• 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."

Worth Upgrading an I5-4690?

Muscles

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
424
13
81
The last machine I built was back in June of 2014 and I'm trying to justify an upgrade. Specs are as follows:

MB BIOSTAR|B85MG B85 MATX R
VGA SAPPHIRE|100364L R9 270X R
PSU EVGA 100-W1-0500-KR R
CPU INTEL|CORE I5 4690 3.5G 6M R
SSD 256G|CRUCIAL CT256MX100SSD1 R
MEM 8Gx2|GSKILL F3-1600C9D-16GAR R

I really wanted to buy one of the new Ryzen CPUs. However, I don't think that platform would give me much of an upgrade. I primarily only use my pc for gaming competitively at 1080p. The most cost effective thing to do is just upgrade my graphics card but I guess I was hoping someone could help me justify going to a new platform.
 

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,481
127
106
I have a 4790K and an R9 270 but you are right you only need to upgrade the video card. Also at the present AM4 mobo's are scare so you would be better off waiting before upgrading your mobo and CPU.

Why is there an R at the end of all your parts?
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
Save the platfom upgrade until your next graphics card upgrade after this one. i5-4690 is still good enough to handle an RX 480 or GTX 1070.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PliotronX

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
Yeah, I would upgrade the GPU alone. That was a mid-range GPU when it was launched four years ago. Even an RX 480 would net you huge performance gains. A CPU, RAM and motherboard upgrade would be far less beneficial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken g6

JimKiler

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2002
3,481
127
106
Yeah, I would upgrade the GPU alone. That was a mid-range GPU when it was launched four years ago. Even an RX 480 would net you huge performance gains. A CPU, RAM and motherboard upgrade would be far less beneficial.
I am waiting for the RX 580 or whatever they call it, hopefully it is priced similar so i can afford it.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
I am waiting for the RX 580 or whatever they call it, hopefully it is priced similar so i can afford it.
If the rumors are true and it's a tweaked/optimized "rebrand", it'll probably be the same price. (Now, I think rebranding chips at the same naming level (i.e. 480 - > 580) with only marginal performance increases (~10%) would be a truly dumb move and far, far too reminiscent of the R9 300-series debacle, but that's another discussion entirely (and they might have painted themselves into a corner by naming the Vega cards RX Vega...).)

Probably a decent idea - or you could find a good RX 480 on sale when the start clearing out stock. Or, who knows, maybe low-end Vega really kicks the 1070s ass at $50 less?
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
What monitor are you using?

If you're really wanting to blow some $ I'm sure a new GPU + high refresh rate monitor would do the job...
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
What monitor are you using?

If you're really wanting to blow some $ I'm sure a new GPU + high refresh rate monitor would do the job...
That's a decent idea. Although whether high refresh rate is worth it is very dependent on the type of games played. A good balance would be a middling refresh (~90-120Hz) rate Freesync monitor with a VA or IPS panel. 1080p or 1440p, depending on budget, the accompanying GPU, and availability. This would be a nice enough monitor to pretty much keep around until it fails, while balancing hardware requirements, visual quality and smoothness.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
That's a decent idea. Although whether high refresh rate is worth it is very dependent on the type of games played. A good balance would be a middling refresh (~90-120Hz) rate Freesync monitor with a VA or IPS panel. 1080p or 1440p, depending on budget, the accompanying GPU, and availability. This would be a nice enough monitor to pretty much keep around until it fails, while balancing hardware requirements, visual quality and smoothness.
How about you let OP answer before speculating. They clearly stated the PC is used for "gaming competitively at 1080p", so lets hear why they said. So depending on how OP answers my question we can decide if it's worth moving on with the "new monitor" line of thinking.

Most of what you said was purely subjective and speculative, I could easily offer viable alternatives contradicting all of it, but that wouldn't be helpful either..
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
How about you let OP answer before speculating. They clearly stated the PC is used for "gaming competitively at 1080p", so lets hear why they said. So depending on how OP answers my question we can decide if it's worth moving on with the "new monitor" line of thinking.

Most of what you said was purely subjective and speculative, I could easily offer viable alternatives contradicting all of it, but that wouldn't be helpful either..
Wow, did I somehow step on your toes? Is the propagation of high refresh rate monitors very near and dear to your heart? Just offering a suggestion, nothing more. You're aware that this is a discussion forum, right? Yes, the OP said "gaming competitively at 1080p," but in what games? The requirements for CS:GO, CoD, DOTA, LoL, StarCraft and Rocket League (to name a few random games) are quite different. As such, I offered a middle-of-the-road suggestion, while adding that IMO, image quality and color reproduction definitely matters. It might not give you a competitive edge, but it can make gameplay more fun and general PC usage more pleasant. And while the step up to 1440p requires more GPU performance, 1440p90 doesn't tax a GPU more than 1080p240.

Besides, what shopping advice isn't subjective and speculative? Oh, by the way: you can't contradict an opinion. You could offer an opposing one, though. And of course you could say that you'd prefer a 10000Hz black and white VGA gaming monitor, but what does that add to the debate? I was simply putting forward that unless specifically wanted/needed, it's easy to fall for marketing hype ("Infinite Hz! Negative input lag!" (just look at the TV market ...)) while forgetting less easily quantified factors that might be just as important in day-to-day usage. I'm simply pointing out that beyond ~100-120Hz, there are diminishing returns to higher refresh rates, with ever higher costs, and that you on top of that lose the option for panels with good color reproduction and viewing angles. The OP might not care about color, or might need ultra-high refresh rates - how on earth am I supposed to know? Again: simply offering advice. If you don't agree with it, offer your own.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
That's a decent idea. Although whether high refresh rate is worth it is very dependent on the type of games played. A good balance would be a middling refresh (~90-120Hz) rate Freesync monitor with a VA or IPS panel. 1080p or 1440p, depending on budget, the accompanying GPU, and availability. This would be a nice enough monitor to pretty much keep around until it fails, while balancing hardware requirements, visual quality and smoothness.
A new monitor is a great idea. Higher refresh rates monitors are always superior, how much better depends on a few factors but as a competitive player it's definitely worth it no matter what games are played. "Middling" refresh rates (~90-120Hz) are rare on your chosen resolution, and the best refresh rates for competitive gaming is given by TN panels. Ultrawide monitors provide a good alternative at all budget levels, and there's no point jumping on a GPU now after you've waited so long already; best wait for a good deal. Monitors are the best "investment" one can make in computer hardware, in the long term it's better to spend as much as possible on a monitor now rather than balance hardware requirements.

^ Nothing I'm said is wrong given the information provided. And almost completely contradicts your useless speculation.

Again: it's best to wait for OP to provide more information before pretending we know best.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
A new monitor is a great idea. Higher refresh rates monitors are always superior, how much better depends on a few factors but as a competitive player it's definitely worth it no matter what games are played. "Middling" refresh rates (~90-120Hz) are rare on your chosen resolution, and the best refresh rates for competitive gaming is given by TN panels. Ultrawide monitors provide a good alternative at all budget levels, and there's no point jumping on a GPU now after you've waited so long already; best wait for a good deal. Monitors are the best "investment" one can make in computer hardware, in the long term it's better to spend as much as possible on a monitor now rather than balance hardware requirements.

^ Nothing I'm said is wrong given the information provided. And almost completely contradicts your useless speculation.

Again: it's best to wait for OP to provide more information before pretending we know best.
Jesus, you really don't understand the difference between opinion and personal attack, do you? Please, get your head out of your a**.

Sure, nothing you said above is wrong given the information provided. Nor is what I said. But some of it doesn't contradict me at all, and a lot of it is questionable.
A new monitor is a great idea.
Really? We don't even know what monitor the OP has. As such, that statement is perhaps wrong, but certainly not correct.
Higher refresh rates monitors are always superior, how much better depends on a few factors but as a competitive player it's definitely worth it no matter what games are played.
No. It comes down to ability, preference and priorities. Many gamers would never be able to tell the difference between 144 and 240Hz. And stating that refresh rates are the only determinant of monitor quality - even for edge cases like gaming - is arguably false. Input lag, monitor size, image quality, color reproduction, pixel response, and a whole host of other factors come into play, regardless of usage. The balance between priorities shift, but again, if "Higher refresh rates (sic) monitors are always superior" the ultimate gaming monitor would be a single pixel pulsing at several kHz. That's clearly not the case.
"Middling" refresh rates (~90-120Hz) are rare on your chosen resolution, and the best refresh rates for competitive gaming is given by TN panels.
I wouldn't say so. Sure, between 90 and 144 options are sparse, but they're there, and even at 144Hz there's a decent selection of VA and IPS panels. Of course, with FreeSync, it doesn't matter much wether a panel is 90, 120 or 144Hz as long as the framerate you hit is inside or above the FS range of the monitor.
Ultrawide monitors provide a good alternative at all budget levels
As ultrawide monitors are generally more expensive than regular 16:9 monitors, that's a pretty clear no ...

This discussion essentially boils down to you saying "maybe consider getting a new monitor", me replying "yeah, that might be an idea, but if that's an option, keep in mind all the relevant factors", and you then replying "OMG STFU NONONONONONONONONO MY OPINION IS OBJECTIVE FACT AND YOURS IS WRONG." Let's leave it at that, no? I don't think the OP gains much from reading this.
 

richaron

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,357
329
136
I understand speculation when I see it. It's why I'm trying to get the message through to you, the OP, and everyone else reading this thread.

With my initial question I could have blabbered on about monitors but I deliberately didn't; I made a clear and concise question to ascertain whether a new monitor should even be a subject of discussion. From there we can move onto recommendations which could quite easily/likely be completely different from your speculations.

I didn't call what you said useless as a personal attack; at all times I try to be objective and informative.

However I didn't want to spam this thread with bickering so I do apologise.
 

Muscles

Senior member
Jul 16, 2003
424
13
81
I'll be playing Quake Champions primarily once closed beta kicks off. A steady 120+ fps is the goal. Other games I play are King of the Kill, PlayerUnknown Battlegrounds, and Escape from Tarkov.
 

Valantar

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2014
1,792
508
136
Neither of those games seem to have very high system requirements, but since they're not launched yet outside of H1Z1: KotK, it's hard to tell. Betas are notoriously unstable and often perform horribly, so there's that. From reading what system requirements are out there, I would think an RX 480 would get you close to 1080p 120fps in all of them, but at this point that's pure speculation. Might be safer to go with a GTX 1070-level GPU. Wether you get one now or wait for Vega and see what happens, I guess that's up to you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY