Figuring out the bottleneck...

Okay, lets say I could, relatively soon, do up to $200 in upgrades. Which is going to give me the biggest bang for the buck? Currently I've got:

CPU - C2D 6300 @ 1.8ghz
Video card - Radeon 4670 w/1g RAM

I'm running Windows 7 (RC, 64-bit) with 4g of RAM.

I can't really get upgrades for the CPU right now, as they don't make the Q6600 anymore and I'm a bit leary of getting parts off of eBay. If I did it would be $200. I don't think I'd need a new power supply, and this would not require me get a new motherboard or RAM, either.

I could get a GeForce GTX 260 or Radeon HD 4870 1GB for $150-200. This would likely require a new power supply (got a 375w Dell OEM PSU - reportedly these tend to be underrated but I'm a bit paranoid about that). My current computer is not SLI or Crossfire capable.

Help?

Honestly, I probably would have went with the CPU. For CoH's purposes, you don't necessarily have to go Quad unless you run several resource-hog backgrand programs and/or more than one account at a time... which means you might get more for your money with a higher Ghz Duo instead. You should be able to easily bump up to a 3Ghz for under $200.

Then again, with GR's graphical improvements coming next year, it might be beneficial to upgrade video as well, but I haven't been keeping up on the threads discussing that issue other than that most people suggest waiting until release time gets closer to finalize your upgrade plans as features may change, and so do prices. In either case, you'd probably want to bump up your processor anyway in the meantime, as it would be your clear bottleneck at that point. Without knowing more about your satisfaction/performance of your current video settings, I'd say the processor is actually your best bet for now if you don't want to wait.

Unless you're really hurting for more FPS, I'd say wait 6 months until Nvidia has their new GPU out. By then Intel and AMD will have done the same in the CPU/GPU market. In that time you can maybe save a few more dollars and get both a new video card and CPU for what you'd pay for just one of those now.

I doubt either of those you currently have in your system will measure up to what's in store for GR............ I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Edit: I only say this as someone that runs at max settings.

Currently running:

Resolution: 1280x1024
Particle Physics Quality: None
World/Character textures: High
World/Character detail: 80%
Max Particle Count: 2121
Verticle Sync: Enabled
FSAA: Off
Shadows: Enabled
Use Geometry Buffers: Enabled
Anisotropic Filtering: 2x
Texture Crispness: Smooth
Shade Quality: Medium
Water Effects: None
Depth of Field Effects: Disabled
Bloom Effects: None
Desaturation Effects: Enabled

Depending on what's going on I can go as high as 60fps to as low as the low teens (obviously, worse when teamed). I can usually stay around 30fps, though. I used to run at higher resolutions but lowered it in favor of more details/prettiness. The Radeon is actually an upgrade from my old GeForce 7900 GS w/256m RAM.

I'd love for my lows to go up some (if I never dip below, say, 24-30 fps I'd be quite happy). If I can add more pretties, even better. I'm not expecting to run in Ultra mode, and quite honestly due to some financial goals of mine I'm probably not going to do any full-scale upgrades (even though I'd love an i5 or Athlon II X4 system)... this is a "should last me another two years" type thing.

Well since you have a Dell, it's doubtful that they have a BIOS update so you could take advantage of the current crop of 1066MHZ FSB CPUs from Intel (like the Pentium Dual Core 6xxx series or the Core2 7xxx series).

This leaves a decent PSU and a graphics card. Now you don't need a lot of power (overall wattage), just the right kind of power (12 Volt wattage). Two examples I can think of are Antec Earthwatts EA500 with a maximum of 408 watts at 12 volts and the OCZ ModXStream Pro OCZ500MXSP with a maximum of 432 watts at 12 volts. Both of these have two PCIe power connectors which are needed for either the GTX 260 or the HD 4870 (each use two).

As for which video card, well it depends if you mind playing this game with the current caveats dealing with AA and high end shading effects, see BillZBubba's ATI settings sticky to see what I'm talking about (but since you already have a HD 4670 you already aware). They perform about the same but the ATI card tends to be less expensive. Either would be a significant improvement (for games in general) over what you currently have.

Thanks Father Xmas. I guess I should mention I am thoroughly not attached to ATI (or Nvidia), so I've got no problem switching who makes my card's GPU

Hmm... and something I found...
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/26...0ct017-support

Yea, most of those are P4s and the rest are the usual suspects for 65nm Core2s.

The reason Pricewatch is so expensive is because others like you are looking to do the same thing.

Hrm... actually, I'm now wondering... if I can find a AM2+/AM3 or AM2/AM2+/AM3 motherboard that can use my old DDR667/PC2 5300 RAM? I could spend about $200, get a better CPU (Athlon II X4) and maybe (but not sure if I'd bet on it) be in a position for AMD's next round of AM3 CPUs (at which point I could upgrade the CPU and the RAM).

It seems like I really would have to spend $100 more to beat the X4. Intel's $150 Q8200 and $160 Q8400 doesn't beat it enough to be worthwhile (depending on the game the X4 beats the Q8200). The trick for me really gets to is the i5's performance worth the difference in price or not. That's where I'm a bit hesitant. Saw I do get Starcraft II when that comes out - you know Blizzard is going to keep the system requirements on that as low as possible so I should have more than enough hardware to run it happily.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3638&p=8

I'm already running most of my games at very good resolutions and quality settings. Since I generally don't like or play the super-demanding titles I'm good there (and even then I've got a 360 as well, so if I get Batman it would be on console).

Thanks for the help. I've decided, overall, that if I do anything I'm just going to go for the q6600. A new video card would be nice but I can wait. Moving to an i5 or X4 requires too much other stuff to be bought as well. At least I'll still get a good upgrade over my C2D 6300

Hey can't a guy take a night off?

Problem with DDR memory and AMD is that the memory controller is part of the CPU and not the motherboard.

Socket 754 and 939 CPUs have a DDR memory controller (single channel for 754, single/dual for 939)

Socket AM2/AM2+ CPUs have a DDR2 memory controller.

Socket AM3 CPUs have both a DDR2 and DDR3 memory controller which is why they are backward compatible with AM2+ sockets (although I believe the HT bus is slower in AM2+).

Over on the Intel side during the Socket 775 era the memory controller is found on the Northbridge chip on the motherboard. While Intel and nVidia focused on DDR2 and DDR3 support over the last few years there are a few motherboards that supported DDR or DDR2 that used a Via Northbridge.

Of course with Intel following in AMD's footsteps and are now integrating the memory controller on the CPU as well with their Socket 1156 and 1366 CPUs (DDR3 only) the idea of preserving memory from one CPU era to the next is starting to fade away.