Upgrading computer for modded Skyrim

[triptonite]

I had a friend help me build a computer five years ago that really needs to be updated for modded Skyrim. I live in Broken Hill, Australia and have no access to decent advice. My specs are (that I know of):

 

Processor: Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz 3.17 GHz

Asus P5Q-PRO 4.00GB RAM 64-bit Operating System Dual Core Processing

466 GB Hard Disk

Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT graphics card

NZXT case with extra fans (gets hot in Broken Hill)

Windows 7 Ultimate OS

I am thinking of getting an Nvidia 700 series graphics card. I want to know how to upgrade my computer gradually and in what order should I buy the upgraded gear.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[ermacos]

u need a 3-4gigs gpu for modds, its not only skyrim but also feature games that will support mods. Such us dragon age, fallout 4, etc. But if you get a modern gpu, it will may bottleneck with the cpu. Your cpu cannot handle 6 or 7 series of nvidia gpus.

 

Here is a link of your cpu versus an amd one... The amd one is a bad cpu and it bottlenecks, your cpu is bellow that.. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/534/AMD_A10-Series_A10-6800K_vs_Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8500.html

 

I would suggest you to begin with motherboard, cpu and ram... then gpu. In 5-6 months the 8xx series of nvidia gpus coming out.

 

here is my suggestion... for a low budget excelent gaming performance.

 

1) A z87 motherboard (z87 is the best chipset for gaming in the current gen) and an i5 4670k cpu (if you want more horse power, then go for an I7) and get 8 gigs of ddr3 ram.

 

2) a gtx 770 or wait for 870

Edited November 9, 2013 by ermacos

[triptonite]

Thanks for the heads up. I thought as much.

[nukafish]

Okay, your system seems pretty old, I'd start with a new CPU/Motherboard and RAM, 2x4GB at 1333Mhz/1600Mhz with a CAS of 9 or below, it is the common preference of RAM, manufacturer doesn't really matter, I'd go with Corsair for warranty if you're truly worried.

Overclocking? Yes? z87 motherboard.

Not overclocking and no plans to? H87, H81, H81, or B85 motherboard.

 

If you plan to overclock, you will need a z87 motherboard and a CPU with an unlocked multiplier, i.e. 'k' skew CPUs such as a 4670k, getting an i7 like a 4770k would be futile as it will offer you little to no performance gain in gaming.

 

If it is truly hot where you are you should get a Hyper 212 EVO, it's a very good budget cooler, overclocking or not, it will be useful as Haswell (4xxx Intel CPUs) run very hot due to bad thermal paste between the IHS.

Optionally, you can get a 3570(k) (last gen) with a z77/H77/etc. motherboard. Ivy Bridge (3xxx Intel CPUs) are still relevant, as well as it's previous generation Sandy Bridge. They don't run as hot as Haswell, but I don't think heat will really be an issue with a good CPU cooler.

 

 

If you're on a budget, go with a system not for overclocking, 4570 is close to the 4670(k) in performance, as does the 3470 vs 3570(k).

 

For a GPU,

 

Will you be gaming on one monitor at 1080p or below? 7870 XT or a 270x from AMD

If you'll be using more than one monitor, a 7970/280x (AMD), you could also go with a 4GB 770 (NIVIDA), though NVIDIA tends to be a bit more expensive.

 

If it is within budget, you can always grab an R9 290 from AMD, or a GTX 780 from NVIDIA.

Edited November 9, 2013 by nukafish

[Werne]

Tell you what, if you're on a budget and have the nerve to fiddle with BIOS, disregard the above and go with AMD. FX 8320 is a downclocked 8350, with a bit of tweaking here and there it comes close to an i5 3570K in per-core, and costs nearly 1/2 the price. CPU matters less than GPU when it comes to games, and you may wish to go with multi-threading (like octa-core FX or Intel i7) since newer games will be made to use 8 threads.

A decent AMD 970 mobo on which you can overclock is some 100$, an aftermarket cooler is another 50$. The additional mobo/cooler expense is the same since Intel's Ivy Bridge/Haswell tend to get hotter than AMD's flagship (Intel uses thermal compound since Ivy Bridge and AMD solders their FX series).

Performance, my FX 8320 runs Skyrim smoothly and additional 15FPS when it comes to over 100FPS averages is completely irrelevant. Not to mention the next-gen games will be designed to take full advantage of the Bulldozer architecture (consoles run on octa-core AMD Jaguars), so Intel vs AMD may come to be equal in terms of gaming performance then (it's already trailing not far behind i7 in programs optimized for K10).

Graphics, disregard ermacos's advice on graphics memory, my 1GB 7770 can chug any graphics mods as long as the GPU core can take it. Thing is, the stuff that can't fit in VRAM gets stored in system RAM and system RAM measures file transfer speed in tens of GB/s, there is no bottleneck. Put simply, when you can't afford an expensive gaming card with crap ton of VRAM, RAM becomes the poor man's video memory (and it's dirt cheap). Listen to nukafish though, if you can't afford any of those cards, try getting a Sapphire 7850, even if it's a used one. That one is a hell of an overclocker that can surpass a stock 7870.

Here is a link of your cpu versus an amd one... The amd one is a bad cpu and it bottlenecks, your cpu is bellow that.. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/534/AMD_A10-Series_A10-6800K_vs_Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8500.html

You're comparing a low-end APU to a high-end Core 2 Duo, then yapping how it performs bad? Now I'm sure you're a fanboy. Why not compare it to FX 8350? No, let's be fair, let's compare CPUs in the same price range, like the FX 8320 versus i3-3240.

FX 8320 is a downclocked AMD flagship and A10-6800K is full-budget solution, they both cost the same. A-series are CPU+GPU, and that CPU you linked performs like a high-end Core 2 Quad (a bit slower than FX 4350 and i3 3220), can be overclocked to infinity and beyond due to being fully unlocked (I've seen those go over 5GHz without a problem), and features Radeon 7750/7770-like graphics integrated into the processor dye which can be crossfired with a dedicated video card (like Radeon 7750 and 7770) for additional performance boost. For a low-price budget solution, it's pretty darn good, an i3 can mop the floor with Skyrim and so can any of the AMD FX series and high-end APUs.

Bottlenecks? AMD FX bottlenecks a high-end Crossfire/SLI configuration, I'm yet to see it bottleneck a single-card other than 7990/690. The A-series do bottleneck since they're budget CPU/GPU which suffers a bit from the iGPU, but they can also be overclocked like crazy to alleviate the issue and run cool. Power draw (since I know you like to yap about it)? Gaming machines use some 600W and more when we remove CPU power draw, another 40W is irrelevant.

 

And by the way guys, high-end i5s may be budget to you, but that CPU costs nearly as much as my entire PC around here. :blink:

Edited November 9, 2013 by Werne

[Thor.]

Cheers for Werne, go Werne go..

 

We need a price point and budget first. :smile:

[Werne]

Cheers for Werne, go Werne go..

 

We need a price point and budget first. :smile:

We don't know what the budget is, the guy might be able to buy a 1100$ i7-4930MX, but he hasn't stated how much money is he willing to spend. 500$? 700$? 10,000$? Unknown.

 

And why are you cheering? :blink:

 

 

 

And I forgot to mention about the gradual update OP asked - the first thing I'd go with is RAM. It's cheap, easy to acquire/install and is universal, meaning you can transfer it to your new PC. 8GB should be enough but if you have 4 memory slots, you can get 2x4GB and extend what you already have to 12GB, that should rock you through the current-gen console era. Not sure which speed your current RAM is, so if you want to extend what you have, I can't comment on that until I know the specs.

 

After that, I'd go with a bigger HDD, games nowadays tend to use a lot of space, mods use a lot of space too, it won't be long till you need more storage. 1TB drives are cheap nowadays, there are Samsung drives which I've heard are pretty good and cheap, and there's WD Blue, Black is a tad faster and a lot noisier, but not worth the price in my opinion. If you can afford an SSD, go for it, it'll reduce loading times and boot time, but if you don't mind that, you'll save some money.

 

Graphics card is something that can be used in your PC until you make a switch. Since AMD released their R9 series, they are the budget solution, you get a lot of bang-for-buck. If you can afford it, I'd go with R9 290, the X is more expensive and 5% faster overall (those two are on-par with 780), 780 Ti will be over 600$ and will be even faster, but you pay for premium. If you don't have money for those, an R9 280 and 270X should suffice. If you don't have money for them either, Sapphire 7850 is a monster that can be overclocked and allows voltage manipulations, avoid XFX 7850 since it doesn't have voltage tweaking, some board revision thing. Not sure about your budget so I don't know how much you can invest in a card.

 

CPU/mobo/cooler are the last on the list, those aren't something you can upgrade gradually (cooler is though). As I said already, go for multithreading, single-core dependency is slowly dying with the multi-threaded consoles and parallel computing. An i5 3570K and 4670K (plus those without a K) are decent CPUs, not high-end like i7s but it's great for older games, some new ones like Battlefield need more cores though and will run better on i7/FX 83xx. AMD FX 8320 is a great budget component, easy to overclock and gives great bang-for-buck, the 8350 on the other hand is an overpriced flagship, might reach a higher clock though but that depends on the specific chip. While FX are good, that doesn't mean there isn't better. If you have the money, go for an i7 3770K or 4770K (or those without a K), it might not beat the FX in multithreading by a large margin but it has powerful per-core performance and is a good CPU, quite expensive though. If you have money, go with i7, if you don't, go with i5 or FX, you'll be able to afford a better card then.

 

Mobo, nukafish has it covered for Intel, I'll cover for AMD AM3+. There's the 970 and 990 chipset, the difference is that 990 has much better support for SLI/Crossfire (2xPCI-E x16) while higher-end 970 mobos have a PCI-E x16 and PCI-E x4 Crossfire/SLI, which translates to 2xPCI-E x8, 1/2 the bandwidth. 990 chipset mobos are also more expensive and theoretically allow for better overclocking, but that's been disproved since high-end 970 mobos can achieve high overclocks without a problem as well. If you intend to get AMD and don't need Crossfire/SLI, go for 970 chipset, it's cheaper and performs just as well, but if you want Crossfire/SLI, go for 990 chipset which is more expensive.

 

Power phase is also important for a mobo, regardless of the CPU manufacturer. An 8+2 will allow better overclocking and longer board lifetime than 8+1, 4+1 or 4+2.

 

Cooler, I'd recommend a Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH for both Intel and AMD, performs better than CM 212 Evo and is pretty damn silent, a bit expensive though but it'll keep the CPU cool even when overclocked. If you don't intend to overclock, or you don't have the money for that thing, CM 212 Evo will perform good, might want to get a different fan if you find the original one noisy. Just don't use the stock cooler, both Intel and AMD stock coolers suck (Intel's because of the TIM, AMD's because of the TDP) and will very likely make the CPU throttle under load.

 

Also, regarding the case, if you don't want to buy a new one, you can modify the old one. I have a 25$ case that came with a PSU (which I threw away), it's some office piece of crap, but with a bit of thinking, drilling and cutting (gotta make holes for fans and improve case airflow), I got a decent gaming case. Might not look like those fancy Cooler Master or Antec gaming cases, but it serves me just as well. I'm mentioning this in case you're looking to save a few bucks and know how to do stuff yourself, modifying the old case is free, buying a new one isn't.

[ermacos]

 

Here is a link of your cpu versus an amd one... The amd one is a bad cpu and it bottlenecks, your cpu is bellow that.. http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/534/AMD_A10-Series_A10-6800K_vs_Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8500.html

You're comparing a low-end APU to a high-end Core 2 Duo, then yapping how it performs bad? Now I'm sure you're a fanboy. Why not compare it to FX 8350? No, let's be fair, let's compare CPUs in the same price range, like the FX 8320 versus i3-3240.

 

FX 8320 is a downclocked AMD flagship and A10-6800K is full-budget solution, they both cost the same. A-series are CPU+GPU, and that CPU you linked performs like a high-end Core 2 Quad (a bit slower than FX 4350 and i3 3220), can be overclocked to infinity and beyond due to being fully unlocked (I've seen those go over 5GHz without a problem), and features Radeon 7750/7770-like graphics integrated into the processor dye which can be crossfired with a dedicated video card (like Radeon 7750 and 7770) for additional performance boost. For a low-price budget solution, it's pretty darn good, an i3 can mop the floor with Skyrim and so can any of the AMD FX series and high-end APUs.

 

Bottlenecks? AMD FX bottlenecks a high-end Crossfire/SLI configuration, I'm yet to see it bottleneck a single-card other than 7990/690. The A-series do bottleneck since they're budget CPU/GPU which suffers a bit from the iGPU, but they can also be overclocked like crazy to alleviate the issue and run cool. Power draw (since I know you like to yap about it)? Gaming machines use some 600W and more when we remove CPU power draw, another 40W is irrelevant.

 

 

 

And by the way guys, high-end i5s may be budget to you, but that CPU costs nearly as much as my entire PC around here. :blink:

Here is a very recent topic in another forum, about my comparison http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1869919/disappointed-gtx-770-installed.html#xtor=EPR-8807

 

Amd cpus are bad and the only good cpu they got, consumes ALLOT of power, so better dont bother calling me funboy, I think you are the funboy... lol

If AMD had good cpus, I would get one myself... but they are far away from it...

 

The newest FX cpu, says its 8 core, but actually can be compared with a 4 core by INTEL... And intel is much better, about 15% in video games.

 

His cpu is somewhat slightly better in single thread executions, but he will still have bottlenecks... Its up to him, he can try it if he can borrow a newer gpu, from a friend 6/7 series of NVIDIA cards and test it...

 

My cpu is not very good as well, for gtx770, I may have bottlenecks and my cpu is i7 870. Look the comparison with my cpu http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/467/Intel_Core_2_Duo_E8500_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-870.html

 

They told me that in overclockers forums.. So I am also trying to upgrade soon as well. Look at the i5 4670k vs my i7 http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/460/Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K_vs_Intel_Core_i7_i7-870.html

Edited November 9, 2013 by ermacos

[Werne]

Here is a very recent topic in another forum, about my comparison http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1869919/disappointed-gtx-770-installed.html#xtor=EPR-8807

*sigh* As I said before, since I obviously need to repeat myself, that APU is a low-end quad-core, the octa-core FX CPUs are superior to it - same per-core performance with about 70% faster multi-threading. My FX 8320 is currently at 4.5GHz which gives it a 25% increase in performance, it's about 12% faster than FX 8350 with Turbo. And that APU is unlocked meaning it can be overclocked, the guy in the thread is keeping it on stock, he'd gain some 20-30% more with overclocking it.

Amd cpus are bad and the only good cpu they got, consumes ALLOT of power, so better dont bother calling me funboy, I think you are the funboy... lol

If AMD had good cpus, I would get one myself... but they are far away from it...

Well, yeah, the FX 9590 draws 200W which is ridiculous, but when you think about it, an FX 8350 at 5GHz draws around 230W, so it is an actual improvement in TDP. FX 9590 is built on modified Piledriver module design of the A10-6800K, which is the reason it can sustain 5GHz without exploding. Speaking of which, you fail to account for one thing - overclocking, Intel "K" CPUs are quite expensive, especially the i7s which are future-proof unlike the i5s. AMD octa-cores can even out the playground due to the fact that they are unlocked, the only thing you need is yank up the clocks. Why do you think AMD is still in business, they make cheap CPUs that overclock well.

 

And I think you mean fanboy, which means being a fan of one brand while taking a dump on the other. No, far from it, I haven't had an AMD CPU before, they were all Intel (Pentium 4, Pentium 4 Northwood, Core 2 Duo E4500). My current PC is the first AMD CPU and system I ever owned. I agree that Intel is better in games, I won't argue with that, but it's not about "better", it's about what graphics card will you be able to afford if you spend a fortune on a CPU and have a set budget. Would you rather play games on i5 3570K and Radeon 7750 or FX 8320 and 7870? I know which I'd pick. That's why my advice is an AMD CPU, at least until we see what the guy's actual budget is.

 

To further explain what I mean by the budget thing and performance, here's a 220$ Intel Core i5 4670K versus an 80$ AMD Athlon II X4 750K:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIT9uLDjZcg

The guy says it himself, there is a bottleneck and the Athlon did perform worse. But for nearly 1/3 the price of the i5 and considering that it has an unlocked multiplier, that CPU is pretty good for a budget build.

 

The newest FX cpu, says its 8 core, but actually can be compared with a 4 core by INTEL... And intel is much better, about 15% in video games.

Octa-core FX beats Intel's i7s in several different tasks, evens things out in some, and craps out in others. It performs quite well in tasks like hashing, compressing, Photoshop, video encoding, etc. AMD has a better implementation of multi-threading, it's just that their cores suck and software often isn't optimized for their modules, if AMD were to have the per-core power of an Intel i5 they'd be kings. FX 9590 on the other hand is pretty damn fast, and can be overclocked even more, but it uses a ludicrous amount of power and generally feels like an overpriced piece of crap. Though I'm pretty much impressed with what they managed to do on a 32nm manufacturing process, FX 9590.

 

And if I may correct you - Intel performs about 15% better in games at the moment. Since the gaming industry is switching to parallel processing (focusing on multi-threading) instead of serial processing (focusing on power-per-core) due to having to make games that run well on consoles (which use octa-core AMD Jaguars based on AMD K10), an AMD octa-core CPU may likely beat quad-core Intels in gaming performance once games are optimized primarily for it. Not sure about i7s but even that's possible with Steamroller coming out next year.

 

Old games will still run the same on Piledrivers though, but when the average framerate is over 60FPS, AMD vs Intel becomes 60FPS vs 60FPS, and that means they run equally good. The guys in benchmarks tend to disable VSync and then people yap how FX has 20FPS lower framerate on a game that runs at 130FPS on Intel, with VSync on a 60Hz monitor that makes no difference what so f***ing ever.

 

 

 

Also, since you've edited your post in the meantime, I'd suggest an i7 4770K over the i5 4670K if you can afford it, sell what you already have if you can't. With an i7 you get 8 threads instead of 4, something next-gen games will require. In case you missed the wall of text above and wonder why 8 threads, the games will be optimized for 8 cores/threads in order to use the console hardware to it's full potential and because of a general switch of software to multi-threading.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Werne

[ermacos]

fx8350 can be compared with i5 4670 (fx is better in video applications).... http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837

 

but cannot be compared with an i7, not even that close... The only thing fx is better, is when you uncompress a zip file.. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836

 

and let's take a look at the other programs, such as 3d modeling...

 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/30

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/42

etc, etc.. so many benchmarks... but we could also check other websites if you wish

 

also photoshop

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25

I use photoshop allot and amd just cant... I will personally go for 4770k cpu. The platform is still new and Intel will release the new ones, next year same date as today... Let's be honest, if the OP wants a cheap solution, yes - AMD is the way to go, but its good for him to make a research for low consumption APU's, because he may pay more money with electricity bills and one that will not bottleneck. If he can afford some more bucks, INTEL is the way to go.

 

4770k cpu consumes 130w full load and thats really good! My current cpu consumes at full load about 260-270w, so I gain up to 150w with 50%-200% better performance. Thats what I call upgrade. Iam going for sli/crossfire this time and low consumption is a must for me. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/107?vs=836

Edited November 9, 2013 by ermacos