Upgrading my old PC for gaming

wiredotter14 said:Timothy Kim60, we seriously need to take FXa down a notch if we haven't already. In my opinion, anything priced higher than those budget-friendly RX 480 4GB cards should definitely come bundled with a high-end monitor upgrade.

I have to disagree. Games are only getting more demanding, and you’re just going to run into that specific type of person who will scoff at anything new regardless. $1000 When you're looking for a GPU, you want two things: maximum settings and a rock-solid frame rate—ideally a locked 60 FPS. Honestly, even a GTX 1070 isn't overkill for 1080p gaming. I actually ran into a guy on a tech forum who paired a GTX 1070 with an FXa; he was claiming that for the first time ever, he’s finally getting exactly what he wanted: ultra settings and a smooth 60 FPS at 1080p. God only knows what kind of games he's playing to make that happen.

Check out this new Deus Ex gameplay footage—this is actual Prague gameplay, not some artificial in-game benchmark. They’ve also disabled the blur and turned off MSAA.

View on imgur

View on imgur

Look, if you aren't hitting at least 60 FPS at 1080p, you basically need a GTX 1080 just to stay afloat—and even then, you won't be cranking everything to max settings. That’s why the idea of "overkill" doesn't really exist when you're talking about actual performance.

@smartic
plus he'll need a matching monitor

http://www.bestbuy.com/monitor-deals-led--8053771

or something similar

@TNG

fair point, but I think messing with tiny details kills the value proposition. Like you said, you basically need a GTX 1080 just to hold steady at 60FPS.
That’s why I think it's better to just aim for 144Hz or 1440p—you actually feel the difference compared to jumping from "very high" to those insane "ultra" settings.

BTW, what's your take on an overclocked FX chip for 1440p? I saw some benchmarks where it trailed behind a Skylake i5 running at lower clocks, but it still managed to stay above 60FPS in most games (pretty sure the card was a GTX 1070).

wiredotter14 said:You make a fair point, but I think obsessing over every single tiny detail really kills the value proposition. Like you said, you basically need an RTX 3080 just to maintain a steady 60FPS.

Fair enough. Even the developers suggested "high" settings. I'm just pointing out what people in that demographic expect when they drop that kind of cash on a GPU. Of course, nobody actually recommends an RTX 3080 purely on its own because the price-to-performance ratio is usually pretty rough—which is standard for high-end gear. That’s why I’d say an RTX 3060 is the sweet spot, maybe an RTX 3070 if you're feeling fancy. Once you jump to 1440p, the CPU matters a lot less, provided you aren't using some bottom-tier processor.

I think there’s a huge crowd out there who doesn't actually realize what they're missing by sticking to 1440p. They just push for maxing out 1080p because marketing makes "Ultra Settings" look like the holy grail for everyone. For years, 1080p was the gold standard, and cranking up the settings actually felt worth it since you could see the difference. But nowadays? Tech has moved way past 1080p. All these insane graphical options being pushed for HD are basically useless at that resolution.

Sapphire Ed mentioned he's been chatting with several developers who claim they design games specifically to run on high settings. According to them, that’s the sweet spot where you get the best balance of performance and visual fidelity. Anything beyond that—whether it's labeled very high, ultra, or epic depending on the title—is mostly just unnecessary eye candy. It doesn't actually provide a massive jump in quality; it just cripples your frame rates and serves as a way to push people toward buying high-end GPUs. The problem is, most enthusiasts who drop serious cash on hardware don't see it that way. If someone goes out and buys a $1267 for example, the first thing they want to do is crank every single setting to the absolute max. It doesn't make sense to most buyers to shell out all that money for a GPU and then intentionally turn down the graphics. That's just how it works, and honestly, that's exactly what keeps this entire industry running

I usually try to aim for High/Very High settings without using things like MSAA, TXAA, soft shadows, or blur. Instead, I just crank up the AF and AA as far as they'll go while keeping things above 60FPS. That’s assuming I’m only playing three specific games, one of which is actually somewhat demanding 😬

TNG...that’s why I’m pushing for 1440p if you actually have the cash to burn.
When it’s finally my turn to upgrade—once I’ve scraped enough together—I’ll probably grab a card around the $833 mark and pair it with a 1440p monitor. I'll squeeze every bit of life out of this i7 920 until it eventually gives up the ghost 🙂
Honestly, I think focusing on that will give me more bang for my buck than trying to overhaul both the CPU and GPU at once, especially since I can't justify spending that much for just my three setups.

wiredotter14 said:Have you overclocked your CPU? Which specific games are giving you those FPS drops? Are you running the latest drivers? What kind of frame rates are we talking about here? It’s possible some specific settings are just putting too much strain on your GPU.

The FX8320 is actually a very capable processor, especially when you're playing a Vulkan game or anything utilizing DX12. You'll also find that any potential bottleneck from the FX becomes less noticeable at higher resolutions, and honestly, I think it's plenty powerful enough to keep most modern titles running at a steady 60FPS.

If you want to push for better performance at 1080p, you could pair it with a card like an RX470/480, a GTX 1060, or maybe a GTX 970 if you can find a good deal on one.
However, if you really have $1,000 to spend, my advice would be to invest in a better monitor instead. Dumping a full grand into a 1080p setup that's already performing decently feels a bit excessive to me.

P.S. All of these GPUs will be compatible with motherboards from roughly the last seven years.

You could definitely pick up one of these three options:



Each of these offers great value—you get exactly what you pay for—but the last one would likely be your best bet. For 1080p gaming, you don't really need anything more powerful than that. The RX480 4 GB is also a solid value, and for 1080p, you won't really need more than 4GB of VRAM anyway.
As for the GTX 1060, that would be a massive overkill for your current needs.

I've got Kloko set to 4.0!

Thanks for all the input, everyone. So, does it sound like the 1060 is a solid upgrade? Do you think I'll run into a bottleneck with the processor I'm using right now?

Depends on what games you're playing. It might help, but honestly, you won't notice much difference on your current monitor. Try pushing the overclock a bit further; with that cooler, you should definitely be able to hit 4.2-4.3.

Raymond Anderson14

Running your CPU at 4GHz puts you right around an FX8350 level. Given your motherboard and cooling setup, you might realistically push it to 4.2 or 4.3GHz depending on how lucky you got with your specific chip—just make sure you hunt for the lowest possible voltage that keeps everything stable.




The first link doesn't give you specific data to pinpoint a bottleneck, but it does show that your games will run great; essentially, it proves you aren't dealing with a totally mismatched pair.

In the second link, you'll see that you'll hit a CPU bottleneck in single-core intensive titles (like ArmA 3 or Fallout 4), but those games are the exception, not the rule. ArmA 3 is a mess on its own, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 was one of the last major AAA titles to be heavily single-core bound—it uses an engine that’s basically just a modified version of an old, clunky engine dating back to the 90s. Everything else is negligible. Even if you do hit a bottleneck at 1080p, your minimum FPS should stay above 60 or 70, which honestly isn't even a big deal.

wiredotter14 said:I think I'll get more out of this than upgrading both my CPU and GPU since I don't have enough cash to cover all three.

That's likely true, especially if your i7 920 is already overclocked. By the way, check that second link again. Even in those games where the FX causes a bottleneck at 1080p, the performance gap narrows significantly at 1440p. So, your plan actually makes sense; that's pretty much what the benchmarks suggest.

My buddies are telling me that if I'm going to upgrade my GPU, I should really aim for a GTX 1070 or even an 1080 instead. They also mentioned that I’d likely need a new processor to go along with it... what do you all think about that? Is it worth saving up a few extra hundred bucks now just to have some peace of mind for the next few years, or am I overthinking it?

If you actually followed what wiredotter14 and I were discussing, you'd realize it's much smarter to just pick up a 1440p monitor click instead of trying to overhaul your entire PC build
.
With a GTX 1070, your CPU is going to be a bottleneck in plenty of DX11 games at 1080p. Things look a lot better once you jump to 1440p, and if you went all the way to 4K, even a GTX 1080 wouldn't hold you back. The first one is still a decent value if you're looking at the $1267 (price-to-performance ratio), whereas the GTX 1080 really isn't
.

So, if I'm aiming for high-end graphics with a 144Hz monitor, should I look at pairing a GTX 1070 or a GTX 1080 with a newer processor? I feel like that setup should be enough to get everything running smoothly enough.

Forget 144Hz, go for 1440p 😬

If you pick up a monitor like that, I don't think it's overkill to pair it with even a GTX 1070 if that's what you're aiming for. If you decide to stick with 1080p and FX, then a GTX 1060 will do the trick. However, if you want to stay at 1080p but step up to a GPU like the GTX 1070, you might want to look into upgrading your platform (like an i7 or similar)

Timothy Kim60 said:It’s more about 1440p than 144Hz 😬

If you decide to go with a monitor like that, I honestly don't think it's overkill to pair it with even an RTX 3080 if that's what you're leaning toward. If you're sticking with 1080p and focusing on high frame rates, then maybe an older card would suffice. But if you want to stay at 1080p while using a card like an RTX 3080, that's when you should really look into upgrading your platform—maybe moving up to a Core i9 or something similar.

I'm actually leaning towards pairing an RTX 3080 with a 1080p setup... I picked up a monitor along with my current build last year.
Which Core i9 would be a good match for an RTX 3080? And what else should I be looking at, since you mentioned "and so on"?🙂

Sticking with 1080p:

Intel Core i7-6700
ASRock Z170A-X1/3.1
Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4 2133MHz

+

http://www.newegg.com/p/product...&code=62640US
http://www.newegg.com/p/product...&code=09997US

around $2667

If that’s too much, maybe just skip the SSD.

You could probably sell the FX motherboard, RAM, and everything else for about $500.

Timothy Kim60 said:Probably. Especially if you've got that Core i7 920 overclocked. BTW check that other link above. Even in those games where the FX bottlenecks at 1080p, the ratio improves drastically at 1440p, so your plan makes sense—that's basically what the benchmarks show.

thanks for the link
Overclocked my Core i7 920 to 3.8GHz today and it's holding steady. Might need to repaste though; temps are hitting near 90 on Prime95 (it is summer, after all).
I guess my CPU is still slightly weaker than Vishere at 4.0GHz, but the bottleneck is actually pretty low at 1440p.

Got an SSD. An alternative to that combo would be a 1440p monitor plus maybe a Radeon RX 480. It'd cost a few hundred dollars less since I'd have to buy new RAM too, grab a new CPU+Mobo+GPU+RAM, and say goodbye to my X58 :'( and I'd still end up at 1080p, which I'm currently pushing fine on the Pitcairn (Grand Theft Auto V runs without issues on Normal, and can even handle High).

moral of the story....insisting on ultra settings is just throwing money away.

Hardstyler, if I were you, I'd definitely go for 1440p, especially if you're eyeing a GeForce GTX 1070. You only change two things—the GPU and the monitor—and you'll have a setup that's a whole class above. Otherwise, you won't really see the extra detail. 1440p is nearly double the resolution, and the GeForce GTX 1070 was practically built for it.

Just use your current monitor as a second screen; having dual monitors is great for work.

those two are $2500, right within budget 🎉

wiredotter14 said:thanks for the link
I managed to overclock my Core i7 920 to 3.8GHz today and it seems rock solid. I might need to repaste it soon, though, since temperatures are creeping up toward 90 on Prime95—but hey, it is summer, so that’s understandable.
I suspect my CPU is still a bit behind a Vishere running at 4.0GHz, but the bottleneck is actually pretty minimal when playing at 1440p.

I already have an SSD. My alternative to that combo would be a 1440p monitor plus something like a Radeon RX 480. It would actually cost me a few bucks less because if I went the other route, I'd have to buy a new CPU, motherboard, GPU, and RAM, which means saying goodbye to my X58 platform :'( And even then, I’d likely end up back at 1080p, where things currently run fine on my Pitcairn card (for instance, Grand Theft Auto V runs without any issues on Normal settings and can even hold steady on High).

The moral of the story is... insisting on Ultra settings is just a massive waste of money.

Raymond Anderson14, if I were in your shoes, I would definitely aim for 1440p, especially if you're eyeing a GTX 1070. You'd only be changing two things: the graphics card and the monitor. Once you do that, you'll have a configuration that's a whole tier higher; otherwise, you'll be chasing tiny detail improvements that are hard to even notice. 1440p offers nearly double the resolution, and the GTX 1070 was practically built for that sweet spot.

As for the monitor you have now, just set it up as a second screen. Having a dual-monitor setup is absolutely phenomenal for productivity.

Those two items are $2500, right within the budget. 🎉

Would those two components definitely work if I just added them to my current build? 🙂 If so, that would be awesome... and having a second monitor would be a huge plus for me (running a 1080p side monitor alongside a 1440p main one).

Timothy Kim60 said:Hardstyle

Your CPU at 4GHz is basically an FX 8350. Given your motherboard and cooler, you might hit 4.2 or 4.3GHz optimally, depending on the specific chip (obviously, aim for the lowest voltage that stays stable).

The first link doesn't give you hard data on bottlenecks, but you can see games will run great—it’s not a total mismatch.

The second link shows you'll hit a CPU bottleneck in single-core bound titles (like ArmA 3, Fallout 4, etc.), but those are the minority. ArmA 3 is a mess on its own, and I'm pretty sure Fallout 4 was one of the last AAA titles to be heavily single-core bound (using an engine that's just a modified version of some old, clunky junk from the 90s). Everything else is negligible. Even if there's a bottleneck at 1080p, your minimum FPS will stay above 60 or 70, which doesn't really matter anyway.

Even in those games where the FX bottlenecks at 1080p, the ratio improves drastically at 1440p. So your plan makes sense; that's usually how the benchmarks play out.

Raymond Anderson14 said:Would it definitely work if I just grabbed those two for my current setup? 🙂 If so, that'd be sweet... plus a second monitor would be great (1080p side - 1440p main).

The New Guy already explained everything. You should have checked the links.

Thanks, guys!