Upgrading PC

[Ualaa]

You can, and likely should, use the resource monitor to determine what your bottlenecks are.
If anything reaches 100%, or close to that usage, that component is a bottleneck for your desired usage.
So upgrading that component will increase your performance.
Something that is only reaching 60% utilization isn't likely a bottleneck.



The Intel processors are generally miles ahead of the AMD processors.

The current 8-core AMD processor is not even close to the current gaming 4-core or 6-core Intel processor.
But you can tell that by their relative costs.



The motherboard is going to determine (by its' socket type) which CPUs you can use.
It might limit your ram somewhat, to say 2-channel instead of 4-channel ram.
So motherboard/CPU are generally larger upgrades.

The other upgrades on a system are generally going to work in multiple systems.
So you can upgrade your gaming drive to an SSD.
Or add more system ram or a better video card.
If you upgrade to a new system down the road, you can add the SSD or powerful video card you get now.
Assuming you go for something other than ram/cpu.

[Tool of Society]

You can, and likely should, use the resource monitor to determine what your bottlenecks are. If anything reaches 100%, or close to that usage, that component is a bottleneck for your desired usage. So upgrading that component will increase your performance. Something that is only reaching 60% utilization isn't likely a bottleneck. The Intel processors are generally miles ahead of the AMD processors. The current 8-core AMD processor is not even close to the current gaming 4-core or 6-core Intel processor. But you can tell that by their relative costs. The motherboard is going to determine (by its' socket type) which CPUs you can use. It might limit your ram somewhat, to say 2-channel instead of 4-channel ram. So motherboard/CPU are generally larger upgrades. The other upgrades on a system are generally going to work in multiple systems. So you can upgrade your gaming drive to an SSD. Or add more system ram or a better video card. If you upgrade to a new system down the road, you can add the SSD or powerful video card you get now. Assuming you go for something other than ram/cpu.

That is only true to an extent if you're willing to spend real money (+250$ on cpu and +150$ on mobo) otherwise the AMD will outperform the Intel any day when it comes to multitasking. Those on a budget will usually get much bigger bang for their buck out of an AMD CPU.

[MiRai]

That is only true to an extent if you're willing to spend real money (+250$ on cpu and +150$ on mobo) otherwise the AMD will outperform the Intel any day when it comes to multitasking. Those on a budget will usually get much bigger bang for their buck out of an AMD CPU.

Do you have any data to back up this statement? I mean... there's a good reason why Intel is able to price their CPUs the way that they do -- It's because they're better.

[Ishar]

At certain price points that might be true. It doesn't change things for boxers though unless you are building a single character machine on the cheap maybe.

Even allowing for price points I would think that it would only hold for certain tasks.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[Slyminxy]

Each architecture is different; it's best to check. Newegg lists it on the stat's page; as does Intel.

It's probably worth comparing more than cores/hyperthreading/clock speed as well; e.g. generational improvements in overall architecture. Though I've never went that far... For myself, I went from Quad-Core (no HT) to a six core (AMD, no HT) to a Six Core (w/ HT); all were clear improvements. Maybe next time I decide to light some cash on fire I will be faced with that decision.

Is hyperthreading an upgrade? Absolutely. will it improve performance in gaming? Usually, yes. Is it necessary to your application? Who knows.

Pinot's advice to the OP was sound. In your case its less clear, but not a bad idea. Though it probably boils down to what you can upgrade without changing mobo. I would pick a hypothetical CPU and Mobo [that is within your near-term budget]; and only upgrade components for my current system that I could transfer to that mobo. If that limits you too severely, it's probably time for a mobo change. If it doesn't; try just adding ram and upgrading your graphics. Depending on how old your mobo is, this might even be a non-issue.

Thanks for the replies.

Basically, my current motherboard can only hold Socket 775 CPU's, so I'm nearly at the top of the range with the Q9650 (I could go for a Q9higherups, but that wouldn't solve the problem, since they're about as pricey (even used) as a new i7 CPU). The Q9650 was, about 2.5 years ago, about 400$.

So next motherboard will be either Gigabyte again or Asus. My current motherboard is.. 4 years old, at the least. Which is what I'm afraid the most, that the motherboard will die out and I'll be forced to upgrade on a short notice. Whilst right now, I can still leisurely weigh options.

For now, I was thinking something along these lines:

Motherboard: MB Asus, LGA 1150, IZ87 (Z87-K)
CPU: INTEL CORE i7 4770 3.4/3.9 LGA1150
RAM: DDR3 16GB kit (2x 8GB) PC3-14900 1866MHz CL10 Crucial
SSD: Samsung SSD 250GB EVO Basic

Which totales out at roughly 530€ (roughly 720$)

[Tool of Society]

Do you have any data to back up this statement? I mean... there's a good reason why Intel is able to price their CPUs the way that they do -- It's because they're better.

I like how you ask me for data without providing any of your own. I don't need data from you as I've already utilized the great power of google galore on this. Also this is within the realm of my profession. You do sound like apple people talking about their intel macs. They have to be better because they cost more!!! Despite you know running the same intel chip as the cheaper PC that they are busy dissing (not to mention cheap caps etc). Like I said earlier you cannot beat AMD for multitasking for less then $250 for a CPU. This is a simple fact and a quick visit to newegg will show you that the only intel CPUs that can keep up with an FX 8xx0 series in multitasking costs more. Isboxer is certainly a program that takes advantage of multitasking capabilities. If you have the money splurging on Intel with a good z97 or z87 chipset mobo is the way to go. If you're on a budget and need to buy other things too then AMD is well worth a look. Having said all that I find that eve tends to hit the memory the hardest. I can run 8 clients on low on an e7200 (3.2ghz) with 4 GB of ram a hd5770 and a 7200 rpm sata drive. Watching the stats on that system I can clearly see that it's being limited by RAM and not CPU capability. In case you're wondering I use a separate hard drive for a page file and a 4 GB USB stick for readyboost. So 16 gb is what i would consider a bare minimum for a mulitbox system like this. If you're going to get the 4770 you might want to try to get the K version so you can either overclock now or in a couple years when the system isn't quite as fast as you'd like. The price difference varies but I see about 30 bucks difference. You're already paying 300 bucks for a CPU don't cheap out now :P Your motherboard choice is a fine choice so it's obvious you are paying attention to trends. The z97 boards don't really add much (msata and potentially more cpu support) so unless you find one in your price range I wouldn't be too worried about that right now. If there's only one thing you listen to from me I hope it's this. Get a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO cooler and some good thermal paste. Last evo cooler I bought had thermal paste with it. I'm not sure how good CM's paste is because I already had an open artic silver tube. Haswells run hotter then prior iterations and the evo cooler is cheap piece of mind (also quieter then stock cooling). If you already have aftermarket cooling then disregard this comment. For some lovely reason the forum refuses to allow any formatting in my post. So I'm stuck with on giant paragraph...

[EaTCarbS]

I like how you ask me for data without providing any of your own. I don't need data from you as I've already utilized the great power of google galore on this.

You came in here and made the claim without providing any evidence. Its not up to everyone else to prove you false. An amd can do better than an intel chip in some areas, but overall intel chips outperform. Just go read through tomshardware for a bit.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Having said all that I find that eve tends to hit the memory the hardest. I can run 8 clients on low on an e7200 (3.2ghz) with 4 GB of ram a hd5770 and a 7200 rpm sata drive. Watching the stats on that system I can clearly see that it's being limited by RAM and not CPU capability. In case you're wondering I use a separate hard drive for a page file and a 4 GB USB stick for readyboost. So 16 gb is what i would consider a bare minimum for a mulitbox system like this.

an eve client uses about 600-700mb of ram. add about 2g for your other system processes and you can get a good guess for what you need. honestly, ram is so cheap these days you can just buy a ton and not worry about it.

[Jacobsalt]

You came in here and made the claim without providing any evidence. Its not up to everyone else to prove you false. An amd can do better than an intel chip in some areas, but overall intel chips outperform. Just go read through tomshardware for a bit.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof



an eve client uses about 600-700mb of ram. add about 2g for your other system processes and you can get a good guess for what you need. honestly, ram is so cheap these days you can just buy a ton and not worry about it.

I would agree with this sentiment. I currently am multiboxing 12-15 and making the jump to 20+ hurts. I sit only at 60% cpu utilization at low gfx but once I hit 15 clients it starts getting super low. I also have plenty of ram... assuming that its not because Im a poor and dont have an ssd is upgrading from my gtx 770 going to be the thing i need to get back to normal fps? I cant decide if its the hard disk i/o going oh fuck me now or the 2gb card thats saying fuck all them vfx feeds....

[EaTCarbS]

I would agree with this sentiment. I currently am multiboxing 12-15 and making the jump to 20+ hurts. I sit only at 60% cpu utilization at low gfx but once I hit 15 clients it starts getting super low. I also have plenty of ram... assuming that its not because Im a poor and dont have an ssd is upgrading from my gtx 770 going to be the thing i need to get back to normal fps? I cant decide if its the hard disk i/o going oh fuck me now or the 2gb card thats saying fuck all them vfx feeds....

an ssd will only get you faster load times. once you're in game playing, the ssd makes little difference. You'd have to check your gpu usage to see if thats the bottleneck, but i've never heard of anyone running 20 on one system without having some kind of bottleneck issues. Though honestly VidFX feeds really do kill you. Just load up your setup and close all the vidfx and see the difference.

[Corinthian]

I'm looking to upgrade my hardware as well. Would like to be able to run 10-12 clients for incursions. Even at just low settings, zoomed out, 1360x768 resolution. What would I need to upgrade to get around 30fps? Obviously I'll need to get more ram, was thinking of getting the same memory to make it 16gb. It's the video card that I don't know yet what to upgrade to. And is the cpu enough or would I need to change that as well?

CPU: I5-3450
MB: MSI H77-G43 (H77 chipset)
Mem: 8gb (4gb x 2) G. Skill F3-12800CL9D-8GBXL
Vid: Radeon 5770