...is that really such an incredibly game breaking lack of performance that you should overspend on your cpu, especially when the AMD will handle so many other computing tasks better than the Intel? Honestly when you're up at that amount of fps, what's the difference? The only reason to spend the extra on an Intel would be just because you have some kind of bee in your bonnet mentally telling you that you NEED those extra 7 or 8 fps to be happy.

    I admit I'm by no means an authority on the subject, but just as somebody who's kind of on the outside looking in, I don't feel the need to spend an extra $100 to have the game at 100 fps vs. 86 fps. Honestly I can't even tell the difference between 100 and 86 fps.
    well yes that is true to an extend there isn't a single good raid benchmark for wow 25man. (im still speaking from my exp during cata i've seen nobody survive ultraxion 25 man without dropping below 60 fps no matter what chip they used)
    it is good that you don't stare blindly at numbers but around here info piles up pretty solid. It has however been proven quite some times that blizzard favors intel/nvidia chips due to engine design.
    only way to get close to 25man raid performance is to subtract +-40-50% of those benchmarks to account 25man raiding however this is by no means more then a guesstimate.
    In the end wow is an old game/engine and just doesn't scale well with hardware in quite some cases. (however it can still be very demanding when completely maxed out setting wise)

  14. #14
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    well yes that is true to an extend there isn't a single good raid benchmark for wow 25man. (im still speaking from my exp during cata i've seen nobody survive ultraxion 25 man without dropping below 60 fps no matter what chip they used)
    it is good that you don't stare blindly at numbers but around here info piles up pretty solid. It has however been proven quite some times that blizzard favors intel/nvidia chips due to engine design.
    only way to get close to 25man raid performance is to subtract +-40-50% of those benchmarks to account 25man raiding however this is by no means more then a guesstimate.
    In the end wow is an old game/engine and just doesn't scale well with hardware in quite some cases. (however it can still be very demanding when completely maxed out setting wise)
    Yea I can understand all of that, but to me the bottom line, after all the numbers have been crunched and all the fanboyism has been argued, is how the game actually looks when you fire it up on your system and play. If the videos I posted are any indication, I don't see why anybody would be unhappy with the performance of AMD processors in WoW, especially considering none of the examples I linked are overclocked and it's a low-end gpu being used, and when you consider that a lot of WoW players are like me, in that WoW is the only game I play and I'm not really that much of a hardcore gamer, so a budget AMD system would serve me exceptionally well.

  15. #15
    Herald of the Titans shroudster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    netherlands
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoZ View Post
    Yea I can understand all of that, but to me the bottom line, after all the numbers have been crunched and all the fanboyism has been argued, is how the game actually looks when you fire it up on your system and play. If the videos I posted are any indication, I don't see why anybody would be unhappy with the performance of AMD processors in WoW, especially considering none of the examples I linked are overclocked and it's a low-end gpu being used, and when you consider that a lot of WoW players are like me, in that WoW is the only game I play and I'm not really that much of a hardcore gamer, so a budget AMD system would serve me exceptionally well.
    true but just to take some numbers from the last vid, fps drops to 10 at certain effects and average is +-25. (just observing)
    whilst it still looks good such fps levels aren't really acceptable when you can play better. (i was held back by hardware for a few weeks due to a RMA , i easily lost that performance edge ingame)
    the 7770 is the perfect gpu for systems with a +- 300 W psu, cpu department just matters the most and amd either dropped the ball on that aspect or something else.
    if the OP wants to define smoothness @ultra but so far im going for no dips below 30 fps as a minimum. (OP could try to upgrade upgrade to the latest piledriver but no way to be certain if it can keep up on the smoothness)
    perhaps the op is between casual/hardcore in because i've known no if any casuals that come around here to specificly ask for ultra settings and actually provide the proper budget for it. (in that aspect it seems the op is not simply casual only)

  16. #16
    Sadly none of those videos seems to be recorded in 1920x1080 or on any intense boss fights.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  17. #17
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by n0cturnal View Post
    Sadly none of those videos seems to be recorded in 1920x1080 or on any intense boss fights.
    Not sure what you mean by intense boss fights, both of the LFR videos are from the current tier in 25 man.

    And I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that screen res has more to do with gpu than cpu?

    And here's one of the 4100 of LFR 25 man (from Dragon Soul, granted, not Mists, but still) with a 6870, running at a perfectly fine frame rate on Warlord Zon'ozz which is a pretty "intense" fight graphically:



    If Bulldozer could do it, no reason to believe that Vishera can't, especially through FRAPS.
    Last edited by RicardoZ; 2013-01-30 at 12:46 PM.

  18. #18
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Why is everyone always so quick te defend a brand. We're not saying AMD is bad, we're saying that relatively, in WoW, Intel has the better performance.
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62 All you need to look at.

    Resolution indeed has got nothing to do with the CPU. That's why they test CPU's at 800x600, to prevent bottleneck.

  19. #19
    Herald of the Titans RicardoZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Majesticii View Post
    Why is everyone always so quick te defend a brand. We're not saying AMD is bad, we're saying that relatively, in WoW, Intel has the better performance.
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62 All you need to look at.

    Resolution indeed has got nothing to do with the CPU. That's why they test CPU's at 800x600, to prevent bottleneck.
    I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that when you look at the benchmarks, do you really need to spend an extra $100 to have 119 fps vs. 91 fps. Really...what's the difference? Honestly anything above 50 is fine with me. I think a lot of it is psychological. People want to have the "best" so they spend extra money just to assure themselves of that, when from an actual gameplay perspective, there is little difference as I've demonstrated in the videos above.

  20. #20
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by RicardoZ View Post
    I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that when you look at the benchmarks, do you really need to spend an extra $100 to have 119 fps vs. 91 fps. Really...what's the difference? Honestly anything above 50 is fine with me. I think a lot of it is psychological. People want to have the "best" so they spend extra money just to assure themselves of that, when from an actual gameplay perspective, there is little difference as I've demonstrated in the videos above.
    Because it's not 100 extra. In fact, intel offers more performance for less.
    For example, using the anandtech link.
    Fx-6300, which retails for 120 euro in netherlands, has 79.4 fps.
    i3-2100, which retails for 105 euro in netherlands, has 94.1 fps.

    That's why i said, relatively. And don't give the old 'anything above x is fine, do you need more'. If you're buying a CPU, you want to buy the best bang for buck. And what brand to use shouldn't be included in the choice by default, atleast not as a higher reason than performance/price. If all he plays is WoW, and he wants more performance, he's best off using an intel CPU.
    Last edited by Majesticii; 2013-01-30 at 01:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •