• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Future proof

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
Hi guys

I'm in the market for a new card to replace my R9 290. I currently game at 1080p@144hz and manage to achieve this occasionally with my aging (but still awesome) i5 2500K Sandybridge setup.

I have now got a taste for 60+ fps gaming and would like something that will push my fps closer to 144hz more consistently and also allow me to move into into 1440p@60fps in the future(or close to it)

I was looking at the Gtx 1070 which would be perfect for this, but I now have a few doubts and was hoping that someone with a bit more wisdom could advise.

Due to Async Compute, DX12 and the current trend that AMD seem to be getting a longer stretch out of their cards, is it worth waiting until the RX 490?

I know it's a way off yet and a 1070 will be a great card until then, but I've lost a bit of confidence with NVIDIA as of late. It seems that they release cards at a premium and then supersede them within the year. Couple that with the fact they are likely to have better DX12 support by then making the 1070 and 1080 redundant and the RX 490 will likely compete with the 1070 with full DX12 support, it's kind of wavering me at the moment.

In a nutshell, I don't want to regret not waiting for a better option.
 

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,610
315
126
Honestly I bet your CPU is holding you back in your goal at this point. 2500k kicks butt for 60 fps but above that...
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Hi guys

I'm in the market for a new card to replace my R9 290. I currently game at 1080p@144hz and manage to achieve this occasionally with my aging (but still awesome) i5 2500K Sandybridge setup.

I have now got a taste for 60+ fps gaming and would like something that will push my fps closer to 144hz more consistently and also allow me to move into into 1440p@60fps in the future(or close to it)

I was looking at the Gtx 1070 which would be perfect for this, but I now have a few doubts and was hoping that someone with a bit more wisdom could advise.

Due to Async Compute, DX12 and the current trend that AMD seem to be getting a longer stretch out of their cards, is it worth waiting until the RX 490?

I know it's a way off yet and a 1070 will be a great card until then, but I've lost a bit of confidence with NVIDIA as of late. It seems that they release cards at a premium and then supersede them within the year. Couple that with the fact they are likely to have better DX12 support by then making the 1070 and 1080 redundant and the RX 490 will likely compete with the 1070 with full DX12 support, it's kind of wavering me at the moment.

In a nutshell, I don't want to regret not waiting for a better option.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1578480/i5-2500k-4-5ghz-vs-6700k-4-5ghz-in-games

Your 2500k is holding back your 290. If you dont want to rebuild your entire system, you can either go GPU, or CPU.

Throwing another card at your cpu will help, but it would be very expensive. Throwing in a new CPU would be just as if not more expensive.

I currently have a 2500k and a 6950 2gb. I am going to upgrade everything pretty soon. Kaby Lake is supposed to come out late 2016 early 2017. At that time we will have a new cpu and aib gpus that. You are probably better off waiting until Intel launches. You can either get the new cpu, or get a cheaper 6600/6700k. Then get a new gpu and you should be good to go.
 

littleg

Senior member
Jul 9, 2015
355
38
91
Zen is due to launch late 2016 / early 2017 too. Along with the new Intel releases you'd hope that would drive down the prices on the Skylake range so you might be able to grab a Skylake at a decent price and also one of the top tier video cards that should be out around then.

All depends on your budget really. How much you got to play with?
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
I see what you are saying around the CPU bottleneck but I'm not sure this is the case. I would agree if I had a 1st gen.

I have it overclocked to 4.5ghz and get 12500 3D mark 11 score which is actually slightly higher than my friends i5 Haswell system (with a 290) I also score around the same as what I see in gaming benchmarks(to the exact frame in some cases, sometimes more). On CPU intensive gaming it hardly ever sits at 100% and my temps have never been above 52c.

I'm not saying that there isn't a bottleneck, but I have not seen any evidence of it and other Sandybridge owners still swear by their CPU's

Saying that, I do intend getting a new MB, CPU and memory so I can move forward with the new memory type etc. as I know I will get a performance boost by doing so.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I see what you are saying around the CPU bottleneck but I'm not sure this is the case. I would agree if I had a 1st gen.

I have it overclocked to 4.5ghz and get 12500 3D mark 11 score which is actually slightly higher than my friends i5 Haswell system (with a 290) I also score around the same as what I see in gaming benchmarks(to the exact frame in some cases, sometimes more). On CPU intensive gaming it hardly ever sits at 100% and my temps have never been above 52c.

I'm not saying that there isn't a bottleneck, but I have not seen any evidence of it and other Sandybridge owners still swear by their CPU's

Saying that, I do intend getting a new MB, CPU and memory so I can move forward with the new memory type etc. as I know I will get a performance boost by doing so.
Did you look at the link I posted?

If GTX970 dont bottleneck there is masive gain in games like crysis3-more than twice faster than 2500k
watchdogs 60%
skyrim 47%
WOT 37%
Witcher3 37%
If you just update your GPU, are you leaving a lot of fps on the table. If you just update the cpu, you are leaving a lot of fps on the table. Look through that link I posted.
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
474
126
BlueWizard:

What is a RX 490? I don't think AMD's RTG division has released their names for upcoming Vega chips yet so your guess is as good as mine.

BTW: Realibrad's post links are excellent.
 
Last edited:

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
Did you look at the link I posted?



If you just update your GPU, are you leaving a lot of fps on the table. If you just update the cpu, you are leaving a lot of fps on the table. Look through that link I posted.
Yes I did, thanks for the reference.

I believe there are other factors involved for this. For a game to perform 60% slower due to a CPU bottleneck then the CPU would have to be much worse than a Sandybridge.

I've experienced CPU bottleneck and It's much more evident in a much wider selection of games. That thread you linked is more about the performance increase you get from a Sandybridge to a Skylake (to which there is a debate) A CPU bottleneck isn't debatable, it's glaringly obvious.

In either case I've decided to get a GPU upgrade first and then a new CPU. Would you say a 1070 is as a future safe option as a 490 will be?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Yes I did, thanks for the reference.

I believe there are other factors involved for this. For a game to perform 60% slower due to a CPU bottleneck then the CPU would have to be much worse than a Sandybridge.

I've experienced CPU bottleneck and It's much more evident in a much wider selection of games. That thread you linked is more about the performance increase you get from a Sandybridge to a Skylake (to which there is a debate) A CPU bottleneck isn't debatable, it's glaringly obvious.

In either case I've decided to get a GPU upgrade first and then a new CPU. Would you say a 1070 is as a future safe option as a 490 will be?
Well, we dont know the performance of a "490". AMD Vega should be out early 2017 the same time new cpus are supposed to pop up. Even if you decide on a 1070 it should be much cheaper and in stock if you wait. Right now, if you can find a 1070 its pretty expensive. You really are better off waiting.

Keep in mind, wanting to get 144 fps you are going to need a cpu that can feed the gpu fast enough. The link I gave used a 2500k as its base. For what you want to do, you are cpu and gpu bound. Upgrading now means paying for a gpu that is more expensive due to supply. A cpu upgrade now would mean that in a few months it will be cheaper and you over paid and or there is something better. This close to new launches in your situation should default you to the timeless problem of PC hardware, wait.

Waiting a few more months will give you time to save up and build a whole new system that will last much longer than patching together what you have now.
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
BlueWizard:

What is a RX 490? I don't think AMD's RTG division has released their names for upcoming Vega chips yet so your guess is as good as mine.
Sorry, I though you may have already heard of it. I'm referring to it as a RX 490 as that was what AMD listed it as (It may have a new name) It's not yet confirmed whether it will be a Polaris or Vega based chip but it will certainly be competing with the 1070 especially with the DX12 boost that AMD cards get.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Did you look at the link I posted?



If you just update your GPU, are you leaving a lot of fps on the table. If you just update the cpu, you are leaving a lot of fps on the table. Look through that link I posted.
Looking at the link you posted, doesn't show the 2500K leaving much on the table. It's only a few percent behind. Skyrim + Mods was the only significant problem I saw, but not everyone loads themselves down with mods, or plays that game. Not that there wasn't notable improvements.
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
Well, we dont know the performance of a "490". AMD Vega should be out early 2017 the same time new cpus are supposed to pop up. Even if you decide on a 1070 it should be much cheaper and in stock if you wait. Right now, if you can find a 1070 its pretty expensive. You really are better off waiting.

Keep in mind, wanting to get 144 fps you are going to need a cpu that can feed the gpu fast enough. The link I gave used a 2500k as its base. For what you want to do, you are cpu and gpu bound. Upgrading now means paying for a gpu that is more expensive due to supply. A cpu upgrade now would mean that in a few months it will be cheaper and you over paid and or there is something better. This close to new launches in your situation should default you to the timeless problem of PC hardware, wait.

Waiting a few more months will give you time to save up and build a whole new system that will last much longer than patching together what you have now.
Yes, that's sound advice, thanks. It's exactly what my common sense is saying. But I am impatient and had it in my head that I was just about to jump on the 1070 bandwagon. Then the doubt settled in....
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
Looking at the link you posted, doesn't show the 2500K leaving much on the table. It's only a few percent behind. Skyrim + Mods was the only significant problem I saw, but not everyone loads themselves down with mods, or plays that game. Not that there wasn't notable improvements.
I agree, the improvements are from better HT and a higher memory bus and speeds.

Sandybridges just keep on giving.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Yes, that's sound advice, thanks. It's exactly what my common sense is saying. But I am impatient and had it in my head that I was just about to jump on the 1070 bandwagon. Then the doubt settled in....
The question comes down to this, for me;

Do you want to use higher settings and don't want wait 6 months before you do? Choose a 1070 now.

Do you want 100+ FPS now, and are willing to turn down graphical settings to get there? Choose a new CPU now.

If you really are just trying to satiate your inner upgrade demon, try and keep him at bay and don't upgrade yet.
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
The question comes down to this, for me;

Do you want to use higher settings and don't want wait 6 months before you do? Choose a 1070 now.

Do you want 100+ FPS now, and are willing to turn down graphical settings to get there? Choose a new CPU now.

If you really are just trying to satiate your inner upgrade demon, try and keep him at bay and don't upgrade yet.
Good point, thanks.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Looking at the link you posted, doesn't show the 2500K leaving much on the table. It's only a few percent behind. Skyrim + Mods was the only significant problem I saw, but not everyone loads themselves down with mods, or plays that game. Not that there wasn't notable improvements.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Skylake-vs-Sandy-Bridge-Discrete-GPU-Showdown

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/5973-my-2500k-vs-6700k-upgrade-fps-results-hefty-fps-increase/

There is lots of gain. Keep in mind, if he is going fps then all those other players tax out the cpu more. The 2500k was a great cpu, which is why I still have it. That said, its showing its age. If he wants to do 144fps gaming, he is going to need more than just a better gpu, unless he wants to go way down on the details, which is a valid option.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Skylake-vs-Sandy-Bridge-Discrete-GPU-Showdown

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/5973-my-2500k-vs-6700k-upgrade-fps-results-hefty-fps-increase/

There is lots of gain. Keep in mind, if he is going fps then all those other players tax out the cpu more. The 2500k was a great cpu, which is why I still have it. That said, its showing its age. If he wants to do 144fps gaming, he is going to need more than just a better gpu, unless he wants to go way down on the details, which is a valid option.
What happens when those results are with an OC at 4.5Ghz? That's where he is, which significantly changes the results.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
What happens when those results are with an OC at 4.5Ghz? That's where he is, which significantly changes the results.
Um...the 2nd link shows that.

The 2nd link shows that the 2500k was set to 4.6 and the 6700k set to 4.8.

The point is, when you try and go to 144, you are going to be cpu and gpu bound. You will need to upgrade both unless you turn down details to remove the gpu bottleneck.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
638
126
I see what you are saying around the CPU bottleneck but I'm not sure this is the case. I would agree if I had a 1st gen.

I have it overclocked to 4.5ghz and get 12500 3D mark 11 score which is actually slightly higher than my friends i5 Haswell system (with a 290) I also score around the same as what I see in gaming benchmarks(to the exact frame in some cases, sometimes more). On CPU intensive gaming it hardly ever sits at 100% and my temps have never been above 52c.

I'm not saying that there isn't a bottleneck, but I have not seen any evidence of it and other Sandybridge owners still swear by their CPU's

Saying that, I do intend getting a new MB, CPU and memory so I can move forward with the new memory type etc. as I know I will get a performance boost by doing so.
They are correct. Your CPU will be holding you back for high-frame rate gaming. If you turn down settings in order to get more FPS to use the 144hz cap you actually increase CPU load and become CPU bound, even if its fine for up to 60 fps. Even the fastest CPUs there are max overclocked can still bottleneck when you're getting up to over 100 fps.

I had to upgrade my 2500k @ 4.5 ghz for Fallout 4 on a 290 due to the bottleneck. I've noticed a pretty dramatic difference in CPU bound games going to my 5820k with fast RAM over my old 4.5 ghz 2500k with ddr3-1600, so I wouldn't swear by Sandy for high end gaming at all. At 1080p60, yeah. At 1440p144, no.

I'd say go for a full platform upgrade and then see where your finances put you after that. Maybe youll have enough leftover for a 1070 or maybe you'll want to wait and save for GP102 and Vega so you can get a bigger upgrade.
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Um...the 2nd link shows that.

The 2nd link shows that the 2500k was set to 4.6 and the 6700k set to 4.8.

The point is, when you try and go to 144, you are going to be cpu and gpu bound. You will need to upgrade both unless you turn down details to remove the gpu bottleneck.
The 2nd link tested 1 game. I also don't argue that for 144 FPS you need a faster CPU, but that is also going to be game dependent. Neither CPU is getting 144 FPS in many games regardless. I tend to think of the 144 FPS desired gamers to either be naive or smart enough to except 85+ FPS.

For the most part, depending on the games he plays, he can do reasonably well with the CPU he has. The question is what is more important to him; higher details, or higher FPS?
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
They are correct. Your CPU will be holding you back for high-frame rate gaming. If you turn down settings in order to get more FPS to use the 144hz cap you actually increase CPU load and become CPU bound, even if its fine for up to 60 fps. Even the fastest CPUs there are max overclocked can still bottleneck when you're getting up to over 100 fps.

I had to upgrade my 2500k @ 4.5 ghz for Fallout 4 on a 290 due to the bottleneck. I've noticed a pretty dramatic difference in CPU bound games going to my 5820k with fast RAM over my old 4.5 ghz 2500k with ddr3-1600, so I wouldn't swear by Sandy for high end gaming at all. At 1080p60, yeah. At 1440p144, no.

I'd say go for a full platform upgrade and then see where your finances put you after that. Maybe youll have enough leftover for a 1070 or maybe you'll want to wait and save for GP102 and Vega so you can get a bigger upgrade.
I get 134 fps in Overwatch on Ultra Preset which is 7 fps lower than here http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page2.html

They tested on a 6700k.

I get no stutter or sudden FPS drops and have even since completely maxed it out (not tested the average for a definate result but it variates between 90 - 144 according to the in game chart)

A 1070@1440p won't get over 60 fps in most games regardless of CPU, it just simply doesn't have the bandwidth. Again, I doubt my CPU will bottleneck here.

Just for reference, I get a solid 299 capped in CS:GO and Left4Dead 2 (very old, I know but still a lot of frames :))
 

BlueW1zard

Member
Jul 8, 2016
25
0
0
PHP:
The 2nd link tested 1 game. I also don't argue that for 144 FPS you need a faster CPU, but that is also going to be game dependent. Neither CPU is getting 144 FPS in many games regardless. I tend to think of the 144 FPS desired gamers to either be naive or smart enough to except 85+ FPS.

For the most part, depending on the games he plays, he can do reasonably well with the CPU he has. The question is what is more important to him; higher details, or higher FPS?
My expectations are that a 1070 will push my fps between 60 and 130 on most games. 144hz isn't achievable on most games (maxed out) even with a 6700k, it's just a cap you aim for.
 

Headfoot

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2008
4,444
638
126
I get 134 fps in Overwatch on Ultra Preset which is 7 fps lower than here http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page2.html

They tested on a 6700k.

I get no stutter or sudden FPS drops and have even since completely maxed it out (not tested the average for a definate result but it variates between 90 - 144 according to the in game chart)

A 1070@1440p won't get over 60 fps in most games regardless of CPU, it just simply doesn't have the bandwidth. Again, I doubt my CPU will bottleneck here.

Just for reference, I get a solid 299 capped in CS:GO and Left4Dead 2 (very old, I know but still a lot of frames :))
Those are basically the easiest games you can possibly run... not a very good representative test at all.

I was CPU bound in fallout 4 at 1080p60fps. CPU bound in the Division as well. CPU/memory bound in Witcher for minimum frame rate.

Your minimum framerates will improve quite a bit with a platform upgrade too between the CPU increase and RAM speed increase. Lots of little dips and stutters you got used to seeing will no longer happen.

a 6700k @ 4.5+ with DDR4 3600 would be a noticeable improvement even with your 290 and even more so on a 1070 where you push into the upper boundary of what FPS your 2500k can push.

But yeah, what the hell do I know, I'm only a guy who had a 2500k @ 4.5 with a 290 who upgraded his platform.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I get 134 fps in Overwatch on Ultra Preset which is 7 fps lower than here http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page2.html

They tested on a 6700k.

I get no stutter or sudden FPS drops and have even since completely maxed it out (not tested the average for a definate result but it variates between 90 - 144 according to the in game chart)

A 1070@1440p won't get over 60 fps in most games regardless of CPU, it just simply doesn't have the bandwidth. Again, I doubt my CPU will bottleneck here.

Just for reference, I get a solid 299 capped in CS:GO and Left4Dead 2 (very old, I know but still a lot of frames :))
Keep in mind that their test system was a 4.0 ghz 6700k. Yours is a 4.5 ghz 2500k. With a 12.5% OC over their cpu, you are getting fewer fps. A new 6700k $330-$350 plus a new mobo. A 1070 $400 if you can find one.

It kinda leaves you in a slight advantage for gpu, but keep in mind you wont get the full fps of a 1070. Its in the situation I am in with my 2500k and 6950. Im just waiting until early 2017 and doing a whole new system.
 

boozzer

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2012
1,549
17
81
how long do you plan to keep your card? your budget? do you mind selling your card after a year? so many questions you need to answer before people here can help you. Don't fight heir advice, they are just trying to help you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY