Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Reply to this thread

Solved Forum question

Started by dgothi | | 46 answers
Nvidia Geforce 970 or AMD Radeon R9 285
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

  • By posting on this site, I confirm I am over 13 years of age and agree to abide by the site’s rules.

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!

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.
a b Î Nvidia
a c 81 U Graphics card
September 25, 2014 9:53:17 PM

bluejayek said:
Rookie, do you know of a similar graph comparing the i5 and i7?

No, sorry.
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2014 6:04:57 PM

We need to close this post...
September 25, 2014 6:04:10 PM

Rookie, do you know of a similar graph comparing the i5 and i7?
a b Î Nvidia
a c 81 U Graphics card
September 25, 2014 5:49:08 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.
September 25, 2014 5:19:40 PM

Distello said:
Everything's in my sig dude ->
The board is PCIe 2.0, but as we've established, it's nowhere near to being saturated yet.


Good luck!
a b U Graphics card
September 25, 2014 4:44:56 PM

Everything's in my sig dude ->
The board is PCIe 2.0, but as we've established, it's nowhere near to being saturated yet.
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.
a b À AMD
a b Î Nvidia
a c 118 U Graphics card
September 25, 2014 4:15:33 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.


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.

See all answers