What to upgrade next?

[jmj1337]

Hello,

So I built my PC about 4 years ago now and it is due I believe for some upgrades but I am not sure what would be most beneficial to upgrade first. I will not be able to upgrade everything at once.

I want to be able to run BF1 decently, I know this is rather subjective but running high settings would be great. (I ordered the game online for black friday have not installed it yet so I am not sure what my system would currently run it at).

So here are my computers specs:

CPU: Intel i5-3570K
GPU: Nvidia GTX 660 TI
RAM: 8GB DDR3 1600
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V LK (has lga-1155 slot for CPU)
HDD: 1TB
SSD: 180GB

What would you upgrade first?

Edit- Wrote RAM as 2400 actually is 1600

[Denpepe]

I would upgrade my GPU, depending on monitor resolution/frequency or fps wanted at least to a GTX 1060 or higher.

[Sorshen]

A GTX 1060 6Gb for ~$240 and you're set for a few years.

[Fascinate]

You can easily tweak quality settings to peg 60 fps vsync with your current setup on BF1, dont use ultra benchmarks to gauge how your system would perform because that isnt realistic. I have a very similar system to yours (2500k, gtx 760) and just dropping down from ultra to high i know steady 60 fps is an achievable number.

Try the game first and if you arent satisfied my suggestion would be the 1060 as well, but the 3gb variant (better price/peformance value).

[Deleted]

GPU upgrade..

for 1080p gaming, get a 1060 GTX

for 1440P gaming, get a 1070 GTX

for anything above 1440p (Ultrawide or 4K) get a 1080(or maybe wait for a 1080-Ti, rumored to be released early 2017 - nothings confirmed though)

this all depends in your monitors resolution!

[jmj1337]

Thank you all for the great feedback. Ill try the game before buying anything then but grabbing the 1060 seems like it could be worthwhile.

I have not overclocked my CPU, may that also be worth trying?

[Deleted]

Thank you all for the great feedback. Ill try the game before buying anything then but grabbing the 1060 seems like it could be worthwhile.

I have not overclocked my CPU, may that also be worth trying?

CPU overclocking CAN be worth it but beware that it requires a "better than stock"-cooler and so might not be worth it in terms of money.

im not sure how much FPS you'd gain, with a 1060 GTX, and CPU on stock speed, vs overclocking your CPU a bit... worry about that later It also varies from game to game (And in some games, also from area to area)

[Shakadam]

As all others have said, GPU should be your main priority. Since you say you're gonna play BF1, grabbing some more RAM wouldn't hurt either.

Go for a RX480 or GTX1060 if you plan on playing at 1080p resolution. Make sure to get the 6gb version if you choose the 1060.

[Fascinate]

As all others have said, GPU should be your main priority. Since you say you're gonna play BF1, grabbing some more RAM wouldn't hurt either.

Go for a RX480 or GTX1060 if you plan on playing at 1080p resolution. Make sure to get the 6gb version if you choose the 1060.

Or you could save 50 bucks and get the 3gb model and only lose around 5% performance.

[Shakadam]

Or you could save 50 bucks and get the 3gb model and only lose around 5% performance.

Wouldn't recommend 3GB Vram anymore. In BF1 it's just barely enough for ultra @ 1080p, any higher resolution and it's too little. Buying something that just barely fulfills requirements for current games isn't very future proof since the trend is for games to consume more and more vram.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages...review,11.html
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ance_review/11

[Fascinate]

Wouldn't recommend 3GB Vram anymore. In BF1 it's just barely enough for ultra @ 1080p, any higher resolution and it's too little. Buying something that just barely fulfills requirements for current games isn't very future proof since the trend is for games to consume more and more vram.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages...review,11.html
https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/...ance_review/11

Do you really think nvidia would have released the card if they were worried about this? You are essentially stating you are smarter than nvidia, and that the card should not exist. I understand people saying dont buy the 3gb card are airing on the safe side, but like ive said to someone else on this forum who just watches videos, at least attempt to think your advice through before giving it because the advice you are essentialy giving people is "spend 250 dollars, dont spend 200".

[Gorgodeus]

Do you really think nvidia would have released the card if they were worried about this? You are essentially stating you are smarter than nvidia, and that the card should not exist. I understand people saying dont buy the 3gb card are airing on the safe side, but like ive said to someone else on this forum who just watches videos, at least attempt to think your advice through before giving it because the advice you are essentialy giving people is "spend 250 dollars, dont spend 200".

They released the card to make money. Nothing more. No way in hell would I buy a 3GB card.

[Fascinate]

They released the card to make money. Nothing more. No way in hell would I buy a 3GB card.

That isnt the point i was making. Do you really think they want a ton of cards being sent back or a debacle like the 970. 3gb's is fine and nvidia knows it. If you are absolute terrified that in 3 years you wont be able to play the latest releases at the MAXIMUM settings on a MID RANGE GPU, you should honestly just buy a 1070.

[Gorgodeus]

That isnt the point i was making. Do you really think they want a ton of cards being sent back or a debacle like the 970. 3gb's is fine and nvidia knows it. If you are absolute terrified that in 3 years you wont be able to play the latest releases at the MAXIMUM settings on a MID RANGE GPU, you should honestly just buy a 1070.

No, 3GB is not fine for gaming anymore, but keep spreading misinformation.

[Lathais]

No, 3GB is not fine for gaming anymore, but keep spreading misinformation.

3GB VRAM was okay something like five years ago.

Benchmarks of the 3GB cards say differently.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...ni_3_GB/8.html
Runs BF1 at 1080p with more than enough FPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/12.html
Easily maintaining over 30FPS Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, which is fine for a budget build. Turn a few settings down and you're golden.

Shall I go on?

In short, yeah, you'll hear a lot of people say what these two are saying, that 3GB is not enough. Benchmarks show differently. 3GB is fine for 1080p.

[Gorgodeus]

Benchmarks of the 3GB cards say differently.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...ni_3_GB/8.html
Runs BF1 at 1080p with more than enough FPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/12.html
Easily maintaining over 30FPS Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, which is fine for a budget build. Turn a few settings down and you're golden.

Shall I go on?

In short, yeah, you'll hear a lot of people say what these two are saying, that 3GB is not enough. Benchmarks show differently. 3GB is fine for 1080p.

And another jumps in to give more misinformation. lol

3GB is not enough for many games these days, unless you want to play with shit settings, even at 1080p.

Mirror's Edge
GTAV
Dues EX (uses a full 4BG at max settings)
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Doom

I could go on, but you get the point. The above games can't handle the 3GB card w/o turning settings down, but don't suffer this problem with the 6GB version.There is no reason to buy a 3GB 1060 because it gimps you from the start. You will have to turn down settings even at 1080p on many games for them to run worth a crap.

Saying "3GB is fine" is simply not true anymore.

[Fascinate]

I have seen one extreme example from a website that only does extreme examples in which they readily admitted it was an extreme example to where the 3gb frame buffer could be an issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RWItff0eQ

"Stay clear of HD texture packs"
"Take note of game warnings stating you can encounter vram issues with extreme settings"

Those arent word for word but it was something like that, they absolutely recommend the card and state it is a great value.....but are simply warning people not to run EXTREME settings on a mid range GPU. I know its easier for someone on here to recommend the 6gb card because you dont want anyone to have a bad experience, but you dont fully understand the advice you are giving and that the reality is no one is actually going to encounter these problems in the real world.

The 1060 3gb is a great value card, you get more performance out of you dollar than the 1060 6gb model. What this discussion boils down to is who can predict the future correct, well given my experience on a 2gb card from 2013 i will say a 1060 3gb will be just fine in another 3 years on settings befitting a mid range GPU.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're right. 3GB is perfectly fine to play games on at 1080p (depending on the settings) for the vast majority of games. I mean, the majority of Steam users use the 750 Ti which is a 1/2GB VRAM GPU.
3GB VRAM is fine for older cards, but it's not ideal for a mid-range GPU released in 2016. It seems in the last two years or so the amount of VRAM used by games has increased something fierce, and I doubt that will change any time soon.

But if you're getting a GTX 1060, I think you expect to be able to play all your games at max settings, 1080p and have good framerates.
It's hard to expect that with only 3GB of VRAM when there are a good handful of games that exceed 3GB of VRAM at max settings.

Wait WHAT? 1060 is a great card, but who in their right mind buys a mind range GPU expecting this? I can now understand why someone would only suggest the 6gb card, they think a 1060 is a 1080.

[Lathais]

And another jumps in to give more misinformation. lol

3GB is not enough for many games these days, unless you want to play with shit settings, even at 1080p.

Mirror's Edge
GTAV
Dues EX (uses a full 4BG at max settings)
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Doom

I could go on, but you get the point. The above games can't handle the 3GB card w/o turning settings down, but don't suffer this problem with the 6GB version.There is no reason to buy a 3GB 1060 because it gimps you from the start. You will have to turn down settings even at 1080p on many games for them to run worth a crap.

Saying "3GB is fine" is simply not true anymore.

Mirror's Edge:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/26...-4gb-benchmark
Averages 75.3 FPS on the 3GB with Ultra settings. Turn things up to Hyper and yeah, it get's down to 33FPS. Pretty much what I'd expect of a low-end GPU.

GTAV:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/17.html
The 3GB 1060 gets 92 FPS. Looks like enough to me.

Already linked Deus Ex but here it is again:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/12.html
Again, the 3GB card is getting over 30 FPS at max settings. Pretty much what I'd expect from a low end card.

RotTR:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/23.html
Same story as Deus Ex. Averages over 30 FPS, kinda what you expect from a low end card.

DOOM:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/...i_3_GB/13.html
More than ok, averaging 75 FPS.


So yes, please go on because i do not get your point. How about providing some benchmarks to back-up your false claims as you go on though? So who is spreading the mis-information? I have benchmarks backing up my statements. What do you have? Your own say so?

[Vash The Stampede]

Do you really think nvidia would have released the card if they were worried about this?

Has Nvidia made graphic cards in the past that did this? Lets see, there was the Geforce 4 MX which from the name sounds like it can do DX8 like Geforce 4 Ti's, but nope it's a Geforce 2. Then you had the Geforce FX cards which supposedly did DX9. But nope, nothing playable. Not without making the game mostly DX8.1. Or how Nvidia's GeForce 8 series cards ran super slow in DX10 and nearly unplayable. Or how about the GTX 970 with 3.5GB of VRAM that they lost a class action lawsuit for.

The 3GB 1060 was Nvidia's answer to the RX 480 4GB. Not nearly as bad as what Nvidia's done in the past cause the 3GB 1060 does work and works well. The issue though is for how long will the 3GB not be an issue? But don't ask if Nvidia would release a product if they knew it would be an issue, cause they have a history of this.

I understand people saying dont buy the 3gb card are airing on the safe side, but like ive said to someone else on this forum who just watches videos, at least attempt to think your advice through before giving it because the advice you are essentialy giving people is "spend 250 dollars, dont spend 200".

Because the 1060 6GB is a great card for $250, but the 3GB 1060 is a terrible card for $200. This is mostly because the RX 480 4GB is a great card for $200, but a terrible card for $240. Despite what one can say about AMD and their RX 480's, what you gain from the 1GB extra VRAM is more than what you lose from AMD's performance.

[Lathais]

No, you're right. 3GB is perfectly fine to play games on at 1080p (depending on the settings) for the vast majority of games. I mean, the majority of Steam users use the 750 Ti which is a 1/2GB VRAM GPU.
3GB VRAM is fine for older cards, but it's not ideal for a mid-range GPU released in 2016. It seems in the last two years or so the amount of VRAM used by games has increased something fierce, and I doubt that will change any time soon.

But if you're getting a GTX 1060, I think you expect to be able to play all your games at max settings, 1080p and have good framerates.
It's hard to expect that with only 3GB of VRAM when there are a good handful of games that exceed 3GB of VRAM at max settings.

1050/1050ti = Emtry Level
1060 = Low End
1070 = Mid-Range(the x70 series is easily defined as mid-range seeing as the 970 was the most popular card of it's generation)
1080 = High-End
1080ti/Titan's = Enthusiast Level


So not sure why you consider the 1060 mid-range and not sure why you would expect a low end card to play current games at max settings.