Graphics futureproof upgrade bottlenecks?

[TTtheTremendous]

Currently running this setup http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dFptGX and I’m thinking of upgrading to this GTX 970 http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00NVODXR4/?tag=pcpapi-20

Would bottlenecking be an issue here? How would you say this build holds up?

I plan to play Fallout 4, Witcher 3, modded Skyrim, etc and I can’t think of any major future releases I’d want to play with this build so I’m thinking it should be pretty good for me for the next few years? (I’m going to be using a 19 inch monitor so i dont think the memory issue with the 970 would apply to me.)

I wanted to switch to an Intel build but I’d have to swap out/ add more hardware than I can afford right now, so I’m thinking it would be best to upgrade just my video card if I could use it with my next builds a few years down the line. I also plan on trying to overclock my current build.

 

[tnywatkns]

Yes there probably will be a slight bottle neck however, that entirely depends on the title you're playing. CPU heavy games will be the Achilles heel of that set up. If you run the games at the highest settings with AA and AF as high as possible, you'd still get better performance out the 970 vs the 660. As far as the bottleneck, it may not be perceivable in the first place. In other words, you'll be fine, enjoy your new card.

 

[gaborbarla]

This will be a good setup, the 970 is neat and fast for 1080p, even the AMD CPU seems to be capable to feed that GFX to pump out the frames (http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1962952/amd-6300-good-gaming.html).

I would go with a single Seagate SSHD 3TB instead of those 2 other Hybrid/HDD drives.

Then future Proof it I would get a 250 version of that SSD (will also go much faster as the M500 specifically needs the 250Gb version for speed). The RAM is also a bit on the low side for future proofing but you can get another 8 gigs later. You will run out of space very quickly on the SSD on 120gb and will have constant issues of having to move stuff to the HDD. I really would push for the 250SSD as top priority.

Hope this helps.
Gabor

 

[TTtheTremendous]

This will be a good setup, the 970 is neat and fast for 1080p, even the AMD CPU seems to be capable to feed that GFX to pump out the frames (http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1962952/amd-6300-good-gaming.html).

I would go with a single Seagate SSHD 3TB instead of those 2 other Hybrid/HDD drives.

Then future Proof it I would get a 250 version of that SSD (will also go much faster as the M500 specifically needs the 250Gb version for speed). The RAM is also a bit on the low side for future proofing but you can get another 8 gigs later. You will run out of space very quickly on the SSD on 120gb and will have constant issues of having to move stuff to the HDD. I really would push for the 250SSD as top priority.

Hope this helps.
Gabor

Unfortunately I already own everything in this build lol but yeah I'm kicking myself for what I chose to buy for storage!!

 

[fudgecakes99]

no the memory issues would apply to you. Just because a monitors 19 inches doesn't mean it uses less memory thats entirely dependant on the resolution you're running at. A 40 inch t.v. at 1080p at high will use the same v-ram as a 19 inch t.v. at 1080p at high. That said, personally if you're thinking future proof the 390 or if you can afford it the 390x, a great card that rivals a 980.

390 is a bit of resource hog as it uses more power ergo more heat, so possibly a 970 could o.c. better, but thats entirely subjective. The 390 does outperform a 970 in most games by a margin save nvidia optimized ones. Plus 8gb gddr5 v 3.5 useable.

If you got the cash i'd say go straight 980 it's a pretty great card or maybe a fury no the x if you're gonna get an fury x you're better off getting a ti.

Nvm i don't think the 520watt psu will cover a 390. You're better of with the 970 in that case.

 

[TTtheTremendous]

no the memory issues would apply to you. Just because a monitors 19 inches doesn't mean it uses less memory thats entirely dependant on the resolution you're running at. A 40 inch t.v. at 1080p at high will use the same v-ram as a 19 inch t.v. at 1080p at high. That said, personally if you're thinking future proof the 390 or if you can afford it the 390x, a great card that rivals a 980.

390 is a bit of resource hog as it uses more power ergo more heat, so possibly a 970 could o.c. better, but thats entirely subjective. The 390 does outperform a 970 in most games by a margin save nvidia optimized ones. Plus 8gb gddr5 v 3.5 useable.

If you got the cash i'd say go straight 980 it's a pretty great card or maybe a fury no the x if you're gonna get an fury x you're better off getting a ti.

Nvm i don't think the 520watt psu will cover a 390. You're better of with the 970 in that case.

I don't think I can afford the 980, I'm still not sure difference in price between the 980 and 970 would be worth it for me. The difference in performance doesn't seem to be enough to justify such a big price jump. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes i was wondering about the r9 390 since it does have more memory, but it doesnt seem like most games rn require more than 4gb. But if they do in the future then this might mean it would actually be the better choice. Only problem is my psu. I'd probably have to get a cooler too.

From what I've gathered, the 390x doesn't seem to be that much better than the 390, not enough to justify an extra $100 or so. I could be wrong, haven't looked into it much.

 

[TTtheTremendous]

no the memory issues would apply to you. Just because a monitors 19 inches doesn't mean it uses less memory thats entirely dependant on the resolution you're running at. A 40 inch t.v. at 1080p at high will use the same v-ram as a 19 inch t.v. at 1080p at high. That said, personally if you're thinking future proof the 390 or if you can afford it the 390x, a great card that rivals a 980.

390 is a bit of resource hog as it uses more power ergo more heat, so possibly a 970 could o.c. better, but thats entirely subjective. The 390 does outperform a 970 in most games by a margin save nvidia optimized ones. Plus 8gb gddr5 v 3.5 useable.

If you got the cash i'd say go straight 980 it's a pretty great card or maybe a fury no the x if you're gonna get an fury x you're better off getting a ti.

Nvm i don't think the 520watt psu will cover a 390. You're better of with the 970 in that case.

& yeah it would be cutting it close, my current psu is 520 watts and this would bring it to 510.

 

[fudgecakes99]

I don't think I can afford the 980, I'm still not sure difference in price between the 980 and 970 would be worth it for me. The difference in performance doesn't seem to be enough to justify such a big price jump. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes i was wondering about the r9 390 since it does have more memory, but it doesnt seem like most games rn require more than 4gb. But if they do in the future then this might mean it would actually be the better choice. Only problem is my psu. I'd probably have to get a cooler too.

From what I've gathered, the 390x doesn't seem to be that much better than the 390, not enough to justify an extra $100 or so. I could be wrong, haven't looked into it much.

390x is substantially better then a 390, you can compare a 390x to a 980 in some applications it'll even match it. But if you're trying to a more dollars to dollars comparison i'd say the fury to 980.

Also i wouldn't go off of benchmark tests like that. Granted software benchmarks are important it's just you have to keep in mind their arbitrary 9.7k vs 8.6k how do you quantify that? It can push more numbers but if the gpu itself isn't built around a game or works well with a specific version of direct x then the entire benchmark is moot. Let alone the fact some benchmarks actually work better or worse with certain cards. As in their built around or better attuned to it. I'd look at fps benchmarks to get a general idea of what your performance is a few as, even then you can't trust just one.

Nvidia and Amd will most definitely give reviewers the "cream de la crop" of gpu's. Meaning their going to recieve the 1% super oc amazballs gpu. Joe blow isn't going to get that and thats most definitely not going to be an adequate representation of the card. So really take whatever you here with a grain of salt.

What do you mean get a cooler? For your cpu? Gpu's already come with coolers? Unless you're planning on doing some enthusiast level ocing setting up a custom water loop you don't need to tweak much to get a decent oc out of a gpu.

 

[TTtheTremendous]

I don't think I can afford the 980, I'm still not sure difference in price between the 980 and 970 would be worth it for me. The difference in performance doesn't seem to be enough to justify such a big price jump. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Yes i was wondering about the r9 390 since it does have more memory, but it doesnt seem like most games rn require more than 4gb. But if they do in the future then this might mean it would actually be the better choice. Only problem is my psu. I'd probably have to get a cooler too.

From what I've gathered, the 390x doesn't seem to be that much better than the 390, not enough to justify an extra $100 or so. I could be wrong, haven't looked into it much.

390x is substantially better then a 390, you can compare a 390x to a 980 in some applications it'll even match it. But if you're trying to a more dollars to dollars comparison i'd say the fury to 980.

Also i wouldn't go off of benchmark tests like that. Granted software benchmarks are important it's just you have to keep in mind their arbitrary 9.7k vs 8.6k how do you quantify that? It can push more numbers but if the gpu itself isn't built around a game or works well with a specific version of direct x then the entire benchmark is moot. Let alone the fact some benchmarks actually work better or worse with certain cards. As in their built around or better attuned to it. I'd look at fps benchmarks to get a general idea of what your performance is a few as, even then you can't trust just one.

Nvidia and Amd will most definitely give reviewers the "cream de la crop" of gpu's. Meaning their going to recieve the 1% super oc amazballs gpu. Joe blow isn't going to get that and thats most definitely not going to be an adequate representation of the card. So really take whatever you here with a grain of salt.

What do you mean get a cooler? For your cpu? Gpu's already come with coolers? Unless you're planning on doing some enthusiast level ocing setting up a custom water loop you don't need to tweak much to get a decent oc out of a gpu.

I've been using more than one benchmark site besides just that one, I just thought that one seemed the most "professional". I was under the impression that benchmarks are the general way of judging between gpu's. Any ideas how else I would be able to compare performances more accurately? (Sorry if this is a dumb question)

I'm talking about gpu cooling, I read that since the r9's require more power you should consider getting vga cooling?

On another note, I'm actually wondering now if maybe it'd be a better choice instead to get a $200ish gpu like the 280x or 290 and then upgrade in a year or two instead of trying to find one to use for 4+ years down the line lol.