is it worth me gtx 960 2gb on gtx 970 4gb ???

Steve Taller
That's what I'm talking about, that he pulls everything that was discussed in this thread. I wouldn't have changed mine either, if it hadn't burned out due to the fault of a defective motherboard.

7Rain7
and I ditched mine myself when I warmed it up with a hairdryer))) fartanulo, changed under warranty

Steve Taller
Yes, I was also offered to change, it was just that there were no normal mothers, so he said that I was changing to 4790K with a surcharge + Cybertuf mother.

dr.basta87
Don't change, money's down the drain. It is clear that the 970 will have better performance, but it’s better to wait for Pascal and Polaris.

when fx 81xx came out, it was very expensive and was a competitor to i7 plus overclocking capabilities.
I myself secretly whitewashed that the processor will be better due to the physical presence of adders or what it has there, but naturally worse than 1366 and 2011 Intel sockets.
but olo-lo-lo 8 cores are not expensive, in any case, exactly no worse than the gold school and 5 2500
as a result, a complete failure occurred and in many games the fx series processors had inadequately low fps to their frequencies per core and, in general, inadequate performance per core. as the owner of a video card that overlaps the performance of not the top-end processor and transferred to it due to some circumstances - I realized that this is a complete fail draining, explosive, anus baking uncomfortable and generally not playable.
it has recently become in demand when the games finally began to optimize the roofing felts normally when the multi-stream was brought in and somehow it caught up with its competitor in the face of i7 2600. and 5 finally became outdated to an unacceptable level and it became possible to put the last powerful single-chip on the top and top fx cards.
so, in modern realities, its top-end models are a satisfactory entry-level processor of a self-respecting little pekun. without the bright prospects of upgrading newer video cards, it is true that it is acceptable for the entry-level pitch.

MunchkiN 616
never heard of any bigger bullshit, I have been using amd fx-8350 in stock since 2013, in overclocking since 2016, overclocking, given that I always use v-sync in games, a formality, because even in stock almost everywhere I got a stable 60 fps with 2xGTH780 in SLI, it cost me the same amount with the top motherboard as one i7-3770 cost, for today I don't see a shortage of it, there are a lot of vidos on YouTube as paired with 980th this percentage gives excellent results and fps above 60, given v-sync, everything above 60 is irrelevant for me

Steve Taller
medially fx 8350 is something like 50 fps at ultras and the maximum possible removal of the video card from work. some kind of there i7 4790 or whatever is close to 4 GHz already medially 80 fps.
but for example at mina fx 6100.690 zhiforsa. resolutions from 1024-768 to 1600-1200, the video card rests by itself. ac4 blac drawdown flag up to 18 fps. Feyball 3 drawdowns also up to 20 fps. I was not too lazy to nashol in zhta5 drawdowns up to 20-25 when the processor is fully loaded to the ceiling. and raskazy about tanks armu 2 ahahahahahaha. vuchdogs and ac overclocking the motherboard and processor over the bus with bridge blowing and a 320W cooler. 40 fps 40fps here you need such a laughing man "hee-hee-iiiiiiiiiii" 40fps 1024x768 without anti-aliasing. with jumps at 60 and 80fps "hiiiiiiiii"
I had, for comparison, a really tightly overclocked Intel square 9650 4GHz on a 775 socket. fx is slower in video encoding checkmarks for routing and GPU physics, despite the fact that there are 2 cores overclocked to 3.6 by default, and by overclocking to 4.5 on a turbo it is still slower than micro requests per core. I say 2008 iiiiiii and a slower kernel. helgate london 2007 and then managed to give drawdowns up to 40-50 fps 690 1100 MHz on cores 2007 (1600x1200)
Spoiler
thief 2012 (or whatever) 30-60. GTA 4 there. (although in fairness to say 9650 still coped worse with GTA)
I studied the tests and the assurance that this is a feature of the x100 series of fxs. no fsekh processors of this line have approximately the same scalability in terms of benchmarks. and for a comfortable game, the frequency must be 4 GHz.
Recently, the situation has changed again and 8350 and 9xxx are quite capable of blocking well 2 980 with the proper load, that's for sure. but more often something from 970 to 980. depending on what resolution and anti-aliasing. and more powerful assemblies are naturally sent to the older Intel socket.

MunchkiN 616
you have fx-6100, fx-83xx these are completely different processors and they are much faster, and about the GTX 690, it is without flicker at the 670 level and there is only 2 gig of memory, so even for 1080p it is already in flight. I have ghz edishn cards from gig stock, I did not drive them additionally, they normally pull them out without straining, while rarely where its load is higher than 50%, tanks and arm are poor engines that, after a bunch of patches, could not work normally on amd prots, while the percentage in these games is not very much loaded at all. AC4 Black Flag really suffers with optimism, the percentage loads by 30%, vidyahi at 55-60 and at the same time lags, I did not play in Fable 3 because IMHO threshing floor. Farik 3.4, Metro 2033-2034, Crisis 3, Dying Light, Evil Vizin are going fine, AK Unity and Syndicate are also quite playable, if you don't tweak the anti-aliasing settings,

7Rain7
I also used 8300 4.6 GHz and it's just miserable. On i7 950 4.2 and then the fps was more stable. Testing with 280x.

Kirill1998
AMD percent work best with cards Nvidia, at one time put himself in the cross two 7970, and could not get their normal work, artifacts and glitches in the older games in almost all, but it's probably a percent did not have the attitude, and the difference in performance I felt it in 2 or 3 games compared to the GTX 670 in the slack, so I returned to nvidia, but with the 7970 fx-8350 it gave out normal stable fps and I tried it in 2013

Kirill1998
I have 290x both on that and on that system, the FPS spread is on the verge of error. So you had problems in something else. Acceleration vidyahi and there and there would be the same. Memory moved from burned out FX to I7.

7Rain7
Well, yes, there were problems, but these problems were with the processor. It was worth replacing it even with the i7 950 and everything became normal.

Kirill1998
Well, I didn't have these problems. For games on 290x vidyah, I see no difference. Config in the profile, only then everything was the same, except for the prots and the mother. The nurse was Sabertof 990FX percent 8320 at 4.6 GHz
. I compared them only in modern games where multithreading is already normally implemented. Nothing rests against 1 core. Those. I did not play games that use 1-2 streams on either one or the other.

Kirill

1998 You stupid child, you'd better go to school ...

Kirill1998
regarding memory, I can say that FH works with memory on the bus at a frequency of 1866 MHz, I7-4790K for 1600 has a bus, really there is no special difference between memory for 1866 and even for 2400 of one type.
Kirill1998
maybe the percent was buggy? look at the gamegpu website, there are processor dependence tests, I do not argue that amd is lagging behind, but above 60 fps fx-83xx gives out at 980 fps so far everywhere, not everyone has Monica's house at 144 Hz with a sweep, cut in-sync and play calmly without image breaks

Andrew
Prague Edition and have not experienced problems in games yet, everything is at a maximum of 1920
Spoilerhttps: //www.youtube.com/playlist? List = PLZcipu9J5gZwLuydiAK1fpICO8IHgS2R7
Spoiler

Steve Taller
processors are different, I understand this perfectly well and measure it, including with the 8350. For me, this is all a standard AMD candle and I think that I know quite well what this processor is capable of, not from personal experience, but from the results of benchmarks and synthetics.
yes, the processor is capable of overlapping any single-chip now and 2 gpu cross-slides.
most games at the moment are fine as far as possible adapted to these cpu. the problem of games arises at the level of bandwidth and dravkals, as well as the internal circulation of the engine. see microcap. slow cpu cache presumably.
As far as I understand, radeons have such a problem that the commission of driver commands occurs in one process, waiting for completion but being in the cache. intel is much faster on super-parallel small queries. i7 5960 for example, as far as I understand, almost 3.5-5 times at equal frequencies per core. Thus, the cross on multi-core CPUs works especially ineffectively, which seems to be partially solved in Windows 8 and 10 at dx12.
for such reasons, for example, you can notice that I recommended strange bakeries with fx slam and long 970 instead of, for example, i3 and u5,
but in topics like intl vs amd and the choice of cp since 2012, you can trace the true state of the pitch of things and fxs at that time.
but now it is both a suitable type of processors and somewhere minimally comfortable. therefore, for example, with i7 and 5 new ones, even at a more budgetary price and in terms of prospects, it can no longer compete in any way.

MunchkiN 616
when the fx-8350 ceases to be enough, then the i5 will become irrelevant, in front of you is the owner's comment with vidos

MunchkiN 616
by Steve Taller
daftCAT
Kirill1998
Here are the comparative test the CPU operating at 11 and 12DX-ah. Do not look at the FPS yet, and the chela has a weak vidyashka. But here is a very interesting graph of the loading of the processor. On the 12th, he really rests.


Perhaps the increase in FPS has not yet been possible due to the 12th directs, but here's the decoupling from the processor on the face. And if in the future we really will see that the load per percent is almost 4 times less, then the owners of 8320 will be able to reveal the titans X if they do.
Perhaps even many will no longer have the question of whether my percent will pull, and all that remains is whether the vidyakha will pull it and whether there will be enough memory.

7Rain7
But this will only happen when processor manufacturers suddenly do not want money, they simply will not allow this, and even if technologically they can do it, then with the help of money and bribery, games will continue to demand more and more from year to year for people to update computers ...).