› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

GTX 970 - how bad will my bottleneck be? - SOLVED!

jpnolejpnole Member UncommonPosts: 1,698
edited October 2015 in Hardware
OK so I just purchased one of these to replace my aging 6850 crossfire setup:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

It is the beginning of my new PC so I wanted to start with a bang and get a part I could use now until I am ready to buy the rest in a couple months. Since it makes no sense to spend $146 on an equally ancient refurb X6 1090t @ Newegg, I will be buying an Intel 1151 motherboard, CPU and compatible RAM (and unfortunately a new copy of Windows 10!!!) to complete the system. My current PC will be 5 years old by the holidays. I'd like to know, in percentage terms, how much the card will be held back by the rest of my components. 

Win 10
Phenom II X4 965
8GB RAM
GA-890FXA-UD5 motherboard
500GB SSD

Thanks a lot!
Post edited by jpnole on

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,999
    edited October 2015
    I'd say 0 - 50% depending on the game.

    Your processor is old enough that in some games it will hold you back a lot. If I were you I'd upgrade that processor quickly it's so underpowered compared to your new GPU.

    You might be able to just upgrade the processor and keep same motherboard + RAM if you'd be happy with some AMD processor. Then the GTX 970 might be a bit overkill for the rest of the system, but not by lot, and it's so much cheaper to just switch the processor than it's to buy a new processor + moterboard + RAM + OS that I'd suggest trying to switch only the processor.

    EDIT: And use some of the money you save by not buying new motherboard and RAM to get SSD hard disk if you don't have one already /EDIT
     
  • jpnolejpnole Member UncommonPosts: 1,698
    edited October 2015
    Vrika said:
    I'd say 0 - 50% depending on the game.

    Your processor is old enough that in some games it will hold you back a lot. If I were you I'd upgrade that processor quickly it's so underpowered compared to your new GPU.

    You might be able to just upgrade the processor and keep same motherboard + RAM if you'd be happy with some AMD processor. Then the GTX 970 might be a bit overkill for the rest of the system, but not by lot, and it's so much cheaper to just switch the processor than it's to buy a new processor + moterboard + RAM + OS that I'd suggest trying to switch only the processor.

    EDIT: And use some of the money you save by not buying new motherboard and RAM to get SSD hard disk if you don't have one already /EDIT
    I have a 500GB SSD, I'll update my OP. The X6 1090T is the top CPU for my AM3 board which would be wasted money on a 5 year old rig so I'm just going to get the 1151 parts to swap in in a couple months. Can't do it just yet.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    Which revision is your board?

    If its 3.0/3.1 you can go with FX-63xx/FX-83xx and save yourself a lot of money (BIOS update from Gigabyte)

    If its 2.1 or lower you can search the net for BIOS that supports FX63xx/FX-83xx CPUs for your revision (yes, there were available from Gigabyte for a while)

    Either way no need for whole new setup thats just a waste of money. Its not a good time for CPU upgrade with DX12 and new CPUs slated for next year. Even your CPU could only be just a little bit slower than the rest.
  • ReizlaReizla Member RarePosts: 4,092
    jpnole said:
    OK so I just purchased one of these to replace my aging 6850 crossfire setup:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127832

    It is the beginning of my new PC so I wanted to start with a bang and get a part I could use now until I am ready to buy the rest in a couple months. Since it makes no sense to spend $146 on an equally ancient refurb X6 1090t @ Newegg,
    Working with a X6 1090T myself and that works pretty neat, though at times I don't see much of a FPS improvement compared to my old GTX660. I think you'll have about the same with your X4.
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,999
    Malabooga said:
    Which revision is your board?

    If its 3.0/3.1 you can go with FX-63xx/FX-83xx and save yourself a lot of money (BIOS update from Gigabyte)

    If its 2.1 or lower you can search the net for BIOS that supports FX63xx/FX-83xx CPUs for your revision (yes, there were available from Gigabyte for a while)
    For more info about those BIOS you can check here: 
    http://www.overclock.net/t/730776/official-gigabyte-ga-890fxa-ud5-ud7-owners-thread-club/4040

    Though I assume there was some problem since Gigabyte did not release the AM3+ support officially.
     
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Vrika said:
    Malabooga said:
    Which revision is your board?

    If its 3.0/3.1 you can go with FX-63xx/FX-83xx and save yourself a lot of money (BIOS update from Gigabyte)

    If its 2.1 or lower you can search the net for BIOS that supports FX63xx/FX-83xx CPUs for your revision (yes, there were available from Gigabyte for a while)
    For more info about those BIOS you can check here: 
    http://www.overclock.net/t/730776/official-gigabyte-ga-890fxa-ud5-ud7-owners-thread-club/4040

    Though I assume there was some problem since Gigabyte did not release the AM3+ support officially.
    Yah, there was a problem - they wanted people to buy new boards ;)
  • jpnolejpnole Member UncommonPosts: 1,698
    Yeah I understand about the whole revision and bios thing but mine is 2.0 and is not supported. I also won't be trying to do anything unofficial. My intention is to build a new PC via part swap out and the GPU is just the first part. I will have no problems coming up with another $500 for an 1151 mobo, CPU and ram by the holidays.

    I was really just looking for guesses on how bad the bottleneck will be for the 2 months before I change out the rest of the internal parts. Guess I will find out by the end of the week. I'll do some before and after benchmarks and post them here. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,531
    It will vary wildly by game.  Anything that you can play now at low settings will probably still be playable at at least as high of settings as you use now.  It varies by setting, but adjusting graphical settings tends to affect the GPU load far more than the CPU load.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,004
    I agree that it depends on the game.  Some games are CPU intensive and make little use of your GPU, others are just the opposite.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    jpnole said:
    Yeah I understand about the whole revision and bios thing but mine is 2.0 and is not supported. I also won't be trying to do anything unofficial. My intention is to build a new PC via part swap out and the GPU is just the first part. I will have no problems coming up with another $500 for an 1151 mobo, CPU and ram by the holidays.

    I was really just looking for guesses on how bad the bottleneck will be for the 2 months before I change out the rest of the internal parts. Guess I will find out by the end of the week. I'll do some before and after benchmarks and post them here. 
    Well, thats the kicker, you could have had FX-83xx, GTX 980Ti and leftover money and have 1.5-2x the performance than with intel and 970 *shrug*

    Of course, its your money and can do whatever you want :)
  • jpnolejpnole Member UncommonPosts: 1,698
    edited October 2015
    Well I got my answer. If there is a bottleneck (and there probably is) I thankfully do not notice it. I went from Firestrike 2647 to 8271 but more importantly I went from Witcher 3 low settings 25-30 FPS to ultra holding 60 FPS with VSync on. Maybe I can procrastinate on the rest of the parts for a bit now! 
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

    This may be more of a guide to you. Notice that unless you go high end GPU it doesnt really matter what CPU you have in vast majority of stuff. 970 is definitely bottleneck in WIthcer 3, and will continue to be in most AAA games.

    DX12 will make things even more even for CPUs (mantle results)

    Thats of course if you like playing with new games with max settings. Old games will run good (with a few select ones like arma 3 that wont) anyway.

    So you definitely dont need to rush it and test games you play first.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    jpnole said:
    Well I got my answer. If there is a bottleneck (and there probably is) I thankfully do not notice it. I went from Firestrike 2647 to 8271 but more importantly I went from Witcher 3 low settings 25-30 FPS to ultra holding 60 FPS with VSync on. Maybe I can procrastinate on the rest of the parts for a bit now! 
    Personally i don't think the CPU is as important for games these days as the GPU is, although obviously, the more cores the better, i think more games these days are geared towards more and lower 'powered' cpu cores than anything, probably due to the influence of consoles where the cpu cores are only running at 1.6ghz, as long as you have 4+ cores running at least 3 ghz, whether that will change in the future.. no idea, but it does seem as though games are more focused on consoles now.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Phry said:
    jpnole said:
    Well I got my answer. If there is a bottleneck (and there probably is) I thankfully do not notice it. I went from Firestrike 2647 to 8271 but more importantly I went from Witcher 3 low settings 25-30 FPS to ultra holding 60 FPS with VSync on. Maybe I can procrastinate on the rest of the parts for a bit now! 
    Personally i don't think the CPU is as important for games these days as the GPU is, although obviously, the more cores the better, i think more games these days are geared towards more and lower 'powered' cpu cores than anything, probably due to the influence of consoles where the cpu cores are only running at 1.6ghz, as long as you have 4+ cores running at least 3 ghz, whether that will change in the future.. no idea, but it does seem as though games are more focused on consoles now.
    Thats one good consoles brought, we finally get to use all those cores weve been having for years lol

    Along with mantle/dx12 reducing CPU overhead even more.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Malabooga said:
    Phry said:
    jpnole said:
    Well I got my answer. If there is a bottleneck (and there probably is) I thankfully do not notice it. I went from Firestrike 2647 to 8271 but more importantly I went from Witcher 3 low settings 25-30 FPS to ultra holding 60 FPS with VSync on. Maybe I can procrastinate on the rest of the parts for a bit now! 
    Personally i don't think the CPU is as important for games these days as the GPU is, although obviously, the more cores the better, i think more games these days are geared towards more and lower 'powered' cpu cores than anything, probably due to the influence of consoles where the cpu cores are only running at 1.6ghz, as long as you have 4+ cores running at least 3 ghz, whether that will change in the future.. no idea, but it does seem as though games are more focused on consoles now.
    Thats one good consoles brought, we finally get to use all those cores weve been having for years lol

    Along with mantle/dx12 reducing CPU overhead even more.
    Not sure if/when DX12 will make much difference tbh, i tried Win 10 for about a month, but its still too unstable, maybe later next year i'll try it again. As yet Dx11 still hasn't made much impact, few games support it, and of those that do, they are mostly Dx9 based still. How many years we are away from Dx12 based games is debateable.
    Unless Win 10 achieves saturation point, it probably never will, although despite it not being good enough just yet, it has still managed to make its way onto more PC's than Win 8 did. Unfortunately as long as the majority of PC's used for gaming purposes are based on the previous iterations of Windows, then Dx12 will not progress beyond a 'supported' feature, rather than a game based upon it.
  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    edited October 2015
    Phry said:
    Malabooga said:
    Phry said:
    jpnole said:
    Well I got my answer. If there is a bottleneck (and there probably is) I thankfully do not notice it. I went from Firestrike 2647 to 8271 but more importantly I went from Witcher 3 low settings 25-30 FPS to ultra holding 60 FPS with VSync on. Maybe I can procrastinate on the rest of the parts for a bit now! 
    Personally i don't think the CPU is as important for games these days as the GPU is, although obviously, the more cores the better, i think more games these days are geared towards more and lower 'powered' cpu cores than anything, probably due to the influence of consoles where the cpu cores are only running at 1.6ghz, as long as you have 4+ cores running at least 3 ghz, whether that will change in the future.. no idea, but it does seem as though games are more focused on consoles now.
    Thats one good consoles brought, we finally get to use all those cores weve been having for years lol

    Along with mantle/dx12 reducing CPU overhead even more.
    Not sure if/when DX12 will make much difference tbh, i tried Win 10 for about a month, but its still too unstable, maybe later next year i'll try it again. As yet Dx11 still hasn't made much impact, few games support it, and of those that do, they are mostly Dx9 based still. How many years we are away from Dx12 based games is debateable.
    Unless Win 10 achieves saturation point, it probably never will, although despite it not being good enough just yet, it has still managed to make its way onto more PC's than Win 8 did. Unfortunately as long as the majority of PC's used for gaming purposes are based on the previous iterations of Windows, then Dx12 will not progress beyond a 'supported' feature, rather than a game based upon it.
    Running W10 for a month now, 0 problems.

    DX12 is not just "more bells and whistles". Also consider that its free porting XBoX/PC and better performance on XBoX due to lower CPU overhead.

    Also MS, NVidia and AMD want to push DX12 ;) Though AMD a bit more since their CPUs will get free boost and, from what weve seen so far, their GPUs are better in DX12 than NVidias. But NVidia never said no to selling more opposed to not selling.
Sign In or Register to comment.