what to upgrade

Carnage788

My pc is about 5 years old, thinking of upgrading.  I plan on playing BDO at release, I was getting 30-40 fps on medium settings during beta.
specs are:
i-7 860
5870 gpu
8 gig ram
850 watt psu
I was thinking of waiting till the new gpu's come out to upgrade that, but i dont know if just upgrading my ram would really increase my performance.  only plan on upgrading one thing at this point in time, I may be willing to go up to 16gig ramx4.  or a 970 gpu.
Any advice for this novice would be welcome.

Gdemami

Definitlely GPU - GTX 970.

Gdemami

Carnage788 said:

very true, is that card beefy enough to handle 4k res or would i have to step up to the 980? currently on a 32" 1080, but getting a 4k soon

No card is "beefy enough" to handle 4k. Unless you want that few FPS, I would avoid GTX 980, it is not that much faster than GTX 970.

The next step up would be GTX 980Ti

Quizzical

Carnage788 said:

Thanks for all the comments!  I personally have a hard time justifying an upgrade unless something breaks.  I know my pc's gettin up there in age but its served me well.  That and i dropped like 2300$ on it and the monitor.  I guess im not quite ready for a new build just yet, it runs everything i "need" it too.  If i hold out till spring when the new series comes out with the 980 ti's drop in price?  Guess im just being cheap.

I wouldn't count on 600 mm^2 GPU chips ever being cheap.  AMD has said Polaris is coming around the middle of the year.  Meanwhile, AMD showed off working cards months ago, while Nvidia showed off an old card and claimed it was a new one, which led people to believe that AMD will get to 14/16 nm before Nvidia, just like they did with 28 nm, 40 nm, 55 nm, 65 nm, and 80 nm.

It's also not automatic that the first GPUs of the new generation will be high end, as waiting on HBM2 or GDDR5X could delay them, while GDDR5 appropriate to the mid range has been available for years.

Still, if your computer works for you now, there's no dire need to replace it today.  But whenever you do go about getting a better computer, I'd recommend buying a new computer rather than upgrading your existing one.

One thing you could do is to buy a new video card today for your old computer, then plan on keeping it when you replace the rest of the computer sometime later.  That's not what I would do myself, but it's not crazy, either.

Carnage788

aren't the new cards coming out later this spring?  few more months wont kill me

Gdemami

Carnage788 said:

aren't the new cards coming out later this spring?  few more months wont kill me

There are "always" coming out new cards

Carnage788

very true, is that card beefy enough to handle 4k res or would i have to step up to the 980? currently on a 32" 1080, but getting a 4k soon

13lake

Gdemami said:

Carnage788 said:

aren't the new cards coming out later this spring?  few more months wont kill me

There are "always" coming out new cards

When was the last time that cards came in a smaller production node size ?

Also how big is the time frame for that, for you to call it "always" coming, a couple of months ?, a couple of years ?, a couple of decades ?

Zebbakei

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Carnage788 said:

very true, is that card beefy enough to handle 4k res or would i have to step up to the 980? currently on a 32" 1080, but getting a 4k soon

What size will that 4K screen be ?

4k is 4k, whether it's 25" or 98". Or were you just curious?

Quizzical

For a computer that old, I'd recommend thinking replace, not upgrade.  You've got a nice rig from 2009 (which is when both your CPU and GPU launched), but it's now 2016 and a lot has happened since then.  If you've still got your original hard drive, it's living on borrowed time by now.  Power supplies degrade as time passes, too.  You probably could do an upgrade you'd be happy with for a while, but I wouldn't.

If you want to do gaming in 4K, I'd recommend going with a Radeon R9 Fury or a GeForce GTX 980 Ti.

If you're dead set on an upgrade as opposed to a replacement, there's a lot to gain with a new video card, and getting an SSD if you don't already have one is a must.  Unless you have unusual needs, 16 GB of memory won't bring you any benefit over the 8 GB that you have now.

Hrimnir

See, if it were me, i'd stick with what i have until i could get a new mobo/proc/memory.  Then once pascal releases and drops a bit in price id pick up the x70 version of that.

Malabooga

If youre going 4k only GPU matters, rest is pretty much irrelevant, especially CPU since 4k is 100% GPU bound (well 8GB of RAM is recommended, buti guess you have that covered).

So unless you need new "features" like USB 3,1, save your money or buy actually 4k capable GPU.

Wait for this:

http://gpunit.com/2016/01/31/amd-gemini-fury-x-2-features-12-tflops-at-375watts/

I would say it will be fastest GPU for a while. Especially in dx12. By the tests so far NVidia is far behind:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,7.html

just look at crazy quality tests.

Cleffy

Waiting until spring is the best solution for you. You want to game at 4K and the only cards that make this possible are the highest end. In a couple months the power becomes more mainstream.
Also do a full replacement.

Carnage788

Thanks for all the comments!  I personally have a hard time justifying an upgrade unless something breaks.  I know my pc's gettin up there in age but its served me well.  That and i dropped like 2300$ on it and the monitor.  I guess im not quite ready for a new build just yet, it runs everything i "need" it too.  If i hold out till spring when the new series comes out with the 980 ti's drop in price?  Guess im just being cheap.

Quizzical

Hrimnir said:

See, if it were me, i'd stick with what i have until i could get a new mobo/proc/memory.  Then once pascal releases and drops a bit in price id pick up the x70 version of that.

It's better to wait and see what launches, then choose something.  The GeForce 100 series topped out at 150.  The GeForce 200 series had a 260, 275, 280, and 285, but no 270.  The GeForce 300 series was stupid.  The GeForce 400 series did have a 470, but it ran stupidly hot and didn't have any real redeeming value other than flexibility in non-graphical compute purposes.  The GeForce 570 and 670 were more reasonable cards, as is the 970, which is likely the basis for your x70 recommendation.  The 770 was nothing more than an overclocked 680.

Meanwhile, what comes after a 900 series?  When Nvidia did four-digit numbers in the past, they tended to make the last two digits both zero.  And Nvidia's naming schemes have changed, with the top end cards now being called Titan instead of being given a number.

Quizzical

Malabooga said:

If youre going 4k only GPU matters, rest is pretty much irrelevant, especially CPU since 4k is 100% GPU bound (well 8GB of RAM is recommended, buti guess you have that covered).

So unless you need new "features" like USB 3,1, save your money or buy actually 4k capable GPU.

Wait for this:

http://gpunit.com/2016/01/31/amd-gemini-fury-x-2-features-12-tflops-at-375watts/

I would say it will be fastest GPU for a while. Especially in dx12. By the tests so far NVidia is far behind:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,7.html

just look at crazy quality tests.

Two substantially lower clocked GPUs in CrossFire or SLI is usually a bad idea.

Quizzical

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

 And Nvidia's naming schemes have changed, with the top end cards now being called Titan instead of being given a number.

Something in their master plan failed then, since without any doubt possible, the 980ti is undeniably better than any of the Titan cards...

To the contrary, a GeForce GTX 980 Ti is just a cut down GeForce GTX Titan X.  One could argue for getting a GTX 980 Ti on the basis that it's a lot cheaper and not that much slower.  But it's certainly not a better card if you ignore the price tag.  This isn't like the GTX 780 Ti that was a higher clocked Titan a number of months later when Nvidia needed to compete with the Radeon R9 290X.

Malabooga

Quizzical said:

Malabooga said:

If youre going 4k only GPU matters, rest is pretty much irrelevant, especially CPU since 4k is 100% GPU bound (well 8GB of RAM is recommended, buti guess you have that covered).

So unless you need new "features" like USB 3,1, save your money or buy actually 4k capable GPU.

Wait for this:

http://gpunit.com/2016/01/31/amd-gemini-fury-x-2-features-12-tflops-at-375watts/

I would say it will be fastest GPU for a while. Especially in dx12. By the tests so far NVidia is far behind:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ashes_of_singularity_directx_12_benchmark_ii_review,7.html

just look at crazy quality tests.

Two substantially lower clocked GPUs in CrossFire or SLI is usually a bad idea.

As an alternative to what exactly?

4k has its price. And replacing irrelevant thing like platform is just wasting money. Also depends on the mobo which might not even be capable of doing proper SLI/CF.

OfficerFriendlyEQ2

This thread is very helpful!

Pepeq

Carnage788 said:

Any advice for this novice would be welcome.

Play the game for at least 2 months before upgrading anything.  Then you will know exactly what areas are in need of an upgrade for actual gameplay and not merely aesthetic reasons.

If you end up returning to your older games in that timeframe, you will have saved a bundle and when you do decide to upgrade later, the entire spectrum of possibilities will have tripled and the prices for what you can get now will be bargain basement by comparison.

Quizzical

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

 And Nvidia's naming schemes have changed, with the top end cards now being called Titan instead of being given a number.

Something in their master plan failed then, since without any doubt possible, the 980ti is undeniably better than any of the Titan cards...

To the contrary, a GeForce GTX 980 Ti is just a cut down GeForce GTX Titan X.  One could argue for getting a GTX 980 Ti on the basis that it's a lot cheaper and not that much slower.  But it's certainly not a better card if you ignore the price tag.  This isn't like the GTX 780 Ti that was a higher clocked Titan a number of months later when Nvidia needed to compete with the Radeon R9 290X.

The Titan X vs 980 ti benchmarks don't exactly reflect what you are saying though... seems to me that the 980 ti is in the lead in the vast majority of games.

Well then, let's have a look at a recent review:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/1.html

15 games at 4 resolutions each makes for 60 measurements.  In not a single one does a stock GTX 980 Ti beat a Titan X.  A massively overclocked GTX 980 Ti does beat a stock Titan X, but that's only a problem of comparing a highly overclocked card to a stock one.

For comparison, a Core i5-6600K overclocked to 5 GHz will usually beat a stock Core i7-6700K, apart from programs that scale well to many (substantially more than 4) cores.  But that doesn't mean the 6600K is a better CPU than the 6700K, but only that it's close enough that overclocking can make up the difference if you don't overclock the 6700K, too.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Dahkoht

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

 And Nvidia's naming schemes have changed, with the top end cards now being called Titan instead of being given a number.

Something in their master plan failed then, since without any doubt possible, the 980ti is undeniably better than any of the Titan cards...

To the contrary, a GeForce GTX 980 Ti is just a cut down GeForce GTX Titan X.  One could argue for getting a GTX 980 Ti on the basis that it's a lot cheaper and not that much slower.  But it's certainly not a better card if you ignore the price tag.  This isn't like the GTX 780 Ti that was a higher clocked Titan a number of months later when Nvidia needed to compete with the Radeon R9 290X.

The Titan X vs 980 ti benchmarks don't exactly reflect what you are saying though... seems to me that the 980 ti is in the lead in the vast majority of games.

There's no 980ti anywhere that beats the SC version of the Titan X.

Stock vs stock the Titan wins , OC vs OC the titan wins. You have to compare OC 980ti vs non OC Titan X to get good results for the 980ti in regards to being the same and or beating a Titan X.

SomethingUnusual

Greets OP... I'm sorry your discussion was hijacked by GPU epeen pissing contests.

You've a fine graphics card, I sported a 5870x2 for a very long time, it's a great card and will even last you into today's games, albeit not as well as a new card.

I would recommend upgrading that motherboard and processor (Which may entail a RAM upgrade)

A new processor is the obvious start, but your current board will not support it. Get a new i7 while they're cheap: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117559
I'm sure you can find an 1151 socket board and DDR4 to go along with it pretty well and on the cheap too. (Unless of course you are going the "spare no expense" path, then by all means go crazy)

Once you've got some new juice under the core of your hood, then worry about a GPU. Either way you are looking at dropping around 600 bucks. It's best to use that on the core before a graphics card that is left with a decade old bottleneck of a board and processor.

Quizzical

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

Quizzical said:

 And Nvidia's naming schemes have changed, with the top end cards now being called Titan instead of being given a number.

Something in their master plan failed then, since without any doubt possible, the 980ti is undeniably better than any of the Titan cards...

To the contrary, a GeForce GTX 980 Ti is just a cut down GeForce GTX Titan X.  One could argue for getting a GTX 980 Ti on the basis that it's a lot cheaper and not that much slower.  But it's certainly not a better card if you ignore the price tag.  This isn't like the GTX 780 Ti that was a higher clocked Titan a number of months later when Nvidia needed to compete with the Radeon R9 290X.

The Titan X vs 980 ti benchmarks don't exactly reflect what you are saying though... seems to me that the 980 ti is in the lead in the vast majority of games.

Well then, let's have a look at a recent review:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/1.html

15 games at 4 resolutions each makes for 60 measurements.  In not a single one does a stock GTX 980 Ti beat a Titan X.  A massively overclocked GTX 980 Ti does beat a stock Titan X, but that's only a problem of comparing a highly overclocked card to a stock one.

For comparison, a Core i5-6600K overclocked to 5 GHz will usually beat a stock Core i7-6700K, apart from programs that scale well to many (substantially more than 4) cores.  But that doesn't mean the 6600K is a better CPU than the 6700K, but only that it's close enough that overclocking can make up the difference if you don't overclock the 6700K, too.

Ok granted.
Fact remains that a Titan X is basically... and overclocked 980 TI

Ok stop shouting, I'm out of here already. I honestly hope the price difference is worth it, which is isn't for any standard card.

Actually, the Titan X and GTX 980 Ti have the same stock clock speed.  There are two differences, really:  12 GB of memory rather than 6 GB, and having all 24 SMMs on the chip enabled rather than only 22.  The Titan X is a slightly better card than the GTX 980 Ti at a much higher price tag.