• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Going from FX8350 to 4770k

Your current system with one card would be complemented well by a decent monitor and be better than having 2x290x with your current monitor is all I am highlighting.

Nvm, im oot.
 
What? Dont you already have two 290x? I am confused.

If you do, I was thinking of selling one to fund your monitor whilst you save for the 'upgrade'. Chances are later down the line the same card will be cheaper than it is now.
 
I think you're missing the point. With low res monitor and low refresh rate, your GPUs do diddly squad because your monitor cannot display the power. So you get like 300 fps? Great, except you only display 60 of them. You would see exactly the same results with a single 290 compared to 2x290X...

If you swap your CPU without first upgrading your monitor, that's a CPU and 2x290X that will be both be absolutely wasted unless you _first_ get a monitor worth using with it all.
 
i totally agree with what your saying.ive got a 4770k coming tuesday then i can look at a new monitor but like i say one bit at a time.
 
Last edited:
See, I don't believe this monitor thing (Because lets face it, 60HZ 1080P is the most common set up, so everyone saying they see gains, well guess what they're likely running? Yet, 1080p 60HZ monitors) as such, sure, you won't "See" those extra frames, but you're rendering far more frames = Less frame latency etc, and minimums are almost certainly going to be higher.

I'll be interested to see if you see gains.
 
Martini1991 said:
See, I don't believe this monitor thing (Because lets face it, 60HZ 1080P is the most common set up, so everyone saying they see gains, well guess what they're likely running? Yet, 1080p 60HZ monitors) as such, sure, you won't "See" those extra frames, but you're rendering far more frames = Less frame latency etc, and minimums are almost certainly going to be higher.

I'll be interested to see if you see gains.
Click to expand...

so what your saying is i might not be getting any gains from my fx8350 changing to a 4770k?
 
Choimaloy75 said:
so what your saying is i might not be getting any gains from my fx8350 changing to a 4770k?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying the opposite :p

I don't believe this "60HZ 1080P" = You'll see no difference, given it's the most common monitor set up (And people who say they see differences will more than likely be on that same monitor set up) I mean you've got tons of people using R9 290/X's on single 1080p screens etc.

Plus, as you've mentioned, 3D, so the switch will definitely help with that.

While you won't out and out see the extra frames being rendered (Trust me, try with a 120HZ screen, and there's a deffo differences in what you can see) you'll very much feel it, from all over improved minimum frame rates, with more frames being rendered, there's a much lower frame time/latency etc even with your 60 HZ screen.
 
Last edited:
Martin cleared that up but I'll put it a different way.

If you give the cards something to chew on, either really intense graphics settings or a really high screen resolution, then in almost all cases the CPU doesn't make a difference. This was shown in the bottleneck article I linked earlier. At 1080p on maxed out metro 2033, the i7 does 84 fps and the 8350 does 76 fps at the same clock. At eyefinity, the i7 does 40.7 and the 8350 does 41.7. The CPU is taken out of the equation.

If you're not fully loading the GPUs (very CPU intense game) then you'll find a bigger difference in favour of the Intel. BUT, in these cases you're probably also seeing high frame rates with the kit you've got. SO, any increase in frame rates isn't going to be visible if you only use a 60 Hz monitor - they're rendered but never appear on the screen. The solution to get the best out of the system isn't necessarily to get a faster processor, because you're not even seeing all the frames you're making now!

Notice that at 1080p on the 2033 benchmark above, both processors do over 60 Hz, and that's a graphically very intensive game. So I'd guess that in most games you're already hitting the 60 Hz roof on your monitor.

HOWEVER, Martin makes a good point that it's not just average FPS that increases, but the "slowest" frames to render (the spikes you feel)
will also get faster on the Intel platform, which will probably mean an overall less choppy experience if you do this upgrade.

Choimaloy75 said:
...been informed by people on this forum that I'm not getting the best out of my 290x's...
Click to expand...

No point in doing this big upgrade just because some armchair experts said so. If you're getting poor performance then it might be looking into. You've got a pretty extreme gaming PC as it is, where does it struggle? If it's not struggling, no problem!
 
But there's no point having 2 R9 290X's to bottleneck them, people with lesser priced set ups (LTMatt's i7 2600k with R9 290 Crossfire) will get better results overall, there's far, far more situations OP's set up will bottleneck than won't, because 2 R9 290X's are at the very extreme end of GPU set ups.

People with R9 290/X's and FX83's (A single GPU) mention how much they can bottleneck their single card, let alone a second card (I mean you've got Panos in this very same thread mentioning how much of a difference you get with his i7 4820 and two 79XX's)

People are just downplaying bottlenecking linking to a limited set of games, but there's thousands of games available.

Because of how much GPU grunt he's got, it's not just CPU intensive games that'll bottleneck, most games aren't heavily threaded, so he's got like half of his cores doing nothing, you wouldn't run an R9 290X Crossfire on an FX4300, but that's what he'll be getting in far more titles than not (Well, expect a 4 module 1 core per module FX4300)

joeyjojo said:
Th0nt is saying you've got an unbalanced system by having TWO 290Xs on such a small screen resolution.
Click to expand...

This makes little sense (For starters he's on a projector, 3D, so it's a different type of set up) if he was on a larger resolution, the CPU bottleneck lowers (So changing platform doesn't have the same effect on total frames)

You have people in this thread who have made similar jumps, quoting their performance differences, but somehow you're downplaying that as if it doesn't matter.

We'll see on Tuesday, until then we're not going to agree, I say he'll see a difference (Especially in 3D performance, which if he's using it a fair amount, completely validates the upgrade, same as upgrading from X to Y GPU would be if you'd upgraded to a higher resolution display)
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
We'll see on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

We probably won't because the OP hasn't mentioned any specific numbers, games, or settings :p

To go back to Panos post there's a lot of subjective description, but the only hard numbers are from World Of Tanks, which I've already noted are close to the roof on a 60 Hz monitor.

Panos said:
And I will give you three good examples. (all at 1080p with W8.1)

Crysis (1,2, Warhead), on FX8350@5Ghz with 2 7950s @ 1100 produces the same fps as an [email protected] with a single 7970 @ 1100
(was the benchmark that prompted me to change from FX).
And with a 4820K at 5Ghz (like mine), with a single GTX780 @ 1293 provides even better results. (mid 80s all day along on max settings).
Click to expand...

Again no hard numbers, but this suggests that a single 7950 should do over 60 fps, let alone 7950 crossfire/7970. Once again it's an improvement that won't apply to the OP (other than latency as you mentioned Martin).
 
Well, if he says he notices a difference, that's all I need :p

But it's the 3D I'm more intrigued about, as I say, if he uses that a fair amount, the performance gains in that will validate the upgrade.
 
How much frame rates you will notice? I have changed my processor from AMD to Intel and vice versa and haven't seen much difference in frame rates in most games. The only difference is my pocket is empty.
 
You should see differences with the 780, unless all you do is play BF4/Crysis 3 etc (Phix was AMD and noticed bottlenecking with his FX83 and 780 hence his move to Intel)
 
I missed the 3D projector thing, can't comment as I have never used this for a PC. :o

What I can comment on is:

Martini1991 said:
But there's no point having 2 R9 290X's to bottleneck them, people with lesser priced set ups (LTMatt's i7 2600k with R9 290 Crossfire) will get better results overall, there's far, far more situations OP's set up will bottleneck than won't, because 2 R9 290X's are at the very extreme end of GPU set ups.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they are extreme and will bottleneck Matt's PC too. :rolleyes:

I know you preach a lot about intels which is besides the point, but an i5 is not an 'upgrade' from his current system. Only in the random games to suit arguments will there be frame inconsistencies usually caused by the nature of the game or it not being optimised. The only upgrade is an i7 as it can handle (just about) multi GPU. Comparing i7 to FX is derp. People who bought an FX cant afford an i7 or it should be the case :p

Martini1991 said:
People with R9 290/X's and FX83's (A single GPU) mention how much they can bottleneck their single card, let alone a second card (I mean you've got Panos in this very same thread mentioning how much of a difference you get with his i7 4820 and two 79XX's)

We'll see on Tuesday, until then we're not going to agree, I say he'll see a difference (Especially in 3D performance, which if he's using it a fair amount, completely validates the upgrade, same as upgrading from X to Y GPU would be if you'd upgraded to a higher resolution display)
Click to expand...

People forget, that panos was singing it's praises not long ago but as he has owned an FX I would absolutely believe him on that. He did not upgrade out of 'man this FX sucks' he actually upgraded as someone offered him a great price for his system - that is reality no matter how you try an twist it, just ask him! ; however if you have money to throw at the problem then who cares right (should have gone for a more expensive intel in the beginning)?

I agree if your going to get an i7 to compliment any extreme GPU setup is a no brainer. I would (like I said at the very beginning) question as to how you would buy an FX system if you have such powerful graphics from the start?
As joeyjojo has rightly put he may be buying components and getting poor advice.

The FX is priced at the low end even though it might be their flagship at the moment. If I was selecting a system right now with a 780Ti, 290x or multi GPU I would not buy an FX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom