Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Where to start on an upgrade
PNM_Jennings
Member UncommonPosts: 1,093
in Hardware
So right now I'm running an i5-2500k oc'ed to 4.0Ghz, an GTX 560Ti, with 8GB DDR3 RAM, on a 650W PSU. Obviously this is all pretty alright. Like only recently have I started to run into games that I can't run at max settings or just don't run well for some reason. So this isn't a pressing upgrade, but I am beginning to think about where to start. It really comes down to the GPU or CPU, and whichever is the weakest link. Does anyone have any thoughts?
And I understand this could be a bit of a domino effect, so once I get going I'll probably go over the whole thing within a year.
On a related note: could a 650W PSU handle higher end graphics cards? Like I saw even the GTX 980Ti has a system requirement of 600W, so by the numbers I'm fine, but if I did decide to go all out on a GPU, would it be a good idea to upgrade the PSU too?
Thank you!
And I understand this could be a bit of a domino effect, so once I get going I'll probably go over the whole thing within a year.
On a related note: could a 650W PSU handle higher end graphics cards? Like I saw even the GTX 980Ti has a system requirement of 600W, so by the numbers I'm fine, but if I did decide to go all out on a GPU, would it be a good idea to upgrade the PSU too?
Thank you!
Comments
A CPU upgrade from the model you currently have to a newer generation will mean a new motherboard cause Intel likes to change the pins with every new chip. Must be nice to get those kickbacks from the motherboard manufacturers for doing that every couple of years.
A GPU upgrade may get bottle-necked by your current CPU. Honestly, I haven't done any research on the matter, but I personally like to keep my CPU and GPU no more than three generations apart.
As the other person said, 650W is plenty for you unless you plan on some massive overclocking and a dual or triple GPU setup. Personally I use this site to determine what PSU I will need. http://powersupplycalculator.net/
1. After extensive research I learned that the 2500k overclocked to 4-4.4ghz or so is "almost" the same performance-wise as the newest skylake processor. (5-10% difference), so you don't need a new cpu at all. Intel has become lazy over the past 4 years, and hasn't really improved processors much (power wise).
2. PSU-wise your golden, as long as you don't want more than one gpu.
3. 8GB of ddr3 ram is still fine for now, in a year (or two) or so 16gb will become more the norm most likely, but you still have a year (maybe 2) before that happens. Also DD4 ram isn't really all that good yet, and you likely won't see much performance difference while gaming.
4. You GPU is quite dated, I upgraded from a 670 4gb edition to a 970 myself. The best that money can buy is the 980ti currently, but that is $300-350 or so more.
All you really need is a new GPU, and don't worry about having an older motherboard, I didn't need to upgrade that either since I only use a single gpu. (If you want dual gpus you'll need a whole new pc sadly. As PCIe 2.0 isn't good enough for 2 modern gpus.)
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
There's not that much to be had by upgrading your CPU, as Intel hasn't made that much progress in the last four years, while AMD still doesn't have a CPU even as fast as what you have now unless you need more than four cores. Especially if your games run well at lower settings but only struggle when you turn settings up, that usually means your current CPU is fine.
A new video card could be a much worthier upgrade, however. I generally advise against doing small upgrades, but a GeForce GTX 970, 980, 980 Ti or a Radeon R9 290, 290X, 390, Fury, or Fury X (basically, anything that uses either of the top two GPU chips from either Nvidia or AMD) would all be plenty large enough upgrades to justify the cost, and I think you'd be happy with the results.
I'd also make sure you get a good SSD if you don't already have one. That will rarely improve your frame rates in games, but it will make everything else that happens on the computer (including loading and zoning within games) so much faster. If you already have a good SSD, you're fine, but if you shied away when building a computer because of the cost, look what it costs to get plenty of capacity now:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820721108
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226679
@booniedog96 I wasn't planning on upgrading for a while, but I would like to cash in on Black Friday sales, and I don't want to hold off for another year.
@Quizzical This is my PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139020 I've actually been ogling the 980Ti this whole time, but it really comes down to if I can find a good sale. I could technically afford it as is, but it's still a good chunk of change. And lastly, yeah, getting an SSD is the other upgrade I plan on making. Pretty excited for decent boot times.
And SSD's are awesome, but only after you upgrade your gaming power first. You will not notice any difference in game with an SSD except for load times. For me the SSD is a nice to have but not a must for gaming by any means. Your in game performance will not be affected. So if you are good on your cpu/gpu/ram/monitor, go for it.
I wouldn't count on price drops on the GTX 980 Ti until next year. It's probable that it costs AMD more to build its competing Radeon R9 Fury X than it costs Nvidia to build a GTX 980 Ti, not to mention that the Fury X is the top bin and the GTX 980 Ti isn't, so don't count on AMD to provide downward pressure on prices. Next year, GPUs move to 14/16 nm, which means you'll be able to get faster GPUs than are available today, at which point, what you'd want is one of the new GPUs, not a then-older GeForce GTX 980 Ti.
I can push 3x 1080p monitors running Witcher 3 at nearly max graphics on a GTX 970, so if you're still running a lower resolution than 1080p, then you can probably get away with an x60 series card. Like a 760 or 960 easily.
Your PSU is perfectly fine. The Corsair TX-650's are rebranded Seasonic PSU's which are the best mass produced PSU's on the market.
Honestly, all you need is a new video card. Your rig is solid. SSD's are phenomenal once you have one, but they're also still really a luxury item. If you don't mind taking an extra slow sip of vintage whiskey during loading screens, then it might be a blessing not having one.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I also said "near max". I have hair works turned off cause that shit is really poorly optimized and it gobbles GPU performance like a lion on a fat tourist.
I also turned foliage view range down one notch because it's the second greediest GPU performance eater in Wticher 3 behind hair works. The foliage difference between ultra and high is hardly noticeable, but the performance difference is absurd. About 20 FPS when tested on a Titan and about 15 FPS when I tested it on my 970.
So yes, I play Witcher 3 at near max settings on 5760x1080 all day long, and it's fucking beautiful.
@H0urg1ass 1600x900! Woo! Yeah I'm honestly still surprised the amount of oomph my current setup can give. My goal though is to get a good monitor somewhere down the line though, so I want get a high end GPU to be ready for that.
Over time I think the only things that are going to stick around are the PSU, the case, and the HDD.
Different people also have very different ideas of what constitutes "max" settings. Ultra preset with nothing else added is not at all similar to also going into drivers and setting 8x SSAA. I once argued with someone who insisted he could run games at max settings on some ancient Intel graphics, where by "max", he meant "the highest settings that the GPU could handle"--and what most other people would call "low" settings.
Personally, I think anyone who typically tries to max all settings for any purposes other than benchmarking is nuts. At least for the more demanding things, it's more sensible to check individual settings to see which make a game look better to your eyes and which don't. If something bogs down your frame rates without making the game look better--or in some cases, even makes the game look worse--then turn it off.
I'm more of a "It looks great to me!" kinda of person when it comes to tweaking settings. For instance, I also turned off motion blur, vignetting and a couple of other annoying post processing effects in Witcher 3, however almost all of them have very little effect on FPS according to the testing. It's just a quality of life issue for me; I don't like those effects.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't think "old fashioned" is the appropriate term for being okay with lower frame rates. The NES ran games at a steady 60 frames per second about 30 years ago. There are trade-offs between higher frame rates versus each individual frame looking better, and I personally lean heavily toward preferring the former. But where to set the balance is a matter of opinion, and there are good reasons why games allow you to adjust graphical settings.
Still, how high of frame rates are really needed varies considerably by game. Low frame rates is a serious disadvantage in twitchy games, but much less important in turn-based games--and much less noticeable if the game doesn't change much from one frame to the next as with a lot of 2D games.
@Quizzical The concenus seems to be my current PSU is fine. As the resident expert do you agree?