AMD FX-4350 FPS with a GTX 980?

[MeetballSub]

I want to know if I were to use a GTX 980 with a wimpy FX-4350 what the expected FPS would be. Please give a serious answer, don't say: "you need to upgrade or you will get bottlenecked", because I know.

 

[Dunlop0078]

The expected FPS in what? It should still do pretty good, a bottleneck is not the end of the world and that processor is not that wimpy.

 

[MeetballSub]

The expected FPS in what? It should still do pretty good, a bottleneck is not the end of the world and that processor is not that wimpy.

Just games in general, GTA V with graphical mods and Fallout 4 when it's out. If it is going to do good, what are some FPS estimates you can think of?

 

[iam2thecrowe]

The expected FPS in what? It should still do pretty good, a bottleneck is not the end of the world and that processor is not that wimpy.

Just games in general, GTA V with graphical mods and Fallout 4 when it's out. If it is going to do good, what are some FPS estimates you can think of?

If you go to techspot they bench a bunch of games with various cpu's should give u some idea.

 

[MeetballSub]

Thanks man.

 

[MeetballSub]

The expected FPS in what? It should still do pretty good, a bottleneck is not the end of the world and that processor is not that wimpy.

Just games in general, GTA V with graphical mods and Fallout 4 when it's out. If it is going to do good, what are some FPS estimates you can think of?

If you go to techspot they bench a bunch of games with various cpu's should give u some idea.

Where do I find the FX-4350 benchmarks in specific?

 

[MeetballSub]

What a strange question; You give no info regarding system ram speed , volume of ram installed,the screen resolution, and what games yet you expect a serious answer? With your cpu and a gtx 980 on a 1080p screen you will be looking at playable frame rates with any game before 2010 moving down to 'half' what you need to enjoy modern games from today.
Anybody who has enough $ for a GTX980 would not assemble that pc (cpu upgrade and gtx 960/970)so please come back when YOU are being serious.

I already mentioned the game's I will be playing, mostly new games. RAM: DDR3-1600 8GB ,RES: 1920x1080. In case you didn't know, I am not actually going to do this, my plan is to get an i5 with a 970.

 

[Dunlop0078]

What a strange question; You give no info regarding system ram speed , volume of ram installed,the screen resolution, and what games yet you expect a serious answer? With your cpu and a gtx 980 on a 1080p screen you will be looking at playable frame rates with any game before 2010 moving down to 'half' what you need to enjoy modern games from today.
Anybody who has enough $ for a GTX980 would not assemble that pc (cpu upgrade and gtx 960/970)so please come back when YOU are being serious.

I already mentioned the game's I will be playing, mostly new games. RAM: DDR3-1600 8GB ,RES: 1920x1080. In case you didn't know, I am not actually going to do this, my plan is to get an i5 with a 970.

O.K.
You should put the info in the post question.Things move on pretty fast around here.
As I did point out, its not a serious proposition for a pc upgrade,you even agree with this yet want a serious answer?
It cannot be given. The list of answers so far do not state weather they are minimums, maximums, averages (even worse; the minimums will be unplayable)
The answer to your question is there is no answer. Not without specifics,and as you are not building this anyway it is beyond a fair question.

An fx 4350 with a gtx 980 will get more than playable frame rates on any modern game I can think of, in fact I think it could play most games on high settings at 1080p 60fps at least. You are severely underestimating that cpu, its not what I would pair with a 980 but its not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I have a 6350 which in gaming is not a whole lot better than a 4350 and i still get more than playable frame rates at well over medium settings in most games and that is with a 760, so I really don't know why you are saying he will get unplayable frame rates on some games with a 4350 and a 980 that is absolutely not true.

 

[Dunlop0078]

Do you disagree with my request for a list of specifics re pc specs and games or not? That processor is somewhere around the mid range i3 mark thread score wise, and tho it may pull
;'60 fps at least on most games'
(most , you said,tho I would be surprised to see minimum game fps and frame time variance figures support this) I would not trust it to let me down at points in newer games and stutter and lag in places.

No I agree with that part I dont agree with this " With your cpu and a gtx 980 on a 1080p screen you will be looking at playable frame rates with any game before 2010 moving down to 'half' what you need to enjoy modern games from today.'

I can assure you that cpu will get more than playable frame rates in any game out today. I bet it would stutter a bit some games sure but it wouldn't be anything close to unplayable.

 

[VenBaja]

*Deleted

 

[VenBaja]

What a strange question; You give no info regarding system ram speed , volume of ram installed,the screen resolution, and what games yet you expect a serious answer? With your cpu and a gtx 980 on a 1080p screen you will be looking at playable frame rates with any game before 2010 moving down to 'half' what you need to enjoy modern games from today.
Anybody who has enough $ for a GTX980 would not assemble that pc (cpu upgrade and gtx 960/970)so please come back when YOU are being serious.

I already mentioned the game's I will be playing, mostly new games. RAM: DDR3-1600 8GB ,RES: 1920x1080. In case you didn't know, I am not actually going to do this, my plan is to get an i5 with a 970.

O.K.
You should put the info in the post question.Things move on pretty fast around here.
As I did point out, its not a serious proposition for a pc upgrade,you even agree with this yet want a serious answer?
It cannot be given. The list of answers so far do not state weather they are minimums, maximums, averages (even worse; the minimums will be unplayable)
The answer to your question is there is no answer. Not without specifics,and as you are not building this anyway it is beyond a fair question.

An fx 4350 with a gtx 980 will get more than playable frame rates on any modern game I can think of, in fact I think it could play most games on high settings at 1080p 60fps at least. You are severely underestimating that cpu, its not what I would pair with a 980 but its not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I have a 6350 which in gaming is not a whole lot better than a 4350 and i still get more than playable frame rates at well over medium settings in most games and that is with a 760, so I really don't know why you are saying he will get unplayable frame rates on some games with a 4350 and a 980 that is absolutely not true.

Playable is a subjective term. I was running an OC'd FX-6300 for awhile and did not find the framerate in games and conditions that I enjoy to be playable. Upgraded to a 4770k and improved average and minimum framerates by at least 30.

It just depends on what games you play, under what conditions (singleplayer or large multiplayer), what settings you run, and what your performance expectations are. For instance, I wanted to never dip below 60fps in large online shooters while recording gameplay. Nothing in the FX line could satisfy that expectation.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Where do I find the FX-4350 benchmarks in specific?

its going to be really really close to the 4320 shown on the chart. Its going to be very hard to find specific benches with that gpu, your probably going to have to find close enough.

have a look through these, might help, only problem is theyre using old gpu's that are about half the power of a 980 so there is some gpu botlenecking going on:
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1117&page=4
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1074

 

[madmatt30]

I'm an amd fan & make no secret of it but the fact is if you pair anything above a 970 or a r9 290 with an fx CPU you are essentially throwing money away.

Even heavily overclocked on the CPU those are the limits IMO to where youll see any noticeable performance gain on the graphics front.

 

[Dunlop0078]

Your own evidence supports my guess; you get playable frame rates at 'medium' settings.'in most games'.
I think you will find when the graphics settings are cranked up the physics etc load on the cpu will drive it into the ground and frames will dip like a rollercoaster on busy bits.,and your cpu is better than the posters specified chip.
Anybody can run a huge graphics card and turn the game settings down,then talk about frame rates. I am pretty done with this post now.
Come back to me with some evidence to show a £74 A.M.D. CPU is a capable hi end gaming processor worth hitching up to a £400 graphics card and we can talk about it.

I can play bf4 with most settings on ultra with no MSAA totally locked at 60fps no dips. I can play gta v on high if I turn etended distance scaling down stays at 60fps most of the time it will drop to 40 once and a while. Far cry 3 maxed with no msaa 1080p 60fps pretty much locked the occasional stutter when driving. Batman arkhan city maxed 2x msaa 1080p 60fps. To name a few and that is with a 760 not a 980.

Im not saying pairing a 980 with a 4350 is a good idea im just saying there are no games that would be even close to unplaybale with that setup.

 

[madmatt30]

^ absolutely but therexare also no games that are unplayable with a 4350 & a 750ti/960/r9 70 etc.

There's a dividing line between what works & what is a sensible balance of your money/components.

A 980 & any fx chip is nuts unless you're running super high resolutions 4k which the 980 doesn't manage 'that' well anyway.

 

[VenBaja]

Your own evidence supports my guess; you get playable frame rates at 'medium' settings.'in most games'.
I think you will find when the graphics settings are cranked up the physics etc load on the cpu will drive it into the ground and frames will dip like a rollercoaster on busy bits.,and your cpu is better than the posters specified chip.
Anybody can run a huge graphics card and turn the game settings down,then talk about frame rates. I am pretty done with this post now.
Come back to me with some evidence to show a £74 A.M.D. CPU is a capable hi end gaming processor worth hitching up to a £400 graphics card and we can talk about it.

I can play bf4 with most settings on ultra with no MSAA totally locked at 60fps no dips. I can play gta v on high if I turn etended distance scaling down stays at 60fps most of the time it will drop to 40 once and a while. Far cry 3 maxed with no msaa 1080p 60fps pretty much locked the occasional stutter when driving. Batman arkhan city maxed 2x msaa 1080p 60fps. To name a few and that is with a 760 not a 980.

Im not saying pairing a 980 with a 4350 is a good idea im just saying there are no games that would be even close to unplaybale with that setup.

Singleplayer maybe. You aren't playing with that setup on 64 player congested maps without dipping below 60. I know because even in BF3 I dipped into the high 40's on tight 64 player maps.

 

[Dunlop0078]

Your own evidence supports my guess; you get playable frame rates at 'medium' settings.'in most games'.
I think you will find when the graphics settings are cranked up the physics etc load on the cpu will drive it into the ground and frames will dip like a rollercoaster on busy bits.,and your cpu is better than the posters specified chip.
Anybody can run a huge graphics card and turn the game settings down,then talk about frame rates. I am pretty done with this post now.
Come back to me with some evidence to show a £74 A.M.D. CPU is a capable hi end gaming processor worth hitching up to a £400 graphics card and we can talk about it.

I can play bf4 with most settings on ultra with no MSAA totally locked at 60fps no dips. I can play gta v on high if I turn etended distance scaling down stays at 60fps most of the time it will drop to 40 once and a while. Far cry 3 maxed with no msaa 1080p 60fps pretty much locked the occasional stutter when driving. Batman arkhan city maxed 2x msaa 1080p 60fps. To name a few and that is with a 760 not a 980.

Im not saying pairing a 980 with a 4350 is a good idea im just saying there are no games that would be even close to unplaybale with that setup.

Singleplayer maybe. You aren't playing with that setup on 64 player congested maps without dipping below 60. I know because even in BF3 I dipped into the high 40's on tight 64 player maps.

Sure on some maps if you are playing at higher settings, but it would be nowhere near unplayable thats the point im making, someone said that some games would be unplayable with a 4350 and a gtx 980 at 1080p and I was just pointing out that I don't believe that's true.

 

[LookItsRain]

I would consider a 4350 and a 980 to be a waste of money. The 4350 just wont keep up with a 980. Expect terrible min frame rates and frame time variance.

 

[VenBaja]

Your own evidence supports my guess; you get playable frame rates at 'medium' settings.'in most games'.
I think you will find when the graphics settings are cranked up the physics etc load on the cpu will drive it into the ground and frames will dip like a rollercoaster on busy bits.,and your cpu is better than the posters specified chip.
Anybody can run a huge graphics card and turn the game settings down,then talk about frame rates. I am pretty done with this post now.
Come back to me with some evidence to show a £74 A.M.D. CPU is a capable hi end gaming processor worth hitching up to a £400 graphics card and we can talk about it.

I can play bf4 with most settings on ultra with no MSAA totally locked at 60fps no dips. I can play gta v on high if I turn etended distance scaling down stays at 60fps most of the time it will drop to 40 once and a while. Far cry 3 maxed with no msaa 1080p 60fps pretty much locked the occasional stutter when driving. Batman arkhan city maxed 2x msaa 1080p 60fps. To name a few and that is with a 760 not a 980.

Im not saying pairing a 980 with a 4350 is a good idea im just saying there are no games that would be even close to unplaybale with that setup.

Singleplayer maybe. You aren't playing with that setup on 64 player congested maps without dipping below 60. I know because even in BF3 I dipped into the high 40's on tight 64 player maps.

Sure on some maps if you are playing at higher settings, but it would be nowhere near unplayable thats the point im making, someone said that some games would be unplayable with a 4350 and a gtx 980 at 1080p and I was just pointing out that I don't believe that's true.

That's the thing though, unplayable to one person is fine for another. I consider constant dips to 48fps unplayable for competitive online shooters. That's why I said it depends on what's being played and what the person's expectations are. And settings have nothing to do with it. It's all about player/unit count and how large the game area is. In compute bound games your CPU is going to bottleneck you to abysmal framerates no matter what graphical settings you choose. For instance, I would throw my computer out the window if I had to play ARMA 2 or 3 on an FX-4350.

 

[Infall]

All in all u will lose 20-25% of gpu max performance average in all agmes. Some may not need at all cpu so it may be smaller. Now go see 980 mbenchmarks and whatever you see substract 23% on fps and that's what u will get on those settings. Most games on benchmarks now are usually cpu hungry too so 20-25% is ur average joe here. Hope I helped

 

[Infall]

even easier for you it will be like having smth less than a 970 on a good cpu
http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-Nvidia-GTX-980/2577vs2576
this is the average difference between 980 and 970 17% urs will be larger so it will be like having 6% downclocked 970. 23-17=6
That's all.

 

[Infall]

So it will be 970 ebnchmarks on games u want go google them minus 5% of those fps . That's the most exact answer I can give you based on what u gave us.

 

[Infall]

So you just throw to trash the 150 euro difference of 970 and 980. use them and buy a cpu at least at near future if u would like.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I'm an amd fan & make no secret of it but the fact is if you pair anything above a 970 or a r9 290 with an fx CPU you are essentially throwing money away.

Even heavily overclocked on the CPU those are the limits IMO to where youll see any noticeable performance gain on the graphics front.

I agree, if your statements are for 1080p, but if you were to go into high res monitors well obviously it shifts the bottleneck to the gpu and your gonna need more.

 

[madmatt30]

^ true but if anyone's thinking of dropping $700 or so on a GPU & 1440p monitor while running an fx 4350 they've kind of got their priorities wrong on the upgrade front.

There's a post somewhere where a guys running an 8350@stock with a 980 sli setup at 1080p & wondering why he's not getting any GPS boost over a single card - these kind of scenarios (thats prob the worst imbalance I've ever seen) ate fairly common.