i5 4690k and rtx 2070 at modded Skyrim SE

[Simpsen_1]

Hi,

I wanna play Dying Light, Skyrim and upcoming Outward at 4k or 1440p (cheaper) resolution nothing else.

My specs:

CPU: i5 4690k

GPU: gtx 1060 6 GB

PSU: SilentiumPC 550W

RAM: 16 GB Hyperx 2440 Mhz

When I benchmark Skyrim Im getting 30 fps at 4k, 45 at 1440p so I think about overclock my actual setup to get something around 60 fps at 1440p or buy rtx 2070 for pretty 60 fps at 4k. But Im afraid that my processor will not be able to play 4k in Skyrim and the games mentioned above.

Buy 4k monitor with rtx 2070 (in the case of bottleneck, I would have to replace the motherboard, RAM memory and processor) or cheaper 1440p and overclock i5 and gtx 1060?

[Fasauceome]

For 4k, it's definitely the 1060 holding you back. In Skyrim, your CPU should be totally fine for 4k, and a 2070 for a game that age at 4k seems good.

[Mister Woof]

I think the RTX 2070 is the worst card available in terms of value at present.

 

Both the RTX 2060 and Vega 64 when tweaked perform very similarly to a stock 2070, but they cost significantly less.

 

And no matter how much you oc a 2070 its not coming close to a 2080, and you aren't getting great 4k performance. The 2080 makes more sense if you are chasing 4k.

 

Both RTX 2060 and Vega 56OC/64 will give you great 1440p results; possibly okay 4k results if you tweak settings.

[Simpsen_1]

14 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

For 4k, it's definitely the 1060 holding you back. In Skyrim, your CPU should be totally fine for 4k, and a 2070 for a game that age at 4k seems good.

Mods do not increase the requirements for the processor?

[Fasauceome]

Just now, Simpsen_1 said:

Mods do not increase the requirements for the processor?

If they're graphical mods, no. However there are mods that do, like additional NPCs or modded AI, or improved physics. If you're using an AIB then more graphics = better graphics card, but you can check yourself by opening task manager and seeing what's at 100% when you play.

[Simpsen_1]

9 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

If they're graphical mods, no. However there are mods that do, like additional NPCs or modded AI, or improved physics. If you're using an AIB then more graphics = better graphics card, but you can check yourself by opening task manager and seeing what's at 100% when you play.

I will check it when I finish modding this beautiful game  

P.S. Im planning to install all these mods (graphics, npcs, AI and improved physics) so I am curious as to how my i5 can handle it.

[Dem0072]

I'm in a similar boat, only I haven't the monitors to dream of 1440p yet.

What I've been researching (and clinging to with some hope) is the AMD RX 3000 family stepping in to address that value problem of paying $500 to smoothly play 1440p games on a high refresh monitor. Supposedly, rumors now, nobody's gotten to crack at benchmarks yet - at some point in the first half of 2019 here AMD's supposed to release them. And the *rumored* price range is under $300, which means if their intended goal of matching or beating a 2070's performance is true, you might get a satisfactory card for your goals that delivers consistent 1440p performance (60+ FPS), and you might find with a couple of minor concessions in game settings 4K to be playable too. 

Do keep in mind, the higher in resolution you go to my understanding (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) things like AA/AF and other filtering options can be toggled off because the equipment performing is meeting or surpassing what some of those technologies were meant to address on lower resolutions and lesser GPU's to drive them.

[Simpsen_1]

7 hours ago, Dem0072 said:

I'm in a similar boat, only I haven't the monitors to dream of 1440p yet.

What I've been researching (and clinging to with some hope) is the AMD RX 3000 family stepping in to address that value problem of paying $500 to smoothly play 1440p games on a high refresh monitor. Supposedly, rumors now, nobody's gotten to crack at benchmarks yet - at some point in the first half of 2019 here AMD's supposed to release them. And the *rumored* price range is under $300, which means if their intended goal of matching or beating a 2070's performance is true, you might get a satisfactory card for your goals that delivers consistent 1440p performance (60+ FPS), and you might find with a couple of minor concessions in game settings 4K to be playable too. 

Do keep in mind, the higher in resolution you go to my understanding (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) things like AA/AF and other filtering options can be toggled off because the equipment performing is meeting or surpassing what some of those technologies were meant to address on lower resolutions and lesser GPU's to drive them.

We'll see how it will be with these cards from AMD, let them be as good as possible.

 

[MaratM]

have a look at the second hand market. you can get gtx 1080 is around $300 and it is one of the best value to performance card at the moment.

[Dem0072]

On 2/7/2019 at 2:25 AM, MaratM said:

have a look at the second hand market. you can get gtx 1080 is around $300 and it is one of the best value to performance card at the moment.

I'm greatly considering a used 1080 or 2070 when the time comes. I love a good game, but I don't get enough hours into it to justify coughing up a $600 card. Hence why I'm cheap and adopting late. 

I had an X800XT Platinum when I was 14, I did the fancy case with the elite flagship card thing and watched it get crushed 8 months later by the GeForce 7000 family. 

Besides we don't live in 2004 anymore where every games a polished product off the shelf as a standard. It's hard to find good games that developers actually finish and get the crap out of pre-alpha before the users get bored with them. And sadly, too often the engines and visual tech is 6+ years old when they finally get released. What do I need with a $600 card to run games made by an industry churning out titles that are half a decade old under the hood?