Xboxone x or upgrade my pc

Point is, get something that's more than good enough. I remember about 2 years back when you asked about getting the GTX 950. It was just good enough for your needs and sure enough, two years later it's complete junk. You also perfectly know games are moving more and more towards CPU's with multiple cores. In a few years, even quad-cores will be getting blown out by hexa-cores. Get something good. Why get a 4460? It's an old ass quad-core from mid 2014, it's over 3 years old and you're saying it's comparable to a a 2500 which is even older. Why not get a Ryzen or a 8600K, you know a beefy CPU?

Unlike a GPU, upgrading a CPU is more complicated because it is tied down to your motherboard. At times getting a cheaper CPU ends up being costly because down the line, you end up replacing your RAM, motherboard AND CPU just because one component is not good enough. Don't cheap out with the 4460. It's old as hell. I purchased a 4790K in 2014 and not a single game is bottlenecked by it and I don't plan on changing it any time soon. If you're really budget conscious then get a console, that's what they are for. I can't recommend a 4460 for someone who wants 60fps and is a VR enthusiast. You'll be upgrading every two years. Get something that'll last you and be done with it for the next 5 years.

@commander: yeah the cpu is the problem - that's why you can lower your settings to low at 900p and the 970 still won't deliver 60fps; it's waiting around for your dual core to service it. Of course, if you upgrade to a better gpu as well as cpu you can legit peg tw3, but it sounds like you don't want to spend a ton of money, and from that perspective I'd leave the 970 alone for another couple of years. It's still a fine card. The cpu just can't deliver

that gtx 950 was actually not good enough lol, not that your advice was bad, it was just that no man's sky wasn't kidding with their system requirements. The witcher 3 didn't run bad, but the difference between 60fps and 30 fps in tw3 is huge compared to other games. After playing for a couple of days I promised myself to go back on a better system and now that I have this 970 for my rift I suddenly was thinking about the witcher 3 again.

You're right about the cpu though, I kinda wished now I bought the I5 back then. What do you think about the I5 8400?

@commander: Nah, stick with X1X. You don't want this to happen to you:

@commander: Great CPU if you’re budget conscious. Too bad it doesn’t OC. Still 6-cores is very nice to have especially when newer games are scaling better with more cores. Consider Ryzen too. Why just look at Intel?

You're a VR enthusiast who wants to play The Witcher 3 at 60fps. You'll need to spend a bit. Otherwise as I mentioned, what is stopping you from getting the X1X? It looks great, it's simple to set up, it's small and its power consumption is low compared to a PC. If I didn't have my rig I would seriously consider it.

Personally I would go for I7 or Ryzen 5 at this point in time.

I7 because they use hyperthreading or Ryzen 5 because they have more than 4 cores.

It's best to aim at a CPU that will last you for many years to come :)

I really can't see the advantage of ryzen, the clock for clock speed is just something that's still too important at this point.

I7's are expensive too, I got other shit to pay man. My ultimate team in fifa costed me 300 euros already and the season has just started 2 months ago.

Huh what?

What's your budget?

If you can spare like 1000-1200 then go the PC route, I'm building a 2nd PC with a friend and the SLI 970s I used to own surprisingly are pretty awesome.

the 970s are FAR from outdated, I have friends running ONE on PC with Destiny 2 and still playing on high at 1080p, those cards are solid.

if it's SLI compatible and you can somehow get your hands on a cheap 970, i recommend that.

we manage to hit 60 fps at 4k with some settings toned down (D2)

If you want to stay at a budget and own a 4k TV/Monitor, i suggest the XB1X, I usually game on the console anyways because most of my friends play on Xbox and I do enjoy achievement hunting.

Yep fifa ultimate team can be quite expensive. The price of the game is in that too though. I probably spend another 100 on black friday.

Well i simply don't want to spend that kind of money on a pc lol. Especially if I have to move it around all the time from my vr room to mancave. If I would actually buy two 970's , I would keep one for a vr pc and one for a game pc.

All I actually want is 60 fps on the witcher 3 , no matter the graphical settings and resolution (you can't go lower than 900p I think) and I rather do it as cheap as possible.

I got a 1080p tv and I'm not planning on buying another soon either.

@commander: Well I guess if you enjoy it I ain’t gonna start telling you how to spend your money. Just thinking some of that money would have probably been more useful if it was thrown in a new CPU instead.

I wouldn't buy an Xbox One X until I have a 4k TV, there are benefits but I'd be wishing I had a 4k TV all the time.

Go for upgrading PC.

@commander: Okay, like everyone said, it's the CPU and the GTX 970 are still good cards by today's standards. But if you want to get better settings, never ever get cheap components. Get yourself an i5 6600K at the very least. I have that CPU and it's a good CPU for just playing PC games and I game in Witcher 3 1440p/60fps. My GPU GTX 1070 and it handles Witcher 3 well but in your case, get an i5 6600K if you are on a really tight budget and they don't even cost that much to begin with.

PC easily.

Double the AAA and AA games each year. This is the main reason, having the biggest and best library by faaar.

Better gfx and performance. 60+ fps in mp games is needed. X1 can't even do Destiny2 above 30 fps.

Actual Competitive online. Xbox is mostly just a COD simulator in this regard.

Mods and adaptability.

Best version of multiplats. Also gets the most "console exclusives" that don't make it to other systems. Like Sony and MS games they keep off each other but still give to PC.

More genres and where most big new genres begin.

What the absolute f*** is going on?...

I ran the witcher 3 on a R9 380 at 40-50FPS on medium settings at 2560x1080. Somethings not right with your performance from both PC's.

Get a X1X... You don't know what your doing with PC.

It really depends on the kind of money you want to spend. If you have the money, get a PC, because it can be better across the board. If money is tight, then just get an X1X and save the rest for a future PC upgrade.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf:

the techspot benchmark is crap in the regards of it being a real benchmark test . they only tested from after ghouls until you reached the griffin at the beginning when there is not a whole lot going on. Even still we know why his performance sucks its from is current dual core i3 and the other was the GTX 950 being the issue.

@04dcarraher: Even so... Low 900p?... No, sorry the i3 wouldn't handicap the GTX 970 that much, it has 4 threads. I ran it with a i5 2500K and R9 380 and could easily get 50-60FPS on medium 90% of the game at 2560x1080. Makes absolutely zero sense. The i3 4170 3.7Ghz is on par with the 2500K at stock.

The i5 8400 destroys every Ryzen chip in gaming... So no, I no longer would recommend Ryzen for gamers. The 8400 and 8700K are the only two chips worth getting as a gamer, overclocking is overrated when it comes to CPU's 90% of the time for gaming... A stock 8400 with its default boost is all anyone needs for gaming.

Honestly, I don't care if you get an X1X or upgrade your PC, but the fact that you spend 300 euros on Ultimate Team is ridiculous. Sure, you can say "Who the **** are you to tell me how to spend my money?" and I respect that. However, it is people like you who are ruining the games industry. Publishers are taking advantage of you and you just bend over and take it. They are charging you for bullshit virtual items. There are so many fools that actually waste money on stupid shit like Ultimate Team that other games are now becoming infested with all the micro-transaction garbage. Look at all the bullshit with SWBF2. That is a direct result of fools giving into the greedy practices by these companies. You are part of the problem.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf:

lower the resolution the faster gpu needs data and the cpu cant keep up. Trust me an i3 cant sustain 60 fps avg with even a top tier gpu. it does not matter it has four threads its still only a dual core. That i5 2500k out performs that i3 4130 quite abit by almost 40%. and even an i3 4170, the 2500k is still about 30% faster.

wccftech did a proper cpu test on the Witcher 3 at 1080p across all type of areas in game, forests, cities villages etc not that short run techspot did where nothing went on. Their results with a Titan X: min/avg

Core i7 4790K – 65.0/84.4

Core i5 4690K – 52.0/79.2

Core i3 4130 – 38.0/68.9

G3258 at 4.5GHz OC – 27.0/63.8

FX 8350 – 56.0/75.2

FX 6300 – 45.0/69.6

Honestly, a Ryzen would be a clear winner here... A Ryzen 5 1600 is the same price or even cheaper in some places and outperforms it by a ton.

Also, you wouldn't be running old ass DDR3 ram. You'd have DDR4 ram.

Its the opposite actually, a GTX 970 has enough horsepower to given him 60fps at 1080p (with nvidia features completely disabled though) he needs a beefier CPU, personally I think he should go for an i7 upgrade (future proof, might as well take an extra step if he is gonna get used parts)

Fact is that the witcher 3 is well multithreaded, allowing a weak FX 6300 to perform better than a 4th gen i3..... Its clearly his cpu, He would be fine with Ryzen 5 1600/x , current8th gen i5 or any i7 4th gen or newer.

I don't see that the same way. It is certainly true that micro transactions infested a lot of wrong games but for some games it's just a necessity and fifa ultimate team is certainly one of them.

Every soccer player is the property of fifa, when fifa realized how much easports and konami were making with these soccer games they wanted a piece of the pie, and this was a long time before ultimate team even existed. But it was also the start of a cooperation that made the game better, since easports makes money for fifa, it's not such big ordeal anymore to get a player for an afternoon to 3d load them into the game, or pay for some scouts to analyze player stats.

Having the best players doesn't mean you're going to win either. Skill will always dominate over the player quality, however, player quality can give you an advantage but not just like that. You need to be able to learn to exploit their advantages, not to mention building your team and team tactics are a big part of the game as well. It's not like everyting is behind a paywall either, it all depends how good you are at the game and there are several way to make in game money. You can invest in players, trade, or simply make more money by playing tournaments. Even just playing normal matches makes you ingame money. I have a friend who spend only 50$ and he's way richer in game than me, but he's better at all parts of the game, especially in trading.

Playing normal multiplayer games for me is going back in time. The extra resources the devs are getting makes them able to keep the price of the base game cheap, there are pretty much daily events, the presentation is just out of this world and all this on my shitty xbox. I may be spending money on this game, but I hardly buy any other games. It would be different if devs would actually make something else than call of duty or assassins creed. then I would spend some of my money elsewhere.

I really like magic duels for instance, but their biggest mistake was that they made all the ingame items to easy to obtain when you played from the beginning. The result was that the game wasn't making enough money, had a lot of bugs and they had to discontinue it.

I actually gave them 10$ to support them, not because I needed it, and it is a free game. They're releasing a new one now, I hope they learned their lesson.

The i5 2500k is not 40% faster in the Witcher 3, its a core clock and multi-threaded game.

The 4130 is at 3.3Ghz and the 4690k is 4Ghz and both have 4 threads... The 4170 is a 3.7Ghz CPU that framerate gap between the 4690K and it would be significantly less, a 5FPS difference more or less which is where the 2500k would be.

Which still doesn't explain why he couldn't get 60FPS average with a GTX 970 on anything but 900p Low. When GPU and CPU setups with weaker performance get steady framerates around 60FPS on 1080p on medium. It runs flawlessly with a 960 on medium 1080p... He's telling us a 970 could only do 900p on low?...

Nah not buying it, I have used a GTX 680 and R9 380 on the game at 2560x1080 and put 220 hours into the game I got a 50-60FPS framerate all the time at mediums settings with hair works off.

yeah , I found that pellicular as well, when I looked at the benchmarks the I3 should give me 60 fps with everything on low and 900p. I didn't try that right away, I thought it could handle more but when I saw that I couldn't get 60 fps, I put the settings lower and lower till I got to the lowest and stil it drops into the 30's in the first village.

Maybe the benchmarks were averages I don't know.

I think I might just buy a second pc anyway and the cheapskate that I am I'm already looking to do it as cheap as possible. I really want to play fallout 4 in vr, so I'm actually thinking about the I5 7500 or something like that.

I highly recommend the i5 8400... 6 cores with a 4Ghz turbo. Its the current price/performance king in gaming. I would not recommend getting a 4 core CPU if you want VR.

8400 is the go to chip, just wait till cheaper motherboards come out which should be this month or the next and as for GPU a 970 is very close to the performance of a RX 570 so if you want a GPU upgrade a 1070 or Vega 56 would be my minimum recommendation if you want to see a performance boost worth paying for.

Again for CPU 8400 or Ryzen 1600, best bang for buck CPU's around.

I have used a 1070 with my 4670K and Witcher 3 can be maxed out at 1440P and at 4K it will let you play on medium-high at 50-60FPS with ease. Same goes for Fallout 4 you are looking at framerates in 80's at 1440p and 50-60FPS at 4K.

Well the I3 has been performing adequately in rift games, going to steam vr is another matter. Some games work well, others I need to kill all my processes but then it still works though.

The I5 8400 is surely tempting but it's double the price of an i3 8100, and I think that I3 will be good enough, of course I will run into the same problems I have now and that is when the cpu is not good enough anymore an upgrade to the I5 8400 will costs as much as better cpu's on another chipset.

I wasn't really considering it at the moment though, since motherboards costs like 120 euro at least but didn't you say cheaper motherboards come out this month? I thought that was next year?

Well by the looks of it fallout 4 is that demanding I will need all the cpu power that I can get. I need 90 fps at 1440p for vr + it has to run steamvr on top of the oculus dk. I will need an I7 or that I5 8400, darn , I guess I won't open any fifa ultimate team packs next week lol.

Yeah... The more I look into it on youtube the more confusing it gets.

Are you sure you haven't put on MSAA of DSR in Nvidia control panel?...

A 970 should easily give you 60FPS at 1080 on medium-high with the witcher even in Novigrad which it could drop to 45-50FPS at worst case scenario.

Seriously baffled. Care to take a screen shot of your performance in novigrad?

I haven't gotten to novingrad yet, but I can take a screenshot in the first village, where I can't get 60 fps steady.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: it doesn't show the framrate when I take the screenshots, but it does drop like into the 40's when running, fighting. Looking around goes into the 30 's when moving through the village on my horse.

@commander: these are my 3d settings

@commander: Rivatuner will show give you a FPS overlay and its free.

http://www.guru3d.com/content-page/rivatuner.html

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: I suppose you're not going to take my word for it, I'm not lying lol

At low settings 900p with a GTX 970... No suppose I am being a stubborn sceptic. Sorry if its annoying. You don't have to do a thing.

Either way a CPU upgrade to and a decent GPU boost will have the Wither 3 at 60FPS 1080p with ease.

I have a i5 4670k and have little to no CPU bottleneck at 4K with a 1080ti:

I had a 970 a few years back. It should handle the game at 60fps/1080p/High settings provided you disable Hairworks. Foliage Visibility Range was pretty crippling too. This is definitely a CPU and not a GPU issue.

Yeah if you are dead set on not upgrading your board and so on... then see if you can find a i7 4790K and just go with that for the next few years. Cheaper than a new build and will pretty much give you no CPU issues for the foreseeable future.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: wel it doesn't want to download it , I'll try maybe later for proof, but It will be that cpu probably. I had better framerates with my I5 2500 and gtx 950, not 60 steady though, but still better.

The video you posted is an I5 3330 as well, in the end, it does have more raw cpu power than my i3.

As Grey_Eyed_Elf mentioned, if you find a used 4790K on the cheap that would be a huge upgrade. No game comes close to maxing it out yet unless you play demanding games at very high frame rates(100+fps) but your GPU will most likely be a problem before the 4790K.

Also a good option is to look second handed, most older cpu's go cheap as chips now and just risk it for that. Or search with cpu's with warranty.

Also overclock cpu's, and your 970 to gain lots more performance.

Example of a old cpu 2009 that was bought on being future proof at one point, with a 970 at high settings 900p and you can see at the gpu usage at the top in novigrad still a heavy gpu bottleneck because cpu can't feed it.

well my board doesn't support overclocking and it will be usefull to have a second pc as well so I don't have to move it around that much. My biggest problem is when I'm done with vr I have to move it back to another room where I use if for internet and stuff and if I want to do vr again, I have to go through all that again lol

So I might not be able to wait till those cheap coffee lake boards release, there are many times i feel like doing vr but I don't do it because of the hassle of moving the pc and the more I think about it the more it's starting to bother me.

Looks like I'll be spending some money lol

I was referring to its processing power in general not in game with i5 2500 vs i3 4130/4170.

you cant ignore the processing power difference comparing a quad vs a dual core with HT. wccftech cpu benchmarks shows an i3 4130 falling quite behind an i5 4690k when it came to populated areas.

but yea even at lowest settings 60 fps should have possible but still that i3 is a major bottleneck,

@04dcarraher: True, CPU's are very important its why I have been using i5 K CPU's for the past 7 years. A overclocked i5 is usually the best bang for buck CPU to get for gaming and it looks like the 8600K is following tradition with 6 cores that are easily overclocked to 4.6-4.8Ghz, beast gaming performance right there considering that the per core performance is a little better than Kaby Lake.

That being said its very clear with the level of performance a i3 8350K has that 4 core CPU's are still more than enough for gaming.

@commander Just get used parts. It's not the early 2000's any more. PC parts are very durable and long-lived these days. You can build a good looking and cheap rig with second-hand parts that are still in good condition.

FYI, I snapped a few quick screens from my computer to show that the GTX970 is absolutely not Commander's problem

paired with an i5 6500, my cheapo 970 delivers 75-85 FPS in Novigrad uncapped at 900p Ultra (no hairworks)

At 1080p, it MOSTLY delivers 60FPS in Novigrad, but does drop into the 50s when things get really heavy. You can see that at 1080p, my i5 is no longer a bottleneck for performance, so even the "famed Novigrad" isn't as CPU-bound as some claim at 1080p - at least when one is running at high settings and has a paired their passable card with a passable CPU. I'm sure this says something about the X1X stumbling here at 1080p at Medium settings... (that the CPU is really rather awful?).