cpu/motherboard for gtx 1070

>>253360
Wait how the fuck does a FM2+ CPU support PCIe 3.0?

>>253412
Doesn't matter since the 1070 also works with PCIe 2.0

>>253431
Thats true. However the motherboard manufacturer states PCIe 3.0 is supported with a FM2+ CPU. Which is bullshit since FM2+ CPUs dont support PCIe 3.0.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 543x351px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 543x351px

>>253459
>>253412
You're flat wrong there: they support it on the 16 directly-connected "graphics" lanes.

inb4 AMD is wrong about the design of their own processors and chipsets

>>253360
Just get the goddamn 1070 anyway.

What do you think will happen?

Some guys will knock on your door and take it away?

>>253464
maybe a bottleneck? idk

>>253702
And the problem with that would be what?

All "bottleneck" means is "there is a lowest-performing element of the system". A moment's thinking will tell you that there must therefore be a "bottleneck" in everything, because every system has a bunch of components, and it's literally impossible that they all could perform exactly as well as each other no matter what they're being asked to do.

"Bottleneck" is a stupid word, because it makes people think that there's a problematical situation that needs to be remedied, when in fact the only "issue" is that some component is performing at 100% of its potential.

The way the "bottleneck" meme has spread, you'd think that replacing the 1070 with an MX440 or taking out half the RAM would improve performance by "easing the bottleneck". You'd see people carefully adjusting the speed of their processor so that it's just fast enough not to "bottleneck" the GPU, but not so fast that the GPU "bottlenecks" it. You'd have to use a different clockspeed for each game, because each game is different. There'd be websites where people compare notes, meticulously detailing the exact optimum clockspeed for each game.

It's all bullshit and cargo-cult thinking. Making some part of your PC better can never make your PC worse.

>>253711
The whole point of this line of thinking is to buy keep the performance levels reasonable; it would make no sense to spend $1000 on a GPU if your CPU is so damn slow that a $200 GPU would deliver the same performance.

Which I think is what this anon is thinking about.
If you want to buy a GPU, then thinking about if it could be bottlenecked is not a fucking meme. It is simply assuring the product you buy actually has more value to you than a cheaper one.

>>253717
yeah, that's my point
so... i'm not from usa, but im going to buy the 1070 there because is more cheap
(at least compared to here)
for now gpu is priority, processor and motherboard together can be more cheap than a 1070, even here
or i'm wrong?

>>253717
Well it automatically does, unless you're never planning on buying any more hardware ever in your life. If you buy shit shit just because the shit you've got is shit, then next time your shit will still be shit, and you'll keep buying shit shit until you have to throw all your shit shit in the bin and buy some new shit shit.

Over your life you'll spend more and get less, because your shit doesn't last and needs replaced with more shit.

You should be buying on objective price/performance, not on some vague feeling that something's not going to be pulling its weight right now.