Recommended upgrades for my PC?

[DarklordKyo]

Yep, should be fine. Just make sure you remember where all the plugs go when you start removing the cables of your old PSU. Speaking from experience it can be very easy to forget where everything goes the first couple of times you do this. Taking notes or drawing a quick diagram to remember the placement and shape of each plug might be very helpful.

BTW, just out of curiosity, exactly how necessary is water cooling for high end gaming rigs? (and I mean insane ones, ones that'll run everything at 4K, the Monstrous tier on Logical Increments for example).

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Yep, should be fine. Just make sure you remember where all the plugs go when you start removing the cables of your old PSU. Speaking from experience it can be very easy to forget where everything goes the first couple of times you do this. Taking notes or drawing a quick diagram to remember the placement and shape of each plug might be very helpful.

BTW, just out of curiosity, exactly how necessary is water cooling for high end gaming rigs? (and I mean insane ones, ones that'll run everything at 4K, the Monstrous tier on Logical Increments for example).

Water cooling isn't really necessary for an enthusiast tier PC. People who have no limit to their budget tend to buy into water cooling for aesthetic reasons, or to reduce fan noise, or simply for bragging rights. Overclocking enthusiasts (people who compete to get higher benchmarks scores) may have some practical use for water cooling, but it's fairly pointless if you are only interested in high-end gaming.

Water-cooled GPUs are generally able to overclock further than their air-cooled counterparts, but they are quite a bit more expensive. Sometimes they might be worth the extra cash, sometimes not, it usually depends on the card.

 

[DarklordKyo]

Interesting time to upgrade, but as of right now Nvidia is not the path you want to go down if you are willing to compromise graphical performance.

It looks like you could do with a CPU upgrade- I'd recommend an FX 8300 (120 USD) or FX 8350 (160 USD), seeing as how you wouldn't need a new MOBO with those, most likely. If you wanted to go team blue, the i5 6400 is like 170-190 USD, but you'd need a new compatible motherboard with that, and possibly another copy of Windows (Which I assume you're using) if you don't have a full retail version. However, I'm not sure exactly how low-powered the 4300 is, so this need might not be too immediate, if you really don't want to pay for it.
EDIT: Turns out most AMD cpus sort of level out when it comes to gaming; the major benefit you'd get from a CPU upgrade would be better multitasking/video editing and multi-core heavy tasks.

Speaking of AMD CPUs, are they relatively standardized? (i.e., would I be able to fit an AMD Phenom II X4 940 without changing out my MSI 970A-G46 MoBo?)

 

[DarklordKyo]

Water cooling isn't really necessary for an enthusiast tier PC. People who have no limit to their budget tend to buy into water cooling for aesthetic reasons, or to reduce fan noise, or simply for bragging rights. Overclocking enthusiasts (people who compete to get higher benchmarks scores) may have some practical use for water cooling, but it's fairly pointless if you are only interested in high-end gaming.

Water-cooled GPUs are generally able to overclock further than their air-cooled counterparts, but they are quite a bit more expensive. Sometimes they might be worth the extra cash, sometimes not, it usually depends on the card.

Anyways, would the following upgrades work with my rig with the XFX TS 650W installed?:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B002XNBQJQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3VOI0QYB217KM&coliid=I35F8WD7733RX7

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B005O65JXI/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3VOI0QYB217KM&coliid=I3QE3NK12SJUPX&psc=1

Putting into account that my MoBo is a MSI 970A-G46

Also, I know that a GPU upgrade would do more for my purposes, I'm just asking for future reference.

Also, would thermal paste that comes with a fan be okay?, or would I need to shell out for thermal paste as well?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Interesting time to upgrade, but as of right now Nvidia is not the path you want to go down if you are willing to compromise graphical performance.

It looks like you could do with a CPU upgrade- I'd recommend an FX 8300 (120 USD) or FX 8350 (160 USD), seeing as how you wouldn't need a new MOBO with those, most likely. If you wanted to go team blue, the i5 6400 is like 170-190 USD, but you'd need a new compatible motherboard with that, and possibly another copy of Windows (Which I assume you're using) if you don't have a full retail version. However, I'm not sure exactly how low-powered the 4300 is, so this need might not be too immediate, if you really don't want to pay for it.
EDIT: Turns out most AMD cpus sort of level out when it comes to gaming; the major benefit you'd get from a CPU upgrade would be better multitasking/video editing and multi-core heavy tasks.

Speaking of AMD CPUs, are they relatively standardized? (i.e., would I be able to fit an AMD Phenom II X4 940 without changing out my MSI 970A-G46 MoBo?)

No- that processor also seems to be a bit of a downgrade to your current one. The Phenom II X4 940 is AM2+, while your Motherboard is only compatible with AM3 and AM3+ chipsets (Which is most of AMDs current line)

 

[DarklordKyo]

No- that processor also seems to be a bit of a downgrade to your current one. The Phenom II X4 940 is AM2+, while your Motherboard is only compatible with AM3 and AM3+ chipsets (Which is most of AMDs current line)

A downgrade?, but it's listed as a recommendation under the recommended specs page for Witcher 3 on the System Requirements Lab. What kinda idiot lists an outdated CPU as a recommended part for a relatively-recent game?

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Anyways, would the following upgrades work with my rig with the XFX TS 650W installed?:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B002XNBQJQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3VOI0QYB217KM&coliid=I35F8WD7733RX7

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B005O65JXI/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3VOI0QYB217KM&coliid=I3QE3NK12SJUPX&psc=1

Putting into account that my MoBo is a MSI 970A-G46

Also, I know that a GPU upgrade would do more for my purposes, I'm just asking for future reference.

Also, would thermal paste that comes with a fan be okay?, or would I need to shell out for thermal paste as well?

That CPU is less powerful than your current FX 4300 and it isn't compatible with your motherboard.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-945-vs-AMD-FX-4300/m101vs2879

A FX series chip with an AM3+ socket is what you want if you were going to stay with your current motherboard. The FX 6300 isn't too expensive if you are absolutely set on upgrading your CPU. This comparison video shows that you will see little to no performance difference between a 4300 and 6300 in some games like Witcher 3, while in other games like GTA5 you will see an additional 5-15 FPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAYMQoBhHsk

For reference - FX 6300 for $94.99
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD6300WMHKBOX-FX-6300-6-Core-Processor/dp/B009O7YORK/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466314497&sr=1-1&keywords=fx+6300

The Hyper 212 EVO is a great choice, but your motherboard isn't really able to tolerate CPU overclocking. Buying a more expensive heatsink may not make any sense if you cannot overclock your CPU. The stock cooler will work fine at stock clocks. If you consider replacing your motherboard as well so that you could overclock the CPU...well, you might as well put all that money towards one of the newer i5 CPUs and a compatible motherboard, in my opinion.

The thermal paste that is pre-applied to the Hyper 212 EVO works just as well as the more expensive paste that is available.

Personally, I would upgrade your GPU and then see how your PC runs the games you want to play. A long term upgrade might be to switch over to something like an i5-6500 or one of AMD's upcoming Zen processors.

 

[DarklordKyo]

That CPU is less powerful than your current FX 4300 and it isn't compatible with your motherboard.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-945-vs-AMD-FX-4300/m101vs2879

A FX series chip with an AM3+ socket is what you want if you were going to stay with your current motherboard. The FX 6300 isn't too expensive if you are absolutely set on upgrading your CPU. This comparison video shows that you will see little to no performance difference between a 4300 and 6300 in some games like Witcher 3, while in other games like GTA5 you will see an additional 5-15 FPS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAYMQoBhHsk

For reference - FX 6300 for $94.99
https://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD6300WMHKBOX-FX-6300-6-Core-Processor/dp/B009O7YORK/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1466314497&sr=1-1&keywords=fx+6300

The Hyper 212 EVO is a great choice, but your motherboard isn't really able to tolerate CPU overclocking. Buying a more expensive heatsink may not make any sense if you cannot overclock your CPU. The stock cooler will work fine at stock clocks. If you consider replacing your motherboard as well so that you could overclock the CPU...well, you might as well put all that money towards one of the newer i5 CPUs and a compatible motherboard, in my opinion.

The thermal paste that is pre-applied to the Hyper 212 EVO works just as well as the more expensive paste that is available.

Personally, I would upgrade your GPU and then see how your PC runs the games you want to play. A long term upgrade might be to switch over to something like an i5-6500 or one of AMD's upcoming Zen processors.

I asked it before, I'll ask it again, what kinda idiot lists an outdated part as part of the requirements to a relatively-recent game? Also, to be fair to my fan choice, an old teacher of mine when I was taking summer classes recommended as much cooling as possible (better to overdo on the cooling than risk your system melting).

Anyways, guess I'll have to wait to see if a Zen will work with my motherboard, I don't want to go through all the hassle when I'll possibly build an entirely new rig when I have my own job (I'm a full time college student living with his parents, I save cash by limiting my lunch intake).

 

[Twinrehz]

No- that processor also seems to be a bit of a downgrade to your current one. The Phenom II X4 940 is AM2+, while your Motherboard is only compatible with AM3 and AM3+ chipsets (Which is most of AMDs current line)

A downgrade?, but it's listed as a recommendation under the recommended specs page for Witcher 3 on the System Requirements Lab. What kinda idiot lists an outdated CPU as a recommended part for a relatively-recent game?

It's typical for developers to list the lowest possible CPU they'll guarantee that the game will run on (recommended for an ideal experience, and a minimum for what can at least run the game, if not ideally), regardless of how old it is; anything newer than that can be expected to be capable of running the game.

This can seem a bit confusing, but it is favourable compared to having to list every single CPU the game can be expected to run on, which is going to be a huge list. For example, the Witcher 3 requirements lists Intel Core i5-2500K as minimum for intel processors, and this processor is 4-5 years old and off the market a long time ago; same goes for the GPU's listed under minimum requirements.

So like I said, this is the bare minimum the game can be expected to run on, and anything newer than that you can expect to run the game on. (Exception being ultrabook CPU's that can have very low specs to begin with).

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

No- that processor also seems to be a bit of a downgrade to your current one. The Phenom II X4 940 is AM2+, while your Motherboard is only compatible with AM3 and AM3+ chipsets (Which is most of AMDs current line)

A downgrade?, but it's listed as a recommendation under the recommended specs page for Witcher 3 on the System Requirements Lab. What kinda idiot lists an outdated CPU as a recommended part for a relatively-recent game?

That's for the minimum- the recommended is the FX 8350/8370 for the Witcher 3. Your current processor is better than the minimum. If you wanted to get an FX 8350, they usually go for like 150$.

 

[DarklordKyo]

That's for the minimum- the recommended is the FX 8350/8370 for the Witcher 3. Your current processor is better than the minimum. If you wanted to get an FX 8350, they usually go for like 150$.

Then why is it that my processor is listed as below the recommended specs last I checked?, it has a big fat X next to it in the recommended section if memory serves. Is it some sort of glitch in the site?

 

[DarklordKyo]

It's typical for developers to list the lowest possible CPU they'll guarantee that the game will run on (recommended for an ideal experience, and a minimum for what can at least run the game, if not ideally), regardless of how old it is; anything newer than that can be expected to be capable of running the game.

This can seem a bit confusing, but it is favourable compared to having to list every single CPU the game can be expected to run on, which is going to be a huge list. For example, the Witcher 3 requirements lists Intel Core i5-2500K as minimum for intel processors, and this processor is 4-5 years old and off the market a long time ago; same goes for the GPU's listed under minimum requirements.

So like I said, this is the bare minimum the game can be expected to run on, and anything newer than that you can expect to run the game on. (Exception being ultrabook CPU's that can have very low specs to begin with).

I'm not saying it should list everything, but my processor is listed as below the recommended specs last I checked (despite it apparently being better than the recommended), it has a big fat X next to it in the recommended section if memory serves. Is it some sort of glitch in the site?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

It's typical for developers to list the lowest possible CPU they'll guarantee that the game will run on (recommended for an ideal experience, and a minimum for what can at least run the game, if not ideally), regardless of how old it is; anything newer than that can be expected to be capable of running the game.

This can seem a bit confusing, but it is favourable compared to having to list every single CPU the game can be expected to run on, which is going to be a huge list. For example, the Witcher 3 requirements lists Intel Core i5-2500K as minimum for intel processors, and this processor is 4-5 years old and off the market a long time ago; same goes for the GPU's listed under minimum requirements.

So like I said, this is the bare minimum the game can be expected to run on, and anything newer than that you can expect to run the game on. (Exception being ultrabook CPU's that can have very low specs to begin with).

I'm not saying it should list everything, but my processor is listed as below the recommended specs last I checked (despite it apparently being better than the recommended), it has a big fat X next to it in the recommended section if memory serves. Is it some sort of glitch in the site?

That seems odd. The FX 4300 will run the Witcher 3, as it is not a processor intensive game in most places. The person in this video is using an FX 4300 on medium-high settings, and it seems to be perfectly playable. looks like an average of 30 FPS with a 760.

 

[DarklordKyo]

That seems odd. The FX 4300 will run the Witcher 3, as it is not a processor intensive game in most places. The person in this video is using an FX 4300 on medium-high settings, and it seems to be perfectly playable. looks like an average of 30 FPS with a 760.

Does this mean that I can potentially get 1080p 60 FPS if I upgrade from my AMD Radeon 7800 series graphics card? (after turning down Hairworks of course).

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

That seems odd. The FX 4300 will run the Witcher 3, as it is not a processor intensive game in most places. The person in this video is using an FX 4300 on medium-high settings, and it seems to be perfectly playable. looks like an average of 30 FPS with a 760.

Does this mean that I can potentially get 1080p 60 FPS if I upgrade from my AMD Radeon 7800 series graphics card? (after turning down Hairworks of course).

Eh, yeah, with enough GPU power. I'd be willing to bet the RX 480 would be able to get at least 50fps on it combined with your processor.

 

[Twinrehz]

I'm not saying it should list everything, but my processor is listed as below the recommended specs last I checked (despite it apparently being better than the recommended), it has a big fat X next to it in the recommended section if memory serves. Is it some sort of glitch in the site?

That is really weird, and I can't say much about why. From what I can see from cpuboss http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-Phenom-II-X4-945-95W-vs-AMD-FX-4300 there isn't all that much difference between them in terms of raw performance in test-programs. How that affects gameplay, I can't tell, but it'd be weird if the FX-4300 wasn't able to run Witcher 3.

 

[DarklordKyo]

Eh, yeah, with enough GPU power. I'd be willing to bet the RX 480 would be able to get at least 50fps on it combined with your processor.

What about if I lower the graphical settings to the absolute minimum?, as well as minimize Hairworks?

 

[DarklordKyo]

Water cooling isn't really necessary for an enthusiast tier PC. People who have no limit to their budget tend to buy into water cooling for aesthetic reasons, or to reduce fan noise, or simply for bragging rights. Overclocking enthusiasts (people who compete to get higher benchmarks scores) may have some practical use for water cooling, but it's fairly pointless if you are only interested in high-end gaming.

Water-cooled GPUs are generally able to overclock further than their air-cooled counterparts, but they are quite a bit more expensive. Sometimes they might be worth the extra cash, sometimes not, it usually depends on the card.

Not that I'm planning to (since my motherboard probably can't handle it), but what about NVIDIA SLI or AMD Crossfire? Would I need liquid cooling for either of those?

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Eh, yeah, with enough GPU power. I'd be willing to bet the RX 480 would be able to get at least 50fps on it combined with your processor.

What about if I lower the graphical settings to the absolute minimum?, as well as minimize Hairworks?

You'd overkill your frames if you set everything to minimum. You'd more than likely be able to get a steady 60+ FPS with medium settings. Maybe even medium-high, if AMD's word about the card turns out to be true.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Water cooling isn't really necessary for an enthusiast tier PC. People who have no limit to their budget tend to buy into water cooling for aesthetic reasons, or to reduce fan noise, or simply for bragging rights. Overclocking enthusiasts (people who compete to get higher benchmarks scores) may have some practical use for water cooling, but it's fairly pointless if you are only interested in high-end gaming.

Water-cooled GPUs are generally able to overclock further than their air-cooled counterparts, but they are quite a bit more expensive. Sometimes they might be worth the extra cash, sometimes not, it usually depends on the card.

Not that I'm planning to (since my motherboard probably can't handle it), but what about NVIDIA SLI or AMD Crossfire? Would I need liquid cooling for either of those?

No, a well ventilated case is probably all you need for SLI or Crossfire. Both SLI and Crossfire have significant drawbacks that NVIDIA and AMD can't seem to fix (micro-stuttering is a big one). Also, it isn't like adding a second GPU gives you an additional 100% GPU power either - excellent SLI or Crossfire scaling is like 85% at best and is highly dependent on the game engine as well as drivers.

When you consider the extra costs of adding a decent SLI or Crossfire compatible motherboard, a high rated/high wattage PSU, a second GPU, a powerful enough CPU to drive two GPUs, and most likely additional case fans to keep temperatures down...I would almost always opt in favour of buying a single more powerful GPU.

The video below shows how well a FX4300 can run the Witcher 3 at Ultra Settings when paired with a GTX 980Ti...the RX480 won't beat a a 980Ti but it will at least match a 980, so you will still get very decent framerates (45-50 FPS+) at high to ultra settings. I have a hard time seeing much visual difference between 45 to 60 FPS and IMO for a RPG like Witcher 3, you really don't need perfect 60 FPS. Also, there are a lot of Ultra settings in the Witcher 3 that eat into FPS, but will provide little to no visual improvement (especially at 1080p resolution).

FX 4300 w/ GTX 980ti - W3 at Ultra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIdRaox8UJ4

Graphical guide to Witcher 3 (shows how lackluster many ultra settings are when directly compared to the high setting):
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide