4K monitor or graphics card?

[Stun Amogus]

I'm upgrading my pc but I can't decide if I should get a 4K moniotr first or if I should get a new graphics card first. I'm running on 2 5770's at the moment and I planned on upgrading to 2 R9 290X's. Thoughts?

[⚡🍉OverlordTomala🍉⚡]

Go with the R9 290x. Then down the road you'll have a good excuse to go 4K

[Stun Amogus]

Publicado originalmente por OverlordTomala:

Go with the R9 290x. Then down the road you'll have a good excuse to go 4K

I was thinking the same. Either that or get the monitor and just run it at 1080p until I get the 290X. Running that resolution wouldn't look bad on a 4K panel would it?

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Get the new R9 295X2 instead. Perfect for running 4K and will run much more cooler and quieter then two R9 290X.
No point getting 4K monitor until you have the hardware to run it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review/

[Stun Amogus]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Depends on your CPU.

I have an FX 9590.

Publicado originalmente por Rumpelcrutchskin:

Get the new R9 295X2 instead. Perfect for running 4K and will run much more cooler and quieter then two R9 290X.
No point getting 4K monitor until you have the hardware to run it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review/

And I also thought about that But I can't justify spending an extra $700 for a minimal performance gain over 2 290X's.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Publicado originalmente por ZRT Apocalypse:

And I also thought about that But I can't justify spending an extra $700 for a minimal performance gain over 2 290X's.

When you consider that you would probably need to build custom watercooling system for your CPU and two R9 290X then the price difference maybe not so big actually.
Probably kinda crazy trying to run FX-9590 and two R9 290X just on air.

[Stun Amogus]

Publicado originalmente por Rumpelcrutchskin:

Publicado originalmente por ZRT Apocalypse:

And I also thought about that But I can't justify spending an extra $700 for a minimal performance gain over 2 290X's.

When you consider that you would probably need to build custom watercooling system for your CPU and two R9 290X then the price difference maybe not so big actually.
Probably kinda crazy trying to run FX-9590 and two R9 290X just on air.

I'm running the FX-9590 on an NZXT Kraken X60 right now and my load temps are 48C. My friend let me borrow his 290X so I could see if I liked the performance gains on my current 2560x1080 monitor and my temps were still great. (I like to keep my room cold.)

[Stun Amogus]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por ZRT Apocalypse:

I have an FX 9590.

Its too slow even for one R9 290X. Not to mention the two in crossfire mode. Ylou need to upgrade your CPU first.

Could you explain? I had great performance while I was using my friends R9 290X.

[Stun Amogus]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por ZRT Apocalypse:

Could you explain? I had great performance while I was using my friends R9 290X.

And, btw, AMD cards have very bad 4K resolution support in Crossfire mode. The reason is defects in implementation of Eyefinity technology (4k monitors usually have dual HDMI inputs and Eyefinity can not synchronize the image between the two halves of the screen).
You should choose two GTX780 or better in SLI to avoid artifacts.
ATM, only Intel i7 series CPUs have enough performance to support 4k monitors.

Thanks for the info but doesn't DisplayPort 1.2 offer 3840x2160 @ 60Hz? Therfore eliminating the need for dual HDMI inputs and needing to run the display in an Eyefinity setup?

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por ZRT Apocalypse:

I have an FX 9590.

Its too slow even for one R9 290X. Not to mention the two in crossfire mode. Ylou need to upgrade your CPU first.

no it isnt, my FX8350 is overclocked to 5ghz (so its the same as 9590) and im not bottlenecked with my GTX690 which is faster than the 290x.

it sounds to me like you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about, the 9590 will match the stock i7 4770k in games where it is utilised properly i.e battlefield 4

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por time goblin:

it sounds to me like you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about, the 9590 will match the stock i7 4770k in games where it is utilised properly i.e battlefield 4

It seems to me, you haven't even looked at the link which I posted. Otherwise you'd know that FX-9590 is slower than i5 in games. Even i5 previous generation, not to mention Haswell.

well i cant read whatever language that is. and i know for a fact that the stock i5 4670k is slower in BF4 than FX8/9 at 5ghz. due to it being a 4 threaded chip and the game uses 8.

if you dont believe me google battlefield 4 cpu usage and look at multiple sources.
here is the first one i found and it seems pretty acurate
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg

tomshardware is a decent source, but this isnt relevant, the i5 2300 will be smashed by the 9590 in titles where it even has an advantage to its ipc (as the 9590 is a 5ghz overclocked chip)

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

. As a rule of a thumb: top tier GPUs should be paired with the same tier CPUs. And note: i5 and i7 are top tier CPUs, while FX-9590 is second tier. The same as Core i3.

using that logic, will an i5 2300 and a gtx 690/hd7990 be a good option? they are both on the same top tier....

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por time goblin:

well i cant read whatever language that is. and i know for a fact that the stock i5 4670k is slower in BF4 than FX8/9 at 5ghz. due to it being a 4 threaded chip and the game uses 8.
...
here is the first one i found and it seems pretty acurate

As far as I can understand you cannot read Polish, but freely speak Russian? No? In such case I can translate you a note from gamegpu site: they haven't had real FX-9590 processor and, because of that, they published calculated value of FPS.
While I gave you real benchmarks. Feel the difference?
Battlefield 4 Multiplayer - GeForce 780, Ultra, 1920x1080
i7-4770K - 78.7 FPS
i5-4670K - 74.8
i5-3570K - 69.9
FX-9590 - 68.6
And, btw, where did you get that Battlefield 4 "uses 8 threads"??? And HOW game can "use threads"? Game not "uses" threads, it creates them. For instance, ancient Crysis creates 21 threads. And OS's process manager dispatches them on logical cores. And that never means that every thread needs (or gain anything from) dedicated core. I have 6 core (real 6 physical core, i.e. 12 threads, not 4 cores/8 threads FX-9590) CPU and no games lose even 1 FPS if I turn off 2 of them.

Publicado originalmente por time goblin:

using that logic, will an i5 2300 and a gtx 690/hd7990 be a good option? they are both on the same top tier....

You're right. As I said, ATM DirectX driver rendering path (I mean driver itself as kernel process) is single-threaded. So, any game can issue as many command to GPU as ONE thread can process (even if several different thread issue 3D APIs, all of them will be ditrected to single kernel thread). I hope in the future things will become different (and they already different in OpenGL 4.4 + Nvidia extensions or in the games which support Mantle rendering path), but now it so.
Thus, the main gaming CPU performance indicator is single-threaded performance.
Lets compare it: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344
I hope, now you understand why FX-9590 and i5-2300 are in the same gaming performance tier.

its painful to read how wrong you are, you are almost sounding stupid.
BF4 uses 8 cpu threads and to dumb it down for you its the 8 cores that are present on the cpu.

the FX8 at 5ghz is MUCH faster than the i5 2300 and matches stock 4770k.

furthermore if what you said was true and games only used 1 thread then there would be no point in buying anything about an i3.

[Cherrie]

Yeah. Just go for R9 290X. 4K isn't something you should look after. They say 4K doesnt look different from 1080 especially when monitor isnt right infront of your eyes

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por time goblin:

furthermore if what you said was true and games only used 1 thread then there would be no point in buying anything about an i3.

Well. At least I understand - you know nothing not only about rendering itself, but about CPU architecture also...
Sorry, did not see any reason to argue with a cheerleader. No offence intended, but I'm a professional programmer.

ok then professional programmer who spends his time on steam forums, open bf4 and play bf4 and watch as 4+ cores are being utilised... you are just digging yourself a hole further and further. i3 has the same architecture as the i5's and i7's the diffirence being that they have more/less of the core enabled.

you should know this mr professional programmer

additionally as you are so intent in following this through here is a benchmark of an i5-2300 (top tier cpu) vs fx8350 (2nd tier)

i5-2300+GTX690 8340
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/630389

FX8350+GTX 690 9809
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1989145

[time goblin]

Publicado originalmente por vadim:

Publicado originalmente por time goblin:

i3 has the same architecture as the i5's and i7's the diffirence being that they have more/less of the core enabled.

Oh, really? You enlighten me! So, you believe i3 has 2 physical/4 logical cores, while i5 has 4/4 and i7 4/8? And thats all?
I do not want to break the rules and deviate from the discussion topics, but that was most funny statement I have ever heard.
For instance: i5-650 had 2 phys / 4 logical cores while i5-750 - 4/4.
i7-4700HQ in my laptop has 4/8, while i7-4500U - 2/4. i5-4200M also 2/4, as well as i3-4010U.
Have I brought enough evidences that the series of processors differ not by number of cores?
Lineup to which the processor belongs to depends on the supported technologies.
i3 doesn't support turbo-boost. Not any single model. It doesn't support VT-d. Until Ivy Bridge there wasn't AES-NI support in i3 line. And so on...

As I said, I'm not interested to argue with arrogant dilettante. If you want to argue, to first become familiar with the subject of debate.

P.S. I sincerely apologize to the moderator for offtopic

have you ever heard of a concept of low power usage? it obviously uses less power if you have less of the core active.... as for the instruction sets they come and go as intel wishes (and as far as i know the 4770k doesnt support vt-d or something similar).

you still havent explained why you think that all games use 1 core...

as for the benchmark im trying to show you that the top tier cpu of yours performs significantly less than the 2nd tier, again the concept behind bencharking is to put a level on performance of a certain part or parts, here the gpu's are the same (well actually his is slightly higher clocked) and the cpu is diffirent hence the rift between the scores