• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What GPU would you pair with AMD FX 8320?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sounds like she has a fairly modest system so I doubt she's doing anything that demanding at the moment. Even though its cheaper I'd tend to recommend the GTX 970 over the R9 290X. If her system runs a GTX 660, it'll run that fine. No changes in NV specific features, no driver cleaning, no power supply upgrading, no extra ventilation needed, no changes in games other than greatly increased performance. When dealing with someone else's computer who sounds like they're a bit of a hardware neophyte I tend to take the easiest solution for them. Oh, and the FX 8320 at stock will bottleneck a GTX 970 (or R9 290X) somewhat, but its not that big of a deal. Certainly wouldn't go above that though.
 
tential said:
Still:
No Price Range
No Gaming criteria

Nothing to help make a decision....
Click to expand...

Yeah, as far as gaming, shes pretty avaid gamer. Logged over 200 hours on Skyrim, , Arkham games, L4D2, Wants to play witcher 3 so shes an all around player.

Price isnt the issue because theres a max on the card model. So its best card for her system. The prices are what they are. Dont have to worry about buying anything more powerful than a 970 or 290 anyway.

Ill wait for the next cards to drop to see what they do to current prices. I dont think she is ready just yet anyway. Needs to get more RAM first.
 
Arkham games and witcher 3 are more optimized for Nvidia, it makes even more sense to go with the 970,
 
Make sure her CPU is max overclocked. Those 8320s can hit 4.7 a good amount of the time with a little work. It'll make a difference
 
Headfoot said:
Make sure her CPU is max overclocked. Those 8320s can hit 4.7 a good amount of the time with a little work. It'll make a difference
Click to expand...

No!!!

Although they can get there they are power hungry and will eat your VRMs in no time if you don't have the right board.
 
biostud said:
290/290x or gtx 970 all has good performance/cost.
Click to expand...

This.

Take a look at these options and see if any game bundles really stand out for the type of games that might be ideal. If none take the cake, then just pick the best deal. Any of these three are great choices and will work great.
 
Schmide said:
No!!!

Although they can get there they are power hungry and will eat your VRMs in no time if you don't have the right board.
Click to expand...

Obviously motherboard plays into it. My bros has been running for well over a year at 4.6 on a medium quality board, no problem. It can go farther but I havent spent the time.

I stand by my statement 100%. Overclock the 8320.
 
Headfoot said:
Obviously motherboard plays into it. My bros has been running for well over a year at 4.6 on a medium quality board, no problem. It can go farther but I havent spent the time.

I stand by my statement 100%. Overclock the 8320.
Click to expand...

An overclocked more efficient 8320e comes in at +115w at 4.6 +144w at 4.7

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8864/amd-fx-8320e-cpu-review-the-other-95w-vishera/2

You're telling him based on your bros system that he should go there regardless of what the OP has.

I stand by my No! There are too many 4 (3+1) phase boards out there.

Now if he built the right rig; sure, but ask about the OP's system first before making such statements.
 
Who cares if a 8320e is more efficient???? That's completely irrelevant. She has a 8320. It will benefit from being overclocked, period. The max overclock will be lower if its a bad board and higher if it isn't. This isnt complicated.
 
That went Over your Head foot.

The motherboard will fail and possible take the chip with it. You may not care if your advice is responsible for this, but I do and that's why I made this an issue.

The point of the 8320e was that it was a lower bar for how much wattage a chip is using at those rates.

Overclocking without research is like driving without oil.
 
Nobody here is saying she shouldnt research before overclocking bro. I'm saying she should max overclock. Max = the max her motherboard allows. Whatever that is. Many chips can do 4.7 with an appropriately beefy motherboard. You may have interpreted "max overclock" as the max the CPU can take, not the max the motherboard can take. Bottom line, 8320 bottlenecks in modern games with mid-high range GPUs. Overclocking reduces cpu bottlenecks. Thus she should overclock.
 
Headfoot said:
Nobody here is saying she shouldnt research before overclocking bro. I'm saying she should max overclock. Max = the max her motherboard allows. Whatever that is. Many chips can do 4.7 with an appropriately beefy motherboard. You may have interpreted "max overclock" as the max the CPU can take, not the max the motherboard can take. Bottom line, 8320 bottlenecks in modern games with mid-high range GPUs. Overclocking reduces cpu bottlenecks. Thus she should overclock.
Click to expand...

Judging by the information we have, I disagree and I believe the way you phrased your original post was negligent not only by omission of the steps needed to overclock but also the risks vs. the rewards of running a Vishera system at such a level. Your latter posts were only marginally better.

An 8320 + 660 is a near 300w draw system. In addition she is about to add a beefier card (better process though). What you said above will add 100w to the power budget. Unless the OP's friend has a more than avg PSU, this is now out of the 70% rule for the 12v amps.

A typical more than mediocre OEM PSU has 480w on the 12v. She would be at least 400w with a 4.6 OC. That's running near 83%. More with the efficiencies of dx12 and I think the 400w figure is very very generous.

The effort of getting a 3rd party to jump through all these steps for me is more than enough to justify my No!
 
Schmide said:
blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want. Also the "negligent" terminology, epic LOL. A bit dramatic bro

My vote is still overclock. If she actually wants to have games play better, faster CPU is going to make a difference. Overclocking is 0 cost increase in CPU speed. If she doesn't want to overclock, she's leaving free performance on the table.
 
GTX 970 as it is less dependent on the CPU especially in DX11 vs AMD GPU's.

If the application she uses can leverage mantle then she should get R9 290.

But overall GTX 970 is a better card as it produces significantly less heat, consumes less power and has overall better package (like Geforce Experience, Auto Game Optimize, etc...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top