Is my system ready for a Titan X

Negativelead

Reputable
Dec 5, 2014
167
0
4,690
Thank You in advance for reviewing my post. I know there is a lot of activity on the board right now.

Just read an article about the Titan X and I think it may be the card I;m looking for.

Here is my system (for the most part)
MOBO-ASUS A97 R2.0
GPU- Sapphire R9 280x 3GB
AMD FX 8350 Pile Driver (Water Cooled by Corsair)
Corsair CX750 PS

I want to make sure I'm read for the next gen games for at least two years. Should I wait for the Pascal or Greenland architecture? I can't find release dates for either, so that's why I can't decide to get the Titan X or to wait.
 
Getting a titan x just for gaming is a waste go with a 980 ti if you have to over spend on a beefy graphics card. But no matter what game you're talking about the 8350 will bottleneck a gpu that powerful so you'll be stuck with 45 fps and lower in next gen games to come unless you upgrade to Intel.
 



It was the best CPU I could buy. I agree with you on the 980 ti after reading some more on it, but I've also read that today's games are coded putting the load almost exclusively on the GPU.

So would getting a R9 290x be better with my CPU? There is something outside the scope of my current knowledge. The 8350 has 8 cores at 4.7 GH'z. Why is it such an inferior CPU. I get tired of having to rebuild my entire system every time I want to make an upgrade. I would have to get a new MOBO to put an Intel chip in.

I'm probably going to end up scraping this. I just wanted to get a better GPU for 300$ after selling my old one. Now I need a new MOBO, a new CPU, and New Card? oh, and a new PSU.
 


I respect your opinion, but I think claiming that the 8350 will only puch 45 FPS is a bit limiting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdqsHOMIAQ

I've seen plenty of bench marks out there that show it pushing 100 FPS. Yes, the i5 is better for gaming. But the 8350 holds its own.
 
the reason its so limiting is its IPC and internal cache there is alot more to a processor then frequency. A cpus frequency doesnt depict how many instruction per clock its processing or how fast its internal cache rates our at processing info. Its over 50% higher ipc with current gen Intel cpu's which arent very expensive. Id take a current gen i5 locked at 2.5ghz even over an 8350 at 4.7ghz.
 


Thank You for explaining that. It helps. I've ordered a 390x, I will add to the overflowing argument on this issue after I get the card. Everyone seems to be arguing about this. The on thing they can all seem to agree on is that the i5 out performs the 8350 (for now). But the fact that it's so hotly debated makes me ask how significant the difference between the two can really be.

I'll repost the overall Game experience after I get the card. God I can already see myself building a new PC piece by piece for the the 8 fps. I should just buy a console.
 


For the price of a 390x over the 280x you have you could have bought a very good Intel CPU and motherboard. I would have upgraded the CPU/Mobo and kept the 280x.
 


Ya. But...........Now I have a 390x.

 
The current gen i5 is way way far beyond what an 8350 can do, the debate on the 8350 coming close to an 8350 was when we were on sandy bridge i5's like the i5 2500k. Which an overclocked 2500k can still out preform an 8350.
 


I'll probably end up getting an Intel board and CPU soon. It kind of suck I wasted the money I did building around the AMD board that came in the pre-built HP Desktop. But I'v got the R9 390x and until I get my new PSU I'm reluctant to post the benchmarks. But maxing out all the games and I've yet to see any screen tear.

What would be some visual evidence of a bottle necked GPU?

 


That could be hard to tell, but if you could monitor your CPU and GPU at the same time, you would be able to see whether or not your CPU is under 100 % load, if it is, the CPU can't feed the GPU with any more data, and thus lowering the GPU-load% and the fps will drop, until the CPU can keep up again, thats what I think anyway.