It came with the below processor and a crappy graphics card:
Intel core i7 4790 cpu @3.6 GHz
I upgraded it about a year later, adding a midrange graphics card:
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
I also put in an SSD a while back.
With the release of Starfield I am back to running modern games on low - which is what prompted me to upgrade to begin with.
I was looking into a new graphics card but research showed that my processor is super lacking as well.
So I started thinking about upgrading my PC as a whole. But that gets expensive quick.
It occurs to me that I can upgrade both my processor and graphics card. But that makes me worried that I’m going to run into some other piece of my PC not being compatible with the new hardware or otherwise throttling my performance.
So I guess my questions are - aside from the CPU and GPU, and from storage space in an SSD format, does anything else impact my performace in games? And how can I tell if things like my power supply or processor are compatible with new hardware?
You’re also going to need a new motherboard to go with the CPU and new RAM since that board will use DDR4 or DDR5. RAM Speed is a bottleneck for games, but it’s pretty rare to be limited there unless you have an older-ish AMD CPU. You may need a new PSU since the recent “innovation” in GPUs was to throw more power at them. You’re basically at 80% of the cost of a new PC here with minimum upgrades, but you’re still potentially saving a few bucks.
What’s the spec for your monitor? Do you want a newer one? It’s a lot easier to feed a 1080@60Hz video signal than a 4K@240Hz signal. If you’re limited by your monitor, maybe things don’t matter as much.
You’re going to need a new motherboard. I can’t see your motherboard that old being able to support any modern processor. Also, with a new motherboard, you’re likely going to need new RAM, but it’s possible your old RAM will still be compatible. (Though likely to be slow compared to what your new motherboard could support.)
The good news about GPU and anything else running PCI express is that PCIe is fully backwards compatible in both directions, but speed is limited to the the oldest component. In other words, the latest GPUs can run on older motherboards, but are throttled by the speed of the motherboard. Conversely, the latest motherboards can still support the older PCIe GPUs, but you won’t see any speed advantage since the GPU is going to dictate the performance.
And then, with a newer gen processor, motherboard, and GPU, you’ll probably need a new power supply. And maybe improved cooling.
As others above have suggested, it seems a whole new PC is what you will be needing.
Maybe the PSU can be re-used but modern GPUs are very power hungry so you will probably need a new PSU as well.
Your case might be re-useable but modern GPUs are very big. You need to make sure they will fit.
Your current memory will probably work but will be slow (and double check that it will work). If you are in for a new PC don’t gimp it trying to save money using old, slower memory.
7-8 years was a good run for your old PC. I get it sucks to pay for a new one…especially since GPUs are so expensive (but at least they are far less than the stupid era a year or two ago). A new PC, done well, will probably get you another solid 5-7 years of use.
You can re-use any fans you have…so a little savings there (assuming they are sufficient for your new build).
I’m guessing you’ll need a new cooler when you get a new CPU, and if you choose to go with air cooling that might mean you need a new case as well. Air coolers are pretty large.
That 1070 isn’t the worst thing in the world. You could plan out and put together a pretty nice build, but hold off on actually buying the new video card for a few months if you wanted to help defray costs that way. The 1070 would be good enough for the interim.
How do you feel about AMD? AMD gives better performance per dollar. Would you be willing to try that, or would you prefer to stick with Intel and Nvidia? (No judgment if so; I’m Intel and Nvidia all the way.)
To be fair, water cooling solutions are pretty large too…just in a different way. Case choice will partly depend on whether you want to water cool or air cool.
My $0.02 is water cooling is mostly not worth it. It is much more expensive than air cooling and doesn’t last nearly as long and more prone to failure (air cooling is close to bullet proof…worst that happens is a fan stops working). If you (general “you”) want to get into overclocking then water cooling is your thing. Also, if you want to make a really cool looking PC setup water cooling will be the way to go. A LOT of work but they can look amazing.
I’ve done water cooling in the past. Never again. More trouble than it is worth, I think, except in particular situations. Of course, everyone should do the build they want.
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total
$1655.82
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-09-05 02:48 EDT-0400
That 4070 is way overpriced for its performance, but I really like its low power draw, which hopefully means it runs really quiet. I would just use my current case (define 7 compact) and power supply (seasonic focus 750W platinum), so penciled in budget-friendly equivalents in those spots. I would also get a different air cooler, but the peerless assassin is probably objectively better than one I would go with. The main issue for me is that bequiet doesn’t have a current cooler – the dark rock pro 4 is good for three generations ago, but not so much today – and noctua won’t be releasing their new cooler until next year. Neither of their current flagship models are as good as the peerless assassin, so I’d kind of be in limbo.
A $1655 AMD system would likely blow the doors off this in terms of performance, but would also probably draw more power, run hotter and be louder. Most people only care about performance; I recognize that I’m the weird one.
EDIT: I think that’s the correct peerless assassin model, but am not sure. It’s supposed to be around $40; is the one selected maybe a smaller, budget version?
Take some time to investigate why your games need to run on low settings. Are you running 4K display?
I am in a similar situation, but worse (i3-4150 and GTX 1060). And I have no problem running games at 1080 at medium settings.
I intend to buy Starfield soon and will report back.
A 1070 is actually below the minimum spec for Starfield, which is a 1070 Ti. Now it’s pretty common for publishers to overjuice their minimum specs (in part to create a buffer between the real low spec and the people complaining) but I wouldn’t expect a card under that line to run the game at medium with playable frame rates.
Anyway, agreed with the consensus that the simple answer is “You need a new computer”. Except for maybe salvageable storage, everything in a 4th gen Intel is obsolete: CPU, DDR3 memory, Motherboard, the power supply is likely both old and low spec, etc. And there’s really no upgrade path for a 4th gen PC because of how it’s connected: the mobo won’t work on a 5th gen or newer processor, the ram won’t work on a new motherboard, a notably upgraded GPU will bottleneck on the CPU, etc.
Without a budget, it’s hard to make a recommendation but you’re kind of at the end of this PC’s rope.
Starfield is the first one. And no, 1080 only (though sometiems 2560:1080 - I have an ultrawide monitor for my PC).
Until Starfield I’ve been managing Highs for the most part, though a few stabdout features (like DLSS) are locked out for me.
Yeah, that’s the real kick in the pants. I haven’t gone to the “can you run it” website since doing research for my 1070 - I haven’t had to think about it at all. Going from meeting new games’ recommended specs to not even meeting required specs has been a real shock!
You’re definitely right about studios overbilling the requirements though. Before I got this computer I routinely played things that were enitely unsupported on my laptop! Starfield still looks pretty good as is (reminds me of Fallout 4 really) but I saw a YouTuber play it and the artifact that looked grey on my screen had swirling blue patterns on theirs which is when I realized that yeah, I really am missing something.
Yeah, I’m starting to see that! Crap - not the best time in life for an upgrade. I may need to just wait a year or two and get a whole new PC.
2k is a bit expensive… I’ll need to do a lot of research I think.
You wouldn’t need to spend $2k. Taking a quick look, you can get a 13th Gen i5 with an RTX 4060 for around a thousand bucks (or less) which would hit the recommended specs for Starfield. And “recommended” will be overkill if you’re gaming at 1080p. $1k might not be affordable to you either but it should give you better perspective.
Well, hmmm. Question for the group: Could he just plug in an Nvidia 4000 series or AMD 7000 series video card and be essentially good to go?
That missing artifact sounds like a video card thing to me, not CPU, but I’m not sure.
Upgrading the video card would still be expensive all by itself, but it would be a three-digit expense as opposed to a four-digit expense upgrading the entire computer.
You’d almost certainly need a new PSU as well since I’m betting a 4th gen system is running off a 600W at best (and more likely around 300W unless it was upgraded). And you’d be bottlenecking the GPU against the CPU and (lesser issue) running it off a gen 3 PCIe slot. Buuuuutttt… it might allow you to turn on some options that allow for the missing particle effects or whatever the streamer was showing that Babale wasn’t seeing. I haven’t played Starfield so I don’t have a handle on how CPU intensive it is. Min specs call for a six core processor and the i7-4790 is a four core.
If I was trying to squeeze the last bits out of the computer with a GPU upgrade, I’d go with an AMD 6000 series which are still pretty cheap these days. Get a 6700 XT or 6750 XT for under $400 or a 6800 for just over $400 and keep it to build your next PC around when you have more money.
A 4070 uses less power than those AMD options; only around 50W more than a 1070. Assuming he’s not redlining the PSU in his current system, that might drop in as-is. (Assuming it would fit into his case.)
It’s also much faster than those AMD options, though of course it costs half again as much.
An RX 6800 is within 10% of the frames vs a 4070 for 66% of the price. There’s still reasons to lean towards the 4070 (superior ray-tracing, you want DLSS, you plan on using local-run AI programs, etc) but I think the RX 6800 is a better bet for most users looking to make the most from their money. And either will be well above the 1070 so it’s not as though either would disappoint (or will both disappoint equally, if the CPU is an issue).
You might be right on the PSU, without knowing it’s a guess. I’m used to computers from that era having a PSU that wouldn’t really pass muster these days (plus it being however many years old)
Oh for sure, but if the choices are either a 6800 for $430 plus a new PSU for $100, or just a 4070 alone for $600 with no PSU upgrade required, the 4070 starts to look more attractive.
Google claims:
1070: 145 W - 150 W
4070: 193 W
6800: 279 W
Fair. Without knowing its history, make and wattage, my inclination is to recommend a new PSU regardless of what modern mid-range card gets upgraded in. That’s just me though.
