Help me to understand. People upgrading their GPU but still using their 10 YO CPU

[Choli90]

I'm seeing on a regular basis, people buying a 40xx or 7xxx series GPU to go with their FX6300 or similar time frame CPU.

 

I can understand buying a newer GPU, but don't understand why you would buy the latest GPU and not upgrade you 12 YO CPU

[RONOTHAN##]

As far as I've seen, that really isn't that common anymore. There was a mindset back then that the CPU really didn't matter for gaming performance, especially since basically any quad core i7 would perform fairly similarly to each other once you had an overclock on it. Look at X58 setups for instance, the people who bought them ran them for 6-7 years without feeling a need to upgrade because there just wasn't a need for it. Nowadays though, games are using a ton of CPU power and therefore you really do need an upgrade. 

 

I'm sure there are still some people out there that still live by that older mindset of any CPU made within the last 10 years is probably OK for a mid to top range GPU, but I'm pretty certain that it's more rare than you make it out to be. 

[whispous]

Before the advent of Ryzen, Intel made (comparatively) little progress from one generation to another while being the top dog.

 

In that same timeframe, we've also seen doubling, then doubling again of bandwidths in PCIe for GPUs and storage, where PCIe3 had stuck around for a long time.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

14 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

As far as I've seen, that really isn't that common anymore. There was a mindset back then that the CPU really didn't matter for gaming performance, especially since basically any quad core i7 would perform fairly similarly to each other once you had an overclock on it. Look at X58 setups for instance, the people who bought them ran them for 6-7 years without feeling a need to upgrade because there just wasn't a need for it. Nowadays though, games are using a ton of CPU power and therefore you really do need an upgrade. 

^^^

maybe this was still relevant back in 2018-2019 where overclocked x58 could still compete with 1st/2nd gen ryzen and an overclocked 2nd-4th gen i7 (4.8-5.2ghz) could beat said ryzens in singlecore whilst the 6700k/7700k werent that much faster than those oced 2nd-4th gen i7s but after that not really

 

those old quadcore i7s are still half decent when run at 4.8-5ghz but are definitely showing their age, dont think you can drive anything over a 6700xt with em unless you play on a really high res and they definitely cant compete with zen2 especially not the later samples that can do 4.5-4.6ghz

 

x58 still usable but also really showing its age considering it doesnt even have avx not to mention the ludicrous power draw and it definitely loses out in singlecore, dont think even a max tuned setup with a binned cpu thatd do 4.8-5ghz allcore and ddr3 2600 can compete with zen2 let alone zen3 or zen4

 

and then theres also used ryzen to consider cause those used b3/450s and used ryzen 3000/5000 are going dirt cheap and will crush all of this old hardware, the upgrade isnt even that expensive or it could be straight up free especially if you have some higher value parts or they havent depreciated too much

 

as for amd fx that stuff still holds some value so you are better off selling anyways, even x58 will crush tuned fx performance wise so its not really worth holding onto unless you just wanna have some fun with ocing the balls off it running >5.3ghz and ddr3 3000+

[WereCat]

I don't really see that either. More often than not I see people picking the best possible CPU and then ask if it will bottleneck their mid-range GPU...

[venomtail]

If you said something like an Intel 9th gen, at most 7th I might have agreed with you but a CPU from 2012? No one keeps those around anymore, especially doesn't match them with 40 series NVIDIA card or new from AMD either.

[TimedPing]

Ah yes, especially HEDT users. albeit longer than expected, in gaming context, they really starting to get their money worth it buying CPU with tons of cores, since more and more game capable to utilize more and more CPU cores. But yeah, those system is basically a retro muscle car, they sure giving you kick, but they are thirsty AF (power consumption speaking).

My "retired" Haswell Xeon system (E5-2650v3 and 2695v3) can pegged most midrange GPU with no hassle in most games, especially when you do the turbo boost unlock + ReBAR mod to the motherboard BIOS. I put both RX 6800 and RTX 3070 Ti, and both CPU, particularly E5-2697v3, didn't break a sweat balancing its power with the GPU in most games.

Edit: Adding a system spec screenshot of my "backup" workstation (Literally just comeback from retirement):

[porina]

10 years ago would put it in Haswell era (released mid-2013). I think an i7 of the era is still comparable to an entry level CPU today - a budget quad core level. It'll be broadly comparable to the Steam Deck's CPU for example. If you have a GPU from a few generations back, and not a high end one of that time either, then a recent low-mid tier GPU would be a nice upgrade on that without going too unbalanced, especially if you're pushing resolution and quality more than frame rate.

 

It's still on my to do list: I have a Broadwell 5775C 4c8t 128MB L4 cache CPU I want to try in modern games. That's from 2015, so nearly 9 years old now. Even my current main system is currently a 7980XE, over 6 years old. It games fine, but I do feel a bit lacking in low thread performance so I'll probably upgrade next gen.

[freeagent]

6 hours ago, Choli90 said:

I'm seeing on a regular basis, people buying a 40xx or 7xxx series GPU to go with their FX6300 or similar time frame CPU.

 

I can understand buying a newer GPU, but don't understand why you would buy the latest GPU and not upgrade you 12 YO CPU

Because not everyone is rich, nor does everyone have credit. Many people use credit to pay for their PC hardware.

[Beerzerker]

18 minutes ago, freeagent said:

Because not everyone is rich, nor does everyone have credit. Many people use credit to pay for their PC hardware.

Esp for a new GPU of any real capability these days - You can in some cases buy all the rest you need for a build and it's cheaper than just the GPU itself.

[smcoakley]

I won the silicon lottery back in the day with an excellent Intel i7-6700k, and I still am using it in my gaming-focused desktop. I haven't upgraded it since I built the computer, though I've upgraded GPUs a couple of times. I probably will have to upgrade the CPU eventually, but at least the games I play, that old 6700k when overclocked still runs like a champ, so I haven't really felt a strong need to replace it.

 

Note that I don't usually play AAA games, so your mileage will certainly vary depending on what types of games you play. In my case lately I've only been using the desktop as either a Steam streaming source for more demanding games to my laptop or handheld, and as a VR machine. For the latter, more often than not the GPU is still the bottleneck preventing me from running things at the highest resolution and refresh rate. A faster PCIe bus would probably make more difference in an upgrade than actual CPU performance. I use the Valve Index so the ceiling for graphic possibility is pretty high.

 

But the real reason, I think, is simpler: I've just become more busy and have less time for games than I used to, so its harder to justify the cost of an upgrade if I'm only going to be using it infrequently. When I encounter a title that I want to play and can't with a decent experience due to a CPU bottleneck, I'd definitely bite the bullet, but that just really hasn't happened yet.

[starsmine]

A gpu swap is cheap and easy, a CPU swap requires a new mobo and new ram. A new GPU almost always (exceptions apply) still get you better frame rate, even if its not ALL of the frames.
A gpu can be carried forward when you do swap the CPU.

Why spend 700 when 300 will do?

2600k went from a GTX 460 to a GTX 660ti RMAed into a GTX 760 into a GTX 1660, down back to GTX 760, up to an RTX 3060 12GB. Every step of the way I gained massive significant performance in games. yes, the 3060 12GB was bottlenecked in some games, but literally... no one cares. It still gave a significant and large fps boost on average.

Only then did I upgrade the CPU to a R7 7700x, and used the RTX 3060 12GB to go with it, and ill do a similar trend with that. but with AM5, there actually is a promise of a cheap and easy CPU upgrade with the zen5x3d or zen6x3d (We still dont have confirmation of zen 6 being on AM5 though) So that's the only major difference this build will have.

Anyone running a high end skylake (i7/i9, not just HEDT) is really in the same boat I was in. they can just slap in a 6700xt from AMD and get massive performance gains if they are coming from an AMD 480. And that is far cheaper then getting a new ryzen build or alder/raptorlake build with a new mobo and new ram. 

[Erioch]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

A gpu swap is cheap and easy, a CPU swap requires a new mobo and new ram.

Exactly.  CPU is usually the last thing I upgrade because of this.

[lilshawn]

Ask me how my vintage FX9590 paired with period correct DDR3 and a circa 2019 GTX1650 performs gaming... oh...nvm, I just watch youtubers and twitch streamers play games now.

 

I mean, I could probably play lots of games at 1080p.

 

But honestly, up until a few years ago the issue with games for the most part where they were very GPU heavy with not much CPU being needed other than feed the GPU beast and keep it full. having a meh cpu was perfectly okay cause all the heavy lifting is done by the GPU.

 

now games have changed a bit and all kinds of physics calculations and lighting stuff needing to be done... the CPU has become more important than it used to be...because it has to do all this additional stuff at resolutions greater than before AND feed the beast AND keep it full.

 

to me, single core/single thread performance is starting to matter again, but i still see nothing wrong with having a meh/old CPU paired with a new high end GPU if the data the CPU has to process in between shoving data to the GPU doesn't cause it to get behind or go 100% load. (always nice to have some overhead there)

[thrasher_565]

this is a good video that shows the improvements and bottle necks of cpus

 

so you can use a hi end gpu on a slower cpu as long as that cpu dose its task and you get the amount you want.

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

On 3/10/2024 at 11:53 PM, Choli90 said:

I'm seeing on a regular basis, people buying a 40xx or 7xxx series GPU to go with their FX6300 or similar time frame CPU.

 

I can understand buying a newer GPU, but don't understand why you would buy the latest GPU and not upgrade you 12 YO CPU

I run an i7-4790 here, Haswell being about 11 years old.  

The CPU does limit me a bit on the newest games, but the GPU upgrade (went from a GRX 960 2GB to the RTX 3060 12GB) allows me to run the games I already play, at higher settings and greatly higher resolutions (generally stuff I used to play at 900P 60 fps, I can hit 1440P 60FPS, or even higher now), without putting additional load on the CPU. 
 

Being able to run my favorite game, Final Fantasy XII, at 4K 60 FPS, with a hint of MSAA, really validated throwing the GPU in my old system. Big upgrade from what my old 960 could do. 
 

And surprisingly, my config actually holds its own when it comes to Cyberpunk 2077. This was beyond my expectations for this old platform. This is the most demanding game I play semi-regularly. 
 

Though once Stardew Valley 1.6 comes out, that will probably be my primary game for awhile again, and that runs on potatoes. So I seldom need the capabilities a more modern system offers at this time. 

[Kisai]

On 3/10/2024 at 11:53 PM, Choli90 said:

I'm seeing on a regular basis, people buying a 40xx or 7xxx series GPU to go with their FX6300 or similar time frame CPU.

 

I can understand buying a newer GPU, but don't understand why you would buy the latest GPU and not upgrade you 12 YO CPU

Because there is no pressure to upgrade the CPU. What's been added since nth-gen CPU? Nothing.

 

If everything you need works on the thing you have, then why would you change it.

 

That said, there really is no point in upgrading the CPU/MB/RAM unless the OS forces you. FreeBSD no longer supports hardware commonly found in DDR2 systems. Windows 11 doesn't support any DDR3 systems, and some early systems without a TPM shipped (Eg all ASUS/Gigabyte/MSI MB's. Dell and HP has had upgradable TPM's way back on the 6th/7th gen Intel systems.)

 

I basically used the 4th gen Intel CPU until it died, it got replaced with an 11th gen Intel, which required a new MB and new RAM.

 

And that's the crux of it. If Intel would stick to a socket for an entire RAM/PCIe cycle, then people would just upgrade the CPU as needed. But instead Intel releases a new chipset every 2 CPU's, thus making it impossible ever upgrade incrementally. AMD meanwhile sticks to the same socket for the entire RAM/PCIe cycle, reluctantly.

 

There is eventually going to be a point where MB vendors start having to sell CPU's soldered to the MB because the socket complexity becomes too difficult to retain system stability. Or perhaps moving the RAM and CPU to a "SLocket card" like back with the Socket1/370 design that then only attaches the PCIe pins to the MB.

 

 

[williamcll]

Because the demand for CPU power isn't as high as GPU power.

[Needfuldoer]

A fast GPU may be sandbagged by a slow CPU, but it also won't hold the rest of the machine back when you do a platform upgrade.

[cooky560]

It's part of an old scenario many of us in the hobby are used to, where CPUS were strong for many years.

 

It's not really true anymore, but it's hard for people to adjust to that, especially if they don't keep up with the hardware news.

[Sauron]

in the roughly 2010-2018 time frame consumer cpus barely got any better, especially in terms of game performance (partially due to the console generation of the time relying on relatively slow CPUs) so it really didn't make much sense to upgrade your CPU regularly. Nowadays if you have a cpu from those times it's probably holding your system back.

[thewelshbrummie]

On 3/11/2024 at 2:08 AM, RONOTHAN## said:

As far as I've seen, that really isn't that common anymore. There was a mindset back then that the CPU really didn't matter for gaming performance, especially since basically any quad core i7 would perform fairly similarly to each other once you had an overclock on it. Look at X58 setups for instance, the people who bought them ran them for 6-7 years without feeling a need to upgrade because there just wasn't a need for it. Nowadays though, games are using a ton of CPU power and therefore you really do need an upgrade.

Context of the time matters - keep in mind that at the time people were looking for a suitable upgrade from the Q6600, the first popular quad core (which was really 2 dual core CPUs in the same package i.e. 2 CPU dies, the L2 cache was 2 pools that couldn't be shared across all 4 cores). The Q9650 wasn't really that sensible an upgrade - I have one and it was great for the time but it wasn't the game changer from the GO stepping of the Q6600 when overclocked beyond 3.6GHz.

 

Enter x58 - which was really the OG HEDT platform, with native quad core support (i.e. combined pools of cache for all 4 cores and a single die) while also offering triple channel memory support. Features that simply haven't appeared in any non-HEDT Intel platform (while also forcing DDR3 upgrades on people with older LGA775 DDR2 based boards, DDR3 LGA775 was very late in the socket lifespan). People who jumped onto the i7-920 probably waited for another similar platform and decided that later HEDT platforms were too expensive, so stuck it out until Skylake or later. That and there wasn't a real 2nd gen LGA1366 set of CPUs to choose from, you had the 9xx range only with a very minor mid-cycle refresh.