PSU Enough Watts for GTX 970?

poisonchimes

Commendable
Apr 18, 2016
8
0
1,510
I am planning on upgrading my r7 370 to a gtx 970 will a COOLMAX ZX Series ZX-600 600W 80 plus certified be enough to support my rig?

PC Specs:
CPU- i7 870 @ 2.93GHz
GPU- GTX 970
PSU- COOLMAX ZX Series ZX-600 600W 80 plus certified
RAM- 16 GB DDR3
MB- ASUS P7P55D‑E LX
 
Solution
Yes.

I believe the worst-case for the GTX970 (peak) for overclocked cards is a little over 200W.

Your system without GPU is roughly 200W (stock settings) if we add in a few fans etc:
http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-on-windows/accessories/connect-xbox-one-controller-to-pc

So let's call that about 67% load approximately (400W/600W) since the 12V rail is often well over 90% of the rating.

So...

If you haven't overclocked the i7-870 you may wish to consider it. You'd want a suitable CPU cooler like the Cryorig H7 or better. Your mobo does support overclocking.

Based on my link referring to power of the i7-870 during OC, I wouldn't go above 4GHz@1.35V. That appears to draw about 274W (add 200W and we're pushing 500W).

*It's...
Yes.

I believe the worst-case for the GTX970 (peak) for overclocked cards is a little over 200W.

Your system without GPU is roughly 200W (stock settings) if we add in a few fans etc:
http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-on-windows/accessories/connect-xbox-one-controller-to-pc

So let's call that about 67% load approximately (400W/600W) since the 12V rail is often well over 90% of the rating.

So...

If you haven't overclocked the i7-870 you may wish to consider it. You'd want a suitable CPU cooler like the Cryorig H7 or better. Your mobo does support overclocking.

Based on my link referring to power of the i7-870 during OC, I wouldn't go above 4GHz@1.35V. That appears to draw about 274W (add 200W and we're pushing 500W).

*It's possible I made a mistake somewhere, but unless you're overclocking the CPU there's no reason to verify anything like whether it's wall power vs power on PSU side. I think my numbers are accurate.

Summary:
- yep
- OC your CPU?
 
Solution
**Got a bit long. Sorry. Maybe this is useful though**

(OC, Adaptive VSYNC... )

Just FYI, but a modern i5/i7 CPU can get over 40% higher FPS in some games (varies a lot), thus OC will benefit some games quite a bit.

Max Turbo is 3.6GHz though a heavily loaded game may Turbo to closer to 3.3GHz (Turbo amount varies by CPU load).

If you could get to 4GHz, full load, then that's about 21% overclock. In some games you may see almost a 20% FPS increase.

(Exact tips are beyond my scope here as it's been too long, but remember my estimate on power draw. 4GHz at 1.35V. The voltage affects power draw most so ideally keep that as low as possible to remain stable when trying to get frequency as high as possible.)

Your CPU is a bit slower at stock than an FX-4300. We'll use that CPU to compare to modern benchmarks as it's still used:

Example: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_6700k_processor_review_desktop_skylake,16.html

From experience I can tell you that you'd be roughly 90% of the FX-8370 here at stock. It's important to note that 720p gets severely CPU bottlenecked, however 1080p is far less so. It's not quite as bad as it might seem.

Thus, compared for this game only to an i7-4790K you'd get about 75% of the FPS.

*Further, for this game 75% of 100FPS is still 75FPS so it's still very playable (GTX780Ti). I can however find games that drop below 60FPS but this is just an EXAMPLE.

Tomb Raider:
The first one in the reboot (2013?) would have little to no CPU bottleneck. Compare the i7-920->
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html

SKYRIM would definitely benefit from a CPU overclock. I think the FX-4300 (which is maybe 10% roughly faster) struggled to get 60FPS when the best CPU's where closer to 90FPS.

Other:
I use ADAPTIVE VSYNC at times. Example:
a) Start FRAPS or turn on FPS monitor in Steam
b) Start game, VSYNC to OFF (may have to force off in INI or NVidia CP)
c) start game, and optimize settings so you drop below 60FPS (for 60Hz monitor) roughly 10% of the time or less
d) Force on Adaptive VSYNC (NCP-> manage 3D settings-> add game-> adaptive vsync.. save)
e) play game, verify working (should cap FPS, but when dropping below should see some screen tearing)
f) if screen tear is too frequent, drop a few graphics settings such as 8xMSAA to 4xMSAA to raise FPS

144Hz monitor?
Can force the "HALF" method of Adaptive VSYNC instead. Very handy. Caps to 72FPS.

GSYNC monitor?
I highly doubt you have one, but it's worth considering in the future though likely you'd upgrade your system before that. Pretty expensive now, but 1440p, 144Hz, IPS is about the best you can get.

Asynchronous means the monitor draws the next frame as it gets it which solves a lot of problems. No screen tear, worrying about FPS dropping below target with VSYNC ON etc.

DX12 gaming:
Going forward we'll see more games do a better job of utilizing your 4C/8T CPU. We may see many games with minimal to no CPU bottleneck for your rig but it's hard to say for sure. A game may use say 90% of your CPU but may also decide to use that processing power for better AI, CPU Physics etc.

DX12 being present in the system does not affect any game made that doesn't support DX12, so current games won't run better. You probably know that.

Summary:
- OC can help by probably up to 20% in some games
- Adaptive VSYNC is pretty useful at times
- GSync, DX12 etc
 
One last thing:

*I suggest you WAIT for one of the new video cards. Reasons why:

NVidia:
a) 3.5/4GB per GPU is okay, but I recommend at least 6GB to future proof now at this perf level. Some games already benefit such as GTAV, some games with mods etc.

b) ASync Compute - NVidia will lose some performance in future DX12 games for sure, but it's difficult to say how much TYPICALLY. It may be 5% on average, or 20%. Until DX12 drivers mature and we have 10+ games it's not fair to throw around numbers.

More info: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/213519-asynchronous-shading-amd-nvidia-and-dx12-what-we-know-so-far

AMD:
a) 8GB cards available.

b) all recent support ASync Compute,

c) generate a lot of HEAT versus NVidia which may be a problem for many people. It's too much in my room for sure. New cards are estimated to consume approx 50% of the power (i.e. 150W vs 300W).

d) Lack of PhysX, Gameworks features.

c) AMD has upped their driver support recently, but adding or at least sustaining drivers and other software may be problematic long-term considering their financial situation.

Summary:
We don't have exact release dates, pricing, or performance, but some reliable info suggests you MAY see something like this:

$400 NVidia Pascal "1070" with:
a) GTX980 or slightly better perf (for DX11, higher in DX12 vs GTX980 as it should have ASync Compute)
b) 8GB VRAM
c) 70% power consumption? (probably not half as NVidia already optimized the 28nm process vs AMD so it's got less room to improve)

AMD vs NVidia next-gen:
I suspect pricing will be SIMILAR for two cards at the same performance level. Unless AMD drops pricing (cost per FPS), I couldn't think of a good reason to recommend AMD other than the added cost currently for a GSYNC monitor. NVidia simply has more resources to put into timely driver updates, software etc.