Want to upgrade my computer for this game, need some advice.

[Krindor]

Well, before my current Rig I had an Intel i5 4670k while using the AMD R9 290. Going from the FX 8350 at Max Settings to the i5 4670k at Max setting there was a noticeable difference in congested areas, but comparing the difference while having the game reduce the number of players rendered, there was no difference, visibly.

Even with the lesser Core2 Quad and the GTX 550ti, if I played with Objects Rendered at Medium then it could handle 20-30 FPS at Maximum Eye candy.

I guess here is where our opinions differ, I avoid congested areas as much as possible so having a weaker CPU wouldn't affect me that much while having a FPS lower than 30 in raiding areas affects me a lot more which is why I suggested a GPU before CPU. Though what people seem to forget is that you can add different kinds of stuff to make the look even nicer past the regular max settings if your GPU is strong enough, for example DSR, but at that point the bottleneck might show its significance in even lower pop areas.

[Judge_Xero]

I do see your point there, but the GTX 660 should handle 40+ FPS at Max settings in a Raid Setting. Other than the 24 Man Raids like Crystal Tower/Void Ark etc, but then that's a combination of CPU/GPU anyway.

Heavenward Benchmark Maximum Settings - DX11
Score: 6457
Average Frame Rate: 55.62
Performance: Extremely High
Screen Size: 1920x1080
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

GTX 660 + i7 3770k

[Auroro]

After reading through all of this, im starting to think CPU upgrade is the way to go. Seems to me (even though eventually I'll need a new gpu for max graphics) a stronger CPU would fix a lot of my annoyance in most games, in that even on a setting where my card should be fine, my games are still jumpy.

I currently have 8g ddr3 ram. I saw the part picker link from one of the posts with what I would need for an i5 build. So that's one option, anymore worth taking a look at?

Thank you all again. Has definitely helped me figure out a plan of attack.

[xXRaineXx]

Check out the Linus Tech Tip forums/Youtube channel. They provide some of the best information.

Edit\

If you want to 'future proof' yourself, for a couple years at least till the next gen, you would want 3-4GB video cards. Though a GTX 950ti may be coming out in the near future, which is a low end graphics card in the GTX family, but for the price to performance ratio, will be a good deal. Right now, the most optimal graphics card would be GTX970 for a mid-range build.
If you are strict about your budget, then a GTX 950 will be the best. Though running max may be difficult. AMD cards are great too, but right now, AMD cards are in a tight spot. High power consumption and whatnot. Though they are generally slightly cheaper than Nvidia.

You do have to understand that budget gaming PC's do exist, but they do come with a compromise. Settings aren't always optimized well and it's mainly used to play in low to mid range settings. If you truly want a gaming PC to run max settings, you will need to spend around $1000. You can make compromises to the initial setup, like starting with 4GB ram (or a cheap 8GB stick), single low capacity SSD (at this point, you shouldn't even consider running a rig on a HDD anymore). A entry level tower can also save you a lot.
There is a lot of things to take into consideration, like using a stock cpu air cooler, or going with a after market air cooler/liquid cooler. Liquid cooling is for extreme overclocking enthusiasts, air cooling will still get the job done. Just not as great, though some high-end after market air coolers will provide equal to better performance than some liquid coolers, but means adding a huge block of ugliness on your CPU.

[NoahArks]

snip

how many Mhz is the memory? With 1600 you're pretty much fine, just don't forget to enable it in the bios. A lot of people don't seem to know or forget about it. If you have the ram with 1600Mhz, you could get the one I linked, but swap the ram for a new after market cooler. The Cooler Master Hyper 212 evo is pretty good for something that costs 25bucks. It's silent. I used to own it before I switched to a h100i.

[Raist]

never understood the resistance to higher speed memory if your system supports the higher speeds...especially with the last several generations of processors and graphics cards.

Even 3 year old CPU's memory interfaces are north of 25GB/sec throughput---newer ones are clocking in over 40GB/sec. 16x PCI-e 2.0 was capable of up to 64GB/sec in theory--3.0 is theoretically capable of 120+GB/sec. Even the cheaper graphics cards may move data at rates north of 64GB/sec, with better cards exceeding 100GB/sec. And people settle for 13GB/sec system memory bandwidth. Even more confusing with today's prices. Sure, you can get 8GB (2X4GB) DDR3-1600 (12800/sec) at around $30-$40 online....but you can also get DDR3-2133 (17000/sec) for about $45-$50. You will be surprised at the difference it can make for just a little bit more.

Seriously... seeing some DDR3-2400 (19GB/sec) memory in 2x 4GB packs for just under $50, with free shipping. If a system supports that speed, why not invest in it?

[Krindor]

I do see your point there, but the GTX 660 should handle 40+ FPS at Max settings in a Raid Setting. Other than the 24 Man Raids like Crystal Tower/Void Ark etc, but then that's a combination of CPU/GPU anyway.

Heavenward Benchmark Maximum Settings - DX11
Score: 6457
Average Frame Rate: 55.62
Performance: Extremely High
Screen Size: 1920x1080
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

GTX 660 + i7 3770k

Intresting, those results are better than what my 670 + 3770k can perform, by quite a bit.

Score: 5788
Average Frame Rate: 45.523
Performance: Very High

Are those setting the actual max setting or custom to remove unneeded settings?

As for OP, if you're going for a CPU go for the one Noah recommended or the one slightly more expensive i5 4690 if you're able to afford it.

[Judge_Xero]

@ Raist - There are various reasons.

Only some synthetic benchmarks will actually benefit from higher frequency Ram. Most programs need very little bandwidth for feeding the CPU.

AMD works best with low frequency and tight timings (low latency over bandwidth)
Intel can use higher frequencies due to higher CPU IPC but you also should use tight timings for lower latency when gaming.

I.E. 1600Mhz @ CL 7 > 2400 Mhz @ CL 12

You can't compare GPU bandwidth to CPU bandwidth due to GPU parallelism.

@Krindor
That is strange. I also have a GTX 680 that runs a 9k bench. I would think that a 670 would be around 7500 points.

[repoe]

AMD CPUs are literally garbage.

Go with a I5 from series 3000.

If you want a GPU go with a 960/970 Nvidia (ASUS/EVGA are the best imo).

6-8GB of ram are perfect, there is no need to get a 2400mhz just normal 1333-1660mhz.

Yeap, i run the i5 with an overclocked EVGA gtx650ti 2gb, 15Gb of ram, and have not dropped below 60fps in instances/savage. Although I do have party effects set to limited but that's not performance related, more of a personal preference.

[NoahArks]

Raist, in this generation memory can be ignored. DDR4 can be ignored for atleast one or two more years. Till DX12 actually kicks in, it won't give you a actual performance increase over ddr3. So if you have ddr3 ram, it's ram. It does what it's supposed to do, doesn't matter which one you get, they're pretty much the same. (except if you're going to force ddr4 on ddr3 ofcourse )