• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

What is your graphics card upgrade plan for this generational transition?

Holding the fort with my 7950. It plays most of the things thrown at it fairly well (though it didn't like FFXIV for some odd reason, probably something to do with my specific setup more than anything). I'll likely do a complete system overhaul the next time I upgrade.
 
Rockin' a Radeon 9550.

...I think I'll just outright get a new computer whenever I get some $$. DDR1 RAM? PCI slots? There's not much to work with! :P
 
Think I'll do what I seem to have done last gen: I currently have a 670 which I just got last year. I'm planning on getting a PS4 anyway, so I'll keep my current card going for at least another year while I buy games that run better for the PS4. I probably should build a new PC for my next upgrade too (running on an i7 920 on the "future proof" (lol) 1366 socket with 6 gigs of ram I could upgrade to 12), so I'd like to wait until a couple years in and spend ~$1000 for a whole new system that's a full generation of specs ahead of the consoles, then double-dip on steam-saled versions of games I got for PS4 that have significant improvements on PC for 5-20$ a pop.
 
Brashnir said:
Currently running 2x 5850s.

I think it's silly to upgrade before we get some sort of idea on how games built for the new consoles run on various hardware specs, so I'll be looking at things that come out next summer/fall and seeing how they run on my system, with an obvious eye towards how they run on various PC graphics cards.

It's tricky to predict exactly where the bottlenecks will be with a console transition.
Click to expand...
I have the same setup. I bought a second 5850 on the cheap for BF3, and it worked out great. I might just leave the machine as is, because I'd rather get an X51 style form factor for my next build. I'll start looking at a new machine whenever Titan performance reaches the $250 price point.
 
Gonna use my 6970 for at least another year. Right now it handles everything more than well enough. It depends mostly on how next-gen coming out affects things.

When I do upgrade though I will likely upgrade everything. The rest of my system is from 2010.
 
Have a GTX 560.

Personally waiting for 20nm cards at the moment. At that point I'll probably buy whichever has the best offer from AMD and Nvidia.
 
I have a GTX Titan. I'll probably sell it when nvidia announces their next top card (if it beats the performance of my Titan). With the ability to re sell and pay the difference, I'll probably always own the top end card at the time.
 
I just built a new PC with a core i5 4670K. No GPU yet. Sounds like I ought to wait on a new card. I'm not particularly eager to game at the moment as I'll be busy with school.
 
EatChildren said:
I'm also pretty damn concerned how long my CPU is going to hold out before it's severely bottlenecking my GPU. It would be fucking dumb to stick a 2015 GTX 900 series card in an i5 from 2011 and not be able to get the best grunt out of the GPU. I'm pretty sure my GTX 670 isn't being bottlenecked, but 2015 series cards is a different matter.
Click to expand...
Ten years ago this would've instantly killed any serious desire to upgrade sooner than later, but nowadays I get the impression the i5 2500k STILL isn't really holding anything back. Maybe I just need to dig up newer benchmarks, but it sounds like Intel's decided to focus on making their CPUs more laptop/mobile friendly in power consumption rather than making much more powerful CPUs, and in that case so long as we don't have a change in card slots or anything weird cropping up I think a i5 computer from 2011 really CAN more than keep up just with a new video card.

EDIT: Just going by Tom's Hardware it looks like my suspicions are confirmed: i5 2500k still sits there in that top bracket, unwavering. At this point I think I'd worry about replacing the CPU more in case it dies than because it's obsolete tech, which would normally be a silly concern but right now it really does look like it's going to be taking that long for upgrades to be worthwhile.
 
Rocking a 7770 at the moment and that does me just fine. Though it certainly won't last the gen, if even another couple years. At that point, I'll have to decide between a new card and a PS4. Probably gonna be PS4 with a new card to follow in the last year or two of the gen, I'd wager.
 
Hold onto my card (some Radeon I won in a contest) until it no longer keeps up with my very modest needs (1920x1080), then drop ~$250 on whatever is good at the time, and probably going back to Team Green in the process.
 
I don't know much about graphics cards. I have a Radeon 7770 1GB right now. Do I need to upgrade soon? It seems to play everything fine on high. I had my PC built via Dell. It has the nicest i7 that they had (in February of this year) and 16gb of RAM, so my other hardware should be fine.
 
Although VRAM limitations are a major concern, I also really want a single card solution for ~$400 that is about two times the performance of my crossfire 5850s. Hopefully the new AMDs will do that.
 
Eusis said:
Ten years ago this would've instantly killed any serious desire to upgrade sooner than later, but nowadays I get the impression the i5 2500k STILL isn't really holding anything back. Maybe I just need to dig up newer benchmarks, but it sounds like Intel's decided to focus on making their CPUs more laptop/mobile friendly in power consumption rather than making much more powerful CPUs, and in that case so long as we don't have a change in card slots or anything weird cropping up I think a i5 computer from 2011 really CAN more than keep up just with a new video card.

EDIT: Just going by Tom's Hardware it looks like my suspicions are confirmed: i5 2500k still sits there in that top bracket, unwavering. At this point I think I'd worry about replacing the CPU more in case it dies than because it's obsolete tech, which would normally be a silly concern but right now it really does look like it's going to be taking that long for upgrades to be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
i5-2500k is still one of the best processors in existence for gaming. Phenomenal overclocking capabilities and a very solid four-core architecture makes for a great gaming CPU. As you mentioned, with a lack of competition from AMD when it comes to power, they've been focusing elsewhere. It's frustrating, but Sandy/Ivy Bridge are still excellent and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find them causing a real bottleneck.
 
Wondering if it would be better just to stick with my i5 2500k and Asus Sabertooth P67 Motherboard then spend the money I save on some other parts(such as a nice SSD). Is it worth upgrading to a newer CPU to gain PCIe 3.0 for the 880GTX GPU?
 
I have a Haswell 4670k and a GTX 760 2gb. Everything I play at 1080 is maxed out. Until that stops happening I will stay with this card.
 
erick said:
If you had a 4GB variant you would stand a chance... at least for the first couple of years.
Click to expand...

i should be fine i never use the standard AA anyway just FXAA it just doesn't bother me im one of those performance over visuals person lol. and i plan to keep playing on my 1080p monitor.

before this i had a 8800 GT 512MB in 2008 till 2010 when it burnt out on sc2 beta, Then i got a gtx 460 1GB and that lasted me till march 2013 when i got the 7870.
 
Eusis said:
Ten years ago this would've instantly killed any serious desire to upgrade sooner than later, but nowadays I get the impression the i5 2500k STILL isn't really holding anything back. Maybe I just need to dig up newer benchmarks, but it sounds like Intel's decided to focus on making their CPUs more laptop/mobile friendly in power consumption rather than making much more powerful CPUs, and in that case so long as we don't have a change in card slots or anything weird cropping up I think a i5 computer from 2011 really CAN more than keep up just with a new video card.

EDIT: Just going by Tom's Hardware it looks like my suspicions are confirmed: i5 2500k still sits there in that top bracket, unwavering. At this point I think I'd worry about replacing the CPU more in case it dies than because it's obsolete tech, which would normally be a silly concern but right now it really does look like it's going to be taking that long for upgrades to be worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Izayoi said:
i5-2500k is still one of the best processors in existence for gaming. Phenomenal overclocking capabilities and a very solid four-core architecture makes for a great gaming CPU. As you mentioned, with a lack of competition from AMD when it comes to power, they've been focusing elsewhere. It's frustrating, but Sandy/Ivy Bridge are still excellent and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find them causing a real bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Cheers, great posts. Gives me confidence my i5 will be worth keeping around for awhile.
 
Key2001 said:
Wondering if it would be better just to stick with my i5 2500k and Asus Sabertooth P67 Motherboard then spend the money I save on some other parts(such as a nice SSD). Is it worth upgrading to a newer CPU to gain PCIe 3.0 for the 880GTX GPU?
Click to expand...
No way to know for sure until it's out. Best case scenario, there's no issues. Worst case scenario is about a 5% drop in performance.
Izayoi said:
i5-2500k is still one of the best processors in existence for gaming. Phenomenal overclocking capabilities and a very solid four-core architecture makes for a great gaming CPU. As you mentioned, with a lack of competition from AMD when it comes to power, they've been focusing elsewhere. It's frustrating, but Sandy/Ivy Bridge are still excellent and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find them causing a real bottleneck.
Click to expand...
Bottlenecks don't really work like that. It's not an either/or thing, and is entirely dependent upon the engine and whether it's MP or SP. Translating game state between client and server in MP games is *very* CPU demanding, and you'll always have chugs and slowdows in MP that will get better with a better and higher clocked CPU.

That being said, the 2500K is still great, and is likely to only get better with next-gen engines.
prelude514 said:
Quad 7970, I should be good for a while.
Click to expand...
LOL

That's all I have to say about that.
 
Bought a GTX 780 in May along with a 3770K quad core and Z77 Sabertooth motherboard. I'm good for next gen.
 
I currently have a ATI 5770 and a Phenom II x4 925. This thing has been kicking well for the last four years. I like to wait a couple years into a console cycle before a new build. With the hardware the consoles have now, I can probably do the upgrade now and be fine all generation long but I'll buy a PS4 first. I play at 1080p and I have no plans of upgrading from that for years so this time my gaming will target the same resolution that the consoles are rather than the sigificantly higher 720p---->1080p. That is giving me hope that whatever I buy will probably be enough to not have the urge to splurge on another upgrade for a long time. With a lot of these next gen games already missing the 1080p mark, I'm feeling confident that by 2015 I'll be able to a buy a $220 8 core AMD, and a a GPU equivalent to Titan around $250-300 with at least 3-4GB GDDR5. DDR4 will probably be around by then. Hopefully I can 8GB for around $120. Then I'll be golden for like 6 years.
 
mkenyon said:
Bottlenecks don't really work like that. It's not an either/or thing, and is entirely dependent upon the engine and whether it's MP or SP. Translating game state between client and server in MP games is *very* CPU demanding, and you'll always have chugs and slowdows in MP that will get better with a better and higher clocked CPU.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. Benchmarks say that OC'd 2500-series is still one of the fastest processors on the market when it comes to gaming. You're not going to get higher clocks on Ivy or Haswell, both of which use a shitty heatspreader in comparison to Sandy. There's a very small clock-for-clock performance advantage on Haswell against Ivy (and Ivy against Sandy), but not enough to justify any kind of upgrade.

Until Skylake in late 2014/early 2015, anyone with a Sandy or later should not upgrade. Depending on how much of an improvement it is, it still might not be worth it to upgrade. It's a weird situation for PC gamers, to be able to go so long not only without needing an upgrade, but being completely unable to justify it as well...
 
Izayoi said:
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. Benchmarks say that OC'd 2500-series is still one of the fastest processors on the market when it comes to gaming. You're not going to get higher clocks on Ivy or Haswell, both of which use a shitty heatspreader in comparison to Sandy. There's a very small clock-for-clock performance advantage on Haswell against Ivy (and Ivy against Sandy), but not enough to justify any kind of upgrade.

Until Skylake in late 2014/early 2015, anyone with a Sandy or later should not upgrade. Depending on how much of an improvement it is, it still might not be worth it to upgrade. It's a weird situation for PC gamers, to be able to go so long not only without needing an upgrade, but being completely unable to justify it as well...
Click to expand...
He was talking about how bottlenecks work, not saying the 2500k isn't good. He explicitly says its still great and will continue to be great.
 
My plan? Well, it depends on what motherboard I grab for my next CPU. (already have the CPU.)

If I get a motherboard with good Crossfire X capabilities, I drop in a second 7870 OC Edition and get by for another eighteen months or so. If it ends up being a single slot motherboard, I wait six to twelve months and try to buy a card with at least 1600 Shaders.

I tend to figure that people will need at least that many, to display cross platform titles at 60fps on at least low settings. That'd be a fantastic card for right now, but once the next round of consoles hits, it'll probably only be passable.
 
Next year: buy a 680 or an equivalent (i havent really kept up since i bought my last upgrade) and ride out the gen

After that: only if i have money to blow, i may upgrade in a few years
 
Just a question as i see multiple people say they will buy a next gen GPU with six GB.

Titan aside . is there some basis to believe that the 800 series will have one or is this just wishful thinking by those people .?
 
WolvenOne said:
My plan? Well, it depends on what motherboard I grab for my next CPU. (already have the CPU.)

If I get a motherboard with good Crossfire X capabilities, I drop in a second 7870 OC Edition and get by for another eighteen months or so. If it ends up being a single slot motherboard, I wait six to twelve months and try to buy a card with at least 1600 Shaders.

I tend to figure that people will need at least that many, to display cross platform titles at 60fps on at least low settings. That'd be a fantastic card for right now, but once the next round of consoles hits, it'll probably only be passable.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure your 7870 could do 60fps at low settings with next-gen cross-platform games. You're greatly overestimating what these consoles can do. Greatly.

soulassssns said:
I just upgraded from a GTX 460 1gb to a GTX 760 2gb.

I dont game at 1080P (monitor only supports 1680) so it doesnt matter.
Click to expand...
Even if you were at 1080p, the 760 would still be a fine card.
 
Thorgal said:
Just a question as i see multiple people say they will buy a next gen GPU with six GB.

Titan aside . is there some basis to believe that the 800 series will have one or is this just wishful thinking by those people .?
Click to expand...

The 600 series (Kepler) had 4GB versions of the 660Ti and up. There will almost certainly be 6GB versions for Maxwell. It's not guaranteed, but it's 99% likely.
 
Seanspeed said:
He was talking about how bottlenecks work, not saying the 2500k isn't good. He explicitly says its still great and will continue to be great.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Not sure why he brought up bottlenecks, my mention was only in the general sense of the term.

RibbedHero said:
The 600 series (Kepler) had 4GB versions of the 660Ti and up. There will almost certainly be 6GB versions for Maxwell. It's not guaranteed, but it's 99% likely.
Click to expand...
Yup. Even if it doesn't happen with launch cards, there will be a 6GB card at some point.
 
Izayoi said:
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. Benchmarks say that OC'd 2500-series is still one of the fastest processors on the market when it comes to gaming. You're not going to get higher clocks on Ivy or Haswell, both of which use a shitty heatspreader in comparison to Sandy. There's a very small clock-for-clock performance advantage on Haswell against Ivy (and Ivy against Sandy), but not enough to justify any kind of upgrade.

Until Skylake in late 2014/early 2015, anyone with a Sandy or later should not upgrade. Depending on how much of an improvement it is, it still might not be worth it to upgrade. It's a weird situation for PC gamers, to be able to go so long not only without needing an upgrade, but being completely unable to justify it as well...
Click to expand...
You said, "I think you'd be hard-pressed to find them causing a real bottleneck."

They cause bottlenecks in a lot of games, is my point. The flip side of that, is that there's no way around said bottlenecks, other than OC'ing it to the bleeding edge. I wasn't refuting that they are amazing procs. Still rocking a 3820 and 3570K myself.

The term "bottleneck" has outlived it's purpose, IMO, and does nothing but confuse things. Both a processor and GPU can be limiting performance in a game at the same time.
Thorgal said:
Just a question as i see multiple people say they will buy a next gen GPU with six GB.

Titan aside . is there some basis to believe that the 800 series will have one or is this just wishful thinking by those people .?
Click to expand...
Those people are silly. Feel free to not care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Are hardware prices affecting your upgrade plans?
Social  2 3
131
1K
DonkeyPunchJr replied
What is the best game this gen in your personal opinion (your favorite)?
2 3 4
155
786
Humdinger replied
Jez: MS sources tell me that the longer-term goal for Game Pass is to make it more flexible. A sort of "pick your own plan" formula is on the cards.
Rumor 
40
188
cireza replied
Why Fidelity is Ruining Graphics
47
597
IAmRei replied
  • Poll
What is your favorite gaming time?
21
420
Robb replied
Top Bottom