Fallout4 - i7+ GTX960 vs i5+ GTX 970

[Blue_Max]

I've got some options open for what hardware upgrades to get... many of them used but a safe bet.

I know Fallout4 gets a notable performance jump with i7 over i5.... more than most games do!

I could also dump about that same amount of money and choose a GTX 970 over a GTX 960, which will probably do more good across the board, right?

Would love to hear your thoughts...

 

[futurefields]

i would feel more limited by the 960 than i would the i5

my current rig is a 2500k + 970 i got no complaints, havent tried fallout 4 yet

 

[XiandreX]

i would feel more limited by the 960 than i would the i5

my current rig is a 2500k + 970 i got no complaints, havent tried fallout 4 yet

I would lean towards Futurefields response, but I could be wrong.

 

[Newbian]

Get the video card as unless you have a newer 1151 motherboard it's probably not worth getting a 1155 or possibly even 1150 socket i7 anymore if you can wait for the price drops for the newer 1151's.

Granted your 1155 version will still last for a bit I would hold off getting a i7 for it and saving for a new rebuild as a decent i5 and the 970 will hold on for awhile until you can upgrade to a 1151.

 

[JimmiG]

It does look like Fallout 4 really likes the i7:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

On the other hand, there's a fairly big performance gap between the 960 and 970 too, and Fallout 4 demands a powerful GPU as well as a powerful CPU. So I feel that the i5+970 would be a mmore balanced setup than i7+960. In most other games, this combo would give you much better performance too.

 

[daveybrat]

No contest really. I'd go with the i5 + GTX 970 option. The 970 is significantly faster than a 960. My rig below runs everything with smooth framerates.

 

[KentState]

Whatever you do, get an SSD.

 

[Oyeve]

I play F4 on a s775 q9500, 16GB ddr2 ram and an r290x. Maxxed on on the graphics at 1080p and I get no slow downs at all. So, if my antiquated system can play it either one of those will play it great. I do have all SSD drives and they make a huge difference.

 

[RussianSensation]

i5 2500K OC + 970 OC. Besides, after you beat FO4, you'll have a card that's 73%+ faster than the 960. 960 shouldn't even be a consideration at all at its current price/performance levels. The proper comparison would be something like a $200 R9 380X vs. $280-300 R9 390/970 or a used after-market $200 R9 290 vs. $280-300 GTX970/390.

 

[Regs]

It seems like most performance patches, bug fixes, or generally speaking Windows 10 - all aim to lighten the load off the CPU and add it onto the GPU. So for the future, I would be more inclined to upgrade the GPU for any video game especially when the differences in video game CPU power is marginal.

 

[DaveSimmons]

i5 + 970.

I was using an older gen i5-2500 + GTX 680 (roughly a 960) with FO4 and got major framerate drops in rain at 1900x1200. Moving to a 980 with the same i5 fixed it. A 3-gen-newer i5 is ... 20%? ... faster.

The 960 would be fine for 16x10 or probably the 19x12 if you manually turn down some settings. I was using the game's automatic detection settings for the 680, I think it picked Very High.

 

[TechBoyJK]

970!! way better card than the 960. way better.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Go with an i7 and 950. Upgrade gpu when finfets come. Better cpu for longevity and the gpu will do alright until we get 14nm gpus.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Fallout 4 runs great at 1080p on a 970. Before SLI worked I was running max details on a single card. A 960 would be much more limited.

 

[Raduque]

Fallout 4 seems to be far more GPU bound. My laptop is an i7-4750HQ with a GTX960M and CPU load for all 4 cores doesn't peak at much over 70%. My GPU, otoh... 99% load from launch to quit.

 

[Blue_Max]

Appreciated the thoughts. Got my old 570 working again (which isn't much slower than the 950/960 either!) to buy some time and will jump straight to a 970 with the first good sale I find.

 

[ibex333]

I think Fallout 4 is just a messed up game. I love it and play it daily but the game is messed up. I run 2x R9 270X Crossfire and I have everything set to ultra. I have a CONSTANT 58-60fps but every time I am in some place where I see "a lot of the world at once", like on top of a tall building overlooking a huge area or on top of some other sort of structure I immediately drop into lower teens. Usually 15fps and as low as 13fps.

Clearly this is not an issue with my computer hardware, since if this was the case I wouldn't get 60fps literally everywhere else.

If I play with the settings and set the view distance lower and shadows lower I can get up to 23fps or so but usually the increase in fps is a lot lower and the difference is really miniscule.

The devs need to realize that there is a real problem and fix it already! This is getting really annoying.

I don't care that someone with a GTX 980Ti and a Skylake CPU doesn't have these issues. Most games run ok on a wide range of hardware and do not require a $2000 rig to run well. I am not going to upgrade my PC in sig just because ONE game wont run as well as I want it to.

I play F4 on a s775 q9500, 16GB ddr2 ram and an r290x. Maxxed on on the graphics at 1080p and I get no slow downs at all. So, if my antiquated system can play it either one of those will play it great. I do have all SSD drives and they make a huge difference.

I can second that. The Conroe system in my sig runs FO4 just fine but the fps is really low because of the low end gfx card. I should bench it with another GPU sometime... Then again the LGA 775 CPU is working at 100% at all times while running the game so pretty much if its not a bottleneck, then at least definitely the very limit.

 

[bystander36]

What is your current CPU? Given how many years you'll be holding onto that CPU, and likely how few you'll hold onto your GPU, I really would feel better with an i7. Perhaps you can just get a good GPU now, and wait on the CPU upgrade so you can get the both eventually.

 

[Blue_Max]

Snagged a sale on the 970. I don't regret it for a second!

AMD simply wasn't an option this time for two reasons - one is that the Dell system I use as my primary (right now) is VERY fussy with AMD cards not working at all - nVidia cards have no issues. Second is that even the high-end AMD cards like 390X perform worse in FO4. That's an optimization thing... but certainly real and bore consideration.

Besides, if I ever move to an i7 combo again, I'll be set with a great video card.

 

[Raduque]

I can second that. The Conroe system in my sig runs FO4 just fine but the fps is really low because of the low end gfx card. I should bench it with another GPU sometime... Then again the LGA 775 CPU is working at 100% at all times while running the game so pretty much if its not a bottleneck, then at least definitely the very limit.

Kinda makes me want to see what my old Conroe/GTX 460GC can do with the game...

 

[Udgnim]

who the hell voted for i7 + GTX960

 

[jlee]

What is your current CPU? Given how many years you'll be holding onto that CPU, and likely how few you'll hold onto your GPU, I really would feel better with an i7. Perhaps you can just get a good GPU now, and wait on the CPU upgrade so you can get the both eventually.

A 2nd gen i7 isn't really something I'd think about upgrading to in order to hold onto it for 'many years'. I would do the GTX 970 for now and then if a CPU upgrade needs to happen, go many generations newer than that.

 

[master_shake_]

ok who voted for the 960??

lol.

 

[IEC]

960 is a poor choice.

970 or 290/390 are much better picks for performance at a reasonable price. Assuming you get one for $250-280 (or less) on sale.

Even an i5 2500K overclocked to 4GHz+ would be a sufficient match and save you $.