Mostly the jump I would like to do is 4K without having to buy or build a whole new computer which is why I was asking on how high of a video card could I get that would allow me to do this.
I currently have a 550 PSU at the moment. I don't mind buying another PSU if need be. I've gone that route of asking her if she just wanted mine but she said she's had hand me downs all her life so she's wanting to actually have a brand new computer from scratch.
It should probably be enough unless you go overboard with a Titan card or the PSU is an under-performing no-name.
Mostly the jump I would like to do is 4K without having to buy or build a whole new computer which is why I was asking on how high of a video card could I get that would allow me to do this.
@Truvidien88 I can comfortably run 4K with Nvidia GTX 970 and an average CPU.
By that, I mean stable FPS in games like Overwatch, League of Legends, Guild Wars 2. Games like Battlefield 1 or Witcher 3 are impossible at 4K with my spec. As others have pointed out, even top of the line GPUs struggle to hit reasonable F@Truvidien88
You would be able to run up to that standard with a GPU upgrade.
The biggest benefit of 4K for me is web browsing. Reading text is a noticeable difference - one I would not like to go back from.
The downsides of 4K is lack of optimisation. Many games/software do not have UI to fit 4K (yet). Some will let you upscale UI, many won't. In some games the windows don't align properly, or appear in strange places. Adobe Illustrator is a pain using, for example. League of Legends also has UI trouble - I play it in 1080p for that reason.
On the other hand, Overwatch works brilliantly.
For me the benefits outweigh the negatives. If people want 100% reliability, it's perfectly reasonabl to wait.
I can run a lot of games at 4k with an R9 290x. It just depends on how demanding the game is. For any demanding titles its back down to 1080p. Like World of Tanks and World of Warships I run at 4k with maxed settings. For Fallout 4, its down to 1080p.
I think you should remember the lack of progress that was made in the last few GPU generations because they were stuck on that process node for so long. Your HD 7870 is roughly equivalent to a RX 460 or GTX950. No point getting those cards. You would be looking at roughly twice your GPUs current performance jumping up to a GTX 1080. About a 40~50% going to a GTX 1060 6GB or RX 480. Avoid the GTX 1060 3GB. It has worse cost/performance ratio than its direct competitor the RX 480 4GB. If you are interested in playing games at 4k, than the upgrade should be towards the GTX 1080 which has finally stabilized in price around $650.
I think you should remember the lack of progress that was made in the last few GPU generations because they were stuck on that process node for so long. Your HD 7870 is roughly equivalent to a RX 460 or GTX950. No point getting those cards. You would be looking at roughly twice your GPUs current performance jumping up to a GTX 1080. About a 40~50% going to a GTX 1060 6GB or RX 480. Avoid the GTX 1060 3GB. It has worse cost/performance ratio than its direct competitor the RX 480 4GB. If you are interested in playing games at 4k, than the upgrade should be towards the GTX 1080 which has finally stabilized in price around $650.
Damn! $650.. Hmm. I'll have to look into this more. So I would only see a minimal increase using the GTX 1060 6GB?
I think you should remember the lack of progress that was made in the last few GPU generations because they were stuck on that process node for so long. Your HD 7870 is roughly equivalent to a RX 460 or GTX950. No point getting those cards. You would be looking at roughly twice your GPUs current performance jumping up to a GTX 1080. About a 40~50% going to a GTX 1060 6GB or RX 480. Avoid the GTX 1060 3GB. It has worse cost/performance ratio than its direct competitor the RX 480 4GB. If you are interested in playing games at 4k, than the upgrade should be towards the GTX 1080 which has finally stabilized in price around $650.
Damn! $650.. Hmm. I'll have to look into this more. So I would only see a minimal increase using the GTX 1060 6GB?
But if you want to do 4K graphics, then GTX 1060 is not enough. For that you'll need at least GTX 1080, and even that is not enough to run everything in 4K.
If you can be happy with playing just normal 1080p resolution, then I'd suggest RX 480 or GTX 1060. Both of them are good enough alternatives for getting decent 1080p graphics at decent price.
The point I am making is simple. The GTX 1060 6GB was slightly faster than the RX 480 4GB at DX11 games. The RX 480 4GB was faster in DX12 and Vulkan titles. The GTX 1060 3GB not only has less VRAM, it also has an 8% reduction of stream processors and has a different clock rate. It trades blows with the RX 480 4GB in DX11 titles and loses in DX12/Vulkan titles. The reviewers can come to whatever conclusion they want. It's just not a good buy.
The point I am making is simple. The GTX 1060 6GB was slightly faster than the RX 480 4GB at DX11 games. The RX 480 4GB was faster in DX12 and Vulkan titles. The GTX 1060 3GB not only has less VRAM, it also has an 8% reduction of stream processors and has a different clock rate. It trades blows with the RX 480 4GB in DX11 titles and loses in DX12/Vulkan titles. The reviewers can come to whatever conclusion they want. It's just not a good buy.
How is trading 6-8% frame rates(even less at 1080p) for 20% price not a good buy?
That would be fine if the RX 480 4GB didn't exist. The Cheapest GTX 1060 3GB runs $199.99 with most running $219. The Cheapest RX 480 4GB runs $219.99 with most running $229. For a $10~$20 difference in price the GTX 1060 3GB is as good as the RX 480 in DX11, and worse to much worse in DX12/Vulkan. When you factor in DX12 and Vulkan, the 5~10% savings really isn't worth it.
That would be fine if the RX 480 4GB didn't exist. The Cheapest GTX 1060 3GB runs $199.99 with most running $219. The Cheapest RX 480 4GB runs $219.99 with most running $229. For a $10~$20 difference in price the GTX 1060 3GB is as good as the RX 480 in DX11, and worse to much worse in DX12/Vulkan. When you factor in DX12 and Vulkan, the 5~10% savings really isn't worth it.
Except that isn't true.
The only advantage RX 480 gains is under Doom(Vulcan).
Even in your linked test, RX 480 is 5% slower than GTX1060 3GB and that includes the oddity of Doom(Vulcan)...
That would be fine if the RX 480 4GB didn't exist. The Cheapest GTX 1060 3GB runs $199.99 with most running $219. The Cheapest RX 480 4GB runs $219.99 with most running $229. For a $10~$20 difference in price the GTX 1060 3GB is as good as the RX 480 in DX11, and worse to much worse in DX12/Vulkan. When you factor in DX12 and Vulkan, the 5~10% savings really isn't worth it.
RX 480 4GB is likely going to be a bit faster than GTX 1060 3GB once DX12 games become more common, but only a bit and at the moment it costs 10% more. I think at the current prices both cards are good purchases, and which one you pick is more a matter of personal preference than one card being better than another.
The only exception is, if you have FreeSync capable monitor then AMD's card is better purchase for its FreeSync support, whereas NVidia has good streaming technology if you want to stream to Android or iOS device. But most people are unlikely to need either of those technologies.
The only advantage RX 480 gains is under Doom(Vulcan).
Even in your linked test, RX 480 is 5% slower than GTX1060 3GB and that includes the oddity of Doom(Vulcan)...
5% less frame rates for $10 more.
So again, bad math is bad.
Did you not read the article or what were you reading? The dips that happen 1% of the time, the dips that happen 0.1% of the time? Average FPS the RX 480 swaps titles if you take out the setting that would never happen, an RX 480 run on OpenGL. Knowing they swap blows in mostly a DX11 benchmark suite, then it should make sense that the RX 480 will be the better buy factoring in DX12 and Vulkan.
The Witcher: 51 fps verse 50 fps Within margin of error. Overwatch: 71 fps verse 75 fps nVidia by 5% Grand Theft Auto V: 65 fps verse 72 fps nVidia by 10% Dues Ex Mankind Divided: 52 fps verse 46 fps AMD by 12% Star Wars Battlefront: 54 fps verse 54 fps Tie Doom: 114 fps(Vulkan) verse 91 fps(OpenGL) AMD by 18% Tom Clancy's The Division: 46 fps verse 43 fps Within margin of error. Batman Arkham Knight: 69 fps verse 63 fps AMD by 8% Far Cry Primal: 56 fps verse 50 fps Ultra Settings: 41 fps verse 40 fps Within margin of error. Assassin's Creed Syndicate: 58 fps verse 58 fps Very High: 38 fps verse 44 fps nVidia by 13% Mirror's Edge: 45 fps verse 45 fps Hyper Settings: 20 fps verse 22 fps Within margin of error Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor: 58 fps verse 56 fps Within margin of error Rise of the Tomb Raider: 55 fps verse 57 fps Within margin of error
Comments
Ah, I understand her.
I can comfortably run 4K with Nvidia GTX 970 and an average CPU.
By that, I mean stable FPS in games like Overwatch, League of Legends, Guild Wars 2.
Games like Battlefield 1 or Witcher 3 are impossible at 4K with my spec. As others have pointed out, even top of the line GPUs struggle to hit reasonable F@Truvidien88
You would be able to run up to that standard with a GPU upgrade.
The biggest benefit of 4K for me is web browsing. Reading text is a noticeable difference - one I would not like to go back from.
The downsides of 4K is lack of optimisation. Many games/software do not have UI to fit 4K (yet). Some will let you upscale UI, many won't. In some games the windows don't align properly, or appear in strange places. Adobe Illustrator is a pain using, for example. League of Legends also has UI trouble - I play it in 1080p for that reason.
On the other hand, Overwatch works brilliantly.
For me the benefits outweigh the negatives. If people want 100% reliability, it's perfectly reasonabl to wait.
GTX 1060 3GB is currently the best performance/money card you can buy but I am not sure if 3GB is future proof enough.Definitely worth considering.
EDIT:Sorry, like Cleffy pointed out, RX460/GTX 950 are not an option,I have mistaken your thread/rig with someone's else.My bad.
Avoid the GTX 1060 3GB. It has worse cost/performance ratio than its direct competitor the RX 480 4GB.
If you are interested in playing games at 4k, than the upgrade should be towards the GTX 1080 which has finally stabilized in price around $650.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-HD-7870-vs-GeForce-GTX-1060
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB-vs-AMD-HD-7870/3639vs2161
http://hwbench.com/vgas/geforce-gtx-1060-vs-radeon-hd-7870-ghz-edition
But if you want to do 4K graphics, then GTX 1060 is not enough. For that you'll need at least GTX 1080, and even that is not enough to run everything in 4K.
If you can be happy with playing just normal 1080p resolution, then I'd suggest RX 480 or GTX 1060. Both of them are good enough alternatives for getting decent 1080p graphics at decent price.
Here is another benchmark that shows the GTX 1060 3GB trading blows with the RX 480 4GB
http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/3gb-vs-6gb-gtx-1060-vram-comparison-more-competitive-than-you-might-think/
The point I am making is simple. The GTX 1060 6GB was slightly faster than the RX 480 4GB at DX11 games. The RX 480 4GB was faster in DX12 and Vulkan titles. The GTX 1060 3GB not only has less VRAM, it also has an 8% reduction of stream processors and has a different clock rate. It trades blows with the RX 480 4GB in DX11 titles and loses in DX12/Vulkan titles. The reviewers can come to whatever conclusion they want. It's just not a good buy.
Can you math...?
The only advantage RX 480 gains is under Doom(Vulcan).
Even in your linked test, RX 480 is 5% slower than GTX1060 3GB and that includes the oddity of Doom(Vulcan)...
5% less frame rates for $10 more.
So again, bad math is bad.
The only exception is, if you have FreeSync capable monitor then AMD's card is better purchase for its FreeSync support, whereas NVidia has good streaming technology if you want to stream to Android or iOS device. But most people are unlikely to need either of those technologies.
The Witcher: 51 fps verse 50 fps
Within margin of error.
Overwatch: 71 fps verse 75 fps
nVidia by 5%
Grand Theft Auto V: 65 fps verse 72 fps
nVidia by 10%
Dues Ex Mankind Divided: 52 fps verse 46 fps
AMD by 12%
Star Wars Battlefront: 54 fps verse 54 fps
Tie
Doom: 114 fps(Vulkan) verse 91 fps(OpenGL)
AMD by 18%
Tom Clancy's The Division: 46 fps verse 43 fps
Within margin of error.
Batman Arkham Knight: 69 fps verse 63 fps
AMD by 8%
Far Cry Primal: 56 fps verse 50 fps
Ultra Settings: 41 fps verse 40 fps
Within margin of error.
Assassin's Creed Syndicate: 58 fps verse 58 fps
Very High: 38 fps verse 44 fps
nVidia by 13%
Mirror's Edge: 45 fps verse 45 fps
Hyper Settings: 20 fps verse 22 fps
Within margin of error
Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor: 58 fps verse 56 fps
Within margin of error
Rise of the Tomb Raider: 55 fps verse 57 fps
Within margin of error