860w enough for this?

[MeatFeastMan]

I currently have an fx 9590 and a 1050ti. And just..calm for a second. Take those thoughts out of your head. I'm not interested in 'change that fx NOW'.

 

So here's the question: Radeon VII, FX 9590. I have an AX860i. Do you think that I can run both those on that PSU or will it struggle. I know it'll be a close one, so that's why I asked. I can do the 9590 and 1050ti easily, but that Radeon is 300w...

 

As I said, I don't want people talking about bottlenecks this and bottlenecks that, and I don't want people to tell me to change the fx. I'll do that eventually. My first upgrade will be the gpu. Just answer the question.

[IAnthonyFX]

nah you should be fine

[Firewrath9]

yup, you should be fine. ~300-500W for the 9590, ~350W for the Radeon 7

[TheRandomness]

We don't know the true power consumption of Radeon 7 just yet. One can assume it'll be less than Vega 56 though. considering it's the same chip, clocked slightly higher, but on a smaller process.

[zombieshy_guy81]

Should be fine. 

[Firewrath9]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

We don't know the true power consumption of Radeon 7 just yet. One can assume it'll be less than Vega 56 though. considering it's the same chip, clocked slightly higher, but on a smaller process.

"slightly" its clocked 25% higher,, and has more and higher clocked HBM, theres a reason its total board power of 295, then with a +50% power limit, it goes to 450.

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, Firewrath9 said:

"slightly" its clocked 25% higher,, and has more and higher clocked HBM, theres a reason its total board power of 295, then with a +50% power limit, it goes to 450.

Clockspeed doesn't affect power consumption a huge amount really, it's the voltage that does. HBM is relatively power efficient compared to GDDRn. And you can undervolt Vega-based cards to get a nice boost in clock speed whilst lower power consumption (because AMD ship the card with the voltage set too high by default).

[191x7]

That FX isn't even properly feeding the 1050Ti, upgrading to something stronger won't even be noticable in many titles.

 

Changing the platform wile keeping the 1050Ti will offer you more performance than changing the GPU. With $750 you probably have more than enough money to do a stupid "upgrade" that would get you nothing.

[Stefan Payne]

12 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

That FX isn't even properly feeding the 1050Ti, upgrading to something stronger won't even be noticable in many titles.

with repeating false things, it don't become true at all.

And it also depends on the game and settings...

 

So no, you're wrong here...

12 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Changing the platform wile keeping the 1050Ti will offer you more performance than changing the GPU. With $750 you probably have more than enough money to do a stupid "upgrade" that would get you nothing.

No, as the GPU is not any less important.

And changing the Plattform right now is pretty dumb as Ryzen 3000 will be coming later that year.

Getting the GPU right now, saving for Ryzen 3000 and getting that later this year makes more sense than the other way around.

Especially since you can ramp up the Graphics settings pretty high with the new Card while he has to live with low to medium Details at 720p or so on the old Card.

30 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

So here's the question: Radeon VII, FX 9590. I have an AX860i. Do you think that I can run both those on that PSU or will it struggle.

I have no idea.

Just try it.

If you have random shutdowns and reboots, its the PSU.

Its not that the Wattage is not enough, iuts just that more modern GPUs have different power saving mechanisms and switch frequency/voltage even when rendering, wich causes some PSU to switch off.

[Spotty]

48 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

while he has to live with low to medium Details at 720p or so on the old Card.

720p low-medium settings? It's a GTX1050ti, not Intel integrated graphics. It'll run games at 1080p just fine.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

 

1 hour ago, MeatFeastMan said:

So here's the question: Radeon VII, FX 9590. I have an AX860i. Do you think that I can run both those on that PSU or will it struggle. I know it'll be a close one, so that's why I asked. I can do the 9590 and 1050ti easily, but that Radeon is 300w...

What sort of overclock do you have on the CPU? Have you measured the power consumption at the wall for your current system?

Depending on overclock and depending on the load/task the fx9590 will be what, 250-350w??

As long as you don't overclock the Radeon Vii it should stick to the 300w limit it has. So assuming the CPU overclock isn't insane, you should be well under 860w. If you run in to any issues dial back the overclock on the CPU.

 

Out of curiosity, is this a workstation rig or is this a gaming rig? 

 

Keep the PSU, go with the GPU, and if for whatever reason it's a problem dial back the CPU overclock. There's no point spending money on a new, higher wattage PSU now. Unless you are going a threadripper 2990wx, your next CPU will use a lot less power than your existing 9590 so once you do swap out the CPU, the system power consumption won't be a concern.

[Stefan Payne]

25 minutes ago, Spotty said:

720p low-medium settings? It's a GTX1050ti, not Intel integrated graphics. It'll run games at 1080p just fine.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

Yes, I was exagarating a bit and thinking about more demanding Games like Assasin's Creed Odyssey (wich got me thinking about VEGA in the first place)...

 

An example would be the new Biohazard 2:

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/resident-evil-2-biohazard-re2-1-shot-demo-test-gpu-cpu

27fps average, if we're talking about the 4GiB Version.

 

If you scroll down you see the FX8350 (wich is a bit slower than the 9590 he has) and that it is over 60fps.

Ir you can choose in the "test GPU" panel the FX8350.

And you see that the claim that the "FX8350 is bottlenecking the 1050ti" is just plain wrong.

 

 

Same with Ace Combat 7 - Skies unknown.

FX8350 is perfectly playable with the right GPU and the CPU can do more than the 1050ti.

 

 

[Spotty]

18 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

An example would be the new Biohazard 2:

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/resident-evil-2-biohazard-re2-1-shot-demo-test-gpu-cpu

27fps average, if we're talking about the 4GiB Version

That's 1080p max settings. I'm sure if you turn the graphical settings and AA down a bit you'll be able to get a playable frame rate. I imagine 1080p medium should be quite playable in those games.

And AC:O isn't the best performing game to begin with, I've seen threads here with people using gtx1070s and higher complaining of struggling to hit 1080p60fps.

 

20 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And you see that the claim that the "FX8350 is bottlenecking the 1050ti" is just plain wrong.

Yeah, not disagreeing with you.

Saying the 1050ti can only do 720p low/medium is quite an exaggeration. Just like saying a fx9590 would bottleneck a 1050ti is a silly exaggeration. It's pointless to try and disprove someone making silly exaggerations about the poor performance of a CPU by countering their argument with silly exaggerations about poor GPU performance. You'll just end up going around in circles.

 

Anyway it seems OP already has an upgrade planned for the CPU down the line (maybe waiting for Zen2) so the whole 'what's going to bottleneck what' is a moot point, and one the OP isn't interested in.

 

Though, if OP is waiting for Zen2, do we have an idea of when Navi will launch in relation to that? Would it be worthwhile holding off on buying anything at the moment and going Zen2 + Navi build?

I was curious if it was for workstation or gaming, as if it's for workstation then the 16gb hbm2 on the Radeon Vii might be practical, but if it's just gaming then might be better off waiting for Navi? Or even a cheaper Vega card if they wanted something now for gaming.

 

(I'm not yet sold on the Radeon Vii practicality for gaming, though reviews are starting to come out by the look of things so maybe my mind will change after I look through some of those)

[191x7]

Short answer: THE PSU WILL DO JUST FINE. Might even be strong enough for two GPU-s, but don't try that with two Radeon 7 and an FX.

 

Long answer: If an FX 8300 at 4.4 GHz bottlenecks a Radeon R9 380X (roughly the same as a GTX 1050Ti), so does any other FX! I tested it myself since I do have access to such hardware and been using it for years. I see no point in pairing anything stronger with an FX, no matter for how long.

For a high-end GPU like a GTX 1080 and up (RX Vega 64, GTX 1080, RTX 2070, GTX 1080 Ti, Radeon 7, RTX 2080, RTX 2080Ti, RTX Titan), even a 6-core Ryzen would bottleneck in some titles when used on 1080p since such cards are able to provide a lot more frames than those CPU-s can prepare.

 

No point in having a Radeon VII that performs only on 20%.

[MeatFeastMan]

6 hours ago, Spotty said:

720p low-medium settings? It's a GTX1050ti, not Intel integrated graphics. It'll run games at 1080p just fine.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2658-gtx-1050-ti-and-1050-review-benchmarks-vs-460-more/page-4

 

What sort of overclock do you have on the CPU? Have you measured the power consumption at the wall for your current system?

Depending on overclock and depending on the load/task the fx9590 will be what, 250-350w??

As long as you don't overclock the Radeon Vii it should stick to the 300w limit it has. So assuming the CPU overclock isn't insane, you should be well under 860w. If you run in to any issues dial back the overclock on the CPU.

 

Out of curiosity, is this a workstation rig or is this a gaming rig? 

 

Keep the PSU, go with the GPU, and if for whatever reason it's a problem dial back the CPU overclock. There's no point spending money on a new, higher wattage PSU now. Unless you are going a threadripper 2990wx, your next CPU will use a lot less power than your existing 9590 so once you do swap out the CPU, the system power consumption won't be a concern.

It at 4.7 stock. I don't want to overclock anything. I only have an NH-D15 so I think 5Ghz is the max I could go with that anyways. 1.48v is what I'm usually at in terms of voltage.  And the plan is to upgrade to ryzen, probably the 8 or 12 core If I can stretch to it. I play 2560 x 1080. The 1050ti has done it's job well at low settings, but it's starting to just dip below 60 a little bit too much for my liking. It stays above 60 for the most part but in stuff like BFV, it can sometimes drop to the 40's and that's the place where I find it less enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, it's playable Just not ideal. Unlike what people say, the 1050ti isn't actually that bad at 1080p ultrawide and can breeze all the basic esports titles at max settings. It really isn't as bad an experience as people make out.

 

It's a gaming rig, but I do plan to do some streaming as well. I imagine AMD will have improved VCE to a reasonable level on Radeon VII so it covers me there. And even if it doesn't cover me, the fx isn't horrible for streaming and can do the job barring the most demanding titles.

 

And yeah, the goal is to upgrade as little as possible. I've got a good PSU, a good case, a good SSD and a good monitor.

 

 

 

 

[MeatFeastMan]

17 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Short answer: THE PSU WILL DO JUST FINE. Might even be strong enough for two GPU-s, but don't try that with two Radeon 7 and an FX.

 

Long answer: If an FX 8300 at 4.4 GHz bottlenecks a Radeon R9 380X (roughly the same as a GTX 1050Ti), so does any other FX! I tested it myself since I do have access to such hardware and been using it for years. I see no point in pairing anything stronger with an FX, no matter for how long.

For a high-end GPU like a GTX 1080 and up (RX Vega 64, GTX 1080, RTX 2070, GTX 1080 Ti, Radeon 7, RTX 2080, RTX 2080Ti, RTX Titan), even a 6-core Ryzen would bottleneck in some titles when used on 1080p since such cards are able to provide a lot more frames than those CPU-s can prepare.

 

No point in having a Radeon VII that performs only on 20%.

Would you not agree that a radeon vii would improve fps vs a 1050ti at 2560 x 1080? You know the answer is yes REGARDLESS of any bottleneck. It will see an improvement. I'm not looking for 144hz, it's only a 75hz monitor. As usual, people are overdoing it. The FX is not a bad cpu if you're playing 75hz. It's only bad if you are after 100's+ in demanding games.

[Spotty]

23 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

I play 2560 x 1080. The 1050ti has done it's job well at low settings, but it's starting to just dip below 60 a little bit too much for my liking. It stays above 60 for the most part but in stuff like BFV, it can sometimes drop to the 40's and that's the place where I find it less enjoyable. Don't get me wrong, it's playable Just not ideal. Unlike what people say, the 1050ti isn't actually that bad at 1080p ultrawide and can breeze all the basic esports titles at max settings. It really isn't as bad an experience as people make out.

 

22 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Would you not agree that a radeon vii would improve fps vs a 1050ti at 2560 x 1080? You know the answer is yes REGARDLESS of any bottleneck. It will see an improvement. I'm not looking for 144hz, it's only a 75hz monitor. As usual, people are overdoing it. The FX is not a bad cpu if you're playing 75hz. It's only bad if you are after 100's+ in demanding games. 

Radeon VII would be a fair bit overkill for 2560x1080. Have you considered other graphics cards? Such as the GTX 1070Ti or Vega 56? Even those would be more than what you would need at 2560x1080 75hz, and you could save a few hundred dollars (which you can then put towards your CPU, motherboard & memory upgrade). Might even be able to get a good deal on a used card as well.

[191x7]

12 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Would you not agree that a radeon vii would improve fps vs a 1050ti at 2560 x 1080? You know the answer is yes REGARDLESS of any bottleneck. It will see an improvement. I'm not looking for 144hz, it's only a 75hz monitor. As usual, people are overdoing it. The FX is not a bad cpu if you're playing 75hz. It's only bad if you are after 100's+ in demanding games.

That depends on the games and benchmarks used. But the answer is mostly NO.

 

Here's a simple solution for your problem. Monitor your GPU usage while you're playing the games you play.

Where your card is used 97+ % most of the time (almost all time or all time), there's a fine chance a stronger card would offer more performance.

Where your card has usage drops or struggles to be fully utilized (variable utilization, utilization failing to reach 95+ % most of the time), a stronger card would offer nothing, no increase at all. In those cases, the same card would offer more performance if it were not limited (bottlenecked) by the CPU (mostly) or something else (in rare cases).

 

It is a fact that the FX relic (it's a 2012 CPU!) struggles to feed stronger cards, it simply can't do more than it can. If it's "feeding" a 1050ti just right in most cases but struggles to do so in some, throwing a 2-3-4 times stronger GPU at it would still result with nearly the same performance.

 

In short, if a CPU X can prepare 50 FPS in a game Y, the game will run at 50 FPS with a card A that can render 50 FPS or a card B that can render 150 FPS in the same game Y. The only difference is that the card A would be 100% used while the card B would be bottlenecked and used only 33%.

 

With the FX, there were games I had a terrible experience with, for example, Battlefield V multiplayer. The average FPS wasn't that bad, but when there was a gunfight my fps would drop and the game would stutter, the GPU usage would drop, and that was ruining the experience. With Ryzen and the same GPU, I get only slightly higher FPS but the huge frame drops are gone and the GPU is properly utilized, the game experience is multiple times better.

[thinwalrus]

Just swap to Vega56/rtx 2060 and Ryzen 5 2600. Should cost about the same as VII alone and gaming experience will be a lot better.

[MeatFeastMan]

8 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

That depends on the games and benchmarks used. But the answer is mostly NO.

 

Here's a simple solution for your problem. Monitor your GPU usage while you're playing the games you play.

Where your card is used 97+ % most of the time (almost all time or all time), there's a fine chance a stronger card would offer more performance.

Where your card has usage drops or struggles to be fully utilized (variable utilization, utilization failing to reach 95+ % most of the time), a stronger card would offer nothing, no increase at all. In those cases, the same card would offer more performance if it were not limited (bottlenecked) by the CPU (mostly) or something else (in rare cases).

 

It is a fact that the FX relic (it's a 2012 CPU!) struggles to feed stronger cards, it simply can't do more than it can. If it's "feeding" a 1050ti just right in most cases but struggles to do so in some, throwing a 2-3-4 times stronger GPU at it would still result with nearly the same performance.

 

In short, if a CPU X can prepare 50 FPS in a game Y, the game will run at 50 FPS with a card A that can render 50 FPS or a card B that can render 150 FPS in the same game Y. The only difference is that the card A would be 100% used while the card B would be bottlenecked and used only 33%.

 

With the FX, there were games I had a terrible experience with, for example, Battlefield V multiplayer. The average FPS wasn't that bad, but when there was a gunfight my fps would drop and the game would stutter, the GPU usage would drop, and that was ruining the experience. With Ryzen and the same GPU, I get only slightly higher FPS but the huge frame drops are gone and the GPU is properly utilized, the game experience is multiple times better.

Look. I've seen a benchmark of vega 64 and fx 9590 running 70fps at 1440p on BFV. I've seen multiple top tech youtubers showing the fx 8350 doing 60+ at 1080p with a better card. Why isn't my 1050ti doing that? You know why, because it isn't as good as those gpu's they tested. I currently have 20 fps at 2560 x 1080 max settings with a 1050ti. There is a clear difference there. Forget the bottleneck. The RADEON VII WILL perform better. Will that combination do better than 20 fps at 2560 x 1080? You know darn well it will. Stop trying to deny the obvious. Ignore the bottleneck. If I improve the gpu, in this case the fps WILL go up. GPU usage this and that...it doesn't matter. If the fps goes up, then the fps goes up and that's the bottom line. And that's all I'm after. I'm not interested in fps drops, I'm interested in the average fps. It is playable at low settings currently, so therefore with a better gpu it is playable at ultra, regardless of drops.

[191x7]

Increasing visual quality in most games does not affect the CPU a lot. Battlefield V has settings that affect the CPU, for example, Mesh Quality does.

 

Go with the upgrades you want, but don't blame us when you decide you're not happy with it.

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, 191x7 said:

Increasing visual quality in most games does not affect the CPU a lot. Battlefield V has settings that affect the CPU, for example, Mesh Quality does.

 

Go with the upgrades you want, but don't blame us when you decide you're not happy with it.

He's already planning on replacing the CPU, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

 

1 hour ago, MeatFeastMan said:

And the plan is to upgrade to ryzen, probably the 8 or 12 core If I can stretch to it.
...
It's a gaming rig, but I do plan to do some streaming as well.

Zen2 is only a few months away based on what has been said so far. Ryzen 7 3700/x should be a 12c/24t CPU. Though the Ryzen 5 3600/x 8c/16t should be suitable for gaming & streaming.

[191x7]

20 minutes ago, Spotty said:

He's already planning on replacing the CPU, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make...

 

That he should not rush with upgrading the GPU first. Should wait for when he'll upgrade the whole system and do it in one go.

[MeatFeastMan]

1 minute ago, 191x7 said:

That he should not rush with upgrading the GPU first. Should wait for when he'll upgrade the whole system and do it in one go.

Why wait longer when you don't have to?

[191x7]

2 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Why wait longer when you don't have to?

Because it's better to wait than do it in the wrong order.

[MeatFeastMan]

15 minutes ago, 191x7 said:

Because it's better to wait than do it in the wrong order.

Why does the order matter? If I get a cpu first, and pair it with the 1050ti, it'll have lower fps than if I did the fx with the radeon vii. I can guarantee you that. I'm sure you would agree. Therefore, I'm not doing it in the wrong order at all.

 

What's wrong with putting the radeon vii (while it's in stock) in my system, and then later changing the cpu? Is a house fire going to take place? Is the pc not going to work? What's wrong with it? The answer is nothing is wrong with doing that. There is no difference between getting the gpu first, then the cpu, or waiting for the whole system. No difference whatsoever other than time wasted.