Which will be the best GPU for my i7 3770.

[Suika]

6 minutes ago, userzero said:

It does NOT bottleneck even a 1080. We've been through this.

It depends on the title, but it'd probably choke higher end cards in more single threaded or frequency favoring games. I remember testing Haswell down to 3GHz and it'd choke a 980 Ti at 1440p, I'd imagine it's worse at 1080p.

 

The 3770 at 3.9GHz turbo (well, less if you use more than a single thread) would change that tune a bit, but Haswell did have a bit of an IPC lead over Ivy Bridge.

 

Honestly I'd say go GTX 1070, if you're playing at higher resolutions, may as well go 1080 or 1080 Ti.

[xg32]

3 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's definitely not true. Even a 2700k would pair okay with a 1080 Ti.

it'd be "ok", but the ti isn't running at its full potential in alot of games.

 

Actual user experience is different than what is on paper.

 

I had to pay out of pocket for a 8700k earlier this year when i cheaped out on a build on a 8600k on sale, both with a 1080 ti, side by side. Even after correcting the issue I still feel like I failed that build.

 

I guess it's a matter of perspective, in a build with a 8600k and 1080 ti, the 1080 ti is never a bad choice, but with a 8700k the 1080 ti can perform better, but it doesn't mean i can't pair a 1080 ti with a 8600k, i'm just not doing it again. There are some games right now that requires hyperthreading imo, and I just got blindsided by it with the 8600k and therefore am skewed at how important cpu is right now, therefore recommending a lower tier card for an older cpu.

[solarflare]

What people are thinking is a bottleneck isn't a true bottleneck. 

when you see a GPU gain significant performance increase every time you up the clock on a CPU that's evidence of bottle-necking. 

When you see a GPU gain slight minimal performance increases per CPU clock increase , that's not a bottleneck that's simply normal results. 

 

You will typically always gain a few fps per cpu increase regardless this will not stop even into the 5-ghz ranges under cold. 

A 2500 or 2600k @ 4.8 isn't truly bottle-necking any gpu's , will other cpu's at 4.8-ghz be slightly faster? yes they are more efficient per clock so that outcome is obvious but its not a bottleneck.  same with a 3770 Hopefully he has a K version , Add a cheap cooler like hyper 212 type and clock it up to at-least 4.4ghz and you wont be needing to worry about this issue. 

 

I've went cold a bunch and one thing i can say is you will always gain performance and FPS on every mhz increase your screaming cpu will give there is no end I do not consider any of that bottleneck's at all. 

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

10 hours ago, Alwaysoffline said:

I have a regular 1080p 60hz monitor

recommend GTX1070, price going down, ultra settings and max fps for every game, imo capable for 5 more years

GTX1060 will only achieve average 50fps on ultra, also you will need to lower settings soon

[kazuni]

Bang for the buck, 1070 will last you a bit longer than 1060.  Although if you can find a 1080Ti at a good price, get that, because not every game in the future runs with Raytracing and it would be a good investment IMO.

[giorgi 191]

On 8/30/2018 at 7:47 PM, userzero said:

You'll be fine to go as high as your budget takes you bud presuming you have a decent power supply. You might want to upgrade that RAM a bit too tbh.

hi, is this pc good?

MoBo - Asus P8 B75
CPU - I7 3770
GPU - RX 580 8 GB
RAM - DDR3 8GB(or 16gb ram)
HDD - 500 GB
PSU - 650 W
Case - GF ATX-1076B

[Nichox86]

I wouldn't go any higher than a GTX 1060. Maybe even consider a 1050ti. Mine was massively squeezed by the i7-3770 as found when I put the same card into a newer system with an i5-9400F. 

 

nb. I tend to play games in 1440p which I'm sure will also put a lot more strain on the system.