GPU or CPU first? - 4790K + GTX980

[Longsh07]

Curious what others would choose in this situation.

 

Budget: ~£1000

Country: UK

Used for: Gaming primarily (1080p 144hz), some tinkering with VMs but no permanent running, very infrequent video/photo editing.

Other details: Current setup is i7 4790K and a GTX980 on custom water cooling loop in a Corsair 280X. Both parts obviously showing their age. Question is, which do you upgrade first? 

1. Replace GTX980 with an RTX3070
2. Replace 4790K with 12600K, Z690 motherboard, and DDR5 RAM.

- Either option will likely present a bottleneck to the non-upgraded component.

- Both options cost about the same after factoring in potential additional costs (E.G. new CPU/GPU water block, converting to air cooling/AIO, new case to open up ATX board options, etc.)

- Not considering DDR4 Z690. Current board is DDR3 so can't reuse RAM. Appreciate DDR5 much pricier vs DDR4 but does fit in ~£1K upgrade budget.

- Looking for new parts only as I upgrade infrequently.

 

Alternative option is a cheap AM4 B550/X570 build to allow upgrading of both CPU and GPU sooner (maybe together).

5600X on B550 with 16GB DDR4 and WC block is ~£550-600 as of today. Obviously 12th gen may cause Ryzen 5000 price drop soon but I'm reluctant to buy into AM4 form my main PC at this point knowing AM5 is on the way. However, if I went B550 ITX then I could feasibly upgrade again in 12-18 months (when AM5 out) and reuse these components to upgrade the lounge ITX PC (Z170, 6600K, 8GB DDR4, 1060 6GB).

 

Thoughts?

 

Terrible photo of current build because why not 

[Jurrunio]

GPU first. the GTX 980 is currently your bottleneck, this goes first. PSU might need a change too

 

6 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

- Not considering DDR4 Z690. Current board is DDR3 so can't reuse RAM. Appreciate DDR5 much pricier vs DDR4 but does fit in ~£1K upgrade budget.

DDR5 you can buy today all have higher latency than DDR4 which means worse gaming performance combined with the same 12th gen CPU. To wait for DDR5 kits that help achieve at least similar latencies to be affordable, makes sense to keep the 4790k until that point.

[ramava]

9 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

DDR5 you can buy today all have higher latency than DDR4 which means worse gaming performance combined with the same 12th gen CPU. To wait for DDR5 kits that help achieve at least similar latencies to be affordable, makes sense to keep the 4790k until that point.

The latency numbers aren't directly comparable. DDR5 is always going to have a higher CAS latency because of the higher clock speeds. Der Bauer released a video today that shows real comparisons between them. I'm roughly paraphrasing, but the DDR5 5400 CL36 had as good or better performance than DDR4 3600 CL16.

 

--- 

 

What sort of games are you playing? And are you seeing ;100% CPU usage or 100% GPU usage more often? What you're playing makes a big difference in which will be more important, especially at 1080p. For me, even with a worse GPU than yours, upgrading the CPU was more important because most, if not all, of what I was playing was CPU bottle necked at the time. And I don't mind running things on lower graphic settings when I have to so I can keep  the FPS up higher.

[Longsh07]

30 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

GPU first. the GTX 980 is currently your bottleneck, this goes first. PSU might need a change too

 

DDR5 you can buy today all have higher latency than DDR4 which means worse gaming performance combined with the same 12th gen CPU. To wait for DDR5 kits that help achieve at least similar latencies to be affordable, makes sense to keep the 4790k until that point.

PSU is fine (850W EVGA), only a couple years old.

From what I'd seen, E.G. the LTT video on 12th gen, gaming performance was better on DDR5 vs DDR4. Latency higher yes, but as Ramava said below, they aren't directly comparable by all accounts.

 

6 minutes ago, ramava said:

The latency numbers aren't directly comparable. DDR5 is always going to have a higher CAS latency because of the higher clock speeds. Der Bauer released a video today that shows real comparisons between them. I'm roughly paraphrasing, but the DDR5 5400 CL36 had as good or better performance than DDR4 3600 CL16.

 

--- 

 

What sort of games are you playing? And are you seeing ;100% CPU usage or 100% GPU usage more often? What you're playing makes a big difference in which will be more important, especially at 1080p. For me, even with a worse GPU than yours, upgrading the CPU was more important because most, if not all, of what I was playing was CPU bottle necked at the time. And I don't mind running things on lower graphic settings when I have to so I can keep  the FPS up higher.

At the moment, nothing particularly taxing, Risk of Rain 2 is my go-to, doesn't warrant the upgrade on its own of course though I have had some pretty hectic runs that tanked my FPS. However I've put off buying Cyberpunk, Forza Horizon 5 looks good, and BF2042 is out soon. On the subject, I tried to play the BF2042 beta and CPU was clearly bottlenecking. Obviously beta is beta but still, I didn't expect 30-40 FPS. I agree that I'd rather drop visual fidelity for better performance too.

[Jurrunio]

29 minutes ago, ramava said:

The latency numbers aren't directly comparable. DDR5 is always going to have a higher CAS latency because of the higher clock speeds. Der Bauer released a video today that shows real comparisons between them. I'm roughly paraphrasing, but the DDR5 5400 CL36 had as good or better performance than DDR4 3600 CL16.

Then it's contradicting reviews from OC3D (DDR4 is better) and Kitguru (similar, each get some wins in games). Also some Chinese sources, not that I think it helps here if they havent built trust to foreign viewers yet. None of have done say a 30 game benchmark though, suppose the winner hasnt been decided yet

 

Mind the price though, DDR5 still costs way more than DDR4 of similar gaming performance today. That's why I said "if you go for DDR5, you should wait first".

 

9 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

From what I'd seen, E.G. the LTT video on 12th gen, gaming performance was better on DDR5 vs DDR4. Latency higher yes, but as Ramava said below, they aren't directly comparable by all accounts.

Eh, where? The 12th gen launch review from LTT specifically mentions that they only tested 12th gen with DDR5 in the video. You can only say it's older platform on DDR4 versus 12th gen on DDR5.

[Longsh07]

6 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

Mind the price though, DDR5 still costs way more than DDR4 of similar gaming performance today. That's why I said "if you go for DDR5, you should wait first".

I'm on DDR3 though so either DDR4 or DDR5 is going to be a performance uplift for me. I'd therefore rather spend the money now on 'slow' DDR5 but be on a DDR5 board than buy into DDR4 only to need to upgrade both the board and the RAM again later.

 

11 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

22 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

From what I'd seen, E.G. the LTT video on 12th gen, gaming performance was better on DDR5 vs DDR4. Latency higher yes, but as Ramava said below, they aren't directly comparable by all accounts.

Eh, where? The 12th gen launch review from LTT specifically mentions that they only tested 12th gen with DDR5 in the video. You can only say it's older platform on DDR4 versus 12th gen on DDR5.

Sorry, previous comment wasn't clear. I'm aware they didn't test DDR4 on Z690 but that doesn't matter to me as I'm not going to buy a Z690 DDR4 board. From that perspective the video tells me I get more FPS and a better upgrade path by going Z690 DDR5 than buying into DDR4 now.

 

[Jurrunio]

20 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

Sorry, previous comment wasn't clear. I'm aware they didn't test DDR4 on Z690 but that doesn't matter to me as I'm not going to buy a Z690 DDR4 board. From that perspective the video tells me I get more FPS and a better upgrade path by going Z690 DDR5 than buying into DDR4 now.

yeah I understood that, but your problem on this post is "GPU first or CPU+mobo+RAM first", not DDR4 or DDR5. DDR5 still needs some time to mature and be worthwhile, I reckon you can afford to wait, meanwhile the current GPU is already dragging the CPU back.

 

Same happened to DDR4 when it's replacing DDR3, it launched with 2133 and 2400 models when late low latency DDR3 kits are at least 2400, some reaching 2933. Consumers just don't see the difference because their first to come out is X99 without DDR3 support. When Skylake-S (which can use both) came we already have some 2933 and 3200 DDR4 available with low latencies. Ofc DDR4 not launching with nearly as big of a price gap between it and the previous gen as DDR5 helps too.

[Dr_badwolf]

My opinion...

--- Bleeding edge Workstation CPU first (not server)
-- Price vs Performance threshold on GPU. (cheapest of the fastest)

Why?
Because the only Video Rendering tech that can saturate GPUs right now - is BAD RENDERING (this is why some games kill GPUS: Garbage processing that does nothing)
Sure, I have a conspiracy theory that game devs are being paid to do this, but... i won't go there.
Turn off the useless "Optimizations" like RTX, oversampling, post processing, etc... And youll get your 60/120/240 FPS on a Mid+ card. 

[Longsh07]

12 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

yeah I understood that, but your problem on this post is "GPU first or CPU+mobo+RAM first", not DDR4 or DDR5. DDR5 still needs some time to mature and be worthwhile, I reckon you can afford to wait, meanwhile the current GPU is already dragging the CPU back.

Correct, however I also added the criteria that if I went CPU upgrade to 12th Gen I would not consider a DDR4 Z690 board.

 

I understand DDR5 needs time to mature, I've worked in IT for 13 years and been building computers for longer than that so I've seen the progress of memory over time. This is precisely why if I'm spending a decent chunk of money on components I may as well buy into DDR5 now so when it does mature I can slap in some higher speed sticks. 

 

On waiting, yeah, of course I could wait, but as is the way with tech things are ever changing. You have to buy in at some point or you'll never upgrade, and for me I'm pretty much at that point. 

[Somerandomtechyboi]

14 hours ago, Longsh07 said:

Curious what others would choose in this situation.

 

Budget: ~£1000

Country: UK

Used for: Gaming primarily (1080p 144hz), some tinkering with VMs but no permanent running, very infrequent video/photo editing.

Other details: Current setup is i7 4790K and a GTX980 on custom water cooling loop in a Corsair 280X. Both parts obviously showing their age. Question is, which do you upgrade first? 

1. Replace GTX980 with an RTX3070
2. Replace 4790K with 12600K, Z690 motherboard, and DDR5 RAM.

- Either option will likely present a bottleneck to the non-upgraded component.

- Both options cost about the same after factoring in potential additional costs (E.G. new CPU/GPU water block, converting to air cooling/AIO, new case to open up ATX board options, etc.)

- Not considering DDR4 Z690. Current board is DDR3 so can't reuse RAM. Appreciate DDR5 much pricier vs DDR4 but does fit in ~£1K upgrade budget.

- Looking for new parts only as I upgrade infrequently.

 

Alternative option is a cheap AM4 B550/X570 build to allow upgrading of both CPU and GPU sooner (maybe together).

5600X on B550 with 16GB DDR4 and WC block is ~£550-600 as of today. Obviously 12th gen may cause Ryzen 5000 price drop soon but I'm reluctant to buy into AM4 form my main PC at this point knowing AM5 is on the way. However, if I went B550 ITX then I could feasibly upgrade again in 12-18 months (when AM5 out) and reuse these components to upgrade the lounge ITX PC (Z170, 6600K, 8GB DDR4, 1060 6GB).

 

Thoughts?

 

Terrible photo of current build because why not 

Id suggest upgrading the gpu first and overclocking the cpu to lessen the bottleneck

 

With that kind of liquid cooling you did overclock your cpu and gpu right?

Spoiler

 

[Longsh07]

48 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

Id suggest upgrading the gpu first and overclocking the cpu to lessen the bottleneck

 

With that kind of liquid cooling you did overclock your cpu and gpu right?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Yep, overclocked, though this 280X case limits how far I can push it. System used to be in a Define S with a thick 360 rad but had to downsize to get some extra space. 

[Somerandomtechyboi]

53 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

Yep, overclocked, though this 280X case limits how far I can push it. System used to be in a Define S with a thick 360 rad but had to downsize to get some extra space. 

If you do move to a newer cpu platform dont bother with overclocking cause cpu oc has long been dead cause new architectures have no oc headroom unless you go subzero

 

If you go for a gpu upgrade id suggest leaving it out of the loop for now and undervolt it since the cpu will need to be oced as far as possible to lessen the cpu bottleneck

 

What settings do you currently run on your cpu?

[Longsh07]

6 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

If you do move to a newer cpu platform dont bother with overclocking cause cpu oc has long been dead cause new architectures have no oc headroom unless you go subzero

 

If you go for a gpu upgrade id suggest leaving it out of the loop for now and undervolt it since the cpu will need to be oced as far as possible to lessen the cpu bottleneck

 

What settings do you currently run on your cpu?

Currently only 4.4Ghz all core. It can hit stable 4.6Ghz but the voltage increase just bumps the heat up too high for day to day. 

[forgetmenot6776]

I am having a similar problem... my current build was done in 2013 with a GTX680 and an FX9590 on board... it is water cooled. I have never had a problem with the rig but recently it gets choppy even with the lower demand games. I think te problem is either the graphics card or the processor but I don't have the money to replace both... in looking at a new build I really can't exceed my 1000USD budget at this time....

[Somerandomtechyboi]

30 minutes ago, Longsh07 said:

Currently only 4.4Ghz all core. It can hit stable 4.6Ghz but the voltage increase just bumps the heat up too high for day to day. 

If you go the gpu route then just leave the gpu non watercooled for now till you can get a newer cpu, since the gpu wont be watercooled that leaves 480mm worth of rads for the cpu so maybe pump it to 5ghz or higher, max safe should be around 1.52 (intel 14nm spec) since 22 and 14nm have pretty similar voltage tolerances

[Longsh07]

5 hours ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

If you go the gpu route then just leave the gpu non watercooled for now till you can get a newer cpu, since the gpu wont be watercooled that leaves 480mm worth of rads for the cpu so maybe pump it to 5ghz or higher, max safe should be around 1.52 (intel 14nm spec) since 22 and 14nm have pretty similar voltage tolerances

I've tried, 4.6Ghz is its limit, 4.7Ghz if you are lucky but it's not sustainable without crashing. But I see your point about using the loop just for the CPU.

 

Problem then becomes the space available. With current market it's difficult to be picky about what GPU you can buy. Something like the Asus 3070 Strix only just fits in a 280X with a 120mm 25mm thick fan in front, no chance with front mount rad as well. Can't bottom mount rad as using lower PCIe slot for Wifi6 card plus I think it may interfere with MATX board anyway. Options are single 240 rad in top, or air cool but 280X doesn't have much tower clearance and something like an NH-C14S overhangs 16x slot on my board (Asus Maximus VII Gene). Have considered replacing the case too with a Define 7 Compact which has slightly more GPU clearance and air cooler comparability.