Advice on CPU and GPU upgrade (I want to be able to run 1000 unit battles)

[Nick]

I want to run 1000 unit battles on med-high settings at ideally 1440p but if not 1080p.

I expect I need to upgrade my gaming pc but I don't really know just how much cpu & gpu I'd need.

My current pc is getting long in the tooth:
i5 4670 with minimal OC
16 GB DDR3 ram
EVGA 960 2 GB
500 watt PSU
aio cooler

I'll most likely need to replace everything but the case and my SSD. If I go intel I could reuse my cooler but I think my PSU will be too small (I might be able to get away with it on stock settings but I'll have to upgrade at some point or right away if go the 10600 route).

I'm looking at an AMD 3600x or the 9600k if I need the power the 3700X or 10600kf or 10600
16 GB of DDR4 ram
5600XT or 2060 maybe 5700XT or 2060 super / 2070

Other than Bannerlord I play mostly Civ6, but I have played Tomb Raider and City Skylines. This is a gaming only PC. Our main "life" computer is a new iMac and I'm not allowed to use a home computer for work.

I don't want to be limiting my Bannerlord battle count by under buying my CPU or GPU but I also don't want to pay for power I can't use or won't need. Is jumping to 10600k or 3700X needed or even worth it?

Is anyone using similar systems to what I'm thinking about getting and if so how do the big battles go for you?

I'm also going to have to upgrade my decrepit monitor but i think that will have to wait a bit until after the main comp upgrade. I think I'd like to get a 2k monitor. Recommendations for something that would compliment the above new specs? Or at least what I should be looking for and reasonable price so I know what to budget for.

I know the new Intel chips just dropped and AMD 4XXX and the new NVIDIA and AMD GPU's are rumored to be coming out this fall. Should I wait for those?

[4c 61 6e 64 6f]

So, I use the 3800X with 5700 XT (MSI GAMING X, not the best in anything, not the worst, good overall), together with 16 GB 3600 MHz 16-16-16-36 by G.Skill on a Gigabyte Aorus Elite x570.

My settings are high on average, not using stuff like motion blur or depths of field.

I can run 500vs500 easily, around 80+ fps with all agents on screen.

Temperatures are pretty good (55-70 on CPU and GPU), using the dark rock 4 cooler in a Phanteks P400A Digital case with the 3x120mm fans which come with the case in front and 1x120mm in the back + 1x140mm on top (both are be quiet pure wings 2 fans)

If you want to save a little, take the B450 Tomahawk MAX instead of my mainboard.

Hope that helps!

If you go for NVIDIA, I would definetly buy the 10600k and MAYBE the 10700k, because of the 8 physical cores. 10900k and 10400 are not worth it at all!

[Apples]

Go for Ryzen atleast, Intel isn't worth spending money on until they clean up their act.


As for specs, the main thing is how well the game performs once the EA is over, for me it's hard to say as my GPU (1060 3GB) is the limitation on my current 1440p Monitor, i'll have a go tonight and see if i can get an idea.


But your main issues will be;


Are you bothered for "RTX" games in the future?


That 1440p Monitor you want will be something you'll have to take into account performance wise, especially if you want 144hz, though it will run fine on a lower FPS, (i have limited mine to 60 FPS on games like Civ VI), it just means you won't get the full smoothy goodness of 144hz on your games.


And, whether you can wait till later in the year, or not.

[Nevasith]

I know it doesn't exactly answer your question as I'm running battle size 500 and everything set to maximum with no problems at all. If I reduced it somewhat I should be able to max the battle size I guess, but the maps are a bit too small for so many units.

My specs core:
Ryzen 3900x
GTX 1080
32 Gig Ram

[4c 61 6e 64 6f]

Originally posted by Nevasith:

I know it doesn't exactly answer your question as I'm running battle size 500 and everything set to maximum with no problems at all. If I reduced it somewhat I should be able to max the battle size I guess, but the maps are a bit too small for so many units.

My specs core:
Ryzen 3900x
GTX 1080
32 Gig Ram

You editing videos and stuff or why so much ram and the 1080 paired with a 12 core cpu?

[Urmel]

Originally posted by 4c 61 6e 64 6f:

You editing videos and stuff or why so much ram and the 1080 paired with a 12 core cpu?

there are people dont like change the system all 3 or 4 jears. and there are people dont like the way nvidia try too pain all pc-gamers with RTX.

i dont say RTX is bad. i just say the way nvidia try RTX is bad.

[Halfgeek]

This game scales to 8c CPUs really well in larger battles, so I recommend going with a 3700X as it's a really affordable 8c/16t.

16GB of RAM is enough for gaming.

2060S or 5700XT is a good bang for buck option with good performance.

One major reason why you should go with a 8c/16t CPU (if its within your budget), is next-gen consoles will be 8c/16t as a baseline. Many of the newer games in 2021 and onwards will be really CPU heavy & well threaded, as the new consoles have about a 5x increase in CPU performance for game engines to target compared to current-gen consoles. So for build longevity, its better than a 6c/12t even though 6c/12t seems optimal right now.

[Urmel]

Originally posted by Halfgeek:

16GB of RAM is enough for gaming.

it depends of what we understand of gaming. so jes and no. if i would by a system today 16 gb ram are not enough.

edit: the new consoles have 16 gb... what means 16 = standard = minimum.
playing games with minimum requirements isnt fun and ram isnt expensive atm.

[Halfgeek]

Originally posted by Urmel:

Originally posted by Halfgeek:

16GB of RAM is enough for gaming.

it depends of what we understand of gaming. so jes and no. if i would by a system today 16 gb ram are not enough.

The nice thing about RAM in general is its one of the easiest component to upgrade when its limiting.

Most main boards have 4 slots, so you can in the future, slot in 2 more sticks to bring it to 32GB.

I personally have not had a game perform poorly because of only 16GB though, maybe in a year or two.

[OldGamer]

anything is "worth" it if you are going to use it and if you are future proofing.

I bought my PC 4 years ago, in anticipation it will be upgraded internally in its 5th year. So what I got was 5 years in advance of what I needed.

Then this game came out and now I will have to bring forward the internal upgrades. When all this virus stuff allows us back to normal in some way so I can get the IT guy round.

[Supply Side Jesus]

I have very similar setup and just updated video card to 2070 Super. 32 GB of ram, 2070 Super and I can run 1000 battles on high as long as I turn off dynamic shadows.

[Sea Base]

Originally posted by Urmel:

Originally posted by Halfgeek:

16GB of RAM is enough for gaming.

it depends of what we understand of gaming. so jes and no. if i would by a system today 16 gb ram are not enough.

edit: the new consoles have 16 gb... what means 16 = standard = minimum.
playing games with minimum requirements isnt fun and ram isnt expensive atm.

Just worth pointing out that even new games destined for the new consoles are going to be expected to run on current gen consoles for some time, likely 2 or 3 years, maybe more. So I would still expect optimised games to have 8gb RAM as the minimum for some years still, with 12-16 gb being the recommended.

[kony]

You might want to try to play with your settings before you upgrade too.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2049013573

[Sagranda]

This video from Gamers Nexus might be interesting for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDZQCcDMcfw

Best gaming CPU overall: 10600k
Best overall CPU: R5 3600

For such things I would also recommend
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/

What I want to point out though is that any "x" version of the Ryzen CPUs are usually not worth it unless they are around the same price as the non x versions.

The 3700/x also only has a minimal gaming performance increase over the 3600. It is better at things like editing and streaming but it is hardly worth the extra cost when it comes to gaming imho.

16GB of RAM are the current sweet spot for gaming, since there's hardly any game that even uses the 16GB and performance differences between 16GB and 32GB are either non-existent or minimal.
The thing here is though that you play CIty Skylines. From what I heard about this game, it is one of a handful of games that actually use more than 16GB, especially if modded.
So 32GB of RAM are worth a consideration.

As for GPUs: If you can fit it in, the RTX 2070 Super is a great card. If not, then the 5700XT has a great price-performance ration IIRC and can handle 1440p just fine.

Here's nice benchmark that should be of interest
https://www.techspot.com/review/2017-geforce-1080-ti-vs-rtx-2070-super-vs-radeon-5700-xt/

[Halfgeek]

Originally posted by Sagranda:

This video from Gamers Nexus might be interesting for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDZQCcDMcfw

Best gaming CPU overall: 10600k
Best overall CPU: R5 3600

Problem with that is there is a huge price difference between those 2 setups.

CPU cost itself, in US the 3600 is like $175. The 10600K is selling for like $280.

3600 has a decent cooler out of the box. No extra $ required. 10600K you need a decent cooler. $$.

3600 can go on a cheaper MB, 10600K you have to pay 2x as much for a Z490 board right now.

In the end, its like 5-10% performance difference overall in gaming, that assumes you have a 2080Ti GPU and play at 1080p.

3600 makes way more sense if you don't want to waste money. 3700X makes better sense if you want some future proofing with 8c/16t.

[Sagranda]

Originally posted by Halfgeek:

Originally posted by Sagranda:

This video from Gamers Nexus might be interesting for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDZQCcDMcfw

Best gaming CPU overall: 10600k
Best overall CPU: R5 3600

Problem with that is there is a huge price difference between those 2 setups.

CPU cost itself, in US the 3600 is like $175. The 10600K is selling for like $280.

3600 has a decent cooler out of the box. No extra $ required. 10600K you need a decent cooler. $$.

3600 can go on a cheaper MB, 10600K you have to pay 2x as much for a Z490 board right now.

In the end, its like 5-10% performance difference overall in gaming, that assumes you have a 2080Ti GPU and play at 1080p.

3600 makes way more sense if you don't want to waste money. 3700X makes better sense if you want some future proofing with 8c/16t.

The price difference is definitely there and it is something GN also mentioned.
Price was a consideration on their part, but more actual gaming performance, which is why the 10600k got the title over the R5 3600, while the R5 3600 got the "best overall CPU" and there are segments where they talk about the comparison of those two.

The thing is, we don't know OPs budget. We don't know how much he values price to performance ration or if raw performance is a higher priority. If it is pure performance, then the 10600k is better than the R5 3600.

I personally wouldn't go for Intel myself, but that's because the extra performance isn't worth the extra money in my eyes.