Wait or replace (E8400).

[Moondrinker]

My computer is getting a bit old as I am running a E8400@4.0ghz and a Radeon HD5770 on a 22" screen. It's able to play Civ5 and Chivalry on beautiful settings with fluent fps but I'd like it to handle modded skyrim a bit better, although it's very decent as well (with 2k textures, flora overhaul etc.). Right now, I obviously can't play any of the newer games decently (which I would like as well. Total war 2: rome for example).

The thing is, if I need to replace my CPU I would obviously need a new motherboard, and 8gb of ram to go with it. That will quickly become very expensive (Europe, looking at 530$) and therefore I wouldn't be able to afford a decent CPU currently.
Therefore I was thinking of getting one of the fairly cheap R9 270X (235$) or R9 280 (275$) cards (for reference the 770GTX is 380$, the 760 305$) instead, and wait till I got the money for a proper CPU+motherboard. Eventually I'd end up with a decent system in 8-12 months time. It bothers me a bit though that these are rebranded. Oh well.

The question is whether I'll be able to get a good boost in my FPS running games like Skyrim with more glitter than before? Generally also whether it will result in smoother gameplay in other and newer game. I'd like some clarification on this.

The performance between a HD5770 and a 270x is extreme, so I figure there should be a pretty big difference but the question of my CPU to GPU ratio in terms of power is of course of essence.

This strategy of a GPU now, CPU+motherboard later would play out well if there's a new wave of CPU's on the horizon, but is this the case (Q3-Q4 2014, or Q1 2015)?

 

[InvalidError]

Your E8400 OC'd to 4GHz is likely just barely enough to make your HD5770 break a sweat so you would only get a modest improvement from getting a R9-270 before upgrading your CPU. You can open the Catalyst Control Center or equivalent utility to keep an eye on GPU load to see if your E8400 actually manages to max out your HD5770. My own experience with a stock E8400 and HD5770 is the CPU was not fast enough to push the GPU much beyond 70% load so, at 4GHz, you might barely manage to bottleneck the GPU some of the time.

You would probably get more benefit from upgrading your CPU/MoBo/RAM first.

As for the next wave of CPUs, we are talking ~6 months for Intel's Broadwell or 12-18 months for Skylake.

 

[dwatterworth]

I would wait and get everything at once, otherwise you'll always have a mismatched/unbalanced system. From my understanding, those games are fairly CPU dependent anyway, especially the total war series and civ5 (for turns anyway).

The broadwell CPU's won't really see a ton of improvement over the current haswell parts, just as haswell was a blah step up from ivy bridge/sandybridge. For a strategy standpoint on parts buying, I would pick up open box and used parts that your budget will allow. GPU's seem to be the more quickly evolving parts whereas the decreasing overclocking potential due to CPU production process node decreases and other elements might see the higher overclocking older parts more closely matching the new CPU performance. Obviously that goes out the window if you aren't overclocking the new parts.

To sum up my ramble, I would say don't wait on the platform/CPU updates, you'll be waiting until late 2015 or early 2016 the way the Intel roadmap has been getting delayed for the enthusiast level stuff to show up.

 

[InvalidError]

I would wait and get everything at once, otherwise you'll always have a mismatched/unbalanced system.

I would not bother trying to "match" a CPU and GPU since the "ideal" balance between the two chances on a game-by-game, scene-by-scene basis. Instead, I pick upgrades based on most bang-per-buck for the foreseeable future considering the immediate benefit in my current system and reuse value once combined with planned future upgrades.

The CPU/MoBo/RAM upgrade going from an E8400 to i5-3470 makes gaming and general computing a fair bit more pleasant. I'm still using my HD5770 - still plays everything I remotely care about well enough to hold at least until 20nm GPUs come out. Whatever GPU I end up buying then will most likely carry over to my next PC 2-3 years from now. Tick-Tock.

 

[dwatterworth]

Right, in order to get bang for the buck to make sense, you need to have parts that match up performance-wise pretty well, especially for very demanding games such as skyrim with mod packs. There are tons of products that are tremendous bang for the buck, but unless you pair it with something that can compliment it, then you're not getting bang for the buck.

 

[InvalidError]

There are tons of products that are tremendous bang for the buck, but unless you pair it with something that can compliment it, then you're not getting bang for the buck.

Obsessing over getting the absolute best balance under every conceivable scenario is not particularly healthy since it is impossible to achieve. I made my peace with that years ago and only upgrade what needs upgrading when it needs upgrading, taking into account potential reusability. For me, there is no value in replacing what is not broken.

If I had wanted the "best match" back when I was using my E8400, that would have been a HD5670 for ~$120 but for only ~$20 extra, I got a HD5770 which is nearly twice as powerful. If I had gotten the HD5670, I would have started to itch for an upgrade after two or three years but with my HD5770, I'm about five years in and still do not feel any (legit) urge to upgrade.

Roughly doubling the GPU's useful life for an extra ~20% up-front cost even if the GPU would be considered a mismatch on both systems I used it in by many people here (too high for the C2D, too low for the i5), it still gave me terrific value over its useful service life since I had planned for it to span at least two systems.

 

[dwatterworth]

I agree with speccing parts with longevity in mind, I've got a lot of systems around for a makeshift render farm, I think we are on a similar page, I definitely understand the value of the minor price step up for major performance gains. There is a definite sweet spot though. In no way am I saying a perfectly balanced system. To me it just makes very little sense to buy a part such as a GPU when the platform cannot take advantage of it and then down the road when you do buy a new platform, the GPU which you bought before obviously has the same performance levels, but now, the money from the GPU (which was wasted on a bottlenecking platform) could buy you something three times as powerful.

Yes the GPU seems to be the more often needed upgrade if the user keeps up with modern and demanding titles, but in some cases, the platform should definitely come first since the upgrade cycle for a platform I think is ~5 years while the GPU (depending on anticipated games played over the course of the intended life cycle) seems to be every 2.5 years. -- Again, not a perfect balanced system, but components that aren't bottle-necking each other, the money which could be saved to buy a part at the same price point when the bottlenecking part(s) can be upgraded as well.

 

[InvalidError]

but now, the money from the GPU (which was wasted on a bottlenecking platform) could buy you something three times as powerful.

Not quite... and three times as powerful is a bit optimistic since GPU progress has slowed down considerably over the past couple of years: the R7-260X is just over twice as fast as the HD5770 which occupied roughly the same market segment almost five years ago.

If you buy a $100 "just right" GPU for your old system and bury it when you get a new system and a new $100-150 GPU, you have now spent $200-250 on GPUs. If you bought a somewhat overkill GPU for $150 for your previous system and carried it over, you have spent $150 on a single GPU and have $50-100 extra left to go slightly overkill on the next one later, when your carry-over GPU no longer feels adequate and faster GPUs have become available at similar or lower prices.

Also, even if a component is somewhat overkill for a given system, you always have the "outlier" apps and games that will more heavily stress that component than the other weaker components under at least some circumstances and when the previously installed component was a significant bottleneck, the overkill upgrade will still yield a substantial improvement even if it the rest of the system can rarely make it break a sweat.

It all might even up eventually but by not spending/upgrading until I actually need to, I do get much greater bang-for-my-buck than upgrading everything at once every time and then have to worry about getting it right and software/games throwing curved balls by being unexpectedly harsh on one component.

Another benefit of upgrading components as-needed is it simplifies buyers' remorse: the upgrade was overdue and now it is taken care of for the foreseeable future, end of story.

As for OP's case, he needs a new CPU more than he needs a new GPU since his E8400 is already somewhat under-powered even for his current HD5770. If he got the R9-270X first, the 270X would hardly ever get a chance to break a sweat before OP can afford to upgrade the CPU and by then, the R9-3xx will probably have launched. The CPU upgrade is also a safer investment since prices and performance have been practically set in stone for the past few years and are unlikely to change much in the foreseeable future.

 

[Moondrinker]

Your E8400 OC'd to 4GHz is likely just barely enough to make your HD5770 break a sweat [...]
You would probably get more benefit from upgrading your CPU/MoBo/RAM first. [...]
As for the next wave of CPUs, we are talking ~6 months for Intel's Broadwell or 12-18 months for Skylake.

I would say don't wait on the platform/CPU updates, you'll be waiting until late 2015 or early 2016 the way the Intel roadmap has been getting delayed for the enthusiast level stuff to show up.

Thank you both. I didn't know that my system is as balanced as you propose. That's good news. And thank you for a clarification on when the next gen CPU's will arrive.
It seems it would make the most sense to upgrade my CPU, motherboard and RAM.

What would I look for (CPU)? The FX-8320 seems like a bargain. I don't think the rise (if any) in performance for an I5 would justify the 95$ difference. What is your take on this?

I5 4670K/ I5 4690 - 275$
FX-8320 - 180$
FX-9370 - 275$

And for a motherboard?
Would I lose out on anything except extra gadgets and slots if I went for a cheaper board? These are just some popular picks, but I see little sense in picking the more expensive one. Is it the case of less heat/more stable OC or just extras?

GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+ - 160$
Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P AM3+ - 100$
MSI 970A-G43 AM3+ - 90$

I'd take that 60-70$ difference on the cheaper boards and apply it to a better CPU for example. Or give me the financial leverage I need to buy 8gb of RAM. Any downsides to this? Will the cheaper boards be less adequate for overclocking?

Any thoughts?

 

[InvalidError]

Will the cheaper boards be less adequate for overclocking?

Higher quality boards often have more filter caps, higher quality caps, inductors with beefier wiring, more efficient and more stable VRM, etc. that all can help with reaching higher stable overclocks.

On the other hand, if you buy an i5, you already beat heavily overclocked AMD CPUs in practically all games and most applications without overclocking. With modern Intel chips only having ~15% overclock headroom, you are not going to get anywhere near as much overclocking bang-per-buck out of those as you did with your E8400.

 

[Moondrinker]

Will the cheaper boards be less adequate for overclocking?

Higher quality boards often have more filter caps, higher quality caps, inductors with beefier wiring, more efficient and more stable VRM, etc. that all can help with reaching higher stable overclocks.

Based on what you're saying here, from a perspective of value, it makes more sense to go for a system that is not geared towards OC I.e. cheap motherboard, stock cooling etc.

I've researched a bit and it seems that the I5 4690 is overwhelmingly more popular than the fx-8320, but with a price difference of almost 100$ it seems a no brainer to go for the 8320, wouldn't you agree?
Would the 8320 struggle in older titles, like skyrim, the witcher 2 (as it has 8 cores)? I'd like to get an I5, but they're just so expensive in my country.

 

[InvalidError]

Would the 8320 struggle in older titles, like skyrim, the witcher 2 (as it has 8 cores)?

It may have eight cores but most games, particularly older games, are heavily dependent on single-threaded performance and for those games, you need to overclock AMD chips to ~5GHz to match stock Intel performance and at 5GHz, AMD's chips use 150-180W more power than Intel's and to get to 5GHz, you would spend about as much on OC-oriented components as.the price difference.

Of course, older titles are usually not as processing-intensive. That said, most people do not care too much about the i5 being able to hit 100+ fps in a game as long as whatever CPU they have can manage a steady 60 fps to match their display's refresh rate and as far as that goes, the FX63xx/83xx usually get the job done even without OC.