The jokes about nuclear meltdown are a moot point now too on nvidia cards, the Kepler gpus are soooooo much better. Under full load, OC'd, my windforce GTX 680 barely hits 60c.
ooo i love these threads. my amd phenom II 955 is still kickin and doin fine. however, the new i7 machines that i build at work slaughter them. it really comes down to old tech vs. new tech.
the golden rule to building pcs: buy the best of last year. that makes drivers a non-issue. it also saves you tons of money and gives you lots of feedback and reviews to read.
you'll have fan boys from both sides. really what you should invest in is a solid state hard drive. better yet, get two of them (6gig/s) and set them up raid 0. if you're still using a disk drive with moving parts, then your real performance increase will come from read/write speed on a raid 0 ssd setup. put the money there first. then think about graphics/cpu. current ns2 is cpu intensive (dat math).
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
<!--quoteo(post=2062719:date=Jan 18 2013, 06:44 PM:name=Tig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tig @ Jan 18 2013, 06:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062719"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->ooo i love these threads. my amd phenom II 955 is still kickin and doin fine. however, the new i7 machines that i build at work slaughter them. it really comes down to old tech vs. new tech.
the golden rule to building pcs: buy the best of last year. that makes drivers a non-issue. it also saves you tons of money and gives you lots of feedback and reviews to read.
you'll have fan boys from both sides. really what you should invest in is a solid state hard drive. better yet, get two of them (6gig/s) and set them up raid 0. if you're still using a disk drive with moving parts, then your real performance increase will come from read/write speed on a raid 0 ssd setup. put the money there first. then think about graphics/cpu. current ns2 is cpu intensive (dat math).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not every raid/ahci controller on the motherboards fully supports raid on a SSD. In fact, I own a motherboard where after a few bios versions the official awnser was to just not do it. If you DO get raid0 on SSD, check how compatible your mobo is. newer boards will probably do better.
<!--quoteo(post=2062306:date=Jan 17 2013, 03:23 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 17 2013, 03:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would it be better to upgrade my cpu or get a graphics card for better performance in ns2?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best way to increase your performance is to spend your money into more manpower for UWE :>
<!--quoteo(post=2062306:date=Jan 17 2013, 04:23 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 17 2013, 04:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062306"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since it's the lowest score anyone think I should get a faster hard disk too?
EDIT4: Picture of r_stats <a href="http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971585395570086/7A7590CCCB062322FC19953E9600C26C75757E69/" target="_blank">http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971...00C26C75757E69/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What HDD is it? Generally upgrading a drive will only net you faster loading times.
Also with the waiting on GPU stat being at 25ms, it is definitely the GPU holding you back at the moment. Temporary solution other than purchasing a new card would be to just drop your in game resolution.
<!--quoteo(post=2062771:date=Jan 18 2013, 01:14 PM:name=Industry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Industry @ Jan 18 2013, 01:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also with the waiting on GPU stat being at 25ms, it is definitely the GPU holding you back at the moment. Temporary solution other than purchasing a new card would be to just drop your in game resolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's the fact that <b> <u>I don't have a gpu at all</u></b>, This is all being ran by the cpu.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2062670:date=Jan 18 2013, 08:14 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Jan 18 2013, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062670"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->benchmarks show really small fps gains from an i5 to an i7 so that's why people say i5.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Biggest exception is for video capture or streaming. Also, if money is no object, you might as well go for the best CPU you can get, which appears to be <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">i7-3970X</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2062741:date=Jan 18 2013, 10:19 AM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 10:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pic of r_stats <a href="http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971585395570086/7A7590CCCB062322FC19953E9600C26C75757E69/" target="_blank">http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971...00C26C75757E69/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Certainly looks like your GPU is limiting you. I'd go down this <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">list of GPUs </a>till you find one with your price range.
<!--quoteo(post=2062774:date=Jan 18 2013, 12:22 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062774"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it's the fact that <b> <u>I don't have a gpu at all</u></b>, This is all being ran by the cpu.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do it is just an iGPU built into your CPU. 7660HD I believe is what is attached to the A10-5800k.
<!--quoteo(post=2062814:date=Jan 18 2013, 02:59 PM:name=Industry)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Industry @ Jan 18 2013, 02:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062814"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do it is just an iGPU built into your CPU. 7660HD I believe is what is attached to the A10-5800k.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So would getting a graphics card reduce the 'strain' on the cpu since everything is being done there?
The CPU isn't under any more "strain" because of the intergrated GPU. It's just that both suck.
Those AMD APU things are awful. They're for light gaming on WoW or something and media focused. Your best bet literally is to get a new setup.
i5 2500k with a Z67 board and 8 GB of 1600 can't be more than 350 now IB is out?. You'd still need that again for a decent card though.
If you have to pick one or the other, definately a new GFX card will give the most performance. Perhaps along the lines of a 660ti or 7950?. Then grab a new proper CPU and board later.
<!--quoteo(post=2062836:date=Jan 18 2013, 02:29 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 02:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062836"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So would getting a graphics card reduce the 'strain' on the cpu since everything is being done there?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Tom-R said it will not reduce the strain as while it is built into the chip it is essentially cordoned off and runs independently. At best in terms of the CPU you'd see lower temps. The big thing is just that a discrete card is just going to be flat more powerful than the iGPU and will get you the biggest net gains (not just in NS2) if you were to choose between a CPU replacement or a GPU.
Note: Replacing the CPU will require you to get a graphics card anyway unless you get one with the intel HD 3000 or 4000... but those are horrendous for gaming.
To the OP: NS2 is generally CPU intensive. Having an on-die GPU (or integrated graphics) of any kind will always put more load on the CPU, even with the die having a separate core/processor designated as a GPU. Unfortunately, in your case it means one of two scenarios:
A) You buy a new thoroughbred AMD chip that matches your board's specific socket type (without on-board GPU) and a new AMD graphics card (I would go this route for graphics purely on merit of price). If you don't have a budget, go NVidia.
B) You keep your existing CPU, learn how to deactivate the on-die GPU, and see if you can recoup it back as a CPU. If not, disable it altogether and purchase a graphics card. If you go this route, you may be able to afford a nice NVidia card (because you are keeping your CPU). If not, stick with an AMD Card.
As for AMD versus NVidia. It always comes down to a matter of preference. Yes, AMD Drivers blow, but they actually build exceptional hardware at excellent price points. NVidia is and always has been the flagship enterprise. If you are looking for the highest gains, but only slightly better to that of their AMD counterpart, stick with NVidia. I personally rock a Radeon 6950, that I got for around $270 when they first came out. Since it was a reference card, I was able to flash it to a 6970 with very little effort. I ended up saving an additional $100 over retail. All in all, I have been very happy with my decision, it has been one of my favorite pieces of hardware in many years.
<!--quoteo(post=2062904:date=Jan 18 2013, 05:04 PM:name=Kazter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kazter @ Jan 18 2013, 05:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062904"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for AMD versus NVidia. It always comes down to a matter of preference. Yes, AMD Drivers blow, but they actually build exceptional hardware at excellent price points. NVidia is and always has been the flagship enterprise. If you are looking for the highest gains, but only slightly better to that of their AMD counterpart, stick with NVidia. I personally rock a Radeon 6950, that I got for around $270 when they first came out. Since it was a reference card, I was able to flash it to a 6970 with very little effort. I ended up saving an additional $100 over retail. All in all, I have been very happy with my decision, it has been one of my favorite pieces of hardware in many years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sooooooo lemme get this straight , AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).
DC_DarklingJoin Date: 2003-07-10Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
<!--quoteo(post=2062927:date=Jan 19 2013, 12:51 AM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 19 2013, 12:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sooooooo lemme get this straight , AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2062927:date=Jan 18 2013, 03:51 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sooooooo lemme get this straight , AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the CPU world, AMD honestly is a losing bet right now. The 8350 premiere desktop 8 core chip does worse than a 2500 i5. Intel or nothing in this regard. In fact a 2500 is a great processor.
GPU wise you can honestly go either way. At this point the drivers on Nvidia's 6 series cards and AMD's 7 series are very mature. In terms of bang for the buck go with AMD here. No reason to buy Nvidia today if you don't need to unless you are doing video rendering with CUDA core manipulation. Or another 3d modeling program like Maya that can take advantage of such things.
<!--quoteo(post=2062967:date=Jan 19 2013, 01:09 AM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Jan 19 2013, 01:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062967"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the CPU world, AMD honestly is a losing bet right now. The 8350 premiere desktop 8 core chip does worse than a 2500 i5. Intel or nothing in this regard. In fact a 2500 is a great processor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
AMD have basically pulled out of the performance desktop market. Let's not forget the i5 2500 is a mainstream processor as far as OEM desktops go, and it's still trouncing AMD.
Intel are really the only way to go on CPU's if your considering a new build.
Graphics wise; as a user of both ATi/AMD and nVidia, I'd hand the boot to nVidia, but AMD are generally more cost effective and there really isnt anything noticeable in it, until they got greedy with the 7970, which is now more reasonably priced and pretty much trades equal blows head to head with the GTX 680 (nVidias flagship). nVidia have always been expensive and generally as a rule the performance king, but never by much and at a hefty premium.
<!--quoteo(post=2062982:date=Jan 18 2013, 05:53 PM:name=Tom-R)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom-R @ Jan 18 2013, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062982"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Graphics wise; as a user of both ATi/AMD and nVidia, I'd hand the boot to nVidia, but AMD are generally more cost effective and there really isnt anything noticeable in it, until they got greedy with the 7970, which is now more reasonably priced and pretty much trades equal blows head to head with the GTX 680 (nVidias flagship). nVidia have always been expensive and generally as a rule the performance king, but never by much and at a hefty premium.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Disagree here, the 7970 and 680 are the same price depending on which models you're looking at but all are around $400-$500. The GTX 680 usually beats the 7970 by around 10fps though. A GTX 670 is a more comparable matchup and those actually go for $100 less and in sli they beat it even worse.
Everyone stop showing me these amazing devices that I could only dream of getting plz =( I'd have to say $200-$250 is my max price range, and that's wishful thinking.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=2063039:date=Jan 18 2013, 09:16 PM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 09:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2063039"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Everyone stop showing me these amazing devices that I could only dream of getting plz =( I'd have to say $200-$250 is my max price range, and that's wishful thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd go with a AMD HD 7870 or a Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 Ti then. A decent branded one would probably be in the $175-$200 range.
WhiteWeasel get a nice GPU and skip your integrated GPU in the CPU.
If your r_stats screenshot is accurately describing your actual average FPS, buying a nice GPU and resolving the GPU bottleneck would yield an FPS of about 52 FPS average and moving the bottleneck back to your CPU, which is quite good running at 3.8 GHz!
Also, since your GPU is bad, I don't get why you run at such high graphics settings. Reduce them, there's no reason not to.
<!--quoteo(post=2063019:date=Jan 19 2013, 03:36 AM:name=Davil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Davil @ Jan 19 2013, 03:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2063019"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Disagree here, the 7970 and 680 are the same price depending on which models you're looking at but all are around $400-$500. The GTX 680 usually beats the 7970 by around 10fps though. A GTX 670 is a more comparable matchup and those actually go for $100 less and in sli they beat it even worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 7970 was a late december unveiling and early January release. The 680 wasn't out till 22nd of March. The 7970 released at $549 US. The 680 was at $499. AMD were charging more for a slower card. They dropped the price straight after the 680 dropped. They were cashing in while they could.
The 680 doesn't beat the 7970 by 10fps on anything other than massively biased games. The 7970 is generally better at resolutions above 1080 than both the 680 and 670 because it doesn't have a stupid 256 bit bus. Every benchmark shows them trading blows, especially the revised Ghz edition. The 680 has pulled away a bit from the 670 now the drivers are more mature. It's still the best value card of the 3 though.
680's and 70's respond well to memory overclocks as that's the bottleneck, you wont see any gains past late 1200's (if you can ever get there) if you're not at 7Ghz effective memory.
<!--quoteo(post=2063911:date=Jan 20 2013, 03:13 PM:name=Tom-R)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom-R @ Jan 20 2013, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2063911"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The 7970 was a late december unveiling and early January release. The 680 wasn't out till 22nd of March. The 7970 released at $549 US. The 680 was at $499. AMD were charging more for a slower card. They dropped the price straight after the 680 dropped. They were cashing in while they could.
The 680 doesn't beat the 7970 by 10fps on anything other than massively biased games. The 7970 is generally better at resolutions above 1080 than both the 680 and 670 because it doesn't have a stupid 256 bit bus. Every benchmark shows them trading blows, especially the revised Ghz edition. The 680 has pulled away a bit from the 670 now the drivers are more mature. It's still the best value card of the 3 though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the initial price doesn't mean much anymore, what matters now is that they're basically the same price depending on what brand you get.
These benchmarks show the 7970 getting beaten in just about every game they tested and only really getting close at a resolution of 2560x1600.
Comments
the golden rule to building pcs: buy the best of last year. that makes drivers a non-issue. it also saves you tons of money and gives you lots of feedback and reviews to read.
you'll have fan boys from both sides. really what you should invest in is a solid state hard drive. better yet, get two of them (6gig/s) and set them up raid 0. if you're still using a disk drive with moving parts, then your real performance increase will come from read/write speed on a raid 0 ssd setup. put the money there first. then think about graphics/cpu. current ns2 is cpu intensive (dat math).
the golden rule to building pcs: buy the best of last year. that makes drivers a non-issue. it also saves you tons of money and gives you lots of feedback and reviews to read.
you'll have fan boys from both sides. really what you should invest in is a solid state hard drive. better yet, get two of them (6gig/s) and set them up raid 0. if you're still using a disk drive with moving parts, then your real performance increase will come from read/write speed on a raid 0 ssd setup. put the money there first. then think about graphics/cpu. current ns2 is cpu intensive (dat math).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
not every raid/ahci controller on the motherboards fully supports raid on a SSD. In fact, I own a motherboard where after a few bios versions the official awnser was to just not do it. If you DO get raid0 on SSD, check how compatible your mobo is.
newer boards will probably do better.
<a href="http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971585395570086/7A7590CCCB062322FC19953E9600C26C75757E69/" target="_blank">http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971...00C26C75757E69/</a>
Best way to increase your performance is to spend your money into more manpower for UWE :>
EDIT4:
Picture of r_stats
<a href="http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971585395570086/7A7590CCCB062322FC19953E9600C26C75757E69/" target="_blank">http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971...00C26C75757E69/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What HDD is it? Generally upgrading a drive will only net you faster loading times.
Also with the waiting on GPU stat being at 25ms, it is definitely the GPU holding you back at the moment. Temporary solution other than purchasing a new card would be to just drop your in game resolution.
I think it's the fact that <b> <u>I don't have a gpu at all</u></b>, This is all being ran by the cpu.
Biggest exception is for video capture or streaming. Also, if money is no object, you might as well go for the best CPU you can get, which appears to be <a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html" target="_blank">i7-3970X</a>.
<!--quoteo(post=2062741:date=Jan 18 2013, 10:19 AM:name=WhiteWeasel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WhiteWeasel @ Jan 18 2013, 10:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2062741"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pic of r_stats
<a href="http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971585395570086/7A7590CCCB062322FC19953E9600C26C75757E69/" target="_blank">http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/882971...00C26C75757E69/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Certainly looks like your GPU is limiting you. I'd go down this <a href="http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html" target="_blank">list of GPUs </a>till you find one with your price range.
You do it is just an iGPU built into your CPU. 7660HD I believe is what is attached to the A10-5800k.
So would getting a graphics card reduce the 'strain' on the cpu since everything is being done there?
Those AMD APU things are awful. They're for light gaming on WoW or something and media focused. Your best bet literally is to get a new setup.
i5 2500k with a Z67 board and 8 GB of 1600 can't be more than 350 now IB is out?. You'd still need that again for a decent card though.
If you have to pick one or the other, definately a new GFX card will give the most performance. Perhaps along the lines of a 660ti or 7950?. Then grab a new proper CPU and board later.
As Tom-R said it will not reduce the strain as while it is built into the chip it is essentially cordoned off and runs independently. At best in terms of the CPU you'd see lower temps. The big thing is just that a discrete card is just going to be flat more powerful than the iGPU and will get you the biggest net gains (not just in NS2) if you were to choose between a CPU replacement or a GPU.
Note: Replacing the CPU will require you to get a graphics card anyway unless you get one with the intel HD 3000 or 4000... but those are horrendous for gaming.
A) You buy a new thoroughbred AMD chip that matches your board's specific socket type (without on-board GPU) and a new AMD graphics card (I would go this route for graphics purely on merit of price). If you don't have a budget, go NVidia.
B) You keep your existing CPU, learn how to deactivate the on-die GPU, and see if you can recoup it back as a CPU. If not, disable it altogether and purchase a graphics card. If you go this route, you may be able to afford a nice NVidia card (because you are keeping your CPU). If not, stick with an AMD Card.
As for AMD versus NVidia. It always comes down to a matter of preference. Yes, AMD Drivers blow, but they actually build exceptional hardware at excellent price points. NVidia is and always has been the flagship enterprise. If you are looking for the highest gains, but only slightly better to that of their AMD counterpart, stick with NVidia. I personally rock a Radeon 6950, that I got for around $270 when they first came out. Since it was a reference card, I was able to flash it to a 6970 with very little effort. I ended up saving an additional $100 over retail. All in all, I have been very happy with my decision, it has been one of my favorite pieces of hardware in many years.
Sooooooo lemme get this straight ,
AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper.
Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).
AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper.
Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.guru3d.com/articles_categories/guru3d_vga_charts.html" target="_blank">http://www.guru3d.com/articles_categories/...vga_charts.html</a>
Im not linking it a 3rd time
AMD: is not quite as good, but a lot cheaper.
Nvida: is in every way better but more expensive and more cost has diminishing returns. (I.E. twice the price won't necessarily mean twice the power).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the CPU world, AMD honestly is a losing bet right now. The 8350 premiere desktop 8 core chip does worse than a 2500 i5. Intel or nothing in this regard. In fact a 2500 is a great processor.
GPU wise you can honestly go either way. At this point the drivers on Nvidia's 6 series cards and AMD's 7 series are very mature. In terms of bang for the buck go with AMD here. No reason to buy Nvidia today if you don't need to unless you are doing video rendering with CUDA core manipulation. Or another 3d modeling program like Maya that can take advantage of such things.
This.
AMD have basically pulled out of the performance desktop market. Let's not forget the i5 2500 is a mainstream processor as far as OEM desktops go, and it's still trouncing AMD.
Intel are really the only way to go on CPU's if your considering a new build.
Graphics wise; as a user of both ATi/AMD and nVidia, I'd hand the boot to nVidia, but AMD are generally more cost effective and there really isnt anything noticeable in it, until they got greedy with the 7970, which is now more reasonably priced and pretty much trades equal blows head to head with the GTX 680 (nVidias flagship). nVidia have always been expensive and generally as a rule the performance king, but never by much and at a hefty premium.
Disagree here, the 7970 and 680 are the same price depending on which models you're looking at but all are around $400-$500. The GTX 680 usually beats the 7970 by around 10fps though. A GTX 670 is a more comparable matchup and those actually go for $100 less and in sli they beat it even worse.
I'd have to say $200-$250 is my max price range, and that's wishful thinking.
I'd have to say $200-$250 is my max price range, and that's wishful thinking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd go with a AMD HD 7870 or a Nvidia Geforce GTX 560 Ti then. A decent branded one would probably be in the $175-$200 range.
If your r_stats screenshot is accurately describing your actual average FPS, buying a nice GPU and resolving the GPU bottleneck would yield an FPS of about 52 FPS average and moving the bottleneck back to your CPU, which is quite good running at 3.8 GHz!
Also, since your GPU is bad, I don't get why you run at such high graphics settings. Reduce them, there's no reason not to.
The 7970 was a late december unveiling and early January release. The 680 wasn't out till 22nd of March. The 7970 released at $549 US. The 680 was at $499. AMD were charging more for a slower card. They dropped the price straight after the 680 dropped. They were cashing in while they could.
The 680 doesn't beat the 7970 by 10fps on anything other than massively biased games. The 7970 is generally better at resolutions above 1080 than both the 680 and 670 because it doesn't have a stupid 256 bit bus. Every benchmark shows them trading blows, especially the revised Ghz edition. The 680 has pulled away a bit from the 670 now the drivers are more mature. It's still the best value card of the 3 though.
680's and 70's respond well to memory overclocks as that's the bottleneck, you wont see any gains past late 1200's (if you can ever get there) if you're not at 7Ghz effective memory.
The 680 doesn't beat the 7970 by 10fps on anything other than massively biased games. The 7970 is generally better at resolutions above 1080 than both the 680 and 670 because it doesn't have a stupid 256 bit bus. Every benchmark shows them trading blows, especially the revised Ghz edition. The 680 has pulled away a bit from the 670 now the drivers are more mature. It's still the best value card of the 3 though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the initial price doesn't mean much anymore, what matters now is that they're basically the same price depending on what brand you get.
These benchmarks show the 7970 getting beaten in just about every game they tested and only really getting close at a resolution of 2560x1600.