dandrix

Youre good for BF3, your low upload speed doesnt matter so much.

forget bf4, shadow of mordor and crysis 3, WOW the true test for your pc lol

Great deal. My 7990 was handling BF3 at 4K with no problems, so for 1440p you should be golden

You're 100% correct. 128-bit memory bus can indeed handle 4GB of vRAM. It could even handle 8GB; though the likelyhood of having a high enough memory clock to get the bandwidth needed to fill/empty 8GB on a 128-bit memory bus is low. 256-bit, 8GB vRAM cards exist as well on the mobile platform; both the 880M and 980M cards do this.
 
If you want to know more about vRAM, you can read the guide in my signature. vRAM sizes on cards is loosely tied to the memory bus width, in that multiples of vRAM need to be used in order to keep all the memory "fast". So 128-bit and 256-bit and 512-bit memory buses need: 256MB, 512MB, 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, etc of vRAM. 192-bit and 384-bit memory buses need: 384MB, 768MB, 1.5GB, 3GB, 6GB, 12GB, etc of vRAM.
 
That'd require it to have a 96-bit or 192-bit memory bus; the former being way too slow for anything "gaming" class and the latter likely being rather high for its core count etc. The card's also named badly; it should have been the "950" or "950Ti" at best, in my opinion, with the specs it has. 
 
Yes, 3GB for "high" with everything else turned up and 5.4GB on "ultra" with everything else turned up, if I remember correctly. At 1080p. And yes, you know what you're talking about with regards to how vRAM works. High resolution textures eats up vRAM but doesn't actually do much to the strain on the core. Unless higher resolution textures is a setting bundled with "texture quality", raising texture resolution doesn't actually do much more than eat up more vRAM.

I don't think AMD ever wanted to be an API maker, mantle accomplished what they wanted it to do, no reason to continue support for it now.

Absolutely nothing, it bottlenecks anything higher than entry level gaming cards like GTX 750 Ti and R7 265...

The fact that the Pentium G3258 is a newer architecture and platform would be the one I'd go for but when OC'ed I would have thought the extra processing cores of the Q9400 would nudge it ahead.

In no freakin way.

No.

i would get the 290x

290x is my recommendation.

The A6 is definitely better, but if you're going with an APU get a Kaveri.
 
If you're on a budget get the A10-5800k or the A10-7850k. They offer near 650 Ti performance.

Faceman it depends on what he is paying for the hardware he is mentioning.  Other factors are the area he is living in and the cost there and also the ability to buy things used and what he pays for them in his area.

The AMD mounting is different.




I prefer AMD's mounting, It is messier, but it feels more solid.

295X2 slaped Z pretty much every where.

FX 6300.

FX-6300 all day long. The G3258 regardless of how fast its single core performance is will cripple in thread heavy games and workloads.
 
Tho I would consider maybe an i3-4150 (or i3-4130 for use of cheap H81 boards) or something along them lines.

My vote is for 
FX 6300

Fx 6300>Pentium no argument in performance with the exception of some heavily single threaded tasks

I have FX 6300, its great for gaming in well optimised games for the price.

FX 6300 as simple as that, still best budget CPU you can get.

A 970 wouldn't be bottlenecked by a FX-8350 as my R9 280X Runs very well paired with a FX-6300.

Speaking of dead my 780 is dead to me.
Reason: 

People should really stay away from cpuboss

I have an A10-7850k. Best APU on the market if you can afford the little extra.