Time for an upgrade

[Andynor91]

So, I have had my rig for about 5 years now and I feel that it is time for an upgrade. What would be the best way of going about this in regards to best bang for buck? I am aiming to play the newest games on more or less max settings again in full HD resolution. What's the significant bottleneck? What should I replace/add? Although the 6970's in crossfire has served me well, AMD discontinuing driver support sucks big time. My specs can be seen below. I got great help when I built this rig on this forum many years ago, and I would be delighted to get some advice on what to upgrade

Specs:
Motherboard: ASROCK Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
CPU: 1x Intel Core i5-2500K
GPU: 2x ASUS EAH6970/2DI2S/2GD5 PCIE
PSU: 1x Corsair 850W TX V2
RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT
HDD: 1x Samsung SSD 840 EVO 512gb, 1X 1TB samsung HDD
Case: 1x COOLERMASTER RC-932-KKN5
CPU Cooler: 1x Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
Monitor: 1x ASUS ML238H

 

[dirtyferret]

It's a good system but if you want higher FPS then I would upgrade the GPU as not all games support CF.

 

[EarthDog]

The system, for all intents and purposes, is fine. CPU etc, should be solid for another year or so.

Since you already have two GPUs, adding a third wouldn't be the most cost effective route, considering scaling (SLI/CFx supports MOST games, not all though as was mentioned above). Another issue is 2GB of vRAM isn't really enough these days for 1080p gaming with Ultra details. Its time to scrap those cards.

That said, I would grab a GTX 980 or a 390x/Fury. If you can wait a couple of months, some new cards will be out to choose from.

 

[Grings]

If its best bang for buck you want JUST upgrade your graphics card, i literally upgraded from a virtually identical system (see specs, i have a 2nd 6950 not in it atm as i moved the big psu to new rig) a week ago after running an r9 390 in it for the last 3 months, sandy bridges still hold up really well, i can barely tell a difference on this i7 skylake system.

 

[GhostRyder]

So, I have had my rig for about 5 years now and I feel that it is time for an upgrade. What would be the best way of going about this in regards to best bang for buck? I am aiming to play the newest games on more or less max settings again in full HD resolution. What's the significant bottleneck? What should I replace/add? Although the 6970's in crossfire has served me well, AMD discontinuing driver support sucks big time. My specs can be seen below. I got great help when I built this rig on this forum many years ago, and I would be delighted to get some advice on what to upgrade

Specs:
Motherboard: ASROCK Z68 Extreme4 Gen3
CPU: 1x Intel Core i5-2500K
GPU: 2x ASUS EAH6970/2DI2S/2GD5 PCIE
PSU: 1x Corsair 850W TX V2
RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT
HDD: 1x Samsung SSD 840 EVO 512gb, 1X 1TB samsung HDD
Case: 1x COOLERMASTER RC-932-KKN5
CPU Cooler: 1x Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
Monitor: 1x ASUS ML238H

Your system looks very good as it is. I would say the GPU's are the only thing needing upgrading (Like others stated).

If you want bang for buck upgrade now, definitely grab the R9 390 which is probably one of the best bang for buck high end cards. You will max pretty much every game at FHD.

Try this one, pretty good bang for buck:
MSI R9 390.

 

[Andynor91]

The system, for all intents and purposes, is fine. CPU etc, should be solid for another year or so.

Since you already have two GPUs, adding a third wouldn't be the most cost effective route, considering scaling (SLI/CFx supports MOST games, not all though as was mentioned above). Another issue is 2GB of vRAM isn't really enough these days for 1080p gaming with Ultra details. Its time to scrap those cards.

That said, I would grab a GTX 980 or a 390x/Fury. If you can wait a couple of months, some new cards will be out to choose from.

How many months would I have to wait if I choose this route? Also, only 1 year more of the rig being solid? So if I purchase a 390/390x now, my computer will only be able to run the newest games for 1 year before it'll be struggling with high settings and 60fps gameplay at FHD? Sounds like a pretty bad investment to me. If I purchase a 390/390X and my computer can run games for another 3 years or so at high/medium settings and 60fps FHD I would think it'd be more worth it. Thanks for the advice so far everyone.

 

[EarthDog]

Nobody knows when exactly they will come out. NVIDIA is supposed to be May for their midrange offering (will still smoke your current cards). But that is a rumor......If you are ready now, buy now.

2-3 is possible, but likely, with more games coming out for DX12 by then, you could have a glass ceiling on your card. Not a big deal, really, but its IMPOSSIBLE to tell you 60FPS on all titles without IQ sacrifices.

 

[dirtyferret]

Nvidia will make formal announcements on their Pascal GPU next month, I would not hold my breathe for new GPUs until late spring/early summer from them at the earliest. The good news is with new video cards releasing the old stock gets discounted. Every game is different and you may find Very High settings just as good as Ultra in certain games allowing you to play for several years with the 390/390x. It really depends on the games you play and the graphic performance you want.

 

[dirtyferret]

The best advice I can give you, make a list of the games you want to play (pick 4, 5, 6, etc.,). Check out a review website like techspot
Find those games and check out the cards that give you the performance you want at the settings you want.

 

[EarthDog]

Dude, your double posting...lol

And their HIGH END, hbm2, out late this year, but the mid range pascal with gddr5, gp104 sil8con, can be late May on forward depending on yields.

 

[dirtyferret]

Posting on my phone and doing three things at once.

 

[ASOT]

Go with a R9 390/X and u good to PLAY

 

[Jetster]

Depends on your budget

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Overclock that 2500k they are so easy to OC. Get another 8gb stick of ram for dual channel and ditch those 6970s for a 390X or grab a pre-owned 770, 780ti or new or pre-owned 970 and wait till pascal drops in Q4

 

[dirtyferret]

out of curiosity what improvements to gaming do you feel 16GB in dual channel will create rather then a 8GB stick (please post an independent review from a valid web site rather then Hyperbole) as I would be interested in seeing the ROI as it pertains to gaming .

 

[rtwjunkie]

The problem with the analytical tests of 8GB vs 16GB are that the most recent testing done by Techspot they have a basic system install, run chrome tabs, and the game being tested. Two games in that configuration went over 8: GTA 5 and Arkham Knight.

I say it's a problem, because most people have alot of programs running, and do multitasking while gaming. You can search the topic here and find a large number of our members who regularly exceed 8GB while gaming. And in fairness, just as many who don't.

So, it might be anecdotal, but I really can't argue with the personal experience of people I've known on here for years.

My recommendation to the OP: 16GB in dual channel and a GPU upgrade. The rest of the system is just fine.

 

[dirtyferret]

I saw the techspot report and it was well done. Obviously if someone runs a lot of background programs while gaming then the more ram the better. Personally outside of, web browsers, streaming music and AV, I don't run anything else in the background while gaming and have never gone past 6GB (out of 8GB system RAM). To each their own but I would not see it as a major need especially if the OP is not running into out of RAM issues.

I would personally recommend not running a lot of background programs while gaming but for those people who need (or want) to, I figure they have already built themselves a PC that can handle such multitasking.

 

[MustSeeMelons]

I would personally recommend not running a lot of background programs while gaming but for those people who need (or want) to, I figure they have already built themselves a PC that can handle such multitasking.

I guess it would be better to close background programs while your gaming, but I think it's not so actual anymore. Your CPU has cycles to spare. Will a web browser hinder your FPS? Word, excel? Spotify? Minecraft? Don't think so..
I'm way to lazy to open and close programs, so I just leave everything open. Sometimes even alt-tab from a game for ages.. I recommend 16gb if you are or want to be lazy.

 

[dirtyferret]

The problem with the analytical tests of 8GB vs 16GB are that the most recent testing done by Techspot they have a basic system install, run chrome tabs, and the game being tested. Two games in that configuration went over 8: GTA 5 and Arkham Knight.

Actually they had a bit more open in the background

"Given how Windows handles/prioritizes system memory we didn't think this would have much impact on gaming performance. That said, this time we have run the game tests with Chrome open in the background with 65 active tabs fully loaded, which consumed 2.2GB of memory when 16GB was available."

"For years, 8GB has been the go-to recommendation for gaming, and it looks like that won’t be changing anytime soon. Techspot tested a few games with 65 Chrome tabs open, and found that they'd guzzle up 9-10GB in a 16GB RAM configuration. And yet in Grand Theft Auto V, both 16GB and 8GB RAM configurations ran at 56 frames per second. Surprisingly, the 4GB configuration only ran one frame slower at 55.
There were similar test results for Batman: Arkham Knight and F1 2015. For the 16, 8, and 4GB configurations, Arkham Knight ran at 102, 101, and 98 FPS respectively. For F1 2015, the results were 109 FPS across the board.
Techspot did run some other tests that showed off increased speed with 8GB and 16GB of RAM, like compressing files with 7-Zip, but for gaming, larger quantities of RAM are still mostly going to waste. You can even get away with 4GB of RAM without crippling your framerate, although 8GB kits go for around $60 on Amazon at the moment."

My personal take; if you have 8GB and are not running into any issues then there is no need to upgrade. If you are building a PC primarily for gaming then 8GB is fine. For those people who will be running a lot of background multi-tasking, they know they need 16GB and already have it.

 

[ASOT]

8 Gb is good enough for today ...later on 16 gb will be better,but depends how utilise the pc.

only gaming 8 gb is a good start

 

[Andynor91]

So, I will be waiting for either Polaris or Pascal since it's so close to being released. However, I want to upgrade the ram as well. Is it sufficient for me to just add 8gb more of the same RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT?
I can find 8gb more for about 40$ of the exact same ram. Right now I have the aforementioned ram as 2x 4GB.

Or, should I add a different kind of RAM?

 

[jaggerwild]

You would be OK doubling the exact same ram, (make sure it's the same KIT/model/number as the memory you already have. I game with you tube playing music in the back ground or streaming music, have noticed lately a few issue's. How can you tell how much memory is being used during gaming? What app do you all use?

 

[Caring1]

So, I will be waiting for either Polaris or Pascal since it's so close to being released. However, I want to upgrade the ram as well. Is it sufficient for me to just add 8gb more of the same RAM: 1x CORSAIR 8192MB Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz CL9 KIT?
I can find 8gb more for about 40$ of the exact same ram. Right now I have the aforementioned ram as 2x 4GB.

Or, should I add a different kind of RAM?

Adding the same ram will see more improvement than upping the ram speed.

 

[trog100]

odd really but on the one hand people seek extra gaming performance to the extreme on the other hand some seem too "lazy" to shut down other programs when they are not needed.

for sensible use.. 8 gigs of ram is plenty.. but for those that like to run a dozen things at once who the hell knows..

i have a small laptop with 4 gigs of ram.. in general use browsing and the like ram usage never goes over 1.3 gigs.. but then again i aint too lazy to shut down stuff i aint using.. he he..

doing the same thing on my main machine (32 gigs of ram) it shows around 3.1 gigs in use.. if its there to spare windows must use more of it.. but 8 gigs even in this day and age is still enough..

trog

ps.. i have 32 gigs just cos i can but so far i genuinely have not found any use for it.. its just sat there doing nothing..

incidentally i have tried running my browser and the like from a ram drive.. in an attempt to use my spare ram.. the speed difference (snappy factor) is undetectable compared to running normally off the SSD drive..

 

[EarthDog]

Why would you bother to shut down anything on today's CPUs? I mean unless you are breaching your ram use, there is literally no point in doing so. Long gone are the days where walking and chewing bubble gum on a PC caused notable performance losses. I think you are stuck in 2004 and 'ram scrubber' programs, LOL!