What GPU to upgrade? ARC 770 or 4060/70?

[Lily]

I have the ancient 7700k, but can't really justify the money on a new board and GPU so I have to choose since I want to buy some other stuff too (just sold all my crpyto trash).

Currently running the GTX 1080.

Should I get a new GPU or is there no point?

Should I get a 2k monitor with the new GPU to avoid bottlenecking?

Please help, I would get the 4060 but it got only 8 GB VRAM and I heard thats basically nothing in this day and age, looking to play Starfield in September

uWu

[Illusion of Progress]

AbedsBrother님이 먼저 게시:

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

The Arc A770 probably isn't an upgrade over your GTX 1080.

So I had a 5700XT, which offers roughly the same performance as a 1080 (depending on the game). Then I got an A770. In optimal circumstances, the A770 was between 10-25% faster than the 5700XT.

Note the "in optimal circumstances" qualifier. The A770 drivers are still terrible in many DX11 games. The bad drivers are the primary reason I moved on from the A770 and replaced it with a different gpu. Games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Assassin's Creed Unity, Syndicate, Origins & Odyssey, Final Fantasy XIV, Halo (The Master Chief Collection), Tomb Raider (2013), Just Cause 4 all performed badly on Arc - in the case of Human Revolution, VERY badly. There's simply no way of knowing if a game will perform well or it won't. And this is in addition to frequent issues with Intel's Arc Control software.

Over-eager TechTubers try to smooth over Arc's issues as best they can, but it's never a good idea to buy a product for what it can become; buy it for what it IS. Right now, Arc is still trash for gaming.

Well, sure, but that wasn't a statement that the A770 is only exactly the same performance as a GTX 1080 and never better. It was a statement that from a starting point of a GTX 1080, the A770 isn't really what I'd call a good enough "upgrade" candidate. It would be like upgrading from a GTX 1060 to 1070, or a 1070 Ti to a 1080. Sure, something you'd do maybe for free, but only then. You wouldn't be wise to spend hundreds of dollars to do it though.

In reality, even GPUs that are closely "equivalent" are often wildly apart in individual circumstances. You lose depth when you have to average something. That's how it goes.

[Lily]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Yeah, you don't lose much to wait but you can gain a bunch of information to help in your decision, even if the game is very close to launch, so I'd probably do that. Keep in mind I know little about the game (so if there's released information about its performance then maybe I'm telling you to wait on something that is already known). Otherwise, just looking at those retirements and recommended listings, I'd have thoughts about the whole thing.

CPU asks for a Ryzen 5 2600X or Core i7 6800K (which is rare to see listed as it was an uncommon HEDT part). Both of these are slightly slower than your 7700K in per core performance, but have more cores. And they didn't use a more common Core i5 8x00 part, so what this tells me is the game wants a hex core. The recommended CPUs are also hex cores, but faster (the AMD 3600X in the recommended is close to an 8700 or 10400 on Intel's side, for reference, though they've chosen to list the 10600).

For the GPU your GTX 1080 is a bit faster than the minimum GTX 1070 Ti but it's close to the same, and the requirements range from a bit higher (RTX 2080 on nVidia side) to much higher (RX 6800 XT on AMD's side). The difference is probably because of ray tracing because the 6800 XT is faster besides that.

Basically I think a RTX 4070 would be a fine option (the RTX 4060 might even be) but you'll probably be instead wanting to change your platform (CPU/motherboard/RAM) more. But maybe the requirements are overstated. I'm sure you'll have people will quad cores and Pascal chips trying the game and it's launching soon so you can find out then though.

Very concise and informing piece of input, much appreciated.

[r.linder]

4070 is the best option, best in performance and power efficiency of the options you listed. The A770 is worst because it's the slowest and uses the most power, and Intel's drivers just aren't able to compete with AMD and Nvidia yet, Arc GPUs are only really good in certain DX12 games, they tend to suffer in earlier versions of DirectX.

[Wichtelman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIY8gvJJAAs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O7Ij5rOqso

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Aside from your CPU; what exact Motherboard do you have and how much RAM as well?

As with some older boards or some motherboards from OEM pre-builds; RTX 40 series and AMD 6xxx/7xxx series might not be an option.

Forget the Intel GPUs; their best GPU is around 3060-3070 level of performance and that's in a select few DX12 titles.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

OP, the question is why do you wanna upgrade your GPU in the first place?
GTX 1080 is still a perfectly capable GPU for 1080p which has sufficient power to play any games to date (including the Starfield).

Forget A770 or RTX 4060, they are only around 25% more powerful compared to your existing GTX 1080. If you really wanna upgrade, go for RTX 4070 or 6800xt, which are around 70 to 80% faster.

As for the bottleneck, yes 7700k will bottleneck the RTX 4070 or 6800xt to some degree in many CPU heavy games like the Cyberpunk or Far Cry 5 at 1080p. But you can make the game more GPU demanding by playing on ULTRA settings with High/ ultra Ray-Tacing, it should avoid the bottlenecks.

[r.linder]

🦜Cloud Boy🦜님이 먼저 게시:

OP, the question is why do you wanna upgrade your GPU in the first place?
GTX 1080 is still a perfectly capable GPU for 1080p which has sufficient power to play any games to date (including the Starfield).

Forget A770 or RTX 4060, they are only around 25% more powerful compared to your existing GTX 1080. If you really wanna upgrade, go for RTX 4070 or 6800xt, which are around 70 to 80% faster.

As for the bottleneck, yes 7700k will bottleneck the RTX 4070 or 6800xt to some degree in many CPU heavy games like the Cyberpunk or Far Cry 5 at 1080p. But you can make the game more GPU demanding by playing on ULTRA settings with High/ ultra Ray-Tacing, it should avoid the bottlenecks.

RT isn’t just GPU demanding, it’s CPU demanding, you still get better performance with faster CPUs with RT settings.

[Skkooomer Lord]

7900 XT

[emoticorpse]

I'm thinking of doing a 4070. Seems to me like the best (current) price to performance product.

Price is decent, vram is decent, speed is decent, psu requirements are decent, latest series which is great.

Anything lower might be risking being choked memory wise and in that case I might as well just stay with my 2070 which does get stable 60 fps at 1080p. Anything higher costs just way too much to justify spending for the little bit of gains.

[Corona Scurrae]

are you planning to play the comp games at high refresh 1080p with a new gpu? then no your 1080 suffices

are you planning to play new games? what resolution and settings are you interested in? is raytracing important to you?

a770 is awful. I would avoid it.

base 4070 models should be avoided. some of them don't even passively cool the vrm which jumps to 97 degrees Celsius at 22 degrees room temp.

in the end if you are worried about vram limitations then I would suggest you wait, since there hasn't been any undeniable conclusions that you require at least 12gb vram for 1080p. all three gpu giants, have their own proprietary solutions for faster asset streaming but it's up to microsoft to implement them and given the rumor that ratchet and clank a rift in time, will have gpu decompression, I would suggest you wait until the end of this month, to see if more vram is even necessary

[Corona Scurrae]

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

I'm thinking of doing a 4070. Seems to me like the best (current) price to performance product.

Price is decent, vram is decent, speed is decent, psu requirements are decent, latest series which is great.

Anything lower might be risking being choked memory wise and in that case I might as well just stay with my 2070 which does get stable 60 fps at 1080p. Anything higher costs just way too much to justify spending for the little bit of gains.

don't buy current products. not worth it. nvidia intentionally ruined everything this gen - except the 4090 - to goad people on to buying the leftover 30 series gpus.

if rumors are to be believed, they will skip 2024 and instead release the 50 series in 2025. so probably that's the time you should be looking for a decent upgrade.

[emoticorpse]

Clown fiesta Pelopidas님이 먼저 게시:

emoticorpse님이 먼저 게시:

I'm thinking of doing a 4070. Seems to me like the best (current) price to performance product.

Price is decent, vram is decent, speed is decent, psu requirements are decent, latest series which is great.

Anything lower might be risking being choked memory wise and in that case I might as well just stay with my 2070 which does get stable 60 fps at 1080p. Anything higher costs just way too much to justify spending for the little bit of gains.

don't buy current products. not worth it. nvidia intentionally ruined everything this gen - except the 4090 - to goad people on to buying the leftover 30 series gpus.

if rumors are to be believed, they will skip 2024 and instead release the 50 series in 2025. so probably that's the time you should be looking for a decent upgrade.

Well, That's fair enough but the way I see it is that it kind of equals out. If you do save money by going last gen, you're saving money at the expense of the performance.

So for someone consciously making that choice, that's fine but it'll be sooner that they again spend more money because they'll be behind a generation. Also, the waiting game hasn't paid off too much for anyone the last couple years as far as I can tell.

[Corona Scurrae]

smallcat님이 먼저 게시:

ASUS RTX 4070 Dual - in gaming
GPU- 61C
hotspot - 72C
memory - 72C
it is only 200W GPU

those are decent temps. I looked it up again and the one I mentioned is the 3x ventus from msi.

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

If I had a gtx 1080 I would be upgrading to nothing. Everything except ray tracing and dlss runs on that thing. Even if I had a gtx 1060 I wouldn't upgrade.

I would only upgrade if I had a Kepler GPU or something like that, if I had pascal I would it be upgrading, not when you can just turn on FSR.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

GTX 1080 still plays pretty much every game there is with Very High / Ultra visuals at 1080p/60 fps. But yes, lack of DLSS and Ray Tracing. They can do FSR/FSR2 though.

If anything it's the 7700K that's lacking as it wasn't even that good to begin with. Only thing that made it good at the time was the fact AMD didn't have a completing CPU for it at that time.