Is SLI worth it with an FX-8350

[Topkek]

With an FX-8350 CPU is it worth buying a second MSi GTX 960 to SLI 

[ZetZet]

960 sli isn't worth it. no matter what cpu.

[Shimejii]

it may not be a huge issue, but if something arises it could be a potential probelm, and 960s arent really great to SLI, you could have been better off with a better card but limited budgets could prevent you from doing that so...

[thatguyyouknow75]

If you had 970's I'd say yeah, but sli on the 960's aren't really worth it. If you can get one cheap enough then by all means sli

[Ostwind]

960 sli isn't worth it. no matter what cpu.

Really now?

https://youtu.be/HVYoiibb2ZU?t=3m40s

 

 

OP already has one 960 and they just got a price drop. If the OP has a PSU to support it then it wouldn't be a bad upgrade. That being said FX chips struggle with high performance GPU setups and SLI setups will be no exception but saving and getting a more powerful single card wouldn't fix that and it would be more expensive than just buying another 960.

[Topkek]

I originally wanted a 970 but it was too expensive so I took the 960 and my parents said I could get a 2nd 960 and and sli bridge for christmas but not the 970 as its still too expensive

[Dabombinable]

If the combined performance of any crossfire/sli setup performs better than a 280X, its a waste as that CPU is too weak for anything better than the 280X.

[Nena Trinity]

Gonna play at high resolution then maybe? Or if you want 144MHz? Still SLI has more issues than what its worth...

 

Sell 960, buy GTX 970 or better call it win!

[Prysin]

960 sli isn't worth it. no matter what cpu.

below R9 390X, SLI/CF is kinda a waste.... its so much cheaper to just step up to the card above and get more performance....

 

If the combined performance of any crossfire/sli setup performs better than a 280X, its a waste as that CPU is too weak for anything better than the 280X.

bullshit. 290 reference at stock speeds. that is FX limit (regardless if it is a 6300 or 9590)... that is THE fastest it can go. Beyond the 290, it has been proven without a doubt to bottleneck. Below the 290 reference, it is perfectly fine, even in single core games. Really, it is.

 

It will bottleneck some of the faster custom R9 290s, like the TRI-X, Windforce, LIghtning and DDBE. it will bottleneck a R9 390, as those are faster then the 290 reference.

 

what do i mean by 290 reference? i mean that horrid black and red blower style banshee GPU you could put in your case... the one that spat flames out of the vents....

[Dabombinable]

below R9 390X, SLI/CF is kinda a waste.... its so much cheaper to just step up to the card above and get more performance....

 

bullshit. 290 reference at stock speeds. that is FX limit (regardless if it is a 6300 or 9590)... that is THE fastest it can go. Beyond the 290, it has been proven without a doubt to bottleneck. Below the 290 reference, it is perfectly fine, even in single core games. Really, it is.

 

It will bottleneck some of the faster custom R9 290s, like the TRI-X, Windforce, LIghtning and DDBE. it will bottleneck a R9 390, as those are faster then the 290 reference.

 

what do i mean by 290 reference? i mean that horrid black and red blower style banshee GPU you could put in your case... the one that spat flames out of the vents....

You haven't seen the GPU that AMD recommends for each of their CPU have you? Its the FX 9370 that's best suited to the R9 290.

[Prysin]

You haven't seen the GPU that AMD recommends for each of their CPU have you? Its the FX 9370 that's best suited to the R9 290.

what AMD reccomends is well... whatever AMD says, i ignore it because in 9.9/10 times it is utter bullshit.

 

benchmarks (pick any really) prove that at around a R9 290 reference speed. a 8350 will do just damn fine, even a FX 6300 will do just damn fine.

 

it also HIGHLY depends on the game, in a game using all 8 "cores", it can probably feed a 980 Ti just fine... in a game not using more then 1-4 "cores" it will max out at a R9 290 reference.

 

 

i find it funny that you only care about what AMD says when it is something "negative" about their own stuff. However when they try to point out something positive, you are just as quick to dismiss them as zmeul would be.

 

if you watch the video PC perspective made on quad core gaming, you will realize WHY AMD says "280".... because really, at 280 levels the difference between a Athlon 860k and a i7 4790k is 8 FPS.... So at those levels, there is no justification going with intel... it really isnt.

while at 290X levels, that same video prooves that going intel can have anything from 10-20 FPS improvements moving from 8350 to a 4790k... HOWEVER that video was made PRIOR to AMD drastically improving their CPU overhead back in september... so what does that mean? well intel CPUs will get faster, of-course. However the much weaker FX CPUs will get much more of a benefit from that decrease in CPU overhead then intel will.

 

also, where was that "AMD suggests" page again... cuz when i looked at AMDs own pages, i couldnt seem to find it...

[Dabombinable]

what AMD reccomends is well... whatever AMD says, i ignore it because in 9.9/10 times it is utter bullshit.

 

benchmarks (pick any really) prove that at around a R9 290 reference speed. a 8350 will do just damn fine, even a FX 6300 will do just damn fine.

 

it also HIGHLY depends on the game, in a game using all 8 "cores", it can probably feed a 980 Ti just fine... in a game not using more then 1-4 "cores" it will max out at a R9 290 reference.

 

 

i find it funny that you only care about what AMD says when it is something "negative" about their own stuff. However when they try to point out something positive, you are just as quick to dismiss them as zmeul would be.

 

if you watch the video PC perspective made on quad core gaming, you will realize WHY AMD says "280".... because really, at 280 levels the difference between a Athlon 860k and a i7 4790k is 8 FPS.... So at those levels, there is no justification going with intel... it really isnt.

while at 290X levels, that same video prooves that going intel can have anything from 10-20 FPS improvements moving from 8350 to a 4790k... HOWEVER that video was made PRIOR to AMD drastically improving their CPU overhead back in september... so what does that mean? well intel CPUs will get faster, of-course. However the much weaker FX CPUs will get much more of a benefit from that decrease in CPU overhead then intel will.

 

also, where was that "AMD suggests" page again... cuz when i looked at AMDs own pages, i couldnt seem to find it...

Its not negative-it just the way things are, I can the sky is blue-and that doesn't mean that it is bad. Also none of AMD's CPU will power a 980ti unless its at 4K, and even then the same problems with low minimum FPS will still exist. And AMD's CPU overhead is still bad-and it wasn't lowered that much