Here's a question for all the PC-knowledgeable folks:

I'm thinking about upgrading my PC. Currently, I have Intel i5 2300, 4 GB RAM and Radeon HP 6700-something as a GPU. My power source is 500 W and my current monitor is 1900 x 1080.

I'm thinking of adding 4 GB RAM, possibly another harddrive and a new GPU. Two questions:

1. Would my power source handle these additions?
2. What GPU should I buy? I'd like to buy a modern card that allows to run games with high system requirements. I'd also like to use the highest monitor resolution for games.

Any suggestions?

Do you have a max budget for these upgrades in mind?  Usually it's best to start with a number and then maximize what you can get for that amount of money.

Otherwise someone's recommendation of the latest GPU card that costs $800 isn't necessarily going to be super helpful if $500 is all you're looking to spend.

Not exactly knowledgeable, but adding a Price range should help those that are.

One thing I can offer is that you check sites like newegg.com for the best deals, perhaps even manufacturer's websites themselves for direct pricing.

Ha! I thought that this time around, I'd just say what I need and see how much it could cost...

Anyway, I don't have a very specific budget - but I think I'd prefer not to spend more than $300 bucks on a GPU.

For graphics cards on a budget, PC Gamer just put out an article on that the other day.

http://www.pcgamer.com/best-graphics-card-deals-today/

Newer cards, on higher ends, are physically bigger than in 2011 when the 6700 you have came out.  You may run into an issue of your case not being physically big enough to house the card, depending on it's design.  My old full sized case had when I upgraded it.  Had to get a "mini" version of the card.  I'm not sure if that's the case with $300 cards these days, but it's something to be aware of.

*EDIT* 500 Watts feels kinda low to me for a newer graphics card.  I'd consider an upgrade there.  You're riding the edge of feasibility with 500 watts.  It might work.  It might not.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:00, Thu 12 Jan 2017.

Modern GPUs use less power then older ones. I'm running 2x GTX980s in SLI and under-utilizing the large power supply that I originally bought when I had a rig running a single GTX690.

There are a lot of things to consider when calculating power supplies, and there are numerous calculators online that can help. Personally, I'd recommend getting one bigger than a site recommends. It allows for additions down the line without having to get another bigger one, and keeps it from potentially running at 100% all the time.

I've been out of the market for GPUs for awhile, but anything in a Nvidia 10 series should be quite good value for money and will be miles and miles ahead of a card that came out in 2011!

Also keep in mind that if the whole rig was built in 2011, you may well need to upgrade other components such as the processor to prevent a bottle neck elsewhere. No point getting a fancy new GPU if the rest of the computer can't utilise it.

Okay, I did some quick calculations with one online powersource calculator and it seems that a powersource of 700 W should be enough, right?

As for that PC Gamer article - drat, I have no idea what to make of it. I don't understand what's the difference between "best GPU" and "best high-end GPU". Also, I don't know if I really need the best GPU, or if I can do with something weaker...

Looking at the prices, a really good GPU (GeForce GTX 1070) + 4 GB RAM + a better powersource could cost me almost as much as I paid for my PC a few years ago! And it is a *good* rig...

I have been working on getting myself a new gaming rig as well and have been using this site to price out components.

https://elitegamingcomputers.c...ap-gaming-computers/

As someone who doesn't know a lot about hardware, it has been an easy to read guide to picking out what I want and what I might need. YMMV

The GTX 1060-6GB is a solid card for around your price point.

A 500W power supply, assuming you're running that GPU, 1 or 2 hard drives, 8 gigs of ram, and a few fans, should be ok.  Assuming the PSU isn't some complete no name garbage unit of course.

If you decide to make the jump to something a step up, like the GTX 1070, you'll certainly want to get a more powerful PSU.

Hm. How good is "solid", exactly?

As I mentioned, I'd like my new GPU to be able to run games in high resolution (1920 x 1080) - smoothly and with lot of details, effects etc. Also, I would like this card not to become obsolute too soon. My HP 6700-something seems to be unable to run new games anymore - and it's been only five years since I bought this particular PC...

http://www.gamespot.com/articl...review/1100-6441925/
http://www.ign.com/articles/20...0-gaming-x-6g-review

Those articles have a few good game based FPS benchmark tests to take a look at.

Most benchmark sites tend to just use specific benchmark software scores (like a 3DMark score), which is a great Apples to Apples comparison if you already know everything about how that apple will translate into gaming performance.  Not as helpful if you just want to know what sort of FPS performance you'll get in the latest game on max settings.

Generally a mid-range GPU card will be able to hang for a few years from when it's launched before you have to start dialing back settings way way back to have it run the latest games at acceptable frame rates.

Though after a cycle or two, it also becomes time to look at other components that are getting older and slower and utilizing older architecture that might not be designed to work best with the latest software.

Exactly :( The various articles I've seen talk about 1080p, FPS and so on. I have no idea how does that relate to my needs... :( Do I need 1080p or 720p, or nothing at all? Do I need 60 FPS or 120 FPS, or more..?



Would a mid-range GPU handle the high resolution I mentioned? And the various effects, high level of details etc.?



Drat. I have no idea how to judge that...

The more I look the more it seems I just can't upgrade my PC. It's too complicated and too costly...

1080p is standard HD.  Most computer monitors are at least 1080p resolution, or 1,920 pixels tall and 1,080 pixels wide.  It's the minimum resolution you should be aiming for.

Check the current resolution on your PC monitor, it should be at least those two numbers, or be able to be bumped up to reach them.

Even if your monitor supports higher resolutions you'll probably still want to game at 1080p with your current hardware/potential upgrade

FPS- frames per second.  This is how many times the game redraws what you see on the screen to fool your mind into seeing fluid animation.  Standard film movies are 24fps.  However for games 30fps is considered the minimum for achieving smooth game play and generally 60fps is what is considered the goal.

If you go with the 1060, I'm sure you'll be able to achieve a noticeable improvement in games you currently play (assuming you're not playing them at max on your current setup) and be able to play modern games at acceptable settings.

Then in another year or two start considering a CPU upgrade so you'll be ready for the next time you want to upgrade your GPU again.

Well, you've got 5-6 year old technology, depending on when in 2011 your components were created (assuming the components were put out to market in 2011).  For a gaming-specific PC, you're right on track to be looking at a large system overhaul to keep up with current games.  You can probably re-purpose some of the components (hard drive, RAM, CD/DVD/Blu-Ray drives), etc..., but I'd wager you'd find a huge increase in performance with a new processor and motherboard (because if you're replacing the processor in a 6-7 year old computer, you should probably do the motherboard at the same time), along with graphics card and upgraded RAM.

Yeah, it's a lot of cash to outlay.  I just had to build a new box within the last month or so.  But if you build it with good components, you'll get a good machine for 5-6 years without needing to make significant upgrades.  That's about what you can ask out of a computer built for gaming.  You don't have to buy the most expensive parts of course.  The links provided earlier for full builds looked pretty solid to me.  Think about those as viable options.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:23, Fri 13 Jan 2017.

Okay, so my monitor's default resolution is 1920 x 1080. So, how do I check if a given card allows for playing at such resolutin comfortably?



Hmmm... Are you sure that 30 FPS is *smooth*? I have a new game (Tyranny) that I tried running at 30 FPS and it looks rather... poor.

(not that this game is working satisfactory in other aspects - I actually can't play it, as it makes my CPU overheat. But that's another story...)



Could you define "acceptable"? If I'm to buy a new graphics card, I'd finally want a card that would make modern games look *good*. And one that would continue to make them look good for the next few years. I don't want to buy a card that would require me to scale down graphics from the start - and that would become obsolete in a year or two...



But these links propose using GPUs that aren't the newest generation... so, how long would such configurations remain viable? My intuition is to buy new, good components, because they seem to be the best... I know that a GPU from two years ago might still be viable now, but in a year or so, it can turn out to be too weak.

Agh. All of this is making my head hurt :( I checked some shops for new gaming PC and it seems I'm looking at an expense of $1300 - $1500. Considering that I'm making $400 - $500 month..!

That's part of parsing the reviews of prospective cards.  If you look most have examples of games and their FPS scores running on the card at various resolutions.



30 FPS is considered "smooth" as it's what a lot of console games run at, though that's starting to change as well.  But still, 30FPS was the standard for most XBox 360/PS3 games, and those play very good on their respective systems at that frame rate.

How something looks is generally not linked directly to frame rate.  A beautiful game that's running at 15 or 20FPS will look beautiful as it stutters and jerks about.

An game with ugly low resolution textures and low polygon count elements running at 60FPS is going to animate very smooth but still look ugly.



I haven't played the game you mentioned, so I don't know what might be going into it that causes it to look "poor" at whatever settings you were trying to run it on.

But we can look at the game, and what hardware it "recommends" on its store page to get an idea of where you might be lagging, based on this one example.

RECOMMENDED:
OS: Windows 7 64-bit or newer
Processor: Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10 GHz

Your i5-2300 should be performing significantly better than the i3 the game recommends.

Memory: 8 GB RAM

You've said you only have 4GB of RAM, and the minimum the game recommends is 6GB, so that's likely one factor as to why the game is running so poorly on your system.

Graphics: Radeon HD 6850

You said you have a "Radeon HP 6700-something", which puts whatever card you have squarely between the minimum card the developer says you need "Radeon HD 5770" and the "Radeon HD 6850".


So, when you play this game, while your CPU should be up to the task based on what the developer says you need, your GPU likely isn't allowing you to run it on max graphics settings without it running slowly.

The lack of adequate RAM is also likely causing issues depending on how much RAM the actual game needs to run properly, and how much is typically being used on your machine by other programs and processes while you're trying to play.



If your CPU is overheating while running at 100%, to the point where your computer reboots, or otherwise behaves abnormally, that's a cooling issue.  Your CPU should be able to run at full blast without cratering the entire system, even if there's much wailing of fans and gnashing of teeth which make it sound not super happy doing that much work.



I would define "acceptable" as "not all sliders set at minimum levels".  Your CPU is older, it's going to hold you back, even after you upgrade your quantity of RAM which is also fairly low for gaming (8GB is the minimum, 16GB is more in line with what a lot of games recommend).  How much it's going to hold you back is going to depend on what you're trying to play.

Tyranny, for example, has much lower minimum and recommended hardware specifications than Battlefield 1 even though they both released in the last quarter of 2016.




This is one of the reasons why Consoles remain popular.  You buy your XBox, everything that comes out for the console is going to run as well as the developer is able to make it whether it's the first year the console was released, or 5 years later, and you end up with no worries.

On the bright side, a high end PC tends to cost the same from year to year.  The top tier GPU is going to cost $600-$800 each year, no matter what.  It's just that as new, better, hardware is introduced, the old stuff gets cheaper and the new thing takes over its price slot.

So if you decide to save up for an entire new setup, the money you start saving now will generally get you the same level of rig once you've accumulated it and actually spend it.

Ah, I was not being precise. What I meant by "poor" was that the game wasn't looking smooth - the characters' movements were a bit jerky at 30 FPS.



Here's a question: could low memory be the reason for the overheating issue?



Really? I admit I don't know what to think about it. One person on the web told me that my card is slower than HD 5770. I wish I had the specs for my PC - I don't remember which of the HD 6700s I bought - and no PC utility can pinpoint that.



The weird thing? The game is not running slowly. It just generates a lot of heat. Even weirder? According to an temperature-reading app I consulted, it's the CPU that's overheating, not the GPU...



Well, the PCs not rebooting, but when I run the game, the CPU goes from 40 C to over 80C in a matter of minutes. I certainly won't risk playing the game with this happening...

I dusted the insides of the PCs as good as I could... Also, I tried other games and they aren't causing this kind of effect. So, I don't think it's a cooling issue...



What if I upgrade my RAM to 16 GB and put GTX 1070 as a graphics card? Would I be able to play modern games then - at good settings, specifically?

Window's Device Manager should list the specifics on your card under the "Display Adapter" subheader on the tree.



If your CPU under significant load is getting that hot, you should probably try and take care of that first as that's not normal.  The max operating temp for your CPU according to Intel is 72.6°C.  Once it reaches that temp it's going to try and protect itself by lowering its running speed, which means a big performance drop if you're gaming at the time.

You're right that you don't want to run it at those temperatures.  It will eventually damage the CPU.

So, before doing any upgrades, you need to fix the potential thermal issue.

You say that only the one game is causing that sort of heat build up.  It might be that the other games aren't as CPU intensive as that one is, or it could be maxing your GPU and CPU at the same time, causing more heat than your system is able to handle.

You could try a CPU stress testing application like Prime95 to make sure your CPU isn't overheating under a full load.

Instructions for using Prime95 can be found below
https://www.tenforums.com/tuto...s-test-your-cpu.html

Just make sure to follow them carefully, including having a way to actively monitor your CPU temp during testing so you can stop the test if it is getting into that temp danger zone.

If it is overheating then you need to figure out why.  Making sure there's clear path for cool air to come into the case and then enough flow to carry it out again, making sure all your fans are working optimally, and potentially reapplying thermal paste to the CPU to ensure the heat sink is conducting the heat away effectively.

If the issue isn't in the CPU, then you'll have to move on to checking the temps in your current graphics card.  It's probably easiest to run another game or two that you have and check the temp the GPU is getting to with those when they're at their most graphically intensive.

Then start up the other game that you know is causing issues and see how that compares.

AMD has a program titled "AMD System Monitor" that you might be able to use (and might have installed already as part of the card's software), or you could try a piece of 3rd party software like GPU Temp.

While cooling technology progresses, stepping up to a more powerful GPU is not always a guarantee that you won't be introducing a component that runs even hotter into your system.  You should always make sure your current build is thermally stable before introducing new components, so that if something does change, you'll better be able to know what caused it and what you can do about it.

I figure I'll chime in if you're still looking. I think the mention of a gaming console is good advice. It is a more manageable cost, particularly at your price point (A few months of saving), rather than spending the equivalent price for a single graphics card, which might not be sufficient to run games at a desired settings configuration.

A console is standardised, so you don't have to worry about compatibility, drivers, or upgrading within the life of the console (which lifetime-wise is increasing, it seems). You know, for certain, that games released for the console will play well with the system. THe main downside to a console is simply that you won't get as amazing visuals as you would a fully-outfitted PC. There are other limitations, but many limitations are being removed with the latest generation of consoles - you can watch films, and listen to music, among other things. The line between PC and console is blurring rather extensively.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

Okay, thanks. Some food for thought...

In the meanwhile:

Nauthiz, I tried running that Prime95 and I'm shocked! I started it and... it took only few seconds to jump to 99 C! I genuinely thought I was going to burn out my CPU... What the heck??? :(

Even if it's necessary to start all over again, there's never a reason to buy a console.  The unit out the door may be cheaper, but you pay out the nose for the peripherals, access to multiplayer servers, and the games themselves.

Gaming PCs can be built at any budget.  I'm no guru and thus have no idea how to solve the current problem, but I am a savvy consumer.  An Intel G4560, an RX 460, and 8 GB of RAM along with your case, motherboard, power supply and storage drive ought to clock in around 4 Franklins, and that computer will both smoke any console on the market plus be a computer, which is something you need anyway.

Why spend $300 on a console and then $300 on a cheap Wintel machine only to get something that's worse than spending $500 on one computer?

For Pete's sake $250 can get it done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS1l2hrH4qQ

I'm actually laughing at that video and the linked parts list.

Yes, it can probably run Fallout 4.  But that's not a box that's going to last very long and is a stopgap measure at best.  Most of the parts are at least 6 years old (and some aren't even in production anymore), the CPU is weaker than the OP's current CPU, and it uses an offbrand, cheap graphics card.  The $33.00 motherboard is pretty bad too.

Yes, you can build a decent gaming machine on a budget (there was a link elsewhere in this thread that had some reasonable options).  But if you want a machine that's going to last a few or even several years, you really need to consider putting in some quality parts at the outset.  Buying computer parts that are 6+ years old as your starting point is terrible advice if you want your computer to remain competitive without constantly upgrading it.

Varsovian, it sounds like you might have an issue.

You could try re-running the test using an older version, version 26.6, of Prime95 that's more likely to emulate the conditions you're likely to encounter running games on your current hardware.  Apparently the latest version can overtax some older CPUs using unrealistic conditions, but there is some debate.

Still, might be worth 15 mins to double check.

http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=15504

But yeah, if your CPU is still running way too hot, either while you're running your game, or a testing program, you should troubleshoot for the reason.  That might involve some physical disassembly and reassembly of your hardware, so if you're not confident on that it might be best to find someone local who can do it for you.

Hmm. How do I troubleshoot for the heating issue, aside from dusting the insides of the PC off? I'm quite at loss here, admittedly...