will a FX 8370 bottleneck a gtx970?

[Metr0]

I was going to get a ryzen 5 build but i am facing a huge issue all of a sudden with future stabality. I am wanting to know since my FX 4350 doesn't get me 60fps in anything with my gtx 970 if a 8370 will?

[FeilDOW]

Publicado originalmente por WebHead:

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Yes it is, they had a 40%+ IPC jump from FX.

Ok what about this cheap MB mine cost 200usd when i got it it is a crosshair V formula republic of gamer

You can spend that much if you want fancy RGB lights and are all about looks but they will perform the same.

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por The Spoopy Kitteh:

Then explain this away:
https://imgur.com/a/x1XUEI9?desktop=1

like it says in the lawsuit .5gb is useless, what you see is why they got sued.

Then how do I have the WDDM detecting 4,044Megabytes. The whole "512MB missing/useless" thing is a myth. It is availible, just "slower"...like to a point where you cannot notice it at all...
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198223-investigating-the-gtx-970-does-nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem


“[T]he 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.”

In other words, the answer to the first question of “Does this memory benchmark test something accurately?” is that yes, it does. but does this limit actually impact game performance? Nvidia says that the difference in real-world applications is minimal, even at 4K with maximum details turned on.

Nvidia’s response also confirms that gamers who saw a gap between the 3.5GB of utilization on the GTX 970 and the 4GB on the GTX 980 were seeing a real difference. We can confirm that this gap indeed exists. It’s not an illusion or a configuration problem — the GTX 970 is designed to split its memory buffer in a way that minimizes the performance impact of using an asymmetric design."

[Metr0]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por WebHead:

Ok what about this cheap MB mine cost 200usd when i got it it is a crosshair V formula republic of gamer

You can spend that much if you want fancy RGB lights and are all about looks but they will perform the same.

I'm mostly concerned with the built in sound chip, sound is important to me in games. I'm guessing a newer mb would have better sound then my old ass mb

[FeilDOW]

Publicado originalmente por The Spoopy Kitteh:

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

like it says in the lawsuit .5gb is useless, what you see is why they got sued.

Then how do I have the WDDM detecting 4,044Megabytes. The whold 512MB missing/useless thing is a myth. It is availible, just "slower"...like to a point where you cannot notice it at all...
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198223-investigating-the-gtx-970-does-nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem


“[T]he 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.”

In other words, the answer to the first question of “Does this memory benchmark test something accurately?” is that yes, it does. but does this limit actually impact game performance? Nvidia says that the difference in real-world applications is minimal, even at 4K with maximum details turned on.

Nvidia’s response also confirms that gamers who saw a gap between the 3.5GB of utilization on the GTX 970 and the 4GB on the GTX 980 were seeing a real difference. We can confirm that this gap indeed exists. It’s not an illusion or a configuration problem — the GTX 970 is designed to split its memory buffer in a way that minimizes the performance impact of using an asymmetric design."

That was from Jan 2015 and a lot more came to light during gaming test that went over 3.5gb. I have no reason to argue was just bringing it to your attention incase you didn't know.

[Metr0]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por The Spoopy Kitteh:

Then how do I have the WDDM detecting 4,044Megabytes. The whold 512MB missing/useless thing is a myth. It is availible, just "slower"...like to a point where you cannot notice it at all...
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198223-investigating-the-gtx-970-does-nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem


“[T]he 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.”

In other words, the answer to the first question of “Does this memory benchmark test something accurately?” is that yes, it does. but does this limit actually impact game performance? Nvidia says that the difference in real-world applications is minimal, even at 4K with maximum details turned on.

Nvidia’s response also confirms that gamers who saw a gap between the 3.5GB of utilization on the GTX 970 and the 4GB on the GTX 980 were seeing a real difference. We can confirm that this gap indeed exists. It’s not an illusion or a configuration problem — the GTX 970 is designed to split its memory buffer in a way that minimizes the performance impact of using an asymmetric design."

That was from Jan 2015 and a lot more came to light during gaming test that went over 3.5gb. I have no reason to argue was just bringing it to your attention incase you didn't know.

i will be getting a 980ti off ebay anyway so i won't stick with the 970 for much longer once everything else is upgraded

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por The Spoopy Kitteh:

Then how do I have the WDDM detecting 4,044Megabytes. The whold 512MB missing/useless thing is a myth. It is availible, just "slower"...like to a point where you cannot notice it at all...
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198223-investigating-the-gtx-970-does-nvidias-penultimate-gpu-have-a-memory-problem


“[T]he 970 has a different configuration of SMs than the 980, and fewer crossbar resources to the memory system. To optimally manage memory traffic in this configuration, we segment graphics memory into a 3.5GB section and a 0.5GB section. The GPU has higher priority access to the 3.5GB section. When a game needs less than 3.5GB of video memory per draw command then it will only access the first partition, and 3rd party applications that measure memory usage will report 3.5GB of memory in use on GTX 970, but may report more for GTX 980 if there is more memory used by other commands. When a game requires more than 3.5GB of memory then we use both segments.”

In other words, the answer to the first question of “Does this memory benchmark test something accurately?” is that yes, it does. but does this limit actually impact game performance? Nvidia says that the difference in real-world applications is minimal, even at 4K with maximum details turned on.

Nvidia’s response also confirms that gamers who saw a gap between the 3.5GB of utilization on the GTX 970 and the 4GB on the GTX 980 were seeing a real difference. We can confirm that this gap indeed exists. It’s not an illusion or a configuration problem — the GTX 970 is designed to split its memory buffer in a way that minimizes the performance impact of using an asymmetric design."

That was from Jan 2015 and a lot more came to light during gaming test that went over 3.5gb. I have no reason to argue was just bringing it to your attention incase you didn't know.

LOL. Just give up. Show me the rlelavent benchmarks proving the article wrong....also, look at the design details of a split memory buffer. It is desinged to have all VRAM availible, but minimizes performance impact whan it uses the extra 512MB of RAM. The only people that will see any performance impact are those using the gtx970 in a 4k resolution in an SLI configuration.

[FeilDOW]

Publicado originalmente por WebHead:

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

You can spend that much if you want fancy RGB lights and are all about looks but they will perform the same.

I'm mostly concerned with the built in sound chip, sound is important to me in games. I'm guessing a newer mb would have better sound then my old ass mb

I would assume it would be better then what you have now but you can always get a soundcard later if for some reason it's not up to your standards.

[Metr0]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por WebHead:

I'm mostly concerned with the built in sound chip, sound is important to me in games. I'm guessing a newer mb would have better sound then my old ass mb

I would assume it would be better then what you have now but you can always get a soundcard later if for some reason it's not up to your standards.

True, altho i didn't think sound cards were still a thing i thought built in chipds did away with them

[TehSpoopyKitteh]

Publicado originalmente por FeilDOW:

Publicado originalmente por The Spoopy Kitteh:

LOL. Jus give up. Show me the rlelavent benchmarks proving the article wrong....also, look at the design details of a split memory buffer. It is desinged to have all VRAM availible, but minimizes performance impact whan it uses the extra 512MB of RAM. The only people that will see any performance impact are thos using the gtx970 in a 4k resolution in an SLI configuration.

Publicado originalmente por WebHead:

I'm mostly concerned with the built in sound chip, sound is important to me in games. I'm guessing a newer mb would have better sound then my old ass mb

I would assume it would be better then what you have now but you can always get a soundcard later if for some reason it's not up to your standards.

I have a creative SoundBlaster Omni that is great for use with my stereo reciever. I get full 5.1 surround sound out of it..whether gaming or movies on Netflix.

One of the most useful sites I have come across that you may want to use to find parts within your budget is PCPartPicker.

https://pcpartpicker.com/

Depending on your PSU, all you really might need is16GB DDR4-2660 RAM, a new motherboard and CPU, and will be ok until you can afford the GPU upgrade. you already have the PSU so that is $100+ more to your budget....and a case which is $25~85 more towards your budget on the upgrade. The GPU upgrade can wait because the Ryzen has zero issues with bottleneck on your current video card.

It has been said before that your main issue right now is not the video card you have, but the CPU you have it paired with. The Ryzen 1300 will work just fine with your current one until you can afford a CPU upgrade.

[LiMpY]

I may have skimmed this too fast Webby, but I didn't see what your stress temps were for your CPU and GPU and what PSU you have.

[Metr0]

Publicado originalmente por LiMpY:

I may have skimmed this too fast Webby, but I didn't see what your stress temps were for your CPU and GPU and what PSU you have.

Cpu i am not sure it's being water cooled by a corsair H product, gpu under strain in dying light is around 59c and my power supply is a corsair TX 850

Not sure if this helps but in game my gpu usage goes thru the roof

[󠀡󠀡]

Im running an 8370 slammed a rx580 in my rig no issues look in my library all games run great 60 fps vcore temps get a little hi but all is good.. For the moment

[Secret Squirrel]

Frame rate is tied to GPU more than CPU. The only time CPU drags down frame rates is in scenes with a lot of objects that are CPU managed -- like NPCs walking about, enemies with AI, etc. You really need to run some tests to determine if the games you play on your system are more CPU or GPU bound. Oh, and also memory, because low RAM availability can impact frame rate.

In a game that is getting a frame rate below your expectations, turn off -- or to the lowest if "off" isn't an option -- the features that are most tied to GPU:

- Resolution
- Anti-aliasing
- Texture filtering/detail
- Shadows
- Tessellation
- Ambient Occlusion

Play the game and note the fps.... if it is significantly better then a GPU upgrade would most likely benefit you. If frame rate does not improve, or by much, then a CPU upgrade would be beneficial.

Also, make sure in NVidia control panel that Physx is not set to CPU. The default is auto, and the driver should do a good job of deciding your GPU is better than your CPU for this workload, but you might want to set it to ensure it is using the video card.

If it were my money I'd not invest in a Ryzen 5 and get an FX-8350 instead and see where you stand, because I do think a Ryzen 5 would be overkill with a GTX-970 and you will be itching to upgrade GPU and wishing you hadn't overinvested in a Ryzen 5.

This of course is without the opportunity of doing diagnostics and tests. But I do think the FX-4350 does need to be upgraded with an 8350. I assume you have more than 8GB RAM. If not, then upgrading RAM is where I'd start.

[Metr0]

Publicado originalmente por Secret Squirrel:

Frame rate is tied to GPU more than CPU. The only time CPU drags down frame rates is in scenes with a lot of objects that are CPU managed -- like NPCs walking about, enemies with AI, etc. You really need to run some tests to determine if the games you play on your system are more CPU or GPU bound. Oh, and also memory, because low RAM availability can impact frame rate.

In a game that is getting a frame rate below your expectations, turn off -- or to the lowest if "off" isn't an option -- the features that are most tied to GPU:

- Resolution
- Anti-aliasing
- Texture filtering/detail
- Shadows
- Tessellation
- Ambient Occlusion

Play the game and note the fps.... if it is significantly better then a GPU upgrade would most likely benefit you. If frame rate does not improve, or by much, then a CPU upgrade would be beneficial.

Also, make sure in NVidia control panel that Physx is not set to CPU. The default is auto, and the driver should do a good job of deciding your GPU is better than your CPU for this workload, but you might want to set it to ensure it is using the video card.

If it were my money I'd not invest in a Ryzen 5 and get an FX-8350 instead and see where you stand, because I do think a Ryzen 5 would be overkill with a GTX-970 and you will be itching to upgrade GPU and wishing you hadn't overinvested in a Ryzen 5.

This of course is without the opportunity of doing diagnostics and tests. But I do think the FX-4350 does need to be upgraded with an 8350. I assume you have more than 8GB RAM. If not, then upgrading RAM is where I'd start.

seems legit