Upgrade Dilemma

[exostrife]

Struggling with how to target an upgrade or if I should just bite the bullet and rebuild.

Here are my current main system specs:

• AMD Phenom II X4 970 (OC to 4ghz)
• 32gb of 1600mhz DDR3 (4x 8gb--AMD Entertainment Edition--(11-11-11))
• 2TB Hitachi 7200rpm HDD
• 32gb Sandisk ReadyCache SSD
• Sapphire Radeon 6870 1gb
• Asus Xonar DG
• Biostar TA870U3+ Mobo

This machine originated as a budget build about 2 years ago (borrowing some parts for my last budget build). Over time it's been tweaked with new cooling to get a better OC on the CPU, tried ReadyCache, swapped RAM to go new cache route etc.

My configuration is setup so I'm using PrimoCache with a L1 cache that is about half my RAM, and L2 cache that is the Sandisk SSD (I'm not using ReadyCache software anymore). The Hitachi is my boot drive and most storage.

I use my machine for many tasks including coding, graphic editing, gaming, to mundane stuff like internet, media and office. My machine is hooked up to a 42" TV as well. My mobo is 140w capable, but only AM3 (no FX cpu's).

I've been thinking about upgrading this for a few months with a few different ideas (budget $300-500, lower the better, ideally updating 2 things):

1. Big SSD, Faster RAM (abandon caching stuff, improve storage and RAM perf instead)
2. Upgrade CPU (due to limits of my AM3 platform, this probably means a mobo/CPU swap and is more like rebuild than upgrade--which is a downside). Would any Phenom II's on second hand market be worth the cost?
3. New Graphics (this is kind of a no-brainer regardless of what I do, but I prefer AMD and the bitcoin craze has me delayed on that)
4. Am I missing anything?
5. Am I better off building a new box? (This means saving money and waiting a bit)

 

[exostrife]

Some longer thoughts should anyone be interested:


1. SSD: Big SSD like 512/1TB that I can use for most content, abandon/curtail cache strategy, HDD. I'm not really into the hassle of small SSD boot disk, did that once upon a time. I have a 128 Samsung 830 SSD reclaimed from a laptop that I could slot and use just for games, and given the cost of SSD's I suspect that is best route for now.
RAM: The RAM question is slightly different: I have a lot of RAM, but it's not very fast. I figured I counter punched this decision well with the RAMdisk boost to my disk access, but I'm open to input if I'm missing something here.
Combined this is not a cheap upgrade, but does it offer enough speed for the cost over other options?

2. CPU: My preference if I were to upgrade right now is not a total rebuild, but CPU wise I seem to either stick with what I got or do so. Phenom II's are pretty much secondhand market only and not sure the money I'd spend getting a better chip is really worth it. Additionally, AMD doesn't seem to have a strong roadmap or new products for non-APU's. With no clear commitment from AMD and multi-part buy required to even go to FX, I'm not sure that's worth it. So that probably mean's going to Intel--I haven't had a intel chip in a machine I built since Pentium I so there is some lack of familiarity there, and the cost equation on Intel has historically been poor--so I'm a bit gun shy on that route. (I'm not anti-intel, I'm just cheap and like to support AMD so we have options )

• So really the question is, should I hold onto this CPU/mobo or bite the bullet and swap
• If I do a swap and keep this more like an upgrade, what should I target if my CPU/Mobo budget is under $300?

3. GPU: Graphics seems simple, wait for 7870/R9 270 to not be crazy money. To me I see this as the simplest part of my upgrade question. It has value regardless of other decisions in the place of biggest need (gaming). I haven't looked into the idea of putting a second 6870 (question it's worth and compatibility).

To clarify, I'd most likely do either the RAM/SSD as one option, and CPU/GPU as the second option, with just GPU as the third option.

 

[tenub]

FYI if you Crossfire two 6870s you should be able to have a playable Metro 2033 at very high / ultra settings at 1920x1080. I have two 6850s and can attest to the fact that even those ran the game at maximum settings and 30-40 fps average. Granted, I have an i7-930 which is probably superior to your AMD. I have since let my brother have the second 6850 and removed all my overclocks, and still (just the other day in fact) I was able to run one of the latest games at maximum settings and it was relatively smooth (talking about Hitman: Absolution here). In conclusion, on the GPU issue, I say don't even bother upgrading unless you are a hardcore gamer and intend to support multiple displays or a resolution of at least 2560x1440.

As for the RAM issue, I really don't think going for "faster" RAM would net that much of an improvement over what you have now. I could be incredibly wrong though, so don't hold me to it.

I actually just got a Samsung 840 Evo 500GB SSD and a Hitachi 4TB Deskstar NAS and can tell you that I noticed a huge improvement over my previous ADATA S599 64GB SSD and 2TB Samsung F4. However, do note that your motherboard's SATA controller may bottleneck your new SSD as my Asus Sabertooth X58 does; I am only able to achieve ~250 MB/s sequential read speed as opposed to the ~500 MB/s it should be able to obtain. For this reason I plan to get a Z87 motherboard and a i7-4770K to go along with it.

 

[Dangman]

First and foremost, what PSU do you have? No reason to upgrade if the PSU if not of good quality. As for your questions:

1) Was the small OS SSD route and large hard drive really that much of a hassle? I'm doing that exact same thing at the moment and I'm not finding it to be that much of a hassle to split my data.

As for the faster RAM, I don't think it's going to be worth it. Judging from reviews done with Intel platforms at least, there's really no real noticeable benefits from higher clocked and/or lower timings RAM. In the few times that there were a difference that might be noticeable, it was simply not large enough to justify the higher RAM costs.

2) This basically requires a new CPU and motherboard. If you could find the Phenom II X6 1090T for like $40 or less shipped, then that might be worth the upgrade. Otherwise, you're basically looking at a new CPU and mobo.

3) Can't recommend this option because of the following questions:
a) What games are you playing?
b) What PSU do you have?

With that said, that CPU would be a limitation in a lot of current AAA games.

4) N/A.

5) Build a new box. That's what I had to do when I moved from my old AMD Phenom II X4 B93 setup to my current Intel setup.

 

[exostrife]

First and foremost, what PSU do you have? No reason to upgrade if the PSU if not of good quality. As for your questions:

OCZ ZS Series 550w 80+

1) Was the small OS SSD route and large hard drive really that much of a hassle? I'm doing that exact same thing at the moment and I'm not finding it to be that much of a hassle to split my data.

This was a few years ago when SSD's were new and it was only a 32gb SSD, so that may taint my memory. I think slotting my recently spare 128gb and using for games exclusively should get me some speed and not be too much trouble.

As for the faster RAM, I don't think it's going to be worth it. Judging from reviews done with Intel platforms at least, there's really no real noticeable benefits from higher clocked and/or lower timings RAM. In the few times that there were a difference that might be noticeable, it was simply not large enough to justify the higher RAM costs.

That was my take on it as well, good to hear it confirmed.

2) This basically requires a new CPU and motherboard. If you could find the Phenom II X6 1090T for like $40 or less shipped, then that might be worth the upgrade. Otherwise, you're basically looking at a new CPU and mobo.

The question, is my CPU really my weakest link, making that worth it? If I go this route, I'm basically building a new box because I'm not doing a change the level of a mobo swap without doing other things as well.

3) Can't recommend this option because of the following questions:
a) What games are you playing?
b) What PSU do you have?

With that said, that CPU would be a limitation in a lot of current AAA games.

I play a variety of stuff, many I don't have issues with as they are indie or older or smaller scope The most recent games that have some graphics to them are probably Skyrim, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Saints Row IV, but I still play (and mod) older stuff like Civ 5, Witcher 2, Fallout NV, Tropico 4, Mass Effect, Dragon Age etc. The games I can recall having to turn down settings or felt like I was slow on were probably like Skyrim (dialed down still only in ~30fps range with better textures), Saints Row IV (runs fine, just not max) and LA Noire.

All gaming is at 1920x1080.

Future wise I can say I want to be able to experience Witcher 3 whenever that comes out in all it's glory, but obviously impossible to tell what that will be like now.

4) N/A.

5) Build a new box. That's what I had to do when I moved from my old AMD Phenom II X4 B93 setup to my current Intel setup.

Still trying to get used to the idea...I was surprised when I looked up my mobo to find it wasn't AM3+, figured I was just going to drop a faster chip in and be done...made a mistake on this one.

 

[Dangman]

This was a few years ago when SSD's were new and it was only a 32gb SSD, so that may taint my memory. I think slotting my recently spare 128gb and using for games exclusively should get me some speed and not be too much trouble.

Yeah, solid plan.

The question, is my CPU really my weakest link, making that worth it? If I go this route, I'm basically building a new box because I'm not doing a change the level of a mobo swap without doing other things as well.

For web browsing and the mundane stuff, your CPU is more than enough. For games, I would upgrade. Again, literally what I just did three months ago.

Still trying to get used to the idea...I was surprised when I looked up my mobo to find it wasn't AM3+, figured I was just going to drop a faster chip in and be done...made a mistake on this one.

To be fair, even if it was AM3+, there's no guarantee that it would support the newer AMD CPUs. AMD is unfortunately not exactly capable of enforcing CPU upgrade paths nor are motherboard manufacturers care enough about those CPU upgrade paths.

 

[exostrife]

So if I were to rebuild with a new CPU and mobo, I am better off going Intel right?

AMD FX-8320 seems like a pretty nice sweet spot for perf with 8 cores and OC-able from the stock 3.5ghz for only $149, but sticking with AMD seems short sighted given they aren't even on roadmap to update the FX line this year.

That said, you are barely getting into quad core i5's for <$200.

Asked differently, a FX-8320 and ATX mobo (roughly equivalent to what I have) is about $200 due to a combo at the egg. A MicroATX with 4 DIMMS Z87 chipset + Core i3 4330 is about $225 (going to a 4 core is basically 200 for just the cpu, no matter how you dice it). The 4330 is only dual core, but has hyper threading, whereas the 8320 is 8 cores (though I know the FX architecture is a bit funny on what makes a core). On paper, these CPU's are fairly evenly matched, with Intel the edge in single threads, AMD the edge in multi-threads. Is power usage and architecture (long term value as a platform) enough to pay more money for the Intel?

Specific part links for mobo's in this comparison:
Intel
AMD

EDIT: Looking at benchmarks I"m not sure the 4330 or 8320 are even that much of an upgrade from what I got. 8320 is a bit faster, but not night and day. 4330 is faster in single threads, slower in multi (comparo between it and 8320 were remarkably similar). So I guess I can get a small upgrade going to 8320 for $200 or go to 4670k for about $300 to really change my cpu (and hopefully have a better long term upgrade path?). So I think I answered my own question.

To further question, is either worth the investment over say a R9 270 (~$200) GPU upgrade?

 

[exostrife]

• AMD Phenom II X4 970 (OC to 4ghz)
• 32gb of 1600mhz DDR3 (4x 8gb--AMD Entertainment Edition--(11-11-11))
• 2TB Hitachi 7200rpm HDD
• 32gb Sandisk ReadyCache SSD
• Sapphire Radeon 6870 1gb
• Asus Xonar DG
• Biostar TA870U3+ Mobo

So I think my best bet is to take above and make these changes:

• Slot my recently spare 128gb SSD and use for games
• Upgrade Video card to R9 270 or similar for ~ 200
• If that does not ultimately get me enough speed, go to Intel Core i5 4670k and new mobo for about 300. Lesser CPU swaps aren't enough change to be worth the dosh

 

[Dangman]

So if I were to rebuild with a new CPU and mobo, I am better off going Intel right?

AMD FX-8320 seems like a pretty nice sweet spot for perf with 8 cores and OC-able from the stock 3.5ghz for only $149, but sticking with AMD seems short sighted given they aren't even on roadmap to update the FX line this year.

That said, you are barely getting into quad core i5's for <$200.

Asked differently, a FX-8320 and ATX mobo (roughly equivalent to what I have) is about $200 due to a combo at the egg. A MicroATX with 4 DIMMS Z87 chipset + Core i3 4330 is about $225 (going to a 4 core is basically 200 for just the cpu, no matter how you dice it). The 4330 is only dual core, but has hyper threading, whereas the 8320 is 8 cores (though I know the FX architecture is a bit funny on what makes a core). On paper, these CPU's are fairly evenly matched, with Intel the edge in single threads, AMD the edge in multi-threads. Is power usage and architecture (long term value as a platform) enough to pay more money for the Intel?

Specific part links for mobo's in this comparison:
Intel
AMD

EDIT: Looking at benchmarks I"m not sure the 4330 or 8320 are even that much of an upgrade from what I got. 8320 is a bit faster, but not night and day. 4330 is faster in single threads, slower in multi (comparo between it and 8320 were remarkably similar). So I guess I can get a small upgrade going to 8320 for $200 or go to 4670k for about $300 to really change my cpu (and hopefully have a better long term upgrade path?). So I think I answered my own question

Though you've already found your answer (yes go Intel), I must still comment: If "long term value as a platform" means CPU upgrade paths to you, these days, don't expect to upgrade your CPU. In other words, whatever CPU you buy is more than likely the CPU you're going to keep until your next mobo and CPU upgrade. Intel basically changes sockets every 1-2 years or so and it looks like AMD is not focusing as much on their AM3+ platform. Considering that AMD's FM2/FM2+ platform actually has more up-to-date technologies (USB 3.0 controller, more and faster SATA 6.0Gb/s ports, etc), AMD's continued push for their APU platforms, and the lack on info on any new AM3+ CPU, it's clear that AMD is more than likely trying EOL their AM3+ platform. Even if they were, they're almost as lousy as Intel in regards to CPU upgrades paths. I.e like how our AM3 mobos won't work with any 1st gen AMD FX CPUs (AM3 technically) let alone the latest AMD FX CPUs (AM3+).

Also, that Gigabyte mobo is one I would not recommend to anyone due to its reliability issues.

To further question, is either worth the investment over say a R9 270 (~$200) GPU upgrade?

As much it pains me to say this, the R9 270 is not a good choice considering that its MSRP is $180 or so. IMO, the best bang for the buck mid to high-endish GPU in light of the fuckin' stupid mining shit is probably the $240 to $260 GTX 760. The GTX 660 is a close candidate for that but only if you can get it for $190 shipped. Any higher and it's simply more cost-effective to go with the GTX 760.

• Slot my recently spare 128gb SSD and use for games
• Upgrade Video card to R9 270 or similar for ~ 200
• If that does not ultimately get me enough speed, go to Intel Core i5 4670k and new mobo for about 300. Lesser CPU swaps aren't enough change to be worth the dosh

Solid enough plan but with the wrong GPU as noted above.

 

[exostrife]

Though you've already found your answer (yes go Intel), I must still comment: If "long term value as a platform" means CPU upgrade paths to you, these days, don't expect to upgrade your CPU. In other words, whatever CPU you buy is more than likely the CPU you're going to keep until your next mobo and CPU upgrade. Intel basically changes sockets every 1-2 years or so and it looks like AMD is not focusing as much on their AM3+ platform. Considering that AMD's FM2/FM2+ platform actually has more up-to-date technologies (USB 3.0 controller, more and faster SATA 6.0Gb/s ports, etc), AMD's continued push for their APU platforms, and the lack on info on any new AM3+ CPU, it's clear that AMD is more than likely trying EOL their AM3+ platform. Even if they were, they're almost as lousy as Intel in regards to CPU upgrades paths. I.e like how our AM3 mobos won't work with any 1st gen AMD FX CPUs (AM3 technically) let alone the latest AMD FX CPUs (AM3+).

Ya, I've been figuring that out. In the old days I was used to getting 2/3 upgrades out of a single mobo so the mobo was generally an important piece. Last few boards I've had were dual PCI-E 16's slots even though I've never actually done crossfire, and so on--just in case. I guess no one builds desktops anymore...need to adjust and buy just what I need now I guess.

Also, that Gigabyte mobo is one I would not recommend to anyone due to its reliability issues.

I just snagged one based more on price range for purpose of comparison, not necessarily what I'd buy. Thanks for feedback though.

As much it pains me to say this, the R9 270 is not a good choice considering that its MSRP is $180 or so. IMO, the best bang for the buck mid to high-endish GPU in light of the fuckin' stupid mining shit is probably the $240 to $260 GTX 760. The GTX 660 is a close candidate for that but only if you can get it for $190 shipped. Any higher and it's simply more cost-effective to go with the GTX 760.


Solid enough plan but with the wrong GPU as noted above.

Thanks for feedback, already bought a 270x when one blipped at $205 this week, should get it today. It's just as well, I owned stock in 3Dfx and still hold a grudge at Nvidia for buying 3Dfx's assets and not the company. [Intel I more just haven't used lately (lately being 10-12 years), Nvidia I actively avoid]

 

[Dangman]

Ya, I've been figuring that out. In the old days I was used to getting 2/3 upgrades out of a single mobo so the mobo was generally an important piece. Last few boards I've had were dual PCI-E 16's slots even though I've never actually done crossfire, and so on--just in case. I guess no one builds desktops anymore...need to adjust and buy just what I need now I guess.

Hmmm? I don't understand what you mean by the bolded/underlined/italicized part?

Thanks for feedback, already bought a 270x when one blipped at $205 this week, should get it today. It's just as well, I owned stock in 3Dfx and still hold a grudge at Nvidia for buying 3Dfx's assets and not the company. [Intel I more just haven't used lately (lately being 10-12 years), Nvidia I actively avoid]

Ahh. Well hopefully that wasn't a HIS or Sapphire 270X and that was $205 before rebates (Its MSRP is $200).

 

[exostrife]

Hmmm? I don't understand what you mean by the bolded/underlined/italicized part?

Don't mind me, got all existential for a second.

Ahh. Well hopefully that wasn't a HIS or Sapphire 270X and that was $205 before rebates (Its MSRP is $200).

I had an HIS once, and it was DOA. Nope.
What is wrong with Sapphire? Have one now, no complaints.

 

[Dangman]

What is wrong with Sapphire? Have one now, no complaints.

I generally only recommend Sapphire if there's no other choice or the other choice is a HIS. Sapphire has relatively poor CS and QC as well as a shorter warranty.

 

[exostrife]

I generally only recommend Sapphire if there's no other choice or the other choice is a HIS. Sapphire has relatively poor CS and QC as well as a shorter warranty.

So would you say that an MSI R9 270 at about MSRP is better than a Sapphire R9 270x? Bearing in mind they are the same chip and RAM, the difference will be power/clock (and maybe binning--270 will probably OC up to 270x speed, but with the binning/cooling/power available to the board, probably not any higher, whereas the 270x probably has headroom above that).

MSI 178

Sapphire 205

 

[r00k]

I don't know how it scales for your platform, but in terms of memory speed / timing versus net gains, anandtech had some interesting comparisons on a Haswell lineup. Something

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7364/memory-scaling-on-haswell/10

In terms of amount of memory, there was also an interesting article showing a relationship to memory size and its relationship to SSD Life:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-ram-endurance,3475.html

I don't have the answer, other than to throw in that old axiom:

Cheap, Fast, Relaible: pick 2.

 

[Dangman]

So would you say that an MSI R9 270 at about MSRP is better than a Sapphire R9 270x? Bearing in mind they are the same chip and RAM, the difference will be power/clock (and maybe binning--270 will probably OC up to 270x speed, but with the binning/cooling/power available to the board, probably not any higher, whereas the 270x probably has headroom above that).

MSI 178

Sapphire 205

I don't ever factor in the video card's overclock capability when recommending or buying as there's just too many factors involved that determines the overclock level. In other words, I'm judging based on stock performance.

Now to answer your question, it depends on the performance and company support you want. If you need R9 270X level of performance, then the Sapphire is the better choice as long you don't mind the crappy support and short warranty. If you want good support at the cost of performance, then the MSI card is the better choice. If you want both, then the GTX 760 from Asus, Gigabyte, eVGA, or MSI is your best bet for that. I don't recommend any of the other R9 270X cards now since they're well above the MSRP pricing for them.