Improve the existing configuration or purchase a replacement?
Improve the existing configuration or purchase a replacement?
I upgraded from an I5 6500 to an I7 7700 and an RX 580 to a RX 6600, experiencing significant gains in gaming performance. I believe you could extend your system's lifespan with another CPU and look for an I7 7700 on eBay. The graphics card will definitely be the top priority.
The same idea came to mind, wondering why I should either upgrade my system or make a small improvement on what I already have. From what we’ve discussed so far, it seems adding a new MB/CPU and GPU would be enough. Why replace the rest? Or is it more practical to sell a functional computer rather than parts?
Budget-wise, it’s not a major worry. I’m aiming for the best value given my current needs, which mainly include occasional gaming and don’t require constant use.
I could definitely splurge on a high-end desktop, but I’d feel bad if I didn’t use it often or if it had more power than what I actually need. To give you a clear suggestion, what would be the best value for a 1440p system?
I have a Quest 2 VR that I can connect to my PC, but I haven’t used it yet. If I decide to add that as well, how would that influence my current build?
Cheers.
they do it so you can observe the full performance capacity in a worst-case situation. not so you can simply set your default graphics to ultra without considering other factors.
it's called benchmarking.
and any trustworthy card reviewer doesn't only check at ultra/max settings, they present outcomes for various resolutions with different quality levels, typically medium and high alongside the ultra/max.
and how many build questions have been asked for 1080p or 2k or 4k with medium settings? 1 in 10 ? 1 in 15? did the OP ask for medium settings 120hz? or when people suggest GPUs, do they base their recommendations on default GPU settings? or do you automatically assume it would be for medium settings and usually provide a GPU recommendation based on 'medium' performance? i would not have raised this point if he mentioned the 4060ti with medium settings, and even then it would fall short in today's AAA games. so i don’t think there’s an issue pointing out an incorrect suggestion or recommendation. if you do, please let me know and I’ll call a mod. i’m ready to explain my behavior.
In an ideal scenario, everyone would have the wealth and means to purchase the top GPUs and CPUs, but in reality we don’t. Most of us wouldn’t need such a debate since we already own RTX 4090 and high-resolution displays. Unfortunately, we’re not in that situation. Many of us want to get the most value from our hardware, so we adjust our choices accordingly. If you’re serious about playing Ultra regularly, the RTX 4090 is essential—but it’s not worth it if your monitor only supports QHD. The same applies to the 4080 model.
If you aim for continuous Ultra performance, the RTX 4090 is the recommended choice. However, it may not be worth the investment if your monitor only supports QHD. This applies to models like the 4080 as well.
Regarding Ultra, with an RTX 3070 I can achieve 120 or 144 fps under certain settings, though these are demanding on the GPU and don’t significantly improve visuals. - questionable at best. Unless those titles utilize DLSS and you’re using a non-RTX model.
How many threads have you noticed being recommended for medium settings so far? I’ve been active in the forums for some time, and a rate of one in ten or fifteen seems reasonable. As I mentioned earlier, the original poster didn’t ask for medium settings or mention a budget for the GPU. In these situations, it’s common to assume the highest quality at a specific resolution in discussions. Many users follow this approach.
So I’m surprised you agreed with my stance on that point.