Nvidia GTX 970 SLI for Star Wars

[Max_Killjoy]

BTW, that is a good example of the difference between subjective viewpoints and objective viewpoints. I wouldn't consider those numbers fighting mobs on Oricon to be "fine", but to each their own.

 

I'll go test the above fight on Ord Mandell on my main rig in a few min and post those numbers, just for comparison sake.

 

I think the flip side (and irony) is that it matters less than in PvP, because mobs don't circle-strafe and hop around like a bunny on meth.

 

Also, I've got most of the settings cranked to highest, a couple to next-highest.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Max_Killjoy

[TX_Angel]

I think the flip side (and irony) is that it matters less in PvP, because mobs don't circle-strafe and hop around like a bunny on meth.

 

Also, I've got most of the settings cranked to highest, a couple to next-highest.

 

I suspect it won't matter what you set your graphics to, you're not GPU limited, you're CPU limited with that, frankly, horrible CPU.

 

At least for SWTOR

[TX_Angel]

1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850

 

Galactic Starfighter - Satellites - Flying as a bomber and protecting our sat - reasonable combat levels, perhaps 1/3 of the time in combat.

Frames - 13340

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 3

Max - 64

Avg - 44.467

 

Update for comparison:

 

1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI

 

Galactic Starfighter - deathmath - Flying as a bomber - lots of combat, perhaps 1/2 of the time in combat.

Frames - 29058

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 80

Max - 104

Avg - 96.86

 

---

 

Seriously, what a difference... Couldn't have been more smooth, as the above numbers of course make clear. These are of course two extremes.

[TX_Angel]

1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850

Pylons, 8v8

Frames - 3688

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 5

Max - 23

Avg - 12.293

 

Update for comparison:

 

1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI

 

Pylons, 8v8

Frames - 15518

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 22

Max - 99

Avg - 51.727

 

What a difference... while a dip down below 30fps happened a few minor times, overall it was completely smooth and totally playable, very nice indeed.

 

This is my main machine, I normally play on 3 screens at a 8120x1600 (3x 2560x1600 screens with 220 bezel correction between each one). While playing on one screen at 1080p was painful (lord I NEVER want to do that for real), it was butter silky smooth.

 

I've reset my machine back to 3 screens and 8120x1600, I'll run the same warzone again and FRAPS it again and see the difference.

[TX_Angel]

1920X1080 - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Core2Quad Q6600 - ATI 5850

 

The 3 heroics on Ord Mantell - Republic Side

Frames - 10153

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 3

Max - 64

Avg - 33.843

 

Further note: When I run CPU-Z and run the "bench", here is what I get:

 

CPU Single Thread - 813

CPU Multi Thread - 3097

 

Update, this was my final run at 1080p.

 

Frames - 27639

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 48

Max - 104

Avg - 92.13

 

Side note: On CPU-Z:

CPU Single Thread - 1910

CPU Multi Thread - 8767

[TX_Angel]

1920x1080 (full screen, VSync off) - Ultra - Shadows/Grass/AA off

Intel i7-4770k @4.2GHz / NVidia GTX 980 TI

 

Pylons, 8v8

Frames - 15518

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 22

Max - 99

Avg - 51.727

 

Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).

Settings put to Ultra, then AA turned to medium, everything else left at defaults.

 

Quesh Huttball, 8v8

Frames - 7588

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 15

Max - 50

Avg - 25.293

 

Give or take, about half the performance across the board. In fairness, I don't normally run with shadows or AA turned on, I was simply curious as to the difference.

 

Performance was very playable, had no issues keeping up, the times when it dropped way down were very brief and tolerable.

 

The advantage of being able to see more than 150 degrees side to side far exceeds any performance loss of playing on three screens. People think they can sneak up on you from the side, yet I can see them because of the extra wide field of view. It is a distinct tactical advantage in WZ and GSF.

[TX_Angel]

Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).

Settings put to Ultra, then AA turned to medium, everything else left at defaults.

 

Quesh Huttball, 8v8

Frames - 7588

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 15

Max - 50

Avg - 25.293

 

Alderann Turrents, 8v8

Same machine, only difference is switched to 3 monitors, total resolution of 8120x1600 - Fullscreen (Windowed).

Settings put to Ultra, then shadows, grass, and AA turned off

 

Frames - 11844

Time (ms) - 300000

Min - 17

Max - 62

Avg - 39.48

 

Massive improvement over the prior numbers, clearly shadows and AA were eating into performance.

 

Well, that, and it is a completely different map and I'm sure the amount of time spent in combat wasn't the same, so frankly the two aren't very comparable, but it felt decently smooth overall. No issues or complaints.

[KLGChaos]

I've got two GTX980s in SLI and the game runs great on my 52" 1080p tv unles I turn shadows up too high, which seems to cause issues.

 

I actually want to pick up a 21:9 monitor myself, but not sure on the size or if I want curved or flat. I'll only be a couple feet away from the monitor at my desk, so 34" might be overkill.

[Max_Killjoy]

I suspect it won't matter what you set your graphics to, you're not GPU limited, you're CPU limited with that, frankly, horrible CPU.

 

At least for SWTOR

 

It does everything I need it to do, smoothly and without issues. I'm well past the point in my life where I "need" to upgrade my entire PC every 2 years "because obsolete".

[FlyingUsPoo]

No need for an i7. SWTOR runs on two threads... This means anything over a i5 dual core is overkill as far as multicore processing goes. You need all your power into single core processing.

 

Just a nit pick here. SWTOR runs on 2 processes. Each one runs upwards to 30 threads (my machine the "game" runs 30 threads, the security process runs 21 threads. your results may vary). What SWTOR doesn't do is run on multiple cores, or take advantage of more than 4GB of memory (say thank you to 2^32 architecture).

 

You might think its semantics, but it is like going to a doctor, complaining about a sore throat then showing them your knee. Sure, they are parts of the body, but that's were it ends.

[TX_Angel]

It does everything I need it to do, smoothly and without issues. I'm well past the point in my life where I "need" to upgrade my entire PC every 2 years "because obsolete".

 

I understand, and if something is working, why replace it? I continue to be impressed how well the above Core2Quad machine does basic Windows tasks. If you don't ask too much of it, if you just open 1 or 2 browser tabs at a time, if you don't try to overload it, it is amazingly smooth.

 

It does help that it is booting off a SSD, that changes the overall experience by a wide margin.

 

Side note: I get the whole 2 years thing, but you DO know your CPU is from 2009, right?

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%20925%20-%20HDX925WFK4DGI%20(HDX925WFGIBOX).html

 

Have you actually seen better? I only ask because I suspect you call it "good enough" without personally experiencing what is possible. You may thing "I can play this well enough", and it may be true. 5 min on a newer machine may have you saying, "holy crap, my prior performance sucked, this is SO much better, I had no idea how much easier it was to simply play when the machine isn't holding me back."

 

Now, you may STILL not care, and that's fine. Personal preference and all that, but it is hard to judge things you don't personally experience.

[TX_Angel]

I've got two GTX980s in SLI and the game runs great on my 52" 1080p tv unles I turn shadows up too high, which seems to cause issues.

 

I actually want to pick up a 21:9 monitor myself, but not sure on the size or if I want curved or flat. I'll only be a couple feet away from the monitor at my desk, so 34" might be overkill.

 

What is your CPU? That is really the question. Even one of those GTX 980 cards is fine for SWTOR, overkill for 1080p. Keep in mind the size of your display doesn't matter, only the resolution. The game doesn't know if it is a 20" monitor or a 52" TV.

 

If shadows are an issue at 1080p, I suspect you have a thousand bucks worth of GPUs attached to way too little CPU. It would be like putting a little 3 speed automatic transmission on a Corvette engine.

 

---

 

As for the 21:9 monitors, I have considered picking one up to review, however the main issue I keep coming back to is price. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1080p cost a decent amount more than 16:9 screens, without actually offering much more screen space. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1440p cost as much as 4k 16:9 panels.

 

If you really want to wide screen game, I personally suggest three monitors, the price is more reasonable and you end up with a lot more space.

 

Example:

3x ASUS 27" 1080p monitors ($170 each, $510 total):

http://amzn.to/1KZwPrk

 

$170 each, that has HDMI and DVI inputs, you can run 3 of them off one of your GTX 980 cards and play SWTOR in ultrawide screen for close to the cost of a 34" 1080p monitor.

 

LG 34" 1080p monitor ($440):

http://amzn.to/1osNIk3

 

---

 

If you want to go up in quality (which I would think you would, having spent so much on dual GTX 980 video cards:

 

27" 1440p monitor ($350):

http://amzn.to/1osNRE5

 

While more expensive, it has nearly double the resolution of a 1080p display. Three of them would be just over $1k, right around the cost of your video cards.

 

The 34" 1440 option ($800):

http://amzn.to/1SEWHLZ

 

Nice monitor, you really wouldn't go wrong with it. I think it has a nice resolution for the size, and no bezels to get in your way. However, the real flaw in my opinion with that monitor is not the monitor itself. It is this one:

 

Acer 32" 4k IPS monitor ($900):

http://amzn.to/1SEWRD4

 

I own 5 of that monitor, 2 each on 2 different machines at the office and my wife has one at home. One of the nicer consumer level monitors I've seen in some time. It really is beautiful and it gives you the standard 16:9 format while having massive resolution. And you have the GPU power to use it.

 

Worth considering:

The above 34" 1440p display has a total of 4,953,600 pixels on it. The above 32" 4k display has 8,294,400 pixels on it. The 4k is a MUCH higher resolution screen, the pixels are smaller and you won't need to use AA on it the way you might on the 34" 1440p display.

[Max_Killjoy]

I understand, and if something is working, why replace it? I continue to be impressed how well the above Core2Quad machine does basic Windows tasks. If you don't ask too much of it, if you just open 1 or 2 browser tabs at a time, if you don't try to overload it, it is amazingly smooth.

 

It does help that it is booting off a SSD, that changes the overall experience by a wide margin.

 

Side note: I get the whole 2 years thing, but you DO know your CPU is from 2009, right?

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%20925%20-%20HDX925WFK4DGI%20(HDX925WFGIBOX).html

 

Have you actually seen better? I only ask because I suspect you call it "good enough" without personally experiencing what is possible. You may thing "I can play this well enough", and it may be true. 5 min on a newer machine may have you saying, "holy crap, my prior performance sucked, this is SO much better, I had no idea how much easier it was to simply play when the machine isn't holding me back."

 

Now, you may STILL not care, and that's fine. Personal preference and all that, but it is hard to judge things you don't personally experience.

 

I built the machine in November of 2009. I've since replaced the 9800 GTX+ with a GTX 960, and I just ordered an SSD (1TB Samsung) to take the place of the 500GB HDD. The "2 years" comment was more of a friendly dig at my old friends in the hardcore hardware community who regarded anything even close to 2 years old "hopelessly, laughably obsolete".

 

I've seen newer. I used to build and repair computers for a living, and I still do things for my friends on the side. I did a rebuild late last fall with an Intel i5 (I'd have to look at his machine or invoice to say exactly which now, but it was middle-range in price at the time).

 

--

 

Regarding the monitors... I'd need to get a new desk with no "hutch" to go for multiple monitors.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Max_Killjoy

[KLGChaos]

What is your CPU? That is really the question. Even one of those GTX 980 cards is fine for SWTOR, overkill for 1080p. Keep in mind the size of your display doesn't matter, only the resolution. The game doesn't know if it is a 20" monitor or a 52" TV.

 

If shadows are an issue at 1080p, I suspect you have a thousand bucks worth of GPUs attached to way too little CPU. It would be like putting a little 3 speed automatic transmission on a Corvette engine.

 

---

 

As for the 21:9 monitors, I have considered picking one up to review, however the main issue I keep coming back to is price. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1080p cost a decent amount more than 16:9 screens, without actually offering much more screen space. The 29" and 34" monitors that are 1440p cost as much as 4k 16:9 panels.

 

If you really want to wide screen game, I personally suggest three monitors, the price is more reasonable and you end up with a lot more space.

 

Example:

3x ASUS 27" 1080p monitors ($170 each, $510 total):

http://amzn.to/1KZwPrk

 

$170 each, that has HDMI and DVI inputs, you can run 3 of them off one of your GTX 980 cards and play SWTOR in ultrawide screen for close to the cost of a 34" 1080p monitor.

 

LG 34" 1080p monitor ($440):

http://amzn.to/1osNIk3

 

---

 

If you want to go up in quality (which I would think you would, having spent so much on dual GTX 980 video cards:

 

27" 1440p monitor ($350):

http://amzn.to/1osNRE5

 

While more expensive, it has nearly double the resolution of a 1080p display. Three of them would be just over $1k, right around the cost of your video cards.

 

The 34" 1440 option ($800):

http://amzn.to/1SEWHLZ

 

Nice monitor, you really wouldn't go wrong with it. I think it has a nice resolution for the size, and no bezels to get in your way. However, the real flaw in my opinion with that monitor is not the monitor itself. It is this one:

 

Acer 32" 4k IPS monitor ($900):

http://amzn.to/1SEWRD4

 

I own 5 of that monitor, 2 each on 2 different machines at the office and my wife has one at home. One of the nicer consumer level monitors I've seen in some time. It really is beautiful and it gives you the standard 16:9 format while having massive resolution. And you have the GPU power to use it.

 

Worth considering:

The above 34" 1440p display has a total of 4,953,600 pixels on it. The above 32" 4k display has 8,294,400 pixels on it. The 4k is a MUCH higher resolution screen, the pixels are smaller and you won't need to use AA on it the way you might on the 34" 1440p display.

 

Thanks for the input!

 

I've got an Asus X-99 Deluxe 6 core motherboard, i7 5280k with 16 GB DDR4 Ripjaws. Figured 16 would be enough to get me through for a while, but I actually turned shadows up to max at one point and was a pretty big drop in framerate on my tv. The tv is 4K, though I play in 1080p because fonts and menus are rendered so small if I don't.

 

I actually just ordered my new monitor after doing some more research:

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00PXYRMPE/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

34" inch Dell Ultrawide 21:9 with a curved screen. It was on sale for about $800 and I've actually heard a lot of good things about Dell's monitors. I don't mind having the lower pixel density than 4K-- I feel the 21:9 will give better performance.

 

It'll be nice-- also picked up a Naga Chroma Epic mouse and Chroma keyboard, a new gaming desk and spent a few hundred on a good quality ergonomic PC chair.

Edited February 19, 2016 by KLGChaos

[TX_Angel]

I built the machine in November of 2009. I've since replaced the 9800 GTX+ with a GTX 960

 

That is a massive upgrade! Those 8800GT/9800GTX cards lasted a LONG time in terms of usefulness. I suspect your GTX 960 will as well, it is a wonderful card.

 

Have you looked at what your older motherboard will support in terms of CPUs? AMD has supported their sockets for a long time now, much longer than Intel. You might be able to put something nicer in there

 

That being said if your needs are modest, may I suggest a H170 motherboard (that takes DDR3 since it is cheaper) and a Intel i3-6100? It would blow the socks of your current CPU and cost $200 total.

 

and I just ordered an SSD (1TB Samsung) to take the place of the 500GB HDD. The "2 years" comment was more of a friendly dig at my old friends in the hardcore hardware community who regarded anything even close to 2 years old "hopelessly, laughably obsolete".

 

You'll be happy with that! The SSD is the single biggest "jump" in my opinion in general purpose computing in a very, very long time. It takes even older computers and makes them feel snappy again.

 

I understand what you're saying about the 2 year thing, 15 years ago I used to upgrade every 6 months! But in fairness, when I did that, I always had a use for the older stuff. I remember an upgrade from a Celeron 300A that was overclocked to 450MHz, I replaced it with a Pentium III 550MHz. Was it a big jump? No, not really. But I had a customer for the Celeron 300A so it really didn't cost me much.

 

Less so today, I try and get some usable benefit out of it. Which is why my main machine is on a i7-4770K and hasn't been replaced with a i7-6700K, that would just be a waste of money. Probably when Cannonlake comes, will be the time to do it. Before the i7-4770K I had a i5-2500K, that motherboard/CPU is now in my file server (before that the file server had a E4600 Core2Duo, so it was realy old!).

 

Regarding the monitors... I'd need to get a new desk with no "hutch" to go for multiple monitors.

 

Fair enough... for that case the 21:9 monitors might make sense... they just seem expensive to me for what you get, but not having used one, who knows... Triple monitor gaming probably sounds extreme and crazy to anyone who hasn't tried it, but speaking from experience, once you go there you don't wanna go back.

 

Just doing the benchmarks was painful, I was saying to myself, "crap, I can't see anything!".

[Max_Killjoy]

That is a massive upgrade! Those 8800GT/9800GTX cards lasted a LONG time in terms of usefulness. I suspect your GTX 960 will as well, it is a wonderful card.

 

Have you looked at what your older motherboard will support in terms of CPUs? AMD has supported their sockets for a long time now, much longer than Intel. You might be able to put something nicer in there

 

That being said if your needs are modest, may I suggest a H170 motherboard (that takes DDR3 since it is cheaper) and a Intel i3-6100? It would blow the socks of your current CPU and cost $200 total.

 

Unfortunately, finding CPUs in AM3 (as opposed to AM3+) is getting harder every day.

[TX_Angel]

Thanks for the input!

 

You bet, hope it was helpful.

 

I've got an Asus X-99 Deluxe 6 core motherboard, i7 5280k with 16 GB DDR4 Ripjaws. Figured 16 would be enough to get me through for a while, but I actually turned shadows up to max at one point and was a pretty big drop in framerate on my tv. The tv is 4K, though I play in 1080p because fonts and menus are rendered so small if I don't.

 

Do you have that CPU overclocked? It is a great chip, but running at the default 3.3GHz it'll be slower than the mainstream parts due to lack of clock speed. It should go to 4.0 easily and 4.2-4.4 if you work at it.

 

Regarding the font sizes in the game, you can fix that. I've played SWTOR at 4k, you can make the global go above 1.25 if you edit the INI files in C:/USERS/YourName/APPDATA/LOCAL/SWTOR/SWTOR/SETTINGS/GUIPROFILES

 

Go in there, open those up, you'll find "GlobalScale" by doing a search, edit it to 1.75 and go from there. Problem solved.

 

I actually just ordered my new monitor after doing some more research:

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00PXYRMPE/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

34" inch Dell Ultrawide 21:9 with a curved screen. It was on sale for about $800 and I've actually heard a lot of good things about Dell's monitors. I don't mind having the lower pixel density than 4K-- I feel the 21:9 will give better performance.

 

Nice monitor, I'm sure you'll be happy with it. 4K is nice, but ultrawide gaming is nice too, and frankly you'll probably be happy either way. Nice to have choices!

 

I've had generally good luck with Dell monitors as well. I don't care for their current 4k choices, but my three 30" panels are Dell screens and they have been working nicely for a few years now without complaint.

[TX_Angel]

Unfortunately, finding CPUs in AM3 (as opposed to AM3+) is getting harder every day.

 

Fair enough...

 

So take my suggestion, $200 (ish) and you've got double the performance and a modern platform!

 

Intel i3-6100 3.7GHz - $124

http://amzn.to/20JKO6z

 

ASUS H170M-E D3 - $90

http://amzn.to/20JL0CO

 

You might be able to reuse your existing DDR3, that motherboard will take 1.5v memory (even if it is out of spec for Skylake).

 

The above CPU would likely be close to double the performance of what you have now, unless you're already overclocked. It really would be night and day.

[Max_Killjoy]

Fair enough...

 

So take my suggestion, $200 (ish) and you've got double the performance and a modern platform!

 

Intel i3-6100 3.7GHz - $124

http://amzn.to/20JKO6z

 

ASUS H170M-E D3 - $90

http://amzn.to/20JL0CO

 

You might be able to reuse your existing DDR3, that motherboard will take 1.5v memory (even if it is out of spec for Skylake).

 

The above CPU would likely be close to double the performance of what you have now, unless you're already overclocked. It really would be night and day.

 

Thanks. I'll make a note of that for the next time I'm willing to spend money on it.

 

I've found that it's not easy to keep up with this stuff if you're not engaged with it every day (it was a lot easier when it was my job to know how different things compared, what was compatible with what, and the various moving price points).

Edited February 19, 2016 by Max_Killjoy

[KLGChaos]

@TX_Angel:

 

I haven't done any over clocking with it. I've always been afraid to blow something up. Lol. Its kind of fun that my dad actually tinkers with it, but I haven't yet. I'll have to look up some tutorials on it and see if I can push it a little further. I may need to look at a new power source. I currently have an 850w gold.

[TX_Angel]

@TX_Angel:

 

I haven't done any over clocking with it. I've always been afraid to blow something up. Lol. Its kind of fun that my dad actually tinkers with it, but I haven't yet. I'll have to look up some tutorials on it and see if I can push it a little further. I may need to look at a new power source. I currently have an 850w gold.

 

You have plenty of power, no worries on that front.

 

In terms of cooling, what do you have installed? I personally suggest water cooling if your case has room, the price and ease of installation has made it reasonable and mainstream these days, not like a few years ago when water was "out there".

 

For a first read, might I suggest AnandTech's guide to Haswell-E overclocking:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/3

 

Second place to read:

 

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/reviews/hardware/cpu/33127-oc-guide-bringing-haswell-e-to-its-limits.html?start=6

 

Third:

 

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5775/haswell-e-overklocking-workshop-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-the-core-i7-5960x-5930k-and-4820k

 

----

 

TL;DR - Many people get up into the 4.5 GHz range, but personally I think that is pushing it unless you consider overclocking to be a hobby.

 

4.0 is a fine place to start and should be pretty easy to reach without doing anything extreme. Going to 4.2 is nice, keep in mind each step up from that point takes more and more voltage and tweaking, increases the risk, and provides less and less gain.

 

This is why my i7-4770k desktop is overclocked to 4.2GHz and not 4.5GHz, which since I have water cooling installed and a very good case, it should do. But I'm not willing to increase core voltage, so I'm happy at 4.2GHz.

 

This is the water cooler on my CPU:

Corsair Hydro Series H90 140mm - $90

http://amzn.to/24fPENv

 

On other systems, I have used this one:

Corsair Hydro Series H55 Quiet 120mm - $60

http://amzn.to/1KZYVCY

 

My main machine is installed in this case, which is expensive, but a joy to work in and has piles of room to install almost anything you want, along with lots of fans, hard drives, SSDs, and more:

Corsair Obsidian Series 750D Full Tower - $160

http://amzn.to/1OkpXQc

[TX_Angel]

Thanks. I'll make a note of that for the next time I'm willing to spend money on it.

 

I've found that it's not easy to keep up with this stuff if you're not engaged with it every day (it was a lot easier when it was my job to know how different things compared, what was compatible with what, and the various moving price points).

 

You bet!

 

Side note: In case you're wondering why I'm suggesting a dual core CPU to replace your existing quad core...

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/891/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_925_(rev._C3)_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html

 

In single threaded performance, the i3-6100 is 2.14 times faster than your current chip. For something like SWTOR, it is more than DOUBLE your current speed.

 

In multithreaded performance, it is STILL faster, by 34%. Between hyperthreading (which makes the CPU appear to have 4 cores when it really doesn't) and the vastly superior per core speed, it is all around superior to what you're using now.

 

On top of all that, it consumes far less power. The Thermal Design Power of your CPU is 95W, the TDP of the new Intel chip is 51W, but in reality I expect they are further apart than that. The modern Intel chips are very good at entering sleep states, so I would expect the power consumption to fall by 2/3 if you made this upgrade.

 

You also gain the benefits of a more modern platform, including USB3, QuickSync, SSE3/4, and so on.

 

----

 

Finally, if it bothers you to have a dual core, no worries... for $70 more, get the i5-6500...

 

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/899/AMD_Phenom_II_X4_925_(rev._C3)_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-6500.html

 

All the benefits of above, but now multi threaded performance is nearly double that of what you have now, still using 1/3 less power, etc. etc...

 

Intel should pay me for this!

[KLGChaos]

You have plenty of power, no worries on that front.

 

In terms of cooling, what do you have installed? I personally suggest water cooling if your case has room, the price and ease of installation has made it reasonable and mainstream these days, not like a few years ago when water was "out there".

 

For a first read, might I suggest AnandTech's guide to Haswell-E overclocking:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8426/the-intel-haswell-e-cpu-review-core-i7-5960x-i7-5930k-i7-5820k-tested/3

 

Second place to read:

 

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/reviews/hardware/cpu/33127-oc-guide-bringing-haswell-e-to-its-limits.html?start=6

 

Third:

 

http://us.hardware.info/reviews/5775/haswell-e-overklocking-workshop-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-the-core-i7-5960x-5930k-and-4820k

 

----

 

TL;DR - Many people get up into the 4.5 GHz range, but personally I think that is pushing it unless you consider overclocking to be a hobby.

 

4.0 is a fine place to start and should be pretty easy to reach without doing anything extreme. Going to 4.2 is nice, keep in mind each step up from that point takes more and more voltage and tweaking, increases the risk, and provides less and less gain.

 

This is why my i7-4770k desktop is overclocked to 4.2GHz and not 4.5GHz, which since I have water cooling installed and a very good case, it should do. But I'm not willing to increase core voltage, so I'm happy at 4.2GHz.

 

This is the water cooler on my CPU:

Corsair Hydro Series H90 140mm - $90

http://amzn.to/24fPENv

 

On other systems, I have used this one:

Corsair Hydro Series H55 Quiet 120mm - $60

http://amzn.to/1KZYVCY

 

My main machine is installed in this case, which is expensive, but a joy to work in and has piles of room to install almost anything you want, along with lots of fans, hard drives, SSDs, and more:

Corsair Obsidian Series 750D Full Tower - $160

http://amzn.to/1OkpXQc

 

I've got a Corsair Hydro H60 I believe, which was the best one I could buy at the time (and still fit). It also has dual 120mm ultra-quiet fans in the front of the case. I just realized that there's an option in the BIOS called "Asus Optimal" which supposedly boosts performance, but not sure if it overclocks on its own or not. i've been seeing different opinions on different forums.

 

Edit: So, after checking through the BIOS, my target turbo mode speed is over 4.0 without me even touching anything. I can adjust the ratio manually, so I went in and adjusted the CPU core speed to 42 and now I'm running at 4.2... Voltage and heat seem fine, but I'll keep an eye on them. On the bright side, I can max out shadow maps without slowdown now!

 

Thanks for all the help!

Edited February 20, 2016 by KLGChaos

[HG_Hulk_Smash]

Not even close to 5 years old

 

 

 

I have a

 

i7 6700k OCd to 4.6Ghz

GTX 980

16gb ddr4 2666mhz

H100i GTX Water cooled

Z170X-UD5 mobo

SSD 250 gb(OS & SWTOR)

2TB(Storage)

 

I get 90 to 120 fps in every aspect of the game expect one.

 

 

PVP. Hutball lags me all the way down to 15 to 25 fps very often when engaged in big fights.

 

It is the only game I have seen to lag me this hard, for the age of the game. GTA 5, Ark Survival, Fallout 4, I can run them all on epic settings @ 1080

 

 

But when I PVP on SWTOR, the lag is real. Doing story, on fleet, anywhere else I am ok. Even flash points co op no lag.

 

So no idea why.

 

@ OP, Hero Engine is one of the worst engines for mmos, I dont think it is set up for SLI support, but give it a try if you have the hardware and let us know!

[TX_Angel]

I've got a Corsair Hydro H60 I believe, which was the best one I could buy at the time (and still fit). It also has dual 120mm ultra-quiet fans in the front of the case. I just realized that there's an option in the BIOS called "Asus Optimal" which supposedly boosts performance, but not sure if it overclocks on its own or not. i've been seeing different opinions on different forums.

 

Edit: So, after checking through the BIOS, my target turbo mode speed is over 4.0 without me even touching anything. I can adjust the ratio manually, so I went in and adjusted the CPU core speed to 42 and now I'm running at 4.2... Voltage and heat seem fine, but I'll keep an eye on them. On the bright side, I can max out shadow maps without slowdown now!

 

Thanks for all the help!

 

You bet, happy to help.

 

The jump from a base of 3.3GHz on a Haswell era chip to 4.2GHz is actually a huge jump. Voltage and heat shouldn't be an issue, unless you really start to use all 6 cores.

 

Might I suggest you watch it if you DO decide to run something (like video encoding or 3D rendering) that will max out all 6 cores (and 12 threads), you might end up pushing it a bit in such a situation. Since SWTOR only uses 2 cores really, you are not likely at a lot of risk playing this game.

 

The Corsair H60 is a great unit, it is the 120mm version, the H90 in my main desktop is the 140mm version, but basically the same thing as far as I can recall, other than radiator and fan size.