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

[Krindor]

You really should learn the definition of bottleneck. His gpu can be replaced last, also I said 60 fps doesnt give you more benefits over 30-40 in THIS game. Also, 4590 vs 6300 can't even be compared. It's comparing a apple to a pear. The 4590 has 42% better single core, 52% faster quad core, 11% faster multicore, So where did you get your 3-5%? the i5 4690 is 15% faster than the i7 3770k. Him buying either the GTX970 or the R9 390 will bottle neck his PC. Even with a 960 or 380 there is a chance of bottleneck. His FPS will spike from high to low and in some cases it will give him a lower performance than he would've had with his gtx 660. This is the reason I've said he should focus on everything but the gpu.

I'm basing my numbers on the benchmarks done on 3D mark and I am talking about this game, being at 30-40 FPS is quite noticeable in the game compared to 60 FPS. http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu look at the practical difference between the 4950 and 6300, you'll see that the actual difference isn't big, of course this is more favorable for the multi-core 6300. But the average performance is going to be better with a stronger GPU than with a stronger CPU. I would love to see your sources proving the difference a CPU is going to make, I have yet to see a benchmark showing the 15% between the 4690 and 3770, the average difference is about 5%. If anything going from a 6300 to 8350 and getting the 970 would still be within his budget and get him a lot better performance. This is due to it using the same socket as the 6300 yet being an upgrade that will limit the bottleneck.

[NoahArks]

snip

Shouldnt use futuremark, there's also a bigger difference between them, lol. Use userbenchmarks, cpubenchmark and cinebench. Also you suggested a 970, but it costs more than a 390, it runs slower and has less than half of it's vram. To get more performance than a 390, it needs to be fully OC'd. He should change his whole system, but he doesn't have to change his gpu right away. If he has 300-500 to spend now, he might have another 300-400 a few months later. Also, you still think I said that you don't notice the difference between 30-40fps and 60fps. I said it gives no benefits OVER it in THIS game. How the topic creator appears to me he wants a system just for gaming. I just can't suggest amd for that, mostly because they excel at multicore performance, while gaming still makes the most use out of single cores. Intel dominates on the gaming market. In the long term he's better with a i5 than a fx 8350.

[Krindor]

I said it gives no benefits OVER it in THIS game

First of all that is the average FPS and it does to a lesser extent affect the performance the biggest problem is the drop of FPS during graphics intensive moments where the GPU isn't able to render everything, one really noticeable moment is the plumes in titan extreme, with shadows at max they are going to drop the FPS to a level where it actually becomes really hard dodging them. Also the OP wants to run it at max meaning he cares about how the game looks, playing at a lower frame rate is going to affect the enjoyment of the game, at least in my opinion. Also limiting the FPS to 60 will make most spike less noticeable and the only area where the spikes are noticeable are when there are a lot of player characters to render. It all depends on what the OP is going to do in the game. For people who hunt the CPU upgrade might be useful while for people who raid the GPU might be more useful considering that the amount of stuff the CPU renders is less when there is only a few characters and mobs to render.

[NoahArks]

snip

Are you really using a example of titan? Cause the first two sentences isn't exactly how it would work. It's not going to effect the enjoyment of the game, pc gamers just want to tell that to themselfs to feel better (yes I'm a PC gamer to). Next up you're going to come up with the myth that 30fps occurs headaches and is bad to the eyes? In this game 30fps or 60fps doesn't really matter. Both work fine, both are smooth, with 60fps being able to render things smoother. The way you're trying to explain to get a gpu over anything else will only hurt the guy in the longterm, including me three people have already said that the system will be bottlenecked if you upgrade the gpu on the current cpu or on a 8350. You can defend your point more and more, but you're still coming with the same argument.

[Krindor]

Snip

If you provide me with a benchmark showing the bottleneck of the CPU in this game and that the CPU upgrade would be better I'll agree to your statement but as long as the only thing you say is that it isn't enough I'm still going to say that the GPU is going to be the better upgrade. I'm not saying that the bottleneck is non existant only that it isn't as extreme.

And to the enjoyment part it is definitely going to affect it if the FPS is too low, for me the game just feels sluggish.

Snip

My experience on lagging plumes in titan was from a laptop with 750m, with shadows at medium or max the plumes would cause the game to lag really badly.

If you tried it on the FX 8350 would you still say that the overall perfromance of the game wouldn't be better with a better GPU? Also the OP asked for the computer to be able to run it on max. The 660 isn't going to make it with max settings.

[NoahArks]

snip

Well you can keep saying that. I atleast hope that the topic creator will listen to the other people instead of you. Since the facts won't change.

[Judge_Xero]

My experience on lagging plumes in titan was from a laptop with 750m, with shadows at medium or max the plumes would cause the game to lag really badly.

If you tried it on the FX 8350 would you still say that the overall perfromance of the game wouldn't be better with a better GPU? Also the OP asked for the computer to be able to run it on max. The 660 isn't going to make it with max settings.

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 suppose if the OP got a GTX 970 while keeping the FX 6300 - Overclock it and reduced the number of Rendered Objects then they would see more performance than what the GTX 660 gives. It would just be subjective on whether there is a visible difference, since it would probably be a case of:

45-60 FPS VS 50-90 FPS

[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.