So in CS:GO I get about 200-300 FPS inconsistently with my i5 4460 and my GTX 760. Since CS:GO is CPU based I was wondering if it would be worth it to upgrade to a i5 4690k since it's the best processor for my socket LGA 1150 (Z97) and CS:GO doesn't take any advantage of Hyperthreading so a i7 4790k would be irrelevant therefor. And since my GPU is outdated I was wondering if a GTX 1070 would bottleneck with a i5 4690k.
I doubt it would make much difference. It may, but I would be surprised if it was noticeable.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, I am pretty sure that those FPS numbers are really solid for your specs. I would imagine that the best performance increase would come from upgrading the gpu. That said, I don't see a reason to get a 1070 for CSGO which you are already getting hundreds of fps with a significantly less powerful card. I would be looking at a 480 or 470 instead. No real reason to spend that much money unless you like playing more demanding games or plan on upgrading to a higher resolution monitor or something.
1 Like
Upgrading your CPU will not help much. Upgrading from a 970 for that matter does not make any sense.
CS:GO is not my only game.
Playing Witcher 3 and so on.
Why in the Stallman's holy name would you need more than 144fps?
What's your display?
if it's not 4k or 1440p 144hz then there's probably not much reason to buy a 1070
Then what you need is more graphics horsepower. Not more cpu horsepower. Games like Witcher 3, Crysis 3, GTAV, BF4, etc all need much more power from the gpu in order to run well. So again, the 4460 is fine. What you need for better frame rates in CSGO (still not sure why you need anything more than what you have for that game) and more graphically intensive games like Witcher 3 is a faster gpu. After you upgrade the gpu, see what performance you are getting in the games that you play and see if your cpu is holding you back any by watching the utilization in game of both the cpu and the gpu and that will tell you if you need to bother with a better cpu. Again, I would suggest something like the 480. If you are at 1080p, then the 1070 just plainly doesn't make any sense. It is more power than you will need. It is just a waste of money.
Apparently that's a thing, seems kind of pointless though, really it'd all just be about your minimum frame rates
but what's your display?
TLDR... Short answer - pointless...
200FPS aren't enough for you? It's just fine. Also no, 4460 is not supposed to bottleneck 1070, since 1070 is basically 980Ti performance wise.
1080p 144Hz, it just makes me feel weird because I wanted to go for a GTX 970 and could only dream about GPU's like the GTX 980 Ti. And now since they are supposed to be around the same price in Germany am just starting to think less and less about the 970. The 1070 is only about 50€ more which is no issue to me.
Or you could just get an RX 480 and still get a beefy upgrade at half the cost....But if you already have the display then you probably aren't going to be buying a free-sync display which would have saved you more money
Well the monitor is quite outdated and dirty, so dirty you cant clean it. I would not mind a upgrade so would you mind explaining me the purpose of Free-Sync?
RX480 is expected to outperform 970 for 200$ (god knows how much in Europe, but it will be surely cheaper than 970)...
I live AMD marketing.
Freesync is technology, that makes your monitor run with the framerate of your graphics card. So no matter if you have 40 fps or 70fps, the gameplay will be smooth, there will be no stuttering, tearing, input lag, etc.
It is the same as G-Sync from Nvidia. Just way way cheaper.
I see, and to be fair I saw some videos already about it yet I can not allow my self to not use Shadowplay. And I cant find similar software for free and which is eating so less of your FPS.
i use plays.tv a bit buggy with the newest versions but as far as i can tell no fps drops and i have a 380
AMD has equivalent software with GVR, it's in the included Raptr software with driver downloads, though OBS is better if one has the CPU horsepower anyways
http://raptr.com/TinyDino/news/53d6730c16b46f0af3/introducing-gvr-and-instant-replays-capture-and-share-gameplay-video-with-nearly-no-performance-impact-\
Otherwise adaptive sync just makes things smoother with frame rate dips, but it's more expensive for a G-sync monitor with the same specs
1080p 144hz TN
Free-sync 249 EU
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/ZBZ2FT/aoc-monitor-g2460pf
G-sync 345 EU
https://de.pcpartpicker.com/product/Mf98TW/aoc-monitor-g2770pf
-
-
The 480 + Free-sync is probably better overall than just the pure horsepower of a 1070 given the savings
Trust me, you need it.
If you really want to stick with Team Green, and want a monitor upgrade you could always shell out for a G-SYNC monitor. They make G-SYNC monitors up to 200hz refresh rate if you have deep pockets.
(I have a 144hz 1080p G-Sync panel - playing BF4 with GSync turned on or off I see no difference. I get about 90FPS in BF4 with my 4gb GTX770 with everything maxed out for the most part. It might be noticeable in games where I have lower FPS or have big FPS drops... not sure.)
I understand if anyone feels like this isn't the thread for this argument, but that video is bullshit. All placebo. I'm no expert here, so I may get some terminology wrong, but I have the basics down regardless. Responsiveness is all about how lag time. The time between you giving a command and the monitor showing it. There are things in that pipeline which fps can NOT affect. The time between your movement and the OS receiving the command, the processing time that the OS takes, the game's overhead, and then there is anything that is based on the network which likely won't affect the responsive feel of the game, but will affect whether or not what you see is accurate. Those things can not be affected by upgrading hardware (usually). Then there are the things in the pipeline which can be affected by hardware upgrades. The time between the game registering the command and figuring out what to do with it is largely cpu based. The time between the game knowing what to do with the command and sending it to the gpu to render the image is based on the cpu as wells. If those two things take too long, then there will be time when the gpu is not rendering a frame and doesn't have a frame lined up to render, meaning it is sitting idle for a brief moment, decreasing its utilization, and resulting in a cpu bottleneck. Then you have the gpu. It is getting commands from the game to render frames. In very simplistic terms, it holds a virtual idea of the image that is on the screen and replaces it one pixel at a time with the most recent frame that it has been sent to render. That is why you get screen tearing. If the display tries to show the next image and it isn't completely filled out yet, then it have part of the last frame and part of the next one and only the pixels that the gpu has already rendered of the next frame will be what changes on the screen. Then you have the monitor itself. There are two aspects of the monitor that affect the time it takes for it to show an image. There is the refresh rate and the input lag. Refresh rate is how many images it displays per second. Input lag is how long it takes the monitor to display the image once it has been received.
So what can you actually do to increase responsiveness in game. Well, you can get a faster cpu, but if the cpu you have is capable of sending as many frames to the gpu as the gpu is capable of rendering at any given moment, then there isn't a point. Then you have the gpu and if it is rendering more frames per second than the display can display at any given moment, then there isn't a point. Then there is a monitor, if it has a refresh rate higher than what your gpu can render, then there is no point.
The argument is that if you increase frame rates beyond what your monitor can handle, then the responsiveness will still increase. What gaps can fps affect when past the refresh rate of the monitor? There is the gap between the cpu and the gpu and the gpu and the display. The time it takes the cpu to tell the gpu to render a frame and the time between the gpu being told what to render and it telling the display to show what to display. The rest is unaffected by frame rates. So how long is that time compared to the time affected by the other factors such as the OS and the display's lag time? Well, you will have to figure out the lag time of the entire system when not in game and then compare it to when you are in game. The difference is theoretically how much time can be affected by increasing the frame rate. The monitors that I have personally tested showed between 20ms and 60ms to show a response after issuing movement with the mouse. A good gaming monitor will be less than that (the 20ms was actually a cheap IPS panel). That is likely to be the biggest source of lag in the system. With a 144hz monitor, the time between frames is roughly 7ms. So the absolute most that an increased frame rate can increase responsiveness on a 144hz monitor (when talking about past 144fps) is 7ms. That is only if the frame to be displayed was instantly moved from the cpu to the display, no rendering time, so in all likelihood, it will be much less than that. I don't have enough information to do calculations I don't think, but the difference is likely miniscule in the grand scheme and likely not capable of being noticed. I would imagine that having 200fps vs 144fps on a 144hz monitor would increase responsiveness by a millisecond or two at most. Hardly noticeable if at all perceivable.
Came across this, and if it to be believed, then the time it takes us to register the change in the image is at best 30ms and at worst over 100ms. Compare that to the theoretical maximum impact of responsiveness of 7ms and we are looking at something tiny. And if that is determining how well you do in a game, then maybe you should get better at the game or play something that isn't a reaction time competition. (Obviously joking, but still not likely that it is a noticeable difference)
Alright, that ranting nonsense of mine aside, I would say that the money could be better spent elsewhere. If you are planning on getting a new monitor, then I would suggest you look at 144hz 1440p ones that support freesync. A 980 gets about 150fps at 1440p maxed in CSGO, so I would imagine that a 480 would get basically the same performance.