Nvidia Geforce 970 or AMD Radeon R9 285
Tags:
-
Geforce
-
AMD
-
Components
- Nvidia
-
Graphics Cards
-
Radeon
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
dgothi
September 19, 2014 10:05:40 AM
my PC components:
AMD A10 7850K (OCed @ 4.2ghz)
8GB DDR3 2133 RAM
SSD 120GB
Seagate 3TB HDD
Corsair CX750M PSU
Corsair H80i water cooler pump
I am looking for upgrade to AMD's Radeon R9 285. But Nvidia just announced about new Geforce 970 and 980 model.
I know Geforce is not AMD. Should I get R9 285 which it is design for AMD CPU? does it matter?
Please don't tell me "why did you buy APU in first place if look for GPU card?" The fact, Intel i5 and i7 most current model already have GPU built-in called Intel graphic for i7 and i5. so those Intel CPU run with Nvidia very well.
Please no AMDboy or Nvidiaboy fans. Just keep mind open, which should i go with either nvidia or AMD GPU.
Budget doesn't matter to me.
Thanks!
DG
AMD A10 7850K (OCed @ 4.2ghz)
8GB DDR3 2133 RAM
SSD 120GB
Seagate 3TB HDD
Corsair CX750M PSU
Corsair H80i water cooler pump
I am looking for upgrade to AMD's Radeon R9 285. But Nvidia just announced about new Geforce 970 and 980 model.
I know Geforce is not AMD. Should I get R9 285 which it is design for AMD CPU? does it matter?
Please don't tell me "why did you buy APU in first place if look for GPU card?" The fact, Intel i5 and i7 most current model already have GPU built-in called Intel graphic for i7 and i5. so those Intel CPU run with Nvidia very well.
Please no AMDboy or Nvidiaboy fans. Just keep mind open, which should i go with either nvidia or AMD GPU.
Budget doesn't matter to me.
Thanks!
DG
More about : nvidia geforce 970 amd radeon 285
-
Reply to dgothi
FunGui
September 19, 2014 10:31:39 AM
These are two completely different graphics cards. The 970 will be significantly better than the 285, considering that the GTX 770 is better than the 285, and the 970 is equivalent to the 780. Basically the GTX 970 is better.
If price is no problem, why not get the 980? This card will be the fastest around until the 980ti or amd equivalent come out.
If price is no problem, why not get the 980? This card will be the fastest around until the 980ti or amd equivalent come out.
-
Reply to FunGui
m
0
l
Related resources
- Nvidia Gtx 970 or AMD Radeon R9 290x? - Forum
- AMD A10-5750M with AMD RadeOn R9 M290X or Intel Core i7-4700HQ with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M - Forum
- AMD A10-5750M with AMD RadeOn R9 M290X or Intel Core i5-4200U with NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M? - Forum
- AMD Radeon R9 270 vs nVidia GeForce GTX 660 - Forum
- Which one should I buy: Asus Nvidia geforce gtx 770 2gb or Asus Amd radeon r9 280x 3gb overclocked? - Forum
dgothi
September 19, 2014 12:21:33 PM
DirectX is only running on windows.
I am curious. AMD's mantle can be advantage because Mantle will run with any new game which it is suppoert mantle for all OS's (SteamOS, Linux, windows, etc...) I don't know what Nvidia's feature offer this... only DirectX? I understand that Nvidia's performance is great. I can check it out on nvidia website for detail or feature. But usually, Windows 8.1 is my primary OS... Because Steam and Origin both are running ith windows... Origin is not available for Linux I guess. Mantle might not important but benefit? maybe
Any thought?
-DG
I am curious. AMD's mantle can be advantage because Mantle will run with any new game which it is suppoert mantle for all OS's (SteamOS, Linux, windows, etc...) I don't know what Nvidia's feature offer this... only DirectX? I understand that Nvidia's performance is great. I can check it out on nvidia website for detail or feature. But usually, Windows 8.1 is my primary OS... Because Steam and Origin both are running ith windows... Origin is not available for Linux I guess. Mantle might not important but benefit? maybe
Any thought?
-DG
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
Best solution
bluejayek
September 19, 2014 12:26:40 PM
In games where mantle is enabled the 970 performs on par with the 290, and significantly better then the 280x (which is similar performance to the 285)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
When mantle is not enabled, or games do not support it, the 970 is more powerful than290x. Overall, the average performance is 290x level, for less power, and less money.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
Get the 970.
Just one note though: The stated TDP is a bit misleading. If you somehow have a stress test load that puts the GPU at full power constantly, it will draw clsoer to 300W rather then the stated 165TDP. Don't skimp on the power supply.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
When mantle is not enabled, or games do not support it, the 970 is more powerful than290x. Overall, the average performance is 290x level, for less power, and less money.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
Get the 970.
Just one note though: The stated TDP is a bit misleading. If you somehow have a stress test load that puts the GPU at full power constantly, it will draw clsoer to 300W rather then the stated 165TDP. Don't skimp on the power supply.
-
Reply to bluejayek
Share
dgothi
September 20, 2014 5:52:59 AM
Look like Nvidia 970/980 card should be ok with Corsair CX750M PSU...
I just read Nvidia's Minimum System Power Requirement at 500w
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt...
Corsair's CX750x
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/cx-series-cx750m-modular-a...
I don't plan to have dual GPU at all. Thank!
-DG
I just read Nvidia's Minimum System Power Requirement at 500w
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gt...
Corsair's CX750x
http://www.corsair.com/en-us/cx-series-cx750m-modular-a...
I don't plan to have dual GPU at all. Thank!
-DG
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
BlasterX
September 24, 2014 5:10:07 PM
NONE4YOUU
September 24, 2014 8:46:44 PM
NONE4YOUU
September 24, 2014 8:47:39 PM
dgothi
September 24, 2014 11:14:52 PM
BlasterX said:
GTX 970.Also, don't use that crappy APU. As you use a dedicated card, the integrated graphics are useless, and wastes your money.
Get something better like Intel Core i5-4690K or AMD FX-8350/8370, which won't bottleneck your card.
Really? Yes, AMD FX is fast but it is obsolete because it support up to pci express 2.0 and slow DDR3. No thanks! AMD A10 7850 is new (2014) I don't think you understand. Do your homework!
Again, Intel's new i5 4690k just out about month ago or so. I used to have Intel Extreme Edition Core 2 for long time. Honest, I don't see any different between AMD and Intel. Only important is SSD speed disk, Fastest DDR RAM, good PSU, and high end GPU card. no matter which do you buy intel or AMD. as long as it is not obsolete (slow RAM and pci express 2.0)
Thank you
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 24, 2014 11:18:44 PM
Buy another motherboard + CPU, Instead. If your desperate, get a AMD FX Motherboard + a FX 8320. = around $260ish. Then sell your APU and motherboard... and then buy a 970.
OR. If you have the money, Just buy all Intel, and get the 970.
But to answer your question.. CPUs can work with any graphics card.. and visa versa. Does not matter what is what.
As for your latest comments... Amd's A series (APU's) vs FX... FX is not obsolete, and is about 5x as faster than your APU...
Mr. Do your homework... Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better...
OR. If you have the money, Just buy all Intel, and get the 970.
But to answer your question.. CPUs can work with any graphics card.. and visa versa. Does not matter what is what.
As for your latest comments... Amd's A series (APU's) vs FX... FX is not obsolete, and is about 5x as faster than your APU...
Mr. Do your homework... Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better...
-
Reply to Dazinek
m
0
l
dgothi
September 24, 2014 11:47:57 PM
smeezekitty said:
GTX970 is definitely much faster. Its performance can be compared to an AMD 290XAnd yes, your CPU will bottleneck in some cases. AMD CPUs are slower than intel (not fanboy -- just truth)
Ok! I am not interesting in debate about Intel > AMD all the time.
Intel is better for business app. AMD is more into PC gaming. PS4 and Xbox One pick AMD over Intel and Nvidia. LOL
Good night
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 12:11:49 AM
Dazinek said:
Buy another motherboard + CPU, Instead. If your desperate, get a AMD FX Motherboard + a FX 8320. = around $260ish. Then sell your APU and motherboard... and then buy a 970.OR. If you have the money, Just buy all Intel, and get the 970.
But to answer your question.. CPUs can work with any graphics card.. and visa versa. Does not matter what is what.
As for your latest comments... Amd's A series (APU's) vs FX... FX is not obsolete, and is about 5x as faster than your APU...
Mr. Do your homework... Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better...
You said "Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better"
PCI Express 2.0 > PCI express 3.0 and DDR1600 > DDR2133, Is this what you mean? Nope, I don't get it.
Intel CPU is wonderful, I agree. but debate about compare AMD and Intel is out of question.
I don't see any wrong with APU. APU will grow in future. I think AMD is focus on APU and GPU card only. AM3+ socket won't be last long from today. I do believe new APU FX in future. I love both intel and AMD I own laptop (i7) and iMac (i5) which it is Intel inside. I thought I should give a try with AMD's APU. I don't want to throw my money on near end of AM3 socket's life. that is all.
A possible solution to nVidia Kernel Mode Driver lockup
This is more of a guide on how to resolve a certain nVidia GPU issue. Applies to all those who are getting "Nvidia Kernel Mode Driver has stopped responding and has successfully recovered" Main issue: Limitation of GPU Clock due to power... See full content
This is more of a guide on how to resolve a certain nVidia GPU issue. Applies to all those who are getting "Nvidia Kernel Mode Driver has stopped responding and has successfully recovered" Main issue: Limitation of GPU Clock due to power... See full content
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
Stoggy26
September 25, 2014 12:19:42 AM
dgothi said:
Dazinek said:
Buy another motherboard + CPU, Instead. If your desperate, get a AMD FX Motherboard + a FX 8320. = around $260ish. Then sell your APU and motherboard... and then buy a 970.OR. If you have the money, Just buy all Intel, and get the 970.
But to answer your question.. CPUs can work with any graphics card.. and visa versa. Does not matter what is what.
As for your latest comments... Amd's A series (APU's) vs FX... FX is not obsolete, and is about 5x as faster than your APU...
Mr. Do your homework... Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better...
You said "Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better"
PCI Express 2.0 > PCI express 3.0 and DDR1600 > DDR2133, Is this what you mean? Nope, I don't get it.
Intel CPU is wonderful, I agree. but debate about compare AMD and Intel is out of question.
I don't see any wrong with APU. APU will grow in future. I think AMD is focus on APU and GPU card only. AM3+ socket won't be last long from today. I do believe new APU FX in future. I love both intel and AMD I own laptop (i7) and iMac (i5) which it is Intel inside. I thought I should give a try with AMD's APU. I don't want to throw my money on near end of AM3 socket's life. that is all.
Im using a sabertooth 990fx and 8350 with hyper x fury clocked at 2133 so not sure where u got your info
-
Reply to Stoggy26
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 12:20:23 AM
dgothi
September 25, 2014 12:28:20 AM
Stoggy26 said:
dgothi said:
Dazinek said:
Buy another motherboard + CPU, Instead. If your desperate, get a AMD FX Motherboard + a FX 8320. = around $260ish. Then sell your APU and motherboard... and then buy a 970.OR. If you have the money, Just buy all Intel, and get the 970.
But to answer your question.. CPUs can work with any graphics card.. and visa versa. Does not matter what is what.
As for your latest comments... Amd's A series (APU's) vs FX... FX is not obsolete, and is about 5x as faster than your APU...
Mr. Do your homework... Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better...
You said "Just because its newer doesn't mean it is better"
PCI Express 2.0 > PCI express 3.0 and DDR1600 > DDR2133, Is this what you mean? Nope, I don't get it.
Intel CPU is wonderful, I agree. but debate about compare AMD and Intel is out of question.
I don't see any wrong with APU. APU will grow in future. I think AMD is focus on APU and GPU card only. AM3+ socket won't be last long from today. I do believe new APU FX in future. I love both intel and AMD I own laptop (i7) and iMac (i5) which it is Intel inside. I thought I should give a try with AMD's APU. I don't want to throw my money on near end of AM3 socket's life. that is all.
Im using a sabertooth 990fx and 8350 with hyper x fury clocked at 2133 so not sure where u got your info
AM3+'s official is usually up to 1866 (non-OC) I think... only need overclock-able support by 3rd party motherboard's. don't worry, AMD FX is still fast today.
So, FM2+ will OC much higher than 2133... I had seen higher 2400 or more on FM2+ as usually FM2+ official is 2133 (non-OC).
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
Mac266
September 25, 2014 12:42:44 AM
You want facts? Here is some facts:
1. Your APU. It is not designed to be in use with a dGPU. And yes, an FX series, despite being older will be alot faster. And a haswell i5 will be faster again.
2. AM3+. It is dead. Doesn't mean FM2+ is much better. There is literally no high end CPU for FM2+.
3. Intel is better for gaming. I'm no fanboy, I particularly dislike Intel's pricing. But facts are facts.
Basically, Your APU will bottleneck a GTX 970, guaranteed.
1. Your APU. It is not designed to be in use with a dGPU. And yes, an FX series, despite being older will be alot faster. And a haswell i5 will be faster again.
2. AM3+. It is dead. Doesn't mean FM2+ is much better. There is literally no high end CPU for FM2+.
3. Intel is better for gaming. I'm no fanboy, I particularly dislike Intel's pricing. But facts are facts.
Basically, Your APU will bottleneck a GTX 970, guaranteed.
-
Reply to Mac266
m
0
l
WayneManGuy
September 25, 2014 1:00:04 AM
Is this guy an idiot? You ask for help but try to tell the experts that they're wrong. LOL. Your Apu will in no way ever outperform any fx 8320 or 8350. Here's the order in terms of gaming. Intel i5>Fx8350>Shit Apu, which was never meant for high end gaming. Apus are budget processors made for people who want to play without a real dedicated gpu or to crossfire with low end amd gpus. Lol'd at amd better at gaming than intel. I'm no intel fan but won't deny the truth where it counts. You're better off replacing your apu with a real processor before going to high end gpus, otherwise you won't have your gpu run to its full potential.
-
Reply to WayneManGuy
m
0
l
HertzKnight
September 25, 2014 5:16:58 AM
dgothi said:
smeezekitty said:
GTX970 is definitely much faster. Its performance can be compared to an AMD 290XAnd yes, your CPU will bottleneck in some cases. AMD CPUs are slower than intel (not fanboy -- just truth)
Ok! I am not interesting in debate about Intel > AMD all the time.
Intel is better for business app. AMD is more into PC gaming. PS4 and Xbox One pick AMD over Intel and Nvidia. LOL
Good night
Your statement really lacks one simple fact. Both PS4 and Xbox One both lose money on each console sold (they make it up on sales of games). AMD makes cheaper CPUS, so both companies use them to ensure. Also the fact is that if you take a xbox or ps4 and try to compare it to a higher end GPU, you will be comparing rowboat to a motorboat (or in car terms a standard Honda civic vs a Ferrari). So your AMD is more into PC Gaming debate is horrible. They are more about budget building. Look at almost every benchmark site. Majority of them if not all of them use Intel chips. But that is neither here nor there.
But all honesty your A10 will not perform as well as an i5 like everyone else is stating and will probably bottleneck your GPU. Its not a Fanboy thing. it is a simple fact.
Now in regards to your original question, The GTX 970 is the better card to get. And if budget doesn't matter then why not a GTX 980 or a R9-290x2 .
Here are some charts to back up my decision as I just purchased a MSI GTX 970 Gaming 4G.
GTX 970 vs other cards
-
Reply to HertzKnight
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 7:33:02 AM
Mac266 said:
You want facts? Here is some facts: 1. Your APU. It is not designed to be in use with a dGPU. And yes, an FX series, despite being older will be alot faster. And a haswell i5 will be faster again.
2. AM3+. It is dead. Doesn't mean FM2+ is much better. There is literally no high end CPU for FM2+.
3. Intel is better for gaming. I'm no fanboy, I particularly dislike Intel's pricing. But facts are facts.
Basically, Your APU will bottleneck a GTX 970, guaranteed.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 7:45:04 AM
A10 7850k will be no problem with R9 Radeon 295x, it is no bottleneck because FM2+ motherboard built with PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0 is double bandwidth more than 2.0
Look at youtube... AMD 7850K run with 290x with five screens! no bottleneck?!!??!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj0_6RbCHA4
I cannot imagine to see Radeon R9 295x on AM3+'s motherboard that run pci express 2.0 this is clear it is bottleneck possible.
Fact: Radeon R9 295x kill Nvidia 970. Now, You said Nvidia 970 will bottleneck A10 7850k? SMH! not make sense to me.
Please explain in more detail, not "Intel > AMD" all the time. Just like you buy Coke over pepsi or Chevy over Ford. Give me break. I love both Intel and AMD.
I agreed Intel's CPU is very good. But Show some love with AMD anyway! I don't want to see Intel's CPU will be monopoly in Market.
Look at youtube... AMD 7850K run with 290x with five screens! no bottleneck?!!??!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj0_6RbCHA4
I cannot imagine to see Radeon R9 295x on AM3+'s motherboard that run pci express 2.0 this is clear it is bottleneck possible.
Fact: Radeon R9 295x kill Nvidia 970. Now, You said Nvidia 970 will bottleneck A10 7850k? SMH! not make sense to me.
Please explain in more detail, not "Intel > AMD" all the time. Just like you buy Coke over pepsi or Chevy over Ford. Give me break. I love both Intel and AMD.
I agreed Intel's CPU is very good. But Show some love with AMD anyway! I don't want to see Intel's CPU will be monopoly in Market.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 7:56:46 AM
WayneManGuy said:
Is this guy an idiot? You ask for help but try to tell the experts that they're wrong. LOL. Your Apu will in no way ever outperform any fx 8320 or 8350. Here's the order in terms of gaming. Intel i5>Fx8350>Shit Apu, which was never meant for high end gaming. Apus are budget processors made for people who want to play without a real dedicated gpu or to crossfire with low end amd gpus. Lol'd at amd better at gaming than intel. I'm no intel fan but won't deny the truth where it counts. You're better off replacing your apu with a real processor before going to high end gpus, otherwise you won't have your gpu run to its full potential.I am only asking for GPU but they kept saying Bottleneck bottleneck without any explanation give? Now, You called me Idiot. Thank you.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 7:57:00 AM
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?
Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
-
Reply to Distello
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 11:17:06 AM
Distello said:
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10 and FM2+ motherboard and DDr3... will this plan be alright?
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10, FM2+ motherboard and DDr3. I assume it is ok???
If not, I assume I will go with R9 Radeon 285. Low risk of Bottleneck.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi said:
Distello said:
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10 and FM2+ motherboard and DDr3... will this plan be alright?
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10, FM2+ motherboard and DDr3. I assume it is ok???
If not, I assume I will go with R9 Radeon 285. Low risk of Bottleneck.
Yes it will work fine. The 970 will work with the A10
It just may drop framerate in certain parts in certain games.
The 970 has a really good price/performance ratio.
I am a fan of AMD GPUs but I cannot help to recommend the 970/980 because NVidia really did well
this time.
-
Reply to smeezekitty
m
0
l
dgothi said:
Distello said:
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10 and FM2+ motherboard and DDr3... will this plan be alright?
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10, FM2+ motherboard and DDr3. I assume it is ok???
If not, I assume I will go with R9 Radeon 285. Low risk of Bottleneck.
Definitely the better solution.
Not sure if DDR4 will be available on a mainstream platform by Christmas, but things in the tech world do tend to change quickly.
For now DDR4 is pretty expensive and not warranting massive returns anyway, DDR3 1600 still seems to be the sweet spot.
The R9 285 would definitely be a good solution. I would say it sits around the point of diminishing returns with that setup so it's a very good cost-effective option. Any higher than that is basically pouring money down a drain.
Upgrading later is up to you dude, it would be worth it if you bought the 970, but an A10 and 285 setup is pretty good for gaming too I'd imagine. Allbeit on not quite the same level.
Edit: Pretty good timing with this thread because Linus just did a video on the topic for NCIX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fa3fBFHseQ
-
Reply to Distello
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 12:34:14 PM
smeezekitty said:
dgothi said:
Distello said:
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10 and FM2+ motherboard and DDr3... will this plan be alright?
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10, FM2+ motherboard and DDr3. I assume it is ok???
If not, I assume I will go with R9 Radeon 285. Low risk of Bottleneck.
Yes it will work fine. The 970 will work with the A10
It just may drop framerate in certain parts in certain games.
The 970 has a really good price/performance ratio.
I am a fan of AMD GPUs but I cannot help to recommend the 970/980 because NVidia really did well
this time.
Distello said:
dgothi said:
Distello said:
Off-topic but... Are FM2+ motherboards actually PCIe 3.0 now?Could have sworn they still used 2.0.
Not that that's a bad thing. Tis' going to be a few more generations before it gets fully saturated.
@OP, I'm almost certainly walking right into a "You're wrong because I'm in denial" reply here, but here's the facts:
The APU you have is good in the sense that it offers fair gaming performance, especially at 720p, for a lot less than a CPU & Dedicated GPU setup.
The actual CPU portion of it is about as equivalent to one of those Athlon things.
Which incidentally, is all it's going to be using, the GPU portion won't SLI/CrossFire with an Nvidia card, or most AMD cards either.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10 and FM2+ motherboard and DDr3... will this plan be alright?
A bottleneck does not have to mean theoretical limitations (Ie PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0), it means that a component isn't going to be keeping up with a faster component, resulting in lower frames - As people have said, the A10 isn't going keep up with a 970 or above, thus, lower frames than something like an i5.
Basically, it means you're wasting your money as you'd get the same frame rate with a much lesser GPU designed to match your APU perfectly (Say... a 270X or something).
Let me give you a made up example. I really can't be bothered to Google benchmarks here:
Imagine, Metro: Last Light on the following setups (Again, made up, but it serves as an example):
i5 4690k & GTX 970:
Av 100fps.
Min 54fps
FX-8350 & GTX 970
Av 84fps
Min 48fps
A10 7850k & GTX 970
Av 62fps
Min 35fps
See what I'm getting at here? Same GPU, different results. Yes they're theoretical, but you get the idea.
Now for god's sake man come to terms with it.
and also, you probably won't get more replies to this thread since it's had a Best Answer selected already.
Very interesting! Anyway, I am wonder... If I purchase Nvidia 970 now then run with A10 for temporary, then buy Intel i5 or i7 with DDR4 RAM this Christmas... replace it with Nvidia 970. Keep current Tower case, PSU, etc... Only take out of A10, FM2+ motherboard and DDr3. I assume it is ok???
If not, I assume I will go with R9 Radeon 285. Low risk of Bottleneck.
Definitely the better solution.
Not sure if DDR4 will be available on a mainstream platform by Christmas, but things in the tech world do tend to change quickly.
For now DDR4 is pretty expensive and not warranting massive returns anyway, DDR3 1600 still seems to be the sweet spot.
The R9 285 would definitely be a good solution. I would say it sits around the point of diminishing returns with that setup so it's a very good cost-effective option. Any higher than that is basically pouring money down a drain.
Upgrading later is up to you dude, it would be worth it if you bought the 970, but an A10 and 285 setup is pretty good for gaming too I'd imagine. Allbeit on not quite the same level.
Edit: Pretty good timing with this thread because Linus just did a video on the topic for NCIX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fa3fBFHseQ
Alright... I just re-think I should not bother Nvidia 970 because of due too much for A10. I am going to get Radeon R9 285 instead. Thank you for sharing or feedback.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now.
PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
-
Reply to Suztera
m
0
l
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
-
Reply to Distello
m
0
l
Distello said:
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
But the GTX 970 is already giving good performance for 1080p gaming. Considering how well it overclocks and its 4GB Vram, you could probably continue to use it for 5 or more years if you keeping to 1080p. It will depend on how long you going use the GTX 970 for to consider whether it is a waste of money.
You could say the same with phones, every phone will devalue once it has been produced over time. But whether it is a waste of money depends on the user's view and usage.
-
Reply to Suztera
m
0
l
Suztera said:
Distello said:
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
But the GTX 970 is already giving good performance for 1080p gaming. Considering how well it overclocks and its 4GB Vram, you could probably continue to use it for 5 or more years if you keeping to 1080p. It will depend on how long you going use the GTX 970 for to consider whether it is a waste of money.
You could say the same with phones, every phone will devalue once it has been produced over time. But whether it is a waste of money depends on the user's view and usage.
Yeah I mean with a CPU/APU limiting it.
The 970 is indeed a good price/performance card and I'll be picking one up myself very soon. I just meant that there's little point in investing in it if half the frames it can potentially deliver won't be there due to other limitations in the system (ie, processor).
Because of that, it makes more sense to buy a card that will deliver those same frames but not much more, finding the sweet spot for where it caps off.
-
Reply to Distello
m
0
l
Distello said:
Suztera said:
Distello said:
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
But the GTX 970 is already giving good performance for 1080p gaming. Considering how well it overclocks and its 4GB Vram, you could probably continue to use it for 5 or more years if you keeping to 1080p. It will depend on how long you going use the GTX 970 for to consider whether it is a waste of money.
You could say the same with phones, every phone will devalue once it has been produced over time. But whether it is a waste of money depends on the user's view and usage.
Yeah I mean with a CPU/APU limiting it.
The 970 is indeed a good price/performance card and I'll be picking one up myself very soon. I just meant that there's little point in investing in it if half the frames it can potentially deliver won't be there due to other limitations in the system (ie, processor).
Because of that, it makes more sense to buy a card that will deliver those same frames but not much more, finding the sweet spot for where it caps off.
I don't believe it the APU will limit the GPU to an extent. It's more of the cpu performance itself is slower than an Intel cpu.
-
Reply to Suztera
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 4:28:16 PM
Distello said:
Suztera said:
Distello said:
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
But the GTX 970 is already giving good performance for 1080p gaming. Considering how well it overclocks and its 4GB Vram, you could probably continue to use it for 5 or more years if you keeping to 1080p. It will depend on how long you going use the GTX 970 for to consider whether it is a waste of money.
You could say the same with phones, every phone will devalue once it has been produced over time. But whether it is a waste of money depends on the user's view and usage.
Yeah I mean with a CPU/APU limiting it.
The 970 is indeed a good price/performance card and I'll be picking one up myself very soon. I just meant that there's little point in investing in it if half the frames it can potentially deliver won't be there due to other limitations in the system (ie, processor).
Because of that, it makes more sense to buy a card that will deliver those same frames but not much more, finding the sweet spot for where it caps off.
Suztera said:
Distello said:
Suztera said:
Distello said:
Suztera said:
I don't see the problem of having an A10 with a GTX 970. There shouldn't be a "bottleneck", more of a limiting factor for the cpu's potential performance. The GTX 970 should still run 100% of its potential performance. Intel cpu's single thread performance are always going to beat AMD for now. PCIE3.0 and 2.0 doesn't matter when dealing with a single gpu. No gpu can fully saturate pcie 2.0 speed yet.
Just because you have faster ram doens't mean you get a huge performance. In games, there no difference really.
The problem is that it's a waste of dosh.
There will come a certain point when a higher end video card is going to give greatly diminished framerates compared to a lower end counterpart. Like a cap point, so to speak.
It's certainly not going to do the card any harm, but it's really a big waste of money.
But the GTX 970 is already giving good performance for 1080p gaming. Considering how well it overclocks and its 4GB Vram, you could probably continue to use it for 5 or more years if you keeping to 1080p. It will depend on how long you going use the GTX 970 for to consider whether it is a waste of money.
You could say the same with phones, every phone will devalue once it has been produced over time. But whether it is a waste of money depends on the user's view and usage.
Yeah I mean with a CPU/APU limiting it.
The 970 is indeed a good price/performance card and I'll be picking one up myself very soon. I just meant that there's little point in investing in it if half the frames it can potentially deliver won't be there due to other limitations in the system (ie, processor).
Because of that, it makes more sense to buy a card that will deliver those same frames but not much more, finding the sweet spot for where it caps off.
I don't believe it the APU will limit the GPU to an extent. It's more of the cpu performance itself is slower than an Intel cpu.
Distello,
You said pick up Nvidia 970... Just curious, what do you have components inside your PC? Don't tell me if you plan to use it on aging motherboard.
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
dgothi
September 25, 2014 5:19:40 PM
Suztera said:
I don't believe it the APU will limit the GPU to an extent. It's more of the cpu performance itself is slower than an Intel cpu.
Tom's Hardware did a feature a little while ago where they showed an affordable AMD 750K based build (the 750K being very similar in performance to the CPU component of the OP's A10 7850K). Even with an overclocked 750K, moving beyond an R7 260X on the GPU side was a waste, as the CPU would limit the performance too much. The performance with an R9 290 was barely 10% higher than with an R7 260X. A 970 really would be a waste unless the OP was planning to upgrade in the nearish future, as the build would simply be too unbalanced.

-
Reply to Damn_Rookie
m
0
l
bluejayek
September 25, 2014 6:04:10 PM
GTeye2
September 28, 2014 8:04:34 AM
WayneManGuy said:
Is this guy an idiot? You ask for help but try to tell the experts that they're wrong. LOL. Your Apu will in no way ever outperform any fx 8320 or 8350. Here's the order in terms of gaming. Intel i5>Fx8350>Shit Apu, which was never meant for high end gaming. Apus are budget processors made for people who want to play without a real dedicated gpu or to crossfire with low end amd gpus. Lol'd at amd better at gaming than intel. I'm no intel fan but won't deny the truth where it counts. You're better off replacing your apu with a real processor before going to high end gpus, otherwise you won't have your gpu run to its full potential.Experts lol.
-
Reply to GTeye2
m
0
l
dgothi
September 28, 2014 4:18:49 PM
GTeye2 said:
WayneManGuy said:
Is this guy an idiot? You ask for help but try to tell the experts that they're wrong. LOL. Your Apu will in no way ever outperform any fx 8320 or 8350. Here's the order in terms of gaming. Intel i5>Fx8350>Shit Apu, which was never meant for high end gaming. Apus are budget processors made for people who want to play without a real dedicated gpu or to crossfire with low end amd gpus. Lol'd at amd better at gaming than intel. I'm no intel fan but won't deny the truth where it counts. You're better off replacing your apu with a real processor before going to high end gpus, otherwise you won't have your gpu run to its full potential.Experts lol.
I know. I have both A10-7850k and AMD FX 4350. If I get Nvidia Geforce 970 GPU card, I am more than happy to test benchmark with both AMD's chip and Nvidia Geforce 970 to see if their fact is true or myth. LOL but Anti-APU boys might not happy to see this.
I just research about AMD's high end CPU in future... they have no plan a new socket for high end CPU until 2016 or never??? I assume Intel might hurt AMD's market. I don't know.
Thanks!
-
Reply to dgothi
m
0
l
Related resources
- SolvedAsus Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or AMD Radeon R9 270X DirectCU II TOP? Forum
- AMD Radeon R9 290x or Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Forum
- Noob question: AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs. NVIDIA GeForce 740M Forum
- SolvedAMD Radeon R9 285x vs Radeon R9 285? Forum
- SolvedAMD Radeon R9 285 vs EVGA dual superclocked GTX 760 Forum
- Gigabyte AMD Radeon R9 270X V.S Gigabyte nVidia GeForce GTX760 Forum
- AMD Radeon R9 280x vs NVIDIA Geforce 770? Forum
- SolvedATI Mobility Radeon™ HD5870 vs. nVidia GeForce GTX 285M? Forum
- Solvedgtx 970 or r9 285 crossfire? Forum
- SolvedRadeon R9 290 or Palit Nvidia GeForce GTX 770 Jetstream 4GB Forum
- SolvedAMD R9 270X or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 ? Forum
- SolvedWill the Geforce GTX 760 or AMD radeon R9 270x fit physically into a ASUS H61M-K motherboard? Forum
- SolvedRadeon R9 280x or EVGA Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 super clocked w/ ACX Forum
- SolvedAMD Radeon R9 295x2 VS Nvidia GTX980 SLI Forum
- SolvedRadeon R9 280X or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770... or a better suggestion? Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!