#1111
I checked your profile and now this finally makes sense. You're reusing old parts.

I don't expect any 4K 120Hz monitors before DP 1.3 and even then there's basically no market for since we don't have the hardware yet to get 120fps on 4K.

Well you can't boot from an NVMe SSD until you get the drivers so if you want to use it as boot SSD things get interesting.

The viewing distance where you can take full advantage of 1440p is about 2.34' for 24" and 2.63' for 27" monitors. That's pretty much exactly what you're looking at so no need for 4K. I'd say 1440p >120Hz IPS panels would be a nice upgrade. You'll still need double the GPU power just to keep your fps at the same level but that's actually doable.

What are your current specs?

Currently am running 3rd gen I7 3770k, 16gb of ddr3 1886mhz ram(has ddr4 come out yet?), two Asus Poseidon gtx 780s, on an asus formula Iv mobo. 1200w psu. Like I said I'd be upgrading everything in this build this time.

Last night I had a friend show me some AMD products as well as tell me why running 5 year old hard drives that have never been wiped before is an issue.

While looking at two cards, the gtx 980 ti and AMD r9 fury sapphire, I noticed that the AMD card has a much larger memory bus speed, FLOPS peak performance, higher shader units, and much higher texture mapping, whereas the Nvidia 980ti has a much higher render rate, much higher effective clock speed and general clock speed as well as more memory in general.

So which is better for gaming? The AMD aspect of having a very fast card or in the Nvidia stance, a card superior in rendering? Now that I've been enlightened with the info given it almost appears that Nvidia is more for graphics designers and graphics heavy performances with a wider market in mind whereas AMD is focused mainly around gamers. Again any all advice and info you can give is greatly appreciated!

I apologize in advance for any typos and I had typed all this up on my phone.

#1113
Yes, DDR4 is out now.

I don't know why HDDs that were never wiped would be an issue, but you should always have backups, no matter how new an HDD is. 5-6 years is about the average life expectancy so if you don't have any backups yet you should change that asap.

Fury or Fury X? The Fury X should be faster than the 980 Ti now after the driver updates and it's cheaper, not a hard decision. In games there's no such thing as "superior rendering", in CAD there might be differences due to the drivers. While AMD cards usually have more raw power (as in number crunching performance) and recent nVidia cards have been a bit more efficient (that might change with the next generation of GPUs) neither of it actually matters to you, because you shouldn't worry about how the GPU gets the fps, just how many. And efficiency is hardly a concern when you're doing a 1000W build.

The memory on the Fury X deserves a bit of elaboration though. It's HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) and it does exactly what the name suggests. The basic idea is that running GDDR5 at 3000+MHz is a pain in the ass (high speed is always a pain in the ass) and takes a lot of power. Due to that the Titan X is sometimes slower than the 980 Ti because even though it is the faster card the 6GB more VRAM take so much out of the power budget that it has to hold back. Going from a 384bit bus (780 ti/980 Ti) to a 512bit bus (290(X)/390(X)) with the memory at lower speed costs die space and therefore reduces the space you can use for stuff that does actual work so it's not ideal either.
The "obvious" solution: Go crazy on the bus width. 256bit per chip. The Fury (X) got 16 that means a 4096bit bus. So even with the memory running at only 500MHz (1/7 of the 980 Ti's 3500MHz), which means extremely low power consumption, having more than 10 times the bus width gets high you 1.5 times the bandwidth. The problem is routing a 4096bit bus. You can't get that many traces that close together on a normal PCB so you have to use an interposer. Those are very expensive so to keep them as small as possible you have to keep all the memory chips close to the GPU. The solution: Stack 4 of them on top of each other. Now the only problem left is that since HBM is a new technology and the chips are smaller than GDDR5 chips you can only get 0.25GB (=2Gb) per chip which yields a total of 4GB (4 stacks is the max before the interposer becomes too big, 4 high).
Due to that the Fury X is a bit of a weird beast. It got the power and memory bandwidth for 1440p/4K but only 4GB VRAM.

That brings me to the conclusion: Wait a bit.
New AMD GPUs should be released mid 2016. They should fix the only problems the Fury X has. They'll be more efficient (and obviously faster) and they'll get HBM2. 1GB (=8Gb) max per chip so a total of 16GB if AMD wanted to (although 8GB is more reasonable and probable) and 1000 instead 500MHz. For 4 stacks that means 1024GB/s, triple the bandwidth of the 980 Ti and obviously double of the Fury X.

There'll also be Zen later which might finally be some competition for Intel again and there'll definitely be Broadwell-E (10 cores rumoured, but at least 8 cores). There'll also be a refresh of Skylake named Kaby Lake.

If nothing else waiting for the AMD GPUs with DP 1.3 might tell you whether or not there'll be any 4K 120Hz monitors at all or even some that are worth buying (though I still think that 1440p 120Hz IPS monitors would be a better idea).

Try and take all that I'm posting as a question please, trying to see if I understand correctly.

Alright after ready that over a couple times, I think I may get the general idea of it, so Nvidia has the memory capacity but not the speed and AMD has the speed but not the storage capacity(yet). CAD for example, needs rendering power and thus (graphics design in general) benefit from Nvidia because of that.

Now as for AMD, they have excellent speeds but by having that hardware to give them the speeds they cannot have a lot of space available. What if you were to use two AMD cards instead of one? Obviously you'll still only have 8gb as compared to 8gb+ you could have with only ONE Nvidia card. But waiting for the new stuff this year seems to benefit me the most. Video games will use speeds and processing rather than huge amount of rendering power(for the most part) right?

The memory bus is basically the amount of information that's able to be moved together, so higher number means more info exchanged, but for AMD their cards can't transfer it fast enough to benefit from that large bit size yet, whereas Nvidia has a smaller bit but travels much faster.

So again, waiting for the new stuff for this year will show a large milestone in gpus right? I believe Nvidia has their conference in April so I'd assume AMD will be Around that time too.

Aside from gpus, if I'm looking to do a pcie Intel ssd, with dual gpu cards, which motherboard(s) should I be considering? And as for CPUs, how are the latest gens in intels line of chips? And for me as a typical computer gamer enthusiast, what cpu do I actually want to consider? Obviously I could go with a 1200$ extreme cpu but what would I actually be getting out of it all as compared to a base line i7, or even any another's like i5?

Thanks again!

#1115
No. First of all it's not storage, it's not an HDD. Secondly that is just specifically the Fury X vs the 980 Ti. Thirdly I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion:

CAD is all about driver support. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493.html
Just take a quick look at it. Compare Maya 2013 and OpenCL Video Processing. You'll see what I mean.

VRAM does not stack. You would not have 8+GB with a single nVidia card unless you were to get a Titan X. The 980 Ti got "only" 6GB. All cards need all the information so everything is just doubled. That means right now you got 3GB for 3 1080p monitors. With 6GB and 3 1440p monitors nothing would change, the VRAM per pixel stays the same. 4GB is a bit tight. With 4K which doubles the number of pixels again VRAM is lacking on both. I'm not a fan of overpaying for a Titan X just to get 12GB VRAM so I'd wait. With the next generation of high end GPUs at 8 or even 16GB VRAM there should be absolutely no problems with triple 1440p, although triple 4K might still be a bit tight on 8GB.
Not sure about your distinction between "speeds", "processing" and "rendering power". Either way the new stuff will get you both, enough VRAM even on highest settings for triple 1440p, maybe triple 4K and more speed/power to actually get 120fps (at least on 1440p).

Yes, the memory bus is how much data you can move per clock cycle, no the AMD R9 Fury X is the fastest in that regard at the moment.
The equation is simple: 1/7 the clock speed times 10.66 the bus width equals ~1.5 times the bandwidth of GDDR5. Or in absolute numbers:
980 Ti / Titan X: 3500MHz x 384bit x 2* = 2688Gbit/s = 336GByte/s
Fury / Fury X: 500MHz x 4096bit x 2 = 4096Gbit/s = 512GByte/s
*DDR stands for double data rate, it moves twice the data you'd expect per clock cycle
I think now you see the issue. The Fury X got almost twice the bandwidth of your current 780s, but not twice the VRAM, which is what I complained about. Again, the next gen should take care of that, 2 or 4 times the VRAM and the same or twice the bandwidth of the Fury.
So the "best case" for the new cards would be almost 4 times the bandwidth of your 780s, more than 4 times the VRAM, which fits perfectly with 4K being 4 times 1080p.

Now I can finally elaborate on the 3 reasons why I keep trying to convince you to go for 1440p instead:
1. Even though bandwidth and VRAM might be enough you'll only get a bit more than twice the performance. 1440p are twice the number of pixels of 1080p, add that new games are more demanding and you end up with pretty much the same performance. On 4K your fps would halve unless you get more than 2 GPUs, which I wouldn't recommend.
2. You're close enough to your monitors to see the difference between 1080p and 1440p, but not close enough to notice the difference between 1440p and 4K.
3. 4K 120Hz monitors don't exist yet and even if the become a thing they'll probably be incredibly expensive at first.

Yes, the new stuff will be a large milestone. nVidia does have a press conference but they don't have a GPU to release yet, I linked that before. http://semiaccurate.com/2016/02/01/news-of-nvidias-pascal-tapeout-and-silicon-is-important/
AMD is going for a mid 2016 release and is expected to release their new GPUs before nVidia does.

As for SSDs I'd consider the Samsung 950 Pro because it doesn't need a PCIe slot, it uses an M.2 slot instead, is quite fast* and cheaper than the Intel 750.
*http://www.storagereview.com/samsung_950_pro_m2_ssd_review
http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_750_review

As for CPUs, yes you can get away with a normal i7 or even an i5 (although that's pushing it) if you stick with 2 GPUs. For 3 or 4 GPUs you need an i7 Extreme because only they support it. Mobo choice obviously depends on the CPU.
New CPUs, Intel both the standard desktop quad cores including i7s and i5s (although it'll only be a refresh (Kaby Lake), same architecture as the current ones (Skylake (e.g. i5-6600K and i7-6700K)) only with slightly higher clockrates and/or at slightly lower prices) and i7 Extreme (6, 8 and maybe 10 cores), and maybe AMD Zen (GET HYPE) should be released around the same time as the GPUs, the standard back to school sale window.

Wait until the GPUs are released, then you'll see if you want/need more than 3 GPUs and with that information you can decide which CPU to get. I'll probably still be here in a months so just ask again when that time comes around.

when I compared the vram to storage I didn't know what else to really call it, but yes I understand now thank you.

So having multiple gpus doesn't double your vram but just distributes the "workload" between the multiple gpus then?

Those equations make it much easier to understand the cards side by side thank you! Like you said I'll wait on the new cards to come out and see what type of setup id be going with then. So depending on what type of setup I'd want to go with id do 2,3, or even 4 cards, but would need an extreme i7 for 3 or 4 gpus, gotcha. Maybe just a 1440p multi monitor setup would be the ideal it seems as you've said, the 4K monitors will probably be quite expensive for awhile after being released. Any 1440p monitors that you'd recommend that have a great image quality while having a high refresh rate too?

As a quick side note, I noticed how AMD cards allow for more than 3 monitor surround setups, so like 6 monitor and 9 monitor setups being possible, any thoughts on that?

As for the SSDs, I wasn't aware that samsung made those types of SSDs. So for the intel vs samsung are there really any benefits from one to another? Also how exactly does the samsung one work? I've looked into it some now after you've mentioned them but cant seem to understand how they work.

Thanks again.

I was thinking of buying a new PC really soon. So, Setsul and co, you think I should wait a little bit (mostly in regards to GPU)? I was tossing up between a 980 ti and a Fury X but now I'm not so sure anymore :(

EDIT: I suppose the alternative is to keep my 970 until the new stuff drops? Was planning on selling.

Definitely wait till the new stuff coming out soon.

Also How would you go about finding a motherboard with multiple M.2 slots on it while still being a 2011 V3 socket? Know of any good ones?

#1117
Right now most games still use AFR (alternate frame rendering) for multi-GPU setups. The reason is that you don't have to program anything for it. GPU 1 renders frame 1, GPU 2 renders frame 2 (starts rendering when frame 1 is halfway finished), then GPU 1 renders frame 3, GPU 2 renders frame 4 and so on. That's why the VRAM doesn't double. Also each frame still takes the same time to render so even though you get double the frames your input lag stays the same.

With DX12 and Mantle (soon Vulkan) we should see more SFR (split frame rendering) again. One GPU renders e.g. the top half, the other the bottom half (or if there's really good support for multi monitor setups we might see a "one card per monitor" style). Some things like textures still have to be present in both GPUs' memory but other than that your available VRAM doubles. Also the frametimes halve and your input lag is finally lowered compared to a single GPU.

About CPU/GPU relation: Yep, now you got it.

About the monitors: Do you want Freesync? Also there might be some new monitors by the time the new GPUs get released.

A 3x3 monitor setup would just be like a huge monitor with the same aspect ratio but 9 times the resolution (so halfway beween 4K and 8K). A 3x2 setup would be just like an ultrawide 4K monitor. That's all with 1080p monitors of course. Anything higher than that and there's no way to get playable fps. You lose the only advantage of a surround setup, the higher fov. Unless you were to use a single row but then you'd have to turn your head to see all monitors and you probably don't have enough space to do it, so I don't see the point.

What do you mean "how exactly does the samsung one work?"? What do you want to know?

#1118
Fury X or wait. I'd say wait.

#1119
pcpartpicker does have an option for that to filter anything with less than x M.2 slots. Why do you need multiple M.2 slots though?
There's no point in deciding on a specific mobo already, there should be new mobos by the time the new GPUs are released.

Ah alright I understand the gpu aspect now.

Would I benefit from freesync? And it's where the gpu and monitor match refresh rates right? I assume it's the equivalent to nvidias G-sync.

From past info I did get the idea that AMD was capable of more than 3 monitor setup, but obviously as you were saying you wouldn't get much if doing more than 3. If I were to do a row of 5 monitors do I gain an even greater FOV? I believe currently my fov with 3 1080p monitors is at about 120-130.
One last question would be is it at all beneficial to run 5 monitors in all portrait mode side by side? Or would I not gain anything from that?

From what I've been able to see, M.2 SSDs are about 512Gb at the largest currently, so in order to match say that Intel 750 series with 1.2Tb, I'd need two M.2 at 512Gb. But how much more of a quality difference is there between a pcie SSD and a M.2 SSD?

Why does MSI have to make such a beautiful motherboard for only 6th gen Intel processors?
https://us.msi.com/product/motherboard/Z170A-XPOWER-GAMING-TITANIUM-EDITION.html#hero-overview

Wait? aww mannnnnn ok. I still wanna buy rest of PC. Can I just keep using my 970 until the new amds or whatever? Was going to buy a 6700k

Of course, thats what Im doing as well, just wait till the new stuff comes out this year.

#1121
Yep, same as G-Sync, except cheaper and Intel will support it and nVidia already uses it in some notebooks (because it's cheaper) while not supporting it officially so they can keep selling G-Sync modules.

In Source games with 3 16:9 monitors (=48:9 total) your fov with fov_desired should be 151.93° (instead of the normal 106.26° with 16:9). 5 monitors (=80:9) would get you 162.94° so it's really not worth it.
5 monitors in portrait mode result in an aspect ratio of 45:16 which is lower than even just 3 monitors in landscape mode. Fov would be 129.27°, the only thing you can is a higher vertical resolution, but you can get that with an ultrawide 4K monitor (slightly lower aspect ratio) or two 16:9 4K monitors next to each other (higher AR) way easier.

Two 512GB SSDs in RAID0 would be twice as fast. There really shouldn't be any relevant quality difference. Samsung promised a 1TB model "next year" back in September 2015 so it should be coming soon-ish.

Ask MSI.

#1122
New CPUs around the same time. Patience.

Ah alright I see.
(1) But I thought the highest you could have on a normal 1080p monitor was 90 fov?
(2) What about having an ultra wide 1440p, Would one ultra wide monitor give any fov changes alone?
And I'll probably stick with either 1 or 3 monitors as only using two would leave the middle bezel line centered on your game.

I also tend to see a slight issue with my vertical fov, as I can't seem to look up reliably due to running a 3 monitor surround setup.
(3) How would a 3x2 1440p(or 1080p) handle in terms of playable fps and fov?

After reading over the aspect ratio info you posted again (like 5 times), I came up with a few more questions as to what I don't understand.
(4) Does pixel density(1080p,1440p,26XXp,etc) affect aspect ratio in game, resulting in a change in fov?
(5) Basically does someone running one standard 27" 1080p monitor able to see the same amount as compared to someone running one 27" 4K monitor?
Oh and one issue I currently experience is that even though I have 3 144hz capable monitors, when I combine them to do a surround setup, Nvidia apparently activates gpu scaling and I am only able to set my 5760x1080 monitor to 120hz.
I've tried contacting Nvidia and worked with them for literally a month emailing tech support back and form to no avail. They had me do a whole bunch of tests too with custom programs they would send me.
(6) does this same problem exist with AMD or am I able to run 144hz in their equivalent of a surround setup?

As for the SSDs, I'm still not 100% understanding of them.
(7) Do M.2 style SSDs perform better than PCIe expansion slot SSDs?
And you mentioned running two 512gb SSDs in a raid0 would be great.
(8) But are you referring to M.2 SSDs, are they able to be put into raid?
If so, I would get two of the 512gb cards and raid them and use it as my OS and steam drive.

Only issue I see with M.2 is that it appears motherboards tend to not have too many connectors, usually only 1 or 2, especially for socket 2011 v3 which would be if I am going to run 3 or 4 gpus.

#1125
1. No, it's about the aspect ratio. fov_desired 90 gets you 90° horizontal fov on a 4:3 monitor, no matter the resolution, but 106.26° on a 16:9 monitor.
2. Yes. Higher aspect ratio = higher fov.
3. fps same as 3 4K monitors (so 60fps maybe, but not 120). fov would be 126.87° because the aspect ratio is 48:18, higher than 16:9 but lower than your current 48:9.
4. 1080p,1440p,2160p are resolutions, not pixel densities. Neither affect aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is the ratio of your monitor's width to your monitor's height.
5. Size also doesn't affect the aspect ratio/fov. On a 10" 480p 16:9 monitor you see exactly the same as on a 27" 4K 16:9 monitor.
6. Afaik it's working on AMD.
7. M.2 is just a form factor. It still uses PCIe. So the 950 Pro uses NVMe via PCIe and the Intel 750 uses NVMe via PCIe, they're just different sizes and use different connectors.
I said RAID0 would be fast, but keep in mind that losing one SSD means you lose all data. As always you should have backups for that case. Do you have backups? I think I asked that earlier when you mentioned 5 year old HDDs.
8. Form factor is irrelevant for RAID. Yes, it will work.
I'm pretty sure 2 M.2 slots are enough for 2 M.2 SSDs.

Alright awesome! So higher aspect ratio= higher fov and nothing else affects fov but that. Got it. That pretty much sums up the majority of my questions.

I was thinking that the Intel SSD was an expansion slot card that ran off of PCIe, but actually all it is is a platform for that actual SSD to be inserted into, I was thinking that M.2 SSDs meant they plug into this

http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/D/435973/original/IMG_0754-1.jpg

while the intel SSD was something completely different, didnt realize the expansion slot card was just an adapter, like so.

http://imagescdn.tweaktown.com/content/6/4/6422_05_addonics_adm2px4_pcie_3_0_to_m_2_ssd_adapter_review.jpg

So then, do you get better performance having that M.2 SSD connected directly to the motherboard (I think its called mini PCIe?) like in the first picture or having it in an "adapter" that takes up an expansion plugged into your PCIe?

I've learned so much these last few days from this thread alone, whether it be new information or something I thought I knew but was wrong.

Just a curious thought, but If I did do 3x2 1440p ultrawide monitors, with say 4 of the newest GPU coming out, would that result in a decent gaming experience FPS wise?

#1127
No, you misunderstood again, it's not a platform, it is the actual SSD. Here's a picture of one disassembled:

http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2015-04-02/150330-181243_DxO.jpg

The point is that they are using the same connection, just a different form factor. Your own picture actually shows that.

http://i.imgur.com/E1QSuuS.jpg

It's like USB and micro USB. Literally the same, just smaller.

3x2 1440p ultrawide with 4 GPUs maybe 60fps. In theory playable but you'll have the same input lag you'd have with 15fps, so probably not exactly enjoyable.

Ahhhh ok I see. Didn't realize the mini PCIe existed. Thank you. I wasn't sure about the Intel card neither and whether it did the same as other expansion slot ssd cards(adding a mini pcie slot via regular pcie) or not, thank you.

What's the equation used to calculate fov based on aspect ratio?

Also, if I do stack monitors on top of one another do I gain vertical fov too?

#1129
Fov depends on the game and vertical fov. The formula should be similar for most games, at least all quake based engines (including the source engine).
The source engine specifically uses 4:3 as the standard. So fov_desired 90 on 4:3 gets you 90° horizontal fov. The vertical fov is 73.74° and stays constant unless you change fov_desired, e.g. for fov_desired 75 it would be 59.84°.
The source engine formula is: hfov = 2*atan( tan(fov_desired / 2) * aspect ratio * 0.75 )
Instead of *0.75 (which is the same as / (4/3)) divide by whatever an engine's standard aspect ratio is, if it's not 4:3.
For fov_desired 90 it becomes even shorter: hfov = 2*atan( aspect ratio * 0.75 )

There's calculators for it.
http://www.casualhacks.net/Source-FOV-calculator.html
http://www.wsgf.org/fovcalc.php

No, stacking monitors just reduces your aspect ratio again. Vertical fov stays constant.

Ah ok so there is no way to raise vertical fov then. Bummer.

Actually maybe 2 monitors might Just be an option after all.

http://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-SWIFT-PG348Q/

Thoughts on this?

#1132
It's "only" 100Hz but if you don't mind the bezel down the middle it would definitely work. Fov would be 148.11° instead of the 151.93° on 3 16:9 monitors, so almost no difference.

The only thing I noticed is that these(supposedly) have very little bezels at all.

I'm currently trying to overclock my monitor. I use the Asus VE247H-P but I can't find the maximum refresh rate that I can overclock too. Any answers?

Ok, I see two possibilities:
1. Overclocking doesn't work like you think it does or
2. Your monitor runs on magic.

You set it to a higher refresh rate and see what happens. That's overclocking. If you meant you can't find the official maximum supported overclocked refresh rate, well that's because it's not supported. There are no specs for running it out of spec which is what overclocking is about. If you meant you set it to higher refresh rate and it worked then congratulations. If you want to go higher then do so, otherwise don't. I can guarantee that unless the monitor runs on unicorn tears it will stop working at some point, you just have to go high enough.

Hello, I would like to upgrade my PC, since it is pretty old now (around 4 years?) and has the following specs (can't really remember them from back then, so I used HWinfo):

Mainboard: ASUS M4N68T-M-LE-V2 (Socket AM3)
CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 850
GPU: AMD Radeon HD 6770 1GB
RAM: 4GB (I have no clue if thats enough info for that part, sorry)
HDD: 500 GB (noname hdd, dont know much more there as well)
Power Supply: All I can remember here was that is was some BeQuiet 450W thingy, sorry that I'm so clueless

I mainly use this PC for Team Fortress and Single Player Games, besides the usual university stuff. Is there any way I can upgrade it, and is it even worth it then, considering the things I do with it? (Budget would be around 300Euro/330$)

Thanks in advance

#1137
There's no reason to upgrade just because it's old. Only upgrade if you want to improve some aspect of performance.
You should set some sort of performance goal.

Other than that some preliminary questions:
Want to / willing to overclock?
Need more storage capacity?
Want an SSD?
Case?

I get around 40-60 fps on crowded pubs in certain situations (midfights...), I would like to have around 60-80 (possibly more if thats reasonable considering my budget and all), since I somehow "feel" the difference between 60 and 40 and often run background things, which decrease my fps even more. Also I would like to finally play Crisis on good graphics, since I have it laying around here since its release and I never even touched it :D

Seeing that I sometimes even have problems using my electric toothbrush, I would rather not overclock anything unless I really find the time to get my mind to it (which will not be in the forseeable future).
Considering storage, I do not need any atm, I still have around 250 GB free. When it comes to an ssd I would rather spend the majority of the money on gpu/cpu, and would only consider it, if it helps me getting more fps (I really dont have much of a clue about this, so sorry again).
Case is a Cooltek K3 btw, so there should be enough room for a larger gpu, if thats your concern.

#1139
TF2 should be possible easily, Crysis depends on the resolution and what you consider good settings.

The CPU obviously needs to be replaced for TF2, but the motherboard is a dead end as well, if the RAM is DDR2 it's useless, even if it's DDR3 I wouldn't keep it. Sell the whole bundle or just give it away.
You'll have to keep using the 6770 because your budget just isn't enough for CPU, mobo, RAM and a GPU on top of it.
If you do it the other way round you have to keep your CPU, so no improvement in TF2 but you could play Crysis at max.

EDIT:
To clear it up a bit:
Depending on what you consider good settings in Crysis and the resolution you might need a new GPU.
You definitely need a new CPU and mobo (and you should get new RAM) to get more fps in TF2.
You can not afford both. So tell me what settings/res you want in Crysis and if it turns out you would need a new GPU decide what's more important to you.

So there is no possibility of getting to my fps-goal in tf2 with a better socket am3 cpu (say a phenom II x4 965 or phenom II x6) and then maybe adding a better gpu for crisis later as it still isnt my top priority? (Mainboard supports ddr3 btw, so i could just add some ram there)

If thats the case what would be your suggestion for a combination of mobo,cpu, ram for a better performance in tf2?
If there is a way with just a better cpu and ram, what would be your suggstions there?

The other way: Say I want to play Crisis on a resolution of 1680x1050 and high settings on everything, what would you suggest gpu-wise (or upgrade wise anyways)?