Yet another post about GPU upgrades(or possibly CPUs)

HiggsBp · May 21, 2014

So I am looking to invest in some new hardware to boost the performance of Skyrim. My current rig is:

Operating System: Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit

Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 965 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.4GHz

Memory: 12288MB RAM DDR3

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti(x2 SLI)

PSU: Corsair 850W

So I am fairly sure, at least from what I have gathered from reading a lot, that my GPUs are currently the bottleneck. Also when testing Skyrim using SPM I find that I easily max out the VRAM on my GPUs, though they are still only hitting about 60%-70% of their maximum load. I have read however that Skyrim can be CPU intensive and I know that my CPU is getting on in years. Testing shows that it currently maxes out at 70% percent, though given the way Skyrim uses multicore CPU's this may still mean that I am maxing out the cores that the system is utilizing.

So do you guys think I need to go with CPU or GPU. If it is CPU should I finally bite the bullet and switch to INTEL or would it be better(money wise) to go with the top AMD processor. If it is the GPU what would you guys recommend, NVIDIA or AMD. I have always been an NVIDIA guy since I had heard of lots of people having problems with AMD but I have heard good things about AMD over the past few years regarding their GPUs and I am open to switching.

Also I have a budget of around $400. Thanks for reading guys and I look forward to hearing what you think

FMod · May 21, 2014

Yeah, your video setup is pretty screwed up. While 1GB VRAM isn't necessarily a bottleneck in vanilla or lightly modded (no huge HD packs) Skyrim, it may limit performance.

A worthwhile intel cpu setup will set you back the whole $400. Will it be a whole lot of gain? Back in 2500k days, I'd say keep the Phenom, but new intels actually have gained a good bit of speed in Skyrim.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/61451-intel-haswell-i7-4770k-i5-4670k-review-18.html

Your CPU is a bit faster than the 945 in their test, but still it's an easy +80% gain from 4770K. From an i5, something like +60%. FX-8320 is a much cheaper but much smaller gain at maybe +25%.

Upgrading to GTX 770 should produce leaps of difference in average fps, and it's only $300.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133490

That said, you'll want to look forward to a CPU upgrade if you like to run gameplay mods.

IF you have a new chipset like 990FX, FX-8320 may be a viable upgrade, else there just isn't much choice but to wait till you can afford a Z97 or whatever platform.

HiggsBp · May 21, 2014

First off thank you for responding.

First thing which I should have mentioned, is that yes I do run with a good bit of texture mods installed. I try to avoid the highest resolution as I am aware of the performance problems but still even the low ones surely tax the system more than any of Beth's standard textures Secondly another thing I forgot to mention is that my MOBO is AMD 990FX(AM3+) which is what I assume you mean when referring to the 990FX and Z97.

So it sounds like I really need both but if I had to choose one then I should probably go with the graphics card for now. One follow up question though, do you think I should go with a card, like the one you linked with 2 GB and buy the new AMD processor, which would put me $100 over what I was planning on spending but that's not horrible since I use my PC for about everything so its not just a gaming investment for me. Or should I find a graphics card with 3GB of memory for a little more. I am not sure how much of a difference that extra 1GB would make in terms of performance.

FMod · May 21, 2014

Just please don't refer to video cards as "gigabytes". If all they needed was to hold VRAM, they'd look just like that - slotted backplanes that you plug VRAM in.

Out of five key specifications of a video card - texel fillrate, pixel fillrate, bandwidth, GFLOPS, memory size - the amount of VRAM is firmly in the 4th-5th place. Even where VRAM does fills up, a faster card with less memory universally beats a slower card with more memory.

Same cards aren't arbitrarily offered with different amounts of VRAM (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3GB, etc), some cards have two options, and for those one is universally optimal.

But sure, if you want 3GB, there are some good cards with that:+

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150706

Actually, speaking of this, R9 290 has 4GB, and it wipes its butt with GTX770.

You said you wanted nvidia, hence I suggested it, but R9 290 vs 770 is never a contest, it beats a 780. With nvidia you can't get 3GB unless you get a 780 that's too slow for the price or a 780Ti that's too expensive.

It is possible to get one for $300 right now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131544

You would have to order tomorrow or so, and you'd have to use the promo code, and actually use the rebate.

This card is louder than a 770, and you can't shop around for a custom cooled one, they usually cost $400+. But it's a lot faster.

HiggsBp · May 22, 2014

I cant thank you enough for your continued response.

Honestly from what you have said it sounds like I should have been asking what is most important to look for in a card, not what card I should get. I know that my knowledge on the subject is lacking and I am sure that is readily apparent. I think I will do some research on the different specs of Video Cards and what they mean for its performance. Hopefully with more understanding of the basics I can have more confidence in the decision I make.

As a final question, do you have an opinion on Nvidia vs. AMD, or is it more on card to card basis and cannot be summed up in such a simple overarching question. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Rennn · May 22, 2014

That depends heavily on what games you run, and on your power supply unit.

Games that make use of PhysX or HBAO (AC4, Metro LL, Batman Arkham) will give Nvidia an edge, and they already usually run cooler and consume less power.

Games not using more advanced effects will be markedly better off on an AMD card, given their better price/performance ratio this gen in most anything else. Since Skyrim doesn't use any Nvidia specific effects, an AMD card will most likely run better. The best cost/performance ratio for Skyrim with graphics mods would be an R9 280X.

Of course, it goes without saying that a decent i5 beats an FX-8350 in most games. In Skyrim, an i5 will beat any AMD CPU by a wide margin. The FX-8320 is the same speed core per core as your Phenom II 965, and would only be a worthwhile upgrade in games using more than 4 cores (which is like a grand total of 3 games right now, and Skyrim is not one of them). Additionally, the AM3+ socket from AMD has no upgrade path; there's no future beyond the FX-8350 that doesn't require better cooling and more expensive motherboards to run.

Also, the R9 290 Fmod recommended has 2 'eggs' on Newegg, with nearly every user complaining that it's dead on arrival and/or breaking. Not a good idea.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Rennn

FMod · May 23, 2014

As to Nvidia vs AMD, for each there are specific games where it does a few % better or a few % worse. Like there are tracks where US cars do better and tracks where Euro cars do better. But there aren't tracks where a Fiesta beats a Ferrari.

Each has its feature sets, a 770 will be quieter and it has PhysX support, a 290 can mine bitcoins. In terms of AO, nothing significant there, HBAO is basically the same as HDAO.

Generally the Nvidia feature set is more valuable to an average user.

Performance-wise, 290 is simply in a higher segment than a 770. For 290 vs 780 that comparison - which is faster where - would apply.

The FX-8320 is the same speed core per core as your Phenom II 965, and would only be a worthwhile upgrade in games using more than 4 cores (which is like a grand total of 3 games right now, and Skyrim is not one of them).

It's not a direct divide-multiply-compare, especially since FX cores are ganged in modules.

According to benchmarks (e.g. here), FX does beat Phenom in Skyrim.

It also does fairly good in other games, particularly new ones. Nowhere as good as a 2500k or better, but, considering consoles and increased multi-threading, it's likely that FX-8320 will remain adequate for a long while.

An upgrade to intel's top i5 will require a new motherboard and a far more expensive CPU, total coming to ~3x the cost of a FX upgrade, even more for an i7.

Also, the R9 290 Fmod recommended has 2 'eggs' on Newegg, with nearly every user complaining that it's dead on arrival and/or breaking. Not a good idea.

You can put about as much trust in any form of stars or eggs or other user ratings as in weather forecasts for a particular day the next year. Users tend to report failures, but the score depends on how many people will decide to report anything else.

From the experience of people moving large numbers of these, there is no statistically discernible difference in DOA rate or general reliability between video card brands since reference designs have been adopted en masse.

There is a difference between low-end/midrange and high-end cards (high-end have much higher failure rates).

There is a difference with motherboards; with HDD, Seagate in particular.

In GPU, there are some specific chips - e.g. GTX570 - known for unusually high failure rate.

There even used to be a difference in brand failure rates in 1995-2005, before reference designs became the norm, back when brands actually designed their PCBs.

So these differences are known where they exist.

The vast majority of video card brands, Powercolor specifically included, don't even have any factories. They're all made by the same ODM factories - Foxconn, Flextronics, Compal, Quanta, etc - complete with shipping box and brand label. Reference designs usually only have one EMS making them.

The card in question is a bog standard reference design with relatively loud reference cooler and nothing at all to set it apart from the crowd. It doesn't have a lower or a higher failure rate than any other reference design R9 290 cards.

Buying the exact same reference card with a different brand name simply because it got more stars/eggs/etc is the same as making sure to rent a room on the 12th or 14th but not 13th floor.

Buying a non-reference card will usually bring improved noise performance (but rarely reliability, except with 570; AMD reference designs have usually been among the most reliable) and often improved clock rate.

Either way will come at a much increased price, making it not an option.