Possible upgrades?

[WastelandLoner]

Hi, I was hoping somebody may be able to give me some advice. I dont really know much about computers and thier parts, my brother used to handle it all, but he is away at uni.

I recently upgraded my graphics card from ati radeon 4890 to nvidia gtx 770 (which my brother assured me was a good move) but i havent noticed too much improvement, in fact fallout new vegas started to completly lock up from time to time requiring a total reboot. I also recently tried enhanced weather mod for FO3, and had a noticable performance drop during rain. All of the drivers are installed and up to date. I am considering reverting back to the radeon but am curious if maybe something else is holding me back.

 

My specs are:

AMD Phenom II x4 955

processor

3.21ghz, 3.25gb ram

motherboard 790fx-gd70

psu enermax revolution 85+

gpu gtx 770

 

if that means anything to anyone, does anything in particular stand out?

Thanks in advance

 

[kalikka]

1. RAM: Check if you run out of it while gaming. This is what I'm expecting to be the bottleneck, 3,25gb is not enough for many games.

2. CPU: Check if you run out of CPU-power.

3. Raw graphics performance difference between the cards in 1680x1050p:

 

If GTX770 is 100%.

Then the HD4890 is 40,5%.

Source: [1], [2], [3]

 

So something is very wrong if you don't see the difference.

Make sure you have a clean install of the drivers. Everything goes all wonky when you don't remove the old drivers completely.

Edited October 23, 2013 by kalikka

[Rennn]

A GTX 770 is way ahead of a 4890.

 

Your RAM is quite bad. Upgrade to 8 GB. It should only cost about $50.

 

Your CPU is the same as mine, meaning it's relatively weak, so if performance doesn't improve from upgrading your RAM, it's likely the bottleneck.

[Werne]

1. RAM: Check if you run out of it while gaming. This is what I'm expecting to be the bottleneck, 3,25gb is not enough for many games.

2. CPU: Check if you run out of CPU-power.

3. Raw graphics performance difference between the cards in 1680x1050p:

 

If GTX770 is 100%.

Then the HD4890 is 40,5%.

Source: [1], [2], [3]

 

So something is very wrong if you don't see the difference.

Make sure you have a clean install of the drivers. Everything goes all wonky when you don't remove the old drivers completely.

1. New Vegas and FO3 (both of which he has problems with) run fine on total of 2GB RAM (my old PC), so you can scrap RAM issues with 3.25GB.

 

 

2. I had a C2D E4500 which ran them fine so the sheer CPU power is not the problem. But it could be that the CPU is bottlenecking the graphics card, it's an old, cheap CPU on stock with a beast of a card and you can expect issues with a setup like that. Those old Phenoms are still pretty good in a lot of games, by that I mean overclocked BE models, and you can't expect it to handle that card on stock.

 

You see, the CPU processes information which it then feeds to the GPU, then the GPU uses that information to draw a frame onto the monitor. All that is done in a single-threaded CPU process and the CPU must finish it's task before the information can be fed to the GPU, so if the CPU computes too slow, the framerate is lower since the card can only draw X number of frames due to lack of information. You have two ways that can work:

 

a) If a card is faster than the CPU, the process will use 100% CPU power but the card will operate slower due to the fact that CPU doesn't compute fast enough. (not good)

 

b) If a CPU is faster than the card, the card will operate at peak performance while the CPU will have some breathing space. (good)

 

The desired result is b, because that way all components work at peak performance. The unwanted result is a, because all components perform sub-par. You can't just pair any card with any CPU, you need to pair a high-end card with a high-end CPU. Phenom II X4 955 is not a high-end CPU, GTX 770 is a high-end card.

 

 

3. Yup, the GTX 770 is waaay ahead of the 4890, I'd say some 2X faster, likely more. The old Radeon driver could be a part of the problem though, Nvidia cards don't like the residual AMD drivers, and vice-versa.

 

@WastelandLoner Get this and wipe the PC clean of the old Radeon driver, I found this utility working quite well for purging the driver. Purge the Nvidia driver completely as well, reboot and reinstall the driver for your card. If there's no change, that leaves the CPU as the culprit, which can be checked by overclocking it and seeing if the performance gets higher.

[WastelandLoner]

Thanks for the input, i didnt mention in my first post but i use windows xp, which i understand can only use 3.25gb ram anyway, also that link is not compatible. Could this be a cause? I suppose i need to get with the times.

If i was to go for a cpu upgrade, can you recommend anything? money is not major problem, although lets not overkill.

 

I appreciate all the help.

[Werne]

Yeah, XP can't use more than 3.25GB RAM, not even with PAE, you really should get a 64-bit Windows since 32-bit are starting to go extinct with new hardware. The games and driver shouldn't have issues with it though.

 

As for CPUs, Intel i5 3570K are the mainstream gaming CPUs with AMD FX Piledrivers following as budget gaming CPUs. i5 will run pretty much anything you throw at it while FX usually need overclocking for more CPU-intensive games (though for FNV and FO3, you don't have to overclock).

 

When it comes to Intel, an i5 3570S and 3570 seem to be winners in price/performance, 3570S performs a tad worse than i5 3570K, they are both cheaper (about 50$ cheaper), 3570S is 65W TDP while 3570K and 3570 are 77W TDP and 3570S features some additional security features. On the other hand, the 3570K performs a tad better out-of-the-box, it can be overclocked for greater performance once it becomes inadequate and it has better integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000 compared to Intel HD 2500). Intel CPUs run relatively cool (the i5 3570K has a crappy cooler so you might want to get an aftermarket one), have better per-core performance and use less power than AMD CPUs.

 

On the AMD side, there's the Piledriver FX series (the 43xx/63xx/83xx series), don't even bother looking at the APUs since those perform worse than your Phenom. The FX series have a worse per-core performance than Intel CPUs (even Pentium G2xxx is faster in per-core), but AMD's octa-cores like FX 8320/8350 are pretty decent in multi-threading. The octa-cores can pretty much match, even beat the i5 3570 in per-core performance, but for that it requires disabling modules (making the CPU a "true quad-core"), power-saving features also need to be disabled and the CPU needs to be overclocked. Downside - power consumption and heat, you need an aftermarket cooler and the CPU is 125W TDP on stock, it uses even more power once overclocked.

 

 

 

So, if you play older games and have no intention to overclock, get i5 3570. If you want to overclock, get 3570K. If you have money to burn, get i7 3770/3770K which feature 8 threads (meaning they're more future-proof). If you don't have money for Intel quad-cores, get an FX 83xx and learn how to overclock.

 

Note: Low-voltage RAM is recommended for Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs, like 1.25V/1.35V. Also, it may be possible to simply upgrade the PC with an AMD FX without swapping any components except the CPU, but for that you'll need to post your motherboard model, and that's only if you wish to actually get an FX.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Werne

[kalikka]

H87 mobo and xeon 1230v3. No need to go i7.

[Werne]

H87 mobo and xeon 1230v3. No need to go i7.

I've seen you mentioning that Xeon saves money several times when i7's are talked about, but I was too lazy to reply. So here it is now - that Xeon actually doesn't save money. The performance difference between that Xeon and i7 3770K on stock is insignificant, price difference is some 100$ up-front, that's all true.

 

But lack of overclocking on the Xeon means that you need to change your mobo+CPU once the CPU can no longer handle the load, while 3770K can keep running the games for another year or two, maybe three, after being overclocked. So, 350$ now, 350$ after three years, 350$ after 6 years in Xeon's case, or 450$ now and 450$ after 5-6 years in i7's case, makes your momentarily 100$ save into 150$ expense after some time, even larger expense in a longer period of time. A CPU that can be overclocked will always beat the same CPU that can't be overclocked when it comes to performance, over time it even beats it in price due to it's performance longevity that extends through overclocking, it's simple as that.

 

Besides, the i5 3570K is even cheaper and it can be overclocked easily, not to mention nearly no games today use 8 threads, so there really is no practical use for an i7/Xeon except for work with multi-threaded programs and software compiling (the only use for the extra 4 threads on my FX 8320 is when I compile software). There might be use for such a CPU in the future games, but not for most games in the current game generation or older.

[kalikka]

It all depends on the user. Most ppl are "I will never ever OC in my life" kind of users so the xeon wins.

 

Good example is the OP who is still using XP even though he has had the opportunity to upgrade to vista/7/8. 90% of that kind of ppl will never OC.

 

And do not forget that you need 50$ cooler with the K CPU for OC.

So if you want to OC you need:

1. 50$ cooler

2. Z87 mobo with decent VRM (50-100$ increase in price)

3. 4770K model CPU (100$ increase in price)

And that adds up to 200$-250$ price difference.

Edited October 24, 2013 by kalikka

[FMod]

But lack of overclocking on the Xeon means that you need to change your mobo+CPU once the CPU can no longer handle the load, while 3770K can keep running the games for another year or two, maybe three, after being overclocked.

Haswells don't really overclock anyway.

Just in from a recent test, 23% out of several batches of i7-4770K CPU tested could beat 4.3 GHz in a short test under light load, despite excellent motherboard, cooling, professional handling, etc.

 

Stable under heavy load with ordinary cooling and skill you're talking under 4.2, really 4 GHz and a bit range.

 

Also, overclocking will not extend the useful life of your CPU.

It could have a decade ago. Not today. We're not talking Pentium 100 to Pentium 233.

 

Single-core performance is not increasing anymore. What CPU gain in architecture, they lose in clock rate. If your CPU at a later date becomes inadequate, it will be because either:

1) It doesn't have enough cores

2) It doesn't support new instructions

 

The 10% gain you get from overclocking is not going to compensate for having 4 cores instead of 8 or even just 6.

 

So for both scenarios, Xeon 1230v3 wins. Haswell's got newer instructions and its hyperthreading works better. Also, unlike "K" models, TSX-NI and VT-d are enabled on Xeons. Long-term, it will do a better job of keeping up with new AMDs and pretending to have 8 cores.