Thinking about getting a new CPU... need some help.

[Atomkilla]

Few months ago I decided to upgrade my PC - sell old parts and buy some new ones - CPU and GPU.
However, my original intention never came to reality because of some unforeseen costs from aside, so I only got my GPU.
Anyway, my current configuration follows:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ 2,7GHz
4.1 GB RAM
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
all running on Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1, 64-bit.

As you can see, the difference between my CPU and GPU is pretty big, so I am thinking about upgrading CPU. Problem is, my motherboard (Biostar N68S+) only supports AMD Phenom II/Athlon II/Sempron Processors, and I frankly have no idea which one I should take.
My friend recommended my either
AMD Athlon II X4 641 4-Core 2.8GHz or
AMD Athlon II X3 460 3-Core 3.4GHz
among others.
The price isn't really low, but it's pretty much the maximum I can go.

So, my question is, which is the best CPU I could get for this amount of money (or maybe less), and moreover, how much of an improvement should I expect over my old CPU.
Also, what do you generally think about my configuration? Should I even upgrade at all?

Thanks.

 

[Token-not-found]

Few months ago I decided to upgrade my PC - sell old parts and buy some new ones - CPU and GPU.
However, my original intention never came to reality because of some unforeseen costs from aside, so I only got my GPU.
Anyway, my current configuration follows:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ 2,7GHz
4.1 GB RAM
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
all running on Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1, 64-bit.

As you can see, the difference between my CPU and GPU is pretty big, so I am thinking about upgrading CPU. Problem is, my motherboard (Biostar N68S+) only supports AMD Phenom II/Athlon II/Sempron Processors, and I frankly have no idea which one I should take.
My friend recommended my either
AMD Athlon II X4 641 4-Core 2.8GHz or
AMD Athlon II X3 460 3-Core 3.4GHz
among others.
The price isn't really low, but it's pretty much the maximum I can go.

So, my question is, which is the best CPU I could get for this amount of money (or maybe less), and moreover, how much of an improvement should I expect over my old CPU.
Also, what do you generally think about my configuration? Should I even upgrade at all?

Thanks.

After searching for ages - i found a very comprehensive list of CPU performance.

Basically - those CPU's are ran the games at maximum settings and at the lowest resolution (to stress CPU even more). Keep that in mind- if you plan to play at medium settings you will likely get at least double the FPS or more listed there.

With that in mind - it has even the old pentium d's-it's awesome - those tomhardware and anadtech jerks only test the newest hardware and have very few tests that compare old CPU's to new ones.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-12/grand-theft-to-iv.html

There are more games tested, scroll down and select.

I am ready to wager that most games older than 2012 work at 25-30 FPS on that CPu, at medium settings, with a good video card.

Also if i were you i would wait for the AMD A-10 to launch before buying- it already has integrated graphics that can easily compete with the mid-ranged graphics cards of the amd 6xxx series .

Basically it allows you to play recent games at medium settings and saves you 100$ on a average video card.

That cpu is only 140$.

God damn AMD should pay me for publicity.

 

[donperkan]

You're good for a while. I have a similar rig, runs all games without problems except those that are poorly made.

 

[Atomkilla]

After searching for ages - i found a very comprehensive list of CPU performance.

Basically - those CPU's are ran the games at maximum settings and at the lowest resolution (to stress CPU even more). Keep that in mind- if you plan to play at medium settings you will likely get at least double the FPS or more listed there.

With that in mind - it has even the old pentium d's-it's awesome - those tomhardware and anadtech jerks only test the newest hardware and have very few tests that compare old CPU's to new ones.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-12/grand-theft-to-iv.html

There are more games tested, scroll down and select.

I am ready to wager that most games older than 2012 work at 25-30 FPS on that CPu, at medium settings, with a good video card.

Also if i were you i would wait for the AMD A-10 to launch before buying- it already has integrated graphics that can easily compete with the mid-ranged graphics cards of the amd 6xxx series .

Basically it allows you to play recent games at medium settings and saves you 100$ on a average video card.

That cpu is only 140$.

God damn AMD should pay me for publicity.

That's a pretty impressive list. They really have pushed machines to the limits.

As for AMD A-10, I'm not sure it could fit into my motherboard. Also, the price is almost the double than of these I have listed. From what I'm reading, it is quite attractive, but I think it's a bit too much for me. Besides, I am quite satisfied with my GPU, which is showing excellent performance.

And yeah, AMD should hire you.

You're good for a while. I have a similar rig, runs all games without problems except those that are poorly made.

My machine does run majority of the games, if not all (I'm still to try The Witcher 2, *the* ultimate test - btw, you think I could run it), but I feel that my CPU sometimes "chokes up", and is in a way, falling behind my GPU, especially when it comes to CPU hungry games (SC2 is such, or so I hear).

In reality, my machine has a good performance, but I think that a lot of its potential is wasted because CPU is falling behind, so to speak.

 

[Sub-Human]

Personally, I'd recommend getting a quad-core AMD CPU, then overclocking it as soon as you get it.

Generally, as you have said, processors are not that important for games, since graphic adapters do most of the job. If you're really having struggles with games, then upgrade. Otherwise, you should always wait before purchasing, because newer models will come out, and the old ones will have their prices drop really quick. This market can throw your previously new hardware into a pile of old-gen trash within a few months, so it's better to wait while the prices drop.

 

[Token-not-found]

Personally, I'd recommend getting a quad-core AMD CPU, then overclocking it as soon as you get it.

Generally, as you have said, processors are not that important for games, since graphic adapters do most of the job. If you're really having struggles with games, then upgrade. Otherwise, you should always wait before purchasing, because newer models will come out, and the old ones will have their prices drop really quick. This market can throw your previously new hardware into a pile of old-gen trash within a few months, so it's better to wait while the prices drop.

Do prices drop in your country?

Because in mine (also Eastern Europe, Romania) - prices have a small drop after a new generation release and are also all-around much more expensive than in North America. I'd say with a good 20-25% more expensive.

The previous generation of GPU's for example has roughly the same price, not to mention cpu's. I think it's safe to say that prices drop to the level of release prices in North America after 12 months after release.

 

[donperkan]

Never played witcher but looking at the requirements you should be able to run it without any problems. It seems like that game is not that hungry, the difference between minimum and optimal is small. Quad and 1 GB is just a small step from duo and 512 MB.

Have you tried shutting down services and processes that run with system startup, thats a good way to take the pressure from your cpu. Google it.

Also you are in a perfect position to overclock your cpu. If something goes wrong you just buy a new one like you intended.

 

[Atomkilla]

Have you tried shutting down services and processes that run with system startup, thats a good way to take the pressure from your cpu. Google it.

I always use Game Booster when playing anything that's 3D, which does improve the performance. The program itself states it's a 40-42% improvement, but I somewhat doubt it's that much. However, there is an apparent breath of fresh air, no doubt about that.

Not sure if that's what you meant, though...

 

[donperkan]

I tend to stay away from "optimizing software". I mean shutting them down manually permanently. Click start and tipe "services.msc" and run it. It will bring up a shitload of services that you can manipulate. Some you need, some you don't need and some can bite you in the ass. If you are not sure what a service does google it there are numerous guides and reviews out there. Make sure you do a restore point so you can reverse any changes if you mess up

 

[Kyuu]

The most important question is: are you having trouble running any games you want to play at acceptable resolutions/quality settings? If not, there's no sense in putting money into that particular rig. If you are, then upgrading the CPU may or may not help, depending on whether the CPU or the GPU is the bottleneck in that particular instance. That can be difficult to determine -- one thing you can do is check benchmarks for the 550ti where it is paired with more recent, high-end CPUs and see if there's a large difference.

You could also just make sure to purchase the CPU from a seller with a return-policy where you could drop it in, see if the performance benefit is worth it, and return it if you find it doesn't improve things noticably.

If you can stick with what you have, saving up to build a new rig from scratch (reusing things like the HDD if you can, though) will definitely be the best choice -- your hardware is simply at a bit of a dead-end, unfortunately. I don't believe you can upgrade the CPU to anything recent without getting a new mobo and possibly new RAM at the very least (if you currently have DDR2, if you have DDR3 you could reuse it).

 

[Xellos]

@Atomkilla
The first athlon you posted is completely different socket (FM1). For your AM3 socket Phenom 955/965 BE is absolutely the best choice, others are not worth upgrading IMO. The latter is on NewEgg with promo now. Only thing to worry is possibly the power section of your mobo, but it should hold if you don't plan to overclock. Passmark is quite reliable CPU benchmark, here you can compare scores of almost all models on the market http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ . Hope it helps

 

[TheWesDude]

if you are serious, then get an i7

amd is for the poor man.

make sure it has quad core.

the biggest thing i dont like about intel is that the most you can get for L2 cache is 256k per core. for AMD they do offer upwards of 1m or 512k L2 per core, but usually thats their server class CPUs which cost a premium. i have always preferred 512k per core.

whatever you get, make sure your L3 cache divides evenly among your core/L2 amounts.

and that if you multiply your L2 by the number of cores, and then multiply that by your cores, that is the most you want.

here is what i mean.

4 cores, 256k per core, 1 meg break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 1, 2, 3 max 4

4 cores, 512k per core, 2 meg break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 2, 4, 6, max 8

4 cores, 128k per core, 512k break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 512k, 1m, 1.5m, max 2m

the reason for that max is at that point your L2 cache can drive your L3 and be efficient. if you go with higher or different break points, you end up with odd value average per core.

now the minimum you want is half the max, or the 2nd break point. so you generally want to ignore the first and last break point, and go with the 2nd or max break point.

but thats just the math.

 

[Atomkilla]

snip

I see. Well, I will look into it.

snip

I don't really have any big problems with majority of games - in general it is alright. However, the rig I'm making should be at least a 3+ years rig - not that I'm planning to run games from 2015. when they come out, but I'd like for it to run some newer games as best as it can, while it can. You see, my budget isn't really big (550 Ti was really overstretching it), and next upgrade is likely more than half a decade away.

Also, return-policy stores are not really the option - none around. If there were such, I doubt I'd have some components this bad (like mobo), which is basically new, but already old.

Phenom 955/965 BE

I didn't know about that one. I have been listing some prices and models, and this one never came up. Price is acceptable. I will look into it, it stays in focus.

amd is for the poor man.

Pretty much. But it's also the best I can afford.
I'd love an i7, but it's too much for me, and simply impractical.

You see, I doubt I will be actively using this computer for more than a year (it will stay in service, but not that much, and not that often), so making a really high-end rig isn't good for me - making a decent, lasting one is. Nothing more.



Thank you all for help.
I will see what I will do. I'm planning on testing many newer games in the upcoming period, and based on my experiences, will make a final decision (if I'm going to get new parts, those will be around New Year - early January, which leaves some breathing space for testing).

Thank you all again.

 

[Token-not-found]

if you are serious, then get an i7

amd is for the poor man.

make sure it has quad core.

the biggest thing i dont like about intel is that the most you can get for L2 cache is 256k per core. for AMD they do offer upwards of 1m or 512k L2 per core, but usually thats their server class CPUs which cost a premium. i have always preferred 512k per core.

whatever you get, make sure your L3 cache divides evenly among your core/L2 amounts.

and that if you multiply your L2 by the number of cores, and then multiply that by your cores, that is the most you want.

here is what i mean.

4 cores, 256k per core, 1 meg break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 1, 2, 3 max 4

4 cores, 512k per core, 2 meg break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 2, 4, 6, max 8

4 cores, 128k per core, 512k break points.

your sweet spot L3 values are 512k, 1m, 1.5m, max 2m

the reason for that max is at that point your L2 cache can drive your L3 and be efficient. if you go with higher or different break points, you end up with odd value average per core.

now the minimum you want is half the max, or the 2nd break point. so you generally want to ignore the first and last break point, and go with the 2nd or max break point.

but thats just the math.

Haha i7? Whoa wtf man?

In most games there's about 5 fps difference or less between the i7 and i3 and like 300$ price difference.

Only a few games are decently optimized for quad core- if he buys a quad core now - it's money wasted - until games that are properly optimized for quad core come (and become common) out his rig will need a replacement anyway.

I would go with amd- they are perfect because they are cheap , effective and come with a mid-range graphics card.

The only concern is electricity which around here is very expensive.

I'm better off with a more expensive CPU than a power hungry one (like AMD) since it costs me 50$ more per month (electricity)

If you want to piss or your money go for i7. (unless you do high-tech professional stuff that needs that performance , aside from gaming)

 

[TheWesDude]

that "5 fps difference" is not because thats all the performance increase you get from an i3 to an i7.

thats because of how the engines dont fully use either chip.

 

[Token-not-found]

that "5 fps difference" is not because thats all the performance increase you get from an i3 to an i7.

thats because of how the engines dont fully use either chip.

In that case it would be a good long term buy , but like i said the other parts would mature much faster and he would have bottlenecks.