This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Worth upgrading to a rx480 or 1070 with my current rig?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Worth upgrading to a rx480 or 1070 with my current rig?

User Info: importvita

importvita
2 years ago#1
Is it? (view specs first please) - Results (69 votes)
Yes
27.54% (19 votes)
19
No - Upgrade your CPU first
72.46% (50 votes)
50
This poll is now closed.
My current specs:

- AMD Athlon II X4 640 @ 3.0Ghz
- 8GB 1066Mhz Ram
- PCI 2.0 with a Sapphire 2GB R9 270OC
- 750 watt Corsair PSU rated Gold

Will the RX480 or Nvidia 1070 be completely pointless on my system or, with more games utilizing the GPU, will I see any significant advantage in games?

Or, would I be better off upgrading to Skylake right now or holding off for Kaby Lake when it hits later this year?

Not really sure what to do.
Hyped for: Final Fantasy XV, Legend of Zelda, No Man's Sky, Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness, Resident Evil 4/5 Remasters, Song of the Deep

User Info: Pox

Pox
2 years ago#2
If all you want to do is play games in 60FPS, then your CPU is just fine in the vast majority of games. You should be able to hit max/near-max settings in 1080P at 60 FPS with a 480 in 99% of games for reference.
FX-6300 | Gigabyte 970A | 8GB DDR3 RAM | 1TB HDD + 128 GB Intel 530 SSD | Sapphire R9 280 | EVGA SuperNova 750W | Fractal Define R4

User Info: jakezing33

jakezing33
2 years ago#3
the 1070 will be a bigger upgrade than the 480 will be.
MSI 1070, i7-6700,Gigabyte GA- H170-D3HP, Corsair 16GB, Samsung 850Evo, WD blue, Phantom 530, EVGA 650
Ps4, PC, 3DS, Ps3

User Info: Silvererazor

Silvererazor
2 years ago#4
Pointless. I have your CPU lying around...somewhere...but the thing bottlenecked a R9 390...so judging by that, this will bottleneck a 480 and a 1070.

Although...you won't get more fps, but you can crank up your settings and stay at the same fps-level.

User Info: Dredj

Dredj
2 years ago#5
It's been to long since AMD were relevant in the CPU market I have no idea what that CPU's about. The difference between the GPU's is big though.

User Info: importvita

importvita
2 years ago#6
justchill433 posted...
If all you want to do is play games in 60FPS, then your CPU is just fine in the vast majority of games. You should be able to hit max/near-max settings in 1080P at 60 FPS with a 480 in 99% of games for reference.


Are you sure? It seems like the CPU is starting to become a pretty big bottleneck as computations get more complicated for AI, larger worlds and better physics.

I mean, I honestly don't know. I would just assume that a ~6 year old processor is finally meeting the limits of it's capabilities.
Hyped for: Final Fantasy XV, Legend of Zelda, No Man's Sky, Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness, Resident Evil 4/5 Remasters, Song of the Deep

User Info: Marikhen

Marikhen
2 years ago#7
A better graphics card wouldn't be completely pointless, but AMD CPUs can be pretty limiting in more than just the not so vast minority of games. Entire genres like MMOs and developer libraries like Bethesda's are built off of engines that more often than not perform better, even significantly so, on Intel CPUs than on AMD CPUs. The fact that you're using an Athlon CPU and not a Phenom or something even newer like an FX-8350 is going to further hamper things between its older architecture and lower RAM cache values.

I ran nothing but AMD CPUs between a Pentium 200 from 1996 and the i504690k I installed last year, and while AMD was quite competitive up until around the Deneb branch of Phenom IIs it's fallen behind quite a bit since. A few engines are designed in a way that lets them take significant advantage of AMD CPUs, but engines like id's Tech 5 engine are few and far between. Outside of them maintaining 60 FPS on AMD CPUs was a struggle, and more often than not it was a matter of turning down CPU-heavy graphics options rather than GPU-heavy ones as I'd see 17% (one core) or 33% (two cores on a Phenom II 1090t) CPU utilization and 50-60% GPU utilization with a paltry 40-50 FPS.

All that said, the graphics card would benefit from upgrades as well. As such, in this situation the simplest thing to do would be to play the game at whatever resolution you want to play it at, drop the resolution to bare minimum, and look for a frame rate jump. If the frame rate remains the same regardless of resolution then CPU is most likely holding frame rates down. Likewise if the frame rate increases as the resolution decreases then it's most likely the GPU that's limiting your frame rate. Once you do that for the games you regularly play you ought to have the information you need to decide whether to get a new CPU or GPU.

Only down side to getting a new CPU is that you'll also need to get a new motherboard, and if your board is old enough to use DDR2 RAM you'll need to get new RAM as well.

If you wait until November for "Black Friday" you might be able to get a decent motherboard, an i5-4690k, and an Rx 480 for $500. Presuming your current machine uses DDR3. Mind you I would presume it does since it's clocked at 1033 which is the lower end of DDR3 and not something I recall seeing out of DDR2, but I could be mistaken.

Dredj posted...
It's been to long since AMD were relevant in the CPU market I have no idea what that CPU's about. The difference between the GPU's is big though.


Well, in a nutshell it's something like i5-4690k >> FX-8350 > Phenom II x4 965 >> Athlon II whatever. Athlon II CPUs are "business" CPUs while Phenom IIs are "gaming/enthusiast" CPUs. As such they have lower L2/L3 RAM cache values. IRC Athlon IIs also tend to be either slightly older or somewhat inferior in terms of basic architecture when compared to similarly clocked and cored Phenom II CPUs.

In effect the OP's CPU was okay for business software back around 2008 or 2009, but even then it wasn't the greatest for gaming. The proceeding 8 years will not have been kind.
Logic is the antithesis of faith, else why is it that faith defies logic while logic denies faith?

User Info: Beasthunt

Beasthunt
2 years ago#8
jakezing33 posted...
the 1070 will be a bigger upgrade than the 480 will be.
Gamertag: Beasthunt, PSN: Beasthunt, Steam: Beasthunt
Acts 2:38

User Info: Pox

Pox
2 years ago#9
importvita posted...
justchill433 posted...
If all you want to do is play games in 60FPS, then your CPU is just fine in the vast majority of games. You should be able to hit max/near-max settings in 1080P at 60 FPS with a 480 in 99% of games for reference.


Are you sure? It seems like the CPU is starting to become a pretty big bottleneck as computations get more complicated for AI, larger worlds and better physics.

I mean, I honestly don't know. I would just assume that a ~6 year old processor is finally meeting the limits of it's capabilities.

You're definitely hitting the limits of that processor, but you don't understand how low the CPU requirements for most games really is. My FX-6300 isn't that much better than your CPU and 60 FPS is easily achievable. Intel really hasn't made much progress at all with their CPUs. They basically release the same CPU with maybe a slight increase in IPC/power efficiency and people eat them up.
FX-6300 | Gigabyte 970A | 8GB DDR3 RAM | 1TB HDD + 128 GB Intel 530 SSD | Sapphire R9 280 | EVGA SuperNova 750W | Fractal Define R4

User Info: the4thstooge

the4thstooge
2 years ago#10
No - Upgrade your CPU first
My Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/digitlsamurai
1440p, 60 FPS playthroughs. Currently: Doom 4. PC build in profile.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Worth upgrading to a rx480 or 1070 with my current rig?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

Update Topic Flair

You are not allowed to update this topic's flair.

  • Topic Archived