What processor for a 7970?

Martini1991 · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:06

If your board can take and overclock an FX8320, go for an FX8230, if you need a new board, go Haswell.

joeyjojo said:
I wouldn't recommend buying a PC for games which aren't even out yet. Steamroller should be out this year AFAIK, and prices will only go down across the board.

Desktop 8 core Steamroller won't be out this year.

Kaveri may just be with FM2+.

~>Dg<~ · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:41

a amd 8320 oc is the only real worth buying gaming cpu. thats if on budget and probably why looking at amd option everything else intel.

those spouting about games look at the console figures and the only reason or main reason amd were used is price per unit. if intel could have matched per price per unit you think it would have come down the same ? = nope.

teppic · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:41

The Asus rep on bit-tech seems to think that Steamroller AM3+ is due next year, but he may be making assumptions.

Kaveri will be late this year or early next year. It's not going to break records as it's an APU, but it'll be interesting how it performs with a discrete GPU.

implosiveturnip · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:45

If you want a guaranteed performer, get the 4770k. I got the 3770k in October last year, knowing that Haswell wasn't far off, but did it anyway and I couldn't have been happier. I can see it being a permanent fixture for a long time coming. I struggle to get the cpu over 50% usage when gaming, and that's using dual sli oc 670's on 1080p 120hz.

It'll be awesome and you will love it

Phixsator · 20 Sep 2013 at 09:36

Martini1991 said:
If you're buying new, go for Haswell.

Lol at the a 5600K with a 7970 (I love the part about it being a 1440p review) Forgetting the ridiculous limited game choice, etc, etc.
And FX83 with Dual GPU is a no go, the i5 to be honest isn't a foolproof solution with multi-gpu either.
Bar Civ, the i3 isn't exactly choking in single GPU, and you'd be a nut case to pair it with a 7970.

If you've got a limited budget, the FX8320 option is okay, but it's not going to always 100% the card.
But don't base your purchase on JoeyJojo's link.

I was just about to go donkey on your pretty behind there but you covered yourself darn it.

I would say though that FX8350@ 4.8 which was very easy to get to once i had proper cooling is begging for more GPU power than what my 7950@1100core can provide. I think at this overclock the worse bottleneck ive seen in BF3(which we all know will smash your CPU when it can get a chance to) on a full 64 player map is around 65% GPU usage on 2x7950 in crossfire @925core and thats isnt to bad, sure give the i5s a run for its money.

Martini1991 · 20 Sep 2013 at 09:44

Why did mentioning the i5 cover myself?
If I never mentioned the i5, it wouldn't make the FX83's multi-gpu performance any better.
If I never mentioned the FX83, it wouldn't make the i5 any worse/better.

gpuerrilla · 20 Sep 2013 at 10:10

los said:
I'm at 1080 at the moment. Cant see it changing in the near future. It's mainly for the newer games that are coming out as in gta5 bf4 and the next gen games with the exception of wow and humble bundle games but my 6300 runs them Ok. Ideally I would like a new motherboard then one of the new amds when released but they might not be am3+ so would rather get a guaranteed performer, rather than buying a motherboard now then having to geta new motherboard and then a new motherboard and processor in the not so distant future.

You are debating new games, futureproofing and multi-threaded cpu's and this guy mentions WoW which is what - 8 years old now??

If your buying a 7970 then WoW is not really going to be the game to impress all the potential of the card.

Titles like BF4 are where the games should be going, it may take a while for other titles to start developing this way. Quad core is a safe bet, right now I would definitely not be investing in a single/dual CPU if you want to still be using it in a couple of years time.

Hades · 20 Sep 2013 at 11:32

Make said:
How does the game know the difference between 8 threads (4770k) and 8 cores (8350) if they appear the same in Windows, and the one with 8 threads beats the one with 8 cores in performance in every possible calculation at the present time?

Sounds like manufacturer lobbing.

Edit: Also, why would the developers NOT optimize the games for both intel and amd, if roughly half of the users of high-end hardware are on one. Would they just ignore the other half and tell em to switch camp? I don't think so. It does make it easier to do it for AMD CPU's if it's a port from a console, but then again some devs have said that the console ones are ported from PC.

A game wont know the difference between 8 cores and 8 threads. But when maxed out 8 genuine cores would likely outperform 4 cores with hyperthreading. When nit maxed out then the lower cores with more efficiency such as i5 and i7 will be better.

teppic · 20 Sep 2013 at 11:40

Hades said:
A game wont know the difference between 8 cores and 8 threads. But when maxed out 8 genuine cores would likely outperform 4 cores with hyperthreading. When nit maxed out then the lower cores with more efficiency such as i5 and i7 will be better.

Yup. People also often forget that in the vast majority of existing games, even relatively new ones, the 8 cores of an 8350 are not maxed out. In fact much of the time one core will be maxed out, 3 cores will be about 50-60% maximum, and four cores will be idle. When all 8 are performing well, avoiding reliance on one maxed out core (which is what new engines try to do) the CPU performs excellently.

jonnyp1993 · 20 Sep 2013 at 12:00

los said:
Oh and I'm guessing an I3 or 6300 will bottleneck it?

if you clocked the 6300 to 4.6/4.7.. im sure that would be more than enough for the 7970.

teppic · 20 Sep 2013 at 12:07

jonnyp1993 said:
if you clocked the 6300 to 4.6/4.7.. im sure that would be more than enough for the 7970.

On anything that can use 4 cores or more properly, the i3 is no competition to the 6300 even at stock. At 4.5GHz the 6300 is amazing value, e.g.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/S/395956/original/Far-Cry-3-High-Frame-Rate.png

http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/I/395946/original/Crysis-3-Lowest-Frame-Rate.png

jonnyp1993 · 20 Sep 2013 at 12:35

that's pretty good, where do you find these graphs, and examples lol.

every time i try to find something, i never can

teppic · 20 Sep 2013 at 13:00

jonnyp1993 said:
that's pretty good, where do you find these graphs, and examples lol.

every time i try to find something, i never can

I'm used to having to collect lots of info for reference

los · 20 Sep 2013 at 13:05

Well its starting to look like I'm probably better off just getting a decent motherboard for now then, so I can overclock a bit higher, then hope that steamroller stays as AM3+ like they said a while ago.
I keep seeing the 4670k being recommended even in £1000-1200 builds.

Kobi · 20 Sep 2013 at 13:20

Either way, be it intel or amd, in the real world you most likely won't notice a difference. If you go amd, you won't be saying "man this pc is slow and terrible for games!" Side by side, I wouldnt be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference.

Martini1991 · 20 Sep 2013 at 13:26

Kobi said:
Either way, be it intel or amd, in the real world you most likely won't notice a difference. If you go amd, you won't be saying "man this pc is slow and terrible for games!" Side by side, I wouldnt be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference.

This argument doesn't wash for me.
If people felt that way, they'd get a cheaper GPU with the "no real world difference"

An overclocked 7950 compared to an overclocked 7970 probably yields no "real world" difference.

Marine-RX179 · 20 Sep 2013 at 13:49

Kobi said:
Either way, be it intel or amd, in the real world you most likely won't notice a difference. If you go amd, you won't be saying "man this pc is slow and terrible for games!" Side by side, I wouldnt be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference.

Try playing Guild Wars 2 or any mmos, Killing Floor, Assassin Creed and then come back and say "won't notice a difference" again.

gpuerrilla · 20 Sep 2013 at 16:09

Marine-RX179 said:
Try playing Guild Wars 2 or any mmos, Killing Floor, Assassin Creed and then come back and say "won't notice a difference" again.

I played PS2 and you do really need a heavily clocked CPU. Still my C2D E8500 played it, it was just hindering like Marine says any decent GPU.

Kobi · 20 Sep 2013 at 17:06

Marine-RX179 said:
Try playing Guild Wars 2 or any mmos, Killing Floor, Assassin Creed and then come back and say "MOST LIKELY won't notice a difference" again.

I'm not saying their wont be any difference. I'm saying their is a possibility, obviously depending on what games he plays. He's already said his 6300 plays WoW ok. So a 8320/50 is hardly gonna grind to a halt in a raid. BF3/4? He wont notice too much with that.

Phixsator · 20 Sep 2013 at 17:47

Marine-RX179 said:
Try playing Guild Wars 2 or any mmos, Killing Floor, Assassin Creed and then come back and say "won't notice a difference" again.

With the exception of Assassin's Creed which i do not play, GW2, WoW or Killing Floor now that you mention it runs perfectly fine on my FX-8350 to the point where you may only perhaps feel a slight edge in GW2 on a proper intel platform and i mean slight. Granted out of the box is different but the experience of a stock fx-8350 vs a overclocked 8350 4.8 is miles apart. The second you turn up the speed enough it goes from lazy teen to super caffein injected squirl and the speed difference between intels mainstream parts(i5.2500k-i7.4770k) and what the fx-8350 can offer no longer seems so relevant(only in a very select few titles like starcraft 2,havent benched that yet) since you are way over the threshold you would want to begin with.