Solved

Do I need to upgrade more to fit a 1070 Ti

Hey guys, I am in the market to finally upgrade my very old rig.

My current specs :

CPU : I5 3550k

GPU : GTX 680 2g

PSU : Seasonic SS-750KM

MOBO: Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H

Ram: G.Skill sniper 8g
_____________

I am currently looking to upgrade my 680 to a 1070 Ti, but I'm worried some of my older parts may not be able to support the new card.

I have plenty of room in the case for the 1070 ti,I think, but I'm not sure if my PSU can support the connections.

I will be gaming at 2560x1080@60hz with 2 secondary monitors at 1920x1080@60hz. I only display the game on one monitor at a time, for the record.

Do you think my CPU will be able to keep up with the card?


Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment about my computer setting up for social security in the next few years.
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about upgrade fit 1070
  1. Yes. Unfortunatly there is some sort of serious bottleneck in there. Also, if your PSU is already 4 or more years old i highly recommend to replace it. Specially if you are gonna invest in something expensive like a 1070ti that can be Fried by your PSU in a matter of seconds and unfortunally there is no warranty that can help you out in that kind of cases.
    What i see here is that you have 2 options right now:
    1- Sell the whole pc and build a new one
    2- Go for a lower spec GPU like 1050 ti and thats actually the lastest upgrade you will do to that PC.
  2. Ramlethal said:
    Yes. Unfortunatly there is some sort of serious bottleneck in there. Also, if your PSU is already 4 or more years old i highly recommend to replace it. Specially if you are gonna invest in something expensive like a 1070ti that can be Fried by your PSU in a matter of seconds and unfortunally there is no warranty that can help you out in that kind of cases.
    What i see here is that you have 2 options right now:
    1- Sell the whole pc and build a new one
    2- Go for a lower spec GPU like 1050 ti and thats actually the lastest upgrade you will do to that PC.


    Yeowch. I don't think I could even get enough money from selling it to set up a new rig, my budget is just a few hundred over what the 1070 Ti would cost.

    This does not bode well for my old girl.
  3. Best answer
    I have to disagree. There MAY or MAY NOT be some bottleneck due to the CPU. It depends on the games you're playing, as some are more heavily CPU dependent than GPU dependent. The 3550k, while aging, is still a competent processor.

    Likewise with RAM. 16GB would probably be better, but I don't know if there's a whole lot of games that really need more than 8GB. Depends on the games you're playing.

    That said, I think the biggest issue is your (2560x1080) monitor's resolution and refresh. That's too much for a 680 with 2gb.

    Performance-wise, a 1050Ti would be a side-grade at best, and I would VERY strongly recommend AGAINST getting a 1050Ti to replace the 680. The 1070Ti is maybe a bit of overkill, but... first:

    1 - What games are you playing? Knowing that will let other members (I'm not an expert on this aspect) be able to determine if your CPU is really holding anything up.

    2 - Does your main gaming monitor have FreeSync, GSync, or neither?

    2a - if GSync, go with a 1070 or if it's not much more, a 1070Ti. A 1070 is considered a "max details at 2560x1440 @ 60fps" card, but it can handle 2560x1080 more easily because that's only 75% of the pixels that a 2560x1440 has. A 1070Ti would give you more breathing room for the future.

    2b - if FreeSync, go with a Vega56. It's a little faster than the 1070, a little slower than the 1070Ti. It is, however, something of a power hog. Also, consider the Vega64. It trades blows with a GTX 1080, and I've seen them occasionally pop up on sale for the same price (or occasionally slightly less) than a Vega56. However, the Vega64 is even more power-hungry than the Vega56. However, your PSU is more than up to the task, and can handle just about any GPU you can throw at it.

    2c - if neither FreeSync nor GSync, then pick whichever you want or whichever you can get a great deal on from among, in (approximate) order of performance: GTX 1070, Vega56, GTX 1070Ti, GTX 1080, Vega64, RTX 2070, trying to weigh in bang-per-buck, power consumption (if that's a concern, Nvidia is FAR more power efficient than AMD), etc. Since your monitor is 60Hz, assuming you are using Vsync, then the 1070 non-Ti should be plenty, and the least costly solution. (then again, I've occasionally seen a 1070Ti here and there for only $20 more than the 1070, which is well worth considering even if it's a little overkill)

    Footnote - If you're considering a monitor upgrade in the relatively near future, keep in mind that GSync monitors tend to cost significantly more than FreeSync. On the other hand, any of the adaptive sync technologies are probably more in the realm of "nice to have" rather than "absolute necessity."


    I, uh, hope that all came out clearly, rather than confusing.
  4. King_V said:
    snip

    I, uh, hope that all came out clearly, rather than confusing.


    I really didn't look too deeply into the 2560x1080, and hadn't really considered that it might be straining my current card. ( I get fairly solid performance, but I don't play that many extremely demanding games, though I do play them at much lower settings these days. )

    1. I mainly play a game called Path of Exile, I would consider it mid-range in terms of performance demands? It tends to have a large amount of particle effects at any given time, but it's not getting into the realm of extreme textures or anything.

    I like to dabble with some triple A games, but I am by no means yearning to play at max settings and the highest FPS achievable. I would be perfectly content to play at lower settings with a smooth framerate.

    Some games I am currently considering playing or getting would be Hitman 2, GTA V, Just Cause 3 ( Not 4. ). They are mostly older titles, save for the first. My primary concern is just the age of my parts at this point and their slowly degrading performance. I'd like my games to be as pretty as possible, but I'm not a stickler for seeing everything set to "Ultra".

    2. Neither, I actually don't even know what those are. I've been quite happy with my system for years now and haven't looked at upgrades. I'm well behind the times of available technology.

    I feel as if I've followed you pretty well, and I think my primary concern would just be making sure I can cover the current demands of my 3 monitor set up. ( Ultra-widescreen gaming has ruined me. I only play on the 2560x1080 if I can help it. )
    I tend to disable Vsync while gaming if that's of any importance, my monitors are just 60hz monitors so I don't think I'd really see any difference?
  5. Well, while I can't address the specifics of those games (I play none of those), I can say that the parts don't slowly degrade and lose performance.

    Ok, I mean, I suppose if dust buildup and airflow problems start happening, there will be throttling from heat, but assuming that's not at issue, everything should perform as capably as if they were new parts. Otherwise you'd get instability, crashes, or things simply not working at all.

    On the FreeSync/GSync question - these are adaptive refresh technologies. In effect, they allow for the system to adjust the monitor's refresh rate on-the-fly. I don't have experience with GSync, but with FreeSync, you can set a minimum and maximum rate (the monitor will be what determines this, as they have a minimum and maximum refresh rate), and if the GPU hits a point where it can't deliver as many frames as in other parts of the game, the monitor's refresh rate will adjust. This helps maintain smoothness.

    On my own system I can't do this (Nvidia card, but FreeSync monitor), but on my son's system (FreeSync monitor + AMD card), it's quite nice. I've seen him play a game where the frame count varies quite widely (from mid-30s to 60 fps) and, despite vsync being on (well, set at what AMD's driver's calls "enhanced sync", there is NO tearing or stuttering.

    I like it a lot, and wish that either my monitor had GSync (no 38" 3840x1600 monitors do that I'm aware of) or that AMD's Vega 64 was less power-hungry and not ridiculously overpriced due to the cryptocurrency craze at the time (That I got my GTX 1080 from Nvidia at the standard MSRP back in February this year, within the 5 minutes before it sold out, was nothing short of a miracle).

    I always keep Vsync enabled because tearing when it's disabled drives me absolutely bonkers.


    Oh, and welcome to the Ultrawide Nation! Once you go ultrawide, you can never go back! I used to call it a gimmick, and now I'm practically an ultrawide-evangelist. :D
  6. King_V said:
    Well, while I can't address the specifics of those games (I play none of those), I can say that the parts don't slowly degrade and lose performance.

    Ok, I mean, I suppose if dust buildup and airflow problems start happening, there will be throttling from heat, but assuming that's not at issue, everything should perform as capably as if they were new parts. Otherwise you'd get instability, crashes, or things simply not working at all.

    On the FreeSync/GSync question - these are adaptive refresh technologies. In effect, they allow for the system to adjust the monitor's refresh rate on-the-fly. I don't have experience with GSync, but with FreeSync, you can set a minimum and maximum rate (the monitor will be what determines this, as they have a minimum and maximum refresh rate), and if the GPU hits a point where it can't deliver as many frames as in other parts of the game, the monitor's refresh rate will adjust. This helps maintain smoothness.

    On my own system I can't do this (Nvidia card, but FreeSync monitor), but on my son's system (FreeSync monitor + AMD card), it's quite nice. I've seen him play a game where the frame count varies quite widely (from mid-30s to 60 fps) and, despite vsync being on (well, set at what AMD's driver's calls "enhanced sync", there is NO tearing or stuttering.

    I like it a lot, and wish that either my monitor had GSync (no 38" 3840x1600 monitors do that I'm aware of) or that AMD's Vega 64 was less power-hungry and not ridiculously overpriced due to the cryptocurrency craze at the time (That I got my GTX 1080 from Nvidia at the standard MSRP back in February this year, within the 5 minutes before it sold out, was nothing short of a miracle).

    I always keep Vsync enabled because tearing when it's disabled drives me absolutely bonkers.


    Oh, and welcome! Once you go ultrawide, you can never go back! I used to call it a gimmick, and now I'm practically an ultrawide-evangelist.


    Well, I more so meant that my 680 used to be a beast when she first came rolling out of Nvidia's warehouses, but these days there's actually challengers approaching and games that make the card work much harder than it used to. I've been lucky so far and the degradation feels fairly minimal, but with the rate at which technology can move, I'm starting to fear the future.

    I've definitely done some thorough cleaning and maintain her as best as I can, though I've started finding myself running into various software issues. ( Was having the recent Nvidia driver issue causing blackscreens on boot. Had to drop Win7 and go win10, pretty much solved my issue entirely. :( )

    That actually sounds like a pretty awesome solution to variable FPS in games. That way you don't have that immense drop in quality during particularly demanding portions of games.

    I think at this point I'm going to be doing some serious research on my most played game ( P.O.E ) and see what I can do to ensure maximized performance there. I can make due elsewhere with very little complaint, so I can't really justify dropping a few hundred on nothing more than peace of mind right now. It feels a bit wasteful if my current card is still very close to performing well and my next closest option shoots me to the moon, you know?

    So true about Ultrawide. I feel like I'm playing in a shoebox if I have to use one of my 1920x1080 monitors now.

    Thanks a lot for your help and advice!
  7. I did find this particular thread from 2 years ago about Path of Exile . . I got through the first page of it, then threw my hands in the air and said "I have no idea . . it's GPU bound, CPU bound, driver bound, and evil spirits bound!!"

    https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1595743


    And, I know what you mean about feeling like a shoebox! I actually would've been happier with a 3440x1440 or 2560x1080 ultrawide, as it would be less demanding on the GPU, but, for work purposes (on those days when I work from home), I needed the horizontal resolution to match the two standard 1920x1080 monitors side by side at the office.

    In hindsight, though, the loss of only 400 pixels (3440 vs 3840) had I gone with 3440x1440 might have been acceptable/close enough. Still, the need for work was the only thing that really justified going with the mega-monitor I have. My R9 285 video card (now in my son's computer) at the time did NOT appreciate trying to run things at 3840x1600, though, FreeSync or not!

    Another cool feature of some FreeSync monitors is those with what's called LFC (Low Framerate Compensation). I would assume that Nvidia's GSync has an equivalent, but I don't know for sure.

    LFC is only possible in monitors where the maximum FreeSync rate is at least 2-1/2 times the minimum rate. In the example of my son's monitor, it has that feature, and the range is 50-144Hz. I don't know if all of them that have max >= 2.5x min have it - I would not assume LFC is present unless the monitor specs explicitly say so.

    (side note: I am not sure why the max has to be 2.5x the minimum, I would've guessed it would work even if the max was double the minimum)

    So, in the example I'm using, the minimum is 50 and the max is 144. If the frame rate dips below 50fps, say drops to 40fps, then what happens is that the FreeSync + LFC will set the refresh rate to DOUBLE what the frame rate is, and display each frame twice in a row. So, in this case, the monitor would run at 80fps and display each of the incoming frames twice.


    https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lg-34uc79g-34-inch-ultra-wide-freesync-monitor,4891.html
    This review of my son's monitor (from almost 2 years ago) explains it a little. Having glanced over it again, it makes me wonder if I should really be setting "Enhanced Sync" for Vsync in the drivers, or leaving it off. And, if I should be disabling Vsync in the games themselves.

    Uh, I realize my understanding of this is slightly flawed, LOL, but the basic idea is right, even if I'm a bit off on some of the details.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel i5