GTX 1070 with AMD FX-8320

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no i couldn't care less about what he thinks, what he says, what he refers to...this guy is clueless...he doesnt do ANY benchmarking by himself, he never tested anything,..all he does is pull links up, twist the plot, and push that garbage down your AMD fangirl brain.

 

Anyways, BF1 is a modern recent game that uses all the threads and the engine for it was developped and optimized for AMD FX chips back when BF3 first launched and the AMD trailed anything intel from 2010 and up in BF3/BF4/Hardline/battlefront/BF1 and EVERY other games...watchdogs 2 also uses all the threads...find me where it says it's faster than an intel quad-core now...GO!

Wrong wrong he benched much recently actually and he had to make a follow up video after AMD fanoys attacking him over trashing Vega!

 

Also quad-cores sucks get Ryzen 5!

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Nena360 said:

Wrong wrong he benched much recently actually and he had to make a follow up video after AMD fanoys attacking him over trashing Vega!

 

Also quad-cores sucks get Ryzen 5!

alright i'll leave it at that...clearly you're like him...leaving EVERY evidences out and holding on to what you heard that suits you...it's alright, have a good day i will not answer anymore...all i can say is that i find that pitiful that you do believe suck crap, and even worse that you spread that shit all over this tech forum where people are informed and can easily spot a brainwashed train of thought.

bye!

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

alright i'll leave it at that...clearly you're like him...leaving EVERY evidences out and holding on to what you heard that suits you...it's alright, have a good day i will not answer anymore...all i can say is that i find that pitiful that you do believe suck crap, and even worse that you spread that shit all over this tech forum where people are informed and can easily spot a brainwashed train of thought.

bye!

&

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

&

 

pathetic.

if someday you can link me some benchmarks from credible sources that highlight how strong the AMD FX is when it comes to gaming... then you'll earn my respect.

Until then...bye (for real this time)

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

pathetic.

if someday you can link me some benchmarks from credible sources that highlight how strong the AMD FX is when it comes to gaming... then you'll earn my respect.

Until then...bye (for real this time)

Quitter!

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

Even my i5 6600K 4.5 GHz OC is bottlenecking my GTX 1070 at 1080p. The FX6300 (which I've used for 2 years) was worse than my Intel Core Duo E8400 in some titles. So yeah like any FX processor is a big bottleneck for a 1070, and only modern i7's are good enough to fully utilize it for 1080p. 

For 144hz or a 75hz? I have no issue with mine at 75hz since it is in most games at 90+ fps in all titles except Heroes of the Storm and early access games!

[zen304tv]

@Cubianer With your current system I doubt you would see a tangible difference in performance between your 270 and a GTX 1070 in any of the 3 games that you listed. As others have mentioned you could go with a 1060 or 960 instead, but I would just as soon stick with the 270. If I were faced with the same decision I would wait and build a new system

 

That being said, a 1070 will work in your system. A friend of mine runs a 1080 FE w/ their FX-8350. They only ever play Overwatch and their FPS hovers around 100 at 1440p (I don't know all of their graphics settings). It definitely isn't cost:performance optimal, but it does work.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, sn4tchbuck13r said:

@Cubianer With your current system I doubt you would see a tangible difference in performance between your 270 and a GTX 1070 in any of the 3 games that you listed. As others have mentioned you could go with a 1060 or 960 instead, but I would just as soon stick with the 270. If I were faced with the same decision I would wait and build a new system

 

That being said, a 1070 will work in your system. A friend of mine runs a 1080 FE w/ their FX-8350. They only ever play Overwatch and their FPS hovers around 100 at 1440p (I don't know all of their graphics settings). It definitely isn't cost:performance optimal, but it does work.

Yeah the only problem I see he play of the 3 is PUBG which is based on the Arma engine so... o3o ((i also vote for 580 or 1060))

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, Cubianer said:

I want to upgrade my current GPU to a GTX 1070 (Gainward Phoenix GLH) and would like to know if it will work fine with my AMD FX-8320?

It will work perfectly fine, but you won't get higher performance at 1080p that you would get with a cheaper card. You will be able to crank up most graphics settings and the GPU will still not be at full load, but your FPS will be limited by the CPU.

Hence, if you want high resolution, high detail the 1070 will do the trick. However, if what you are after is very high FPS count at 1080p, upgrading to a 1070 will be overkill, since the limiting factor will be your CPU.

 

Having said that, if you plan to make other upgrades in the future, it may make sense to get the 1070, since it will be an improvement from your current card anyway. Until you move to higher resolutions or upgrade the CPU, you can use it to max out details, Antialiasing, super-resolutions-something-don't remember (basically, rendering at 1440p first, then downscaling to fit the 1080p screen, which some say works better than AA), etc.

[Nena Trinity]

2 hours ago, Jorgen297 said:

60hz in some games, like GTA V, it will go under 60 fps (and not dips) where a 6700K wouldn't. But yeah in competitive titles like OW, where you want most FPS regardless of refresh rate, the bottleneck is there (around 10% with OC I think). I wish I bought an i7 right away, but now I'll wait for coffee lake or ryzen plus. 

GTA V can be fixed by reducing settings such as shadows, shaders, reflection, & lights which I had to do with my X4 880K + GTX 960 rig!

[Cubianer]

2 hours ago, sn4tchbuck13r said:

@Cubianer With your current system I doubt you would see a tangible difference in performance between your 270 and a GTX 1070 in any of the 3 games that you listed. As others have mentioned you could go with a 1060 or 960 instead, but I would just as soon stick with the 270. If I were faced with the same decision I would wait and build a new system

 

That being said, a 1070 will work in your system. A friend of mine runs a 1080 FE w/ their FX-8350. They only ever play Overwatch and their FPS hovers around 100 at 1440p (I don't know all of their graphics settings). It definitely isn't cost:performance optimal, but it does work.

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It will work perfectly fine, but you won't get higher performance at 1080p that you would get with a cheaper card. You will be able to crank up most graphics settings and the GPU will still not be at full load, but your FPS will be limited by the CPU.

Hence, if you want high resolution, high detail the 1070 will do the trick. However, if what you are after is very high FPS count at 1080p, upgrading to a 1070 will be overkill, since the limiting factor will be your CPU.

 

Having said that, if you plan to make other upgrades in the future, it may make sense to get the 1070, since it will be an improvement from your current card anyway. Until you move to higher resolutions or upgrade the CPU, you can use it to max out details, Antialiasing, super-resolutions-something-don't remember (basically, rendering at 1440p first, then downscaling to fit the 1080p screen, which some say works better than AA), etc.

I want to get the HTC Vive in the future too, so I guess this is the first step to it. Do you think a CPU upgrade will be required for VR?

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, Cubianer said:

I want to get the HTC Vive in the future too, so I guess this is the first step to it. Do you think a CPU upgrade will be required for VR?

For best experience for VR I vote for Ryzen 5 1600X!

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, Cubianer said:

I want to get the HTC Vive in the future too, so I guess this is the first step to it. Do you think a CPU upgrade will be required for VR?

It might, although my understanding is that VR is disproportionately heavy on GPU vs CPU since you basically need to render one image per eye instead of just one.

By I don't know much about VR, so better wait for someone else's answer.

[Vegetable]

24 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

GTA V can be fixed by reducing settings such as shadows, shaders, reflection, & lights which I had to do with my X4 880K + GTX 960 rig!

That's simply not true. You obviously have a hard-on for FX for whatever reason which is fine idrc, but GTA V straight up runs like aids on my 8350 (which is at 4.9ghz with 2133mhz ddr3 as well.) I CANNOT stand fps drops whatsoever and FX has plenty. Even on 1080p normal EVERYTHING with no AA or AF at all, I still run in the 40's in specific parts of the city. So I just crank EVERYTHING all the way up (-grass on very high not ultra) with frame scaling at 1.5x and get the EXACT same fps in those spots. Theres a CPU bottleneck with my FX at 4.9ghz, so I'm not sure what planet you're on to think an athlon/960 ran 60+ fps because my PC pisses and shits all over that system and I don't do that. Open your eyes kid. FX is awful, I'm upgrading in a month or so and I cannot wait I'm so sick of the lackluster gaming experience it provides. Nobody should buy one for any circumstance and its just ridiculous that you're suggesting it to others. Nuff said

[Nena Trinity]

Just now, Vegetable said:

That's simply not true. You obviously have a hard-on for FX for whatever reason which is fine idrc, but GTA V straight up runs like aids on my 8350 (which is at 4.9ghz with 2133mhz ddr3 as well.) I CANNOT stand fps drops whatsoever and FX has plenty. Even on 1080p normal EVERYTHING with no AA or AF at all, I still run in the 40's in specific parts of the city. So I just crank EVERYTHING all the way up (-grass on very high not ultra) with frame scaling at 1.5x and get the EXACT same fps in those spots. Theres a CPU bottleneck with my FX at 4.9ghz, so I'm not sure what planet you're on to think an athlon/960 ran 60+ fps because my PC pisses and shits all over that system and I don't do that. Open your eyes kid. FX is awful, I'm upgrading in a month or so and I cannot wait I'm so sick of the lackluster gaming experience it provides. Nobody should buy one for any circumstance and its just ridiculous that you're suggesting it to others. Nuff said

I have no drops what so ever I am not sure you have properly configured your BIOS since FX likes lower timings over higher MHz and not to mention what is your advanced settings set to? Everything to low or off? And what about shadows, shaders, lights and reflections? Those all affect 1-thread far more than all the others which is the games fault for not using a up to date version of directX. ((I even have 1 module disabled for now until I upgrade my GPU to reduce temps since its hot this summer wohoo!)) 

[Vegetable]

12 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

I have no drops what so ever I am not sure you have properly configured your BIOS since FX likes lower timings over higher MHz and not to mention what is your advanced settings set to? Everything to low or off? And what about shadows, shaders, lights and reflections? Those all affect 1-thread far more than all the others which is the games fault for not using a up to date version of directX. ((I even have 1 module disabled for now until I upgrade my GPU to reduce temps since its hot this summer wohoo!)) 

Yeah see the thing is I have an R9 fury so I shouldnt have to turn down shit. This card should be able to do 1440p no AA or 1080p 4xAA at 60+fps at ALL times, but it just doesn't. And yes everything is configured correctly... lmao

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, Vegetable said:

Yeah see the thing is I have an R9 fury so I shouldnt have to turn down shit. This card should be able to do 1440p no AA or 1080p 4xAA at 60+fps at ALL times, but it just doesn't. And yes everything is configured correctly... lmao

OMFG AMDs driver overhead is the issue in GTA V! ADVANCED AND ALL CPU RELATED SETTINGS MOST BE SET TO OFF!!!

 

[zen304tv]

36 minutes ago, Cubianer said:

I want to get the HTC Vive in the future too, so I guess this is the first step to it. Do you think a CPU upgrade will be required for VR?

No, a CPU upgrade won't be required for VR. Just know that most VR game developers recommend a haswell i5 or newer, so expect some inconsistency in performance and be prepared to fine-tune some settings for an optimal experience from game to game.

[Nena Trinity]

1 minute ago, sn4tchbuck13r said:

No, a CPU upgrade won't be required for VR. Just know that most VR game developers recommend a haswell i5 or newer, so expect some inconsistency in performance and be prepared to fine-tune some settings for an optimal experience from game to game.

I am not sure but was not FX-6300 minimum VR requirement?

[TVwazhere]

[Vegetable]

36 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

OMFG AMDs driver overhead is the issue in GTA V! ADVANCED AND ALL CPU RELATED SETTINGS MOST BE SET TO OFF!!!

 

Well what you're clearly not understanding is this: I have a GPU that can/will run the game on ultra settings 60fps provided no CPU bottleneck, but I have a CPU bottleneck, so I play with ultra 40-70fps choppy as hell because FX is sorry as hell. If a core 2 quad could clock to 4.9ghz it would have higher ipc than my fx at 4.9ghz

 

---dont use anything in advanced except frame scaling which is just basically DSR/VSR but I can keep my monitor OC applied if I keep it in 1080p then frame scale 1.5x to 1440p with EVERYTHING on its highest settings -AA of any sort

[Nena Trinity]

2 minutes ago, Vegetable said:

Well what you're clearly not understanding is this: I have a GPU that can/will run the game on ultra settings 60fps provided no CPU bottleneck, but I have a CPU bottleneck, so I play with ultra 40-70fps choppy as hell because FX is sorry as hell. If a core 2 quad could clock to 4.9ghz it would have higher ipc than my fx at 4.9ghz

 

---dont use anything in advanced except frame scaling which is just basically DSR/VSR but I can keep my monitor OC applied if I keep it in 1080p then frame scale 1.5x to 1440p with EVERYTHING on its highest settings -AA of any sort

Dude even if you had i7 it would not fix it due to AMDs driver choking one CPU core! o3o (the game already is doing that and you making it worse with AMDs shitty dx11 driver is not helping!!!)

[Vegetable]

1 hour ago, Nena360 said:

Dude even if you had i7 it would not fix it due to AMDs driver choking one CPU core! o3o (the game already is doing that and you making it worse with AMDs shitty dx11 driver is not helping!!!)

I mean... when I check core usage(s) during gameplay it locks cores 1, 3, 5, and 7 to almost 100% on each core. The other 4 are just chillin @ 20% usage. After a quick chat with a couple friends who all have 4790k's oddly enough, it seems GTA V just likes 4 cores, and just 4 little sad FX cores even at the mightiest of overclocks is simply not enough for 60fps. But no, I would EASILY get 60fps+ even with a locked haswell i5, let alone any decent i7. 

[Cubianer]

2 hours ago, Nena360 said:

I am not sure but was not FX-6300 minimum VR requirement?

I made the steam vr test and it says my fx-8320 is fine (wasn't able to change the language but you will understand it)

[Timbs]

r u astist