Would I need to change CPU to get better FPS?

[WildWayz]

Just now, Mockingbird said:

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.

 

Thanks

I think i'll go with your suggestions - sounds good and cheap  Thanks again!

[Mockingbird]

5 minutes ago, WildWayz said:

 

Thanks

I think i'll go with your suggestions - sounds good and cheap  Thanks again!

Have fun.

 

And after you upgrade, don't forget to post photos!

[Mando]

12 hours ago, Elliot B. said:

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

 

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

aint what ive found in real world tests mate, 16Gb is sufficient, 32Gb allows for slightly higher frame rate at 4k (perhaps shader cache using ram, instead of disk space cache, not 100%), cant explain why, just what ive seen in 2 identical builds both built by myself. (identical components, bar the ram) 32Gb equipped system outperforms the 16Gb system despite the 16Gb being a much higher speed rated ram.

[SouthGate]

I run GTX 1070 SLI for the games that support it and it runs extremely well, even a single 1070 is pretty capable at 4K for the games that don't. You do have to compromise on some settings such as supersampling and anti-aliasing but it's adequate for even AAA titles I play. +350mhz on the memory clock and +170mhz on the core clock did give me a noticeable ~10fps boost.

 

20 minutes ago, Mando said:

aint what ive found in real world tests mate, 16Gb is sufficient, 32Gb allows for slightly higher frame rate at 4k (perhaps shader cache using ram, instead of disk space cache, not 100%), cant explain why, just what ive seen in 2 identical builds both built by myself. (identical components, bar the ram) 32Gb equipped system outperforms the 16Gb system despite the 16Gb being a much higher speed rated ram.

I can somewhat vouch for that too, I went from 16GB DDR4 to 64GB DDR4 (I do a lot with VMs) with no other system changes and it totally removed the intermittent stuttering and frame rate drops at 4K.

[ZakO]

I would just upgrade the graphics card to begin with and see how it goes. At 4k the 1070 will be bottlenecking you more than your current CPU in most games. If you were asking for 144fps at 1080p/1440p I'd definitely say upgrade the CPU but since you're only wanting to push 60fps even at 4k the CPU will be less of a bottleneck. 

[Elliot B.]

39 minutes ago, Mando said:

aint what ive found in real world tests mate, 16Gb is sufficient, 32Gb allows for slightly higher frame rate at 4k (perhaps shader cache using ram, instead of disk space cache, not 100%), cant explain why, just what ive seen in 2 identical builds both built by myself. (identical components, bar the ram) 32Gb equipped system outperforms the 16Gb system despite the 16Gb being a much higher speed rated ram.

You only need to look at Task Manger to see games never use over 8GB system RAM on their own, even at 4k. 16 GB total system RAM is more than enough for now.

 

The main difference between 1080p and 4k in games is texture size and that goes into VRAM, not system RAM.

[Mando]

1 hour ago, Elliot B. said:

You only need to look at Task Manger to see games never use over 8GB system RAM on their own, even at 4k. 16 GB total system RAM is more than enough for now.

 

The main difference between 1080p and 4k in games is texture size and that goes into VRAM, not system RAM.

i understand that mate (im gaming at 4k on sig build), but regardless to those facts, i saw at least a 20% FPS increase on the 32Gb system, over the 16Gb system, all other parts were identical (infact the 16Gb system uses RAID0 striped SSDS for OS and 4xSSD raid0 striped for games vol and higher XMP rated ram, 3200mhz over 1600 in the 32Gb box). 32gb system used a single SSD for Win and a platter drive as games drive & slower rated ram, yet had better consistent frame rate and less frame drops.

 

On Nvidias they use a pixel shader cache on the OS drive, as i alluded too (its used for pixel shaders regardless of amount of Vram on GPU), it may be that it was using system ram instead of caching the shader cache to disk, so due to that fact, it does actually use a page file for pixel shaders.

 

Whatever it was, 32Gb seemed to be the sweet spot and enjoyed higher frame rates than the same machine with 16gb, I removed 16Gb from the 32gb system and whala same perf as my own 16Gb build. 32Gb enjoyed higher consistent frame rates and a lot less frame rate drops or jitters with all 4 DDR slots occupied. I was quite surprised it made such a difference, as in theory it should not have, but it did.

 

At no point in this convo have i said 16Gb wasnt enough, i said 32Gb seemed a sweeter spot for higher frame rates at 4k, than 16Gb was.

[Mockingbird]

7 hours ago, Mando said:

aint what ive found in real world tests mate, 16Gb is sufficient, 32Gb allows for slightly higher frame rate at 4k (perhaps shader cache using ram, instead of disk space cache, not 100%), cant explain why, just what ive seen in 2 identical builds both built by myself. (identical components, bar the ram) 32Gb equipped system outperforms the 16Gb system despite the 16Gb being a much higher speed rated ram.

Either this is a placebo or you have something else running in the background gobbling up memory.

 

I have never seen any systems running any games come close to using 16GB memory.

 

5 hours ago, Mando said:

i understand that mate (im gaming at 4k on sig build), but regardless to those facts, i saw at least a 20% FPS increase on the 32Gb system, over the 16Gb system, all other parts were identical (infact the 16Gb system uses RAID0 striped SSDS for OS and 4xSSD raid0 striped for games vol and higher XMP rated ram, 3200mhz over 1600 in the 32Gb box). 32gb system used a single SSD for Win and a platter drive as games drive & slower rated ram, yet had better consistent frame rate and less frame drops.

 

On Nvidias they use a pixel shader cache on the OS drive, as i alluded too (its used for pixel shaders regardless of amount of Vram on GPU), it may be that it was using system ram instead of caching the shader cache to disk, so due to that fact, it does actually use a page file for pixel shaders.

 

Whatever it was, 32Gb seemed to be the sweet spot and enjoyed higher frame rates than the same machine with 16gb, I removed 16Gb from the 32gb system and whala same perf as my own 16Gb build. 32Gb enjoyed higher consistent frame rates and a lot less frame rate drops or jitters with all 4 DDR slots occupied. I was quite surprised it made such a difference, as in theory it should not have, but it did.

 

At no point in this convo have i said 16Gb wasnt enough, i said 32Gb seemed a sweeter spot for higher frame rates at 4k, than 16Gb was.

There are too many variables.

 

You are suppose to keep everything the same except the what you are testing (in this case, the amount of memory).

 

6 hours ago, Broughton said:

I can somewhat vouch for that too, I went from 16GB DDR4 to 64GB DDR4 (I do a lot with VMs) with no other system changes and it totally removed the intermittent stuttering and frame rate drops at 4K.

Either this is a placebo or you have something else running in the background gobbling up memory.

[Circaflex]

edit: never mind, the battle isnt worth it

[Mando]

15 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

Either this is a placebo or you have something else running in the background gobbling up memory.

 

I have never seen any systems running any games come close to using 16GB memory.

 

There are too many variables.

 

You are suppose to keep everything the same except the what you are testing (in this case, the amount of memory).

 

Either this is a placebo or you have something else running in the background gobbling up memory.

<sigh> I never said once that it was actually consuming 16Gb of memory, can people read properly what i stated please. 

 

Let me reiterate, I said having a system running with 32Gb of RAM resulted in higher consistent FPS and less stuttering at 4k than the same kit with 16Gb installed.

Even removing 16Gb of the ram on the 32Gb machine produced the drop in fluid FPS and introduced slight stuttering at times in various games to the same level as my own 16Gb version.

 

Both used Samsung SSDs for OS, whether or not the separate non OS RAID volume was platters or SSDs is irrelevant. This involves the GPU, the motherboard, the Windows RAID Volume, the CPU ALL IDENTICAL, heck even the same 115i AIO cooler & case.

 

So yes the variables involved were identical, bar only the speed rating of the RAM and the amount of ram.

 

I've been building games machines and work systems since W95, I cannot explain the results, its just what i have found in my own experience personally and on a professional level building ESXi hosts, every system has a sweet spot of ram for the tasks its going to be assigned to.

 

 

@OP best of luck with your build.

 

 

[Mando]

On 8/9/2017 at 9:10 AM, WildWayz said:

Just read on an Amazon review that someone HAS used it with their Ryzen CPU just fine out of the box... so I can knock off the liquid cooler I guess...

make sure you still have the Corsair retainer for the AMD models mate (iirc it uses a metal adapter does it not?) . Id also check whether or not its required on the new chip.

[PGHammer]

On 8/9/2017 at 7:05 AM, ZakO said:

I would just upgrade the graphics card to begin with and see how it goes. At 4k the 1070 will be bottlenecking you more than your current CPU in most games. If you were asking for 144fps at 1080p/1440p I'd definitely say upgrade the CPU but since you're only wanting to push 60fps even at 4k the CPU will be less of a bottleneck. 

I did, in fact, do just that (GPU upgrade in isolation), and I'm exceedingly boggled by the results I'm getting.

My desktop was pretty much seen as a barely-above-content-consumer desktop, primarily due to the CPU (dead-stock G3258); the GPU it was lashed to didn't help (EVGA GTX 550Ti factory-refurbished) - it didn't hurt, but didn't help, either.  Then how is it that replacing the GPU is showing a performance impact way outside the realm of conventional wisdom? (The CPU stayed the same, and it's still dead-stock - the new GPU is also dead-stock; I use Afterburner strictly for monitoring currently - I've not done any tweakage there whatever, yet not only is detail vastly improved (due to being able to yank the in-game graphical settings to their ceilings, if the game itself doesn't do it for me) but frame rates are ALSO up over the GTX550Ti - and by non-insignificant amounts.  It's not just in some of my games - it's repeatable in ALL of my games - in fact, it's shown up in my daily rota, weekly rota, monthly rota, it's even shown up in what would normally have been shelfware - as in games I haven't played at all in six months or more - such as Crysis 2 Maximum Edition.  If it's DX11-based, and it has an adjust-based-on-detected-hardware graphics settings - so far a mere TWO games do NOT firewall the settings utterly; Starcraft II - Legacy of the Void and Ashes - Escalation.  (In the case of the latter, that makes a ton of sense - Ashes is a core-eater, and this desktop IS driven by a G3258.  The *conventional wisdom* about Starcraft II (going back to Wings of Liberty, and especially since) is that it wants to be a core-eater - I may have to do some manual-overrides for that game and see if it actually fits the conventional wisdom.)

[WildWayz]

Hmmmmm

 

Arrghhhh - stuck in two minds as to what to do....

 

Just pre-ordered the Xbox One X (Project Scorpio Edition) - but do I still upgrade? I realise trying to get 4K @60hz is pointless with my card especially at Ultra/Very High... I get a solid 60fps on the max setting on Rise of the Tomb Raider @ 1440 - which looks great. So maybe that'll be fine for now still?

 

End of this month, i'd have £400 towards whatever... basically putting £200 aside each month...

[DevTech]

On 8/8/2017 at 4:34 AM, WildWayz said:

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)....

You are for some reason looking at this backwards.

 

Start with one or two 1080s and then do some testing to see if you need more CPU or RAM.

 

It is silly to worry about CPU bottlenecks in gaming scenarios until the GPU bottleneck is eliminated.

 

[DevTech]

Also, after maxxing your GPU, the next purchase should be a 1 TB Samsung 960 for level loading and temp.

 

Only after that is CPU and RAM going to get you anything worth noticing outside a benchmark.

 

[Mando]

18 minutes ago, WildWayz said:

 

 

Just pre-ordered the Xbox One X (Project Scorpio Edition) - but do I still upgrade? 

 

you do realise the all singing all dancing Scorpio is comparable to a 1070GTXish right? 1080GTX at best.

 

No matter what MS spout, 6Tf is not plenty enough for true 4k. Upscaled to 4k yes, true native 4k@60FPS+ pfft no, your looking at least 10Tf for true 4k.

[WildWayz]

7 minutes ago, DevTech said:

You are for some reason looking at this backwards.

 

Start with one or two 1080s and then do some testing to see if you need more CPU or RAM.

 

It is silly to worry about CPU bottlenecks in gaming scenarios until the GPU bottleneck is eliminated.

 

So the CPU deffo isn't a bottleneck? I assumed it was as it is the oldest component?

I agree about getting a new SSD.... but 1TB Samsungs are like £450 (and can I even use the PCIe one?).... a 1080 or two would also be a fortune
 

Just now, Mando said:

you do realise the all singing all dancing Scorpio is comparable to a 1070GTXish right? 1080GTX at best.

 

No matter what MS spout, 6Tf is not plenty enough for true 4k. Upscaled to 4k yes, true native 4k@60FPS+ pfft no, your looking at least 10Tf for true 4k.

Yep - my 1070 is 6.35TF - .35 more than the Scorpio. Granted, there will probably be some custom stuff in it too.... only problem is, I barely play PC games these days (wireless mouse/keyboards are not idea) but thought about changing things around...

 

 

 

[DevTech]

2 minutes ago, WildWayz said:

So the CPU deffo isn't a bottleneck? I assumed it was as it is the oldest component?

I agree about getting a new SSD.... but 1TB Samsungs are like £450 (and can I even use the PCIe one?).... a 1080 or two would also be a fortune
 

Anything can be a bottleneck.

 

But for 4K gaming (or any gaming), the GPU does all the pixel pushing so unless the GPU is measured to be sitting idle while the CPU is 100% then the GPU is the bottleneck.

 

If you get two 1080's, the CPU will become the bottleneck on some types of games but it will still in every case be a lot better than staying with the 1070 and upgrading the CPU.

 

[DevTech]

11 minutes ago, WildWayz said:

So the CPU deffo isn't a bottleneck? I assumed it was as it is the oldest component?

I agree about getting a new SSD.... but 1TB Samsungs are like £450 (and can I even use the PCIe one?).... a 1080 or two would also be a fortune
 

Yep - my 1070 is 6.35TF - .35 more than the Scorpio. Granted, there will probably be some custom stuff in it too.... only problem is, I barely play PC games these days (wireless mouse/keyboards are not idea) but thought about changing things around...

 

 

 

If all your gaming will be console, then buy the Scorpio and enjoy it for a few years.

 

Then buy a Samsung SSD and leave the rest of the computer untouched for another year to get the next gen GPU and CPU. In 2 years, 16 core CPUs with 64 gig RAM might be very affordable...

 

Your current system is far from obsolete considering how incremental CPU changes have been in the last few years. Try not to look at benchmarks. It takes a doubling in CPU and other hardware performance to really make a major upgrade feel like a good buy in every day usage.

 

[Mockingbird]

5 hours ago, WildWayz said:

So the CPU deffo isn't a bottleneck? I assumed it was as it is the oldest component?

I agree about getting a new SSD.... but 1TB Samsungs are like £450 (and can I even use the PCIe one?).... a 1080 or two would also be a fortune
 

Yep - my 1070 is 6.35TF - .35 more than the Scorpio. Granted, there will probably be some custom stuff in it too.... only problem is, I barely play PC games these days (wireless mouse/keyboards are not idea) but thought about changing things around...

 

 

 

 

Some of the suggestions here are ridiculous.

 

If you go to hardware sites like Tom's Hardware and ask if you should get TWO Geforce GTX 1080, 32 GB memory, and 1 TB Samsung 960 Pro, they would laugh.

 

The things that matter the most in a gaming PC (by order of importance)

 

1. Video card (a single video card NOT two in an SLI/crossfire)

 

2. Processor

 

3. Memory (fast memory, 16 GB is more than enough)

 

4. Everything else.

 

Any of 1, 2, and 3 can be a bottleneck.

 

Having too slow a video card could be a bottleneck.

 

Having too slow a processor could be a bottleneck.

 

Having slow or not enough memory could be a bottleneck.

 

Everything else don't make much difference (for games).

Edited August 21, 2017 by Mockingbird

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

After memory, you should add HDD/SSD. As in read/write. But yeah, Mockingbird is right...

 

 

(for once )

[JustGeorge]

Some thoughts about my personal experience with my year old build. I really wish I had spent the extra $100 on an i7. I'd be in a much better place right now for buying a 1080ti. My 6500 is going to hold back a card like that. 

 

Unless 7700k's experience a massive price drop leading up to coffee lake, I've decided to move my current year old rig to office work status and build an 1800x system. 

 

You don't have to go Threadripper or x299, but swing for the fence when buying your Mainstream CPU. 

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

11 minutes ago, slamfire92 said:

Some thoughts about my personal experience with my year old build. I really wish I had spent the extra $100 on an i7. I'd be in a much better place right now for buying a 1080ti. My 6500 is going to hold back a card like that. 

 

Unless 7700k's experience a massive price drop leading up to coffee lake, I've decided to move my current year old rig to office work status and build an 1800x system. 

 

You don't have to go Threadripper or x299, but swing for the fence when buying your Mainstream CPU. 

Why do you need an i7? In gaming, that will not help you. If you are doing video editing or AutoCAD, that's a different story.

[JustGeorge]

2 hours ago, Mindovermaster said:

Why do you need an i7? In gaming, that will not help you. If you are doing video editing or AutoCAD, that's a different story.

Having 4 extra threads + the extra clock speed will absolutely help you in gaming.

 

1. It helps keep the CPU from getting saturated from non gaming background processes.

2. The clock speed is much higher on a 7700k vs. my 6500 and I'd gain OC ability.

3. My 6500 Would probably starve a 1080Ti, leaving it waiting for instructions from the CPU.

4. It would future proof me a bit with gfx card upgrades.

5. I need the extra speed for emulation.

Edited August 21, 2017 by slamfire92

[PGHammer]

11 hours ago, WildWayz said:

So the CPU deffo isn't a bottleneck? I assumed it was as it is the oldest component?

I agree about getting a new SSD.... but 1TB Samsungs are like £450 (and can I even use the PCIe one?).... a 1080 or two would also be a fortune
 

Yep - my 1070 is 6.35TF - .35 more than the Scorpio. Granted, there will probably be some custom stuff in it too.... only problem is, I barely play PC games these days (wireless mouse/keyboards are not idea) but thought about changing things around...

 

 

 

CPUs CAN be a bottleneck - but it IS app/game-dependent; the same applies to GPUs.  DX12 (merely as an API) is more of a core-eater in games than DX11; DX12 games that do NOT rely on multiple cores number in the single digits - not in terms of percentages, but absolute numbers.  Forza 6: Apex non-premium edition requires at least two cores to run at all - and that is WITH a GPU that supports DX12 feature 12_1 (hard data from my G3258/GTX1050Ti tag-team) and that is the second-weakest DX12 game I have.  Only Halo Wars 2 (Store) is weaker among the Store titles I have - the Steam version never climbs above DX11 - it wouldn't surprise me if I come close to being able to firewall THAT version graphically - which certainly hasn't been the case with any DX12 game to date.  But comparisons between DX11 and DX12 - merely as APIs - is apples vs. oranges - and it gets worse when you have a third API (such as Vulkan) involved - look at the current version of DOOM and Ashes - Escalation.