• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

"I Need a New PC!" 2015 Part 1. Read the OP and RISE ABOVE FORGED PRECISION SCIENCE

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
Could be video card factory OC is not 100% stable. Try running it at a lower OC or normal stock speed.

Apologies, but I have no clue how to do that. Can it be done through MSI afterburner?

I think I'd rather tweak my CPU overclock. It seems like I'm 99% there. It runs stable in all tests and has been stable for near 2 weeks with lots of gaming, just that one bsod with Ryse.

Question: is auto voltage the devil? (i have a p8p67 pro board)
 

knitoe

Member
Feb 22, 2006
8,117
0
1,285
Apologies, but I have no clue how to do that. Can it be done through MSI afterburner?

I think I'd rather tweak my CPU overclock. It seems like I'm 99% there. It runs stable in all tests and has been stable for near 2 weeks with lots of gaming, just that one bsod with Ryse.

Question: is auto voltage the devil? (i have a p8p67 pro board)

Yes, you can use Afterburner to overclock or underclock the video card. If it's 99% stable, but fails running a certain game. It could well be a GPU overclock problem.

And, yes, auto voltage is generally not prefer. It usually uses a higher amount than manually entering your own number.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
Yes, you can use Afterburner to overclock or underclock the video card. If it's 99% stable, but fails running a certain game. It could well be a GPU overclock problem.

And, yes, auto voltage is generally not prefer. It usually uses a higher amount than manually entering your own number.

Is it normal to have an issue like that with a factory OC card? My understanding was that they are not that aggressively overclocked.

Going to try to step down to 4.4 ghz and see if its stable at 1.35v. May tweak down the voltage a bit from there.
 

Riky

My little VRR pleasure pearl goes vrrrooommm.
May 11, 2013
2,453
3,114
835
England
My Fx6300 died and Amazon will replace it, will I see much improvement if I pay an extra £30 for an FX8320e?
 

knitoe

Member
Feb 22, 2006
8,117
0
1,285
Is it normal to have an issue like that with a factory OC card? My understanding was that they are not that aggressively overclocked.

Going to try to step down to 4.4 ghz and see if its stable at 1.35v. May tweak down the voltage a bit from there.
Yes, people have had similar issues with factory OC failing while running certain games. Running at normal stock fixes the problem.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
Yes, people have had similar issues with factory OC failing while running certain games. Running at normal stock fixes the problem.

Okay, it may be worth a try. I did get the card 3 days ago, and saw zero issues with my cpu PC before then.

So I'm guessing the x124 bsod error can pertain to gpu as well? Most things I saw while researching said its related to cpu voltage.
 

TC McQueen

Member
Nov 9, 2013
5,369
2
380
Temps under load during Prime95 stress are low 60s, maybe like 60-65C.

My GPU is factory OC, its an EVGA GTX 970 SSC.

I'll try 4.4 ghz tonight., but I never saw an issue with 4.5ghz outside of this lone bsod during Ryse.
Might be the BIOS. I had a ton crashes during benchmarking because the power scaling was bad, so I had to up P00 & P02 (IIRC) to 1100MHz or whatever.
 

knitoe

Member
Feb 22, 2006
8,117
0
1,285
Okay, it may be worth a try. I did get the card 3 days ago, and saw zero issues with my cpu PC before then.

So I'm guessing the x124 bsod error can pertain to gpu as well? Most things I saw while researching said its related to cpu voltage.

Yes, generally, that error relates to the CPU. But, slight chance it could be something else. Thus, I suggest going down to 4.4GHz. If problem still persist, look at video card.
 

Crisium

Member
Feb 8, 2009
2,109
0
860
I'm usually not one to ask for help, but I really could use some opinions here. I'm trying to buy a "bridge" video card to keep me comfortable between now and cheaper (future) DX12 cards. I only plan to play games at 1080p with no downsampling. I currently own a GTX 560ti and have been looking at either a 780 or a 970.

Which would you guys recommend given all you know about both cards and my usage? I would say around $300 or so is a good price. Yes, it has to be an nvidia card unless there's some sort of godlike deal I don't know about.

Any opinions would be appreciated since it's still $300 I'm spending, heh.

Whatever you do, do NOT buy a 780. PSA: The GTX 780 is overpriced now that Nvidia doesn't optimize for it. In late 2014-2015 games, the 780 has massively dropped in performance relative to AMD and Kepler. It's now barely faster than a 280x / 7970GHz, when it used to compete with the 290 neck and neck. All Kepler cards are not longer optimized for by Nvidia. They can still play games just fine if you still have one, but to buy a Kepler by choice in 2015 is unwise.

For under $300, the best value by far is the 290. More or less equals the 970 and is 95% a 290x for much cheaper. Unless you have certain actual Nvidia needs such as CUDA or a tiny case or a weak PSU, in which case the 970 is what you certainly want. Specific needs aside, the price of the 970 isn't indicative of its performance as it carries quite a premium over equal (290) or faster (290x) AMD cards.
 

mkenyon

Banned
Feb 9, 2010
19,030
0
805
Whatever you do, do NOT buy a 780. PSA: The GTX 780 is overpriced now that Nvidia doesn't optimize for it. In late 2014-2015 games, the 780 has massively dropped in performance relative to AMD and Kepler. It's now barely faster than a 280x / 7970GHz, when it used to compete with the 290 neck and neck. All Kepler cards are not longer optimized for by Nvidia. They can still play games just fine if you still have one, but to buy a Kepler by choice in 2015 is unwise.
I wanna see the receipts.
 

Crisium

Member
Feb 8, 2009
2,109
0
860
I wanna see the receipts.

Sure thing.

At the 780 launch, it was 20% faster than a 7970GHz (which is an overclocked 280X).
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/images/perfrel_1920.gif

At the 290 launch, it was 19% faster than a 280X, and equal to a 290:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

In the most recent review summary, it is 13% faster than a 280X, while the 290 is 9% faster.
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

More evidence:

An average of 10 games released in late 2014:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...rds-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg
Source http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html

The 780 is only 10% faster than a 280X, and the 290 enjoys a 9% lead again.

And in the newest PC release the 780 is only 3% faster than a 280X while the 290 flaunts a 25% lead:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...s-Test_GPU-Action-Evolve-test-Evolve_1920.jpg

Would I choose a 780 over a 280X if both cards were offered for free? Yes. But would I pay more for a 780 over a 290, let alone the even more radically cheaper 280X? No! Even a 290X can be had for the same price as a 780, and it's 20% faster in the 2014 video game test. Not to mention, more VRAM for even more longevity.
 

mkenyon

Banned
Feb 9, 2010
19,030
0
805
tyvm for links! That does seem to support what you're saying.

Interesting. I wish we had something a bit different than those two websites. I was looking all over TechReport and PCPer for some more solid testing, but there isn't much on there that includes the 780, 280X, and 290 on newer games. Mostly just the older stuff from the 970/980 release timeframe.
 

Crisium

Member
Feb 8, 2009
2,109
0
860
WTB All the people's now worthless GTX 780. £100.

Actually, they still command a good price on the used market. I think a lot of people with a single 780 are trying to get SLI. A few people on dedicated hardware forums have boasted about selling their used 780 and buying a new 290 for the same price or even cheaper if you catch a good sale. Free upgrade.
 

RGM79

Member
Feb 10, 2011
3,861
0
670
Well, if I only need to upgrade my graphics card, I could put down maybe around 300$ (~2500 kr). Dustin, Inet and Webhallen are usually good retailers here in Sweden, but I can do the price matching myself as soon as I have some ideas on which graphic cards that are a good fit.

Regarding overclocking my CPU, I am all up for it. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how it's done, so if you could maybe point me somewhere where I can read up on overclocking it, I would be grateful. Also, I am using the cooler that came with my current CPU. Do I need to upgrade it as well?

Inet and Webhallen's prices seem high, I wasn't able to find anything better than an R9 280X for your 2500 kr budget. Dustin.se has a Gigabyte R9 290 on sale for 2490 kr, but it is listed on the business section of the website and I don't know if you would be restricted from buying it. It seems that you should be able to find an R9 280X or R9 290 to fit your budget. As for Nvidia, the GTX 970 is above your budget and the newer and more efficient GTX 960 isn't quite as good as the R9 280X in raw power.

As for overclocking your processor, yes, you will need a better CPU cooler. Here are some English guides for overclocking your processor, scroll down a bit to see their links. I will say that your computer is at the point where you could benefit from a CPU upgrade, but in your case you would need to replace both the motherboard and CPU. CPU overclocking is a cheaper way to get some higher performance without needing to spend as much money replacing your current parts, and going by these benchmarks, it appears that your i7 950 is still capable of decent framerates. In any case, even if you do upgrade to a new CPU and motherboard, it would be easy to move the non-stock CPU cooler over to that new computer.

For CPU coolers, I can recommend the Phanteks PH-TC14PE for 503 kr which is also listed in the business section. The home section of the website lists the same model of heatsink but different color for 629 kr.

Any fan controllers you guys can recommend? Also, analog or digital controls for the controller? I'm leaning towards digital especially if it automatically controls the fans RPM, but I'm not sure.


Edit: NVM. Ultimately I don't want LED on the front of my box, so I'll go with an analog fan controller. Thinking of this one: Thermaltake Commander F5 Multi Fan Controller

I generally like knobs more than sliders, they provide better control and don't feel as cheap. That link says the Thermaltake model isn't available though, or are you buying it from elsewhere? There is this Kingwin model with knobs which is cheaper than the Thermaltake model, but it does have LEDs. Other cheapish models around $30 would be this NZXT Sentry model with slider switches, or this Lamptron model which has three mode toggle switches for high/low/off.

Sure thing.

At the 780 launch, it was 20% faster than a 7970GHz (which is an overclocked 280X).
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/images/perfrel_1920.gif

At the 290 launch, it was 19% faster than a 280X, and equal to a 290:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

In the most recent review summary, it is 13% faster than a 280X, while the 290 is 9% faster.
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

More evidence:

An average of 10 games released in late 2014:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...rds-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg
Source http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html

The 780 is only 10% faster than a 280X, and the 290 enjoys a 9% lead again.

And in the newest PC release the 780 is only 3% faster than a 280X while the 290 flaunts a 25% lead:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...s-Test_GPU-Action-Evolve-test-Evolve_1920.jpg

Would I choose a 780 over a 280X if both cards were offered for free? Yes. But would I pay more for a 780 over a 290, let alone the even more radically cheaper 280X? No! Even a 290X can be had for the same price as a 780, and it's 20% faster in the 2014 video game test. Not to mention, more VRAM for even more longevity.

Thanks for the insight, Crisium.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
Okay, so I've been running Prime95 for about 45 minutes after bumping down to x44 mutliplier at 1.35v. Seems totally fine, but it seemed fine at x45 too.


My temperatures are actually lower. High 50s instead of low 60s.

Will keep tesitng.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
So I tried decreasing vcore to 1.3 at 4.4ghz.... wasn't happening haha. Crashed within 30 seconds in Prime95.

I guess its possible that my chip is slightly power hungry? 1.35v at 4.4ghz seems extremely stable. Does that voltage seem too high for 4.4 ghz or reasonable?
 

BIGWORM

Member
Jan 24, 2010
3,136
0
785
So I tried decreasing vcore to 1.3 at 4.4ghz.... wasn't happening haha. Crashed within 30 seconds in Prime95.

I guess its possible that my chip is slightly power hungry? 1.35v at 4.4ghz seems extremely stable. Does that voltage seem too high for 4.4 ghz or reasonable?

What CPU you running again?
 

lordfuzzybutt

Member
Dec 6, 2013
3,297
0
500
So I tried decreasing vcore to 1.3 at 4.4ghz.... wasn't happening haha. Crashed within 30 seconds in Prime95.

I guess its possible that my chip is slightly power hungry? 1.35v at 4.4ghz seems extremely stable. Does that voltage seem too high for 4.4 ghz or reasonable?

It's fine. Your temp is good. I would not worry too much about anything.
 

mkenyon

Banned
Feb 9, 2010
19,030
0
805
So I tried decreasing vcore to 1.3 at 4.4ghz.... wasn't happening haha. Crashed within 30 seconds in Prime95.

I guess its possible that my chip is slightly power hungry? 1.35v at 4.4ghz seems extremely stable. Does that voltage seem too high for 4.4 ghz or reasonable?
If the temps are fine, then there's no issue.

*edit* beat! Didn't F5 for awhile :p
 

Thebrokenleg

Neo Member
Dec 29, 2012
61
0
0
Stockholm, Sweden
Inet and Webhallen's prices seem high, I wasn't able to find anything better than an R9 280X for your 2500 kr budget. Dustin.se has a Gigabyte R9 290 on sale for 2490 kr, but it is listed on the business section of the website and I don't know if you would be restricted from buying it. It seems that you should be able to find an R9 280X or R9 290 to fit your budget. As for Nvidia, the GTX 970 is above your budget and the newer and more efficient GTX 960 isn't quite as good as the R9 280X in raw power.

As for overclocking your processor, yes, you will need a better CPU cooler. Here are some English guides for overclocking your processor, scroll down a bit to see their links. I will say that your computer is at the point where you could benefit from a CPU upgrade, but in your case you would need to replace both the motherboard and CPU. CPU overclocking is a cheaper way to get some higher performance without needing to spend as much money replacing your current parts, and going by these benchmarks, it appears that your i7 950 is still capable of decent framerates. In any case, even if you do upgrade to a new CPU and motherboard, it would be easy to move the non-stock CPU cooler over to that new computer.

For CPU coolers, I can recommend the Phanteks PH-TC14PE for 503 kr which is also listed in the business section. The home section of the website lists the same model of heatsink but different color for 629 kr.

Thank you for your help! The business section displays prices without moms (value-added tax) and I don't think I can work myself around that. The regular price for the same card is 3099 kr but I believe a friend of mine gets ~20 % off everything on the site so I'll talk with him and see what I can do. If that doesn't work out, I've found the same card at another retailer (komplett.se) for 2899 kr that I suppose I can buy it from. If I do end up buying it though (which I probably will), can I install it before overclocking my CPU, or is that something I have to do beforehand for everything to function?
 

michaelius

Member
Jan 5, 2012
15,946
1,820
935
Sure thing.

At the 780 launch, it was 20% faster than a 7970GHz (which is an overclocked 280X).
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/images/perfrel_1920.gif

At the 290 launch, it was 19% faster than a 280X, and equal to a 290:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

In the most recent review summary, it is 13% faster than a 280X, while the 290 is 9% faster.
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

More evidence:

An average of 10 games released in late 2014:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...rds-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg
Source http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html

The 780 is only 10% faster than a 280X, and the 290 enjoys a 9% lead again.

And in the newest PC release the 780 is only 3% faster than a 280X while the 290 flaunts a 25% lead:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...s-Test_GPU-Action-Evolve-test-Evolve_1920.jpg

Would I choose a 780 over a 280X if both cards were offered for free? Yes. But would I pay more for a 780 over a 290, let alone the even more radically cheaper 280X? No! Even a 290X can be had for the same price as a 780, and it's 20% faster in the 2014 video game test. Not to mention, more VRAM for even more longevity.

That doesn't really prove much outside of the TPU using diffrent games than year ago

For stuff like Evolve we have games like Dying Light
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Test_GPU-Action-Dying_Light-test-dl__1920.jpg

or The Crew
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...PU-Simulator-The_Crew-cach-crew_1920_msaa.jpg

or Ground Zeroes where 770 outperform 290X
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Gear_Solid_V_Ground_Zeroes_-test-mgs_1920.jpg
 

RGM79

Member
Feb 10, 2011
3,861
0
670
Had someone else pitch in with some money so now I have this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/283BWZ

Thoughts?

If your aim is just gaming, then I can't recommend the 4790K as the performance in games doesn't justify the extra $100+. The 4790K really only adds hyperthreading, and most games don't or can't take advantage of 8 processing threads. This is why the 4690K can often match the 4790K in game framerate performance. Anandtech and Xbit Labs have both shown this in their review of the processors. If you will be doing video editing or 3D modelling, then the 4790K is better for it.

I think you would be better off putting the extra money into other places where you can get more in return, like a stronger graphics card (MSI R9 290X for $283), more RAM, etc. The 4690K with a stronger graphics card will see higher framerates and can do higher graphics settings than the 4790K with a weaker graphics card.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.89 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO4 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($101.48 @ Newegg)
Memory: Kingston Fury Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($116.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($101.99 @ Adorama)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 290X 4GB TWIN FROZR Video Card ($282.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Corsair 300R ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($69.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1034.27
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-12 17:28 EST-0500

Thank you for your help! The business section displays prices without moms (value-added tax) and I don't think I can work myself around that. The regular price for the same card is 3099 kr but I believe a friend of mine gets ~20 % off everything on the site so I'll talk with him and see what I can do. If that doesn't work out, I've found the same card at another retailer (komplett.se) for 2899 kr that I suppose I can buy it from. If I do end up buying it though (which I probably will), can I install it before overclocking my CPU, or is that something I have to do beforehand for everything to function?

You won't need to overclock your CPU before getting the new graphics card, it will work together no problem. You can just install the new graphics card first and see how games run. If it's still kind of lacking in performance, then you can go ahead and try overclocking.
 

Fracas

#fuckonami
Aug 31, 2011
17,642
2
835
The south
How do you guys clean out your PCs? Just compressed air, right? I don't think I need anything special, but just making sure.

Airflow in my case seems good. A week and a half of use and there's barely any dust.
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
27,785
19,280
1,305
a cave outside of Whoville.
I think I'm going to pick up a few more case fans. I only have the two 120mm fans that came with my Corsair 200R (front and exhaust). The article about case fans in the OP made me want to at least get a fan for the side and top. I was thinking I might actually do 2 side fans and one top.

Any preferences for these things? I can do 120mm or 140mm with this case as far as I understand. I'm not overly picky about noise since my GPU fans will likely be louder than the case fans at any given time anyway. There are just so many to choose from.
 

Uraizen

Banned
Dec 31, 2006
6,451
0
0
What's wrong with your current 560 Ti? Is it dying? Seems like it should still be able to handle 1080p at medium settings, maybe low for certain demanding games. Do you prefer Nvidia for things like Shadowplay? Also, what are your current system specs?

The best performing Nvidia card you can pick up for $300 new is a PNY GTX 780 3GB model for $287 after rebate. Otherwise for the sake of comparison and competition, the MSI R9 290X 4GB can be had for $283 which is about the same price. Looking at benchmarks, the R9 290X is generally anywhere from 10% slower to up to 25% faster than the GTX 780 depending on the game, especially in the case of certain games at certain settings like those Bioshock Infinite dynamic depth of field tests.

The R9 290X also has a slight edge when it comes to VRAM, but if you play at 1080p then the GTX 780's 3GB will still be enough for the time being, but I can't say for how long. Are there any specific games you're looking to achieve a certain minimum level of performance in?

There's nothing wrong with the 560ti, I just have a bitch of an itch to make sure my GPU destroys the recommended requirements by games these days. I don't plan to play the witcher 3 on the highest settings or anything, I just want it to ask itself if it's running a game while I'm playing MKX at max settings.

Just bad experiences with ATI... back before the AMD and ATI merger, hah. That as well as anecdotal evidence from my friends. The benchmarks on the 290x are ridiculously good for the price, though.

As for my specs, my slot and CPU are the only things that might be a bottleneck. It'll be put into a PCI-E x16 2.0 slot and my CPU is a i7 2600k. If you want more than that, I'll be happy to oblige.

I'm not too worried about VRAM, what I am worried about is when games start to attempt to tap into that 0.5GBs of lies on the 970.

Whatever you do, do NOT buy a 780. PSA: The GTX 780 is overpriced now that Nvidia doesn't optimize for it. In late 2014-2015 games, the 780 has massively dropped in performance relative to AMD and Kepler. It's now barely faster than a 280x / 7970GHz, when it used to compete with the 290 neck and neck. All Kepler cards are not longer optimized for by Nvidia. They can still play games just fine if you still have one, but to buy a Kepler by choice in 2015 is unwise.

For under $300, the best value by far is the 290. More or less equals the 970 and is 95% a 290x for much cheaper. Unless you have certain actual Nvidia needs such as CUDA or a tiny case or a weak PSU, in which case the 970 is what you certainly want. Specific needs aside, the price of the 970 isn't indicative of its performance as it carries quite a premium over equal (290) or faster (290x) AMD cards.

No 780, got it, not even going to consider it now. Don't worry, I don't associate price with performance. That's why I came here; to make sure I spend my money wisely. These are the types of answers I was hoping for. My case is a full tower and the PSU is either a 500W or 600W Corsair. It's just powering the usual along with two extra mechanical HDDs.

These are some good recommendations and a few things to digest.
 

kris.

Banned
Jun 17, 2013
7,140
0
0
This might get asked a lot, I dunno, but once I get my tax return, I plan on updating my video card. I've been planning on getting a GTX 970 but all of these VRAM issues are scaring me and making me think otherwise. I've read that it only really becomes an issue when you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p, which is something I have absolutely no desire to do, so is this purchase going to be fine for me even with me knowing that I'm kinda getting ripped off and lied to or is there some other card I should be looking at that gives the same bang for the buck?
 

Crisium

Member
Feb 8, 2009
2,109
0
860
That doesn't really prove much outside of the TPU using diffrent games than year ago

That's the whole point. They are using newer games. You cannot deny that Kepler performance relative to AMD is down across the board on average. That's why I used a 10 game sampler from Gamegpu, and the millions of games TPU uses. Both companies have examples were they shine, but on average Kepler suffers where Maxwell does not in games released in late 2014 and 2015 - so it's not Nvidia vs AMD. It's Nvidia choosing not to optimize for either forced obsolescence or over extension of the driver team. It shouldn't be new information for GAF, the benchmarks speak for themselves and the trend is clear if you have the silly passion to follow GPU benchmarks like me (I blame Anandtech forums, they love this stuff).
 

RGM79

Member
Feb 10, 2011
3,861
0
670
There's nothing wrong with the 560ti, I just have a bitch of an itch to make sure my GPU destroys the recommended requirements by games these days. I don't plan to play the witcher 3 on the highest settings or anything, I just want it to ask itself if it's running a game while I'm playing MKX at max settings.

Just bad experiences with ATI... back before the AMD and ATI merger, hah. That as well as anecdotal evidence from my friends. The benchmarks on the 290x are ridiculously good for the price, though.

As for my specs, my slot and CPU are the only things that might be a bottleneck. It'll be put into a PCI-E x16 2.0 slot and my CPU is a i7 2600k. If you want more than that, I'll be happy to oblige.

I'm not too worried about VRAM, what I am worried about is when games start to attempt to tap into that 0.5GBs of lies on the 970.



No 780, got it, not even going to consider it now. Don't worry, I don't associate price with performance. That's why I came here; to make sure I spend my money wisely. These are the types of answers I was hoping for. My case is a full tower and the PSU is either a 500W or 600W Corsair. It's just powering the usual along with two extra mechanical HDDs.

These are some good recommendations and a few things to digest.

Those specs are fine. PCI-E 2.0 x16 is definitely not a bottleneck. Depending on what graphics card you get, 500 watts is a bit low but is still enough for an R9 290X (consumes 300 watts at best, leaving 200 left for the rest of the system which the CPU likely only takes up 100~150 watts), while 600 should be comfortable enough to overclock the CPU and GPU on.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
This might get asked a lot, I dunno, but once I get my tax return, I plan on updating my video card. I've been planning on getting a GTX 970 but all of these VRAM issues are scaring me and making me think otherwise. I've read that it only really becomes an issue when you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p, which is something I have absolutely no desire to do, so is this purchase going to be fine for me even with me knowing that I'm kinda getting ripped off and lied to or is there some other card I should be looking at that gives the same bang for the buck?

I researched this a ton having just upgraded my GPU.

Ultimately I went for a GTX 970. I can tell you my experience, I've had the card for about 3 days. I play at 1080p, and this card destroys anything I've tried so far.

I tried to specifically manifest the 3.5gb vram issue with Shadows of Mordor, I ran it at all Ultra for about a half hour and saw no performance issues. Its known to use upwards of 3.8gb vram on ultra textures.

I've also tried FC4 maxed out, Ryse maxed out, Dragon Age Inq, all run over 60fps and perfectly fine.

In BF4 I have so much overhead on ultra that I have to play with a DSR resolution or use at least 130% resolution scale in game to get it down to 60fps, and it still hovers mostly around 70 with a 1440p DSR resolution.

I've seen no issues yet, just loving the card.

Having said that, the absolute best bang for your buck right now is probably the AMD R9 290. It can be had for ~ $250, and it performs about 5% worse than a GTX 970. It uses more power and runs hotter, but not a big issue with a good non reference card. The 970 is ~ $350 for 5% better performance, lower power usage and lower temps. I also prefer Nvidia drivers and effects, but thats to personal taste.

I went with a 970 because I prefer Nvidia basically, but a 290 is a great deal, and a 290x can be had for ~$300 and trade blows with the 970.
 

RGM79

Member
Feb 10, 2011
3,861
0
670
This might get asked a lot, I dunno, but once I get my tax return, I plan on updating my video card. I've been planning on getting a GTX 970 but all of these VRAM issues are scaring me and making me think otherwise. I've read that it only really becomes an issue when you're playing at resolutions higher than 1080p, which is something I have absolutely no desire to do, so is this purchase going to be fine for me even with me knowing that I'm kinda getting ripped off and lied to or is there some other card I should be looking at that gives the same bang for the buck?

As mentioned a few times on this page and the last one, the R9 290 and R9 290X can be had for $240 and $280 respectively, and offer similar performance to the GTX 970 at a much lower price.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-912v308002

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-912v308001
 

LilJoka

Member
Dec 22, 2013
6,122
2
0
London, UK
I just clicked the blend test so it ran whatever the defaults were for that test. I think I ran near a total of 10 hours without any issues.

Should I try to up the vcore slightly, maybe to 1.37? Everything I read had me scared to go over 1.35v.

Could I also try to lower the multiplier? Possibly go down to 4.4ghz?

I'm open to options. Its my first OC so I don't really know how to troubleshoot it.

Right now I'm tempted to blame Ryse! >o

It could be memory related, so running my way would be able to rule that out. If it passes Blend, but fails my Custom Blend, it can be VTT/IMC voltage. Otherwise its Vcore. Yeah could reduce the Multiplier, but then i would want to re do my testing to find the lowest Vcore again. Or you could reduce the bclk by a small increment like 0.5Mhz.
 

Josman

Member
Apr 2, 2013
943
0
0
If in the future I buy a Windows 10 licence, will I be able to use it for both my desktop and a new laptop I bought?
 

RGM79

Member
Feb 10, 2011
3,861
0
670
If in the future I buy a Windows 10 licence, will I be able to use it for both my desktop and a new laptop I bought?
You'll need to have separate licenses. That said, most laptops in the future will probably already come with Windows 10.
 

kris.

Banned
Jun 17, 2013
7,140
0
0
I researched this a ton having just upgraded my GPU.

Ultimately I went for a GTX 970. I can tell you my experience, I've had the card for about 3 days. I play at 1080p, and this card destroys anything I've tried so far.

I tried to specifically manifest the 3.5gb vram issue with Shadows of Mordor, I ran it at all Ultra for about a half hour and saw no performance issues. Its known to use upwards of 3.8gb vram on ultra textures.

I've also tried FC4 maxed out, Ryse maxed out, Dragon Age Inq, all run over 60fps and perfectly fine.

In BF4 I have so much overhead on ultra that I have to play with a DSR resolution or use at least 130% resolution scale in game to get it down to 60fps, and it still hovers mostly around 70 with a 1440p DSR resolution.

I've seen no issues yet, just loving the card.

Having said that, the absolute best bang for your buck right now is probably the AMD R9 290. It can be had for ~ $250, and it performs about 5% worse than a GTX 970. It uses more power and runs hotter, but not a big issue with a good non reference card. The 970 is ~ $350 for 5% better performance, lower power usage and lower temps. I also prefer Nvidia drivers and effects, but thats to personal taste.

I went with a 970 because I prefer Nvidia basically, but a 290 is a great deal, and a 290x can be had for ~$300 and trade blows with the 970.

Bless ya, this is what I was hoping to hear. Thank you!
 

LilJoka

Member
Dec 22, 2013
6,122
2
0
London, UK
Sure thing.

At the 780 launch, it was 20% faster than a 7970GHz (which is an overclocked 280X).
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/images/perfrel_1920.gif

At the 290 launch, it was 19% faster than a 280X, and equal to a 290:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290/images/perfrel_1920.gif

In the most recent review summary, it is 13% faster than a 280X, while the 290 is 9% faster.
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/perfrel_1920.gif

More evidence:

An average of 10 games released in late 2014:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...rds-game_2014-video-test-games__2014_1920.jpg
Source http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/igry-2014-goda-protiv-sovremennykh-videokart.html

The 780 is only 10% faster than a 280X, and the 290 enjoys a 9% lead again.

And in the newest PC release the 780 is only 3% faster than a 280X while the 290 flaunts a 25% lead:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...s-Test_GPU-Action-Evolve-test-Evolve_1920.jpg

Would I choose a 780 over a 280X if both cards were offered for free? Yes. But would I pay more for a 780 over a 290, let alone the even more radically cheaper 280X? No! Even a 290X can be had for the same price as a 780, and it's 20% faster in the 2014 video game test. Not to mention, more VRAM for even more longevity.

Excellent post, i had pieced togethor a similar impression that was dismissed in the GTX 970 3.5GB debacle threads. Links make the difference.

Thats what irks me most about the 970, one its lost some potential with the RAM config, and on top of that NVIDIA are dropping driver efficiency on each new iteration of GPU series. Which means that the per game driver support for the 970 memory management is going to cause a significant impact to the longevity of the card.

If i didnt have an ITX rig i would have swapped it for the 290X.
 
Dec 7, 2013
1,397
0
0
That doesn't really prove much outside of the TPU using diffrent games than year ago

For stuff like Evolve we have games like Dying Light
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Test_GPU-Action-Dying_Light-test-dl__1920.jpg

or The Crew
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...PU-Simulator-The_Crew-cach-crew_1920_msaa.jpg

or Ground Zeroes where 770 outperform 290X
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Gear_Solid_V_Ground_Zeroes_-test-mgs_1920.jpg

Stuff that AMD hasn't addressed in a driver. It's the same issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. And in this case, nvidia's wrongs are far more egregious than AMD's... It's not just one or two games that are running poorly on Kepler, it is enough to hurt the average.

Stuff like evolve and Ryse which use newer versions of Cryengine can be excused for architectural differences. Around the time of Ryse launch a crydev basically said the game was going to favor GCN in so many words. This is fine, it happens occasionally... But again, it's not just one or two games. Kepler is on a decline when for years it was competing and thriving vs competing AMD gpus. That does not usually happen.
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
It could be memory related, so running my way would be able to rule that out. If it passes Blend, but fails my Custom Blend, it can be VTT/IMC voltage. Otherwise its Vcore. Yeah could reduce the Multiplier, but then i would want to re do my testing to find the lowest Vcore again. Or you could reduce the bclk by a small increment like 0.5Mhz.

Yeah, since I stepped down to 44 multiplier, I'm tempted to find the lowest stable voltage again, its just annoying haha. I guess I could spend another night doing it, I may be able to get down closer to 1.3. I know 1.3 is unstable, so its somewhere between 1.30 and 1.35. Maybe I will split the difference and try 1.33 out. I'll report back.
 

LilJoka

Member
Dec 22, 2013
6,122
2
0
London, UK
Yeah, since I stepped down to 44 multiplier, I'm tempted to find the lowest stable voltage again, its just annoying haha. I guess I could spend another night doing it, I may be able to get down closer to 1.3. I know 1.3 is unstable, so its somewhere between 1.30 and 1.35. Maybe I will split the difference and try 1.33 out. I'll report back.

Quickest way to get in the ball park Vcore is a 10minute Small FFT run.
 

The Llama

Member
Nov 21, 2013
5,395
0
0
Philadelphia
Stuff that AMD hasn't addressed in a driver. It's the same issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. And in this case, nvidia's wrongs are far more egregious than AMD's... It's not just one or two games that are running poorly on Kepler, it is enough to hurt the average.

Stuff like evolve and Ryse which use newer versions of Cryengine can be excused for architectural differences. Around the time of Ryse launch a crydev basically said the game was going to favor GCN in so many words. This is fine, it happens occasionally... But again, it's not just one or two games. Kepler is on a decline when for years it was competing and thriving vs competing AMD gpus. That does not usually happen.

I'm curious whats going on with AMD's current driver release schedule. I know the plan is to take a little longer between releases, but it seems like they're taking a bit TOO long. Since so many people buy games in the first week or 2 of release, it makes a driver update that comes 2 or 3 months late just seem a bit pointless.

Still, I guess it's better to have late driver updates improving performance than none at all (or so it seems for Kepler).
 

Lockjaw333

Member
Jul 29, 2014
2,146
1
310
So what's interesting is, if I set everything to Auto in bios and set the multiplier to 44, the max voltage applied during prime95 is about 1.344-1.35 v. My manual OC was x44 at 1.35v.

So this tells me at x44 I can likely get a lower stable vcore. Is there any reason for me to not use Auto? I do like that during idle it ramps down the voltage and multiplier. I know I can attempt the same thing with offsets, but is it safe to just go with what Auto is giving me at 4.4ghz since that basically matches what I got manually and found to be stable? Im assuming not applying a constant 1.35v to the cpu is better.

Edit: Temps are also good at low 60s.

Edit 2: It seems the voltage being displayed by CPU-Z is different when doing normal tasks like playing games as opposed to running prime stress. When I do other stuff outside of Prime, the voltage goes as high as 3.75 which seems unnecessary.
 

John Blade

Member
Sep 17, 2011
2,172
81
690
Hello Everyone

I am coming in here to see if someone here can help me to build a powerful desktop as this is for my brother. It will most likely something in multimedia and gaming desktop.

The Plan

The budget will be $2000 CAD after tax. The parts will have to be getting from NCIX.com only right now (mostly because that will be where I will have to get it for now. I let any gaffer to build something in this budget which should be enough. So, go crazy and hope to see what can build.

Minor update: you can use http://pcpartpicker.com/ as a guideline for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.