is it worthwhile upgrading ?

SpannerMonkey

have my current pc about 5 years . just wondering should i be considering upgrading. i have updated my GPU a few times and currently have a GTX 1080 but the rest of the pc is original

CPU: i7 3770k
Ram 16gb corsair LP DDR3 1600mhz
Mobo: Asus Z77 Sabertooth
Cooler: Bequiet dark rock 2
Storage 1TB Samsung ssd
GPU: Gigabyte G1 Gaming GTX 1080

2 x 24 inch monitors
1 (Dell 1920x1200 )
1( Asus 144hz 1920x1080)

stevek93

Upgrade what?

SpannerMonkey

stevek93 wrote: »

Upgrade what?

cpu/mobo/ram/cooler etc the guts of the pc . i obviously know the gpu is fine

SickBoy

I'm assuming you've got a decent overclock on that CPU right? If so nothing to see here.

SpannerMonkey

SickBoy wrote: »

I'm assuming you've got a decent overclock on that CPU right? If so nothing to see here.

ya its oc'd to 4.4GHZ . just worried the cpu is bottlenecking the gpu ?

TerrorFirmer

Literally nothing to be upgraded unless you fancy spending €500+ for a few more frames a second (i7-7700, 16GB DDR4, Z270, etc).

K.O.Kiki

Denny_Crane

Monitors! Get yourself a 34" UW.

(Edit Why have you got a GTX1080 driving (at best) a 1200p monitor :P)

SpannerMonkey

Denny_Crane wrote: »

Monitors! Get yourself a 34" UW.

(Edit Why have you got a GTX1080 driving (at best) a 1200p monitor :P)

gaming its a 144hz monitor and even with the 1080 im not hitting 144fps in a lot of new games

Denny_Crane

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

gaming its a 144hz monitor

Even so 1080p with a GTX1080. :cool:

Grab yourself some 1440p UW goodness, obviously spring for the high refresh ones if it makes a difference to you, I can never see the difference myself but it's personal preference.

TerrorFirmer

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

gaming its a 144hz monitor and even with the 1080 im not hitting 144fps in a lot of new games

It's pretty much impossible to hit 144fps in the newer AAA titles - Witcher 3, Battlefield 1 online, Fallout 4 etc. Those sort of games tend to CPU bottleneck long before they can reach near 144fps.

Games like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Doom, etc are more more GPU dependent and are the sort of games that benefit most from it in any case.

I have a 144hz monitor and a GTX1080 and most games I play don't go beyond around 90-100fps due to CPU ceiling (I have a 6700K)

So if you go to 1440p 144hz, your framerate will remain the same really as your GTX1080 can stretch it's legs better.

dog_pig

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Games like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Doom, etc are more more GPU dependent and are the sort of games that benefit most from it in any case.

CSGO is very much CPU dependent!

TerrorFirmer

dog_pig wrote: »

CSGO is very much CPU dependent!

I was talking in the context of hitting 144hz on the OPs monitor compared to other AAA titles, his CPU is not going to be a factor in CSGO or similar arena shooters.

Whereas it is a factor in the latest 2016 open world games in that no modern CPU can drive 144hz in these games.

dog_pig

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I was talking in the context of hitting 144hz on the OPs monitor compared to other AAA titles, his CPU is not going to be a factor in CSGO or similar arena shooters.

Whereas it is a factor in the latest 2016 open world games in that no modern CPU can drive 144hz in these games.

Well CSGO differs from Doom and Overwatch in that it benefits very very little from a faster GPU. Going from a 4890 to an R9 280 had almost no impact at all on performance.

TerrorFirmer

As long as you had a strong CPU, playing CSGO at 1440p ultra settings there would be a big difference in raw framerate.

But if you have a mediocre CPU it wouldn't appear to make much difference as the GPU would be bottlenecked by CPU ceiling (even though you could still have a very high FPS)

In your case it's probably CPU limit holding you back if you didn't see any difference between the 4890 and r9 280.

dog_pig

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As long as you had a strong CPU, playing CSGO at 1440p ultra settings there would be a big difference in raw framerate.

But if you have a mediocre CPU it wouldn't appear to make much difference as the GPU would be bottlenecked by CPU ceiling (even though you could still have a very high FPS)

In your case it's probably CPU limit holding you back if you didn't see any difference between the 4890 and r9 280.

At 1440p there would of course be a difference, but much less than any other game that's been mentioned. My point is that the engine is not comparable to that of Doom or Overwatch, which are reasonably efficient at utilising the GPU. We're talking about an engine that shows negligible performance difference between 1024*768 and 1920*1080.

In terms of my CPU holding me back in that scenario, it was a 4690K running at 4.6GHz so I'm fairly sure the GPU wasn't being bottlenecked.

TerrorFirmer

The original point was to list a few games that would reach 144hz on his monitor (Doom, Overwatch, CSGO, etc), versus those that will not (BF1, Fallout 4, Witcher 3, etc).

Obviously Doom and Overwatch are much more complex engines, but the point remains - on these games, inc CSGO, you can and will hit 144hz with an i7 and a GTX1080.

If you saw no difference between the HD4890 and an R9 280 with an i5 @ 4.6Ghz, there is definitely something not right there.

Unless you like to run the game at 1024x768 lowest settings to achieve max FPS, in which case once again, we would return to CPU ceiling (or if you had it locked to 60fps)

Chart here showing GPU gains at 1080p ultra using the same CPU. The R9 280 would be somewhere near the top of this chart, and the HD4890 at the bottom of the dedicated GPU's (not the IGPs obviously)

dog_pig

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The original point was to list a few games that would reach 144hz on his monitor (Doom, Overwatch, CSGO, etc), versus those that will not (BF1, Fallout 4, Witcher 3, etc).

Obviously Doom and Overwatch are much more complex engines, but the point remains - on these games, inc CSGO, you can and will hit 144hz with an i7 and a GTX1080.

What you said and what I responded to was that CSGO is more GPU dependent than Witcher 3, Battlefield 1, Fallout 4. It's not. It's also nowhere near as good as utilising the GPU as Doom/Overwatch (the Source engine is notorious for this and has been for years) so I don't feel that it can be compared to them in terms of GPU dependence.

Luck100

CPU and ram seems to be getting more important for some recent games if you want to push 100+ FPS.

TerrorFirmer

Absolutely, that just proves what I was saying. GPU's are well capable of pushing the latest games at ultra settings at any given resolution on a technical basis, settings adjusted, but modern CPU's are simply not able to drive these games to that extent.

Assuming you've money to spend, the sweet spot is about aiming @ 100fps or so with an i7-6700/7700 and a GTX1080 with a 120/144hz monitor.

144hz, and the newer higher hertz monitors, are really only aimed at e-sports players in terms of actually achieving maximum rate - Overwatch, CSGO, etc.