Will the GTX 1080ti be compatible with my system power supply?

[kully00000]

I want to know if I will need to replace my power supply unit with a more powerful one.

My system specs are as follow;

CPU: AMD FX 8350 Black Edition

CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS5X Performa

Motherboard: Gigabyte 970A-DS3P

Memory: 16GB Corsair 1600mhz Vengeance (2x8GB)

Hard Drive: 500GB S-ATAIII 6.0Gb/s

Optical Drive: 22x DVD±RW DL S-ATA

Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GT 770 4GB

Sound card: Onboard 7.1 Audio

Case: Zalman Z3 Plus

PSU: Corsair 650VS


According to PCpartpicker my system will only consume 493 WATTS but on dinoPC I can't select anything under 750 WATTS.
PCspecialist claims that I will only need 545 WATTS including the 20% allowance.
I dont want to take any risks.
Thank you!

 

[sizzling]

Regardless of wattage the VS range are poor quality, I wouldn't use one in any gaming pc let alone one with a top of the range gpu.

What resolution and Hz will you be gaming at? Your cpu is really weak to pair with a 1080Ti? Might be ok for 4k 60Hz but not much else.

 

[kully00000]

Regardless of wattage the VS range are poor quality, I wouldn't use one in any gaming pc let alone one with a top of the range gpu.

What resolution and Hz will you be gaming at? Your cpu is really weak to pair with a 1080Ti? Might be ok for 4k 60Hz but not much else.

My screen res is 1080 x 1920 and the Hertz are 60. Also, I am only going to be using this system until mid September ( so two and a half months) before I upgrade everything else. And I only want the 1080TI for it's Cuda cores.

Do you think I should wait until mid September to get the GPU?
And thanks for the response.

 

[Bo Lee]

The wattage calculator I used shows a bit over 650 watts, so you are going to be pushing it with that PSU. And your CPU is fine. Every next gen game I have checked on the 8350 is within the recommended CPU range. Not minimum, but recommended. But to really get what you want out of it and the GPU, you are probably going to need to upgrade your PSU to 700 or 750 watts. Just be mindful, you are going to generate some heat, so that is something you might have to look at also.

 

[sizzling]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

 

[Bo Lee]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

Incorrect! Fact is, current games the FX8350 outperform the I3 by a large margin. Current games are designed to finally take advantage of the multicolores. Whicu is why Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 4 both show the FX8350 meeting recommended system requirements (not minimum, but recommended) and the I3 barely making minimum. It takes am I7 to make the recommended for ME:A. Seems to me that the problem with the FX series was that they came out with an idea ahead of its time with software not being able to take advantage of the technology. Speaking of benchmarks....I will just leave this link right here. Seems they think the FX8350 performs "massively better" on current games and less likely to bottleneck on high end GPUs. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1879&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-4330-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350

 

[sizzling]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

Incorrect! Fact is, current games the FX8350 outperform the I3 by a large margin. Current games are designed to finally take advantage of the multicolores. Whicu is why Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 4 both show the FX8350 meeting recommended system requirements (not minimum, but recommended) and the I3 barely making minimum. It takes am I7 to make the recommended for ME:A. Seems to me that the problem with the FX series was that they came out with an idea ahead of its time with software not being able to take advantage of the technology. Speaking of benchmarks....I will just leave this link right here. Seems they think the FX8350 performs "massively better" on current games and less likely to bottleneck on high end GPUs. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1879&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-4330-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350

Actually I am correct. Firstly at least pick a modern i3 and not an old Haswell one, secondly game-debate is largely accepted as inaccurate. If you take the time to read reviews and benchmarks you will see I am correct.

Lets start with BF1 benchmarks. Now this should be a good game for the FX8xxx series as it can utilise all 8 threads, however even the higher clocked FX8370 falls behind a modern i3 in both DX11 & DX12

Taken from http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2

Now Fallout 4 and I will use a different review source

Taken from https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Now AOS, another game that does well with more threads

https://hardforum.com/threads/dx12-gpu-and-cpu-performance-tested-ashes-of-the-singularity-benchmark.1872730/

 

[Bo Lee]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

Incorrect! Fact is, current games the FX8350 outperform the I3 by a large margin. Current games are designed to finally take advantage of the multicolores. Whicu is why Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 4 both show the FX8350 meeting recommended system requirements (not minimum, but recommended) and the I3 barely making minimum. It takes am I7 to make the recommended for ME:A. Seems to me that the problem with the FX series was that they came out with an idea ahead of its time with software not being able to take advantage of the technology. Speaking of benchmarks....I will just leave this link right here. Seems they think the FX8350 performs "massively better" on current games and less likely to bottleneck on high end GPUs. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1879&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-4330-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350

Actually I am correct. Firstly at least pick a modern i3 and not an old Haswell one, secondly game-debate is largely accepted as inaccurate. If you take the time to read reviews and benchmarks you will see I am correct.

Lets start with BF1 benchmarks. Now this should be a good game for the FX8xxx series as it can utilise all 8 threads, however even the higher clocked FX8370 falls behind a modern i3 in both DX11 & DX12

Taken from http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2

Now Fallout 4 and I will use a different review source

Taken from https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Now AOS, another game that does well with more threads

https://hardforum.com/threads/dx12-gpu-and-cpu-performance-tested-ashes-of-the-singularity-benchmark.1872730/

Well, according to your link, both an i3-430 and i3-6100 gives better frames in Fallout 4. I find this laughable considering neither one of those processors are rated as recommended CPUs for that game where the FX-8350 is. This is using two of the I3's you had listed. Go figure. I guess the makers of the games don't know what it takes to run them, LOL

http://

http://

http://

Hmmmm....which one of the three met recommended requirements? The I3-4650, the I3-6100 or the FX-8350? Yeah, it was only the latter of those three.

OP....your processor is fine. I can tell you from experience. It is the processor I am using and I can run Witcher 3, FO4, ME:A all on ultra setting at high resolution with no problems.

 

[sizzling]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

Incorrect! Fact is, current games the FX8350 outperform the I3 by a large margin. Current games are designed to finally take advantage of the multicolores. Whicu is why Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 4 both show the FX8350 meeting recommended system requirements (not minimum, but recommended) and the I3 barely making minimum. It takes am I7 to make the recommended for ME:A. Seems to me that the problem with the FX series was that they came out with an idea ahead of its time with software not being able to take advantage of the technology. Speaking of benchmarks....I will just leave this link right here. Seems they think the FX8350 performs "massively better" on current games and less likely to bottleneck on high end GPUs. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1879&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-4330-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350

Actually I am correct. Firstly at least pick a modern i3 and not an old Haswell one, secondly game-debate is largely accepted as inaccurate. If you take the time to read reviews and benchmarks you will see I am correct.

Lets start with BF1 benchmarks. Now this should be a good game for the FX8xxx series as it can utilise all 8 threads, however even the higher clocked FX8370 falls behind a modern i3 in both DX11 & DX12

Taken from http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2

Now Fallout 4 and I will use a different review source

Taken from https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Now AOS, another game that does well with more threads

https://hardforum.com/threads/dx12-gpu-and-cpu-performance-tested-ashes-of-the-singularity-benchmark.1872730/

Well, according to your link, both an i3-430 and i3-6100 gives better frames in Fallout 4. I find this laughable considering neither one of those processors are rated as recommended CPUs for that game where the FX-8350 is. This is using two of the I3's you had listed. Go figure. I guess the makers of the games don't know what it takes to run them, LOL

http://

http://

http://

Hmmmm....which one of the three met recommended requirements? The I3-4650, the I3-6100 or the FX-8350? Yeah, it was only the latter of those three.

OP....your processor is fine. I can tell you from experience. It is the processor I am using and I can run Witcher 3, FO4, ME:A all on ultra setting at high resolution with no problems.

Ok complete denial of independent reviews. The OP has a choice, he can read the independent reviews I have provided and any others he may find which I'm confident will support my point of view or can take your word that pairing a 1080Ti with a FX8350 is going to be ok in all scenarios. As I originally said its ok for 60Hz gaming which with a 1080Ti means 4k, but an FX will bottleneck heavily at 1080p/1440p when aiming for high fps.

Another way of looking at it, the FX8350 was released nearly 5 years ago, it was a mid range CPU then, even the FX9xxx couldn't compete with i7's of the time. Why would pairing a current top end gpu with a 5 year old average CPU be a good idea and expect it to perform anywhere near its full potential. You don't buy a 1080Ti to get average performance which is usually what game recommendations are aimed at. If your still in doubt just search Tom's or Google for 'Will a FX8350 bottleneck', there are probably thousands of threads across multiple forums which also support my view and linking reviews and benchmarks.

Unless you post some actual support for you view I'm not responding anymore, I've given the OP plenty to consider and support for my view.

 

[Bo Lee]

Those wattage calculators are rubbish, a good quality 600w is plenty as the system shouldn't pull more than 450w under load. Quality of psu is just as important as claimed wattage. Also game recommended specs are meaningless, if your going for a 1080Ti your either going high resolution or high fps. As I said 4k 60Hz (60fps) would probably be ok but if going for 1080p/1440p 144Hz the FX series would be a major bottleneck, there are loads of reviews and benchmarks which show this. High fps gaming is very cpu heavy and the FX series is based on a 6-7 year old design that was only average performing when new. The FX8xxx are outperformed by a modern i3 for gaming.

Personally Id wait until I could do the whole new build but that's up to you. However don't risk a high end gpu on a low quality psu.

Incorrect! Fact is, current games the FX8350 outperform the I3 by a large margin. Current games are designed to finally take advantage of the multicolores. Whicu is why Mass Effect Andromeda and Fallout 4 both show the FX8350 meeting recommended system requirements (not minimum, but recommended) and the I3 barely making minimum. It takes am I7 to make the recommended for ME:A. Seems to me that the problem with the FX series was that they came out with an idea ahead of its time with software not being able to take advantage of the technology. Speaking of benchmarks....I will just leave this link right here. Seems they think the FX8350 performs "massively better" on current games and less likely to bottleneck on high end GPUs. http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1879&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-4330-3-5ghz-vs-fx-8350

Actually I am correct. Firstly at least pick a modern i3 and not an old Haswell one, secondly game-debate is largely accepted as inaccurate. If you take the time to read reviews and benchmarks you will see I am correct.

Lets start with BF1 benchmarks. Now this should be a good game for the FX8xxx series as it can utilise all 8 threads, however even the higher clocked FX8370 falls behind a modern i3 in both DX11 & DX12

Taken from http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2

Now Fallout 4 and I will use a different review source

Taken from https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Now AOS, another game that does well with more threads

https://hardforum.com/threads/dx12-gpu-and-cpu-performance-tested-ashes-of-the-singularity-benchmark.1872730/

Well, according to your link, both an i3-430 and i3-6100 gives better frames in Fallout 4. I find this laughable considering neither one of those processors are rated as recommended CPUs for that game where the FX-8350 is. This is using two of the I3's you had listed. Go figure. I guess the makers of the games don't know what it takes to run them, LOL

http://

http://

http://

Hmmmm....which one of the three met recommended requirements? The I3-4650, the I3-6100 or the FX-8350? Yeah, it was only the latter of those three.

OP....your processor is fine. I can tell you from experience. It is the processor I am using and I can run Witcher 3, FO4, ME:A all on ultra setting at high resolution with no problems.

Ok complete denial of independent reviews. The OP has a choice, he can read the independent reviews I have provided and any others he may find which I'm confident will support my point of view or can take your word that pairing a 1080Ti with a FX8350 is going to be ok in all scenarios. As I originally said its ok for 60Hz gaming which with a 1080Ti means 4k, but an FX will bottleneck heavily at 1080p/1440p when aiming for high fps.

Another way of looking at it, the FX8350 was released nearly 5 years ago, it was a mid range CPU then, even the FX9xxx couldn't compete with i7's of the time. Why would pairing a current top end gpu with a 5 year old average CPU be a good idea and expect it to perform anywhere near its full potential. You don't buy a 1080Ti to get average performance which is usually what game recommendations are aimed at. If your still in doubt just search Tom's or Google for 'Will a FX8350 bottleneck', there are probably thousands of threads across multiple forums which also support my view and linking reviews and benchmarks.

Unless you post some actual support for you view I'm not responding anymore, I've given the OP plenty to consider and support for my view.

Or he can read mine and ignore your complete denial. The fact is, according to the game manufacturers, the 8350 works better than the ones you said were better. He has a choice. Mine is the right one. I have that setup. I know what it can do. It can play any next gen game with ultra settings no problem. Neither one of those i3 CPUs can.

 

[Bo Lee]

Fine, here is one more. Clearly shows that the FX8350 works better when using all cored. The I3-6100 is better with single core. Next gen games are using more cores, so that is why my links show the 8350 doing better.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-6100-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Another one that shows the 8350 as the winner.
http://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=2410&pid2=1140&compare=core-i3-6100-3-7ghz-vs-fx-8350

This one is interesing. Basically has the same conclusion as I have.
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/357/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-6100.html

Another one. Single thread, the I3-6100 wins. Multi thread, the FX8350
http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i3-6100

The fact is, with current next gen games, the higher cores and multithreading comes into play. A couple years ago, your premise would likely have been correct because games weren't taking advantage of that technology as much. But next gen games are. I can keep posting links all day long showing that the 8350 will outperform an I3-6100 with multi core/multi thread operations all day long. It is a fact. His CPU is fine. Don't try and talk him into wasting money replacing something that doesn't need replacing yet.

 

[superninja12]

How arrogant are you claiming your choice is the right one while using those website,
like cpu boss and game debate, those are scenarios that will never happen .

sizzling is right at any point.

 

[Bo Lee]

How arrogant are you claiming your choice is the right one while using those website,
like cpu boss and game debate, those are scenarios that will never happen .

sizzling is right at any point.

No, he really isn't. I provided legitimate links, including from game manufacturers. How arrogant are you to claim he is right with his links, which are no more valid than mine?

Multi core/multi thread the FX8350 wins with the newer games. Period. I provided proof. Single core/single thread, the I3-6100 wins. Period.

Scenarios that will never happen? Using single thread will never happen? Using multi thread will never happen? Are you delusional? That is all that ever happens every time you turn your computer on and run a program!

I can provide links all day to prove I am right. I have the setup in question. I know what it will do. That is where my arrogance comes from, playing next gen games on Ultra settings. Period.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

That will be quite enough of the off topic arguing & bickering, by everyone. If I see any more of it, from anyone, anywhere, there will be some sanctions handed out.

The only acceptable answer to this post is "I have read and understand the warning"

 

[superninja12]

I have read and understand the warning

SN12

 

[kully00000]

Thank you both for your answers, I have decided to just wait 2 months and build everything together.

Thank you