Does it make sense to throw in a new GPU on this 4 yr old PC?

[Zeze]

have a 4.5 year old PC budget PC I built:

Intel Core i3-2120
HD 6870 1gig
ASRock H61M/U3S3
8 gigs of RAM

I want to play some today's or yester-year games. The new Doom ran laughably bad on this rig. I hope Overwatch much less demanding...

1. Isn't i3-2120 too slow and becoming a bottleneck for any other GPU upgrade I want to do? Any GPU upgrade is a resounding no?

2. What's the best GPU now for strictly 1080p gaming? I presume they should be quite cheap today ($150-200). And are they compatible with my mobo?

 

[Bacon1]

That i3 is very slow and will bottleneck any GPU you put in there.

From my other post the other day:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts-pc-performance,3683-10.html

A newer 3220 is bottlenecking COD Ghosts compared to the old i5 2500k.

I wouldn't spend any money on a GPU until you upgrade the CPU to at least an i5 with very high clocks.

http://www.hardwareunboxed.com/gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-computers/

 

[AtenRa]

I would upgrade to a IvyBridge Core i5/7 with a new 14/16nm dGPU like RX460 or 470.

 

[daxzy]

Sandybridge i3 will hold you back, but not as badly as you'd think. It's still an okay chip. Furthermore, you can drop in upgrade Ivy-Bridge i7's, which are still quite good for gaming. On eBay, used i5-3550/3570's are going for slightly less than $100; i7-3770 is about $175 on eBay (possibly cheaper on FS/T). If you don't plan on buying anything in the next few years, than I'd go with the i7, budget permitting.

Buying used or refurb is almost always better value than buying new. Some possible GPU options for 1080p gaming are RX 470, 3rd gen GCN (R9 285, 380/380X), GTX 1060/1050Ti, GTX 970. I'd stay away from anything older than Maxwell or 2nd gen GCN.

 

[raghu78]

Sell your sandy i3 CPU and get a used ivy i5. Then throw in a new Rx 470 for USD 180.

 

[Rifter]

i just put a rx480 in my almost 6 year old pc. replaced SLI GTX 460's.

 

[ashetos]

I would be careful about PCI-Express 2.0 limitations on PCI-Express 3.0 graphics cards. The faster the card, the bigger the bottleneck. High-end cards would not only suffer from a weak CPU but also from the interconnect throughput limit.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I would be careful about PCI-Express 2.0 limitations on PCI-Express 3.0 graphics cards. The faster the card, the bigger the bottleneck. High-end cards would not only suffer from a weak CPU but also from the interconnect throughput limit.

PCI-E 3 vs 2 is a negligible issue with that cpu and a midrange or lower gpu.

 

[Accord99]

I would be careful about PCI-Express 2.0 limitations on PCI-Express 3.0 graphics cards. The faster the card, the bigger the bottleneck. High-end cards would not only suffer from a weak CPU but also from the interconnect throughput limit.

That MB supports PCIe 3.0 with I5/I7 Ivy Bridge processors because the PCIe x16 slots connect directly to the processor. Ironically, higher end boards like the Asus P8P67 Deluxe is stuck at 2.0 because it uses a PLX switch.

 

[Rifter]

I would be careful about PCI-Express 2.0 limitations on PCI-Express 3.0 graphics cards. The faster the card, the bigger the bottleneck. High-end cards would not only suffer from a weak CPU but also from the interconnect throughput limit.

This is not an issue. My Rx480 is doing fine at PCIe 2.0. Always runs at 100% in games, and gets as high of benchmarks as most reviews using CPU's 3-4 generations newer than mine.

I have yet to see my CPU top 70-80% used even in tough on the CPU games, its usually only around 30-50% during games.

The CPU bottleneck is not as severe as some people think, and the PCIe bottleneck doesnt even exist as far as i can tell.

 

[Bacon1]

The CPU bottleneck is not as severe as some people think, and the PCIe bottleneck doesn't even exist as far as i can tell.

You have a top end i7 OC'd to 4.2ghz.

OP has the lowest i3.

Pretty huge difference in computing power

Even at the stock of 2.8ghz for your processor it is much faster than his:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=835&cmp[]=752

He's probably got the stock cooler so he won't be able to OC it much, buying another cooler is another $30 and doesn't make sense over buying another (used) processor instead.

 

[SPBHM]

Doom is shockingly bad on pre-GCN Radeons, if you upgrade the VGA the game will run a lot better, probably your best bet is Nvidia due to lower overhead overall for DX11... on doom specifically I think I saw some tests with Vulkan also being less bottlenecked by CPU on NV, OGL is also better for NV.

 

[Shmee]

I would get a used i5/i7 Ivybridge and upgrade the video card then, as others mentioned. Should be fine then.

 

[Mercennarius]

As others have said, that i3 needs to be upgraded before your GPU.

Also I wouldn't worry about the PCIe 2.0 limitation...the performance difference with even the fastest cards is only maybe 1-3% between PCIe 2.0 and 3.0 currently.

 

[happy medium]

I would upgrade my gpu first. I'd get a used gtx970 for a about $160 , or a rx470 4gb as cheap as possible. Mabe even wait for the 149$ 1050ti in a few weeks.
You framerates will at least double.
If your not satisfied ,upgrade your cpu as others suggested and your framerates will triple.

 

[nathanddrews]

Your CPU is fine for a game like Doom as long as you get yourself a Vulkan-enabled GPU. Whether you get an RX460 or RX470 or used 970 or whatever, you should try to get something with a minimum of 4GB VRAM. That is, if you expect this GPU to last a couple generations.

I have FOUR machines running i3-2100 CPUs with the following GPUs: GTX 470, HD6870, HD7750, and then just one with IGP. I should bench them all playing Doom 2016 with OpenGL vs Vulkan (although only the 7750 uses Vulkan). IIRC, the 7750 plays better on Vulkan than the 6870 on OpenGL.

 

[Headfoot]

Get a used Ivy i5 (e.g. i5 3xxx) and a 480 or 1060 and that machine will feel like its brand new without having to drop much cash at all. I would NOT get a 970 or anything not on 14/16nm if you have the budget.

 

[2is]

I would be careful about PCI-Express 2.0 limitations on PCI-Express 3.0 graphics cards. The faster the card, the bigger the bottleneck. High-end cards would not only suffer from a weak CPU but also from the interconnect throughput limit.

For a single card, the difference ranges from inconsequential to extremely inconsequential.

 

[MajinCry]

Doom is shockingly bad on pre-GCN Radeons, if you upgrade the VGA the game will run a lot better, probably your best bet is Nvidia due to lower overhead overall for DX11... on doom specifically I think I saw some tests with Vulkan also being less bottlenecked by CPU on NV, OGL is also better for NV.

Actually NVidia's D3D 11 overhead is higher than AMD's, outside of the select number of games that use driver command lists. That software scheduler yo.


@OP, I advocate that you get an i5 2500k or an i7 2600k from Ebay. Don't bother with Ivybridge; Sandybridge was the last intel architecture to have soldier on the cpu die, which is good. Ivybridge and later use thermal paste, which doesn't exactly have a similar lifespan.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually NVidia's D3D 11 overhead is higher than AMD's, outside of the select number of games that use driver command lists. That software scheduler yo.


@OP, I advocate that you get an i5 2500k or an i7 2600k from Ebay. Don't bother with Ivybridge; Sandybridge was the last intel architecture to have soldier on the cpu die, which is good. Ivybridge and later use thermal paste, which doesn't exactly have a similar lifespan.

Got any data to back up either of those statements? Multiple tests have shown nVidia has lower cpu overhead in Dx11 games than AMD. I also havent seen any data that shows higher failure rates with TIM than solder. Unless trying for max overclocks, I see it as a non-issue.

 

[MajinCry]

Got any data to back up either of those statements? Multiple tests have shown nVidia has lower cpu overhead in Dx11 games than AMD. I also havent seen any data that shows higher failure rates with TIM than solder. Unless trying for max overclocks, I see it as a non-issue.

Those tests tend to focus on inadequate GPU performance comparisons, where the GPU is not able to saturate the draw calls from the CPU, or on D3D 11 games that use driver command lists.

Several developers over on Beyond3D talked about the overheard of NVidia's CPU scheduler in contrast to AMD's GPU scheduler. Thread's 'ere: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/vulkan-is-a-gcn-low-level-construct.58257/page-3#post-1939539

Didn't say nothin' about failure rates. But cooling 'n' such is likely going to be an issue down the line, what with that TIM being three or four years old at this point.

 

[frozentundra123456]

OP, this would be my advice. Upgrade the gpu first. You could get a 470, 1060, or wait until the 1050/1050Ti come out and see where they fall. Despite all the partisan haggling that inevitably shows up in these forums, the 470/480 and 1060 are all very good cards for 1080p. The 1050/1050Ti will be less powerful but cheaper, and especially the 1050Ti could be a competent 1080p card as well. After upgrading the gpu, play whatever games you wish. If the performance meets your satisfaction, you are set. If enough games perform below your satisfaction, then upgrade to a SB/IB quad.

Edit: pretty much what Happy Medium said already, but I concur.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Those tests tend to focus on inadequate GPU performance comparisons, where the GPU is not able to saturate the draw calls from the CPU, or on D3D 11 games that use driver command lists.

Several developers over on Beyond3D talked about the overheard of NVidia's CPU scheduler in contrast to AMD's GPU scheduler. Thread's 'ere: https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/vulkan-is-a-gcn-low-level-construct.58257/page-3#post-1939539

Didn't say nothin' about failure rates. But cooling 'n' such is likely going to be an issue down the line, what with that TIM being three or four years old at this point.

There are plenty of other postings that clearly state AMD gpus have a higher cpu overhead than nVidia. I am not going to bother to link them all. Just google "cpu overhead, amd vs nVidia graphics cards". Even the forum that you linked is more about Vulcan showing more improvement with AMD rather than nVidia, which actually indicates nVidia's DX11 drivers are more efficient, thus less improvement with Vulcan.

Also, even though you shifted the goalposts away from cpu failure to increased cooling requirements with age for TIM, I dont see any documentation of that assertion either.

 

[sxr7171]

^^^ I'd agree with this. Get the new GPU. You can play and determine how bottlenecked you are by your CPU. Then get a 2600k if you need. Personally I've had a 3570k running like a champ at 4.8GHz for years. However that is uncommon.

 

[ConsoleLover]

The old I3 you have will definitely bottleneck the GPU. I mean even the I5 2000 series are showing signs of ageing and diminishing performance, so an old dual core like that with slow frequency will definitely bottleneck pretty much any GPU you buy.

Your best bet is to save up money and next year in February or March purchase a new PC when AMD's Zen CPU's are out.