Upgrading choices for the whole system

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

Hersh25

Reputable
Feb 2, 2015
6
0
4,510
I want to upgrade my HD 4850 to be able to play Witcher 3. I am somehow able to play DA Inquisition with everything at low (1920x1080)!The thing is my whole system is ancient, 6+ years 24/7 run time. So I will be upgrading everything but with DDR4 out I am thinking of waiting for better prices on DDR4 RAM and motherboards. At any rate I only have a budget for a i5 4690k with z97 mb and 8GB DDR3 with a 270x.
OR
I can upgrade just the graphic card if that is possible.
My current system is
Intel Q6600
Abit IP 35
DDR 2 4GB
HD 4850 1GB

Yet another option is to upgrade the system (DDR4 compatible)but not the card and later upgrade to GTX 970.
If I can hold out on either the card or the rest of the system which is better or is 4690k, z97 mb and 8GB DDR3 with a 270x the way to go?
 
Solution
geofelt
------------Stock rant on 8 core FUD--------------

I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
Most games today only use one or two cores.
Here is a set of tests on the effect of many cores on FPS:
http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/report-despite-claims-most-pc-games-are-still-unable-to-take-advantage-of-more-than-4-cpu-cores/
The conclusion is that PC games are unable to take advantage of more than 4 cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is...
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,295
4,145
174,240
Today, and I expect tomorrow, your best cpu upgrade will be to a i5-4690K and a z97 based motherboard.

Intel cpus do not rely on fast ram, so I see little benefit from ddr4 which is supported only on more expensive platforms.

Yes, you could upgrade just the graphics card, and that might be a good idea.
How good that upgrade might be will be determined by your power supply.
Here is a chart:
http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm

I think I would look at a more modern card like the newly announced GTX960.

As to bang for the buck, you will get fair value from any modern mid range graphics card.
Any differences among similarly priced cards are only detectable by synthetic benchmarks, not actual game play.
Some like AMD, some like Nvidia.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
pasow

pasow

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2012
474
0
19,160
given the age of the system, i would go for the whole computer upgrade. Q6600's have hung on a long time, but unless you've OC'd it, it will be the bottle neck of your computer if the RAM isn't.

The Witcher 3, along with most "next" gen titles will be demanding more than 4GB's of RAM.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,830
4,179
139,340
Mentioning what the budget is would certainly help in getting you that answer.

GTX960 is a tiny bit faster then the R9-270X for roughly the same price. R9-285 is also an option here.R9-280 is also an option in that price range. R9-285 has the same architecture as the R9-290, but half the memory size and bandwidth, etc. R9-280 though has 3GB of VRAM, so if you plan on high resolutions and textures it can be the better choice.

Nothing wrong with an i5-4690k and a Z97 board. DDR3 is still cheaper and can be faster then DDR4 as well.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maddogfargo

maddogfargo

Splendid
Nov 28, 2006
3,344
8
22,965


R9 285 3GB will perform very well thanks to advanced lossless compression used for texture memory. But I love the Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 970.

The 4690k + Z97 and DDR3 mentioned earlier is probably going to be the best Intel combo. You would get similar performance from a good AMD FX8350 build and maybe save a few dollars. But at this price point it's so close I would just go with whichever platform you are most comfortable with. They will both be great and can support high end GPUs just fine.

What is your total upgrade budget? This will help us recommend a specific MoBo, CPU, RAM and GPU for you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Hersh25

Reputable
Feb 2, 2015
6
0
4,510
I have a Corsair GS 800 PSU. If DDR 3 will suffice for gaming what about the 4 threads in 4690k instead of 8 on i7. Will that be problem?
I am getting similar prices for a 280 and GTX 960 in India (import tax is a .....put your favorite curse word here!)
I have searched through multiple sites and in dollar terms -
Sapphire 270x dual x (which some don't like here) is my cheapest bet.
Then 270x 4GB one is 30 bucks more.
Then 280 another 30 bucks.
Then 280x tri x and also vapor x are similarly priced at another ~60 bucks higher. 285 is cheaper than these but not by much.
Sapphire tri x 290 and GTX 970 are similar in price with 90 bucks more.
Finally 290x is another 60 bucks over GTX 970

My CPU is overclocked to 3.2GHz. I used to have 8GB of RAM but one stick died on me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Eximo

Eximo

Titan
Ambassador
May 27, 2010
25,830
4,179
139,340


Not sure about India prices. In the US right now all of these cards are between $180 and $210.

R9-285 only has 2GB of memory. R9-280 has 3GB, but is a generation older. The benches I looked at showed a clear advantage for the R9-280 when the 2GB of memory is exceeded. Other then that they are practically interchangeable from a cost/performance standpoint. Takes the r9-270x out of the running if you ask me. Power efficiency goes to the GTX960.

At that point I would start looking at the titles in question. If you play a lot of PhysX titles then Nvidia is the way to go. Mantle is still a little immature, but there are plenty of mainstream games that support it, then AMD makes a case for itself.

I like the Nvidia cards for their efficiency personally. Doesn't affect performance directly, but using less power is a nice bonus. And could conceivably lead to a cheaper system when built from the ground up. (Plus I was a huge fan of 3DFX cards, and SLI technology was developed by them before Nvidia absorbed them)

Still sad they haven't even made a throwback voodoo edition card at any point.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H

Hersh25

Reputable
Feb 2, 2015
6
0
4,510
My first card was a Riva Tuner 32MB (I think)! r9 280 is the cheapest 3GB card I can get, followed by 285 and very similarly priced tri-x/vapor-x 280x's. 960 will cost around 280 with a GB less. Is that worth it?


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,295
4,145
174,240
------------Stock rant on 8 core FUD--------------

I have heard some say that 8 cores will be required for future games.
I think that is FUD perpetuated by AMD.
Game developers want the largest possible market for their games.
No game developer will willingly undertake the extra cost to make their game multi core enabled and also require many cores to run.
They would not sell many games.
Most games today only use one or two cores.
Here is a set of tests on the effect of many cores on FPS:
http://www.dsogaming.com/editorial/report-despite-claims-most-pc-games-are-still-unable-to-take-advantage-of-more-than-4-cpu-cores/
The conclusion is that PC games are unable to take advantage of more than 4 cores.
There are a few exceptions, FSX is one.
It is more important that the cores be fast.
AMD hates that because their cores are much less efficient than intel's. Perhaps 30% slower per clock.
That is also a motivation for mantle, a technology that improves the efficiency of graphics drivers.
Mantle is most important for slow chips, but is irrelevant for $200 class intel cpu's.
Just because you see activity on windows task manager across all cores, do not assume your job is using all those threads.
What you are seeing is windows spreading the activity across all available threads.
Then there is "Amdahl's law" which limits how many threads can be useful, depending on the speed of the main thread.
Today, a I5-4690K is as good as it gets for gaming.
I see many reviews from pleased users switching from a FX-8350 to a i5-4690K.
I see none who are pleased switching from a i5-4690K to a FX-8350.
The only reason for a i7 4790K compared to a i5-4690K is if the $100 difference is not important to you.
For your $100, you will get a better binned chip and some extra L3 cache.
The extra hyperthreads will not be very useful to the gamer.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Your corsair 800w will run any single card out there, and even some dual card configurations.
You are good there.

I see the abount of vram as more of a marketing issue than a performance issue.
Read this on 2gb vs. 4gb:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

I would be wary of the overclocked R9 X cards. Most are OK, but there are some bad ones out there.
For any card you might buy, check the newegg reviews from verified purchasers. Look at the percentage of dissatisfied users(0 or iegg). In particular, look at the reasons.
Compare that card to an alternative.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
H

Hersh25

Reputable
Feb 2, 2015
6
0
4,510
Thank you so much for all your responses!
I will be buying the i5 (no HT) with DDR3. As for the card I am still looking for the best deal, although a Tri-X 290 is available for a decent price atm.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom