Upgrade CPU or video card?

[MonsterBone]

Should I upgrade from Nvidia GTX 460 to Nvidia GTX 670 ($400)

Or upgrade my CPU from i5-2500 (3.3ghz) to i7-2600K ($290) (4.3ghz).

Thoughts?

[Goku]

2500 even not K is still good for the next few years. GTX 670 is the way to go if you have to upgrade. What do you have for a PSU?

[MonsterBone]

Its a Antec TruePower New TP-550 550W

[Rbstr]

Video card for sure. You're getting >50% increase in performance with that.
2500 to 2600 is like 10%, maybe.

Honestly, my rule is to never upgrade within one generation. The soonest you should think about a CPU is Haswell's release next year.

The 670 only takes 20 more watts than the 460. so I think you're fine there unless you have a boatload of hard disks.

[MonsterBone]

I like that rule to never upgrade within 1 generation. Is the 670 the same generation as the 460?

[Ailos]

I like that rule to never upgrade within 1 generation. Is the 670 the same generation as the 460?

No, it is two generations younger, and that IS a worthwhile upgrade.

[Rbstr]

Yeah 460 to 670 is going to be a nice improvement.

Obviously, my rule only applies if you've bought decent stuff to begin with. Dude rolling with a GT 640 might think about a 670 if he wants more.
But I'm not going to go from a 570 to a 670 (a single generation apart, same original market position) unless my card breaks.

[Bags]

Yeah, my 460 did BF3 on medium with some high settings @ 40 - 50 fps, 670 does BF3 on all ultra @ 60 - 83 fps when I had zsync off.

[MonsterBone]

See for me I will never play the game on anything but low graphics with shadows off and I want maximum frames per second. Over 100 would be good.

So 460 or 670 my setup will likely be CPU locked right?

Therefore I might be better with a CPU upgrade.

[Bags]

Upgrading from a 460 to a 670 should be a much bigger upgrade than a 2500 to 2600, but there's no way to be sure until the game ships.

[Vancha]

Upgrading from a 460 to a 670 should be a much bigger upgrade than a 2500 to 2600, but there's no way to be sure until the game ships.
Well there kind of is. A 2500 will be more than good enough for PS2, but if it wasn't, then neither would a 2600...There's barely any way to make an upgrade from a 2500 to a 2600 anything but a waste of money and none of those ways include gaming. A 2600 isn't a big step up. It's tiny.

Also, do you have a 120hz monitor, Monster? Otherwise anything more than 60FPS will, at best, look identical to 60FPS, assuming you don't create tearing.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_9.html

[Bags]

I'd assume he just wants a huge FPS so he never drops below 60 fps in any situation.

But yeah, 2500 - 2600 ain't big at all.

[MonsterBone]

I love playing a game where everything is always smooth.

Its very possible people are going to be disappointed with the jerkiness caused by CPU load when alot of people are on the screen.

Especially those people that have an older generation CPU and buy a new video card.

Comments by the devs hint at this.

[Ailos]

See for me I will never play the game on anything but low graphics with shadows off and I want maximum frames per second. Over 100 would be good.

So 460 or 670 my setup will likely be CPU locked right?

Therefore I might be better with a CPU upgrade.

The E3 demos were running a single 670 at higher than HD. If you're running a 1080p monitor, you will probably need to keep the 670 vsynced.

You don't really need a CPU upgrade because the improvement from the 2500 to 2600k is less than 10% - it won't be a make-it-or-break-it change on any level. I'm not sure where you're getting the 4.3 GHz number for the 2600k, either: Intel's stock settings are 3.4 (3.8 turbo) GHz - so unless you overclock, you only gain 100 MHz. The 2600k DOES have hyperthreading, but we don't know if PS2 will actually be able to use that many threads. If it only uses 2 or 4 threads, it'll perform the same on the 2500 as it does on the 2600k.

[Rbstr]

2500 to 2600 is dumb, you're just wasting money. Do the card upgrade or none at all.

If the 2500 can't handle it the 2600 can't either. In fact, hardly any CPU on the market would be sufficient because those are pretty much at the top of the pile.

[Exmortius]

i5 are still solid for gaming. last i heard the i7s are not a huge bump in performance. the graphics card on the other hand would probably handle a huge chunk of the load. most games don't optimize more than 4 cores. which is why my bulldozer at 8 cores is pretty much not as efficient. i've yet to see the thing bog down since i've had it. things damn stable and solid it would take one hell of a job to slow the cpu down. my vid card is a mid range ati though and it's possible it'll choke if i crank up beta too nice. i'll probably get a really beefy nvidia after beta goes live. but i wanna see how things go. but ya definitely would recommend the vid card over cpu atm.

[Pancake]

I have a i5 2500k and the performance increase I received from overclocking to 4.0 GHz was nice but only added a few fps.

Breaking down the numbers:
CPU Upgrade - $290/10% = $29/1%
GPU Upgrade - $400/50% = $8/1%

Keep in mind that the 670 offers, AT THE VERY MINIMUM, a 50% performance increase over the 460.

[MonsterBone]

At what resolution ? At low settings the bottle neck will switch back to the CPU in this game.

Every review you see out there is done at high resolution for some reason.

At 1028 res this game with alot of people on the screen will be CPU bottle necked. That means that a new card wont help me at all.

I dont like high res in a FPS game if it causes my game not to be crystal smooth.

I am not drinking the coolade.

[Vancha]

Might I suggest you avoid asking for peoples' opinions if you're going to ignore every single one of them?

You have the entirety of the tech forum regulars telling you the 2500 is more than fine for PS2, or that the 2600 is a waste of money and you have yet to explain why it wouldn't be.

Now granted, if you have a 1280x1024 monitor, a 670 will be a sledgehammer to every game you have...Games that ran at sub-60 FPS on your 460 will run 60+ at max settings. However, if you have a 1280x1024 monitor, then you are capped at 60hz. Anything more than 60 FPS will make no difference to you. If you find games smoother at 70FPS, 100FPS or 12000FPS, it's all in your head. "Crystal smooth", for you, is 60FPS.

If you want a CPU upgrade, here's what I suggest...

This (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116491), this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188121) and this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835181017). Overclock it to hell and you'll have your CPU upgrade.

The 2600 will not be the difference between "crystal smooth" and not "crystal smooth", in some games it's actually slower than the 2500.

So, you presented us with a choice between upgrading a 2500 to a 2600 or a 460 to a 670. Given that choice, the 460 to the 670 wins, easily, every time. However, if you're playing at 1280x1024 and you're happy for your game to look horrible, with no plans to upgrade your monitor to a larger resolution model, then maybe you have no use for a 670...But the important thing is, that that then puts it dead equal to the 2600 in terms of what's useful to you.

If after all that you're still determined to purchase a pointless CPU upgrade, buy the 2500k and a decent CPU cooler, then overclock. That way you can imagine your game's running smoother and you'll have at least wasted a little bit less of your hard earned cash.

[Goku]

At what resolution ? At low settings the bottle neck will switch back to the CPU in this game.

Every review you see out there is done at high resolution for some reason.

At 1028 res this game with alot of people on the screen will be CPU bottle necked. That means that a new card wont help me at all.

I dont like high res in a FPS game if it causes my game not to be crystal smooth.

I am not drinking the coolade.

The world has moved on from 15 inch monitors. Most people these days have at least 1680x1050. You are the one putting yourself at the disadvantage due not not having as much of a viewing area TBH.

You game at that resolution with a GTX 460 and plan on running PS2 low settings? You will have more than enough FPS. No reason to get a 670.

Be my guest and drink that coolade of yours and get a 2600 and not notice any difference.

[Greeniegriz]

Upgrade that GPU. That processor is still good!

Cheers,

GG

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Mutant]

The world has moved on from 15 inch monitors. Most people these days have at least 1680x1050. You are the one putting yourself at the disadvantage due not not having as much of a viewing area TBH.



This is exactly the point.

Higher resolution = More information = Advantage.

[Pancake]

Might I suggest you avoid asking for peoples' opinions if you're going to ignore every single one of them?

Anything more than 60 FPS will make no difference to you. If you find games smoother at 70FPS, 100FPS or 12000FPS, it's all in your head. "Crystal smooth", for you, is 60FPS.

So, you presented us with a choice between upgrading a 2500 to a 2600 or a 460 to a 670. Given that choice, the 460 to the 670 wins, easily, every time. However, if you're playing at 1280x1024 and you're happy for your game to look horrible, with no plans to upgrade your monitor to a larger resolution model, then maybe you have no use for a 670...But the important thing is, that that then puts it dead equal to the 2600 in terms of what's useful to you.

If after all that you're still determined to purchase a pointless CPU upgrade, buy the 2500k and a decent CPU cooler, then overclock. That way you can imagine your game's running smoother and you'll have at least wasted a little bit less of your hard earned cash.

Be my guest and drink that coolade of yours and get a 2600 and not notice any difference.

Sometimes people are dead set on a single mindset and are ignorant to the truth around them. We have no business trying to convince people what to buy. We are only here to give our input. It is their money to waste.

To the OP, thanks for giving the Devil Dogs some bad rep...