Old CPU - new GPU

[Enola]

His mobo is AM2+, there's a good chance it actually supports even the newest Phenom X6's so it's not necessarily needed to change mobo.

I don't consider a phenom X6 a good upgrade, and the performance jump not worth around 200€, well from a P1.. maybe but even so mehh, would still be disappointed.
I knew that btw my mobo it's also a AM2+ and supports X6.

[nwo]

Fuck dual 480's, that's just stupid. Just get a sauna stove if that's what you really want, no need to turn your computer into one.

Well, at least you can make your morning cup of tea/coffee without leaving your PC

---------- Post added 2011-03-03 at 05:34 PM ----------

I don't consider a phenom X6 a good upgrade, and the performance jump not worth around 200€, well from a P1.. maybe but even so mehh, would still be disappointed.

Strictly for gaming purposes, it is certainly not the best upgrade for the money. A Phenom II x4 955/965 are much better bang for the buck gaming CPUs.

[Misen]

I don't think anything rivals the heat made from my old P4

[Deleted]

My first purchase back in 2010 was a new GPU. I am running a similar CPU atm until the new mobos come out. 9750 x4 @ 2.4. Took me from Fair to Ultra with the GPU alone. I have a feeling once the new mobo/cpu get put in, my experience is going to skyrocket.

No GPU upgrade can do what you say as you are limited the same way by your CPU with a GTS250 or a GTX580, yeah you can get more shiny stuff with the latter but across the board increase from fair to ultra? Never gonna happen.

[Deafyx]

No GPU upgrade can do what you say as you are limited the same way by your CPU with a GTS250 or a GTX580, yeah you can get more shiny stuff with the latter but across the board increase from fair to ultra? Never gonna happen.

LOL. Do I need to be one that posts my screenshots?

[BicycleMafioso]

LOL. Do I need to be one that posts my screenshots?

No. Spare yourself the humiliation. I doubt you can run ultra with that in a respectable resolution.

[Deafyx]

No. Spare yourself the humiliation. I doubt you can run ultra with that in a respectable resolution.

Lol. 60 FPS in Ultra in 5 mans/10 man raids. The usual 30 FPS while in a congested area like Stormwind at 1920x1080. I am more than happy to post some shots.

EDIT: I am running the 9750 at 2.4 with a GTX 470 by the way. Everything is completely stock. In case you guys think I'm running some different set up.

[noremac]

In my experience GPU upgrades in WoW don't do nearly as much for your FPS as a CPU upgrade would. I went from a Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 3.4 GHz to a i5 2500K at 5.2 GHz and my FPS went from 60 to 160 while using the same GPU. So a gain of 100 FPS just from a CPU upgrade. Clearly my old dual core was holding back my 8800GT, which isn't even a very good GPU to begin with. Also WoW is more optimized towards Intel CPU's than AMD...

Intel:


AMD:


A quad-core AMD CPU seems to be almost equal to just a single core of an Intel CPU while using the same GPU. They go on in that article to say that "Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors" and "That's not to say you can't get playable frame rates from a processor from AMD. But wow--they turn in significantly lower average frame rates in Cataclysm. Like, even the fastest unreleased six-core CPU gets pegged at 60 FPS with a GeForce GTX 480 under the hood." I suggest reading the rest of it here (World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm--Tom's Performance Guide) because it really gives some good info.

When I went from my 8800GT to a GTX560Ti I didn't even gain as much FPS as I gained while upgrading my CPU.

Also getting a SSD to install WoW on will make your load times amazing. You know how you will load into game sometimes in Dalaran and see nobody there? Then all of a sudden their characters start loading in... well with a SSD all their characters already are there by the time you load in.

[Deafyx]

Also getting a SSD to install WoW on will make your load times amazing. You know how you will load into game sometimes in Dalaran and see nobody there? Then all of a sudden their characters start loading in... well with a SSD all their characters already are there by the time you load in.

Does this go for just about any game? Installing it on a SSD to see a performance boost? Or just WoW?

[noremac]

Does this go for just about any game? Installing it on a SSD to see a performance boost? Or just WoW?

Well WoW uses your hard drive a lot to load data like when you load into an instance or when you are logging in. So with all that activity it makes a bigger difference in WoW than most other games. If you were playing a FPS game for example like Call of Duty, you are only really accessing the hard drive to load the map and that is about it. Past that point nothing else really needs to load in the game, unlike WoW where stuff is constantly loading as you move around the world.

[BicycleMafioso]

Also WoW is more optimized towards Intel CPU's than AMD...

Bull. There are absolutely no grounds for that.

[noremac]

Bull. There are absolutely no grounds for that.

Did you not read anything in that link I posted? It is clear that an Intel CPU will yield you better FPS than an AMD CPU.

[BicycleMafioso]

Did you not read anything in that link I posted? It is clear that an Intel CPU will yield you better FPS than an AMD CPU.

Have you not read this forum-part for long enough?
You compare the best processor out there (overclocked even), to a processor who isn't even designed for gaming - at all. They don't even feature the gaming-CPUs from AMD. If it were a fair comparison, it would've been the Phenom II x4 965 vs i5-760 for example.
The Toms Hardware-guide for Cataclysm has been debunked more than 30 times here, and we put no merit to it whatsoever.

[noremac]

Have you not read this forum-part for long enough?
You compare the best processor out there (overclocked even), to a processor who isn't even designed for gaming - at all. They don't even feature the gaming-CPUs from AMD. If it were a fair comparison, it would've been the Phenom II x4 965 vs i5-760 for example.
The Toms Hardware-guide for Cataclysm has been debunked more than 30 times here, and we put no merit to it whatsoever.

I may not have read every single post in this forum but from reading many recent posts that users have made I would have to say that I trust Tom's Hardware more than what they have to say. If someone were to disprove this article I would at least expect them to do all their own testing and come up with different results for me to accept their conclusion. I can't weigh someones opinion with statistics.

Although I do agree that those tests aren't exactly fair, but the point of those specific images I posted was to show how the game scales with x number of cores. So the actual clock speeds of the CPU's are irrelevant, because you aren't comparing them with each other but rather with itself. And what those images are supposed to show is that with 2 cores Intel reaches it's performance threshold of ~103 FPS while AMD continues to benefit from more cores meaning it has a hard time keeping up with the demands of the game.

Also there is no such thing as a "gaming CPU." Just because a CPU has "Extreme Edition" or "Black Edition" in it's name doesn't make it any better for gaming than an Opteron or Xeon CPU (which are dubbed as "server CPU's"). You say that a 965 is a "gaming" CPU yet an 1100T can't be a gaming CPU. When I compare them I see that both are Socket AM3 45nm CPU's that both have the same size 6MB cache while the 965 has a 3.4GHz frequency and 4 cores, the 1100T has a 3.3GHz (3.7GHz turbo mode) frequency and 6 cores. So in reality if you just disabled 2 cores on the 1100T you would have pretty much the same CPU.

Some people say that the 980x is so much better because it has double the cache of the AMD counterpart, and coincidentally has roughly double the FPS too... so maybe that is the reason? Well when I look at these images here:

Note the i5-655K... it has 4MB of cache which is 2MB less than the 1100T and also 2 less cores, yet here is the AMD in comparison:

Now the 1100T also at the same 3.7GHz frequency.

While that may not be the double FPS difference from comparing the 980x and 1100T, it is still 10 FPS different... and that number would only be higher if the 655K had 2 more megs of cache and 2 more cores.

If all that still doesn't convince you, yet another popular site Anandtech nearly confirms those same findings. Their charts show the 980x coming in at 108 FPS, while the 1100T is 79 and the 965 falling behind that at 74. So for the 1100T not being a "gaming CPU" it sure can still hold its weight against what you say is a gaming CPU.

Sadly though not many sites seem to write up articles on hardware comparisons for WoW as they do with other popular titles. I am guessing it is due to the fact that it is an old title and people care more about seeing tests run for the hottest new games like COD: Black Ops and BF:BC2.

However if someone did their own testing in efforts to debunk these other claims I will gladly read and evaluate what they have to say, but if someone didn't put in the time and effort as these reputable websites than I can't weigh their claims equally unless they put in equal effort.

[Deleted]

Well, I myself have a really old CPU with an alright graphic card (Athlon 4000+ and HD4800 series, can't remember exactly which one). Most games work alright with no real lag, but those game which do lag, lags because of the CPU. WoW suffers the most from this. So well, the first thing I'm gonna replace is my CPU and I'd suggest you to do the same!

[iidesu]

You would be bottlenecked by your CPU yes... depending on what your current GPU is it might be an upgrade, but the CPU will hold you back, especially in WoW.

couldn't agree more. That's it.

[nwo]

Have you not read this forum-part for long enough?
You compare the best processor out there (overclocked even), to a processor who isn't even designed for gaming - at all. They don't even feature the gaming-CPUs from AMD. If it were a fair comparison, it would've been the Phenom II x4 965 vs i5-760 for example.
The Toms Hardware-guide for Cataclysm has been debunked more than 30 times here, and we put no merit to it whatsoever.

OK here:


As you can see, Intel is far ahead of AMD when it comes to WoW performance, even then i3 2100 outperforms all of AMD's "gaming" CPUs as you like to call them.

Saying that the new AMD hexa cores are not gaming CPUs is complete bull, they are just a little more expensive than the quad cores, but their gaming performance is roughly the same (at the same frequency).

---------- Post added 2011-03-04 at 10:38 AM ----------

I play lots of different games, so it's not just WoW I was thinking about.

My current GPU is Nvidia Geforce GT 230.

Once again, OP has a budget card and doesn't use his computer just for playing WoW. Bottom line is that the graphics card upgrade will allow him to go from low/med to high/highest settings in nearly every game.

[Jurwi]

Bull. There are absolutely no grounds for that.

It's not exactly optimized no. Intel CPU's just are a lot more powerful in general clock by clock than AMD, that's the reason. Not any WoW specific optimizations.

---------- Post added 2011-03-04 at 11:50 AM ----------

Have you not read this forum-part for long enough?
You compare the best processor out there (overclocked even), to a processor who isn't even designed for gaming - at all. They don't even feature the gaming-CPUs from AMD. If it were a fair comparison, it would've been the Phenom II x4 965 vs i5-760 for example.
The Toms Hardware-guide for Cataclysm has been debunked more than 30 times here, and we put no merit to it whatsoever.

Yes it is kind of silly comparison, considering its like 600€ Intel vs 200€ AMD CPU, but that's how it is with cheaper Intels as well. Sandy Bridges for example just wipe the floor with any Phenom when talking about WoW performance.

Phenom II x6's are just as good for gaming as any other Phenom, even better is many cases, so I don't see why would you go around saying it's not made for gaming.

[noremac]

Phenom II x6's are just as good for gaming as any other Phenom, even better is many cases, so I don't see why would you go around saying it's not made for gaming.

I don't get this either but people continue to do it. If something is marketed well enough for gaming they will believe that is all it can do, and if something doesn't have that marketing than they think it isn't meant for gaming at all. It makes sense really since all the Phenom quad cores are always combined with gaming while the hexa core are always combined with multitasking and CPU intensive applications, but it doesn't mean they don't work at all vice-versa.