• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fallout4 - i7+ GTX960 vs i5+ GTX 970

Which would be best for Fallout 4? (Not necessarily OTHER games!)

  • i5-2500 plus GTX 970

  • i7-2600 plus GTX 960


Results are only viewable after voting.

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
152
106
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

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,471
29
91
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
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,656
686
126
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.
 
Last edited:

JimmiG

Platinum Member
Feb 24, 2005
2,024
112
106

daveybrat

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jan 31, 2000
5,388
664
126
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.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,106
382
126
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

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
744
126
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.
 
Last edited:

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,664
21
81
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

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
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.
 
Last edited:

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,230
4
81
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

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,828
273
126
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

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,134
135
106
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

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
152
106
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

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
3,967
66
91
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.
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
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

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
152
106
Snagged a sale on the 970. I don't regret it for a second! :D

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

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,134
135
106
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...
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,489
214
106
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. :)
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,014
3,813
136
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 $.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY