Motherboard Choice

[TheCaptain53]

I may potentially get myself a GTX 970 second hand for a good price (don't worry, I'll see it running in a system beforehand).

I'm currently running an AMD FX-6300 on a GIGABYTE GA-970A-DS3P motheboard with a Zotac GTX 960.
I think you guys can see the problem here.

So at this point I'm thinking towards the future in terms of upgrades, and the way I see it, I have two options:

1. Get myself a beefier motherboard (considering the GA-970A-UD3P for a more stable overclock) to allow an easy transition to an FX-8350, which would be able to handle the GTX 970 (if I overclock it, of course). This would allow me to reuse my old motherboard, get a relatively cheap AM3+ processor (something like the FX-4300) and build a computer for my family: Two birds with one stone.

2. Build my family a G3258 on a Z97 build, stick with my current motherboard, and then nick their motherboard come the time to upgrade to an Intel.

I may build myself a custom loop sometime next year or get myself something like a CM Hyper 212 EVO, so thermals won't really be a problem.

Thoughts?

[Queek]

Try to go Intel, and give your family your old pc.  You'll have a better experience gaming with an Intel system, by all accounts.  

[CtW]

number 2 seems like your best bet. 

[TheCaptain53]

Try to go Intel, and give your family your old pc.  You'll have a better experience gaming with an Intel system, by all accounts.  

I don't really want to be running my own system on a G3258. I'll build theirs on it and get myself something like a 4690K in the future, but not now, it's too much money and I can't justify the cost.

I understand that Intel are better than AMD in most cases, but unbiased opinions would be awesome. It's not like an FX-8350 would gimp the performance of a high end graphics card.

[incarnate]

intel would be the way to for gaming

[incarnate]

I don't really want to be running my own system on a G3258. I'll build theirs on it and get myself something like a 4690K in the future, but not now, it's too much money and I can't justify the cost.

I understand that Intel are better than AMD in most cases, but unbiased opinions would be awesome. It's not like an FX-8350 would gimp the performance of a high end graphics card.

 

except that it would in cpu demanding titles. an overclock is a band aid solution. it won't fix the underlying issues. issues that will become bigger as time goes on

[TheCaptain53]

except that it would in cpu demanding titles. an overclock is a band aid solution. it won't fix the underlying issues. issues that will become bigger as time goes on

Thanks for the advice.

The next question would be: Which Z97 mobo?

[incarnate]

Thanks for the advice.

The next question would be: Which Z97 mobo?

 

i have only used one, but damn it, it is one hell of a motherboard. the z97-A from asus is a fantastic board. great bios, easy overclocking and rock solid stable. it gets my recommendation. a lot of people also recommend the msi z97 krait (i think that's what its called). lower price, decent board, but i'm sure it lacks some features compared to the z97-A. i'm sure others will have suggestions as well but those two cover the 100-150.00 bracket nicely

[Queek]

I don't really want to be running my own system on a G3258. I'll build theirs on it and get myself something like a 4690K in the future, but not now, it's too much money and I can't justify the cost.

I understand that Intel are better than AMD in most cases, but unbiased opinions would be awesome. It's not like an FX-8350 would gimp the performance of a high end graphics card.

Why did you instantly assume that my opinion is biased because I recommended Intel?  That is not appreciated.  

You asked for an opinion, and I offered it.  Time and time again, I have seen people on this very forum testify that their experience improved going from AMD to Intel, I can only trust their statements and relay that to you.  I have yet to see a post saying the reverse.  It is extremely difficult to convey the message that even though an AMD and an Intel cpu may operate near the same frequency, they will not offer the same experience.  I have heard many reports that AMD cpus result in stuttering and unsatisfactory experience (the 8350 included).  

 

If you don't want to hear opinions, then don't solicit them.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I understand that Intel are better than AMD in most cases, but unbiased opinions would be awesome. It's not like an FX-8350 would gimp the performance of a high end graphics card.

¸unfortunately, yes it does...in many games...i'm completely honest and unbiaised here...i'm a long time PC gamer and i've seen my share of it...i'm telling you i bought an FX-8320 and gigabyte 970A-UD3P motherboard in january of 2014 to upgrade my gaming rig...paired this with an HD7950 and it was a good match...GPU was being maxed out playing games at 1080p...occational drops in the 35 to 45FPS where normal with such hardware, sometimes it was due to the CPU and sometimes it was the GPU that was too weak.

Upgraded to a GTX 780 GPU in february 2014...still gaming at 1080p...monitoring GPU usage..result: GPU usage all over the place with drops in the 60% usage in some games...usualy hovering around 75 to 90% depending on the game...the only game that really was running perfectly fine with GPU maxed out and no framedips was BF4...pretty much every other games the FX-8320 was limiting my performance and it was overclocked to 4.6ghz!

Get an haswell i5 processor, you wont regret it as even the FX-9590 is no match for a GTX 970 at 1080p gaming.

[TheCaptain53]

Why did you instantly assume that my opinion is biased because I recommended Intel?  That is not appreciated.  

You asked for an opinion, and I offered it.  Time and time again, I have seen people on this very forum testify that their experience improved going from AMD to Intel, I can only trust their statements and relay that to you.  I have yet to see a post saying the reverse.  It is extremely difficult to convey the message that even though an AMD and an Intel cpu may operate near the same frequency, they will not offer the same experience.  I have heard many reports that AMD cpus result in stuttering and unsatisfactory experience (the 8350 included).  

 

If you don't want to hear opinions, then don't solicit them.

I never meant to insult you, and that comment about bias was more of a comment rather than a directed message to you. The offence was not intended, my apologies.

[Queek]

I never meant to insult you, and that comment about bias was more of a comment rather than a directed message to you. The offence was not intended, my apologies.

It wasn't fully clear who you referring to, and it seemed like you were accusing me.  Thank you for clearing that up, apology accepted   .  

I was trying to summarize what i_build_nanosuits and others are saying in only one sentence, but as I don't have first hand switching experience, I was limited to "by all accounts".  

[TheCaptain53]

It wasn't fully clear who you referring to, and it seemed like you were accusing me.  Thank you for clearing that up, apology accepted   .  

I was trying to summarize what i_build_nanosuits and others are saying in only one sentence, but as I don't have first hand switching experience, I was limited to "by all accounts".  

I think i_build_nanosuits pretty much cleared it up. 

I'm going to stick with my FX-6300 for a while until a reasonable time that I can get myself an i5. My GTX 960 runs pretty much every game at 1080p Ultra 60 fps, so at least I can't get any worse performance than I do now (as the 960 doesn't max out my CPU, thankfully).

[i_build_nanosuits]

I think i_build_nanosuits pretty much cleared it up. 

I'm going to stick with my FX-6300 for a while until a reasonable time that I can get myself an i5. My GTX 960 runs pretty much every game at 1080p Ultra 60 fps, so at least I can't get any worse performance than I do now (as the 960 doesn't max out my CPU, thankfully).

 

FX processor are a good match for mid-range GPU when playing at 1080p...something like a GTX 960 the performance is similar to the HD7950 that i had (which is the same as the R9 280 now...it's a rebrand) and those are a great match for 1080p gaming as i said you do expect such hardware to drop in the 40FPS zone quite a bit and it's fine that it does...it's not top-end hardware...

But when you get to stronger cards such as the GTX 780(ti) or GTX 970/980 or even radeon R9 290 and 290X cards...those cards are beastly and they can run ultra settings at 70FPS+ consistently in just about any games but the very demanding ones such as crysis 3...if you don't mind having FPS droping to 35-40FPS at times in some games and GPU loads going down the drain then by all means go for it...no games will be unplayable, you just won't get the most out of your hardware...and in my book having a 400$ graphics card being held back by a 100$ CPU is not acceptable by any means...

Since then i bought an i7 CPU therefore i've been able to test the games with different configuration by disabling cores and hyper-threading in my BIOS i've been able to simulate core i3, and core i5 of various speeds...and i can honestly say that haswell even at 3.4ghz in the form of the i5-4460 for example is quite a bit faster than an overclocked FX processor when it comes to gaming...and the whole internet agree on this if you check gaming benchmarks the FX chips are pretty much always the bottom stack, being outperformed by even the core i3's most of the time...because games love fast cpu threads...and the FX won't have that.

 

Again, not bashing AMD here, they are low/mid-range CPU's and when it comes to gaming, they shouldnt be paired with high-end graphics solutions.

 

Also, keep in mind that CPU usage % won't mean anything when it comes to gaming, all your cores not being maxed out won't mean your CPU is not limiting your GPU...most of the time the CPU cores are too slow to process data fast enough for the GPU and this is what creates the CPU bottleneck. off course a CPU pinned at 100% on all cores will lead to CPU bottleneck as well...and this one will come with suttering as well from my experience...it's the worst form of CPU bottleneck, but the fact that your CPU is not fully used does not mean it wont hold your GPU back...so, you want a CPU with enough threads (4 threads or more) and fast enough cores (which AMD currently doesn't have).

[TheCaptain53]

FX processor are a good match for mid-range GPU when playing at 1080p...something like a GTX 960 the performance is similar to the HD7950 that i had (which is the same as the R9 280 now...it's a rebrand) and those are a great match for 1080p gaming as i said you do expect such hardware to drop in the 40FPS zone quite a bit and it's fine that it does...it's not top-end hardware...

But when you get to stronger cards such as the GTX 780(ti) or GTX 970/980 or even radeon R9 290 and 290X cards...those cards are beastly and they can run ultra settings at 70FPS+ consistently in just about any games but the very demanding ones such as crysis 3...if you don't mind having FPS droping to 35-40FPS at times in some games and GPU loads going down the drain then by all means go for it...no games will be unplayable, you just won't get the most out of your hardware...and in my book having a 400$ graphics card being held back by a 100$ CPU is not acceptable by any means...

Since then i bought an i7 CPU therefore i've been able to test the games with different configuration by disabling cores and hyper-threading in my BIOS i've been able to simulate core i3, and core i5 of various speeds...and i can honestly say that haswell even at 3.4ghz in the form of the i5-4460 for example is quite a bit faster than an overclocked FX processor when it comes to gaming...and the whole internet agree on this if you check gaming benchmarks the FX chips are pretty much always the bottom stack, being outperformed by even the core i3's most of the time...because games love fast cpu threads...and the FX won't have that.

 

Again, not bashing AMD here, they are low/mid-range CPU's and when it comes to gaming, they shouldnt be paired with high-end graphics solutions.

 

Also, keep in mind that CPU usage % won't mean anything when it comes to gaming, all your cores not being maxed out won't mean your CPU is not limiting your GPU...most of the time the CPU cores are too slow to process data fast enough for the GPU and this is what creates the CPU bottleneck. off course a CPU pinned at 100% on all cores will lead to CPU bottleneck as well...and this one will come with suttering as well from my experience...so, you want a CPU with enough threads (4 threads or more) and fast enough cores (which AMD currently doesn't have).

Thank you for the help. I'm only buying the GTX 970 because I've found it second hand for a good price (I will be asking people in the graphics card section in a minute for advice). I would love to get myself a Z97 mobo and an i5 at the same time, but I can't really justify the cost right now. If and when I consider moving to 1440p gaming, I will probably upgrade my monitor, CPU and motherboard so I can extract the necessary horsepower from the GTX 970.

Until that time, I may just underclock the GTX 970 so it produces less heat and draws less power.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Thank you for the help. I'm only buying the GTX 970 because I've found it second hand for a good price (I will be asking people in the graphics card section in a minute for advice). I would love to get myself a Z97 mobo and an i5 at the same time, but I can't really justify the cost right now. If and when I consider moving to 1440p gaming, I will probably upgrade my monitor, CPU and motherboard so I can extract the necessary horsepower from the GTX 970.

Until that time, I may just underclock the GTX 970 so it produces less heat and draws less power.

as a side note: If you want to test if your CPU is holding back your GPU its very simple...play your favorite games with VSYNC off and no framerate caps...and monitor your GPU usage...your card should be at 95%+ load consistently...if it's not...then something is holding back your GPU and 99% it's the CPU that is faulty.

 

and now...if you are going to render games at 1440p...you can imagine that this is 70% more pixels than 1080p gaming....therefore the GPU has to work 70% harder...so your FX chip won't hold the GTX 970 at 1440p...you would again be in the 40 to 50FPS area for example, a framerate your CPU has no problem to deliver...increasing screen resolution only increase stress on the GPU...the CPU workload stay the same...so your FX chip is MUCH less likely to be your limiting factor as you increase screen resolution.

 

If you are happy with the framerates you are getting out of your setup at 1080p as of now, moving to 1440p and upgrading only the graphics card for you would do the trick.

only if you stick to 1080p and increase GPU horsepower will you start encountering CPU limitations here and there and as i said when you run a top dog GPU and you know it's not being used as it should it can get very anoying rather quickly.

[TheCaptain53]

as a side note: If you want to test if your CPU is holding back your GPU its very simple...play your favorite games with VSYNC off and no framerate caps...and monitor your GPU usage...your card should be at 95%+ load consistently...if it's not...then something is holding back your GPU and 99% it's the CPU that is faulty.

 

and now...if you are going to render games at 1440p...you can imagine that this is 70% more pixels than 1080p gaming....therefore the GPU has to work 70% harder...so your FX chip won't hold the GTX 970 at 1440p...you would again be in the 40 to 50FPS area for example, a framerate your CPU has no problem to deliver...increasing screen resolution only increase stress on the GPU...the CPU workload stay the same...so your FX chip is MUCH less likely to be your limiting factor as you increase screen resolution.

 

If you are happy with the framerates you are getting out of your setup at 1080p as of now, moving to 1440p and upgrading only the graphics card for you would do the trick.

I'm still not completely fluent in computers just yet.

Thanks for the advice! You've been thoroughly helpful.

[ApolloX75]

Until that time, I may just underclock the GTX 970 so it produces less heat and draws less power.

Ha underclocking. Not needed. Honestly. My 970 barely hits 55C under heavy load with my 4670K.

So far in my several months of enjoying a 970 on a Haswell i5 I have to say its probably my favorite system I've ever built.

And I've built a lot of systems over the last decade and a half.