New GPU ( GTX 980 or 970)

[yuxyux7]

i have a GTX 750 TI factory overclocked in my pc at the moment but im looking to upgrade to a GTX 970 or 980 which has a bit more power. i wanted to know if there will be any bottlenecks or not. My current pc specs are:
AMD FX 8350
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Gigabyte Geforce GTX 750 TI
Corsair CX500M
Team Elite 4GB
WD 1TB black (Upgrading with 120GB SSD as well)
CIT Neptune case (Upgrading to corsair 760T)
True Spirit 120M BW (Upgrading to coolermaster nepton 240m)

 

[mapesdhs]

Perhaps to some extent, given the 8350's lower IPC, but with it overclocked it ought to be ok.

Is it a 970 or 980 you're considering? Either would be a major upgrade (I have a 750 Ti and a 980,
run lots of benchmarks on both, huge difference as one might imagine).

Does depend on the task though. Some games & other tasks don't need much CPU power to run quite well.

Ian.

 

[yuxyux7]

Perhaps to some extent, given the 8350's lower IPC, but with it overclocked it ought to be ok.

Is it a 970 or 980 you're considering? Either would be a major upgrade (I have a 750 Ti and a 980,
run lots of benchmarks on both, huge difference as one might imagine).

Does depend on the task though. Some games & other tasks don't need much CPU power to run quite well.

Ian.

im open to suggestions so whichever one you think will work best with the components i already have. im looking to do a lot of gaming such as bf4 and just general use.

(i just realized i put 980 in the title but 970 in the actual thread.... derp)

 

[mapesdhs]

The 980 is quite a lot quicker than the 970, but it does carry a price premium. Hard to say though
how they might differ wrt what extent the 8350 could or would hold them back. I've been doing most of
my testing with fast CPUs to remove the CPU from the issue as much as possible, though I have been
testing with lesser CPUs when I can, and I will test with a Ph2 1090T when I can find the time (not yet
though). Trouble is, normal downloadable benchmarks do tend to gloss over CPU-related issues, not least
because where it matters the most (eg. online gaming, MMOs, real life setups where tasks like antivirus
checks might be running at the same time as a game) is exactly when it's the hardest to construct a
repeatable test. For pure GPU synthetics though (ie. CPU power not really a factor), there's some
good data on this thread (just be sure to check posts that have followed the test rules correctly,
quite a few users get it wrong):

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-15

My GTX 980 scores 1800 (avg. 71.5fps), while someone else submitted a GTX 970 with a score of 1415 (avg. 56.2 fps), ie.:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-13#post-3196466
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-14#post-3196984

(though someone else submitted a better 970 result, so the above card might be a lesser or stock speed model)

Have to say though, looking at your spec, I think you'd be better off getting a 970 and moving the OS
& installed games to an SSD. I could never go back to using rust spinners (mechanical HDDs I mean),
the difference is just too painful, from startup, app/game loading, etc. to general responsiveness and
the ability to handle background tasks without stalling the system. Plus, in game stuttering is greatly
reduced in relevant titles. These days, good models in the 256GB range are well priced, and/or there
are plenty of decent used items available (lots of 840/840 EVO, etc., on eBay, or indeed even the older
Samsung 830 is still a nice drive).

Would you be stretching your budget by getting a 980? Or is it well within your means? If the latter,
then heck, get a 980 and an SSD upgrade, I would. 8)

Note that for easier backups, etc., I split my gaming PC setup so that the OS is on a 128GB SSD while
all games are installed to a separate 256GB SSD (best of both worlds). At the time (few years ago)
the quickest model at a decent price was the OCZ Vertex 4, but these days I'd get a Samsung 840 Pro,
850 Pro, or 840 EVO if cost was a factor. Or I'd hunt for decent used models, including the OCZ Vector.

An SSD would certainly give a nice boost for general system usage aswell.

Ian.

 

[yuxyux7]

The 980 is quite a lot quicker than the 970, but it does carry a price premium. Hard to say though
how they might differ wrt what extent the 8350 could or would hold them back. I've been doing most of
my testing with fast CPUs to remove the CPU from the issue as much as possible, though I have been
testing with lesser CPUs when I can, and I will test with a Ph2 1090T when I can find the time (not yet
though). Trouble is, normal downloadable benchmarks do tend to gloss over CPU-related issues, not least
because where it matters the most (eg. online gaming, MMOs, real life setups where tasks like antivirus
checks might be running at the same time as a game) is exactly when it's the hardest to construct a
repeatable test. For pure GPU synthetics though (ie. CPU power not really a factor), there's some
good data on this thread (just be sure to check posts that have followed the test rules correctly,
quite a few users get it wrong):

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-15

My GTX 980 scores 1800 (avg. 71.5fps), while someone else submitted a GTX 970 with a score of 1415 (avg. 56.2 fps), ie.:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-13#post-3196466
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-14#post-3196984

(though someone else submitted a better 970 result, so the above card might be a lesser or stock speed model)

Have to say though, looking at your spec, I think you'd be better off getting a 970 and moving the OS
& installed games to an SSD. I could never go back to using rust spinners (mechanical HDDs I mean),
the difference is just too painful, from startup, app/game loading, etc. to general responsiveness and
the ability to handle background tasks without stalling the system. Plus, in game stuttering is greatly
reduced in relevant titles. These days, good models in the 256GB range are well priced, and/or there
are plenty of decent used items available (lots of 840/840 EVO, etc., on eBay, or indeed even the older
Samsung 830 is still a nice drive).

Would you be stretching your budget by getting a 980? Or is it well within your means? If the latter,
then heck, get a 980 and an SSD upgrade, I would. 8)

Note that for easier backups, etc., I split my gaming PC setup so that the OS is on a 128GB SSD while
all games are installed to a separate 256GB SSD (best of both worlds). At the time (few years ago)
the quickest model at a decent price was the OCZ Vertex 4, but these days I'd get a Samsung 840 Pro,
850 Pro, or 840 EVO if cost was a factor. Or I'd hunt for decent used models, including the OCZ Vector.

An SSD would certainly give a nice boost for general system usage aswell.

Ian.

thanks i will look into getting a 980, i have searched for hours and there are people that have paired the 980 with the FX-8350 and it works fine with the ram in dual channel mode which is an easy upgrade because my friend has some spare corsair vengeance ram that i can have. but now i have walked into another problem... my psu is only 500w, and when i do a watt calculator online it gets to around 440w with the 980. but obviously you need some headroom with a psu and i was wondering if 60w is enough?
thanks

 

[mapesdhs]

I certainly wouldn't use a PSU with that low a rating. In general I like to have some decent headroom with
my PSU, and I stick to good brands, so I keep using Thermaltake Toughpower units, minimum 750W,
though of course there are numerous other quality makes. Especially relevant for power hungry CPUs
like the 8350, and doubly so if one ever intends to employ a 2nd GPU for SLI. Good PSU headroom means
better stability, as does a quality model.

Btw, I've won a bunch of top-end Thermaltake Toughpower units off eBay in recent months,
saved almost $2000 vs. buying new. 8) Most were either new or barely used, sold via
normal auction; a couple were BIN, but still half normal price.

Ian.