What GPU would you pair with AMD FX 8320?

[MonKENy]

Friend needs to upgrade some parts, She is currently running a GeForce 660 and 4GB Ram on that Windows Home 64bit system

She will be upgrading to 8GB RAM soon, bu what GPU shuld I recommend? Would a 290x be overkill? I dont know much about FX chip series.

 

[tential]

What does she do....
Like my brother only plays LoL and no triple A titles. I would recommend him to NOT upgrade or to even upgrade to skylake with the built in iGPU in a tiny box if he just really wanted to upgrade.

So it depends. If she doesn't play things intensive, one of the new igpus in a smaller form factor may be nice if that's something she likes. If she wants a cost conscious setup, she can get a bigger desktop and save some cash, and get a dGPU.

If she needs dGPU, then a 290x may be what she needs if she plays triple A titles.

So basically, with no context no one knows what to do.

Edit: Not even a price range....

 

[SPBHM]

GTX 660 is a good card, it can run all current games decently,

anyway, AMD CPUs go better with Nvidia GPUs, so a 970 I guess?

 

[biostud]

290/290x or gtx 970 all has good performance/cost.

 

[Azix]

Either Nvidia or Amd is fine for the cpu. Which gpu depends on what she plays and her budget. Anything 200-300 I'd say find a 290x or 290. Under that 280x or 285.over 300 I'd say 290x as well with decent psu.

Problem with recommending 970 is that it's future is uncertain. A 290x or 290 Will be solid moving forward and 290x is already faster in neutral games.

That cpu can manage any gpu imo especially when dx12 kicks in.

 

[MonKENy]

Im liking the idea of the 970 actually, similar price point, better specs mostly and runs cooler and quieter.

 

[Azix]

Most definitely not better specs but they can't be compared directly. Assuming you are talking about the 970 and 290x. Even has less VRAM effectively. As far as cooler and quieter, its all the same with aftermarket cooling. Get a triX or w.e. Looks good runs well.

The main thing to take the 970 for is power consumption at stock. Everything else it's not really worth it. Oh and things like physx. I Would only recommend 970 to people I dont like honestly

Of course typical advice is wait till AMD launches new line-up. But you can help them clear stock if you want

 

[SPBHM]

the 970 is a much better card to have with an 8320 than the 290x is, the Nvidia DX11 driver scales better with more threads, it's less bottlenecked by the low ST performance.

no reason to get the 290x unless it's a lot cheaper,

or you have a fast Intel CPU, which in other games would help the 290X to win, but with the 8320... 970.

 

[MeldarthX]

I have 8320e that OC to 5Ghz Tech 5.055Ghz with PCS+ 290 - No issues running anything; tend to run most things in 1440p VSR on myy 1080p 120hz monitor.

Depends on what she wants to spend - what games she plays; power difference honestly between the two isn't much - with Fury and 300 series about the drop picking up a cheap 290 won't last.

If you don't want to do that; wait until 300 series is out; see where prices settle and go from there...


PS: with Win 10 dropping in a couple months with DX 12 - that's also going to match well with 8320 and amd card - literally nothing 290 and 8320 can't run right now together....970 not a bad card; but honestly you can't trust Nvidia - proven time after time they will flat out lie to their customers on features; gimping cards or at least forgetting to optimize drivers for slightly older series and the list goes on.

 

[Prefix-NA]

the 970 is a much better card to have with an 8320 than the 290x is, the Nvidia DX11 driver scales better with more threads, it's less bottlenecked by the low ST performance.


no reason to get the 290x unless it's a lot cheaper,

or you have a fast Intel CPU, which in other games would help the 290X to win, but with the 8320... 970.

That benchmark was full of crap the 290X out performs the 970 in GTAV unless your using old drivers. Really hate benchmarks trying to use latest drivers on Nvidia and using 6 month old drivers on AMD.

The 290X even out performs the 970 in gameworks games that force physx like Witcher 3.

Considering I have a 260X and a 8320 and get better FPS than that says a 290X gets with an 8350 I call it bs.


And if your arguing the CPU utilization on Nvidia they already fixed that on Windows 10 drivers and that was exaggerated by Digital Foundry they were caught using different settings on their games arguing bias against AMD.

This thread did a good rundown of GPU performance in recent games (since maxwell was released)

GTX 980 = 100%
AMD R9 290X = 94.48%
GTX 970 = 88.28%
AMD R9 290 = 86.87%
GTX 780TI = 80.69%
GTX 780 = 71.03%
R9 280X = 69.66%
GTX 770 = 54.48%
http://www.overclock.net/t/1529108/are-nvidia-neglecting-kepler-optimization-since-maxwell-release

On Windows 10 AMD has huge benefits as well already (Drivers have been ported to W8/W7 for similar improvments as well) with the new driver team they have.

Also judging by how fast Nvidia killed kepler cards intentionally do you really think the 900 series is going to last long

Do you also wanna note how weak Nvidia's DX12 support is compared to even 3.5 year old GCN 1.0 cards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_12_levels

 

[NTMBK]

GTX 970 sounds like a good match for that CPU.

 

[EndlessWargasm]

If second hand cards are an option, there is a huge amount of HD7950 (R9 280) on the ebay for $100 or less.

Hard to beat that value, especially if you sell the GTX 660.

Get a gigabyte windforce or equivalent model and and easy 1100mhz overclock later, you'll have a beastly system. Should be 50-100% faster than the 660.

Otherwise, if she must buy right now and new, then R9 290 has best price/performance.

 

[AtenRa]

Wait for new AMD GPUs like 390/390X and Fiji

 

[rancherlee]

If the 8320 is at stock settings then a 290x/970 is a bit much for it to handle, good news is it SHOULD clock to 4.2-4.3ghz at default voltage with ease (or 4.5 like mine if its a good one). at 3.5 is would hold back my 7950/280 in a few game but clocking it to 4.5 made a noticeable difference in those games. ALSO make sure it has a solid 650W+ power supply

 

[Gikaseixas]

GTX 970 is the option

 

[DownTheSky]

We're 1 week away from AMD new lineup. I'd say tell her to wait 1 week and then decide.

 

[tential]

Still:
No Price Range
No Gaming criteria

Nothing to help make a decision....

 

[SPBHM]

That benchmark was full of crap the 290X out performs the 970 in GTAV unless your using old drivers. Really hate benchmarks trying to use latest drivers on Nvidia and using 6 month old drivers on AMD.

The 290X even out performs the 970 in gameworks games that force physx like Witcher 3.

Considering I have a 260X and a 8320 and get better FPS than that says a 290X gets with an 8350 I call it bs.


And if your arguing the CPU utilization on Nvidia they already fixed that on Windows 10 drivers and that was exaggerated by Digital Foundry they were caught using different settings on their games arguing bias against AMD.

This thread did a good rundown of GPU performance in recent games (since maxwell was released)

GTX 980 = 100%
AMD R9 290X = 94.48%
GTX 970 = 88.28%
AMD R9 290 = 86.87%
GTX 780TI = 80.69%
GTX 780 = 71.03%
R9 280X = 69.66%
GTX 770 = 54.48%
http://www.overclock.net/t/1529108/are-nvidia-neglecting-kepler-optimization-since-maxwell-release

On Windows 10 AMD has huge benefits as well already (Drivers have been ported to W8/W7 for similar improvments as well) with the new driver team they have.

Also judging by how fast Nvidia killed kepler cards intentionally do you really think the 900 series is going to last long

Do you also wanna note how weak Nvidia's DX12 support is compared to even 3.5 year old GCN 1.0 cards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D#Direct3D_12_levels

AMD Catalyst 15.4 Beta,
Nvidia GeForce 350.12 WHQL
keep in mind it's a CPU focused test scene

almost all performance numbers available are based on high end Intel CPUs, OP wants to use with a 3.5GHz FX, there is a lot of data showing that slower CPUs with more threads and lower IPC will benefit from the Nvidia DX11 driver efficiency.

the link you posted shows the 970 with more advanced DX12 support than the 290X

also, DX12 is only relevant for DX12 games, DX11 games are not going to disappear

 

[Azix]

AMD Catalyst 15.4 Beta,
Nvidia GeForce 350.12 WHQL
keep in mind it's a CPU focused test scene

almost all performance numbers available are based on high end Intel CPUs, OP wants to use with a 3.5GHz FX, there is a lot of data showing that slower CPUs with more threads and lower IPC will benefit from the Nvidia DX11 driver efficiency.

the link you posted shows the 970 with more advanced DX12 support than the 290X

also, DX12 is only relevant for DX12 games, DX11 games are not going to disappear

The benchmark is suspicious. curious what their CPU test is

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more

For CPU benefits the feature level of dx12 doesn't matter. All compatible GPUs will benefit from the lower CPU overhead.

There does need to be more information. Even the monitor resoulution matters because the 970 only stays competitive at 1080p vs 290x.

 

[boozzer]

AMD Catalyst 15.4 Beta,
Nvidia GeForce 350.12 WHQL
keep in mind it's a CPU focused test scene

almost all performance numbers available are based on high end Intel CPUs, OP wants to use with a 3.5GHz FX, there is a lot of data showing that slower CPUs with more threads and lower IPC will benefit from the Nvidia DX11 driver efficiency.

the link you posted shows the 970 with more advanced DX12 support than the 290X

also, DX12 is only relevant for DX12 games, DX11 games are not going to disappear

well, at least thanks for showing us where you stand. it is clear as day

 

[DownTheSky]

LOL. I'd say your benchmark is suspicious. Using a 270X to find CPU bottlenecks.

 

[Azix]

LOL. I'd say your benchmark is suspicious. Using a 270X to find CPU bottlenecks.

They used a titan x. reason I post that was to show that the 270x was putting out performance higher than the ones for the posted 290x benches.

 

[soccerballtux]

290X is cheaper than, and as good performance as, the 970

 

[nenforcer]

Did you read the Anandtech Futuremark DirectX 12 Draw Call Benchmark article? The AMD GCN architecture is performing very nicely and is leading its nVidia counterparts with the beta drivers and benchmark.

I'd recommend the 290/X but you really want to wait one week until the Radeon Fury and HD 3000 series cards are out.

 

[SPBHM]

They used a titan x. reason I post that was to show that the 270x was putting out performance higher than the ones for the posted 290x benches.

you can't compare performance from different tests like that, the PClabs test was done in intense traffic, very demanding for the CPUs, the test you posted doesn't look to be the same, and it looks to bottlenecked by just the GPU

and you can ignore that test and find a lot of others showing that Nvidia goes better with slower CPUs and the AMD CPUs, the AMD DX11 drivers scale less with more cores and is more limited by ST performance

Did you read the Anandtech Futuremark DirectX 12 Draw Call Benchmark article? The AMD GCN architecture is performing very nicely and is leading its nVidia counterparts with the beta drivers and benchmark.

I'd recommend the 290/X but you really want to wait one week until the Radeon Fury and HD 3000 series cards are out.

the problem is the same article also shows how far behind they are in DX11, and DX11 is not going to disappear tomorrow

while I find hard that Nvidia is going to be bottlenecked because of their disadvantage with draw calls in dx12, because it's a really higher number anyway, with DX11 they are both much lower, specially AMD.