FX 4100 cpu plus GTX 660 TI?

[rambo9610]

Basically all i want to know is whether or not the AMD FX 4100 3.6ghz quad core cpu will bottleneck a GTX 660 TI in my system?

 

my current specs

 

800w=PSU

GTX 560 (non TI)=GPU

FX 4100 3.6ghz=cpu

8GB=Ram

OS=Windows 7 64-bit

ASUS M5A97=Mobo

1TB hard drive

[Shiva.]

No, it should be fine. But, it might affect games of certain resolutions. You can do an overclock later.

 

I'd suggest you to switch to 670 as you don't have to worry about bottleneck issues.

 

EDIT: Right finn.

Edited November 28, 2012 by shiva s

[rambo9610]

Thanks, i might consider the 670 if i can find a good deal for it at some point.

[yoječ]

Given that this FX is worse than Phenom II X4, my guess is that GTX660Ti will get bottlenecked quite a bit. Especially gien the fact that nVidia drivers are very CPU-intensive.

Edited November 28, 2012 by yojo2

[sivispacem]

Given that this FX is worse than Phenom II X4, my guess is that GTX660Ti will get bottlenecked quite a bit. Especially gien the fact that nVidia drivers are very CPU-intensive.

This. For all intents and purposes, the FX4000 series are dual-core CPUs rather than true "quad" cores. In theory, at average resolutions I doubt you'll see a great difference, but in benchmarking or stress testing it will almost definitely bottleneck.

[Finn 7 five 11]

No, it should be fine. But, it might affect games of certain resolutions. You can do an overclock later.

 

I'd suggest you to switch to 670 as you don't have to worry about bottleneck issues.

You got it the wrong way around.

Why a 660Ti? That's not THAT much better than a 560. I would go a 670 to make it properly worthwhile/little more future-proof.

[lalalala93]

Get an amd-fx 8350 4ghz which is like $200 which is more than 2x faster than a 4100 and get a gtx 670 for around $380-$400. The 680 is only just a whisker faster than the 670 and costs usually $50 to $100 more.

Edited November 28, 2012 by lalalala93

[sivispacem]

Don't even consider buying a FX series unless you are an avid AMD fan or do lots of stuff with complex algorithms. The Core i5/7s have them thoroughly outgunned on gaming performance at themmoment.

[rambo9610]

Don't even consider buying a FX series unless you are an avid AMD fan or do lots of stuff with complex algorithms. The Core i5/7s have them thoroughly outgunned on gaming performance at themmoment.

Yeah an i5 would be pretty decent for awhile i'll probably end up getting one a few months after i upgrade the gpu. If i must i will probably overclock my current cpu during the gap in between the upgrades.

[sivispacem]

Don't get me wrong, the FX-8350 is incredible with complex multi threaded applications and in pure benchmarks gives the equivalent i5 a good kicking. But we are nearing a new socket, single thread performance is still sorely lacking and the i5/7 are better for gaming use with a lower power draw and therefore probably end up cheaper in the long-run. I'm seriously considering an FX-8350, but I'm also an AMD fan-boy AND do a lot of stuff with complex multi-threaded analysis applications.

[MisterMaster]

if you not amd fanboy, you take i3 2320 or i5 2320. You to be satisfied, if you buy intel.

[sivispacem]

 

i5 2320

I just had a browse for those- in the UK they're a whole £10, or about 7%, cheaper than an eight-core FX-8350- which also has significantly cheaper motherboards. I do question the value in any Intel processor below the 3570 now the Piledriver CPUs have been released and significantly undercut them.

 

Largely irrelevant as the OP already has his mobo and processor.

[rambo9610]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115233

This one seems pretty good.