Upgrading a gaming PC

[giorgos123]

Hey guys, I built my PC 6 years ago and summer 2013 I upgraded my GPU to the GTX 770 Windforce edition (2GB) and my RAM at 8GB. So basically my setup is this:

Intel i5 2400 3.1GHz
GTX 770 Windforce 3X OC 2GB
8GB RAM
LG M2380DF 1080p

Recently, with all the new games coming out I decided to test out my system at a system requirements-checker thing. I never had problems before, I always just maxed everything and went to play. But now it seems like my setup isn't that powerful. Game-debate ruled out my 770,as well as my CPU, cause it didn't meet the recommended requirements of Dying Light which I find strange. What drove me to check out my system was very constant freezes in-game, low fps at times etc. though I don't know if it was the gpu, the cpu or the game being awfully ported.

So basically I want to upgrade my PC once again. Top priority must be my processor because it's kinda old. Next should be my GPU and after reading in a lot of forums, I don't want to waste money on a powerful GPU and not have an able monitor to support it, so that comes third.

What would you recommend as a good upgrade for what I state above? My biggest debate is to where I should get a second 770 or ditch it completely and get a 780 Ti or sth. Don't worry about my mobo, if I find the CPU I want the rest will be taken care of. I also don't have that much of a budget, so the best value-for-money would be good.

Thanks in advance guys!

 

[TheGameMaster]

I would get a GTX 980, or 970, or, wait for the new 300 series from AMD. If thats not in your budget, then a R9 290 XFX will do the job. Hope your upgrade go s well!

 

[Cristi72]

Hello,

What PSU are you using? The CPU/GPU temps are OK (60C/80C)? Your 2400 still packs some punch and GTX770 should be enough for 45-60 FPS on high settings for 1080p resolution.

 

[giorgos123]

I would get a GTX 980, or 970, or, wait for the new 300 series from AMD. If thats not in your budget, then a R9 290 XFX will do the job. Hope your upgrade go s well!

I'm leaning towards the 970, best value for buck I have seen in GPUs. Thanks for that! What about the CPU? I guess the i5 4670k would suffice but are there any other choices that cost less? Also, any recommendations for a 1440p monitor? I have seen this http://www.displaylag.com/benq-gw2765ht-review-1440p-ips-monitor/ but I'm not sure if I should get it.
Thanks again!

 

[giorgos123]

Hello,

What PSU are you using? The CPU/GPU temps are OK (60C/80C)? Your 2400 still packs some punch and GTX770 should be enough for 45-60 FPS on high settings for 1080p resolution.

Hello, yeah everything is running smoothly. I think my PSU is 650-700W. Temps are fine and yes, the CPU does the job. As for the GTX 770, I'm not having a problem with 90% of the games at ultra setting, but with the new ones the advancement in graphics load is starting to show.

 

[giorgos123]

Hello,

What PSU are you using? The CPU/GPU temps are OK (60C/80C)? Your 2400 still packs some punch and GTX770 should be enough for 45-60 FPS on high settings for 1080p resolution.

So, could you recommend a 1440p 27 inch monitor that would be best for a single GTX 970 and a CPU for that matter? My main problem is that my PC keeps "lagging", regardless of what I'm doing. Also my 770 ison a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot while it's supposed to be, I think, at a PCI-E 3.0. To sum everything up my PC's performance is above satisfactory but I think it could be even better. Still I can't solve the hypothetical problem that exists, that's why I'm looking for an upgrade of my CPU,GPU and Monitor.

Thanks!

 

[Cristi72]

Hello,

What PSU are you using? The CPU/GPU temps are OK (60C/80C)? Your 2400 still packs some punch and GTX770 should be enough for 45-60 FPS on high settings for 1080p resolution.

So, could you recommend a 1440p 27 inch monitor that would be best for a single GTX 970 and a CPU for that matter? My main problem is that my PC keeps "lagging", regardless of what I'm doing. Also my 770 ison a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot while it's supposed to be, I think, at a PCI-E 3.0. To sum everything up my PC's performance is above satisfactory but I think it could be even better. Still I can't solve the hypothetical problem that exists, that's why I'm looking for an upgrade of my CPU,GPU and Monitor.

Thanks!

Your i5-2400 supports PCI-e 2.0 speeds; for PCI-e 3.0 support, you should have at least an Ivy Bridge CPU (it's not much of a difference though).

Your system is lagging in which way? Check CPU/GPU/RAM usage and temperature. Also, do a HDD/SSD speed test.

The GTX970 still has one of the best market values; however, by going 1440p, you could easily have the RAM problems for which the GTX970 is known lately. Try to wait a little bit, to see how NVidia settles the situation; if not, go for GTX980. Also, around march AMD will launch its new GPU, the R9-3xx series, so hopefully the prices will go down.

The ultimate gaming monitor for 1440p: http://www.amazon.com/PG278Q-2560-1440-G-sync144Hz-10000000/dp/B00LBZLIXG/ref=sr_1_25?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422925807&sr=1-25&keywords=monitor&pebp=1422925807205&peasin=B00LBZLIXG

A good monitor (very good color reproduction, but it has the so-called IPS glow, so it's better to see one in action before purchasing; it's not a big deal for my likings, but some got very distracted by this edge glow):
http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-27-Inch-LED-lit-Professional-Graphics/dp/B009C3M7H0/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422924658&sr=1-2&keywords=monitor

A decent monitor (LCD panel, so lower response time and no edge glow, but less colour definition):
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-K272HUL-bmiidp-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00JB6HCIC/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422925230&sr=1-2&keywords=monitor

 

[giorgos123]

Hello,

What PSU are you using? The CPU/GPU temps are OK (60C/80C)? Your 2400 still packs some punch and GTX770 should be enough for 45-60 FPS on high settings for 1080p resolution.

So, could you recommend a 1440p 27 inch monitor that would be best for a single GTX 970 and a CPU for that matter? My main problem is that my PC keeps "lagging", regardless of what I'm doing. Also my 770 ison a PCI-E 2.0 x16 slot while it's supposed to be, I think, at a PCI-E 3.0. To sum everything up my PC's performance is above satisfactory but I think it could be even better. Still I can't solve the hypothetical problem that exists, that's why I'm looking for an upgrade of my CPU,GPU and Monitor.

Thanks!

Your i5-2400 supports PCI-e 2.0 speeds; for PCI-e 3.0 support, you should have at least an Ivy Bridge CPU (it's not much of a difference though).

Your system is lagging in which way? Check CPU/GPU/RAM usage and temperature. Also, do a HDD/SSD speed test.

The GTX970 still has one of the best market values; however, by going 1440p, you could easily have the RAM problems for which the GTX970 is known lately. Try to wait a little bit, to see how NVidia settles the situation; if not, go for GTX980. Also, around march AMD will launch its new GPU, the R9-3xx series, so hopefully the prices will go down.

The ultimate gaming monitor for 1440p: http://www.amazon.com/PG278Q-2560-1440-G-sync144Hz-10000000/dp/B00LBZLIXG/ref=sr_1_25?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422925807&sr=1-25&keywords=monitor&pebp=1422925807205&peasin=B00LBZLIXG

A good monitor (very good color reproduction, but it has the so-called IPS glow, so it's better to see one in action before purchasing; it's not a big deal for my likings, but some got very distracted by this edge glow):
http://www.amazon.com/PB278Q-27-Inch-LED-lit-Professional-Graphics/dp/B009C3M7H0/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422924658&sr=1-2&keywords=monitor

A decent monitor (LCD panel, so lower response time and no edge glow, but less colour definition):
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-K272HUL-bmiidp-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/B00JB6HCIC/ref=sr_1_2?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1422925230&sr=1-2&keywords=monitor

I opened MSI Afterburner and launched Dying Light. CPU temps were stable at around 50-52C and GPU temp at 70 or so. CPU usage was 70% across all cores and GPU was constantly 90+%. No weird noises from the case, no loud fans.

Generally, when I'm doing something simple like writing this post, CPU usage is lower than 5% and RAM usage lower than 25% and while gaming RAM usage goes up to like 60-80% depending on the game.

I had the PB278Q in mind and will probably get that. As for the lagging part, it doesn't happen that often but some times the screen will just get stuck, can't move the mouse can't do anything. It's irritating at most and it feels like the CPU has run its course, though my biggest complaint is that people seem to be having much better performance in games with their 770 than I do.For example, benchmarks for Far Cry 4 showed 770 averaging 55 FPS while I was roughly getting 30-35 with so many lag spikes that the game was unplayable. A new driver came out after a day or two and the lag was gone but the framerate didn't improve at all. Some are even saying that 770 is handling 1440p very good at high settings and from what I'm seeing I think that mine would burst in flames if I even tried that.

But anyway, your advice would be to stick with my 2400 and wait for the new series of AMD cards to come out and maybe then check the 980 or 970 for a drop in their price? I just want to get the most out of my GPU. Another issue probably is that it is the 2GB version while most games right now want to utilize ~4 or more at Ultra settings and in some extremes 6-8GB like Shadow Of Mordor stated in the requirements( which tbh my 770 did really fine at Ultra settings). Thanks for any guidance!

EDIT: Also could you share any input on whether I should upgrade to 1440p monitor? 90% of the things I use, except games, are on 1080p resolution eg. youtube videos, PS4, movies and so on. Is the upscaling that these monitors have good? I mean, if I try to watch a 720p episode of a TV series, because the majority of them are at 720p, will it be eye-straining or will it look like it does on my 1080p display? Because I don't feel it's worth upgrading my monitor to 1440p and only enjoy PC, while everything else looks bad. Hell, I don't even feel that the upgrade from 1080p to 1440p will be that big.

 

[Cristi72]

Your system has a good CPU/GPU balance. Check your HDD speed. How often did you reinstalled Windows?

If you need better image quality and more working space (browsing, documents), an 1440p monitor is a worthy upgrade.

If your PC output is native 1440p, the upscaling will be done by software, so the monitor has nothing to do with it. PS4 is an entirely other affair unfortunately: best image quality will be obtained outputting 720p for an 1440p monitor, and 1080p for an 1080p monitor.

 

[giorgos123]

Your system has a good CPU/GPU balance. Check your HDD speed. How often did you reinstalled Windows?

If you need better image quality and more working space (browsing, documents), an 1440p monitor is a worthy upgrade.

If your PC output is native 1440p, the upscaling will be done by software, so the monitor has nothing to do with it. PS4 is an entirely other affair unfortunately: best image quality will be obtained outputting 720p for an 1440p monitor, and 1080p for an 1080p monitor.

These are the results from the benchmark and they seem awful 😛 I reinstalled Win (and bought a new HDD) last winter because my HDD got fried from a storm in my area and lost everything. It's the only part I didn't buy myself.

As for the PS4, I didn't really understand what you said in the last lines. Would I have a problem connecting my PS4 through HDMI to, for example, the PB278Q?

 

[Cristi72]

These are the results from the benchmark and they seem awful 😛 I reinstalled Win (and bought a new HDD) last winter because my HDD got fried from a storm in my area and lost everything. It's the only part I didn't buy myself.

As for the PS4, I didn't really understand what you said in the last lines. Would I have a problem connecting my PS4 through HDMI to, for example, the PB278Q?

No, the results are normal for an HDD; however, this test is not giving you the min/max values and where exactly the speeds were measured. Try to use HDtune, it will give you a graph where you can easily see the areas with problems (if any). Your HDD has a single partition; I always prefer to do at least two partitions, first partition being the system partition (50-100GB; it is also the fastest HDD area) and second containing the game installments.

About the PS4: its default output resolution is 1080p, which is a perfect match for your old monitor. If you want to use the console with the 1440p monitor, you'll have better image quality by setting the console to 720p resolution and let the monitor to do the upscaling (720p is exactly 1/4 of 1440p resolution, so for each pixel from the 720p image the monitor will generate 4 identical pixels). When using the console's default 1080p resolution, for three output pixels will correspond four display pixels (it's not so simple, as the 3-to-4 rate must be attained in horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions at the same time; the process is called interpolation), so the image will lose the sharpness ( blurry image) and the colours will be somewhat washed-up.

 

[giorgos123]

No, the results are normal for an HDD; however, this test is not giving you the min/max values and where exactly the speeds were measured. Try to use HDtune, it will give you a graph where you can easily see the areas with problems (if any). Your HDD has a single partition; I always prefer to do at least two partitions, first partition being the system partition (50-100GB; it is also the fastest HDD area) and second containing the game installments.

About the PS4: its default output resolution is 1080p, which is a perfect match for your old monitor. If you want to use the console with the 1440p monitor, you'll have better image quality by setting the console to 720p resolution and let the monitor to do the upscaling (720p is exactly 1/4 of 1440p resolution, so for each pixel from the 720p image the monitor will generate 4 identical pixels). When using the console's default 1080p resolution, for three output pixels will correspond four display pixels (it's not so simple, as the 3-to-4 rate must be attained in horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions at the same time; the process is called interpolation), so the image will lose the sharpness ( blurry image) and the colours will be somewhat washed-up.

So I ran a benchmark and a random access test with HD tune. What can you see from the results? As for the partition, I think it's a little late now to do that as I have filled 50% of my HDD. Also, thanks for the PS4 info, it cleared things up.

 

[Cristi72]

So I ran a benchmark and a random access test with HD tune. What can you see from the results? As for the partition, I think it's a little late now to do that as I have filled 50% of my HDD. Also, thanks for the PS4 info, it cleared things up.

In the first picture (the most useful), the blue line represents the HDD's read transfer rate, and the yellow dots - the access time. The access time is OK, but the read speed varies between 2.7 MB/s and 162.6 MB/s, which is VERY BAD (minimum read speed for a WD Blue should not be lower than 50 MB/s). So, even if your HDD still have a good average speed (80 MB/s), the problem are the frequent speed dips. Look at my 5-year old Samsung, 80% full; now I'm using it just for storage, but it still has the initial partitions, two 50GB partitions (first partition still contains the original Windows installation, which I cloned onto the SSD 2 years ago) and one 850 GB partition:
http://imgur.com/7jb8OKn

Scan the HDD for errors, then do a defragmentation (it will consume much time, as you have only one partition and over 400GB of data). I recommend you not to use the PC while defragmenting; also, disconnect the PC from the network.

The best idea is to reinstall the OS, but in your case it's not an easy task, because a proper reinstallation requires formatting the partition where the OS will be installed, and you have only one partition. Are you having another HDD, to install the OS on it?

If you don't have another HDD for testing, you can shrink your C: partition to some 500GB, then create a new partition by using the remaining 400GB and start copying your sensitive data from C: to the new partition. WARNING: don't do this operation if you never done it before, or don't have an UPS for back-up, you risk to lose your data!

 

[giorgos123]

In the first picture (the most useful), the blue line represents the HDD's read transfer rate, and the yellow dots - the access time. The access time is OK, but the read speed varies between 2.7 MB/s and 162.6 MB/s, which is VERY BAD (minimum read speed for a WD Blue should not be lower than 50 MB/s). So, even if your HDD still have a good average speed (80 MB/s), the problem are the frequent speed dips. Look at my 5-year old Samsung, 80% full; now I'm using it just for storage, but it still has the initial partitions, two 50GB partitions (first partition still contains the original Windows installation, which I cloned onto the SSD 2 years ago) and one 850 GB partition:
http://imgur.com/7jb8OKn

Scan the HDD for errors, then do a defragmentation (it will consume much time, as you have only one partition and over 400GB of data). I recommend you not to use the PC while defragmenting; also, disconnect the PC from the network.

The best idea is to reinstall the OS, but in your case it's not an easy task, because a proper reinstallation requires formatting the partition where the OS will be installed, and you have only one partition. Are you having another HDD, to install the OS on it?

If you don't have another HDD for testing, you can shrink your C: partition to some 500GB, then create a new partition by using the remaining 400GB and start copying your sensitive data from C: to the new partition. WARNING: don't do this operation if you never done it before, or don't have an UPS for back-up, you risk to lose your data!

Yeah I get what you are saying. It's true, I would rather not format my drive again after 6-7 months, I'm not used to it.
About defragmentation, I have System Mechanic Pro which is constantly(every day) doing all these HDD tasks, most I can't name but it scans for errors, defragments, aligns etc. Every week or so, it performs a certain task and I have to reboot and then before windows boot a black screen pops up which checks the HDD, something like entering chkdsk in the CMD.

I realise that fixing this will fix my PC getting stuck, and having another HDD to install the OS to would be fine but it's not like the stuck-ups happen that often. They happen at random intervals and it doesn't look like something is causing them. Sometimes I may open up chrome and it will take a minute before it fully opens up but other times it starts instantly. But mainly I have noticed that they happen in two situtations, 1. when a setup of anything is currently runing, so basically if I'm installing let's say, a game, for 15-20 minutes my PC might be unusable because of the irritation these stuck-ups cause and 2. after a heavy-on-the-CPU task is closed or alt-tabbed, for example a game, again. If I want to minimize it to check eg. Facebook, sometimes it may be unbearable, and getting back to the game won't help because it seems like it "transfers" in a way to the game which is now getting lag spikes out of a sudden. I'm running an error scan through HD Tune Pro now, I will post the results when it's finished as it seems like it's gonna take a while (every box 'till now is green though).

UPDATE: Did the error scan. Everything turned out to be green. What's next?

 

[Cristi72]

UPDATE: Did the error scan. Everything turned out to be green. What's next?

Do the HDD defragmentation. Try not to do any intensive tasks which requires many HDD read/writes cycles (gaming, rendering). The best way is to let the PC doing only the defrag (if you don't have brownouts/blackouts in your area, you can let the system do the work at night, hopefully until morning it will conclude its job).

 

[Formagella]

An SSD for the OS and most used software will increase the perceived (and also real) performance of your computer more than any other upgrade you can make (unless we're talking exclusively about in-game FPS which won't benefit, only loading times), especially since your HDD is clearly behaving in an horrible way.

Nowadays small-sized SSDs are cheap enough, I have 128 GB and it's not even remotely full despite installing windows and tens of GB of software I use most often. I keep the other stuff in my old HDD.
I've had a 840EVO for like 1 year and I'm still amazed, especially because I'm still using other HDD-only computers and having to wait for the hard disk all the time is just frustrating.

My PC is older and weaker than yours and that's the upgrade I did and it was really experience-changing.
PS: my computer is from 2009 i.e. 6 years old, intel website says i5 2400 is from Q1 2011, what gives?

Given the slowdown problems you report, an SSD should be the first priority imho. Even a cheap one with equal r/w performance to an HDD will make you benefit immensely from the superlow access time (like 0.1 ms for cheap ones). If the problems are not fixed by an SSD upgrade, then you have reason to worry about the health of your computer.

 

[giorgos123]

UPDATE: Did the error scan. Everything turned out to be green. What's next?

Do the HDD defragmentation. Try not to do any intensive tasks which requires many HDD read/writes cycles (gaming, rendering). The best way is to let the PC doing only the defrag (if you don't have brownouts/blackouts in your area, you can let the system do the work at night, hopefully until morning it will conclude its job).

Did the defragmentation as you suggested and this is the new benchmark

An SSD for the OS and most used software will increase the perceived (and also real) performance of your computer more than any other upgrade you can make (unless we're talking exclusively about in-game FPS which won't benefit, only loading times), especially since your HDD is clearly behaving in an horrible way.

Nowadays small-sized SSDs are cheap enough, I have 128 GB and it's not even remotely full despite installing windows and tens of GB of software I use most often. I keep the other stuff in my old HDD.
I've had a 840EVO for like 1 year and I'm still amazed, especially because I'm still using other HDD-only computers and having to wait for the hard disk all the time is just frustrating.

My PC is older and weaker than yours and that's the upgrade I did and it was really experience-changing.
PS: my computer is from 2009 i.e. 6 years old, intel website says i5 2400 is from Q1 2011, what gives?

Given the slowdown problems you report, an SSD should be the first priority imho. Even a cheap one with equal r/w performance to an HDD will make you benefit immensely from the superlow access time (like 0.1 ms for cheap ones). If the problems are not fixed by an SSD upgrade, then you have reason to worry about the health of your computer.

I have thought about this and found some good and kinda cheap SSDs even at 256GB. Could you suggest one? I would like it to be 256GB. As for the CPU, and the PC in that matter, yes I got it at Q1 2011 so it's 5 years old, my mistake 😛

 

[Formagella]

whoa! I didn't realize fragmentation could do such miracles!

I'm not up to date since I've bought mine so I can't help you much, also it's not the appropriate section so you won't find good answers here maybe. There is quite some reading to do about how to improve the SSD lifetime (it's mostly about making sure TRIM is activated) if you care about it (it's been calculated that it's not much of a problem anymore with the new ones though).
Just as general pointers, on the bang-for-buck segment the best ones are apparently the Crucial MX100 or SanDisk Ultra II, on the high end there's the Samsung 850 Pro, the Samsung 850 EVO (the evolution of mine) is like 10% faster than the 2 cheap ones I listed but it costs much more so it's not worth it, but keep it in mind if you see big rebates. Crucial and Samsung have consistently been good choices for years.
Look at some reviews.

 

[Cristi72]

Did the defragmentation as you suggested and this is the new benchmark

The HDD looks much better now, no dips under 50MB/s. How is the system running now: still freezes and stutters?

The Formagella suggestions about SSDs are valid; you can add Plextor M6-series and Crucial M550 to the list (the latter is a bit old though, but a deal if found for a good price). The 240-256GB bracket is the best compromise between space and speed (much faster than 128GB ones and close to the 512GB performance).

 

[giorgos123]

Did the defragmentation as you suggested and this is the new benchmark

The HDD looks much better now, no dips under 50MB/s. How is the system running now: still freezes and stutters?

The Formagella suggestions about SSDs are valid; you can add Plextor M6-series and Crucial M550 to the list (the latter is a bit old though, but a deal if found for a good price). The 240-256GB bracket is the best compromise between space and speed (much faster than 128GB ones and close to the 512GB performance).

Hey, sorry for the late reply, I was travelling abroad.

So, I will probably get an SSD, but before I do that, can you tell me what would the benefits be other than the faster-loading Windows? I mean where will I almost immediately notice a difference in speed? And what should I put in the SSD? Only the OS, programs like Photoshop which are memory hoggers and games? Or more?