Current specs good enough for GPU upgrade?

[Pete1burn]

Looking to do an upgrade to my desktop to game in my basement. I got three surplus 27" monitors from a friend and I'd like to set up a triple monitor gaming station for light RTS (SoaSE, Everspace) and FPS (BF1).

If I upgraded to a 1070 or something would it work ok with my current system specs?

TIA

 

[Vayra86]

27 inch 1080p x 3 I assume?

I think that is going to be medium/high settings at best if you want 60 fps. The 1070 will do 1440p fine but you'll have a few more pixels to push. The i7 4770k is a fine CPU for that performance level though, you'll have no real bottleneck CPU wise with that GPU.

I'd consider a 1080 now that they've come down in price, and for that resolution GDDR5X is going to prove worthwhile.

 

[Pete1burn]

I was looking at the Asus Strix 1080.

http://a.co/84ZewkS

 

[SanityGaming]

First: buy a HDD, never primarily use SSDS for everything especially games.
Second: What's your ram speed.
Third: if you can buy a 1080 buy that but if you cant, buy 2x 290X gpus, them in crossfire are faster than a single 1080 and i'm sure way cheaper also!

 

[Lionheart]

GTX 1070 will work perfectly fine Your setup is still plentiful for the latest games. Question is your CPU overclocked?

 

[Vayra86]

I was looking at the Asus Strix 1080.

http://a.co/84ZewkS

Watch out on that one, get the 8GOC version or you can't overclock, Asus is shitty like that.

The top performing 1080's are:
Gainward Phoenix GLH (or GS)
Palit GameRock (or SuperJetStream)
these two share the best cooler Pascal can offer right now, the GLH/GameRocks are cherry picked+binned and the lower ones are not, a bit of a non issue tbh.

Second bestest:
Zotac AMP! Extreme
MSI Gaming X

Good, not the best:
Gigabyte G1
Asus Strix O8G

And all the other vendors are below that. You'll see Asus is not the top dog ^^ but they do ask the top price.

This is btw the same list for all AIB GTX 1070's, they're essentially the same coolers mostly.

 

[Pete1burn]

No overclocking at the moment, and I don't really plan to. When I was a young guy painting on my CPUs with conductive ink or wrapping copper wire around two pins on the CPU, maybe. I don't have time for that anymore.

Is the problem with SSDs the constant rewrites with games? All I use are SSDs, both in my desktop and my laptop.

 

[Vayra86]

No overclocking at the moment, and I don't really plan to. When I was a young guy painting on my CPUs with conductive ink or wrapping copper wire around two pins on the CPU, maybe. I don't have time for that anymore.

Is the problem with SSDs the constant rewrites with games? All I use are SSDs, both in my desktop and my laptop.

Games on SSD is fine, no idea why it would be harmful, I've never seen a source for that at all. It also offers a tangible benefit with any loading screens you'll encounter ingame.

About overclocking: yes you will do that, because it takes two clicks of the mouse and gives you 10% performance that you'll definitely be looking for. It's not the way it was back in the day, today overclocking is part of the marketing so every idiot can do it and Pascal stays remarkably cool even if you do so.

 

[SanityGaming]

No overclocking at the moment, and I don't really plan to. When I was a young guy painting on my CPUs with conductive ink or wrapping copper wire around two pins on the CPU, maybe. I don't have time for that anymore.

Is the problem with SSDs the constant rewrites with games? All I use are SSDs, both in my desktop and my laptop.

Games on SSD is fine, no idea why it would be harmful, I've never seen a source for that at all. It also offers a tangible benefit with any loading screens you'll encounter ingame.

About overclocking: yes you will do that, because it takes two clicks of the mouse and gives you 10% performance that you'll definitely be looking for. It's not the way it was back in the day, today overclocking is part of the marketing so every idiot can do it and Pascal stays remarkably cool even if you do so.

can shorten the lifespan drastically and stuff it's why most people and you always hear people saying (install operating system on your ssd, and if you really want to put games on it, do your most played or favorite ones, and install rest on HDD)
Yes there's no moving parts, but more read n writes on the ssd will shorten it..

That and 95% of the time most games won't run or load any faster than they would using a standard 7200RPM HDD.

SSDS read and write way faster than HDD, and using more games on the SSD will use them read and writes up faster, i'm sure most SSDs have a certain amount of read and writes it can actually do before screwing over more and more!

 

[Vayra86]

can shorten the lifespan drastically cause more errors and stuff it's why most people and you always hear people saying (install operating system on your ssd, and if you really want to put games on it, do your most played or fraviout ones, and install rest on HDD)

Yes there's no moving parts, but more read n writes on the ssd will shorten it..

Your argument kind of defeats itself tbh...

If you install your most used applications on SSD, then the majority of your access will be on the SSD...

'Can shorten lifespan' ofcourse it does, all use of any component will shorten its lifespan. What I was hoping to see is actual *evidence* that it shortens the lifespan so much more than 'other use' would, which I find extremely hard to believe.

 

[SanityGaming]

Your argument kind of defeats itself tbh...

If you install your most used applications on SSD, then the majority of your access will be on the SSD...

'Can shorten lifespan' ofcourse it does, all use of any component will shorten its lifespan. What I was hoping to see is actual *evidence* that it shortens the lifespan so much more than 'other use' would, which I find extremely hard to believe.

applications like chrome, an antivirus and more, and general programs don't use as many read and writes as a typical game.

It's why you never see anyone mention such a thing to do with ssds, only when comes to installing games on SSDS
As stated SSDS will read and write games faster, and install games faster than a typical HDD, go see youtube, i can't just go on youtube and stick a million videos here, and i'm not upto searching right now,

All i will state is a known fact is, SSDS with games on will die faster than a HDD with games on.
the margin of that though isn't well extreme or even high, just more than a typical HDD


In any normal consumer use, an SSD will become obsolete due to small size long before it 'dies' due to too many writes.

 

[Vayra86]

applications like chrome, an antivirus and more, and general programs don't use as many read and writes as a typical game.

It's why you never see anyone mention such a thing to do with ssds, only when comes to installing games on SSDS

All I have seen from SSD's is that the MTBF is higher than that of a typical HDD and that almost every SSD massively exceeds the specsheet in terms of reliability and amount of data written. And that all games and applications are the typical things to store on the SSD because you want to access them fast. Still curious about your source for this statement - until you can show me evidence, I'll stick to the belief that its a fairy tale, of which we have so many in the PC world.

 

[SanityGaming]

All I have seen from SSD's is that the MTBF is higher than that of a typical HDD and that almost every SSD massively exceeds the specsheet in terms of reliability and amount of data written. And that all games and applications are the typical things to store on the SSD because you want to access them fast. Still curious about your source for this statement.

Source 90% of every thread on tomshardware, youtube, google.
Though most these threads go back about before 2014!
As future progresses so do SSDS, though i'm sure they aren't as bad as the past, but as i stated.
In any normal consumer use, an SSD will become obsolete due to small size long before it 'dies' due to too many writes.
As stated , an SSD reads and writes more than a HDD making programs faster, unless it's game related,
Again the margin of speed is either non to like 1% difference.... installing a game on an SSD to me is just well ... pointless does that increase in time by like 1-5 seconds really matter?

Only time an SSD will even benefit a game is loading times and stuff! = Fallout 4 is a great example can lower the loading time from building to world to just a few seconds!

 

[Vayra86]

Threads on random forums are NOT a source, they're a bunch of monkeys aping what they heard from one another across the internet.

THIS is a source.
http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

I'm sorry but I'm a sucker for actual facts, not hear-say.

A quote from the article, to get you interested:
"Most PC users, myself included, write no more than a few terabytes per year. Even 100TB is far more endurance than the typical consumer needs."

The first SSD's on that test crapped out at 300TB... this is why I pointed towards 'yes they wear faster, but does it matter?'

 

[Halo3Addict]

can shorten the lifespan drastically and stuff it's why most people and you always hear people saying (install operating system on your ssd, and if you really want to put games on it, do your most played or favorite ones, and install rest on HDD)
Yes there's no moving parts, but more read n writes on the ssd will shorten it..

That and 95% of the time most games won't run or load any faster than they would using a standard 7200RPM HDD.

SSDS read and write way faster than HDD, and using more games on the SSD will use them read and writes up faster, i'm sure most SSDs have a certain amount of read and writes it can actually do before screwing over more and more!

Actually having your OS on an SSD will do a lot more read/writes than as a secondary drive. I only buy an HDD nowadays for massive storage (server) or as secondary drive that only houses documents/music.

 

[peche]

you are fine, if the money allows you to get GTX 1080 go for it!

 

[MxPhenom 216]

First: buy a HDD, never primarily use SSDS for everything especially games.
Second: What's your ram speed.
Third: if you can buy a 1080 buy that but if you cant, buy 2x 290X gpus, them in crossfire are faster than a single 1080 and i'm sure way cheaper also!

Theres nothing wrong with using SSDs for games. Why would he get 2 older gpus? Way better off with the 1080 because it will always work in 100% of games he plays. He wont be castrated by whether or not the game supports crossfire.

 

[ERazer]

go for SSD, any concern wearing it out are you planning to keep the ssd for 10yrs+? heck my intel 510 ssd bought back on 2011 still at 98% and i use it for server cache.

1080>old crossfire, done

 

[purplekaycee]

First: buy a HDD, never primarily use SSDS for everything especially games.
Second: What's your ram speed.
Third: if you can buy a 1080 buy that but if you cant, buy 2x 290X gpus, them in crossfire are faster than a single 1080 and i'm sure way cheaper also!

what's wrong with using SSDs for games as primary hard drives?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

what's wrong with using SSDs for games as primary hard drives?

There isn't. Hes just spouting off shit like he knows what he is talking about.

 

[jormungand]

gtx 1080 and ssd . OVER 9000!!!!!!! and your system issss damn okay look at mine and i have the gtx 1070 lol

 

[biffzinker]

All I use are SSDs, both in my desktop and my laptop.

Same here, gave up on the old and slow mechanical drives in favor of solid state drives. Just added a 480GB SanDisk Ultra II to my primary system for the purpose of games.

 

[OneCool]

Spend as much as you can at time of purchase. The future is out there