• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Help with upgrade

D

DeusAbsconditus

Junior Member
This is my current set up and I want to be able to the newest games at high quality. I had a budget when i built this and still want to keep it low but what would you recommend upgrading? Should I SLI my 660's or just buy a new single GPU? I am still a novice computer builder. I originally built it because i was excited for The Elder Scrolls Online but that game was horrible.

VGA: EVGA GTX 660 FTW Signature 2
CPU: AMD FX 8350 4.0GHz-4.2GHz Tubo
MB: ASUS M5A97 LE R.2.0 AM3+
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x4GB) DDR3 1600
HDD : W.Digital 500GB 7200RPM 16 MB Cache
PSU: Corsair 650W
CASE: Rosewill Challenger
TV: Vizio 46In




Moved from PC Gaming

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm running a GTX660 and I haven't run into any games I couldn't play on high settings recently. Thing is most games are ports from other platforms with lower GPU capabilities anyway, so they usually aren't pushing your card that hard. Maybe put in another 8GB of ram?
 
You're probably not bottlenecking much right now but if you have money to burn I'd recommend migrating to an intel platform. I moved from 8350 which was bottlenecking 2x7970 to a 4790k and saw a massive performance increase across the board. This may not apply to a 660, I have no experience with that card.
 
Markbnj said:
I'm running a GTX660 and I haven't run into any games I couldn't play on high settings recently. Thing is most games are ports from other platforms with lower GPU capabilities anyway, so they usually aren't pushing your card that hard. Maybe put in another 8GB of ram?
Click to expand...

Agree. Do you have something now that is running low framerates? I am running the same resolution and haven't hit any limitations.

If the computer just "feels slow" in general, upgrade to an SSD.
 
ketchup79 said:
Agree. Do you have something now that is running low framerates? I am running the same resolution and haven't hit any limitations.

If the computer just "feels slow" in general, upgrade to an SSD.
Click to expand...

I think i might upgrade to an SSD. The games I played;Tomb Raider, Bioshocke Infinite, and Metro couldnt run at full capacity, the frame rate would drop but i maybe its because of the cheaper card? Would SLI fix the issue? or more RAM?
 
If at 1080P, I would think either some system issue, or the CPU. My CPU should generally be faster for those games, and at no settings will it constantly maintain 60 FPS, except for Tomb Raider (where the pointless ultra settings bring it down, but lower settings look 95% as good), assuming Metro is LL or the Redux (I have 2033 as the Redux version).

Use MSI Afterburner, and check your GPU use %. If it's at 100% most of the time, it's the video card slowing things down.

P.S. Xeon E3-1230V3 and a GTX 970.
 
DeusAbsconditus said:
I think i might upgrade to an SSD. The games I played;Tomb Raider, Bioshocke Infinite, and Metro couldnt run at full capacity, the frame rate would drop but i maybe its because of the cheaper card? Would SLI fix the issue? or more RAM?
Click to expand...

I found a graph from a CPU comparison for Tomb Raider, indicating that the card is the deciding factor here:
63234.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/...iew-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/9

And here is a GPU comparison for Metro, which also indicates a better card would help you:
67706.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/10

So, for at least some of the some of the games you listed (I'll let you do more searching on your own if you like), a better card would be of some value.
 
ketchup79 said:
I found a graph from a CPU comparison for Tomb Raider, indicating that the card is the deciding factor here:
63234.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7963/...iew-core-i7-4790-i5-4690-and-i3-4360-tested/9

And here is a GPU comparison for Metro, which also indicates a better card would help you:
67706.png

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/10

So, for at least some of the some of the games you listed (I'll let you do more searching on your own if you like), a better card would be of some value.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Thanks for the info. Now a better question would be, Should i upgrade my GPU or go SLI with 660s? I found a thread stating that 2 660s has the same output as 1 GTX 780. Anyone have experience with these?
 
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks like your board only supports CrossFireX, and not SLI (the second PCI-Express slot is only 4x).

At least it will make your upgrade decision a little easier.
 
ketchup79 said:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it looks like your board only supports CrossFireX, and not SLI (the second PCI-Express slot is only 4x).

At least it will make your upgrade decision a little easier.
Click to expand...

Though really it just forces you down the correct path. Running two midrange cards in SLI is a recipe for microstutter along with the usual SLI driver issues.

I think the performance upgrade to go for here is a GTX 970 like this Zotac for $330. However, that's on the condition that you're not satisfied with your machine's current gaming performance.
 
mfenn said:
Though really it just forces you down the correct path. Running two midrange cards in SLI is a recipe for microstutter along with the usual SLI driver issues.

I think the performance upgrade to go for here is a GTX 970 like this Zotac for $330. However, that's on the condition that you're not satisfied with your machine's current gaming performance.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Well, currently its OKAY. However Im afraid it wont run GTAV or any of the newer games coming out at max capacity. I will sell this gtx 660 and upgrade to the GTX 970. it almost doubles my output. Now will my power supply CORSAIR 650W run a GTX 970?
 
DeusAbsconditus said:
Gotcha. Well, currently its OKAY. However Im afraid it wont run GTAV or any of the newer games coming out at max capacity. I will sell this gtx 660 and upgrade to the GTX 970. it almost doubles my output. Now will my power supply CORSAIR 650W run a GTX 970?
Click to expand...

You should be fine as long as it isn't their cheap line.
 
mfenn said:
The GTX 970 is only a 145W card, which is actually just 5W more than the OP's current GTX 660.
Click to expand...

ketchup79 said:
Man that's amazing. I remember when my 660 was a great card in the performance per watt category.
Click to expand...

In real world tests though, GTX 970 uses a lot more power. Don't let the TDP fool you :|

AnandTech Bench, whole system AC watts
EVGA GTX 970 with reference BIOS - 300W in Crysis 3
GTX 660 - 234W in Crysis 3

Techpowerup GTX 970 review, GPU only DC watts
Asus Strix GTX 970 - 179W peak in Metro: Last Light
GTX 660 - 127W peak in Metro: Last Light
 
lehtv said:
In real world tests though, GTX 970 uses a lot more power. Don't let the TDP fool you :|

AnandTech Bench, whole system AC watts
EVGA GTX 970 with reference BIOS - 300W in Crysis 3
GTX 660 - 234W in Crysis 3

Techpowerup GTX 970 review, GPU only DC watts
Asus Strix GTX 970 - 179W peak in Metro: Last Light
GTX 660 - 127W peak in Metro: Last Light
Click to expand...

Honestly, that sounds a bit more expected, but for the performance I still don't think those are bad numbers.
 
lehtv said:
In real world tests though, GTX 970 uses a lot more power. Don't let the TDP fool you :|
Click to expand...
It's less that than the TDP being only applicable for cards that stick to it in their firmware. However, like the new CPUs, they can go over it for a short period of time, too.

firmware settings: http://cdn.overclock.net/2/28/284c46f7_TDPcompare.png
Source: http://www.overclock.net/t/1516121/gtx-970-comparison-strix-vs-msi-gaming-vs-gigabyte-g1
Left to right, that's 163W for the Strix (TPU measured 161W), 200W for the Gaming, and 250W for the G1, not adjusting the power limit programmatically (that's what the min and max set, IIRC). I've seen no confirmation, but given various reviews' peak readings, in conjunction with the firmware limits, I wouldn't be surprised if the max value acts as a short-term power limit, at stock settings.
 
lehtv said:
In real world tests though, GTX 970 uses a lot more power. Don't let the TDP fool you :|

AnandTech Bench, whole system AC watts
EVGA GTX 970 with reference BIOS - 300W in Crysis 3
GTX 660 - 234W in Crysis 3

Techpowerup GTX 970 review, GPU only DC watts
Asus Strix GTX 970 - 179W peak in Metro: Last Light
GTX 660 - 127W peak in Metro: Last Light
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks for pointing that out. It also looks like the GTX 660 is undershooting its TDP numbers by quite a bit, likely due to overall architectural inefficiencies relative to the newer cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top