In the maket for a price/performance card

[Habedrabbo]

Specs
FX8350 @ 4.0GHz
Sapphire R9 280 non-oc
990FXA-UD3 rev 4
1080p @60Hz
Rosewill Stallion series 700W

Been looking at GPU's lately and have found that the new R9 3xx series are "rebranded" cards and perform significantly less than a GTX 970 or above. But at the same time a 290x can perform on par or better in some instances than the 970. So; given my resolution and refresh rate, what would be the "smarter" price/performance upgrade? Or is there nothing in the market right now really with a significant performance increase?

 

[Tolik_]

970 or 290x are both very good choices. One thing that 970 has over 290x is power consumption. On another hand amd cpu's known to work better with amd gpus

 

[Habedrabbo]

Power consumption is not a concern of mine. Since my desktop will accumulate 18-24 hours of use during a 7 day period, often less. Both cards can't be that great, like I said price/performance. I'm not expecting some drastic increase. But I'm sure one card has more cons than the other, out weighing the decision. Could you elaborate?

 

[Tolik_]

Well it comes down to the preference. Nvidia updates its drivers more often and while amd has better software that comes with it(in my opinion). On most games benchmark wise 970 win by about 3 fps, but does it really worth paying more for it. Just go with your heart both cards are amazing. I would have went for 290x if I was you

 

[geofelt]

What games to you play?
Some are cpu limited, some are graphics limited.

Strategy, sims, and mmo games tend to be cpu limited and dependent on fast cores.
The FX series is not great there.

Fast action shooters tend to be limited more by graphics.

------------------------------------------------------------
To help clarify your CPU/GPU options, run these two tests:

a) Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

b) Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
Go to control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state/
This will simulate what a lack of cpu power will do.
Conversely what a 30% improvement in core speed might do.

You should also experiment with removing one core. You can do this in the windows msconfig boot advanced options option. set the number of processors to less than you have.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many cores.

If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.

It is possible that both tests are positive, indicating that you have a well balanced system, and both cpu and gpu need to be upgraded to get better gaming FPS.
-------------------------------------------------------------

If you decide graphics is most important, then make it a big jump or you may be disappointed.
GTX970, 290x, 390x are all in a similar price performance tier and would normally be fine for 1080P.
It is not that big a jump in capability, so a GTX980 or R9 fury might be better.

If you decide cpu is the limiter, you are at a dead end with the FX line, and Intel of some flavor will be needed for a cpu upgrade.

 

[k1114]

Show me where amd cpus work better on amd gpus.

 

[Habedrabbo]

Yes, I am aware of games benefitting performance from either GPU or CPU. I understand the limitations of my CPU, especially since it's not oc'ed. With that said, I play the games my system gets its best performance, GPU intensive games. I know I need to upgrade my socket type to the LGA1150 but I have an OEM os.

So, with the amount of money I'll have to put down for a new CPU and mobo plus another os version, I might as well go big with the GPU. Do you agree?

 

[geofelt]

Yes, I am aware of games benefitting performance from either GPU or CPU. I understand the limitations of my CPU, especially since it's not oc'ed. With that said, I play the games my system gets its best performance, GPU intensive games. I know I need to upgrade my socket type to the LGA1150 but I have an OEM os.

So, with the amount of money I'll have to put down for a new CPU and mobo plus another os version, I might as well go big with the GPU. Do you agree?

It is not clear to me where your limitation is.
I do not agree with updating a non critical component is a good idea.

And... in theory, a oem windows license is tied to the motherboard.
But, in practice, Microsoft seems to be very lenient in allowing you to use a replacement motherboard.
The key question to answer during activation is that the os is not used on any other pc.

If you anticipate going to a 1440P or 4k monitor, then a strong update to a GTX980ti card is a good idea.

If cpu power is your limitation, first buy a decent cpu cooler and overclock your cpu. Your motherboard is a good one and will support overclocking.

 

[Habedrabbo]

My limitation in some instances is my CPU, obviously. But the GPU can also be a hindrance. I have even gone to checking those trouble shooting methods you suggested. With 4 cores at 100%, all is fine and normal, slight stutter. With 4 cores and 70%, significant drop in performance. Figured I try and imitate an increase I would get from the i5 series.
Down grading the eye candy; I already know, I get an increase. This is what I am trying to say, my system is balanced the way I use it. Stressing it's limits will obviously give a negative outcome. But back to what I was saying about price for upgrade, CPU/mobo or GPU which seems logical? Which instance could give a substantial increase in performance? I'm not so tech savvy that I know the percentage of potential performance increase.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/hQzvNG

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/fB6y23

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/LZVRnQ

 

[geofelt]

I think you are relatively well balanced.

From a convenience point of view, a graphics upgrade is simpler.
Sell your old 280 and replace it with a new, better card.
Tom's hierarchy chart shows the r9-290x and the GTC970 as only two tiers higher. You run the risk of being disappointed because of the relatively small increase. See if you can't hold out for a GTX980 or R9 fury upgrade.

On the cpu side, the easy thing to do is to overclock a bit. 10% should not be a problem.
With Skylake now available, there is absolutely no question in my mind that a new build should be Skylake.
a. Prices for cpu, z170 motherboard and ddr4 ram are almost precisely the same.
b. 6600K has an estimated 5-10% performance improvement per clock over haswell.
c. 14nm runs cooler, you get a decent overclock without the need for exotic cooling.
d. The Z170 chipset permits the use of much faster ssd devices on the horizon. Samsung 950 pro for example:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd950pro/overview.html

 

[Habedrabbo]

I think you are relatively well balanced.

From a convenience point of view, a graphics upgrade is simpler.
Sell your old 280 and replace it with a new, better card.
Tom's hierarchy chart shows the r9-290x and the GTC970 as only two tiers higher. You run the risk of being disappointed because of the relatively small increase. See if you can't hold out for a GTX980 or R9 fury upgrade.

On the cpu side, the easy thing to do is to overclock a bit. 10% should not be a problem.
With Skylake now available, there is absolutely no question in my mind that a new build should be Skylake.
a. Prices for cpu, z170 motherboard and ddr4 ram are almost precisely the same.
b. 6600K has an estimated 5-10% performance improvement per clock over haswell.
c. 14nm runs cooler, you get a decent overclock without the need for exotic cooling.
d. The Z170 chipset permits the use of much faster ssd devices on the horizon. Samsung 950 pro for example:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd950pro/overview.html

Well put, I guess I'll be holding out or looking at a new mobo/cpu. Also, I can't get any kind of stable oc on this 8350. I rise the frequency up by 0.1GHz and my computer can't function correctly(sometimes I can't even get it to turn back on, just the POST in a loop). Yes, I disable the turbo features and the power saving options. There's got to be something with the mobo/cpu or I'm not doing something right, but from what I've read from threads on here I'm following the instructions completely.
I'll check out the new Skylake versions, first time I'm hearing about them. Although, I'm not see where the price comparison is. Are you looking at the USD currency?

 

[geofelt]

Yes, I look at US prices.
If one goes for basic motherboards, stock ram and modest coolers, the price premium is modest over lga1150.
And... the 5-10% improvement in cpu efficiency per clock and Z170 benefits you get what you pay for.

 

[Habedrabbo]

I've decided to make the transition to the intel side of things. But I will not be buying into the Skylake series of i5's. Only because they don't have a substantial performance increase from the 4690k and the 4590 is only 5% lower performance rating than the 4690 and cheaper, I'm also not much of an oc'er. But the Fx8350; according to cpuboss and some other benchmarking sites, it is comparable in performance to the 4590. The 4590, slightly better in most benchmarks. But you ask anyone with experience with these cpu's, they will recommend the 4590 as the undeniable winner. Thoughts?

 

[geofelt]

I would have no problem with a i5-4590 as a cpu upgrade for gaming.
Particularly if you are not comfortable overclocking.

Your FX-8350 has a passmark rating total of 8973 which is very good, but the single thread rating is only 1506.
The i5-4590 has a lesser total rating of 7223, but a single thread rating of 2121.

Most games can make use of only 2-3 cores so the single thread rating prevails for gamers.

 

[Habedrabbo]

I think I've made my choice, thank you geofelt for your help.