New card advice/recommendations

[stickyjamfinger]

Hi, I need some help please with selecting a new card,
I currently run a Sapphire R9 290 957 MHz version over clocked to 1100mhz.
I've purchased the Acer XR34 freesync and my frames have halved driving this monitor.
I have looked at various options and know that new AMD cards are near but I don't really play much modern mainstream stuff only Warthunder/World of Ships etc.
I was toying with buying a second hand R9 295x2 or a new Fury X but not sure which way to go, have seen the pre order on the Fury too.

My only real requirement is to be able to put a full waterblock straight on as I currently run a full loop with a Aquacomputer Hawaii cooler, did look at the XFX 390X but how do I know which one will except the reference cooler so I could swap over the Aquacomputer block?
Or should I wait and put up with low fps.....
I'm not really on a budget but equally don't want to chuck money away....
Any help/advice would be appreciated!

Darren.

 

[Kaapstad]

Wait for the new AMD cards.

Neither the Fury X or 295X2 are good options at high resolution going forward.

 

[Marine-RX179]

The problem with non-mainstream games such as random online games and mmos in general tends to have next to none multi-GPU support, and generally runs in low number of threads (don't use all the CPU cores).

Just wait for faster single GPU and upgrade to it...but for the games that you mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if any frame rate drop could be due to CPU bottleneck rather than the 290 not being fast enough.

 

[stickyjamfinger]

Thanks for the replies gents, I thought the R9 295 may have kept me going for another year or so....but I've binned that on your advice.
I do play other games other than what Ive mentioned but like everything maxed and pretty....the 3440x1440 display has just winded the 290 a bit, I was getting on some games 70 to 120 fps on high settings but that's now dropped to 40 to 55ish, which in fairness is bearable using freesync, did think about crossfire but I don't know if I can deal with all the pain and associated issues along with the lack of in game support...
I would just like a bit in reserve and the GPU power to play whatever I want, the 290 @ 1080 was great and never even gave me any concerns about upgrading.
I'm yet to be convinced about CPU bottleneck issues, I've never seen any evidence of it myself but I'm still learning myself, I use an FX8350 overclocked to 4800 @1.44v, I can and have pushed it harder to 5000mhz without issues but settled back to 4800 to play it safe as at that time my mb vrms were passively cooled and were getting to sky-high temps, have now water-cooled the vrms and nb to counter it.
I do use monitoring software and don't ever see the CPU working that hard in games.
Do you think I would gain much from moving to a 390x or am I just still better to wait as you've mentioned.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I'm yet to be convinced about CPU bottleneck issues, I've never seen any evidence of it myself but I'm still learning myself, I use an FX8350 overclocked to 4800 @1.44v, I can and have pushed it harder to 5000mhz without issues but settled back to 4800 to play it safe as at that time my mb vrms were passively cooled and were getting to sky-high temps, have now water-cooled the vrms and nb to counter it.
I do use monitoring software and don't ever see the CPU working that hard in games.
Do you think I would gain much from moving to a 390x or am I just still better to wait as you've mentioned.

Trust me when I say the AMD FX CPU WILL bottleneck when you are playing games online multiplayer that don't utilize the use of all the available CPU cores fully.

Intel's i5 for example may have only 4 cores, but it has far higher IPC (instruction per cycle), making it on par even with AMD FX 8 cores CPU when both CPUs are at the same clock speed. The difference is that the AMD FX 8 cores CPU need the game/game engine designed to utilize the use of ALL 8 cores to make use of 100% of the FX 8 cores CPU performance, so in a game that written to use up to 4 cores, the Intel i5 will still have 100% performance, whereas the FX 8 CPU would have lost half of its full performance.

Take a look at the following Skyrim bench for example...have a look minimum frame rate difference between the overclocked i5 2500K and the overclocked FX8350...the i5 2500K have like 50% higher minimum frame rate:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

This is the issue with the FX 8 cores CPUs...in a sense it is similar to how Crossfire/SLI is...it relies quite heavily on developers to make sure the games will take advantage of the extra processing power available

For 3440x1440 res, yes the 290 could be a bigger limitation and the frame rate could be not much higher than the frame rate that the FX8 CPU can push anyway so it is probably well-balanced, however if you start lowering graphic settings, it would still mean you can't get higher frame rate due to the CPU holding it back, despite the GPU still have GPU usage/processing power to spare.

 

[stickyjamfinger]

OK thanks for that, very interesting and insightful.
So what your basically suggesting is my CPU/socket choice is end of life and I have little to gain by GPU upgrade?
My set up absolutely fly's at 1080p.
I'm reasonably aware of the performance differences between Intel and Amd but I thought I could hold out for at least another year or so with a GPU upgrade.
I'm not a hardcore gamer by any means, just an enthusiast that tinkers and plays the odd game when work/time/family allows......
I was just looking for around a 20 - 30% or so gain from a gfx upgrade to keep me going, do you think I'm seriously at the end of the road!?
I feel a bit deflated now......

 

[Marine-RX179]

OK thanks for that, very interesting and insightful.
So what your basically suggesting is my CPU/socket choice is end of life and I have little to gain by GPU upgrade?
My set up absolutely fly's at 1080p.
I'm reasonably aware of the performance differences between Intel and Amd but I thought I could hold out for at least another year or so with a GPU upgrade.
I'm not a hardcore gamer by any means, just an enthusiast that tinkers and plays the odd game when work/time/family allows......
I was just looking for around a 20 - 30% or so gain from a gfx upgrade to keep me going, do you think I'm seriously at the end of the road!?
I feel a bit deflated now......

If I were in your position, I would use MSI Afterburner's On-screen display to show in real-time the GPU usage, so I can see when my frame rate take a dive, is the GPU still at 99% usage, or if it is dropped to below 99% by a large margin. If it is the latter, then it would mean your CPU IS what hold you back rather than your 290. It also has the option to show real-time CPU usage, and you will know how much of which CPU core is being used.

For new(er) mainstream titles, I think most of them would use up to 6-8 cores...it is games that are by non-big-name developers that have the tendency of which the game engine used in their games are to written to use more than 1-2 CPU cores. I have searched online, and it would seem World of Warships falls under this 1-2 cores games category...meaning only up to 1/4 of your FX 8 CPU's total performance would be used for the game...

Also for reference the 295x2 is a card with two GPUs (basically crossfire on a single card), so for games that don't support crossfire, it will be no faster than your existing 290.

 

[stickyjamfinger]

Thanks for the insight on the 295!, that's clearly a non runner now!
Yes I do use Afterburner and my GPU usage in game is generally maxed on the graph whilst graphics are intensive.
Oddly enough I achieve OK fps on World of Warships, I just ran it and was achieving for the most part 71 fps with the odd dip and a max of 78fps, GPU was at 100% almost constant with an occasional dip/spike downward to around 45ish momentarily then straight back up to mid/late 60's.

Is there a little hope that I could squeeze a bit more out of it yet!

 

[Marine-RX179]

Thanks for the insight on the 295!, that's clearly a non runner now!
Yes I do use Afterburner and my GPU usage in game is generally maxed on the graph whilst graphics are intensive.
Oddly enough I achieve OK fps on World of Warships, I just ran it and was achieving for the most part 71 fps with the odd dip and a max of 78fps, GPU was at 100% almost constant with an occasional dip/spike downward to around 45ish momentarily then straight back up to mid/late 60's.

Is there a little hope that I could squeeze a bit more out of it yet!

So when you dip down to 45fps, is the GPU usage still at 100%? Or does it drop?

IMO the performance is still pretty ok, so I think there's no rush to upgrade the graphic card just yet I think. The thing is new cards that's coming this year onward the GPU is finally moving away from the 28nm process and going on to 16/14nm process, so the new cards will be even more efficient than all the current cards available at the moment, and definitely worth waiting for to see how they perform.

To put better efficiency in simple term, it means that the graphic card can deliver better "performance per watt", meaning that Nvidia/AMD would be able to deliver better performance at same power-consumption or same performance performance at lower power-consumption (less heat and lower temp); which way they focus more on, it's depended of if they want to push performance or to push lower power-consumption and temp.

 

[stickyjamfinger]

No it drops/dips when the frame rate spikes downward, I've looked at various settings and and tried to compromise and am achieving closer to 60 fps constant now without issues, it's early days with the 1440 monitor so I guess I just freaked out with the hit in performance as I know the 290/290x still holds its own, going to calm it and wait, I can still play/do what I need with current set up, thanks for the advice and facts regarding performance, much appreciated.

 

[anthony566]

No it drops/dips when the frame rate spikes downward, I've looked at various settings and and tried to compromise and am achieving closer to 60 fps constant now without issues, it's early days with the 1440 monitor so I guess I just freaked out with the hit in performance as I know the 290/290x still holds its own, going to calm it and wait, I can still play/do what I need with current set up, thanks for the advice and facts regarding performance, much appreciated.

Hi Not sure if you have seen this but if not have a look ..

https://youtu.be/DAgpvWc4VBM

this might help you balance settings V's fps etc

 

[crapler8]

im running your card that you have do you really need to change it its still a very good card... if not in the need just wait a bit more

 

[stickyjamfinger]

Your right, as I said in post above I've calmed down and reflected a bit, the 290's are still good performers and the heat/power doesn't bother me at all along with AMD drivers probably being better now than they've ever been. I was 1080 on 24" IPS then lept to a 3440x1440, it was a bit of a shock to see the card working harder as it never broke a sweat before.
I'll stick out till the end of year and see where things are going then.