Description

Used mainly for gaming and some video editing... started life with a GTX 760 from Palit and a Corsair cx500m but now has an EVGA 980ti ACX2.0+ SC and EVGA Supernova 750g2.

I intend to change out the exhaust fan for an Corsair AF 120 as the original is starting to fail and switch out the h100i fans for Coloured ring variants for aesthetics.

may switch to intel i7 with asus gryphon mobo in near future.....

Log in to rate comments or to post a comment.

Comments

  • 58 months ago
  • 9 points

FX-6350 with 980 ti... that's not gonna bottleneck atall :L

[comment deleted]
  • 58 months ago
  • 3 points

Better performance if u got a high end gaming i5 or i7 like the 5820k

  • 58 months ago
  • 3 points

Whhhat? Ur running your 980ti on a 1080p 60hz monitor????? This makes me sad.

  • 58 months ago
  • 1 point

I also have a 4k screen across the room....

  • 57 months ago
  • 3 points

sir , your gpu is being severely chocked out by that poor old amd cpu , i suggest you move over to an intel 4690k (at min)m or better yet a 4790k

  • 57 months ago
  • 3 points

Wow this is a HUGE Bottleneck. Even a r9 380 would,bottleneck that CPU. Don't get into the whole AMD scheme. Just because it has more cores doesn't mean it's good. Heck he misewell have a fx4 because little to no games use more then 4 cores. If you were to upgrade to a i5-4690k I can guarantee you'd see huge performance gains. Watch your GPU usage while,playing games like GTA v or Witcher III. I bet your GPU never reaches even 45% usage but I bet your CPU is always at 90+% because the CPU can't handle the power of the 980Ti. Admit it, the architecture inside of a a,f chip is 4 years old and was devolped years before that. You can't upgrade to anything because anything past a fx-8350 is useless because chips like the fx9 are just overclocked fx8s. I can start posting many benchmarks and real people who switched to Intel and seen gains in performance.

  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

Naw man you forget, his cpu will only hit 60% overall usage, but 100 usage on threads 1-3. His gpu will probably sit at about 50-60% usage though, yea.

@OP, you are stunting that card so hard... Using that card, with a cpu like turns that 1440p monster into a 1080p card, you've taken a hatchet to it's legs. Give it a good i5 and it will give you better fps than you're getting now, and at 1440p to boot.

  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

It will only hit 66% usage for the reason that 95% of the time games don't utilize more then four cores and the ones that do don't do it good. I doubt the GPU will even hit 50-60%. Probably 40% max. A nice i5 like you said he'd see massive boost in performance.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Hit over 60fps on everything I've played at 1440p, Arkham knight(we all no how bad that is currently ?) crisis 2 and 3, battlefield 4, alien isolation, tomb raider and wolfenstien old blood all at ultra preset or maxed, wolfenstien been the only one not at max as it crashes when all sliders are maxed....

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah you may hit 60Fps but benchmark the card. The minimum FPS is the most important. I'd rather have a constant 60fps then be able to hit 80-100 but have drops down to 20-30

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I've not seen these so mentioned drops, it's been nothing but smooth for me the exception been batman which is playable but for memory leak problems causing it to crash.

Should I get time I'll try and capture some video and post to YouTube and paste the link here....

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Alright sweet man, I seen earlier you mentioned going into a Intel z97 or x99 build. When would that be?

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Hello, I am using a translator of English for the message because I speak Spanish, and I have the FX 6350 and i am to buy the gtx 970. i wanted to know how you operate the video games in particular, the new you, modern video games/ new. How many FPS in the video games??? I am interested in the fps,video games work well constringency You can play well and without problems? Thanks

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Soo ugh... What's your GPU usage look like?

  • 50 months ago
  • 1 point

Great build, also, did you have any problems with the ram at first? Mine is 1600 mhz and it gives me the beep code of ram.

  • 48 months ago
  • 1 point

No Problems for me, perhaps something is at fault?

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

Nice build bro. As others have said, you probably want to invest in a better CPU in the near future, as that combo is far from ideal. However, out of the two components I definitely would have upgraded the graphics card first myself as well, so no sweat. Not to mention the 980 Ti is not cheap by any measure, so upgrading to that and the CPU requires quite a lot of dough. I definitely wouldn't be able to afford it. Hell, I wouldn't be able to afford the 980 Ti to begin with.

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

it was built sourcing parts I could afford at the time late 2013 and as mentioned the gpu is by far the most expensive part but made the most significant change in performance so went with that first while I decide between x99 or z97 as am3+ matx options are not really viable anymore

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

Not gonna use the "B" word, cuz you are no doubt aware. Nice cable management, is what I will say...

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

ta dude

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

so..... dare I ask weather to go x99 or z97?

lol seriously guys everyone seems to forget I've upgraded from a gtx 760 this was a good match with the amd chip and was relatively in expensive too, the GTX 980ti offered the most performance gain outright apposed to switching out to intel at comparable costs...

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

If you can afford it, I would go with X99. It will have greater longevity, and it uses DDR4 while Z97 is limited to DDR3. Not to mention more cores at this time. Honestly though, at this point you might be better off waiting for the Skylake processors to launch.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 58 months ago
  • -1 points

Holy crap, what were you thinking man! Why, just why, have you ever heard of what bottlenecks are buddy?

  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

ive not seen 100% usage from either component fella :/

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

What do you mean? And if you are telling me I am wrong, kindly look it up, you have a very good build, but the only problem is the cpu could have been better, that is really it. Once you get the money, upgrade to x99 and or z97 with an Intel processor, or wait for skylake.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I mean i haven't pushed either the CPU or GPU to the point i'd actually notice a bottleneck, I run v sync with every game I play so hitting 60 fps at 1080p or 1440p is fine, for now anything above this I know the chip will hold the card back as the board wouldn't cope with an overclock of any degree.

I fully intend to upgrade, most likely to a i7 4790k/z97 when funds allow but the GPU upgrade gave better increase now rather than later as I found myself lowering settings for the 760 to keep up regardless of CPU combo.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

Good thinking man, you're right, get the better parts first.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
  • 58 months ago
  • -1 points

All of you guys, need to know what the term "Bottleneck" means,

You may want to have a look at jayz 2 cents video, were he proves it is actually hard to bottleneck a GPU!!! He had to turn off all hyperthreading on a i7 and put it on two cores at 1.3GHZ!!! To actually show drops

What I am saying Is just because the card is powerful and very expinsive DOES NOT mean it will "bottleneck" the CPU

That CPU is clocked at 3.9 Ghz and can easily be pushed to 4.5 to boost peformace, He will only notice about a 5Fos drop over a "Superiour" Intel Chip

  • 57 months ago
  • 4 points

This comment is so obsurd that I cannot fully comprehend it. "He will only notice about a 5[fps] drop over a superior Intel Chip" That is so wrong, and so absolutely biased that I cannot sit idely by and let you continue to spew such nonsense forth. Let me state, that first of all, I hate intel, I hate what they've become, I was angry that I was forced to update to an intel chip just to get anything more than 12fps in ARMA 2. And that's where this point starts

Intel isn't "superior" it IS superior for anything above 50-70$ for gaming, and that's just a fact man. There's a reason that with my Phenom 1075t and 270X I was getting 5-20fps in DayZ, and suddenly When i upgraded to my current 4790K I get now a solid 45-60fps, only just now being bottlenecked by my 270X. To be fair though, ARMA is a very, very poorly optimized, and is an extreme example.

In GTA 5 I went from getting fairly good 35-50 fps, to a constant 60fps, and that's a game that has great multicore optimization.

The shear fact of the matter is, you are horribly wrong. A 6350 is going to hold that 980ti down so hard it's almost incomprehensible. I cannot believe that anyone who knows anything about a little something called "IPC" could say something as blatantly stupid as you have. In a well optimized game, an 8320, 8350, and 6300+ can run decently well, but let's face it. Even in those games, an intel chip of the same price is going to outperform, maybe not by a landslide, but enough to make a noticeable difference. And in games that arn't golden examples of multicore configurations, then the intel chip is going to absolutely destroy the equivalent AMD chip, we're talking increases of 30fps +, and sadly enough there are more and more games being released with poor optimization on the PC of late.

Why risk it, just go for the safer, and more powerful bet. Don't let your blatant biased opinion weigh in on something that you obviously know very little about. And don't you dare try to compare an i7's performance to an 8350. Go learn about a little something called instructions per clock, and then make that same argument. You'll find that intel has almost a 50% gain on IPC compared to AMD, which is were real processing power is determined, not by number of cores or speed.

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

I can agree with something's you are saying, but you can't 100% know a 6300 will pull down a 980ti, unless you OWN both of them :

"this^ I've had little problems frames wise" This the owner stated he has had no problems with, a

Also of course a Intle chip will run MUCH better than a fx because they, cost tones more money

  • Thanks for you reply :) Benjamin
  • 57 months ago
  • 2 points

do you even look at benchmarks you can easily find the an i3 performs way better than the 6300 and can beat a 9000 series depending on the game and here is proof of it http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/401217-more-updated-fx-vs-intel-for-gaming/

  • 57 months ago
  • -2 points

Shut up and take my upvotes!

  • 57 months ago
  • 3 points

That is not true at all. Averages don't tell the whole story. Minimum FPS is what you feel during a slowdown and there, AMD trails heavily in newer games, especially with cards with the power of the 980Ti. For example, this GTAV test at "only" 1080p maxed with a Titan X already shows big differences in minimum frames, and a 980Ti is for all intents and purposes, just as fast - http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more

Same thing with Witcher 3 - http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

  • 58 months ago
  • 1 point

this^ I've had little problems frames wise

  • 57 months ago
  • 1 point

fine lets not use the word bottle neck but the phrase hold back, theres cases of a fx 8350 "holding back" a single gtx 970 and even a worst case with a fx 6350, so do you not think that a fx 6350 which is known to hold back gtx 970s wont hold back a gtx 980ti which is basically equal to two gtx 970s ?

  • 57 months ago
  • 0 points

So many people are complaining about how AMD CPUs bottleneck, but a 5960x can still bottleneck GPUs like Titan X's.

  • 57 months ago
  • 3 points

That needs 3 Titan Xs to bottleneck while this AMD CPU could bottleneck 1

  • 57 months ago
  • -1 points

Please know what bottlenecking is before you make false conclusions.

  • 57 months ago
  • 3 points

I think you need to learn what bottlenecking is in gaming mate. You see to have it confused with hardware bottlenecking on pcie lanes.

An 8350 unless it's able to utilize 5 or more cores at 100% roughly will bottleneck even a 980 or 390X in games. Why? Because the ipc, or core performance on it is dated, its old and it's not up to par with current games anymore. Anything less than being able to use more than 1/2 of its whole potential and its going to fall very short of what intel offers in competition.

You talk a big game, but are unable to back it up with any actual tangible evidence not stemming from research done 3.5 years back when the FX chips first started to launch.

  • 57 months ago
  • 0 points

I fully know and in CPU bound situations where all of AMDs core aren't utilized bottlenecking will occur compared to a Intel CPU because of the weaker cores. At the end of the day you're gonna have lower framerate then what you could get whether it's really noticeable depends on the game and how much you overclock.

[comment deleted]
  • 58 months ago
  • -2 points

My pleasure,

I just don't want people to be scared by this word "Bottlenecking" it I completely overused, one can not assume it will "bottleneck" just because it is a bang for the buck chip,

In a previous comment, the owner stated that the CPU or GPU have hit 100% yet l which means they are running fine and not "Bottlenecking"

Btw it's Sir :)

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 58 months ago
  • 1 point

I do agree the term "Bottlenecking" is overused,

Of course a 5960X will beat a FX chip because it is $600 dearer!!! But the card will be able to run fine with minor FPS drops

P.S the master race is gr8 XD

  • 57 months ago
  • 4 points

saw the video by jayz, and he only used valley bench mark. bring in minimum frame rates and and cpu intensive game like arma 3 and there will be a major problem. average frame rates dont tell the story, the minimums do. how far does fps drop, is what i mean by minimums. in the video, the 2 cores at 1.8 Ghz had a 14 fps as a minimum while compared to the usual 26 FPS . it was halved. and you cant compare the i7 3770k to the fx 6350 because not only are they on different platforms, but they have different ipc counts. the cores on the i7 are much stronger (by %40) and could handle being turned off. this is not the story with the fx 6350, where there will be a bottleneck.

  • 57 months ago
  • 0 points

Don't take such an extreme example to discredit intel- try an i5 4460. It will end the fx. I have hope for zen, but intel wins except on extreme budgets. 5FPS avg isn't the problem- you run into issues with min framerates and frame time on low IPC chips.

Edit: aaaaaand this is a month old. Welp, sorry.

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
  • 58 months ago
  • 1 point

this is why im going intel my friend, combining now is short term and holds out well, no doubt better than some here are willing to except.....

[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted by staff]
[comment deleted]
[comment deleted]
  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

even with the gtx 760 I got 60fps on ultra preset for battlefield 4 with very little dips, 64 man conquest saw dips in the mid 40s ive yet to try with this card, so thanks dude

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 58 months ago
  • 0 points

Haha, the reactions people have to this build are hilarious. The bottlenecking will definitely be there, but some people are reacting as if it will render the system unusable. I most certainly not call this combination ideal, but there's some Intel fanboys hovering around that seem to be having strokes over this build.

  • 58 months ago
  • 2 points

Agreed, I'm sure he has every intention on upgrading. He prolly just couldn't afford to get a new CPU And GPU at the same time.

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 58 months ago
  • 1 point

at least somebody noticed....

[comment deleted by staff]