Need CPU advice

[finnigen]

Right now I have an AMD fx 8350 as processior, because of my grx 970 I thought it was time for an upgrade. So I thought I could just buy a intel 4790k. But because of the release of ddr4 ram it would maybe make sense to buy a ddr4 ram compatible cpu and because sometime in the future I would naybe also want to sli I would maybe also need a new Motherboard.

So I have two options:

1. I buy a 4790k now (and maybe buy a z97 now or in the future).

2. Or I would wait and gather some more money and buy a x99, ddr4 ram and a 5820k (or other better new released stuff) later on.

What would you reconmend me to do?

My Specs:

Amd fx 8350

With a noctua nh-d14

Msi gtx 970 overclocked a little

16 gb ddr3 ram

Asus m5a97 r2.0

4 case fans

Samsung 250gb ssd

2 terabyte hdd

Be quiet 600w 80 silver plus

Bitfenix Shinobi

[ThyFeared]

Are you doing hardcore editing and livestreaming? If so the X99 is great. If not you don't really need to upgrade unless you really want Intel.

[cesrai]

Why do you think you should upgrade ? if you have to wait fro the new stuff -not haswell but skylake or ZEN-.

[Tech_Dreamer]

i's say wait for a bit & get an i7-5xxx processor

[TorqueS]

Question: Do you experience stutters and your overall gaming experience bothers you. T

The 8350 bottlenecks the GTX 970, in the sense that it's not allowing it to run at its maximum potential..but you shouldn't feel it...

 

I don't see any reason to upgrade now, unless you do some hard video editing, then an X99 platform would be a wise choice.

[finnigen]

Question: Do you experience stutters and your overall gaming experience bothers you. T

The 8350 bottlenecks the GTX 970, in the sense that it's not allowing it to run at its maximum potential..but you shouldn't feel it...

 

I don't see any reason to upgrade now, unless you do some hard video editing, then an X99 platform would be a wise choice.

No I am not doing any video editing. One reason for the thoughts of upgrading was like you already said that the amd processor bottlenecks my gpu. And right now I am not experiencing any real performance issues. But I am planning on buying a second monitor. I am not sure if It is going to drop my performance by a lot (one 24 inch gsync, one 27inch monitor).

And you can never have enough performance ( ;

[TorqueS]

If you're looking for G-Sync 144Hz monitors, or generally high refresh rate monitors, then the FX will be problematic. It won't be capable to maintain those 120 or 144Hz, but I don't really see the need of an 144Hz monitor, unless you're playing competitively. I know that the image and motion is more fluid, but i also think that 1 GTX 970 won't be able to power a 144Hz no matter the CPU, so you'll probably need to SLI two 970s, or even 980s

The cost of such a setup will just go up, and I don't think it's worth it...unless of course you just have the money for it...

[Yoinkerman]

I would wait. Probably until ddr4 is more established. There's not really a gaming benefit to sidegrading to an Intel chip.

Whatever intels 6000 or 7000 is

[XFXRadeon]

No I am not doing any video editing. One reason for the thoughts of upgrading was like you already said that the amd processor bottlenecks my gpu. And right now I am not experiencing any real performance issues. But I am planning on buying a second monitor. I am not sure if It is going to drop my performance by a lot (one 24 inch gsync, one 27inch monitor).

And you can never have enough performance ( ;

 

Interesting..  I myself am using an AMD 8350 FX processor with an EVGA GTX 970 though. I guess I would need to fully understand the current spec of your system why you are bottle-necking. The only bottlenecks I get are from my SSD, and that's just when browsing the web.  The CPU should have little to no effect with the gSync compatibility as it is powered from the GPU and the monitor itself.  The only thing that I could imagine having a performance hit, is if you select your CPU to run the physx instead of the GPU. Then again I have mine auto select so I hardly notice a difference. 

 

For my setup:

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX   :   http://www.asrock.com/mb/amd/fatal1ty%20990fx%20killer/CPU: AMD FX 8350 OC - 4.7GHz  : Black Edition.  Though it only adds the CPU cooler to it.GPU: EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 - SC 1.3GHz  : http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Superclocked-Graphics-04G-P4-2974-KR/dp/B00NVODXR4RAM: 16GB - 2x8GB 1866MHz : http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Ballistix-PC3-14900-240-Pin-BLE2CP8G3D1869DE1TX0/dp/B006YG9D0M   - I spent way less when it was on sale.Storage: 1x M.2 Intel SSD - OS Win7 64Bit2x 1TB WD Black1x 500GB WD Green1x Optical DrivePSU: EVGA 750G 80 Gold

There could be other factors leading to the bottleneck though.  For instance the power supply you may be using. But it may help to know you full rig setup with or without the use of the gSync monitor. 

[Yoinkerman]

It's probably not bottlenecking as much as Intel gets like 3 more fps using the same card is what I would guess.

[TorqueS]

Interesting..  I myself am using an AMD 8350 FX processor with an EVGA GTX 970 though. I guess I would need to fully understand the current spec of your system why you are bottle-necking. The only bottlenecks I get are from my SSD, and that's just when browsing the web.  The CPU should have little to no effect with the gSync compatibility as it is powered from the GPU and the monitor itself.  The only thing that I could imagine having a performance hit, is if you select your CPU to run the physx instead of the GPU. Then again I have mine auto select so I hardly notice a difference. 

 

For my setup:

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX   :   http://www.asrock.com/mb/amd/fatal1ty%20990fx%20killer/CPU: AMD FX 8350 OC - 4.7GHz  : Black Edition.  Though it only adds the CPU cooler to it.GPU: EVGA GTX 970 ACX 2.0 - SC 1.3GHz  : http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Superclocked-Graphics-04G-P4-2974-KR/dp/B00NVODXR4RAM: 16GB - 2x8GB 1866MHz : http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Ballistix-PC3-14900-240-Pin-BLE2CP8G3D1869DE1TX0/dp/B006YG9D0M   - I spent way less when it was on sale.Storage: 1x M.2 Intel SSD - OS Win7 64Bit2x 1TB WD Black1x 500GB WD Green1x Optical DrivePSU: EVGA 750G

There could be other factors leading to the bottleneck though.  For instance the power supply you may be using. But it may help to know you full rig setup with or without the use of the gSync monitor. 

 

Lol wut? Bottlenecks from SSD? I haven't heard this yet...

 

Also believe me...the 8350, no matter how much you OC it, won't be able to keep the minimum framerates nowhere near 144Hz... The highest card i'd recommend getting with the 8350, in order to make sure the card is used at its full capacity it R9 280X. ....

It's a full 10 pages(if not more) topic about 8350 bottlenecking, and believe me it will bottleneck high-end GPUs. But don't misunderstand the term bottleneck. It's not like you're not getting an improvment in performance, but it will be pretty little, so the extra money spend on a card will just be wasted.

 

If you're playing at 1080p@60Hz, and have the access, get an R9 280X and compare it to the 970. You'll be surprised to see that they perform roughly the same with the 8350. But 970 is two leagues higher than the 280X...so it is more to be achieved with the 970. What you'd need is an Intel platform, preferably a core i5 based one.

 

Just analyze the info, and don't start calling me intel fan or whatever. I got an 8350 as well, as you can see from the signature, but I know what it can and what it can't do, and driving a GTX 970 to its maximum power is on the "can't do" list.

[IMPERIUS]

I wouldnt upgrade

[XFXRadeon]

Lol wut? Bottlenecks from SSD? I haven't heard this yet...

 

Also believe me...the 8350, no matter how much you OC it, won't be able to keep the minimum framerates nowhere near 144Hz... The highest card i'd recommend getting with the 8350, in order to make sure the card is used at its full capacity it R9 280X. ....

It's a full 10 pages(if not more) topic about 8350 bottlenecking, and believe me it will bottleneck high-end GPUs. But don't misunderstand the term bottleneck. It's not like you're not getting an improvment in performance, but it will be pretty little, so the extra money spend on a card will just be wasted.

 

If you're playing at 1080p@60Hz, and have the access, get an R9 280X and compare it to the 970. You'll be surprised to see that they perform roughly the same with the 8350. But 970 is two leagues higher than the 280X...so it is more to be achieved with the 970. What you'd need is an Intel platform, preferably a core i5 based one.

 

Just analyze the info, and don't start calling me intel fan or whatever. I got an 8350 as well, as you can see from the signature, but I know what it can and what it can't do, and driving a GTX 970 to its maximum power is on the "can't do" list.

 

Yep. Some SSDs have been known to bottleneck as well on certain boards specially for an intel based M.2 that was the only one available at the time of purchase. My experience with it, Chrome is the biggest issue when loading certain pages and just sits there "waiting for cache" or "response from website" which takes 30-60 seconds for it to freakin make up its mind then disconnects me from skype if I'm on a call, or crashes my dev tools..  When I switched over to a SATA SSD for the main OS, the issue was somewhat gone but still lingered here and there, but wasn't nearly as frustrating at times, do to the fact switching from a 10GB/s to 6GB/s bus/port. It's like it's on fire or something...

 

I do honestly think though keeping the 8350 at stock clocks seem to run very well than OC giving it more throttle room. But I looked at other sites with the issue but some just talked about it without the GSync aspect of it,  and claiming very bad studders with the cpu and gpu.

I seriously don't see any bottlenecks or "stutters" with my video card specially when I run in Surround(eyefinity) at the highest possible settings there is for a game.  I did look at the R9 290x but realized the GTX 970 I got, outperformed the R9 290x (which was what I wanted to begin with..) and was a little bit cheaper at the time. Though the CPUs you and I have are mostly compared to the i5 more often than none. But the 9xxx FX cpus at 5GHz :?  All I can say is..  "Caution, contents may be hot!"

 

I like AMD cause it's a good bang for the buck but lately I haven't seen much from them besides webpage design updates or changes in the past few years, besides news with amd and samsung pushing a smaller dye. Which I might end up switching back to an intel based machine again at some point  

[Guest DollarPC]

NO PLEASE NOT YOU PLEASE I BEG YOU STAY WITH THE AMDMASTERRACE

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

Go with the i7 4790k, current X99 CPUs are not worth the insane amount of money since you can get the same performance with the 4790k

[i_build_nanosuits]

the i7-4790K is an AWESOME CPU when it comes to gaming and it will still be relevant for A WHILE...go ahead it's worth it...i made this upgrade myself and i'm only using a GTX 780 which was held back by my FX processor regardless of how high i overclocked it (i had a good chip capable of 4.93ghz and even then it was not enough in many games...)

[TorqueS]

Yep. Some SSDs have been known to bottleneck as well on certain boards specially for an intel based M.2 that was the only one available at the time of purchase. My experience with it, Chrome is the biggest issue when loading certain pages and just sits there "waiting for cache" or "response from website" which takes 30-60 seconds for it to freakin make up its mind then disconnects me from skype if I'm on a call, or crashes my dev tools..  When I switched over to a SATA SSD for the main OS, the issue was somewhat gone but still lingered here and there, but wasn't nearly as frustrating at times, do to the fact switching from a 10GB/s to 6GB/s bus/port. It's like it's on fire or something...

 

I do honestly think though keeping the 8350 at stock clocks seem to run very well than OC giving it more throttle room. But I looked at other sites with the issue but some just talked about it without the GSync aspect of it,  and claiming very bad studders with the cpu and gpu.

I seriously don't see any bottlenecks or "stutters" with my video card specially when I run in Surround(eyefinity) at the highest possible settings there is for a game.  I did look at the R9 290x but realized the GTX 970 I got, outperformed the R9 290x (which was what I wanted to begin with..) and was a little bit cheaper at the time. Though the CPUs you and I have are mostly compared to the i5 more often than none. But the 9xxx FX cpus at 5GHz :?  All I can say is..  "Caution, contents may be hot!"

 

I like AMD cause it's a good bang for the buck but lately I haven't seen much from them besides webpage design updates or changes in the past few years, besides news with amd and samsung pushing a smaller dye. Which I might end up switching back to an intel based machine again at some point

Haven't personally heard of M.2 hiccups or freezes, but I think it has something to do with the chipset and the storage controller. As far as I know ASRock implemented a third party controller for the M.2 on the Killer, but I don't know for sure, and that might have been the cause of your issue.

 

FX9 is not worth bothering with. but I don't think that 220W TDP is real...because I have my 8350 somehow at 9370 speeds and since my mobo(btw, how's your killer doing? I'm asking because, despite some negative reviews regarding OCing mine is stupidly solid.) claims to support 140W TDP ...technically my 8350 would exceed that by much much more..yet it's stupidly cool, quiet and stable.

 

For the 1000th time, AMD is not a good bang for the buck...you need a good motherboard, and a good cooler, while with intel, you can slame any locked i5 or i7 on the cheapest H81 motherboard, keep the stock cooling, or get something cheap, and you have better performance. There are few cases where AMD is worth it, and that's low budget OC capable rendering rig, unless you want to mess with Xeons and other server stuff.