| ps3-sales! said: i have the vanilla 4 gb version lol. i edited OP. i have the 7200rpm sorry heh. still bad though. a lot of people have been recommeded an ssd for windows/games. but honestly my load times aren't really terrible.
i've asked a coupple others but is it possible for me to just upgrade my cpu on my current build? the only things are would my psu and motherboard support it... |
The biggest advantage of an SSD is latency. It's responsiveness.
I can click on any program and it loads instantly, it is a night and day difference over a mechanical drive, the stupidly fast load times are great as well of course.
Mechanical drives tend to top out at around 150MB/s in sequential reads where an SSD can happily hit 500MB/s on even a budget drive.
SSD's can be one of the best upgrades you can have, especially for older systems to give them a new lease on life.
Most casual people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 10 year old Core 2 Quad @ 3ghz+ and a Core i7 7700K with casual web browsing, email and facebook, but they would certainly notice the difference between an SSD and Mechanical Disk Drive.
***
Provided the motherboard is what you say it is. Then yes. You can upgrade your CPU.
A Core i7 7700K will likely be the best CPU you can buy for that motherboard.
And then you will still wish to buy a new GPU anyway, suddenly things start to get expensive.
Personally, I would stick with what you have for the time being.
Vega and Zen is coming, even if they don't retake the performance crown, nVidia and Intel will respond with lower prices... And it's not like you are unable to play games yet.
Your PSU should be fine with it. You aren't jumping massively in TDP's here.
| Scoobes said: That's probably your problem right there. The 4GB is probably bottlenecking the performance in certain games that require more VRAM. |
The 4Gb Radeon RX 480 also runs slower than the 8Gb version, the RAM is clocked lower.
| BlueFalcon said: Your CPU is a huge bottleneck for GTX1080 at 1080p. |
That would be an accurate assumption. Provided the game is CPU heavy.
| BlueFalcon said: Honestly, your processor will even bottleneck the GTX1070. Modern games use 4-8 threads and your only have an i5. On top of that, when all 4 cores are loaded, your CPU only runs at 2.7Ghz! |
Load of rubbish.
Majority of games are built for 4 threads, just because a game might support more CPU threads, doesn't mean it will use them.
All of Blizzards games are built for 2 threads for instance.
The advantage of having more threads isn't for the game itself, it's for background tasks.
Having things like the Virus Scanner, xSplit, Transcoding, Web Browser, Game Clients and OS stuff all running in the background is where the extra threads really start to come into it's own... As none of it has to compete with the same threads as the game.
Besides, Hyperthreading can actually *reduce* performance in some edge cases anyway.
I have been running a 6 core processor for the last 7 years and a 6 Core/12 Thread processor for 5+ years, thus I can speak from first hand experience.
Plus there is more to performance than the amount of Threads/Cores a CPU has, Intel will Castrate it's i5's by using lower clockspeeds and less cache to go along with the removal of Hyperthreading... Comparatively, one of the reasons my CPU has aged so well is because of how much cache it has.
| BlueFalcon said: You would be 10x better off building an 8-core Zen or 7700K/6800K overclocked system after reselling your mobo/CPU and getting a 1070 with the $ saved from buying a 1080. |
From the Engineering Samples, per-core performance of Zen is roughly inline with Intels Core i5, thus in heavily threaded scenario's the 8-core Zen falls in between the 6 and 8 core Intel chips, but uses as much energy as Intel's Octo core processor.
In lightly threaded scenario's (Majority of games) Zen comes up a little short.
We knew this was going to happen due to AMD's insistence of not having a unified L3 cache, AMD split the L3 cache pools to reduce cost at the expense of performance.
Converesly, AMD isn't providing any high-end motherboards to go with Zen.
The big advantage of waiting for Zen though is Intels response with lower pricing.
| BlueFalcon said: You are also memory bandwidth bottlenecked. DDR4-2400 isn't fast enough for Skylake. DDR4-3000 is minimum to alleviate the bottleneck of 6700K/7600K/7700K. In your case it doesn't matter since your CPU is slow but should you upgrade to faster CPUs, that RAM bottleneck will show up at 1080p when using a GPU as powerful as the 1080: |
Wrong.
DDR memory speed is for the most part. Irrellevent.
What does enjoy the faster memory speeds is Integrated Graphics, not the CPU.
He would end up spending hundreds on new memory for a couple of FPS, when that could be better spent on a better CPU, GPU or Motherboard.
So keep the old memory. DDR4-2400 is fine.
BlueFalcon said:
Try to use more than 1 data source to draw conclusions, especially since Computerbase.de didn't provide the test scenes or videos to confirm they were testing CPU-limited sections of those games. It's also important to consider that frequent drops below 60 fps aren't reflected by those charts since we were not provided with frame times data. Even Digital Foundry shows 2500K lacking compared to modern processors: |
Digital foundry isn't contradicting Conina.
Only in Grand Theft Auto 5 did the 2500K drop under 60fps.
But who the heck would be running the old 2500K at stock in 2017? Overclocked it's competitive with the i5 6500. And it costs you nothing extra.
Sandy Bridge chips LOVE to be overclocked, it's also a heap of fun. My Sandy-Bridge chip will happily hit 4.8Ghz reliably 24/7 and out-bench the latest Kaby Lake processors at stock.
Plus even Digital Foundries states that the Core i5 2500K is more than perfectly viable for 60fps gaming. - For CPU and GPU's though, I find Anandtech to be a better source of information than Digital Foundry.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
