what fm2/fm2+ processor

[dbeaty28]

I have a msi a88x mother board that only is a fm2 socket, and I need a good processor that will not bottleneck a gtx 970

[Infernal Burrito]

It won't bottleneck, but there are not many good CPUs on that platform. If you are building a high end PC, you done effed up. 

[Infernal Burrito]

[MLGNOSCOPEHEADSHOTGETREKT]

I think if you get a 860K it will bottleneck depending on some tasks or maybe even some games.

[tmlhalo]

If it is 88x then it should be FM2+ which means you can get the Athlon 860k. I recommend a Cooler master Evo to go with it so you can overclock as the extra will help. Depending on more cpu intensive games you'll still get a bit of a bottleneck. 

[JefferyD90]

If you get either the, 860k or a A10-7850k, you'll be maxing the FM2+ socket out.

[Aniallation]

.

How to bottleneck a graphics card:

 

[Fgtfv567]

THAT DEAD SOCKET?! HA!

Any FM2+ CPU with a 970 is like strapping dead elephants onto the front of an airplane. I'd recommend getting an i5 and a cheap H81 mobo

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116942

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130731

It'll run you about 246 bucks, but it's a good deal

[tmlhalo]

snip

Probably the single worst video I've seen explaining bottlenecking. Considering his own tests contradict his statement constantly. If lowering your cpu's frequency causes the frame rate to go down then you've found a limiting factor on what is effecting performance. If changing said variable has no impact frame rate then it can be said frame rate is not dependent on that parts performance. 

[Infernal Burrito]

Probably the single worst video I've seen explaining bottlenecking. Considering his own tests contradict his statement constantly. If lowering your cpu's frequency causes the frame rate to go down then you've found a limiting factor on what is effecting performance. If changing said variable has no impact frame rate then it can be said frame rate is not dependent on that parts performance. 

Perhaps, it is a video from a source that I find credible so I linked it. Edit: The point is that the FPS will not be altered significantly and only varies by a little bit. The performance is not as badly altered as people think. Of course it would have a difference, but what is 2-5 FPS for 100+ dollars?

[tmlhalo]

Perhaps, it is a video from a source that I find credible so I linked it.

No problem. I honestly have no idea what JayZ was thinking in that video. If you think your cpu is holding you back then troubleshooting it would be you lowering its frequency. If the frame rate goes down then some part of the game is bound to CPU performance. Regardless of the gpu usage the cpu can still be a bottleneck. Such as AI, physics, and other background management of the game. 

[tmlhalo]

Perhaps, it is a video from a source that I find credible so I linked it. Edit: The point is that the FPS will not be altered significantly and only varies by a little bit. The performance is not as badly altered as people think. Of course it would have a difference, but what is 2-5 FPS for 100+ dollars?

In response to edit. Benchmarks show a couple of popular games. Not every game is the same and most RTS and MMOs are extremely cpu bound. 2-5 fps is nothing on a game that isn't cpu bound and is already over 100 fps. What if you want to play ARMA, Total War Shogun 2 / Rome 2, or Dying Light? Battlefield, glitches aside, is very well optimized cpu wise. Should never build a system with best case scenario in mind. 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6(Shogun is 2nd chart.)

[Infernal Burrito]

No problem. I honestly have no idea what JayZ was thinking in that video. If you think your cpu is holding you back then troubleshooting it would be you lowering its frequency. If the frame rate goes down then some part of the game is bound to CPU performance. Regardless of the gpu usage the cpu can still be a bottleneck. Such as AI, physics, and other background management of the game. 

True, but it may not justify the cost of a better CPU. I have an i7 4770k and 2 780s. If I were to switch to a 5960x with these GPUs, the FPS would increase in games, yes, but not by enough to justify the cost.

[Infernal Burrito]

In response to edit. Benchmarks show a couple of popular games. Not every game is the same and most RTS and MMOs are extremely cpu bound. 2-5 fps is nothing on a game that isn't cpu bound and is already over 100 fps. What if you want to play ARMA, Total War Shogun 2 / Rome 2, or Dying Light? Battlefield, glitches aside, is very well optimized cpu wise. Should never build a system with best case scenario in mind. 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/6(Shogun is 2nd chart.)

One shouldn't, but that depends on the game. RTS and MMO games are far last demanding on systems usually anyway. Yes they are CPU bound, but that does not mean that they won't run well on an inferior CPU. Will it run well on what is available on FM2+? Maybe not. But if one has a CPU such as a low-end i5 or an FX hexacore or octacore, the CPU issue would be nearly non-existent. Consider the difference in performance if you take a high end CPU and compensate the cost with a worse GPU. Then consider the same budget with a higher end GPU and worse CPU such as an i5 4410 and 290 instead of an i5 4690k and an r9 280x. 

[tmlhalo]

True, but it may not justify the cost of a better CPU. I have an i7 4770k and 2 780s. If I were to switch to a 5960x with these GPUs, the FPS would increase in games, yes, but not by enough to justify the cost.

No it wouldn't justify the cost. You're correct. Obviously building a PC is a balancing act of best performance you could get for your dollar. If your budget doesn't allow it then your budget doesn't allow it. For people that play a specific niche of titles, you can often target a more specialized build for them. Though all of my statements are in reference to JayZ's video. Every scenario he gave exhibited lowering cpu frequency resulted in lower fps. His benchmarks were ultimately from the best case scenario for a cpu not being a bottleneck (a synthetic gpu benchmark, and battlefield) and even still showed lowering cpu performance caused lower overall performance of the game. A non bottleneck would be something more like RAM frequency where the differences in game are within margin of error (<1-2 frames).

We are actually both in agreement that the 860k would be the best cpu for that board and overall it won't be the limiting factor in a majority of stuff. Can see my original post. My replies about bottlenecking aren't over 860k but JayZ's facepalm worthy video in my opinion. 

[Infernal Burrito]

No it wouldn't justify the cost. You're correct. Obviously building a PC is a balancing act of best performance you could get for your dollar. If your budget doesn't allow it then your budget doesn't allow it. For people that play a specific niche of titles it can often result in a more specialized for them. Though all of my statements are in reference to JayZ's video. Every scenario he gave exhibited lowering cpu frequency resulted in lower fps. His benchmarks were ultimately from the best case scenario for a cpu not being a bottleneck (a synthetic gpu benchmark, and battlefield) and even still showed lowering cpu performance cause lower overall performance of the game. A non bottleneck would be something more like RAM frequency were the differences were the differences in game are within margin of error (<1-2 frames).

We are actually both in agreement that the 860k would be the best cpu for that board and overall it won't be the limiting factor in a majority of stuff. Can see my original post. My replies about bottlenecking aren't over 860k but JayZ's facepalm worthy video in my opinion. 

You have a point of the scenario in Jayz Two Cents's video. Despite this, his video accurately shows what the differences are. He is not proving a lack of difference, he is proving the significance of that difference. Depending on the budget of the build, one may or may not value those differences. The point that the video shows is simply that there will be no catastrophic difference in game performance with a lower end CPU and that it is a viable option to go lower end. The point is not to prove that CPUs don't matter, it is to prove that they don't matter as much as some believe.

[tmlhalo]

You have a point of the scenario in Jayz Two Cents's video. Despite this, his video accurately shows what the differences are. He is not proving a lack of difference, he is proving the significance of that difference. Depending on the budget of the build, one may or may not value those differences. The point that the video shows is simply that there will be no catastrophic difference in game performance with a lower end CPU and that it is a viable option to go lower end. The point is not to prove that CPUs don't matter, it is to prove that they don't matter as much as some believe.

Still, significance of difference while already using best case scenario tests for the cpu not being the limiting factor. Which was one of my gripes considering he should have included a worst case scenario game that is cpu bound and one average 50/50 game. Before we flood OP's topic too much can take this to PM if you want. If not, have a good day / night and see you around on the forums!

[Infernal Burrito]

Still, significance of difference while already using best case scenario tests for the cpu not being the limiting factor. Which was one of my gripes considering he should have included a worst case scenario game that is cpu bound and one average 50/50 game. Before we flood OP's topic too much can take this to PM if you want. If not, have a good day / night and see you around on the forums!

Same to you, sir. I would rather not fight about this as it is a point on which we mostly agree.