So I have an AMD R7 360 (2GB DDR5). It works well enough, letting me play most titles from the past few years at medium graphics setting, but more recent titles (like Assassin's Creed: Unity or Watch Dogs 2) just barely chug along at ~20 FPS on low with a crummy resolution, making it not worth playing. So I'm thinking it's time to upgrade. I've been eyeing the AMD R9 380x, as it's a decent step up from what I already have and isn't too expensive.

With what I have now, I don't think I'll be able to play too many new AAA games for much longer. But I don't know if I should bite the bullet and upgrade now, or wait another six months to a year when current GPU prices drop a bit more.

What do you think? I've never upgraded my hardware before, so I'm looking for some advice from experience PC gamers. How often do you upgrade your PC hardware, and do you think the R9 380x is good enough, or would you recommend something else?

Thanks.

Edit
Thank you everyone who replied. I settled on an EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 SC 6GB.

According to this, that is a worthwhile upgrade at least. The page states that the new card should be at least three tiers better, and what you're looking into is six tiers.

Generally that's how I upgrade, when what I have is too slow to handle what I want to play, then I'll upgrade. Since my last upgrade was for GTA 5 and I don't buy AAA games that often, I should be set for a good while.

That's a fantastic GPU hierarchy, MiquelFire. Thanks for sharing it. I think I'll get the R9 380X then sometime soon. Hopefully this'll keep me good for a couple of years.

I wonder if I should upgrade my CPU as well. I have an AMD FX-4300. There's a CPU hierarchy here, where the AMD FX-9590 is only two tiers above the 4300. Then there's shiny new Ryzen 7, but I can't afford that. I might hold off on the CPU upgrade for a while.

GPU is a great upgrade. I got a GTX 1060 to breath new life into my 6 year old i5 computer and I can play modern games at 1080p ultra quality settings at a mostly steady 45-60fps.

After doing a bit of research, I've decided to go with the AMD R9 380 instead of the 380X. The reason for this is because the performance of the 380X is only slightly above the 380, and that the 380 is a bit cheaper than the 380X. I just have to make sure it'll fit in my rig and I'll be good to go.

@raynebc: Do you know the exact version of i5 you have?

My GPU needs replacing too, but at 30 I have too many hundred-dollar-plus items that I need to replace and I can't afford any of it so I just drink my money away and hope it all holds on. Today I had to replace 4 tires on my finacée's car. We bought the Walmart special and got away with USD$210, but that still hurts.

i5-2500K

You'll save money in the long run if you dump your fiancee, bam. Women are expensive.

That's a pretty good one. I was just looking at the 2500 on Newegg a little while ago.

Take the next 6 months, and save up some money each month to buy a better CPU. I am a long time AMD user as well, but if you can get an Intel CPU, I would say go for that instead.

I am still using a 3 core AMD CPU, and can run software on HIGH settings usually, though I have not bought any really new titles so I don't think is probably true anymore. I found my video card upgrade made a larger difference (and that is rapidly getting old).

I had a computer system (two actually) given to me with Intel CPUs in them that have two cores. I done some research into them and found out they benchmarked much faster than my AMD 3 core, mainly because of hyperthreading which would be like having a 4 core AMD. <shrug>

In any case, if you can wait 6 months, you could use those months to set aside some funds each month and buy something better. Or if you need more than a CPU, what I often do when I upgrade is I plan out what I need, then buy a part or two a month and usually within 6 months I have what I want and didn't go broke each month doing it.

My last upgrade for example, I bought my case + motherboard the first month, then I would buy the RAM, Video, and anything I needed over the next few months, a part at a time, plug them into the new system and wait it out. This way I could buy slightly better than what I could otherwise afford if I tried getting it all at one time. I have had my current system for a very long time now.

Don't I know it! She's also planning a wedding for next year!

Great CPU. I had it clocked to 4.0 with stock cooler without any problems. Since default(automatic) settings were awful, I also made it run cooler back then.

Though now it still runs at 4.0, but with a little upgrade of a cooler.

The stuff progresses so slow nowadays, that the now.. Six(?) year old cpu is still high end, and more than enough for any game. Best to have appropriate RAM though. And enough of it..

That's a good idea, Neil. Better to make incremental upgrades than to go broke all at once, like you said. I don't have very many expenses, so I think I could even do this in just 4 months.

How do you feel about a wedding? A lot of people go into debt for weddings, which boggles my mind. I hope your lady isn't a big spender!

I have 16GB of DDR3 RAM, so I'm good. I know that DDR5 would be better, but I don't think the upgrade would impact gaming at all.

Also, what's the difference between the i5-2500 and the i5-2500K? From what I can tell, the 2500K has a greater potential for overclocking, but sucks up ~%40 more power than the vanilla 2500. The price difference is only ~$30 between the two (from what I've seen on Amazon).

I've got a GTX 1060. I have zero complaints. It's not "super fast" in 4K and recording. But, I knew going in that it was an entry-level 4K. At 1080p it does everything I could want.

I second just putting some money back for PC upgrades every month. It'll happen faster than you think if you just put say $50 a month away. SAVE SOME FOR HARD DRIVES. If you've got anything important, the last thing you want is a HDD failure to come at the same time as "no money."

Sidenote: NONE of the SSD's I've bought--3 so far, all on sale/promotion--have had any kinds of failures. All this "fear" people told me to have about them has been unwarranted compared to the TWO Seagate physical HDD failures in a row that all 3 SSD's have outlasted. I'm hoping to save up money to get a 500 or 1 TB SSD. Hell, I'd love to move a ton of my data over to SSDs. I just don't trust these damn platters anymore.

AND, even if you've got "write once, ready many" data like movies and stuff, IIRC, SSD's have infinite read cycles. So you could fill one up with say, movies, and never change it, and never worry that playing those movies is reducing your eventual life. (Additionally, just having a physical drive on, wears it down. Ugh. That adds up when your drives are all on 24/7.)

Lastly, to stress, SSD's have "Wear leveling" because each cell only has so many writes. But I have NEVER gone below 90% "wear left" yet and I use my tiny drives like swap drives--filling them up, deleting them/moving to physicals, and filling them up again. And the oldest has to be at least 5 years old (Again, outlasting two seagate physical drives).

I can't think of any AAA game that's worth playing right now. My Steam and GOG have been filled with indie games (with actual NEW game mechanics) and good old games. Space Engineers. Kerbal Space Program. Streets of Rogue.

I'm on the last level of Dune 2, and I'm on level 11 of GDI of Command and Conquer. I'm doing a play through with notes of game mechanics. I'm looking into making a video that illustrates the evolution of game mechanics of the Westwood series.

I also recently beat Myst, and Space Quest 1-3 (the EGA ones, before the mouse interface).

I never really played Myst before. When I was a kid all of that "reading" was horrible with my ADD teenage impatience. But as an adult, I was really impressed with it--especially the use of audio in puzzles as well as the interactivity of the puzzle controls.

O/T

I'm too lazy to quote right now, so enjoy a big jumble of text.

@Chris Katko: The GTX 1060 looks sweet. How do you feel about 4K? Do you think it's worth the upgrade? My parents got a 4K TV a while back, and while it certainly looks sharper, it's not so much better that it'd warrant upgrading to (in my opinion). I'm content with 1080p for now. Likewise with HDD vs SSD, I acknowledge the benefits of SSD, but am cool with HDD for now (though I'll definitely get a SSD when the prices drop some more). I've heard plenty of horror stories about SSD failure, so it's good to know you've had no issues with them so far. As for AAA games and indie titles, there's plenty of really good indie games out right now, but I still enjoy the occasional AAA title. I have a big backlog of games to get through eventually. I'm currently playing Bayonetta, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and Shantae: Risky's Revenge - Director's Cut. I like to 100% a game (do every quest, explore every area of the map, get all the achievements, etc) before putting it to rest, so this'll take some time.

@bamccaig:

I find 1080p is too small for a computer monitor. The monitor I bought forever ago had a native resolution of 2048x1152. I rather like that, and wouldn't mind going even bigger. I haven't been keeping up with the times, but it seems you cannot find those anymore. It's a little bit strange, I find. I don't want to settle for 1080p...

I also find 1080p is more than adequate for a TV screen though. Half of the things I watch on TV were recorded in the 4:3 days anyway (reruns and old movies).

I also like to complete 100% of quests and things. I want to experience all of the gameplay. I like to get as much out of a game as I can. That includes replaying it if I can, but usually I take shortcuts on subsequent runs unless it's that good of a game. I've probably played through FFVII 7 or so times, but rarely completing the final Northern Cave/battle.

O/T

I can't relate. I've never played at anything higher than 1080p though, so maybe I'd feel differently if I had. I'm totally comfortable at 1080p. Heck, I'm even good with 720p for many titles (especially indie, or pixel-styled, games). How big is your monitor in centimeters / inches?

I got married at the Justice of the Peace, cost me nothing. My wife and I didn't want a big wedding and there's no church out there that I like. Worked out well. Been married 32 years so far. So there's no need to do a big expense for people. My wife costs me nothing, heck, I probably spend more then she ever will, so I usually buy her stuff.

I'm the same way. 720P doesn't bother me, I am fine with it. 1080P is perfect I think, never seen a reason to go higher. I would rather stay at 1080P and use the extra speed gained for better quality graphics and the like.

My memory claims it's a 22" monitor. The name and Google imply it's 23": Samsung 2343BW. I don't have a measuring tape handy. Which ever..

*cringe*

That's the best way to do it. If I ever get married, I'd love to do it like that (and then maybe throw a small, inexpensive party afterward or something).

Finally, someone who gets it. In a perfect world, I'd afford pretty graphics and nice performance, but for now I lean more toward performance (gotta have that buttery smooth frame-rate!). An upgraded GPU would afford me both though. Someday soon.

So you have/had a 22" / 23" monitor that has a resolution of 2048x1152? Do you think you could even tell the difference between 1080p and above on a monitor that size? My monitor is about the same size and it's only 1080p, and I'm totally content with it. I just can't imagine there being a noticeable difference.

I know I can tell the difference because my monitors at work max out at 1080, as does the laptop screen. It's annoying. Certainly if you've never used anything larger you won't know what you're missing, and that's fine. I can watch 80's and 90's re-runs stretched across my 1080p TV and it doesn't bother me at all. When it comes to my computer monitor though, I want to maximize what I can see on the screen at a time, without stretching it since I'm close enough to notice.

I'm not even sure what the latest one would be. I know that FFXIV has been out for a while, but that is an online game like FFXI was. I don't have time for that type of game, and can't imagine how it could be anything like the FF that I love. A lot of the fun would be lost if there were stronger people running around.

Apparently this latest game you speak of is FFXV. It sounds open world, and that is definitely interesting. Truth is, these games are better suited to children and teenagers that have the time and ambition for such endeavors. I find at my age I'm more critical than excited. I've already seen it done, and unless you can exceed my expectations it's just more of the same! What's more: it's console only, and after my PS3 died twice and I had to replace it after only 5 or so years I swore off consoles. The whole point is for a cheap system to play games on. I paid something like $700 for that console, and it died. The repairs cost $200, that died again after a year, and I had to pay another $200 for a new console with most of the features removed. So $1100 for a box that does a fraction of the things a PC can do, and if it dies again it'll be a second paper weight. I don't plan to buy a console of this generation unless the price drops dramatically while I simultaneously have money to burn and nothing better to burn it on. I'd probably sooner buy a Steam Machine (but since I don't run Windows at home that won't be very useful to me either).

4K is definitely noticable and useful. I use 4K every day in my software development and IT work. Being able to have 4 1080p screens at once is very useful. (1 VM, 2 RDP, and my desktop, for example.)

4K is also really pretty for 3-D games. I even played old games like Deus Ex at 4K. You don't need anti-aliasing when you have 4K.

Anyone who says "4K doesn't matter" is blind or stubborn. (And my eyes SUCK.) What really matters is DPI.

1080p on a laptop is too much without high-dpi scaling.
1080p on a 22" screen is perfect.
1080p on a 55" screen makes your eyes bleed (at desktop-length away from the screen).

I got a bonus (first ever!) at my job and I spent it all toward a "entry level" Samsung 4K 55" TV. It takes awhile to get used to the DPI and screen area (more than you can actually see at once if you sit only 2-3 feet away). But it's super fun. I have to set the FOV to ~110 degrees or higher and games FEEL much more immersive. Like having 3-D glasses without the glasses. (Though, obviously NOT AS GOOD as true stereo + point-of-view where mountains actually feel real.)

ALSO, the first 4K movie we watched, The Jungle Book, was MIND BLOWING. It's on Netflix (and we have the 4K netflix option) and certain scenes forced me to PAUSE it. Why? Because for the first time, certain scenes, FELT REAL. Certain structures, certain mountains, they had enough texture to confuse my mind and feel like I was flying as the helicopter-mounted camera zoomed around.

As for the GTX 1060, it won't run >60 FPS for many modern games. But it runs a great deal of games at "less than maximum" detail, and any game only a couple years old runs at full detail. And again, you don't NEED anti-aliasing anymore because it already looks crisp as hell.

{"name":"9PqAvl9.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/2\/a2242073b00e14b193e0917783bd3420.jpg","w":5312,"h":2988,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/2\/a2242073b00e14b193e0917783bd3420"}

Hardest part about telling people about better graphics is... they can't see it unless they own the hardware...

I'm told The Witcher 3 in 4K is downright gorgeous. I own it but I'm saving it for a time when I can binge it.

[edit] If you get a 4K screen MAKE SURE YOU GET one that can run at 60 FPS at 4K. Some only run 30 FPS. ALSO, your HDMI cable has to be a large enough (low enough) AWG (american wire gauge). Like 28 or smaller ("thicker"). I bought "4K ready" cables and they were all crap. I had to go by wire gauge. Amazon has them for cheap too. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in 4:2:0 mode which halves the horizontal resolution for color which will turn all text unreadable. That's very frustrating when you spend a crap ton of money, get the stuff home, plug it in, and then fiddle for days trying to FIND the problem, and then wait another few days for the cable to show up in the mail. "But I want to play with my new toy NNNNoowww!!!"

I can definitely see it being noticeable if you have a larger monitor. I personally just cannot justify the expense of a larger monitor, faster video card etc. Maybe someday. But I have other things I would spend that on first, faster CPU and GPU instead with 1080P and maybe two monitors for development.

And I can see the difference, but what I am saying is I don't feel it is something I need. I am completely happy with 1080P. But then again, I JUST this year finally bought an HD TV when my CRT finally died.

Wow, that sucks. Which part of it exactly died? I've heard that the more recent versions of the PS4 have some issues with overheating, but never have I heard of them outright dying. Now, if we were talking about the Xbox, then yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if one of those died (anyone remember the "red ring of death"?).

You mean in 4K, or 1080p?

I agree, The Jungle Book was great. I was blown away when I saw it in IMAX.

Good point. I'm not itching to upgrade to 4K anytime soon, but even without trying it, I can definitely agree that a bigger resolution would result in less aliasing. That's probably my only complaint about 1080p--the persistence of noticeable jagged edges.

Have your CRT-induced skin burns gone away yet?

It was a PS3 that died, not a PS4. I think it was overheating, but the design of the console didn't really make cleaning it very easy. At least, not without going beyond what Sony intended an end-user to do. I tried to follow online guides to clean it, but to no avail. The device still refused to start back up. I think that there might have been a piece of the board that would melt eventually and screw the board. Not nearly as fragile as the 360 was, but it was still a problem after enough time had passed. I don't know if the PS4 is improved in its cooling/cleaning design, but if you say they have overheating problems too I suspect it's a similar story. It would be ideal if the end user could open the entire case up and blow out all the dust without voiding any warranties or triggering any kill switches.

I know that. I should have worded my response better.

You're better off with a PC at that point. I think most consoles are designed in such a way that they don't want/expect the end user to ever want/need to explore a console's insides. Kind of a shame, really.

And that's why I don't want to buy a PS4. I'd rather save my money for PC upgrades. It is a shame though because PlayStation does tend to have some exclusives that I love, and if it ever comes to PC it'll be Windows-only so I still won't get to play... I'd be fine with it if they truly were designed in a such a way that you don't need to explore the consoles insides, but if the average consumer ends up with an overheating box after 5 years because of dust that was sucked into the case then obviously they fail. At the very least, the case should come with a washable filter that will eventually get plugged, and hopefully the machine can shut itself off before any real harm is done. Then the user can clean the filter, let it dry, and be back in business. Well, except people are stupid, so they'd probably try to blame Sony when their PlayStation got wet and short-circuited...

That's the truest thing I've heard all day--"people are stupid".

Anyway, back to GPUs... I asked some big-time PC gamer friends on Facebook, and several of them have recommended the GTX 1060. I've done some research on it and it appears to be a better card than the AMD R9 380 or 380X. The 1060 is fairly affordable, and some versions offer 6GBs of VRAM. The 3GB model is a great deal cheaper, but if I upgrade, I want to be future-proofed for a few years, and will likely bite the bullet on the 6GB as a result. From what I've read of reviews online, it sounds perfect for 1080p gaming (it can even do some 1440p gaming, but I don't have a monitor to see the difference, so it wouldn't matter to me). The card just sounds great.

Sounds fantastic.

Edit
Looking back at the GPU hierarchy chart that MiquelFire shared, the GTX 1060 is seven tiers greater than the R7 360 I already have, and is one tier above the R9 380X that I was looking at previously.

The EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 SC model has an attractive size and will work with my current PSU. Granted, it has a lower manual overclock potential than the multi-fan, > 6 pin power models, but I don't really see myself overclocking, especially because I plan on sticking with 1080p.

Double Edit
When it comes to upgrade my CPU as well, I think I'll go for the i5-7500. It has good reviews and nice benchmark scores.

Triple Edit
On second thoughts, maybe I'll stick with an AMD CPU so I don't have to replace my motherboard. The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X looks nice.

Quadruple Edit
So I'd have to upgrade my motherboard regardless if I am to upgrade the CPU, it seems.

It should run any game, even released today, at full detail, in 1080p. It's an "entry 4K" card. It actually runs 4K fine for non-bleeding edge (ala this and last year AAA-titles), and if you slightly lower the detail in some games you get full 50-60 FPS.

It's kind of mind-blowing how much an "entry level" 4K card costs ($250 I think). But when you look at the raw math of how much more screen drawing there is (4x a 1080p screen) it adds up fast in RAM throughput and core usage.

Also, I'm super happy with my GTX 1060. I don't remember the specific brand, but IIRC, I got the "quieter" model. I almost NEVER hear it spin up, and it'll even sit at 0 RPM (passive cooling) for many applications, including 3-D ones.

I can't wait to (ab)use it with Allegro and see how many silly sprites I can blast at 3451091523 FPS.

That's fantastic. I definitely want to get the GTX 1060.

I've read that they're all fairly quiet. Passive cooling sounds interesting (and dangerous). You've never encountered overheating or any other temperature-related issues with the card?

If you do that, please make a video we can see. I would love to see how much you can blast onto your screen with Allegro!

Right now, I am happy with my GTX650, cost me $100CDN at the time.

Passive cooling (in this case) is just the fan not spinning. Not really dangerous considering you can run modern intel i5s on a heatsink in a laptop if you underclock them enough. The fan spins up whenever it needs to. I haven't had to configure it at all.

Anyone for 4K Red Alert?

{"name":"uffqJMC.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26d515280c259da91d60b08cb0fe4a07.jpg","w":3840,"h":2160,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/6\/26d515280c259da91d60b08cb0fe4a07"}

p.s. Radar is for pussies.

That is insane! I love it. You may just sell me on it yet.

Good to know.

Edit
So I already had enough money saved, so I went ahead ordered the GTX 1060 this evening. I'm excited to use an NVIDIA for the first time!

Thanks everyone for all your replies and help.

Awesome! Always loved NVIDIA.

I wonder how many frames per second I'll get with the new GPU in Deluxe Pacman 2.

Edit
The graphics card arrived today. It gets about 500 FPS in Deluxe Pacman 2.

Nice! ... I think I get 380+ with my GTX 650, which bugs me, I don't know what slows the game down. I mean, for that type of game, 300+ FPS is plenty, but, really, it should be MUCH higher. I profiled it and the slowdown seems to be in the Allegro functions which decode the OGG sound files. I redone them to lower the quality (which made no difference in how they sounded anyhow) thinking maybe I had saved them at too high a quality but that makes no difference, so I am stumped.

I just started doing a remastered version of the game using SDL2 to test and already I get well over 3200 FPS so... <shrug> time will tell.

My original Deluxe Pacman 1 compiled with Allegro 4 used to get insanely high frame rate with no hardware acceleration at all.

I should see if I used just WAV files if that would improve the DP2 frame rate.

Are you drawing all of the graphics from an atlas? If so, are you using al_hold_bitmap_drawing before and after drawing from said atlas?

Edit
So I've played a few games already and wow, I love this graphics card! Whereas my old card played Fallout 4 O.K. on low, this new one works without issue on ultra! I couldn't be more pleased with this card.

I load in the graphics, then copy the individual images into an array of small ALLEGRO_BITMAP s which I draw from later on (the original loaded bitmap is destroyed).

Hmmmm... I wonder if the smaller, individual bitmaps are too small and that may be causing problems? This was my first Allegro 5 project, having come from Allegro 4.

Nice! I think these days the CPU makes less of a difference than the video card. Especially in 3D games which use the video card to do a lot more than they used to.

If you're not using an atlas with allegro, you're probably Doing It Wrong^TM. For simple games it might not matter though.

Actually, I thought that too. I was completely wrong.

When I upgraded from my AMD Athlon X4 630 to FX-8370, I more than doubled my FPS using the same videocard for the game Styx: Master of Shadows--a graphically intensive yet simulationally sparse game (only a few units in any given map). I even made a post about it back then.

I also went from being unable to record gameplay without significant FPS drop, to recording 60 FPS with zero drop at 1080p, using CPU only recording. (Nowadays I use NVENC because my CPU runs like 90% usage trying to record 4K.)

@Neil: I would save all of the graphics to a single image, load them into a single bitmap, then draw the parts that you need using al_draw_bitmap_region instead of using individual images and bitmaps.

As for CPUs, I think it depends on the game. Before I upgraded my GPU, I tested overclocking on a few games and noticed that most favored the GPU over the CPU. For example, Fallout 4 performed better when the GPU was overclocked versus just the CPU (CPU OC alone only improved performance by 1-3 frames per second, whereas GPU OC increased it by about 12 FPS). Minecraft was the only game that I tested which significantly benefited from overclocking the CPU. So it varies between games, I guess.

@Neil: You could also look into loading one bitmap, then using sub bitmaps instead al_draw_bitmap_region (Internally, sub bitmaps basically does all the work for you)

If you used more than al_draw_bitmap or al_draw_tinted_bitmap, then you HAVE to use sub bitmaps anyway.

Didn't we just talk about this before in another thread? It's called a texture atlas.

Factorio uses it:

https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/73316/how-do-we-solve-big-video-memory-requirements-in-a-2d-game

As do basically all games that need to have fast drawing. Texture change draw-calls are (relatively) slow. So if you need lots of textures, you put them together into larger "textures" (named a texture atlas). It's also good to place padding between each "texture" so they can't bleed into each other when mip-mapping is applied. (Or shutoff mip-mapping depending on your application.) Meanwhile, most even OLD cards support HUGE texture sizes compared to video games (minimum of 4096x4096, IIRC, for like... OpenGL 1.3--fact check it but they're listed by OGL version spec.) so CUDA cores don't care that they have access to larger textures... they only care how many times you have to "reset" them by switching those textures.

{"name":"figure1.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99f2fe58419e61de1b91f12f028be129.jpg","w":400,"h":400,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/9\/99f2fe58419e61de1b91f12f028be129"}

From here:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130940/practical_texture_atlases.php

Advanced games will have active texture atlases that work like virtual memory managers which "swap in and out" textures from RAM, and "packs" them as densely as possible.

[edit] I'll look up the exact specs when I get back home but here's a REALLY COOL SITE that benchmarks various videocards and tells you WHAT FEATURES the majority of users are going to have:

http://feedback.wildfiregames.com/report/opengl/feature/GL_MAX_TEXTURE_SIZE

Most have 8K by 8K texture sizes. I think my GTX 1060 can go to like 65536. =D

I really don't think how I load and draw my textures is the problem with my game as it doesn't have that many, and they are rather small. When I profiled it, the main bottle neck was a vorbis decoder or whatever in Allegro, which indicates it is the OGG files I use for sound. I should test just using WAVs and see what happens. I may experiment a little. I used to love dirty rectangles with Allegro 4, that is what my DP1 game used for a long time.