Want to get most out of gtx 970, recommendations needed

[MadMorigan]

I notice that my fps is about 20-30fps lower on most game benchmarks than other people's rigs w/gtx970. I am getting very good fps on most games but I feel like this gpu is being bottlenecked by the cpu and/or mobo. I do only light overclocking on gpu for some of the more intense games.

Here are my complete specs on pc:
Windows 8.1
i5-3350p @ 3.1 ghz
msi gaming gtx 970
12 gb ddr3 @1600mhz (3x4gb)
1 tb hdd (2 x 500gb hdd @ 7200rpm) will upgrade to include SSD eventually
500w evga psu (will upgrade this eventually to 750w)
some lenovo mobo I got from lenovo k430 that has two pci express slots x16
Antec 1100 V2 case
1080p monitor 60hz refresh, 3ms response Dell

Anyway, my budget is 350-400, please help me find that bottleneck
thx guys!

 

[Cons29]

here's one way. install msiafterburner and hwinfo64, configure to display utilization (gpu cpu), temperature, etc in the OSD
play your games, and you should see if the cpu is at 95-100% while the gpu utilization is too low, if that is the case then your cpu is really the bottleneck

 

[synphul]

Do the benchmarks you're comparing your system to list their processor? The 4690k is a little faster and can be easily oc'd to 4.4-4.6ghz which is a decent amount beyond 3.1ghz but I'm not sure that would translate to 20-30fps difference. It would depend on the game as well, not all games respond the same. Some are more cpu bound others are more gpu bound.

 

[Pr3di]

You might have this issues because most people have stronger CPU`s.
Also, please check if your PCIe slots on your mobo are PCIe 2.0 or 3.0
If you have the 2.0, this will also cut away some fps from you.
The minimum recommended PSU is 550W, but I don`t think that this is a drawback.
The best improvement you could make is to get a new CPU and new Mobo, but I`m not sure if this action is resonable at this point.

As already mentioned, using MSI Afterburner you can find your bottleneck. If the CPU usage is close to 100%, and the GPU is lower, then the CPU is a bottleneck.
Here`s a guide on how to setup the MSI Afterburner:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXCbKOuq8N0

As for the upgrade, there are a lot of mobos to choose from, but this is something I would recommend:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-UD3H-BK ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($156.13 @ Newegg)
Total: $376.12
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-07 02:44 EST-0500

 

[MadMorigan]

synphul and cons:GPU usage averaged @ 95% and CPU usage averaged @70%...is this good? I tried it on a shadow of mordor benchmark and Pr3di mobo does have two 3.0 pci express x 16. Lemme know what you guys think.

The worst benchmark i've seen when comparing to other systems w/970s was tomb raider @ 1920 x 1200 settings. I averaged 42fps and they got...83fps lol seen here using exact same 970 i have: http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6700/msi-geforce-gtx-970-4gb-twin-frozr-v-gaming-oc-video-card-review/index10.html

 

[Pr3di]

Based on GPU and CPU usage, you don`t seem to have a botleneck from the CPU.
Regarding the benchmark on tomb raider, do you know the exact settings they used for this test?

If you are having in all games higher usage on the GPU rather than the CPU, thwn you don`t have a bottleneck, and there`s no point to upgrade.

I`m thinking that you might use some different settings from the ones used in the benchmarks.
Check for some benchmarking where they have all the settings they use detailed, so that you can use the exact same settings and afterwards compare.

Edit: What exact model of the GTX 970 you have? I`m also planning to get one this weak, and I`ll head towards the Gigabyte 970 Gaming G1.

 

[Cons29]

gigabyte seems to be the favorite brand for 970's. personally id get that OR inno3d ichill, so happy with my current ichill, very very good temps (my 670 runs at 49-50 playing bf4)

 

[MadMorigan]

I got the msi gaming gtx 970 that is being compared in the review that I linked earlier...they are using a $1000 CPU though so I can see them squeezing 10-20 more frames but 40 fps more is just insane.

Gigabyte G1 is supposed to be great and so was mine. I heard to stay away from EVGA's line of 970s and Asus as well for different reasons.

 

[Pr3di]

Msi is also a great card, and still on my list.
Since you have no bottleneck and all your driver's are updated, I do believe that it's the settings that you use that are giving you the difference in performance.

 

[Gronkarx]

I have excactly same setup, 970 g1 gaming+ i5 3350p and i didnt see any preformance issues, on heavy GPU hungry games like witcher 3 i played almoust maxed out (even with hairworks fully ON), on side note CPU heavy games will run weaker as 3.1 and 3.3 turbo is not enough to play smooth on 30+ fps(talking about mmos as they are moslty poor cpu heavy optimized like gw2) still in gw2 where there is 150 ppl in one place doing tons of shit it works decent.
So overall this is rly good setup for now, in future you can always upgreade your MB+CPU to somethink like 4690k as you can easily clock it to 4.5 with some normal cooler like noctua scyte or w/e. Anyway this beast setup can run mostly all games maxed out and will be in future(talking about 1080p ofc).
Hope i helped cheers

 

[MadMorigan]

i guess i shoulda updated lol. It turned out I was using Tressfx for tombraider, after that i got about the same for that benchmark.

I actually did get a really good mobo+ram+cpu combo deal awhile back and now am sporting a i5 4690k @4.5 gz w/msi gd-65 mobo