Looking for a new CPU

Discussion in 'Computer Hardware, Devices and Accessories' started by kjb1686, Sep 6, 2013.

  1. kjb1686
    OP

    kjb1686 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    271
    6
    Dec 30, 2009
    United States
    Olean New York
    Hello everyone I am in the market to upgrade my CPU.

    This is the current one that I have

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    It is a I3 2120 that is pretty good but I was looking to upgrade to probably a I5. My budget is about 200 dollars right now. I was thinking about one of these two

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

    Also would my motherboard be OK for a Ivy bridge processor or would I have to upgrade it as well. This is the mother board I have. It is a ASRock H77 Pro4/MVP.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
     
  2. Mike19

    Mike19 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    108
    19
    Jan 12, 2012
    NSW
    Your motherboard will be fine for those i5 CPUs. Presuming that you have a dedicated graphics card, i would go for the i5 3350P as it has just a slightly higher clock speed but no integrated graphics (hence the need for dedicated graphics for gaming, ect). If you don't have a dedicated graphics card, i would go with the other option, the i5 3330 as it at least has some form of graphics capabilities (although VERY low-end graphics performance).
     
  3. tronic307

    tronic307 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    211
    39
    Nov 7, 2002
    United States
    Those seem like only slight upgrades. Your best bet would be to get a used 2500K Sandy Bridge and overclock to 4GHz (mine is at 4.4GHz and my cooler isn't spectacular). Or just get this:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116504
    But, you have to make sure your motherboard's bios is over version 1.10 for Ivy Bridge.
     
  4. kjb1686
    OP

    kjb1686 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    271
    6
    Dec 30, 2009
    United States
    Olean New York
    Thanks for the suggestions. I have a dedicated card a 7970 which is why I wish to upgrade my CPU at this time. Also I have a pretty decent cooler a hyper 212 evo this one

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103099

    The 3350P does seem like a good investment and it is decently priced for it.
     
  5. trumpet-205

    trumpet-205 Embrace the darkness within

    Member
    4,363
    543
    Jan 14, 2009
    United States
    With H77 motherboard, it is pointless to get K CPU, since you cannot overclock anyway.

    Get whichever i5 you want, or Xeon E3 for cheaper i7 alternative.
     
  6. KazoWAR

    KazoWAR GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Member
    1,818
    694
    Aug 12, 2008
    United States
    Winter Haven
  7. tronic307

    tronic307 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    211
    39
    Nov 7, 2002
    United States
    Aw man, totally forgot about that. *Derp* The last time I had a system that couldn't overclock was in the 20th century.:mellow:

    Now, that's more like it.
     
  8. PityOnU

    PityOnU GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    908
    327
    Jul 5, 2012
    United States
    Not necessarily on topic, but here's hoping that the next gen systems will encourage developers to utilize more than 3 CPU cores.

    Quad-core gaming is getting old.
     
  9. trumpet-205

    trumpet-205 Embrace the darkness within

    Member
    4,363
    543
    Jan 14, 2009
    United States
    Read up on Amdahl's Law. In summary, the law states that for every additional thread for workload that can be parallelized, you get diminished performance boost (speedup). So going from single thread to two threads might give you 50% performance boost. Advancing next to three threads might give you another 20% boost, but moving on to four threads might give you no boost at all. Total computation time cannot be lower than the time it takes to finish sequence workload portion.

    Problem is, game is mostly consist of sequence workload (very little parallel workload), which CANNOT be multithreaded. Think about, in gaming you use controllers to give constant input/feedback. Computer use those inputs to calculate and deliver output (what you see on TV or screen). This is a sequence workload, what happens is unknown unless input is received. This is a dependent workload, cannot be multithreaded. Workload can only be multitreaded if it does not depend on other factors.

    A lot of games multithread on minor workload (e.g. audio processing).

    Think about it, PS3 has 7 working SPEs (very close to 7 threads), one is reserved for background OS. So game only have access to 6 SPEs. Did you see any game take advantage of that? Did you see a push for more threads? No.

    People need to realize that gaming will never be as parallel as say video encoding (computer encodes video from multiple time stamp, and put them all together). There will be game that can take advantage of more than 4 threads, but those will be few.

    It'll only be harder and harder to multithread (you'll only see less and less game heavily multithreaded).
     
  10. tronic307

    tronic307 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    211
    39
    Nov 7, 2002
    United States
    I once used a shortcut command to get Tomb Raider to run on one core of my 2500K @4.4GHz and the CPU usage was about 17% vs. 25% multithreaded. Previously, the game was utilizing all 4 cores nearly equally.
     
  11. Thanatos Telos

    Thanatos Telos random stuff

    Member
    842
    187
    Sep 13, 2009
    United States
    And about 2 more of them are for AP.
     
  12. PityOnU

    PityOnU GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    908
    327
    Jul 5, 2012
    United States
    While Amdahl's Law is certainly true (the math behind it is actually fairly trivial), I'm not sure it applies in this case in the way you describe.

    Amdahl's Law concerns the total compute time for a given task. It follows that, as you increase the number of threads created and used by the parallelizable portions of the task, it quickly becomes that case that the performance increase (percentage wise) from the previous case with one less thread quickly diminishes due to the sequential portion of the code being so large (taking a long time) in comparison.

    In regards to games, this may mean that higher frame rates (above, say, 60Hz or 120Hz) may not be something that is achievable through parallelization - there will always be that part of the code that holds the rest of it back. What is possible, however, is to perform more calculations per frame given that said calculations are parallelizable. In fact, you can use Amdahl's Law to prove that given enough threads, you can cram an absurdly large amount of computation into a task (assuming said calculations are parallelizable) while having very little affect on total compute time.

    What can be parallelized in games? Well, to start with, AI is very easy to do that with. Note that this is one of the specific points they made about CoD, disregarding the amount of public mocking the statement received. So, for zombie games, way more zombies in play at once (whatever that new zombie game is). More complex actions and responses by AI in racing (Forza) and sports (new EA games) games. RTS games would also benefit much from this (look at how much of an issue single thread bottlenecking is with StarCraft II, and how long AI decisions take in Civ V because they are done sequentially).

    Complex physics engines can also be easily parallelized (although not as easily as AI, I would expect). Everybody likes physics. Each object in the game could have its own thread dedicated to calculating how it will respond to the environment in the next frame.

    Basically, as you also stated, the only reason things aren't more heavily parallelized as of right now is because it's a total pain in the ass to do (from a software engineer's viewpoint, at least), and nobody has developed any sort of SDK to make it any easier. This is what I think will have the largest influence over the success of the next gen consoles, and will cause one or the other to come out on top.

    Developers also had the excuse (up until now, at least) that they were developing for the lowest common denominator in the market. As such, a lot of time spent working on parallelization would be completely wasted in many cases. So, when basing their business decisions on this, they decided against wasting time on that and put work in elsewhere (fixing bugs, adding features).

    So, basically, while it's not as easy to multithread games as people say, its also not that hard, either. Now that the next gen systems both have 8 cores (fuck you, 3 core WiiU), I'm hoping that some of the previous excuses won't apply anymore, and that the power of the ecosystem will force the software to evolve. Only time will tell, though.
     
    tronic307 likes this.
  13. Rydian

    Rydian Resident Furvertâ„¢

    Member
    27,883
    8,129
    Feb 4, 2010
    United States
    Cave Entrance, Watching Cyan Write Letters
    Yeah, part of the reason games have been slow to adopt their tech is that even the big-name engines are REALLY FUCKING SLOW at adopting new tech.
     
    tronic307 likes this.
  14. tronic307

    tronic307 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    211
    39
    Nov 7, 2002
    United States
    Maybe they'd have time to update their engines if they weren't too busy remaking the same game every year.