FPS with 1920x1080 vs 3840 x 2160

CmdrJeffSinclair

Reputable
Aug 29, 2014
785
1
5,010
Hey everyone,

I want to buy one 4GB Sapphire Radeon R9 290 OC Tri-X (not vapor x though) sold on amazon
http://

GOAL:
1) 1920x1080 resolution
2) 120 FPS without dipping,
----Vsync w/ 120Hz monitor
3) Antialiasing usually 4x
4) Anisotropic Filtering always 16x
5) Temps under 80C are fine
6) All games must play at ULTRA/MAX meeting all above criteria

So with the above expectations being met perfectly, will this GPU run games like Metro Last Light, The Witcher 2 and modded Skyrim (4096 texture packs) with the above needs being met perfectly?

I've read personal reviews from amazon where people say they have played Titanfall at 3840x2160 with 8xEQ Antialiasing and 16x Anisotropic Filtering at Ultra settings and managed 60FPS with occasional dips into 45FPS.

But what about for my 5 criteria above? I only use 1080p but want 120FPS.
 
Yea 120 fps outta 290 isn't gonna happen and you will DEF have dips a lot lower than that. May spike to that at ultra but............ It won't be steady at that fps unless you dropped setting to medium or high with some medium those are unrealistic goals.
 




How about the 8GB R9 295x2 instead? Or the 6GB Nvidia Titan? Both are at the $1,000 mark give or take. Will those do what I want?
 


Thanks guys so much. I will get a 295x2 for sure instead!

By the way, for the Intel i7-5820K 6 core w/ DDR4, will 28 PCI lanes be enough for the full functionality of two 295x2 cards? A review says that the CPU has 28 lanes and will support one x16 lane GPU or two in x8 x8 mode. What does this even mean?
 


You can get a board which runs at x16 x16, x16 means the card is unleashing ture potential, x8 is like half
 
Not with the i7-5820K, it's a limitation of that specific CPU. Unless they made mobo's with additional ICs that add the missing lanes?

Either way, I don't think that would bottleneck you unless you added a 2nd R9 295x2.
 


Ah, so the board I want is the Asus Deluxe X99 and it says this:
PCI Express 3.0 x165 x PCIe 3.0/2.0 x16 (x16, x16/x16, x16/x16/x8, x8/x8/x16/x8, x8/x8/x8/x8/x8 mode)

Does this mean it will run two 295x2 to full potential despite the CPU only supporting x16 x8? I'm not sure where the CPU's limitation affects the GPU nor do I understand how the mobo can make up for the CPU's limitation. Do you know?
 
From anantech:

The entry level model is a slightly slower i7-5820K, also featuring six cores and DDR4-2133 support. The main difference here is that it only has 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes. When I first read this, I was relatively shocked, but if you consider it from a point of segmentation in the product stack, it makes sense. For example:

For Ivy Bridge-E and Sandy Bridge-E, the i7-4820K and i7-3820 CPUs both had four cores, separating it from the other six cores in their series. For Nehalem, the quad core i7-920 was a super low clocked version compared to the quad core i7-965 and hex-core i7-980X which was released later. In these circumstances, the options for the lower $400 part were either fewer cores or lower frequency. Intel has decided to make the lower cost Haswell-E processor with fewer PCIe 3.0 lanes, but this is an even better scenario for most consumers:

Having 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes means dual GPU setups are at PCIe 3.0 x16/x8 (rather than x16/x16), and tri-GPU setups are at x8/x8/x8 (rather than x16/x16/x8). Very few PC games lose out due to having PCIe 3.0 x8 over PCIe 3.0 x16, meaning that performance should be almost identical. On paper, there should be a smaller performance difference with this setup than if the frequency had been reduced, or the fact that people would complain if there were fewer cores. Having six cores puts it above the i7-4790K in terms of market position and pricing, and the overall loss is that an i7-5820K user cannot use 4-way SLI, which is a very small minority to begin with.

The only downside to all the 28 PCIe 3.0 lanes is that there is no physical way to improve the PCIe lane situation. If the frequency was low, the user could overclock. If there were fewer cores, overclocking would also help mitigate that. Despite this, on paper it looks like that performance difference should be minimal.
 


Tom's Hardware Review of the i7-5820K clearly states that Intel limited this CPU to 28 PCI lanes, supporting only x16 x8 x8 maximum, and not x16 x16.

If I'm going to drop $1200 on a GPU I want it to work at 100%. I'll take those 1-2 FPS lol
 


you can maybe get the 5830k then if you really want 100%
 
If that's worth the $200 bump to the i7 5930k, that's up to you. I'd rather have a high-end mechanical keyboard, a killer SSD, or put more money into the monitor than 1-2 FPS, personally.

All of this is moot, unless the OP is buying TWO R9 295x2's, correct?
 


Here is what I want to buy, but I'm attempting to justify the build cost in hopes for it to last from this gen into the next "next gen" when I'll upgrade (probably 6-7 years down the road).

Intel Core i7-5960X 8 core
ASUS Deluxe X99
2x 8GB XFX Radeon R9 295x2 in Crossfire
16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Series 4 DDR4@3200MHz CL 16
2x 1TB Western Digital Velociraptors 10,000 RPM (200MB/s)
EVGA G2 SuperNOVA 1300W
Antec Twelve Hundred V3 Case
ASUS Blu Ray Player/Rewriter
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1
-
Logitech G700s mouse
Logitech G710+ mechanical keyboard
Logitech Z313 speaker system

It was my effort to lower the CPU down to the 5820K and instead put the money into other things like GPU, but I really want this godly PC. Chances are reallllllllly high seeing how slowly tech is moving that it will be a good performer with the above specs well past this new gen of games and then I'll replace it a year or two into the following gen of games in 2020.

I've been getting all the info I can from reviews and I even did a study on the last 10 years of computer progress. We were moving at massive rates, where P4's were replaced by CPU's about 100x more powerful/efficient, but the last 5-6 years on top of that CPU and GPU tech is only creeping by now.

Dual cores have been out for 7 years and are still great. Quad cores have been out since 2007 and will out-muscle any next gen game. How much more likely will an 8 core be worth the money now so I don't have to rebuy a computer 4 years from now?
 


great build, this will last you like 7 or 8 years
 


I love you. You finally said it. You are the first person to agree with me about the potential longevity of the build. Screw it, I will not spare a single penny on this computer muahahah. I'm going for it. Altogether it will cost $5,000 if I get 2 295x2. I was told that they should drop in price a lot in a couple weeks so hopefully they will!

3 years down the road I don't wanna go through all of this again and wind up spend $2k now an $2k later on parts I won't be fully happy with. At least this way I can get the satisfaction now and have some well earned sentimentality later with my "baby." Like with my M17 which sucks in every way, it was so awesome long ago and still useful now so I can't help but love it still.
 
Oh jeez, just noticed. Complete lack of Solid State Drive. If you're spending this much, you don't want to be using "ancient" spinning disk technology! 1 mid-range SSD will make a mockery of your Velociraptor RAID 0.

I'd go with a 1TB 840 EVO, or 850 Pro if you can afford it. I've heard mixed reviews of SSD's in RAID, and larger SSDs usually mean more speed. Add a single large WD Black drive for more storage (if needed). You don't need the speediest Hard Drive, if all your speed dependent needs are satisfied by the SSD.
 
If you want to stay in your meager $5k budget, you can downgrade to a 500GB SSD. Just keep "My Documents" with all your video, music, etc on the HDD. Either way, DEFINITELY get an SSD in this price range. You'd regret building a "monster PC" without one.