Upgrading from fx 9590 to i7

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

? i think something is wrong with your intel setup man cause farcry 4 is smooth as butter on my machine on maximum settings i get framerates above 70FPS at all time and if i downgrade to 720P i get well over 110FPS and my GPU is STILL MAXED OUT...

No Ubisoft's title can bring that CPU to it's knees like you seem to tell

 

EDIT: BTW my 4770K is only at 4.2GHZ..

 

oh yeah i do too same with watchdogs i get about 60-70fps but with the set-ups we have it should be more like 120+ fps maxed out settings, the graphics arent any better than bf4 but performance is way worse

 

for op, i know for  a fact a 4770k/4790k can handle 2 gpus all day and depending on motherboard can handle 3 crossfire but only 2 sli and as nano said anything over 2 gpus is pointless unless you are benchmarking because most games/programs cant use it right and performance will be horrible

[JustCallMeVlad]

I say wait for broadwell coming in a month or so

[i_build_nanosuits]

I say wait for broadwell coming in a month or so

source?

[JustCallMeVlad]

source?

All the bios updates manufacturers are releasing for Z97 boards show 5th generation support being added.

[dandrix]

currently i am using amd fx 9590 with gtx 980 on asus rog swift 1440p monitor but i get fps drop drastically and games like unity crysis 3 far cry 4 sometimes is unplayable i get lag a lot so i decided to get i7 processsor but which will be the best should i go for 4790k which has 16 pcie lanes and 32gb ram support or 4930k which has 40 pcie lanes and 64gb ram support my main priority is gaming with sli gtx 980 so which would be the best for gaming?

Very strange, 9590 shouldnt be that bad, i7 is better, but youre doing something wrong with your system.

[Faceman]

yes i am not an intel neither amd fanboy all i am saying is true i have amd fx 9590 gtx 980 and rog swift monitor 1440p mostly i play games and i must say in most games the fx 9590 bottlenecks gtx 980 even in far cry3 at ultra you will get lag and stutter fps drops below 30 latest games like unity is unplayable sometimes fps drops below 10 and in middle earth shadow of mordor during intense fights fps drops from 80 to 20 cant play even this is my experience with 8 core fx 9590 which is disgusting i will never go for amd in future you can compare fx 9590 even with i5 4690k it beats fx 9590 in every benchmark fx 9590 8 core not meant for gaming just for video editing and rendering stuff 

 

I know man, I'm only kidding.  I believe you that you are getting FPS drops.  While the CPU shouldn't be as limiting of a factor at 1440p, it still is, especially in the minimum FPS, and it is holding you back from getting a consistent 144Hz.  You will have to go to an i5 or higher to get the most out of your GPU and monitor.

 

Don't discredit AMD towards the future.  They have made excellent CPUs in the past, and I'm confident that they will make amazing CPUs in the future.  What they have right now with the FX lineup, is not good, and should not be used for gaming.  Keep an open mind towards them in the future, but until they prove competency in the CPU department, don't go with them.

[Majestic]

Far Cry 4 seems plausible, since that games is pretty much 3-4 threaded. Crysis 3, atleast single player, should run pretty good on a 9590 though. 

Atleast as far as averages go, could be that it dips. I haven't played it on a FX chip.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Far Cry 4 seems plausible, since that games is pretty much 3-4 threaded. Crysis 3, atleast single player, should run pretty good on a 9590 though. 

Atleast as far as averages go, could be that it dips. I haven't played it on a FX chip.

i played crysis 3 a lot on my 4.6ghz FX8 and it does dips all the time...performance is very inconsistent...like it's the case for most newer intense games to be honest...as soon as it gets a little bit intense with a lot of stuff happening you feel it slows down.

 

The only games i was really able to fully enjoy on this machine (paired with GTX 780) was the older games that won't require much CPU horsepower such a tomb raider, max payne 3...stuff like that...anything new and intensive was shit and i can only imagine how poor something like ACU or dying light must be on this.

[SteveGrabowski]

Wow, I always thought Crysis 3 was one of the games that performed really well on FX-8320 and above since it uses 6+ threads.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Wow, I always thought Crysis 3 was one of the games that performed really well on FX-8320 and above since it uses 6+ threads.

it performs better than some other games...but it's still not that great to be honest.

[Majestic]

Wow, I always thought Crysis 3 was one of the games that performed really well on FX-8320 and above since it uses 6+ threads.

 

That's why minimum framerate is so important. It gives you some (not all) insight in framerate consistence. Which, imho, is more important than average or highest fps. You notice the occasional 30fps more than you do the occasional 80 fps.

[i_build_nanosuits]

That's why minimum framerate is so important. It gives you some (not all) insight in framerate consistence. Which, imho, is more important than average or highest fps. You notice the occasional 30fps more than you do the occasional 80 fps.

Indeed minimum FPS is the stat you want to look at but using only fps as a measure of gaming prowess is not enough.

Frame latency results are very useful to help determine the actual "smoothness" of the game as it runs on a given system, it shows how good the system is at maintaining the illusion of motion.

Basically even at 60fps locked 100% of the time, if there are frames that take longer than ~16ms to be drawn you will experience "stuttering".

...and that variance seem to be a very fragile equilibrium at times when you play video games with a very powerful GPU and a ''somewhat'' perhaps too slow micro-processor.

[Majestic]

Indeed minimum FPS is the stat you want to look at but using only fps as a measure of gaming prowess is not enough.

Frame latency results are very useful to help determine the actual "smoothness" of the game as it runs on a given system, it shows how good the system is at maintaining the illusion of motion.

Basically even at 60fps locked 100% of the time, if there are frames that take longer than ~16ms to be drawn you will experience "stuttering".

...and that variance seem to be a very fragile equilibrium at times when you play video games with a very powerful GPU and a ''somewhat'' perhaps too slow micro-processor.

 

And that damn human eye is so good at detecting that

[Steve83990]

already i have asus strix gtx 980 4gb graphics card for my rog swift monitor i am deciding either to buy another 980 or should i wait for gtx 980 ti 8gb what should i do wait for 8gb ti version or sli will give the same performance as 980 ti 8gb i want to play all games at 144hz please help me choose the best

[i_build_nanosuits]

already i have asus strix gtx 980 4gb graphics card for my rog swift monitor i am deciding either to buy another 980 or should i wait for gtx 980 ti 8gb what should i do wait for 8gb ti version or sli will give the same performance as 980 ti 8gb i want to play all games at 144hz please help me choose the best

there is no such thing as a 8GB 980ti...the GTX 980 is already a full blown GM104 GPU..there won't be anything better released with the ''GTX 9XX'' naming skews...the next gen cards are coming and the name is TITAN X...this thing feature the new GM210 GPU with 12GB of VRAM and will cost well over 1500$ at launch...and then they will most likely release ''cut-down'' versions of this GPU with probably 6GB of VRAM...and under a new naming scheme.

 

so you game on a 144hz 1440P display? if that's the case then 4GB of VRAM should get you by for a while, it might not be a bad idea to buy another card for SLI...but in the long run you will run out of vram in some games at first and then more and more games as they evolve...

[Steve83990]

so gtx 980 sli is enough to run most high graphics demanding games at max settings at 1440p monitor 144hz?

[MeDownYou]

so gtx 980 sli is enough to run most high graphics demanding games at max settings at 1440p monitor 144hz?

Literally the best you can get atm, and for 1440p it will be great...just don't expect high fps if you try 4k

[Steve83990]

yes i want to get high fps at 1440p at 144hz will i go for sli gtx 980 or wait for ti version

[Faceman]

yes i want to get high fps at 1440p at 144hz will i go for sli gtx 980 or wait for ti version

 

Upgrade to an i5/i7 first, then if you still aren't happy, buy a 2nd 980.

[sgloux3470]

yes i am not an intel neither amd fanboy all i am saying is true i have amd fx 9590 gtx 980 and rog swift monitor 1440p mostly i play games and i must say in most games the fx 9590 bottlenecks gtx 980 even in far cry3 at ultra you will get lag and stutter fps drops below 30 latest games like unity is unplayable sometimes fps drops below 10 and in middle earth shadow of mordor during intense fights fps drops from 80 to 20 cant play even this is my experience with 8 core fx 9590 which is disgusting i will never go for amd in future you can compare fx 9590 even with i5 4690k it beats fx 9590 in every benchmark fx 9590 8 core not meant for gaming just for video editing and rendering stuff 

 

I don't know if your issue is necessarily the CPU by the way you describe it, but you'd likely enjoy the upgrade anyway.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Upgrade to an i5/i7 first, then if you still aren't happy, buy a 2nd 980.

i agree...my GTX 780 felt a lot stronger in demanding games once paired with a proper CPU.

And a single GTX 980 at 1440p offer accpetable performance, high settings at around 60-80FPS...but OP if you want ULTRA settings and 120FPS consistently...i doubt even dual GTX 980 can offer that level of performance at 1440p...in many games yes...but in many others no...but with only 2xMSAA instead of 4xMSAA for example, and fiddling some settings you'll get there...it's possible to game at 1440p 120FPS with a single GTX 980 if you are willing to lower your settings...and dual cards will allow to do it with higher settings.