EVGA GTX 970 4GB SSC isn't as powerful as it should be.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

So I just upgraded my GPU so my specs are as follows:
RIG SPECS:
ASUS A88X Pro mother board
AMD A10-7850k APU at 4.10GHz
16GB Corsair Vengeance RAM
EVGA nVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB DDR5 SSC
Western Digital 1TB HDD
Corsair CX600 PSU
Corsair H60 H20 CPU Cooler
Windows 10 64-bit

YES, I KNOW MY CPU IS ♥♥♥♥. However, games... especially old games (Rugby Challenge 2, Skyrim, etc...) should NOT studder during game play/game menus/cut scenes. The 970 is MUCH more powerful than the minimum or even recomended GPUs for these games. So, how come Skyrim; I can't complete max out and have a SOLID 60FPS? It'll be stable, but will still dip. Advanced Warfare will studder for a couple minutes after loading the map (go from 60FSP to 33 for a brief second), and Rugby Challenge 2.. the least demanding of all three games, and yet it'll dip during cutscenes and in the game menu. WTF?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Your drives hinder the entire machine!
You could have a great gaming setup; but running OS and all off of a HDD will have it still perform sluggish.

[[UFO] rad87gn]

A WD 1TB blue is not too slow? They work fine gaming.

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Messaggio originale di Bad-Motha:

Your drives hinder the entire machine!
You could have a great gaming setup; but running OS and all off of a HDD will have it still perform sluggish.

Windows boot time for me is about 5 seconds. I had a 1TB SSD paired with my current system and I went up against someone with an i7-4470 and a GTX 980 but a crappy HDD they'd be destroy my PC. I'd maybe just have faster loading times.

My Windows Experience Rating for disk speed is 5.9. I built my sister computer for her and she has a $500 Samsung 1TB SSD. Her Windows Experience Rating for disk speed is exactly the same as mine; 5.9

Messaggio originale di rad87gn:

A WD 1TB blue is not too slow? They work fine gaming.

Thanks mate! Glad to see not everyone on here is an overspending elitist 😀

[[UFO] rad87gn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWD0g43ZoEk This is exactly the results I got with my personal testing. The WD 1TB blues are really good bang for the buck with gaming and are not slow. Windows speed testing for HDD always test at 5.9 no matter how fast it is. Only thing that will rate above that is a SSD.

[Meurock460]

Messaggio originale di Capt.Kiwi:

Messaggio originale di Bad-Motha:

Your drives hinder the entire machine!
You could have a great gaming setup; but running OS and all off of a HDD will have it still perform sluggish.

Windows boot time for me is about 5 seconds. I had a 1TB SSD paired with my current system and I went up against someone with an i7-4470 and a GTX 980 but a crappy HDD they'd be destroy my PC. I'd maybe just have faster loading times.

My Windows Experience Rating for disk speed is 5.9. I built my sister computer for her and she has a $500 Samsung 1TB SSD. Her Windows Experience Rating for disk speed is exactly the same as mine; 5.9

Windows 10 has something called fast boot built into it. Essentially, when you click shut down, it hibernates the PC instead of shutting it down fully. The result? Faster boot times. This is why your PC boots so quickly. If you were to do a cold boot or perhaps a restart, your boot times will take a little longer. On Windows 10 it is enabled by default (at least for me it was), but can be disabled.

Messaggio originale di Capt.Kiwi:

Messaggio originale di rad87gn:

A WD 1TB blue is not too slow? They work fine gaming.

Thanks mate! Glad to see not everyone on here is an overspending elitist 😀

I agree the WD Blue is a great drive for gaming. They are decent drives and aren't a whole lot slower than the Black models anymore. I even use one myself for games.

However, I wouldn't use the term elitist for someone who owns an SSD. They have came down massivly in price over the years and one can pick up a 120gb SSD (for OS and few programs) for as little as £35 or $44. Of course for those with extreme tight budgets it's good to skip an SSD and put money elsewhere.

This is coming from someone who doesn't own a single SSD in their system btw.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Well as long as your WD Blue model is 7200rpm; then u generally won't see difference between WD Blue vs Black on a decent SATA III Chipset. But WD Black offers larger drives and have 5 year warranty.

[rotNdude]

How much unused space is available on that hard drive?

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Thanks for all the comments guys, it's nice getting feedback. But yeah nah, I've just started a new full-time job so I'm going to start saving to hopefully make some upgrades (maybe an AMD AM3 MOBO and dedicated AMD CPU (FX version) since Intel will be much more expensive. But my hard drive is as follows:
USED SPACE: 278GB
FREE SPACE: 652GB

I have the WIndows paging file set at intial size 512MB and 1024MB for maximum size; I mean with 16GB of RAM and 4GB of VRAM, I doubt I need a huge paging file.

[_I_]

upgrading to fx will not be much of an upgrade from the apu
save up for an i3 or i5

some am3 boaards are capable of runnign fx cpus, but at nerfed specs
to run fx at its full potential, you need a am3+ 970-990+ chipset with a good vrm config (4+1 or better with vrm heatsinks)
http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database

the good boards will cost $80+ which can run the fx combo into i3-i5 price ranges

[Bad 💀 Motha]

It will cost about the same to go 990FX w/ FX-8 series -vs- going Intel; might as well get Intel i5

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Messaggio originale di Bad-Motha:

It will cost about the same to go 990FX w/ FX-8 series -vs- going Intel; might as well get Intel i5

i3 isn't that great for gaming. It may be better than my current CPU, but if I'm going intel I might as well AT LEAST get an i5. However, even the i5 is more expensive than the AMD. I might as well just build a whole damn new system.

I reason I got the AMD 7850K in the first place was because it was my first build, and I didn't anticipate upgrading my GPU at the time. Is my build REALLY that bad?

[_I_]

an i3 is as good as any fx for gaming

excellent for older games that need 2 cores, or games that like core speed


i3 4160 = $110
i5 4460 = $175
i5 4690k = $225

if near a microcenter, the combos are cheaper
http://www.microcenter.com/site/brands/intel-processor-bundles.aspx

[TRAVY SWOLE]

Messaggio originale di _I_:

an i3 is as good as any fx for gaming

excellent for older games that need 2 cores, or games that like core speed

So basically, AMD is complete ♥♥♥♥ apart from select GPUs?

Also, Windows Experience rating is uesless right? This is what mine is. It's scaled from 1.0-9.9

Processor Calculations per second 7.6
Memory (RAM) Memory operations per second 7.6
Graphics Desktop graphics performance 9.1
Desktop graphics 3D business and gaming graphics performance 9.9
Primary hard drive Disk data transfer rate 5.9

[_I_]

for gaming, yes, but for tasks that use 6-8 cores and dont mind low core speed

ex. video editing/encoding or lots of data processing amd fx6-8 can do as good as an i5

[Rove]

Messaggio originale di Capt.Kiwi:

...

I have the WIndows paging file set at intial size 512MB and 1024MB for maximum size; I mean with 16GB of RAM and 4GB of VRAM, I doubt I need a huge paging file.

I recommend setting a larger paging file. it may make no difference but I would suggest trying 8GB just becauseyou can cause you do after all have lots of free space.

Messaggio originale di Capt.Kiwi:

...

I reason I got the AMD 7850K in the first place was because it was my first build, and I didn't anticipate upgrading my GPU at the time. Is my build REALLY that bad?

I don't think your build is bad at all and you should be getting your 60 FPS easy enough.

I think something is wrong in system configuration or how it is working somehow.

I'd suggest double checking the whole build, drivers and all.

I'd also suggest trying to overclock the RAM to 1866 or 2133 if you can.

Lastly certainly before replacing teh CPU overclocking it would be a better idea.

Seriously though you should not really need to overclock the RAM and certainly not the CPU. The parts are fine. It's more that something is going wrong somehow. Maybe you need to check in BIOS which graphics are set to primary? Maybe it's something else.

The system should be 60 FPS solid and the fact that's it not indicates a problem to me.

Sure it could be buggy game code or internet lag except some of those games are not online games and it's all of them getting the problem not just one. Something is wrong. Troubleshoot.