Upgrading a RTX 2070 Super

[Fizban]

Mandatory, not by some distance. GTX1660 is the most commonly reported gpu in Steam surveys and a fair number of 2nd gen Intel users are finally feeling the pinch. Where the line is slowly being drawn is ability to easily play unrefined newer titles. To that end you would be well advised to a) install 32GB of RAM, b) make sure it is of the fastest speed your system is stably capable of running. OS should run better as well.

As ever those who have moved to the newest and latest will have a hard time conceiving of going back. Those only a half decade off will have a hard time swallowing the need to multiply their power usage and heat output.

1650 is the most reported GPU. Though 3060 is really the highest, for some reason it lists 3060 desktop and 3060 laptop separately, while most other models get combined. I suspect it's because they're different dies (3060 laptop actually has more cores than the desktop gpu). But when you combine the two they're far ahead of the 1650's numbers.

16gb is still good enough for most games. Dont know why people are saying buy 32gb when OP doesnt need it.

32 GB is definitely starting to be more beneficial than it was previously. I have 64 GB, and I have reached 25-30 GB usage frequently as of late in modern titles.

 

[wNotyarD]

You can disagree all you wish. The numbers, run by W1zard, say otherwise.

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF Review

The ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF is a factory-overclocked premium custom-design variant, which features an all-metal cooler shroud. Noise levels are the lowest we've measured in all our RTX 4070 reviews, and the dual BIOS feature lets you enable a second BIOS that achieves lower temperature.

www.techpowerup.com

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF Review

The ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF is a factory-overclocked premium custom-design variant, which features an all-metal cooler shroud. Noise levels are the lowest we've measured in all our RTX 4070 reviews, and the dual BIOS feature lets you enable a second BIOS that achieves lower temperature.

www.techpowerup.com

The 4070 ASUS TUF the OP is contemplating nearly doubles the performance of a 2070.

Just throwing it out there...

EDIT:
And it doubles that performance WITHOUT doubling the power usage...

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF Review

The ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 TUF is a factory-overclocked premium custom-design variant, which features an all-metal cooler shroud. Noise levels are the lowest we've measured in all our RTX 4070 reviews, and the dual BIOS feature lets you enable a second BIOS that achieves lower temperature.

www.techpowerup.com

For sure 4070 runs circles around a 2070, but that's also when the cpu and ram behind it can push those numbers. W1zz does it with a 13900K and 2x16GB DDR5-6000CL36. With OP's 8700K and undisclosed 16GB ram, the 4070 will be seriously limited.
For reference, let's put the 8700K between the 10400F and the 10600K on the following chart (also by W1zz), give or take:

Intel Core i9-13900K Review - Power-Hungry Beast

With the Core i9-13900K, Intel delivers impressive performance. Our in-depth review confirms: Raptor Lake is the world's fastest CPU for gaming. Even in applications the processor is able to match AMD's Zen 4 Ryzen 9 7950X flagship. If only power consumption wasn't so high...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[tussinman]

I'm wondering though if there might be a better price/performance model given my current card.

The absolute best price to performance would be something along the lines of faster ram and then sell your 2070 Super for something like a 6750XT.

Total out of pocket (after selling your old card) might only be around $250 and should be a good 40% jump

8700k and that Z370 motherboard you listed have decent resell value on the used market so you could truthfully dump it for something more modern but lower midrange and not pay much out of pocket.

Most of this is going to depend on what you're trying to accomplish and how much performance do you think you need. Me for example I only use the computer for single player games and internet so if someone gave me a 8700k for free (or I already had it) I could probably get away with just putting a decent video card in there with adequate ram and be fine. I'd also be fine with swapping it out for something modern but more entry level/energy efficient if the total out of cost after selling it was low.

 

[Fizban]

8700k and that Z370 motherboard you listed have decent resell value on the used market so you could truthfully dump it for something more modern but lower midrange and not pay much out of pocket.

Why would a 8700K have decent resale value?

It's neck and neck with a i3-13100, in multi-core performance. The i3 however is 45% faster single-core (but has 2 fewer cores).

The i3 provides a better experience in basically every scenario and is $129 brand new.

 

[tussinman]

Why would a 8700K have decent resale value?

It's neck and neck with a i3-13100, in single-core performance. The i3 however is 45% faster single-core (but has 2 fewer cores).

The i3 provides a better experience in basically every scenario and is $129 brand new.

Historically it's always been like that for Intel i7s. People will invest in expensive Z board setups with good ram and if their CPU dies or they are using only an i5 they'll pay the extra cash to just buy a used i7

I remember a few years back the resell value of my i7 3770k was only like $30 less than what a brand new Ryzen 3600 sold for at my local brick n motar.

 

[Stephen.]

This^

I would spend the money and build a new system and use your RTX 2070 in it. Both (AMD and Nvidia) new generation of cards are duds, and I would skip over, in less you can find them for 25% or cheaper than they are now.

^ this generation of cards are duds no mums, ooo wait the only mum I have seen is Intel ARC on price though, performance of the 2070 super is better than ARC A770

 

[tussinman]

The i3 13100 provides a better experience in basically every scenario and is $129 brand new.

That's another scenario why used i7s still have decent value. Someone buying an i3-13100 now can 2-3 years down the line buy a used i7 13th or 14th gen and not only get a huge increase in performance but keep their platform

 

[Fizban]

^ this generation of cards are duds no mums, ooo wait the only mum I have seen is Intel ARC on price though, performance of the 2070 super is better than ARC A770

They're basically neck and neck and trade blows. If anything I'd say the A770 will more often than not win, so long as you get the 16 GB variant.

 

[lexluthermiester]

16gb is still good enough for most games. Dont know why people are saying buy 32gb when OP doesnt need it.

Because the card is a 16GB card and a PC always needs more system RAM than GPU RAM because system RAM is used as a buffer in 99% of all gaming situations. Trying to use a PC that has both 16GB of system RAM and 16GB of VRAM with render less than optimal results. Technically, the OP could by an 8GB kit with matching speed specs and thus upgrade to 24GB, but 16GB is cheap right now and a very easy upgrade.

Sorry for the delay, but as said, your CPU might be bottleneck for 4070, especially for HRR gaming at 1080P. Could be also for 2K resolution. If 4K is your weapon of choice, that stay on 8700K.

I know is not 4070, but is 4070Ti and see how it performs with 8700K and 13700K on 1080P Superposition bench.

And how does that compare to a 2070? Keep in mind, that is a benchmark that heavily tests CPU and GPU together. Many(most) games need a powerful GPU rather than a powerful CPU. So the context of your point is lost without a test of both GPU's as well.

I'm not saying the OP's system wouldn't do better with a faster CPU because of course it would. I'm saying telling them that they should upgrade to a newer CPU instead of GPU is bad advice.

 

[Lost_Troll]

Because the card is a 16GB card and a PC always needs more system RAM than GPU RAM because system RAM is used as a buffer in 99% of all gaming situations. Trying to use a PC that has both 16GB of system RAM and 16GB of VRAM with render less than optimal results. Technically, the OP could by an 8GB kit with matching speed specs and thus upgrade to 24GB, but 16GB is cheap right now and a very easy upgrade.

That is not always true, the Last of us and Hogwarts would push my RAM usage above 20GB with my RX 6650XT that had 8GB of VRAM. With my RX 6750XT, it sits just under 20GB with Hogwarts now.

 

[lexluthermiester]

For sure 4070 runs circles around a 2070, but that's also when the cpu and ram behind it can push those numbers.

No, it'll do that even on older systems.

That is not always true, the Last of us and Hogwarts would push my RAM usage above 20GB with my RX 6650XT that had 8GB of VRAM. With my RX 6750XT, it sits just under 20GB with Hogwarts now.

That's a fair point and shows a reason to upgrade to 32GB of system RAM, as was suggested earlier.

 

[Fizban]

Yeah, Hogwart's is definitely one of the biggest offenders to date.

Not quite using 32 GB, but using way above 16.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yeah, Hogwart's is definitely one of the biggest offenders to date.

Not quite using 32 GB, but using way above 16.

Exactly, a better GPU and extra RAM go a long way to improving a gaming experience. CPU upgrades can be great if the existing CPU in question is very old. A 8700K though? That's still a solid CPU and a 4070 would make for a great upgrade.

 

[sepheronx]

I honestly would say wait it out. 2070 Super is above PS5 in terms of graphics. A PS5 and Xbox series X is about a 2070 and 10GB variant of RX 6700.

You could simply look at upgrading rest of system. Maybe just increase the ram from 16 to 32gb if your system allows and ram prices are cheap enough for you. When you really start pumping money into it, then you might as well upgrade whole system.

I am rather biased with current GPU releases and am not a fan of it and wouldn't recommend it. But its entirely up to you of course.

 

[Fizban]

I honestly would say wait it out. 2070 Super is above PS5 in terms of graphics. A PS5 and Xbox series X is about a 2070 and 10GB variant of RX 6700.

You could simply look at upgrading rest of system. Maybe just increase the ram from 16 to 32gb if your system allows and ram prices are cheap enough for you. When you really start pumping money into it, then you might as well upgrade whole system.

I am rather biased with current GPU releases and am not a fan of it and wouldn't recommend it. But its entirely up to you of course.

It's about neck and neck with a PS5. I'd compare the PS5 to a 6600 XT, which is technically slower than a 2070 Super, but only by a few %.

I think the 40 series GPU's "are" a pretty big upgrade, but I fully acknowledge that they're not priced particularly well.

Though the console comparison is a bit, weird too, since the consoles seem to surprisingly underperform in a lot of modern games.

Diablo 4 for example, runs on a PS5 at 1260P at 60 fps. Meanwhile my laptop does like 120-150 fps, at triple the pixel count. No clue why the console performs so poorly, I'd expect it to get around half the performance of my laptop, not 1/6th the performance.

 

[sepheronx]

It's about neck and neck with a PS5. I'd compare the PS5 to a 6600 XT, which is technically slower than a 2070 Super, but only by a few %.

I think the 40 series GPU's "are" a pretty big upgrade, but I fully acknowledge that they're not priced particularly well.

Though the console comparison is a bit, weird too, since the consoles seem to surprisingly underperform in a lot of modern games.

Diablo 4 for example, runs on a PS5 at 1260P at 60 fps. Meanwhile my laptop does like 120-150 fps, at triple the pixel count. No clue why the console performs so poorly, I'd expect it to get around half the performance of my laptop, not 1/6th the performance.

Yes, I agree with what you say but the main reason why i made the comparison is because most games coming out will be more geared to the hardware from the consoles. So the closest you get to that performance of the consoles, you can expect that kind of quality. If you want much more, of course upgrade to the newest hardware.

But I just feel that the current hardware prices are abysmal enough that it just doesn't warrant that uplift in graphics (which is rather very questionable as I am having more trouble seeing difference between Med/High/Ultra. So I find its better to just further save up to upgrade whole system.

I also don't recommend getting the older hardware unless it comes at a great discount. But I noticed people selling used 3080's for as much as a 4070 ti which isn't a good deal at all.

I say upgrade RAM to 32GB and upgrade NVME (or at least create a game drive out of a NVME), and you will be fine without over spending.

just my 2 Rupees.

 

[Dr. Dro]

16gb is still good enough for most games. Dont know why people are saying buy 32gb when OP doesnt need it.

16 GB is barely enough to run Windows, basic set of applications and a browser decently these days. There's literally 0 reason to subject yourself to that, RAM has become exceptionally cheap.

 

[Darkholm]

And how does that compare to a 2070? Keep in mind, that is a benchmark that heavily tests CPU and GPU together. Many(most) games need a powerful GPU rather than a powerful CPU. So the context of your point is lost without a test of both GPU's as well.

I'm not saying the OP's system wouldn't do better with a faster CPU because of course it would. I'm saying telling them that they should upgrade to a newer CPU instead of GPU is bad advice.

Depends on a scenario. Personally I do not care much about benchmarks because even my 4080 is somewhat slower on 5900X than on 13700K. But difference between 8700K and 13700K is HUGE in 1080P HRR gaming, only that was my point, nothing else. Singleplaying campaigns are pretty good to play on 8700K, especially in higher res.
2070 is card from 2018, 5 years old and with only 8GB of VRAM, it should be taken into a consideration to upgrade it first.

And I agree about RAM. DDR4 is dirt cheap now. Managed to buy 2nd B-Die 2x8GB kit for €70.

Bottom line from my side is: GPU and RAM now - CPU and MBO later (of course if his budget cannot round up all of those goodies).

 

[lexluthermiester]

6 GB is barely enough to run Windows

Have to disagree with that. In reality, I've tested Windows 11 with 4GB & 6GB of RAM. It runs fine. Gaming is a very different beast from general daily computing. Daily general computing doesn't need nearly as much RAM as gaming or other highend/power user task. So 8GB is actually an amount that will work perfectly for most people if they're not gaming or doing "power" tasks. As always though, it's better to have more than less.

For gaming however, having lot's of RAM can keep performance from tanking or stuttering, especially when you have a GPU with a lot of onboard VRAM.

But difference between 8700K and 13700K is HUGE in 1080P

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying that it's still a modern enough CPU to handle every game available.

2070 is card from 2018, 5 years old and with only 8GB of VRAM, it should be taken into a consideration to upgrade it first.

Exactly, we agree on this.

 

[Shrek]

16 GB is barely enough to run Windows, basic set of applications and a browser decently these days. There's literally 0 reason to subject yourself to that, RAM has become exceptionally cheap.

I have a 4GB laptop on Windows 11 and it seems to sit around 85% RAM usage and since I don't intend to do much more than email and web surfing I decided not to get more RAM; not because of price but in case it reduces battery life.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I have a 4GB laptop on Windows 11 and it seems to sit around 85% RAM usage and since I don't intend to do much more than email and web surfing I decided not to get more RAM; not because of price but in case it reduces battery life.

It doesn't reduce battery life, in fact you may find that having more could improve it a bit (less paging and waiting around for things to load)

Have to disagree with that. In reality, I've tested Windows 11 with 4GB & 6GB of RAM. It runs fine. Gaming is a very different beast from general daily computing. Daily general computing doesn't need nearly as much RAM as gaming or other highend/power user task. So 8GB is actually an amount that will work perfectly for most people if they're not gaming or doing "power" tasks. As always though, it's better to have more than less.

Fair, but a PC with a 2070 Super, presumably, is a gaming PC owned by someone who does more than the bare essentials

 

[Shrek]

It doesn't reduce battery life

Not saying you are wrong but DRAM is dynamical, one needs to keep refreshing it; but I don't know how much power that takes.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Not saying you are wrong but DRAM is dynamical, one needs to keep refreshing it; but I don't know how much power that takes.

I don't think it amounts to anything actually meaningful in a battery life context (it's in the low mW figure, screen, wireless etc. all consume far more), but I found a pretty interesting article by Micron on it:

https://www.micron.com/-/media/client/global/documents/products/technical-note/dram/tn4007_ddr4_power_calculation.pdf

 

[Shrek]

Much appreciated

How much power does memory use? | Crucial.com
"you want to allocate around 3 watts of power for every 8GB of DDR3 or DDR4 memory"

Not sure how to interpret this, but if moving from 4GB to 8GB costs me 1W, it will be noticable on battery life.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Much appreciated

How much power does memory use? | Crucial.com
"you want to allocate around 3 watts of power for every 8GB of DDR3 or DDR4 memory"

Not sure how to interpret this, but if moving from 4GB to 8GB costs me 1W, it will be noticable on battery life.

The Micron article refers to about one watt for their 8 GB DDR4-2666 module, but how would that count vs. waiting on the paging file? It's not a recurrent, passive one watt draw

Well, I guess the only way too know is running a "battery benchmark", if you could get a loaner on a stick to try that'd be actually super interesting to see the result.