Poor man's Upgrade Help

[Shakadam]

Have fun with your 15 FPS. How are you not understanding what i am saying, the GPU's are going to be bottlenecks far before the ram ever will.

A GTX 770 or 680 (same GPU) with 2GB VRAM, which was about 4 years old when BF1 launched, will still play that game at 1080p high at about 60 fps depending on map. BF1 uses about 1,9GB VRAM on high settings. Turn the settings up to ultra though and fps will drop down to ~35 average with lots of small "hiccups" and frame drops when it needs to load textures from the system ram because there's not enough VRAM.

The 4GB versions of those cards however, will hover around ~50 fps depending on map at 1080p ultra.

There is very much a VRAM bottleneck going on in this case.

[Fascinate]

A GTX 770 or 680 (same GPU) with 2GB VRAM, which was about 4 years old when BF1 launched, will still play that game at 1080p high at about 60 fps depending on map. BF1 uses about 1,9GB VRAM on high settings. Turn the settings up to ultra though and fps will drop down to ~35 average with lots of small "hiccups" and frame drops when it needs to load textures from the system ram because there's not enough VRAM.

The 4GB versions of those cards however, will hover around ~50 fps depending on map at 1080p ultra.

There is very much a VRAM bottleneck going on in this case.

Why are you trying to play BF1 ultra on a GPU from 2013? This bolsters my point even more.

[Shakadam]

Video proof please. The recommended card for BF1 is a 3gb 1060.

GTX 680 4GB ultra settings, average about 50 fps with drops to ~40:



GTX 680 2GB ultra settings, average about 40fps with drops below 30:

[Fascinate]

GTX 680 4GB ultra settings, average about 50 fps with drops to ~40:



GTX 680 2GB ultra settings, average about 40fps with drops below 30:

Irrelevant, not sure why i even said that (was in a game of overwatch).

You dont buy a gtx 1060 today and expect to play games on ultra in 2020, ram will have no factor there because you will have to drop settings down to maintain 60+ FPS at all times in those games anyways.

[CandyCotton Marshmallows]

Hey guys, chill and read the op again.

They don't care about max settings and are on a budget; focus on that instead of debating so hard over red vs green.

If you want to argue ram size, fine, modding can eat up a lot too, but realistically, right now it should work on pretty much anything at high to max, and 3-5 years at med to high; that sounds pretty future proof for a budget. Focus on the posters needs and wants, they don't even mention gta; they said wow, witches 3,mass effect and quake.

Focus on that. If I were to have built a machine for what I needed, not what I wanted, this system might have worked for me as I'll probably only play ffxiv and destiny 2. I wouldn't want people getting heated about tiny differences, better to not fanboy it either way and be honest with yourself about each options pros and cons and it sounds like they are all viable;

So considering the games they choose to play, 3 GB is probably enough, but to be safe, you'd suggest more in case they run modded next gen elder scrolls or a gta vi or something. I hope they can take that out of all the discussion. A similar debate could've been had with 4 vs 6 core and smt/no smt. I felt ryzen was cheap enough to go for the choice I did, I figured those style games were light enough that 3 GB was enough, but overall it was just a starting point, to be tweaked for their specific needs as I don't play any of those games any longer or at all

[Deleted]

My definition of popular and yours are apparently two different things.

WoW, overwatch, GTA 5, rocket league, PUB, H1Z1, CS:GO all favor nvidia. Combine that with the fact the card runs cooler, quieter and uses less juice, the 1060 is the card i recommend unless you find a 570 for 20-30 dollars less.

OP only plays one of those games though, however for benchmarks, I prefer to see only new games tested and this shows pretty much a dead heat between AMD and Nvidia at this sector.

Bar GTA 5, all of these games are easy to run.

[Saphyron]

Since both AMD and intel/Nvidia is close nowadays I made 2 builds for you.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant


CPU: Intel - Core i5-7500 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($188.49 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte - GA-H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($46.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($66.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: EVGA - GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB SC GAMING Video Card ($167.20 @ Amazon)
Total: $469.66
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-20 17:25 EDT-0400

Or take out the 1060 and upgrade it to 1070 a few month later when you have the extra cash.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant


CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1500X 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($188.89 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350M GAMING PRO Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard ($78.88 @ OutletPC)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory ($66.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte - Radeon RX 570 4GB Gaming 4G Video Card ($178.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $513.75
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-20 17:27 EDT-0400

or again take out the 570 and upgrade it to a 580 when you have the spare cash.

[Deleted]

Guys you have all been extremely helpful!

I went for the ryzen 1600 for the cpu.

For the GPU I have decided to go with the gtx 1060 3gb.
The only game i run in the past with mods was skyrim and it wasn't the ones which required high ram. Also, as I've said, don't really care for ultra either way. In the end, if 3-4 years from now, my GPU is the only problem, I can see about changing only the GPU or something.

(It also helped that Rx prizes in Greece are plain crazy :-P )

Thank you again!

[Fascinate]

Great choices for both parts