I have in mind to get a EVGA GTX 970, that's the card I want since it came out.
What Intel processor do you guys think I should get?
I was thinking in the i5-4670, is that a good one?
Also if you can help me with the motherboard, I would appreciate it.
I have a Corsair TX750 for the power and some Corsair Vengeance (1600MHz) that I think will we fine for this.
>>52686205
>I have in mind to get a EVGA GTX 970
Retard.
>>52686299
There's nothing bad with the GTX970, AMD fanboy
>>52686205
I would go for a FX 8350 if you have no trouble with AMD
Asus z97-a and either a 4690k or 4460 and a h97 mobo depends on your budget
>>52686370
Yes I have actually. Got a Phenom II X6 and it overheats like the devil, and makes too much noise too.
What about 4770K? It has a stock freq of 3.5GHz.
>>52686205
>2016
>2016/576
>>52686205
>buying the cucked 3.5 Gtx 970 when 1070 / 1080 is just 5 months away
>>52686404
I have like $400 on budget for mobo and cpu, may be $500.
I don't want to overlock anything in the future so the 4460 would me my option here, is it enough?
>>52686370
>There's nothing bad with the GTX970, AMD fanboy
It's a piece of shit that only a retard would buy in 2016. Also, I own a 980 Ti. Get rekt, cuck.
>>52686205
What form factor?
4690k (better overclocking)/Asus mobo would be my choice. Z97 deluxe, ROG hero, etc. are good boards.
OP here. I'm not a PC guy really, just know the basics.
And yes of course I want to spend the less money possible here because gaming its just a hobby for me.
>>52686469
You can even get a i7-6700 for "budget".
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/CVGWhM
Hijacking the thread
I have a gtx 590 that I bought off a friend for $70.
What card would be a decent upgrade for it?
>>52686493
Yeah may be that's the one. I prefer the "non K" Intel but if it's a good option for gaming then I will get that one.
>>52686529
Wait for Polaris
>>52686205
If you already know what you want to get, why do you come here for validation? People are going to call you a retard because your choices are retarded. Why did you expect anything else?
If you're going to come in here asking for advice, but you already made up your mind, you're just wasting our time and yours. Your choices suck dick, because you have no idea what you are doing.
What I mean is, fuck off and buy whatever you want if you're not willing to take criticism and already have set your mind to it.
>>52686615
Are you stupid? This thread is for help me make a decision, and there's like 3 or 4 guys here that helped me a lot.
The only thing I am sure about is that I'm gonna buy a GTX970, nothing else.
If you are not going yo make a suggestion or help with the thread then YOU can fuck off.
>evga
>gtx970
>corsair psu and ram
Cucked .To . Hell
>>52686688
Nigger, you have a 750W PSU for a PC that won't even use 400W or 450W..
You want to buy a gimped card, that's been known to be shit and a bad deal for a long ass time, while ignoring all other alternatives (390) or buying the non-gimped cards of the next tier (980 or ti) when you clearly have the money to do so, since you have fucking FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS for a motherboard+CPU combo, which shouldn't cost you more than 250 or 300.
Especially when the next generation of cards is due to release in less than half a year.
You don't even know the difference between the lower end and higher end i5s is negligible, and that the only realistic difference between them is being able to overclock or not, which you claim you don't want to, hence making this thread absolutely pointless, since it narrows down your choice to like 2 chips.
You're fucking dumb as a kite, know nothing about this, and didn't even bother researching before making up your mind or asking for advice.
Deal with it kid.
>>52686474
All memes aside it really doesn't matter apart from /g/ speccy threads or using 1440p.
But if you're going for 1440p or maybe even 4k you should consider spending more money for a GPU anyway if you want everything to run on max.
On full HD there's barely any difference between r9 390 and 970.
>>52686764
Well NOW you are helping me, see it you cunt?
I just wanted to know if what I was doing was a viable thing.
Now that I now that it's NOT viable and I don't know anything about this shit I can ask for another kind of advice like "please can you build a PC for me? $700 top".
Thank you angry fucking anon
>>52686469
Why wouldn't you want one that can overclock? I ended up buying a 3570k and sat on stock speeds for about to years, than eventually gave it a over clock to catch it up to the newer generation. 20%+ performance boost available at your need, plus it's pretty easy to OC.
>>52686891
Also to add, don't buy a 970, the 3.5gb limit can be reached now, and the 390 and 970 are on par with each other in 1080p depending on the game. The 390 beats out the 970 in 1440p+, and the 390 is only going to get better as the 970 stays the same, or gets worse after DX 12 titles.
>>52686940
I was afraid of the consumption and drivers of the 390, I've heard that the drivers are awful
>>52687025
They're really not. That's a meme. There are some issues, but they get fixed over time.
Nvidia also has driver issues, contrary to popular belief. They just sweep it under the rug.
Here at home, I have 2 PCs with Nvidia and 1 with AMD. The 2 with Nvidia constantly get driver crashes. The AMD one is just fine.
Consumption wise, it is a bit higher, but with a 750W PSU, you have nothing to worry about. You can even Crossfire 2 390s in that.
I5 4460 is all you need for gaming.
If you have a 750w power supply, you might aswell get the R9 390 instead. It's more futureproof and better in every way except power usage.
>>52687058
That's nice to hear (read). Thank you, I might decide for the 390 instead.
>>52687069
Is that really true? I want to play in 1080p, may be 2 monitors in the future but no 1440p, I can't finde 1440 monitors in my country, impossible.
I got a I5-6400 CPU for the 970. So I went for the lowest I5 skylake.
>>52687025
Power consumption isn't really that bad, if you live in a hot place you might want to think about it, probably puts out about 20-33% more heat output than the alternative. Driver wise, both companies are releasing equally bad drivers.
>>52687146
And is that optimal? Can you play without problems? That's a cheap CPU so I'm a little impressed.
>>52686466
>>52686370
>>52686205
>Actually becoming part of the meme.
https://youtu.be/BdwUsalwBJ8
>>52687194
>That's a cheap CPU
It costs more than every AMD CPU.
>I BUY INTEL AND NVIDIA PRODUCTS FOR MY WIFE'S SON
>I WANT TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR A THREE POINT FIVE GIGABYTE GDDR5 CARD
>>52687145
>>52687194
i5 performance changes little from the lower end i5 to the top end. All it changes it the stock frequency, that's it. Performance wise, it's barely noticeable, especially in games.
Even with 2 monitors, your GPU will be the one doing the extra work, not the CPU.
A lower end i5 is more than fine. Hell, even going with Haswell at this point is more than what you'll need. Skylake is botnet without any real improvement over Haswell besides muh efficiency
>>52687232
And yet the 8350 or 6300 still offers more value for your money despite all the bullshit because only intel shills care about single threaded performance on a desktop platform
just like only android shills care about multithreaded performance on a fucking phone where only one core matters 99% of the time.
you guys have it flipped. it's all topsy turvy on y'all mothafuckas
>>52687254
amd hasn't made a new chip in three years
intel hasn't actually had an upgrade worth buying in three years
oh well.
>>52686205
I will always buy Intel™ because I only play games with Intel Inside™. Intel also pioneers innovative new technologies like Hyper Threading Technology™, Intel Rapid Start Technology™ and the highest quality chipsets to ever grace motherboards.
When I boot up with a brand new Intel™ i7™ with the latest Z chipset, I can enjoy the games the way they where meant to be with Intel Inside™. Intel™ also delivers a far more silkysmooth experience with its Hyper Threading Technology™.
Intel i5™ is also very power efficient. A processor is the most power hungry device in your house. Air conditioners, water heaters, lights, etc all use less power than a processor. Which is why Intel™ puts gamers first by ensuring that their gaming experience is of the highest quality while looking out for gamers by giving them the most value in their electrical bill.
At this point in time, there's really no reasons to consider an AMD processor at all. I tried once, it caused so much heat that it exploded and nearly burnt down my house. It also consumed so much power that it produced an EMP and destroyed not only the rest of my computer but my entire neighborhood.
Intel™ also pioneered how useless MORE CORES is with the i™ series processors. Years ago, everyone thought MORE CORES were the future. Now, Intel™ has debunked that myth entirely and increased efficiency. Now you can save thousands a year in electricity thanks to Intel™ with its powerful IPC. MORE CORES will never be part of Intel's™ line up.
It's quite clear that OPs an AMD shill trying to convince you to settle on something less than the optimal experience with Intel Inside™. Intel™ is the only real way to play games. We have seen recently that they offer incredible libraries for software developers like Intel C++ Compiler. He is probably too poor to afford the Intel Inside™ experience and can not afford to play any games.
Don't be a poor gamer with bad chipsets and a huge power bills. Play games with Intel Inside™
>>52686205
>just before pascal comes out
>still buying a fraudulently marketed card
>>52687855
I will always buy AMD™ because the future is fusion™. AMD also pioneers new innovative technologies like Cool N' Quiet™, CMT™, and the hottest quality processors to ever grace motherboards.
When I boot up with a brand new AMD™ FX™ with the latest hot Radeon™ graphics, I can enjoy the games the way they where meant to be with AMD Inside™. AMD™ also delivers a far more exciting experience by keeping you on your toes with its drivers and software. There is never a dull moment with AMD™.
AMD FX™ is also very eco friendly. A processor is the most power hungry device in your house. Air conditioners, water heaters, lights, etc all use less power than a processor. Which is why AMD™ puts gamers first by ensuring that their gaming experience is of the highest quality while looking out for gamers by giving them the most value in their electrical bill. During cold winter months your AMD FX™ processor can also act as a space heater enabling you to safe money by turning off your house heater. Still cold? Add a Radeon™ graphics to make yourself extra cozy.
AMD™ also pioneered how useless LESS CORES is with the i™ series processors. Years ago, everyone thought MORE CORES were a joke. Now, AMD™ has debunked that myth entirely and increased efficiency. Now you can save thousands a year in electricity thanks to AMD by acting as a space heater as well™ with its MORE CORES. LESS CORES will never be part of Intel's™ line up.
It's quite clear that OPs an Intel shill™ trying to convince you to settle on something less than the optimal experience with AMD™. AMD™is the only real way to play games. We have seen recently that they offer incredible libraries for software developers like TressFX. He is probably too poor to afford the AMD™ experience and to cold to play any games.
Don't be a poor gamer with bad chipsets and a huge power bills. The future is fusion™
>>52688141
>Intel shill™
I kek'd
>>52686370
>Le 3,5GB
>Le less ROPs than originaly posted
>Nothing wrong
Choose if you wanna buy shit sold telling lies or not
THREE
POINT
FIVE
GIGS
are you fucking retarded
>>52686205
>falling for the 3.5GiB meme
>>52687194
I play fallout 4 on ultra minus shadow draw distances and god ray both on medium and get 60fps.
I have the GTX 970 and I play games in window mode usually so I can speedsurf 4chan and post dank memes so it doesn't really affect me. My window mode is usually at 1920x1080.
>>52689934
you talk to about.... 95% of owners and they will all tell you this same exact thing, at 1080p, 3.5gb meme is simply a meme. its not real.
when talking to the other 5%, who have 1440p, 98% of them will simply tell you its the gpu that craps out first, not vram issue.
early on yes there was issues, but nvidia released a lot of drivers after which, which easily "corrected" the problem.
yeah it sucks its really a 3.5gb card with super slow ass 512mb second partition, but the card itself nevertheless is great. the vram issue doesn't hurt it.
http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/
>On GTX 980, Shadows of Mordor drops about 24% on GTX 980 and 25% on GTX 970, a 1% difference. On Battlefield 4, the drop is 47% on GTX 980 and 50% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. On CoD: AW, the drop is 41% on GTX 980 and 44% on GTX 970, a 3% difference. As you can see, there is very little change in the performance of the GTX 970 relative to GTX 980 on these games when it is using the 0.5GB segment.”
>muh pcgamer
suck it
regardless of 3.5gb meme, it's not actually bad.
Ive got an MSI 970, 4690k and an asus hero vii
It does the job, don't expect it to break records though
my 970 doesnt work well with my amd 8320, switching to intel soon
>>52691944
amd fx series doesn't work well with most cards that cost $250+
I have one paired with an i5 4440, before had a FX8350.
Get a cheap board with a i5 4400 and you will be fine at stock clocks and stock cooler.
Get a FX8350 and a aftermarket cooler with a good motherboard and push it to 4.6Ghz to compete with the i5 4440.
Take your pick.
I bought a MSI GTX970. No REGRETS!
>inb4 cuck
>inb4 3.5
>>52686370
>3.5 GB
>stutterfest
>no async compute
>performs worse, has less than half the VRAM and worse DX12 support than its only competitor, the R9 390
>nothing wrong
Are you seriously retarded?
>>52687025
>I've heard that the drivers are awful
Oh, is it 2002 again?
>>52690382
>95% of owners and they will all tell you this same exact thing, at 1080p, 3.5gb meme is simply a meme. its not real.
What happens in the next few years as new games start consistently using more than 3 GB of VRAM at 1080p, you fucking retard?
We know it appears to be fine for now, but VRAM requirements increase over time and it's a matter of time until you have a very handicapped card you your hands while people who bought 290s, 290Xs and 980s don't, let alone 390s and 390Xs.
Also, about your quote from PCGamer, the issue is not framerate dropping, you clueless idiot. The average framerate barely changes. But when accessing the last 0.5 GB frametimes dramatically increase, so while measured average FPS is almost the same, you still feel the stutterfest.
R9-390 is significantly more powerfull for the same money even in DX11
You set tesselation limiter to x16 and its almost as fast as a fucking gtx 980 in the Witcher WITH the gameworks shit turned to maximum settings (looks identical but now the AMD card takes no penalty while the 980 slows by 17-24%)
on top of that next DX12 games will be firmly in AMD's camp until nvidia puts ACE's on its GPUs so the 390 is future proofed
gtx 970 is a terrible fucking buy it is objectivly worse in every single category except power draw and the difference between the cards doesnt matter unless you live in a socialist shithole that charges a dollar or more per KwH of electricy use.
bought a GTX 980
the real GTX 970 :^)
>>52686205
wait for zen tm
>>52689122
>Le AMD Drivers werks
>Le Houseses won't burn down
>Le suppoort le little guy
>Le bankruptcy just a vicious jew rumor
Choose if you wanna buy shit sold telling lies or not
for the ammount you spent on that 980 you could have bought a Fury which is much faster and more future proof OR a Fury Nano which is about the same speed but more power efficient and so small you can stick it in a pc the size of a shoebox
before the price drops you might have had something but the gtx 980 is officially nigger-tier now
>>52695463
>using the smiley with a carat nose
>>52695605
nice memes kid
>EVGA GTX 970
Is the 3.5gb VRAM issue with all GTX 970 cards or is it only with EVGA cards?
>I'm to lazy to do research
these threads are cancer
please kill yourself op
I keep reading these GPU threads and for fucks sake will one of you retards just give me a solid answer.
980 or Fury. I don't want opinions, I want facts.
>>52700125
Fury is faster except for GameWorks games.
>>52689757
>fallout 4 meme.
>>52698056
any GTX 970, except the mobile variant.
>>52700138
>GameWorks
Even then I can set tessalation to 16x and it won't really matter that much?
>>52694984
>my 3.5gb meme
I'm sorry that when I updated my pc, my current PSU had enough power to run a 970 but not a 390, I'm sorry that thanks to employee discounts and sponsorship deals with nvidia and my work, I could get my 970 a lot cheaper then a 390
Also the 390 and the 970 trade blows on benchmarks. And most games are optimized for nvidia gameworks
over AMD's alternative.
Also by the time you need more then 3.5gb on 1080 the 970 or 390 won't be enough anyway...
>>52700294
Upgraded*
>>52694204
well fuck, wish i knew before i bought the 970.
might aswell switch to intel anyway
>>52686370
>3.5
>no dx12
>no win10 stable driver
kek
>>52700125
I was in this position. I bought a Sapphire Fury. It's been great, it can handle the Witcher 3 at 1440p no problem and is nice and quiet, too. I'd look for up-to-date benchmarks as the reviewers all wrote their stuff when the card wasn't out yet/just coming out, and the drivers are a ton better now, the new Fury nitro reviews could be good for this.
I bought a freesync monitor for my Fury to replace my ancient monitor, which has been fun. Really struggle to tell the difference between 45fps freesync and normal 60fps, which gives it more room to age.
980 will probably overclock better, my Fury can't go above 15% OC, ie, 1150MHz. So if you're a heavy overclocker and get lucky with the silicon lottery, you might well eek out more performance in DX11 on the 980.
Another down side with the Fury is gamesworks stuff cripple it, turning hairworks will take you from 60 fps to 40 fps.
A factor for me was that I run my games in a virtual machine with a PCI passthrough. The 980's drivers self destruct when they detect this setup to get you to buy a quadro. Fury doesn't give a fuck and happily initializes for the VM in seconds.
So I went for the Fury, more raw power and so probably will age better, like the 290 has aged much better than a 770 and 780 and even matches the 780-ti/970 if flashed to 390 or simply OCed a little.
I should note that if you're reading about people flashing their Furys to Fury-Xs, that was only possible for a handful of early cards and only a few of them were stable in the fully unlocked config, so don't bank on that.
If you want any more info about the Fury let me know.
>>52700294
You could run a 390 on a 500W PSU. What low wattage bs do you have?
>>52702196
Thanks you for the actual unbiased answer instead of the usual circle-jerk fanboy shit.
I've always used nvidia without question, but am now looking at getting similar performance for less of a price. I'm not one for OCing really.
My previous card a 680 I think, just packed up on me. If I plug it into either PCI-E slot the PC just doesn't start at all, so now running WoW (don't judge, temporarily gave up proper PC gaming when card died) at around 24-29 fps which is both fucking shocking and nauseating.
I'll check out some up to date bench marks of the Fury. Hopefully it'll drop down in price even more when the new range launches. I don't particularly care for having the latest and greatest, I'm not a faggy autist. Thanks again.
>>52702404
That is, running on my Intel 4000 IG...
>>52702404
Yeah same, Fury was my first AMD (not including ATI) card, I had a 680 at one point too. If you're not one for OCing then the Fury is probably a better bet, as there's a much smaller difference between stock Fury and OCed Fury than there is between stock 980 and OCed 980.
I wouldn't count on a price drop soon though, AMD aren't expected to launch their top shelf 14nm cards until late in the year so you'll be waiting nearly a year for that.
