I7 4770k and 280x or FX 8350 and GTX 980?

[Squeeblii]

I have been wondering for a while now what to do, I mainly play arma 3 which isn't so good on and parts and I need to upgrade but can only afford one of these, either keep everything I have and switch out for a gtx 980 instead of a 280x or get an i7 but keep my current GPU. Posting here because didn't know where else to put it.

Thanks.

[EarthboundHero]

I have been wondering for a while now what to do, I mainly play arma 3 which isn't so good on and parts and I need to upgrade but can only afford one of these, either keep everything I have and switch out for a gtx 980 instead of a 280x or get an i7 but keep my current GPU. Posting here because didn't know where else to put it.

Thanks.

I'd get the 980, then upgrade to the i7 later.

[Toddwjp]

current full specs?

[Squeeblii]

I'd get the 980, then upgrade to the i7 later.

No idea if you know but there is a problem with arms and and products but I don't know if it's the CPU or the GPU and I was wondering if you might know or if anyone else would? Of it is a problem with the GPU I will get the 980 but if its the CPU I might get the CPU but if its a problem with both I would get the 980. I play a lot of arms 3 and its nearly impossible to play at 10 fps.

[Squeeblii]

current full specs?

Fx 8350

R9 280x

8gb ram

750w PSU

1tb HDD

128gb sad

You probably wobt need all of that but what ever

[Squeeblii]

Sorry if I don't reply to anything I'm off to bed. Will look in the morning.

[Toddwjp]

Fx 8350

R9 280x

8gb ram

750w PSU

1tb HDD

128gb sad

You probably wobt need all of that but what ever

 

get a gtx 980,

[Faceman]

All you need for gaming is an i5. Get an i5 + 970 > R9 290X > 780 > R9 290

FX processors and ARMA don't mix, and you will be severely bottlenecking a 980.

Upgrading for ARMA 3 alone won't do much as it'll run like shite on any rig in multiplayer. I went from a 560ti to a 970 with minimal gains in ARMA, which I expected. You're better off tweaking configs and setting custom start parameters than spending money on your rig, to be honest.

Thats because you have an FX processor. That game requires an Intel processor to play at an acceptable level.

[DeepStarCorp]

I have been wondering for a while now what to do, I mainly play arma 3 which isn't so good on and parts and I need to upgrade but can only afford one of these, either keep everything I have and switch out for a gtx 980 instead of a 280x or get an i7 but keep my current GPU. Posting here because didn't know where else to put it.

Thanks.

 

Go fuck yourself.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

 

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?171561-Extremly-Low-FPS-Arma-3

 

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3091645

 

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=20890

AMD CPU's are garbage, not even worth the really, really low price point even. AMD CPU's / Chipset's also like to just randomly fail half the freaking time, then when you try to process the RMA you are met with almost nothing but hostility, angst, and horribly spoken English. Just keepin' it real. Since you got all derpy butthurt and like, "Fuck You I'm an AMD Fanboy who loves cheap shit that barely works, runs like crap, and is 5 years behind the competition"... 

But yeah, OP avoid AMD CPU's at all costs. If money is that big of a concern [find another hobby perhaps ? Get a better job ?], just get the best Intel Processor you can afford. Their GPU's are even worse TBH: 

[Just Monika]

A 280X should be fine for Arma 3, the CPU may need to go. I have absolutely no framerate issues in Arma 3 multiplayer with an i5 4690S and 280X with all settings maxed.

[Opcode]

Your current rig is pretty decent for whatever game you may play. I personally don't see the reason to pit your money for such a small upgrade. Wait until Broadwell comes out and AMD's 300 series.

[harrynowl]

AMD CPU's are garbage, not even worth the really, really low price point even. AMD CPU's / Chipset's also like to just randomly fail half the freaking time, then when you try to process the RMA you are met with almost nothing but hostility, angst, and horribly spoken English. Just keepin' it real. Since you got all derpy butthurt and like, "Fuck You I'm an AMD Fanboy who loves cheap shit that barely works, runs like crap, and is 5 years behind the competition"...

But yeah, OP avoid AMD CPU's at all costs. If money is that big of a concern [find another hobby perhaps ? Get a better job ?], just get the best Intel Processor you can afford. Their GPU's are even worse TBH:

Trust me a company wouldn't exist if 13% of their products fail.

There are situations AMD CPUs are worth the cost. High end gaming just isn't one of them.

RMA experience is regional... I RMAed an AMD APU (killed by my own neglect before you ask) and had nothing of the sort. Just a bunch of automatically generated emails providing me instructions.. Doesn't get much clearer really.

[i_build_nanosuits]

ARMA 3 rely a lot on strong CPU cores, OP if you want to improve performance in that game you should upgrade the CPU...this is your current limiting factor in ARMA...get a core i5-4690K and a Z97 motherboard for overclocking.

[Faceman]

check yourself.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=1264

 

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?171561-Extremly-Low-FPS-Arma-3

 

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3091645

 

http://www.armaholic.com/forums.php?m=posts&q=20890

You aren't going to consistently get high FPS in ARMA3, its just not in the cards.  Its a heavily CPU dependent game, with massive maps and many players.  It is also a game that only relys on 1 or 2 cores.  People with Intel processors will consistently get higher FPS than those with FX processors, especially minimums. 

[Faceman]

.....................................................

 

Everything that is wrong with ARMA just flies straight over your head, doesn't it?

 

Chris, this forum has become so shit.

Sorry to hear that you spent money on an inferior piece of hardware, while bottle necking your brand new 970.

[Faa]

.....................................................

 

Everything that is wrong with ARMA just flies straight over your head, doesn't it?

 

Chris, this forum has become so shit.

Mainly because fanatics like you lying about AMD's performance after you seen real-time evidence that AMD performs extremely crappy compared to Intel.

Lowest frame I've seen on the AMD was 30 and 50 fps for the Intel. Intel had a 600MHz lower clock, a less powerful gpu, had fps capped at 60 fps that should prove you enough that your CPU is the only one to blame and not the game. 20 years later you'd be still on a 8350 yolo'ing the slideshows. Get over it, there's nothing wrong with the game, your CPU is basically in terms of clock for clock performance a 2007 CPU.

 

[rentaspoon]

I have been wondering for a while now what to do, I mainly play arma 3 which isn't so good on and parts and I need to upgrade but can only afford one of these, either keep everything I have and switch out for a gtx 980 instead of a 280x or get an i7 but keep my current GPU. Posting here because didn't know where else to put it.Thanks.

Put MSI afterburner on screen display on and have a look at what load the cores and GPU are at, as well as the memory if you can.See what's being used more, send us a screenshot if you can

Chris, this forum has become so shit.

Who's Chris?

[SSOB]

4970k and gtx 970

[Faa]

If you all actually knew Real Virtuality actually is, you'd at least suggest something else other than just bashing AMD. ARMA is notorious for shite optimisation. Back in DayZ earlier versions of the mod, your frame rate was entirely dependent on your ping. Linking low server performance (FPS) with client FPS isn't unheard of.

Ping doesnt affect fps, to give you an idea unplug your ethernet cable and your fps remains the same. That the game is shitty optimized has completely nothing to do with the performance difference between Intel & AMD, just nothing. 

 

 

Read the links instead of posting nitpicked single player benchmarks. OP is clearly playing multi player where almost everyone has the same frame rate no matter what rig.

 

How exactly does it have to be multiplayer if you can simulate a CPU bottleneck for both CPU's in singleplayer since multiplayer is always cpu bound so you can get an idea which CPU and by how much is faster? Linking threads people complaining about performance isn't a valid point when we are ONLY interested in the DIFFERENCE between AMD & Intel. You've had the video's of an intel rig having twice the fps of the amd rig and you still deny it. Do you want me to stream some live arma benchmarking or what to believe it? Blame Logan for recommending you a 8350, not the game. Trapping in Logans fairy tales is your own damn mistake you made, no reason to come whine here like a freaking amd fanboy who completely lost his touch with the reality.

Here's a guy who upgraded from a 6300 (which performs exactly the same as a 8350 in Arma) who had a double gain in FPS: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/236330-fx-8320-bad-performance/#entry3240897

 

Put MSI afterburner on screen display on and have a look at what load the cores and GPU are at, as well as the memory if you can. See what's being used more, send us a screenshot if you can

No point, a 4670K with a gtx 760 will have twice the fps of a 8350 with 4 780ti's in SLI in Arma 3.

@Op just get a 4670K and a GTX 970, avoid AMD at all costs as you could see and also avoid that useless 4790k. The game only needs 2 cores and lots of single core performance, GPU's are extremely hard bottlenecked in that game so a 4670K with a cheap card will outperform a 8350 with 4 high-end cards in SLI because you don't get any performance gains above a gtx 750 with any CPU atm.

[rentaspoon]

No point, a 4670K with a gtx 760 will have twice the fps of a 8350 with 4 780ti's in SLI in Arma 3.

@Op just get a 4670K and a GTX 970, avoid AMD at all costs as you could see and also avoid that useless 4790k. The game only needs 2 cores and lots of single core performance, GPU's are extremely hard bottlenecked in that game so a 4670K with a cheap card will outperform a 8350 with 4 high-end cards in SLI because you don't get any performance gains above a gtx 750 with any CPU atm.

Yep no point trying to figure out what's wrong.

[Faa]

Yep no point trying to figure out what's wrong.

The CPU isn't good enough for Arma, that's the point.

[Squeeblii]

Upgrading for ARMA 3 alone won't do much as it'll run like shite on any rig in multiplayer. I went from a 560ti to a 970 with minimal gains in ARMA, which I expected. You're better off tweaking configs and setting custom start parameters than spending money on your rig, to be honest. 

I have done everything i can to get better fps but it doesnt go anymore than 30. I need to upgrade anyways as my GPU isnt exactly great.

[Squeeblii]

A 280X should be fine for Arma 3, the CPU may need to go. I have absolutely no framerate issues in Arma 3 multiplayer with an i5 4690S and 280X with all settings maxed.

 

This is what im looking for, I need to know if I should upgrade to the i7 then get the 980 later or the other way round. What FPS do you get on arma roughly?

[Squeeblii]

Mainly because fanatics like you lying about AMD's performance after you seen real-time evidence that AMD performs extremely crappy compared to Intel.

Lowest frame I've seen on the AMD was 30 and 50 fps for the Intel. Intel had a 600MHz lower clock, a less powerful gpu, had fps capped at 60 fps that should prove you enough that your CPU is the only one to blame and not the game. 20 years later you'd be still on a 8350 yolo'ing the slideshows. Get over it, there's nothing wrong with the game, your CPU is basically in terms of clock for clock performance a 2007 CPU.

 

 

This is very helpful. I have been looking for a while if it was my CPU or GPU and this pretty much answers it.

[rentaspoon]

The CPU isn't good enough for Arma, that's the point.

Yep I won't disagree that its poorly optimized I just like to be thorough and make sure there's not something else as well.

Just making sure he's not part of the 1%