Would I need to change CPU to get better FPS?


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

My current system is:

Intel Core i5 3570K @ 3.4Ghz, 16GB DDR3 1600Mhz Ram, MSI Gamer X nVidia GeForce 1070 8GB, Windows 10 64 Bit. My OS HD is a 128GB SSD, but my 'gaming' drive is 6TB HDD

 

I have it hooked up to my 4K TV. I am looking at getting a solid 60fps @ 4K with ultra settings or near Ultra. Would upgrading the graphics card be enough, or would it be better off replacing the CPU, motherboard and RAM? Oh, and the liquid cooler (grr)....

4ks sweet spot is also 32Gb ram. 

 

even with my sig machine and 16Gb of ram (+1080ti FE) its approx 25% slower than an identical build, the only difference is he has 4x8s at 2400mhz ram compared to my 2x8@3200mhz ram.

 

a 1070 wont do ultra in modern titles at a stable 4k@60fps, your talking a 1080ti or 1080 to be able to do that, even then its hit n miss.

 

for me itll be another 16Gb of DDR3200 when i purchase a 4k display.

2 minutes ago, Riva said:

I just checked and it was 2.5GB system RAM and 4.7 video RAM. This is at UHD @ 60fps. And i do have a second 4k UHD monitor hooked up as well

Im not saying i cant run eveything at ultra@4k, but i was surprised how much higher the identical machines FPS was over my own, the only difference was, an extra 16Gb of ram, while i was hitting say 55-60fps his was easily 70-90fps on average. Same components, same GPU (both EVGA 1080ti founders) This was in real world testing/burn in when i built the second machine.

 

I have way higher R/Ws over the drives (4x256SSDs in raid0 striped for games vol) but raw FPS his build trounced mine, it could only be the extra 16Gb of sys ram.

Thanks guys :)

Time to do the sad face and look at the possibility of building a new system - urrghhhh 

Are Ryzen CPUs now comparable to Intel ones, or is Intel still the ones to get? arrghhh at GPU prices!

2 hours ago, Riva said:

Weird that you need so much system ram. It could depend on the game engine i guess.

yep, this was various titles and benchmarks tested, was surprised tbh. but hey whats another £150 for another 16Gb of ram compared to the £2k plus ive spent so far lol

2 hours ago, Riva said:

Based on benchmarks Ryzen is comparable. Threadripper seems better so far if you are going for the high end but at the same time we havent seen the i9 X/XE in benchmarks yet

yep, as games become more multicore aware, they Ryzens should in theory gain the edge over the i7s. definately the closest AMD have got in gaming circles to Intel for decades. #

 

im an intel & NV man personally, always have been always will.

9 minutes ago, xendrome said:

What motherboard are you using?

A crap one...

Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D2V Motherboard

 

WOW - just looked up the order... was from 2012! Apart from the graphics card lol

Here is a good one to upgrade to

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor  (£178.95 @ Aria PC) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350 PC MATE ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£79.47 @ CCL Computers) 
Memory: *Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Total: £377.92
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-08 20:30 BST+0100

 

OR

 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  (£274.39 @ Amazon UK) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350 PC MATE ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£79.47 @ CCL Computers) 
Memory: *Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Total: £473.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-08 20:38 BST+0100

 

Edited by Mockingbird

ok, I'm going to break with some here.  60fps - 4K at Ultra (or near) for a 1070 is going to be hard ... regardless of the CPU.  Heck ... even the 1080ti struggles on some games at achieving this.  With regards to the CPU ... once again it really depends on what you are playing.  Some games lean heavy on the CPU ... while most (I'd say) lean heavily on the GPU.  The higher the resolution the more strain the GPU takes (higher res really doesn't affect the CPU as much)

 

Anyway, the GPU is your bottleneck at 4K.  Volta should be coming early '18 ... see what it has to offer because if you want "a solid 60fps @ 4K with ultra settings or near Ultra" ... you're probably going to need to wait.  Save up your pennies. 

13 hours ago, Mando said:

4ks sweet spot is also 32Gb ram. 

 

even with my sig machine and 16Gb of ram (+1080ti FE) its approx 25% slower than an identical build, the only difference is he has 4x8s at 2400mhz ram compared to my 2x8@3200mhz ram.

 

a 1070 wont do ultra in modern titles at a stable 4k@60fps, your talking a 1080ti or 1080 to be able to do that, even then its hit n miss.

 

for me itll be another 16Gb of DDR3200 when i purchase a 4k display.

16 GB system RAM is more than enough for current 4K gaming.

 

The GPU clock rate and VRAM are what's important.

4 hours ago, WildWayz said:

Is it worthwhile getting the X chip over standard?

 

PS thanks for the suggestions. That'll be a good start then save for a 1080.

 

Maybe 60hz 2k is more realistic?

The "X" processors are better binned which means that they can overclocked higher.

 

I don't know what that is worth to you.

 

I have a Ryzen 7 1700X so I guess that it is worth it to me.

Slight tweak to Mockingbird's suggestion

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  (£274.39 @ Amazon UK) 
CPU Cooler: NZXT - Kraken X31 69.5 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  (£53.98 @ YoYoTech) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£96.97 @ CCL Computers) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£132.12 @ Amazon UK) 
Storage: Seagate - Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£80.87 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £757.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-09 09:02 BST+0100

 

 

Still not sure about buying the extra storage. My current 7TB is spread out over a couple of 2TB drives and a 3TB external... and my SSD is quite small and a few years old, so it may begin to get read only sectors... Also the CPU cooler. I am assuming that my  Corsair CW-9060007-WW Hydro Series H60 can only be used on the Intel chips/mobo?

Or would this be better - again using my current H60 cooler?
 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel - Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£299.94 @ Aria PC) 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste  (£6.49 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Motherboard: MSI - Z270 GAMING M3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£124.20 @ Amazon UK) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£132.12 @ Amazon UK) 
Storage: Seagate - Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£80.87 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £763.12
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-09 09:51 BST+0100

1 hour ago, WildWayz said:

Slight tweak to Mockingbird's suggestion

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  (£274.39 @ Amazon UK) 
CPU Cooler: NZXT - Kraken X31 69.5 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  (£53.98 @ YoYoTech) 
Motherboard: MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£96.97 @ CCL Computers) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£132.12 @ Amazon UK) 
Storage: Seagate - Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£80.87 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £757.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-09 09:02 BST+0100

 

 

Still not sure about buying the extra storage. My current 7TB is spread out over a couple of 2TB drives and a 3TB external... and my SSD is quite small and a few years old, so it may begin to get read only sectors... Also the CPU cooler. I am assuming that my  Corsair CW-9060007-WW Hydro Series H60 can only be used on the Intel chips/mobo?

I replaced the MSI B350 Tomahawk with the AsRock AB350 Pro 4.

 

The B350 Tomahawk seems to have a lot of issues esp. with long post time.

 

The AB350 Pro 4, on the other hand, is more reliable and don't have any known issues.

 

I also replaced the 120mm liquid cooler with a bigger (& cheaper)  240mm liquid cooler.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor  (£274.39 @ Amazon UK) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master - Seidon 240V 95.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  (£46.99 @ Scan.co.uk) 
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard  (£85.18 @ BT Shop) 
Memory: Team - Vulcan 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 Memory  (£119.50 @ Overclockers.co.uk) 
Storage: Crucial - MX300 525GB 2.5" Solid State Drive  (£132.12 @ Amazon UK) 
Storage: Seagate - Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£80.87 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £739.05
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-08-09 09:51 BST+0100

Edited by Mockingbird
11 minutes ago, WildWayz said:

Thanks again Mockingbird :)

I used to be so up on hardware before I got married... now it's like I am a total n00b again :)

I was out of the loop for a very long time and only had to catchup recently because I wanted to upgrade my hardware.

 

Anyway, as I said, Corsair H60 is compatible with AM4/Ryzen right out of the box.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!