Any opinions on a gpu upgrade

[AniThyng]

Hi ho,

I currently have a 4 year old i5 - 2500k paired with a ati 6950 and 8gb ram on win7. I'm going to clean the whole system up and change all the fans and maybe the cpu heatsink, and if I'm going to ask the trouble already I'm considering if a gpu update is in order. Any thoughts on an appropriate drop in replacement for a 6950? I did some research and a r9 380 seems equivalent for the current generation, but is it going to bee significantly much of an improvement given I have no intention of upgrading the cpu?

[Starglider]

There was a significant jump in performance for DX11/12 games from the HD6xxx to HD7xxx series, because the architecture changed to a much more efficient one. So yes, although it will probably only be a major difference if you have a display better than 1080p (if not, hey, why not spend the money on a better monitor instead?).

[AniThyng]

I have a 1080 monitor and it's pretty much as big as my desk will allow. I suppose I could get a 4k one but won't that load my gpu a lot?

[Starglider]

I have a 1080 monitor and it's pretty much as big as my desk will allow. I suppose I could get a 4k one but won't that load my gpu a lot?

24" 1440p monitors are pretty cheap now (~$300). I admitt I haven't seen any smaller than that, not sure why when there are plenty of 1440p laptop displays. Modern mid-range GPUs drive 1440p ok, in fact it's a major reason to get discrete over integrated. 4K is still expensive and the purview of top-of-the-range and multi-GPU. I have a 4K 32" and it was worth every penny, but mostly for productivity applications. They should get cheaper as 4K TVs ramp up, 1440p was hampered by not being used in TVs (less economy of scale) but will be cheaper for a while as stock is cleared ahead of the 4K transition.

Note that discrete GPUs are still on 28nm, four years after the HD7xxx series were launched. This is because TMSC screwed up their 20nm process, resulting in incremental improvements in GPU performance. It's been good for GPU design innovation, because Nvidia and AMD couldn't rely on process improvements to improve performance, but it means we are overdue for the next major performance leap. Current expectation is that Nvidia and AMD will go to 16nm in the next product cycle, in 1 to 2 years. HBM filtering down to mid-level parts will make a significant difference as well.

[Executor32]

I'm still running an i7-2600k, just as old as your i5, and my February upgrade from a GTX 560 Ti to a GTX 970 garnered a massive performance improvement (from 20-30 FPS on low to 50+ FPS on ultra in FC4, for example) despite not upgrading the CPU. I'd say go for it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

If you're running an Intel quad core that was made within the last 5 years and your primary purpose is gaming, there's little reason to upgrade the CPU no matter what GPU you're moving up to. Unless your next GPU is a 980 Ti it's not going to be a major bottleneck. Intel got so far ahead of AMD in IPC during this decade that a developer can't leave your CPU behind without also leaving behind modern AMD CPU's, which would be bad for sales.

[AniThyng]

I'm still running an i7-2600k, just as old as your i5, and my February upgrade from a GTX 560 Ti to a GTX 970 garnered a massive performance improvement (from 20-30 FPS on low to 50+ FPS on ultra in FC4, for example) despite not upgrading the CPU. I'd say go for it.

That's what I like to hear! I mainly play WOWS and Armored Warfare these days along with whatever indie game off steam looks interesting, but I also have a soft spot for stuff like RTW (i'd certainly get warhammer total war) and the like so graphics performance does sort of matter to me. Looks positive then.

[AniThyng]

If you're running an Intel quad core that was made within the last 5 years and your primary purpose is gaming, there's little reason to upgrade the CPU no matter what GPU you're moving up to. Unless your next GPU is a 980 Ti it's not going to be a major bottleneck. Intel got so far ahead of AMD in IPC during this decade that a developer can't leave your CPU behind without also leaving behind modern AMD CPU's, which would be bad for sales.

That's sad. My gaming desktop prior to this one was a Athlon x64 of some sort, and the one before that was an Athlon XP and the one before >that< was a K6-II so I definitely remember a time when AMD was king of the hill...

I reckon they're still competitive in GPU's though...at least I don't see a real reason to pick the price equivalent Nvidia GPU over the 380...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

AMD GPU's are ahead on performance at most price points as long as you've got the power supply to run them

[TheFeniX]

I have a 1080 monitor and it's pretty much as big as my desk will allow. I suppose I could get a 4k one but won't that load my gpu a lot?

Size != resolution. I have a 28" 4k and 28" 1080p monitor setup. Same size monitors, vastly different resolutions.

4K gaming isn't really worth it, or viable, with single GPU setups outside something like a Titan. 2 SLIed 970s and I can't keep Fallout 4 above 34FPS with everything on low. Meanwhile, 2K, everything on Ultra except Godrays, solid 60FPS. 4K has that much of a performance premium.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue keeping 99% of my games at 60FPS at 4K with that setup and I'm sure performance enhancement mods will come out for Fallout4 at some point. But you need a large investment in hardware to run 4K at a decent frame-rate as 30FPS 4K kind of misses the point. Running a single 970 at 4K meant 40FPS was my max, at the most. And it damn sure wasn't stable.

The only games (aside from screenshot porn) where 4K looks noticeably better standing still is Fable 3 (for some reason I have not bothered looking into) and Skyrim loaded to the gills with high-poly/res models/texture. At least in my experience. Where 4K really beats out 1080p and 2K is in motion. There's a level of detail added that makes you able to spot every piece of movement. Running at 30FPS defeats that as that resolution makes the stutter even more noticeable.

1080p gaming is going to be the standard for the near future. The PS4 and the Xbox are having to pick their spots when they can even run 60FPS (vs 30) or 1080p (vs 720/980p upscaled) and developers aren't leaving those systems behind. That said, 2K still has some value. Monitor prices are dropping and the PC hardware required to run it is already here/dropping in price. And since many developers already make higher res textures from the start, then compress from there, you can get a graphics boost, provided they.... provide those 2k+ texture to PC gamers. Even still, a higher resolution will always look better. And 2K+ also makes for a better work-space. But only on W10 for 4K as it does desktop scaling.

On the CPU/GPU front, I don't buy Radeon, but the 380 is a good card at a good price. If you're worried your CPU won't hold up, there's plenty of benchmarking sites, but I always preferred to run my own testing. Download GPU-Z and either use the W7 performance manager or run CPU-Z. The Zs have better logging, but 10-to-1 your bottleneck is your GPU. Even then, the 6950 looks about equivalent to a GTX660 and that's a damn good card, if a little older. I still have mine in my old rig and I only had to make a few choice decision on what to turn down from Ultra to keep 60FPS at 1080p.

Hilariously, I bought the 660 in preparation for SWTOR.... what a fucking waste. Still, other actually good games got a boost out of it.