Want to upgrade graphics card and looking for advice.

[Aisling]

I've been rocking a Gigabyte GTX 770 OC Windforce 3X for the past 2,5 years and after buying a new (higher res) monitor and with the latest games coming out I'm starting having trouble playing on the higher quality presets. I've spend some time reading both trough this forum and others, but I feel kind of overwhelmed by different opinions for different set-ups, so I hope somebody has the time to give me some set-up specific advice!

 

I'm currently using a 3440x1440 (60Hz, no g- or freesync) LG 34UC97C monitor on a system that includes a MSI B85-G41 motherboard, 550W power supply, Intel Core i5 4670 CPU and 16GB (4x4GB) RAM. The games I'm particularly looking forward to play on the higher/-est presets (I play as much for the eye-candy as for story and gameplay) are Rise of the Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge 2. I'm not particularly looking at VR capabilities. As far as I can make sens of all information available the GTX 1070 would be a good choice for now, but the GTX 1080 seems to be a safer choice, also for the next 2(?) years. I recon my PSU will still be happy under the load and the motherboard won't pose any problems. I'd guess the same about the CPU but I'm not sure about that. I'm willing to spend the money necessary for either the 1070 or 1080 should they make this possible, but I really would like some second opinions before committing!

 

Any advice would be enormously appreciated. If I can supply anymore info, please let me know!

[Imakuni]

Given that you have an ultrawide, a 1080 would be the better choice. You pretty much need all the horsepower you can get.

[Julian5]

4 minutes ago, Aisling said:

I've been rocking a Gigabyte GTX 770 OC Windforce 3X for the past 2,5 years and after buying a new (higher res) monitor and with the latest games coming out I'm starting having trouble playing on the higher quality presets. I've spend some time reading both trough this forum and others, but I feel kind of overwhelmed by different opinions for different set-ups, so I hope somebody has the time to give me some set-up specific advice!

 

I'm currently using a 3440x1440 (60Hz, no g- or freesync) LG 34UC97C monitor on a system that includes a MSI B85-G41 motherboard, 550W power supply, Intel Core i5 4670 CPU and 16GB (4x4GB) RAM. The games I'm particularly looking forward to play on the higher/-est presets (I play as much for the eye-candy as for story and gameplay) are Rise of the Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge 2. I'm not particularly looking at VR capabilities. As far as I can make sens of all information available the GTX 1070 would be a good choice for now, but the GTX 1080 seems to be a safer choice, also for the next 2(?) years. I recon my PSU will still be happy under the load and the motherboard won't pose any problems. I'd guess the same about the CPU but I'm not sure about that. I'm willing to spend the money necessary for either the 1070 or 1080 should they make this possible, but I really would like some second opinions before committing!

 

Any advice would be enormously appreciated. If I can supply anymore info, please let me know!

 lol im rocking a gtx 660 oc 2gb for a triple 1080p monitor setup. works for fsx and csgo

[don_svetlio]

Go for a 1070 - your CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for a 1080

[don_svetlio]

5 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

Given that you have an ultrawide, a 1080 would be the better choice. You pretty much need all the horsepower you can get.

Bottleneck called, it wants it's fps back

[Aisling]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Go for a 1070 - your CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for a 1080

Would that be the case right now or in a year? Given that the CPU is two years old and wasn't top of the line back then either, I might be upgrading it in the coming year.

[Kryptyx]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Go for a 1070 - your CPU would be too much of a bottleneck for a 1080

 

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Bottleneck called, it wants it's fps back

What? He isn't bottlenecked with the 4670.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Aisling said:

Would that be the case right now or in a year? Given that the CPU is two years old and wasn't top of the line back then either, I might be upgrading it in the coming year.

i7 minimum for a 1080

[Imakuni]

1 minute ago, Aisling said:

Would that be the case right now or in a year? Given that the CPU is two years old and wasn't top of the line back then either, I might be upgrading it in the coming year.

If you are upgrading the CPU soon, that's even more of a reason to get the 1080.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Kryptyx said:

 

What? He isn't bottlenecked with the 4670.

With a 770 no, with a 1070 slightly, with a 1080 severely. i5s are not magic - they have their limits just like any other CPU

[Kryptyx]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

i7 minimum for a 1080

 

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

With a 770 no, with a 1070 slightly, with a 1080 severely. i5s are not magic - they have their limits just like any other CPU

How? The only difference between the i5 and i7 is the hyperthreading which a lot of games don't utilize anyway. I would agree that a "K" sku would of been better but it still shouldn't be an issue, at all.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Kryptyx said:

 

How? The only difference between the i5 and i7 is the hyperthreading which a lot of games don't utilize anyway. I would agree that a "K" sku would of been better but it still shouldn't be an issue, at all.

Actually they do - almost all AAA games in 2015 and 2016 use 8 threads or more as evident by TB"s port reports where all 16 threads on his 5960X are in active use. Furthermore, DX12 has no limit on the amount of cores/threads for games so expect every single CPU resource to be utilized. Locked i5s are not nearly as powerful as people preach - I've had my i5 4590 reach 100% usage when my R9 280 - a severely weaker GPU than a 1070 - was at 80-90% usage. It's possible. A 1070 will be fine with his i5 in MOST games but the 1080 will be bottlenecked across almost all.

[Kryptyx]

9 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Actually they do - almost all AAA games in 2015 and 2016 use 8 threads or more as evident by TB"s port reports where all 16 threads on his 5960X are in active use. Furthermore, DX12 has no limit on the amount of cores/threads for games so expect every single CPU resource to be utilized. Locked i5s are not nearly as powerful as people preach - I've had my i5 4590 reach 100% usage when my R9 280 - a severely weaker GPU than a 1070 - was at 80-90% usage. It's possible. A 1070 will be fine with his i5 in MOST games but the 1080 will be bottlenecked across almost all.

So I just went through 3dmark's results and compared 4670 vs 4770 with GTX 1080 and there is clearly no bottleneck. The big difference in scores is just the physx results. Comparing the GPU scores you can see they are dead even.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Kryptyx said:

So I just went through 3dmark's results and compared 4670 vs 4770 with GTX 1080 and there is clearly no bottleneck. The big difference in scores is just the physx results. Comparing the GPU scores you can see they are dead even.

3Dmark is not a "bottleneck hunter" - try GTA V and notice the gap

[Kryptyx]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

3Dmark is not a "bottleneck hunter" - try GTA V and notice the gap

That is because GTA V is more CPU bound. Of course the performance would be different. Now compare Overwatch which is less CPU bound...

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Kryptyx said:

That is because GTA V is more CPU bound. Of course the performance would be different. Now compare Overwatch which is less CPU bound...

Overwatch is actually heavy on the CPU

[Aisling]

38 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

If you are upgrading the CPU soon, that's even more of a reason to get the 1080.

 

21 minutes ago, Kryptyx said:

So I just went through 3dmark's results and compared 4670 vs 4770 with GTX 1080 and there is clearly no bottleneck. The big difference in scores is just the physx results. Comparing the GPU scores you can see they are dead even.

 

39 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

i7 minimum for a 1080

 

Thank you for your opinions! I gather that the GTX 1080 would be appropriate given the resolution of the monitor, but might be bottlenecked by the CPU. Should this be the case, an upgrade to an i7 down the road could solve this problem as well, and if it isn't necessary (it could be that the 1080 is bottlenecked, but not so hard the fps drops to unacceptable levels) that upgrade can be postponed.

[don_svetlio]

4 minutes ago, Aisling said:

 

 

 

Thank you for your opinions! I gather that the GTX 1080 would be appropriate given the resolution of the monitor, but might be bottlenecked by the CPU. Should this be the case, an upgrade to an i7 down the road could solve this problem as well, and if it isn't necessary (it could be that the 1080 is bottlenecked, but not so hard the fps drops to unacceptable levels) that upgrade can be postponed.

fps will be acceptable but in certain cases stutter may occur depending on settings and your frame rate.

[Cracklingice]

haha  I feel like I'm in a corner under a rock in this thread.  I only recently upgraded to a HD 6870.  Previously I had a HD 4650 so to me it's a huge upgrade as the new one has DX11 support.  All the cards I see everyone wanting to upgrade from are like 2 to 3 times better than my 'upgrade'.  Doesn't bother me that much though.  The Phenom X4 9750 seems to hold this video card back in most of what I run anyway.   Brokelife ftl
Anyway - to edit in some relevant content.  I recommend looking into the selling value of your current card on eBay.  The time I spent looking into upgrades from my HD 4650 taught me just how well mid range GPUs hold their value in the used market.  Taking a brief break from gaming to sell your current card to fund a better upgrade now may be a good way to get something a bit better than you thought you otherwise could afford.