Assessing CPU and upgrade idea - looking for advice

[yoster]

So first things first:

Win7 64-bit
CPU: Intel Q9550 - 2.8 stock, currently at ~3ghz
Memory: 8gb (4x2gb) Fatal1ty DDR2-1066
Mobo: XFX 780i SLI
Vid: eVGA 295 GTX
Power Supply: "80 plus" 750w. ~60 amps on 12v rail
Cooler Master 212+ cooler

Background:
I'm in the market for a new build. Given we've got some new Intel chips coming out soon, I want to wait. I figure it'll be awhile - maybe up to a year - until we start seeing some solid boards and reviews from this new chipset.. prices will also probably be better then.

My Question:
Given today's games and their demand on the GPU, I'm trying to assess what's my first bottleneck - my GPU or my CPU. My gtx295 doesn't support DX11 (I want to play Crysis 3 which ONLY runs on DX11.) Now I'd be willing to drop some money on like a 660ti or 670, BUT, not if it's not going to net me anything. So generally speaking I'm trying to assess what's the 'fastest' video card I can get before my CPU becomes the bottleneck (generally speaking, I know this differs from game to game. i.e: RTS uses more CPU than GPU.)

I've heard from others over the interwebs that today's cpu's, dating back to even the earliest quad cores, are still more than sufficient for running games at max settings if your GPU can do it. I'm basically asking for support of that theory. I'd like a new GPU to buy my q9550 a year or two of extra life - but only if ya'll think it's realistic. I'd have to buy a decently expensive card too - as even most mid-range cards are still out-performed in non-DX11 games by my gtx295.

Regarding CPU overclocking, I sadly have c1 stepping and a motherboard and memory combo that's not known to OC well. I can get it up to 3.6ghz but it's not stable for long-term gaming. As such I keep it around 3ghz.

If it matters, I play all my games at 1080p.


Thanks gang! If you need any more information to help answer my question, let me know.

 

[Knufire]

This is the article that I think spured many of the recent discussion on the topic: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p

 

[yoster]

That kind of speaks to what I'm asking, but they don't reference my CPU and they're using MAJOR gpu horespower in that article to measure GPU scaling. In those instances, every CPU will eventually become a bottleneck (as evidenced from their performance charts.) I think I'm generally asking about that, but on a much, much smaller scale.

[edit] - lol it's kind of funny. Just read their 'conclusion' and they're like (paraphrased), 'if we would have done this again, we probably would have tried more mid-range cards like a 660ti or 670.' That's what I needed to see!! LOL It does say though that GPU's are more and more the limiting factor, which supports what I've been reading (and I see why you posted that link - clearly this is what has been driving what I've been hearing lately about CPU's playing less and less of a role in gaming.) Problem is, I don't have a clear understanding of how my CPU relates to the ones in those charts. So far though, the evidence seems to show that I'll see a very direct performance increase by swapping GPU's - and may in fact get a few more years out of my q9550.

If any others have thoughts I'd like to hear them!