To upgrade or not?

Wondering if upgrading my GPU is actually worth the cash...

Right now I'm running an MSI board—pretty recent, maybe a 970 series—paired with an AMD Athlon X3 455 at 3.8GHz, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, and an ASUS AMD Radeon HD 5770.

Got a Corsair SSD in there too.

Can't give you the exact model numbers right now—don't have the tools handy.

Looking to run the newer Battlefield 4 and COD on max settings at 60fps, assuming 1080p is doable.

Would just swapping the GPU be enough? Or how much would CrossFire help... since I've got the option.

Power supply is a Seasonic Bronze 520.

Looks like you’re looking at upgrading both the CPU and the GPU

Without knowing the exact motherboard model, I can't say much else

But logically, if you can hunt down a used Phenom 955
or maybe grab a new X6 6300

+
a 7850 GPU

So, you're telling me this CPU overclocked to 3.8 GHz still can't handle an AMD Radeon HD 7850?

It’s definitely doable, though you might run into some lower frame rates or noticeable stutters depending on how demanding the game is. If you have a friend with a beefier card—maybe something like an AMD Radeon HD 7850, a 6950, or even a 260x—it might be worth running some tests at their place to see how it holds up. That said, I suspect it should run without much trouble. My suggestion would be to go with the AMD Radeon R9 270X; it makes it much easier to upgrade your CPU down the road. You could always pick up a used Phenom 965 for maybe $50 or so later on.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/amd-processor-listing

Look, you aren't going to hit 60 FPS in Battlefield 4 at 1080p max settings with that CPU, no matter which graphics card you throw at it.

If you're lucky and have a motherboard that actually supports it, you might be able to unlock four cores on those chips—provided the silicon is good enough.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:Look, you aren't going to hit 60 FPS in Battlefield 4 at 1080p max settings with that CPU, no matter which graphics card you throw at it.

If you're lucky and have a motherboard that actually supports it, you might be able to unlock four cores on those chips—provided the silicon is good enough.

It definitely should if it's using a 970 chipset.😉

Maybe try unlocking it first.

Also... from what I can tell, you know your way around an overclock. A solid move might be pairing an AMD Radeon R9 270X with an AMD FX 6300 Overclocked. Just maybe don't go too crazy with the voltage; I'm guessing you're running one of those Gigabyte 970 boards, which aren't exactly built for heavy overclocking.

If you're banking on hitting 60 fps with that processor, I hate to break it to you—it’s just not going to happen. You'll run straight into a massive bottleneck instead. To actually pull that off, you really ought to be looking at investing somewhere in the $400 to $450 range; you'd want to grab an i5, a solid motherboard, and something along the lines of an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780 or maybe an AMD Radeon R9 290.

Kimberly Gomez34 said:Look, you aren't going to hit 60 FPS in Battlefield 4 at 1080p max settings with that CPU, no matter which graphics card you throw at it.

If you're lucky and have a motherboard that actually supports it, you might be able to unlock four cores on those chips—provided the silicon is good enough.

Grace Peterson17 said:If you're banking on hitting 60 fps with that processor, I hate to break it to you—it’s just not going to happen. You'll run straight into a massive bottleneck instead. To actually pull that off, you really ought to be looking at investing somewhere in the $400 to $450 range; you'd want to grab an i5, a solid motherboard, and something along the lines of an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780 or maybe an AMD Radeon R9 290.

Battlefield 4
Based on the benchmarks, there is no way you'll see 60 FPS unless you shell out roughly $800 to $900 for a full overhaul...
The CPU scaling with the TITAN GTX is quite interesting.
AMD FX 8350 = 57 fps ($450/$8.00/fps)
AMD FX 6300 = 52 fps ($267/$5.00/fps)
Phenom II X4 955 = 43 fps ($100/$2.25/fps)
Keep in mind these tests were done with AA turned off, so real-world results would likely be even lower. You won't be hitting 60 FPS anytime soon.
With the top-tier CPU, the AMD Radeon HD 7870 pulls about 30 fps. An X4 955 could easily keep pace with a card like that, given that $100 + $433 for the GPU (even allowing for a 25% bottleneck on the card, you'd still be looking at 22.5 fps).
All in all, $533,
Is it possible to get the same performance with any other combination on a budget of $533?

I'm running an i5 4670k paired with an XFX AMD Radeon HD 7870 double dissipation and 8 gigs of RAM—all at a resolution of 1680x1050. I’ve pretty much cranked everything up to ultra, though I skip the anti-aliasing and all that other extra junk. Even then, during some of the heavier firefights, there's no way I can maintain a steady 60 fps; it tends to dip down to around 45-50. And honestly, why would I even bother maxing out the anti-aliasing or those other settings that just choke the CPU and GPU? This setup definitely needs a little extra love if I want to see a decent framerate...

So, what does it mean when I say you'll need at least an AMD Radeon R9 280X or an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770... and probably an overclocked i5 4670K to make it work?

Exactly—it’s just way too much money 😁

He’ll likely be stuck at 720p on High settings, provided he turns off AA and those other "unnecessary" little details. At High, you'll probably lose some particle effects, though volumetric clouds seem to stay intact from what I can see, and shadows might vary slightly—but it's hardly a dealbreaker.
the difference (low, medium, high, ultra)
In that second image below the benchmark, you can see the gap between High and Ultra; the main thing is seeing those particle effects flying around on Ultra, whereas they're missing entirely on High.
Here is the benchmark from TechSpot using an AMD Radeon R9 290 on High settings.
cpu scaling
Your setup falls right in that mix with the AMD Athlon X3 455; it shows a 25% drop, which confirms what the benchmarks suggest: processors without four cores really struggle here.
PS3 vs PC Battlefield 4
You can see a massive difference in fluidity between the PlayStation 3 (chugging at 20-30 fps in HD) and the PC (hitting 60 fps at Full HD). Of course, now that the PlayStation 4 is out, it runs similarly to a PC, making the experience almost identical, even if the PC maintains a slight edge.

I honestly don't think he needs to go that far (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770, Radeon 280x). I just took a look.

For Battlefield 3, if you take Linus Tech Tips' benchmarks, an AMD FX 8350 at a solid 4.6 GHz overclock—which any decent chip should hit—versus an i7-3570K overclocked to a standard 4.2 GHz, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti



It's almost identical to this guy's YouTube video for Battlefield 4 (he was just using an FX 8320 at stock 3.5 GHz) paired with practically the same card, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIbYghmbexw

Just turn off MSAA to get better FPS, but let the OP decide if his motherboard supports it. Like crimsonstag84 mentioned, an AMD FX 6300 (or even better) with an AMD Radeon R9 270X should do the trick.

I guess my pick would be an AMD FX 6300 Overclocked at 4-4.2GHz paired with an AMD Radeon R9 280X... that should probably pull around 50 FPS on average at max settings based on this link, though you could always dial a few things back and call it a day.

David Sanders4 said:He’ll likely be stuck at 720p on High settings, provided he turns off AA and those other "unnecessary" little details. At High, you'll probably lose some particle effects, though volumetric clouds seem to stay intact from what I can see, and shadows might vary slightly—but it's hardly a dealbreaker.
the difference (low, medium, high, ultra)
In that second image below the benchmark, you can see the gap between High and Ultra; the main thing is seeing those particle effects flying around on Ultra, whereas they're missing entirely on High.
Here is the benchmark from TechSpot using an AMD Radeon R9 290 on High settings.
cpu scaling
Your setup falls right in that mix with the AMD Athlon X3 455; it shows a 25% drop, which confirms what the benchmarks suggest: processors without four cores really struggle here.
PS3 vs PC Battlefield 4
You can see a massive difference in fluidity between the PlayStation 3 (chugging at 20-30 fps in HD) and the PC (hitting 60 fps at Full HD). Of course, now that the PlayStation 4 is out, it runs similarly to a PC, making the experience almost identical, even if the PC maintains a slight edge.

The problem here is that the folks over at TechSpot are running their tests in single-player mode—which is a completely different ballgame. Let’s be real: 99.9% of people buy this game specifically for multiplayer. That’s where you see the massive performance gaps. For single-player (which, let's face it, is usually a total joke in titles like this and way too short anyway), even a decent CPU can get away with downclocking without much issue.

We ran some tests on the single-player campaign.

Look, let’s be real about these new releases like Metro: Last Light or Crysis 3. They actually look pretty solid even on low settings. Take Metro, for example—it comes pre-loaded with things like analytical AA that you can't even toggle off in the menu. Honestly, spending an extra thousand bucks just to chase those top-tier graphics feels like a bit of a fail, unless you're a total hardware fanatic. In that specific game, the jump between detail levels is barely noticeable. It feels like paying a premium price just for some fancy visual nuances that most people won't even see.

It’s all getting to be a bit much—I wasn't planning on cranking everything to Ultra, just aiming for some decent High settings... but looking at the total cost now, I'm starting to think this whole thing isn't even worth it.

By the way, I tried unlocking the processor, but no luck—there aren't any extra cores hidden in there.

Here’s the rest of the build specs, since I was under the weather and couldn't get them posted sooner.

CPU: AMD Athlon II X3 455 early 45nm (maxes out at 3.8GHz)
MOBO: MSI 970A-G46 (MS-7693)
Chipset is RD9x0 rev 02
Southbridge is SB910/950 rev 40
BIOS date is 10/31/2012, haven't bothered checking for an update...

Memory: 4GB DDR3 Corsair (CMZ4GX3M1A1600C9) 1600MHz module

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5770 512MB / 128 bit currently

PSU: Seasonic 520W

HDD: Corsair SSD

Anyway, the rig is decent enough... I figure I could pull maybe a steady 30 FPS in Battlefield 3, maybe even Battlefield 4 on medium settings if I ditch the AA and other useless fluff.

David Sanders4 said:He’ll likely be stuck at 720p on High settings, provided he turns off AA and those other "unnecessary" little details. At High, you'll probably lose some particle effects, though volumetric clouds seem to stay intact from what I can see, and shadows might vary slightly—but it's hardly a dealbreaker.
the difference (low, medium, high, ultra)
In that second image below the benchmark, you can see the gap between High and Ultra; the main thing is seeing those particle effects flying around on Ultra, whereas they're missing entirely on High.
Here is the benchmark from TechSpot using an AMD Radeon R9 290 on High settings.
cpu scaling
Your setup falls right in that mix with the AMD Athlon X3 455; it shows a 25% drop, which confirms what the benchmarks suggest: processors without four cores really struggle here.
PS3 vs PC Battlefield 4
You can see a massive difference in fluidity between the PlayStation 3 (chugging at 20-30 fps in HD) and the PC (hitting 60 fps at Full HD). Of course, now that the PlayStation 4 is out, it runs similarly to a PC, making the experience almost identical, even if the PC maintains a slight edge.

I've played it on PlayStation 3, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4... the graphics aren't actually terrible when hooked up to a Sony Bravia, but I'm not really a console guy—I'd rather just sit down at my PC for an hour or two and play something...

Honestly, that 455 isn't doing too bad considering they listed it at 3.1 GHz... mine defaults to 3.3, so bumping it to 3.8 would easily net me another 5 or 6 FPS... though GPU prices seem totally delusional lately... I thought things were cheaper, like the AMD Radeon R7 270 doesn't go below $500 while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 is sitting around $667... used to be you'd pick NVIDIA over ATI back in the day...

AMD FX 6300 paired with an AMD Radeon R9 270...

I've decided not to dump too much cash into my PC right now—it's just getting ridiculous... I'd rather put some money toward a PlayStation 4 instead. For the PC, I'm thinking about just tossing in another AMD Radeon HD 5770, so I'm wondering... I know a high-end rig pulling 430 W under full load with dual 5770s is a lot, but I'm running a Seasonic 520W 80+ Bronze, so does anyone know if that unit can actually handle both cards without choking?

Also, maybe this is a stupid question, but does it really matter if I go with Sapphire or ASUS, as long as it's an AMD Radeon HD 5770 line? 🙂

That’s a smart move for an Xbox One.. The power supply should hold up just fine, and you could definitely pull off a CF setup using a Sapphire and an Asus—as long as the graphics card is a 5770.