A GPU suggestion for my very old i7 3770

[Fasauceome]

Just now, ConceptConnor said:

So quad 2080ti's wouldn't be bottle-necked by a Pentium? That's what the site tells me so it must be bogus?

The "percentage" it gives would be unreliable. Just because it's sometimes correct in a super general way doesn't mean it's very useful.

[ConceptConnor]

3 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

The SITE is bogus, and you cant quad SLI 280ti's so you just look like a wanker now.

 

CPU limitation depends on resolution and the game being played.

Higher resolution = less CPU bottleneck.  Civ 5 is ALWAYS CPU bottlenecked.

Saying that any result from the site is bogus is an overstatement. All I'm saying is its a fine tool for an educated estimations to whether your CPU is bottle-necking your GPU, not that every result will be accurate in your use case, but its fine to get a general idea.

[Madgemade]

That site is pretty much a load of rubbish. I have (the xeon version of) the i7-3770. I use it with a Radeon VII at 4K and I can play Battlefield 1 on Maximum Ultra Settings and get a solid 60fps vsync capped. There is no reason to get fast CPUs for gaming unless you want over 60hz.

 

Just get whatever the best GPU you can afford unless you are not going to upgrade everything else for a long time. If you will upgrade next year then you will regret wasting money on a lower end GPU.

 

I would say that RX 580/590 or GTX 1060 or RTX 2060 would be good. They are the best value for money anyway.

[Mick Naughty]

Yea gonna depend on the game/res and expected FPS without issues. 

I know my 3770k had a few issues at 1080/1440p. Even with an old kepler card. But I shoot for max FPS without the game looking like complete crap. 

[Mr.Genuine]

Whichever GPU I choose, I wanna make sure I don't end up being in a strange bottleneck issue. RX 570 is something I'd agree with, but I'd like to keep in mind that I have to stream using the GPU encoder be it NVENC or AMD VCE. So maybe I'd go with 1060 3GB if that makes any sense. I don't think I'd be in a problem of VRAM when I raise the Preset to High/ Ultra keeping Textures Low or Medium. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

I've only tested the 3770 with a 1050ti and it was as expected.

 

GPU bound 24/7.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ofzFlQXfuFEXJINN914cgz93B4qquk-

 

[Mr.Genuine]

2 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

I've only tested the 3770 with a 1050ti and it was as expected.

 

GPU bound 24/7.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ofzFlQXfuFEXJINN914cgz93B4qquk-

 

So you want to say that I shouldn't go much above the 1050 Ti if I'm not wrong.

[SkilledRebuilds]

19 minutes ago, Mr.Genuine said:

So you want to say that I shouldn't go much above the 1050 Ti if I'm not wrong.

No,..

Im saying that particular setup is GPU bound, and a great balance itself,..

Remember that others will come into the thread for similar queries.

 

While not an actual answer to your query it will be helpful for others.

 

Realistically with a 3770 at 1080p,..I'd use an RX580 or 1060 6GB at the Max for 1080p Ultra or High detail gaming.

1440p, and 4k, completely different story with 1070/1080ti/2080 and Vega56/64/R7 being quite viable..  Given the GPU bound nature above 1440p and decent CPU strength in particular (4c8t 3.7Ghz Flatchat) backing usually always above 60fps in many games.

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Genuine]

10 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

No,..

Im saying that particular setup is GPU bound, and a great balance itself,..

Remember that others will come into the thread for similar queries.

 

While not an actual answer to your query it will be helpful for others.

 

Realistically with a 3770 at 1080p,..I'd use an RX580 or 1060 6GB at the Max for 1080p Ultra or High detail gaming.

1440p, and 4k, completely different story with 1070/1080ti/2080 and Vega56/64/R7 being quite viable..  Given the GPU bound nature above 1440p and decent CPU strength in particular (4c8t 3.7Ghz Flatchat) backing usually always above 60fps in many games.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your advice..I might go with 1060 3 GB or Maybe 6 GB

[xAcid9]

60FPS? No bottleneck for my 980 Ti though i never play new title like AssCreed:O

 

But mine is overclocked to 4.2Ghz with 1800mhz RAM. I can help you test things if i have the game you want. I don't have PUBG though.

[Madgemade]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

60FPS? No bottleneck for my 980 Ti though i never play new title like AssCreed:O

As a fellow E3-1230v2 user I agree that I have never had a bottleneck problem. I only notice the CPU performance on benchmarks like heaven. Alway got at least 60fps in every game I own. No point in getting over 60fps unless your monitor is over 60hz.

 

OP never said what their monitor is but changes are it's 1080p 60hz like the majority of gamers, so that's the real bottleneck in most games!

[Mick Naughty]

Could get the weakest card then if they are a 60hz gamer. 

 

Not like higher frames ans lower frame times can improve game play even on a 60hz monitor right?

[Madgemade]

2 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Not like higher frames ans lower frame times can improve game play even on a 60hz monitor right?

In competitive FPS yes. But in those games you would never be running on ultra or even high settings. Usually low settings give a competitive advantage. Less smoke fewer bushes and stuff like that. For that kind of gaming you would want the fastest clocked CPU you could get, GPU not so important as long as it isn't holding the CPU back which it wouldn't with all the fancy stuff turned down.

 

Pretty much depends on what the OP wants to do in which games.

[Mick Naughty]

1 minute ago, Madgemade said:

In competitive FPS yes. But in those games you would never be running on ultra or even high settings. Usually low settings give a competitive advantage. Less smoke fewer bushes and stuff like that. For that kind of gaming you would want the fastest clocked CPU you could get, GPU not so important as long as it isn't holding the CPU back which it wouldn't with all the fancy stuff turned down.

 

Pretty much depends on what the OP wants to do in which games.

Can still be competitive with max settings. Just don’t have shit FPS at the same time. Turning down settings will make that weak cpu weaker. 

 

But yea, we don’t know what the op wants. 

[KarathKasun]

2 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Can still be competitive with max settings. Just don’t have shit FPS at the same time. Turning down settings will make that weak cpu weaker. 

 

But yea, we don’t know what the op wants. 

Anything you can turn down to reduce draw calls in something like PUBG will reduce CPU load and increase FPS when CPU limited.

[xxEMOxx]

I would totally go with a rx580 for only $20-$30 more then a rx570 its the best bang for your buck out there, and its plenty capable, shoot i ran one on my 3570k for a while before caving and going back to the red team, whom I have been building and running since 97!

[mikat]

On 2/18/2019 at 6:45 PM, ConceptConnor said:

can you give it a try and link me some bogus results? I'm not finding any :c

look up the benchmarks (youtube is a pretty good source) for your game, cpu and gpu combo, if it's a popular combo there's a very good chance you'll find results

[Mick Naughty]

1 hour ago, KarathKasun said:

Anything you can turn down to reduce draw calls in something like PUBG will reduce CPU load and increase FPS when CPU limited.

A game like pubg already runs poorly like a single threaded game. Which that cpu will struggle with. Played it for almost 2 years with that cpu. Low frames won’t be an issue for the op. Almost no choice. 

[KarathKasun]

6 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

A game like pubg already runs poorly like a single threaded game. Which that cpu will struggle with. Played it for almost 2 years with that cpu. Low frames won’t be an issue for the op. Almost no choice. 

Not sure what you are talking about, I had a Sandy Bridge E3-1280 that played PUBG fine with low settings plus ultra view distance with a GTX 670 4gb 40-80 FPS.  Swapped up to a R9 290 and FPS increased to 60-100.

 

Also note that the SB E3 chips are limited to ~1333 memory speeds, which does hurt performance compared to the 3000 or E3-12xx V2 series CPUs for the same socket.

 

I would not call 60+ FPS "struggling".

[Mick Naughty]

4 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Not sure what you are talking about, I had a Sandy Bridge E3-1280 that played PUBG fine with low settings plus ultra view distance with a GTX 670 4gb 40-80 FPS.  Swapped up to a R9 290 and FPS increased to 60-100.

 

Also note that the SB E3 chips are limited to ~1333 memory speeds, which does hurt performance compared to the 3000 or E3-12xx V2 series CPUs for the same socket.

 

I would not call 60+ FPS "struggling".

Isn’t really saying much. The game is crap and using it in comparison isn’t good. 

 

If the card paired with it isnt great, I’m sure it will be fine and dandy. 

 

Played it plenty with old and new cards. 60 FPS in that game is bad. At any settings. As it’s play to win, there isn’t a need for a handicap. 

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Mick Naughty said:

Isn’t really saying much. The game is crap and using it in comparison isn’t good. 

 

If the card paired with it isnt great, I’m sure it will be fine and dandy. 

 

Played it plenty with old and new cards. 60 FPS in that game is bad. At any settings. As it’s play to win, there isn’t a need for a handicap. 

Not sure what 60FPS was like in your experience.  I have heard of people having "microstutter" like problems at ~60 FPS, but I never experienced this myself.

 

Granted, I ran the game from an SSD in a system with 32gb of ram and nothing less than a 4gb GPU.  Even if the CPU itself was old, I made sure it has lots of memory and the same goes for GPUs.  I still remember people going on about how a 4gb 670/680 was worthless, yet now the 2gb models are a stuttering mess in newer games.

[Mick Naughty]

14 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Not sure what 60FPS was like in your experience.  I have heard of people having "microstutter" like problems at ~60 FPS, but I never experienced this myself.

 

Granted, I ran the game from an SSD in a system with 32gb of ram and nothing less than a 4gb GPU.  Even if the CPU itself was old, I made sure it has lots of memory and the same goes for GPUs.  I still remember people going on about how a 4gb 670/680 was worthless, yet now the 2gb models are a stuttering mess in newer games.

Never seen 60fps on that game. 80 was the minimum. Aside from alpha days but, that was short lived. The game being so slow paced I’m sure it’s fine for people, assuming they made it past the initial drop. 

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Mick Naughty said:

Never seen 60fps on that game. 80 was the minimum. Aside from alpha days but, that was short lived. The game being so slow paced I’m sure it’s fine for people, assuming they made it past the initial drop. 

Well, initial drop and aim botters/map radar users.