Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
hey guys, been looking at charts all over but ended up just becoming confused .....

as it is now with keeping the current state of the drives in mind, how much of a performance boost can i get on 4k if i go from CF 290s to SLI 980s or 980 TIs ?

would it be significant enough to warrant the price premium that i will be paying ? i was thinking about an upgrade but with new GPUs around the corner i'm finding it hard to justify
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
For 4K . . . shoot for more VRAM. 980's 256 bit . . . idk. 980Ti X 2 . . . yah, sell the 290s to offset cost or just wait.

EDIT: Wait, with Ivy? might not be enuf to push 2 980 Tis. Not sure. i know my i7 Sandy at 4.5 can only handle 2 290s. Three maybe but no more.
 

·
Goodbye
Joined
·
10,269 Posts
You definitely don't have enough CPU horsepower to push 4K at high FPS. You really need to be looking at a 6700K for that.
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
46,972 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagget3450 View Post

When did 4k become CPU bottlenecked?
Too many nubs that do not know what 4K is lol.

Anyways stick to 1 card please. Wait for next generation GPUs. Right now if you must Single GTX980 Ti will get you 4K if you lower some settings.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Too many nubs that do not know what 4K is lol.

Anyways stick to 1 card please. Wait for next generation GPUs. Right now if you must Single GTX980 Ti will get you 4K if you lower some settings.
idk, i've only had my 4K for less than two years. my i7 at 4.5 does push my 290s but i doubt it can 2 980 Ti. at a certain point . . . the cpu has to matter even at high rez.

But, you know more, so . . .
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
First, an Ivy at 4.5ghz is still a very modern CPU and should be no problem for 4K resolution.

In general, the higher the resolution the more important the GPU is.

I game at 5760x1080 and I used to have two 290s to drive it (I sold them). My CPU was never an issue. Surround resolution is only about 2 million pixels less than 4k's 8 million. So the demand on the cards should be similar.

In general, I was able to run everything I tried on Ultra no problem, using FXAA (NO MSAA) and reducing some needless post processing settings. If you are willing to compromise image quality extremely slightly (like, I couldn't tell a difference) then two 290s, 980s, 980ti's etc should have no issues with 4k with most games, even new games. Even moreso once most new games support DirectX12 (which, remember, is supposed to make the CPU a non-issue!)

However, I would totally recommend waiting for the new cards to come out. It should only be 2-3 more months and you'll get something at least as powerful with probably twice the energy efficiency.

These cards are going to be 14nm as opposed to 28nm so it's a really big jump in performance and efficiency.

Buying 980ti's right now is a big problem because they are going to be end-of-life in the next few months, and Nvidia is notorious for not supporting older products well. Like, no optimization in the drivers at all once the new card launches. I bet the guys who bought 780ti's in 2013 for $800 and still have them now are pretty salty. Meanwhile, my 290s just got better and better over time. The 980ti would likely only give you around 20% more performance anyway, it would basically be a sidegrade.

Personally, I have my savings and I'm waiting not for Polaris, but for Vega in 2017, since it's supposed to be the high end offering on 14nm from AMD. Polaris is supposed to be a midrange replacement and might not even be as good as the Fury X. By the time Vega comes out I should be able to afford two $700 cards if need be.

Pascal is coming out soon too and unless it's like 50% better than AMD or something they won't convince me to buy. I prefer companies that don't screw their customers over constantly, lie about their products (see: GTX 970) and actually support products for a good amount of time.
 

·
What should be here ?
Joined
·
5,744 Posts
Wait it out till June and then upgrade to Pascal or Polaris based on performance or availability. Either should be faster and better suited for 4K than CFX 290 or even 980ti. Besides, 3 months is too less of time to recuperate the value you'd be investing into a 980/ti for when the newer cards launch, your current card prices would take a hit. Are you running into situations where your current setup suffers ?
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
46,972 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

idk, i've only had my 4K for less than two years. my i7 at 4.5 does push my 290s but i doubt it can 2 980 Ti. at a certain point . . . the cpu has to matter even at high rez.

But, you know more, so . . .
Yes CPU always matters. The things is at 4K something like 2 x 290s even with OC and even if CFX scaling works will not get more then 40-50 fps in new games with MAX settings. 2 x 980 Ti are 50-60% faster but still only 70-80 fps range if SLI works. An IVY CPU can push those kind of fps. I have used my setup @ 1440p and Core i7 3770K does alright for most games. Even when CPU bottle-necked my fps is higher then 60. At 4K every game I have tested is GPU bound. CPU sits like 13% in games like Witcher 3.
 

·
New to OCN?
Joined
·
26,919 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by neurotix View Post

First, an Ivy at 4.5ghz is still a very modern CPU and should be no problem for 4K resolution.

In general, the higher the resolution the more important the GPU is.

I game at 5760x1080 and I used to have two 290s to drive it (I sold them). My CPU was never an issue. Surround resolution is only about 2 million pixels less than 4k's 8 million. So the demand on the cards should be similar.

In general, I was able to run everything I tried on Ultra no problem, using FXAA (NO MSAA) and reducing some needless post processing settings. If you are willing to compromise image quality extremely slightly (like, I couldn't tell a difference) then two 290s, 980s, 980ti's etc should have no issues with 4k with most games, even new games. Even moreso once most new games support DirectX12 (which, remember, is supposed to make the CPU a non-issue!)

However, I would totally recommend waiting for the new cards to come out. It should only be 2-3 more months and you'll get something at least as powerful with probably twice the energy efficiency.

These cards are going to be 14nm as opposed to 28nm so it's a really big jump in performance and efficiency.

Buying 980ti's right now is a big problem because they are going to be end-of-life in the next few months, and Nvidia is notorious for not supporting older products well. Like, no optimization in the drivers at all once the new card launches. I bet the guys who bought 780ti's in 2013 for $800 and still have them now are pretty salty. Meanwhile, my 290s just got better and better over time. The 980ti would likely only give you around 20% more performance anyway, it would basically be a sidegrade.

Personally, I have my savings and I'm waiting not for Polaris, but for Vega in 2017, since it's supposed to be the high end offering on 14nm from AMD. Polaris is supposed to be a midrange replacement and might not even be as good as the Fury X. By the time Vega comes out I should be able to afford two $700 cards if need be.

Pascal is coming out soon too and unless it's like 50% better than AMD or something they won't convince me to buy. I prefer companies that don't screw their customers over constantly, lie about their products (see: GTX 970) and actually support products for a good amount of time.
this
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Yes CPU always matters. The things is at 4K something like 2 x 290s even with OC and even if CFX scaling works will not get more then 40-50 fps in new games with MAX settings. 2 x 980 Ti are 50-60% faster but still only 70-80 fps range if SLI works. An IVY CPU can push those kind of fps. I have used my setup @ 1440p and Core i7 3770K does alright for most games. Even when CPU bottle-necked my fps is higher then 60. At 4K every game I have tested is GPU bound. CPU sits like 13% in games like Witcher 3.
You want to max some games in 4K, then the best bet is 980 Tis (2). Closest you can go or Titan Xs, so vram will not be an issue. Still, i don't think op's cpu will be able to push those gpus.

I only play medium at 4K and it is still look better than max 1440.

No, 980 Tis are not 50 - 60 % faster. Most is 40%.

edit: also, not all all games are gpu bound in 4K. Yes, some will work like Valley . . .



Others,

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klocek001 View Post

I'd pick up two r9 nano's ($450 each) rather than two 980Ti's (+$600 each)
My guess is op plays nVidia sponsored games, thus the choices.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
723 Posts
If you have 2 R9 290s, wait for the Big Vega.
 

·
technologist
Joined
·
4,489 Posts
Good replies everyone.

All my testing and all the reviews I've read have shown that the higher the resolution, the less the CPU matters.

As an example...

I had an FX-8350 at 5ghz and with two 290s in Valley 1080p, I was getting 95 fps tops (kinda low eh?)

So I switched to a 4770k, with the same 290s at 1080p I was able to pull 130 fps tops. Even with the i7 at stock it was 110fps. Pretty embarrassing for AMD.

However, at 5760x1080 in Valley on BOTH cpus I got right around 60 fps. I'm sure the minimum frames were probably higher on the i7, and the i7 has other benefits anyway so I'm glad I switched.

Similarly, running Fire Strike I got like 12000 with the FX-8350 and 18000 with the i7 with the two 290s. If I bumped it up to Fire Strike Extreme or Ultra (higher res) the scores ended up being much closer.

There's still people that game at higher resolutions using the 2500k or 2600k and do just fine, I really don't think Ivy is going to matter much. Especially when all new games will use DX12, eliminating CPU bottlenecks.
smile.gif
 

·
Ladies, One at a Time
Joined
·
9,739 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

You want to max some games in 4K, then the best bet is 980 Tis (2). Closest you can go or Titan Xs, so vram will not be an issue. Still, i don't think op's cpu will be able to push those gpus.

I only play medium at 4K and it is still look better than max 1440.

No, 980 Tis are not 50 - 60 % faster. Most is 40%.

edit: also, not all all games are gpu bound in 4K. Yes, some will work like Valley . . .



Others,

Is the background on your computer the cat Breathing fire?
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 95

TCO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCautiousOne View Post

Is the background on your computer the cat Breathing fire?
CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 95

TCO
Yes. Used to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCautiousOne View Post

Im Satisfied.

TCO
Oh, no way. lol. Your work? I used it for about a year as my background. It is incredible. I had to resize this 'cause it was 12MB . . .

 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top