I've been on other forums and the general consensus seems to be that every AMD cpu bellow the 8350 5ghz will bottleneck any gpu over an R9 280x. Is there any truth to this? A friend of mine uses an 8320 and a GTX 980. Is he living in a fool's paradise?
Really, it depends whether the game is mainly CPU or GPU bound, and how good the multi core support is.
If a game only runs on a single core, then, theoretically, the 4350, 6350, and 8350 should all have the same performance at the same clock speed. If that game was heavily reliant on the CPU, then the AMD processors would most likely be outperformed by their Intel counterparts.
Although I have a 4690K, I'm fond of the AMD parts because I can see their potential. Games just need to have better multi core support. Hopefully, because the Xbone and PS4 both have AMD APUs, future titles will have much better multi core support and will be more GPU bound, closing the gap between Intel and AMD.
They do have their place on the market, but the architecture is showing its age, and it wasn't even the best when it was released. For people with less budget, they are excellent parts. Unless you're playing really badly optimised games, you shouldn't see much of a difference.
The only difference between the 8320 and 8350 is clock speed. Most of the time an Intel will give better results than amd processors because they have better single core performance. And yes gpu and cpu bound games will yield different results for each.
This bottleneck thing is a huge overreaction imo. I cannot see any realistic way that a bottleneck can appear unless the CPU and GPU have a significant generation gap. I do not see how any FX series could be bottlenecking a single r9 2xx card or the Nvidia counterparts in any way that would be noticable.
Depending on the game that might be CPU or GPU bound and how much information it needs to send to the CPU and back there are different performance for different setups.
As other said. Games for now cannot use multi-threading good enough to exploit AMDs. hopefully this will change eventually.
1 Like
yes, bottleneck city
it highly depends from game to game.
But basicly yes, highend gpu´s getting bottlenecked by a FX cpu, in cpu demending games at 1080p mainaly.
Especialy mmo´s and rpg's suffer from this, but it highly depends from game to game if this is realy noticable or not.
Maybe there is a bottleneck I dont know, but on some games 6 or more cores blows a 4 core of any type out of the water. So an educated person could deduce FX does not "suck."
Synthetically it will be slower than intel on a lot of single threaded applications. Real world wise, you won't be able to notice that much especially with an SSD. Just watch videos of side by side and dont look at the numbers. Look at see if you can physically tell a difference in the textures and gameplay. Ask yourself are you willing to pay 200 dollars for a couple extra fps your eye wont even notice? True story.
well with directx 12 developers can leverage asynchronous graphics support so those core will actually give you a performance boost.
As someone that was foolish enough to pair a CF 290x setup with a 8320 I can tell you that with an overclock of 4.2-4.5ghz (which is very obtainable for that CPU) with a singe card 290x I did not get any bottlenecking. Once you go multi GPU though you MUST go intel or you will suffer like I did. I had to force 4k for every game I had just so the CPU would not be a bottleneck as in 4k the gpu's become the bottleneck. Simply put I never go intel now unless I know I will crossfire or SLI. AMD at the moment the sweet spot/max for them would be pairing a 9590 with a 7990.
Yes I do
1 Like
It will depend on the game or application you use on whether the fx is good or not. Sometimes in single player it will be just as good as an i5 but falls behind a in multiplayer matches. Even within heavily threaded programs like maya it does some things well and others not really. In most of the more demanding modern games I have tried it does well enough that I have no reason to even check gpu/cpu usage but at the same time I cant get over 45% gpu usage on my 280x in modded call of pripyat and 4v4 starcraft II can get painfully slow.
So yeah as others have said it all depends.
hehehe
1 Like
This is true, as a general rule, the FX-8350 will generally start to bottleneck graphics cards that are above an R9 280/GTX 960 class of GPU.
However, many people's conception of the definition of a bottleneck is off. Observe this link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html
They list the A10-7800, FX-8370E at various clockspeeds, along with a Haswell I3, I5, and I7. In each game, with switching the graphics card from the R9 270X or R9 285, to the R9 295X2, there is a performance increase. With BF4, there is a roughly a 100% increase in FPS for AMD processors! However, with the i7, we see that it gets a 150% FPS increase. So there is definitely a bottleneck.
Want to see something that will really break your world? Bam: http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/58/core-i7-4770k-vs-amd-fx-8350-with-gtx-980-vs-gtx-780-sli-at-4k/index.html
The FX-8350 keeping up with an I7-4930K with GTX 980s in SLI.
relivent sorta,
but my friends build used to be the fx 8 core and that bottlenecked 2 hd7970s
we swapped him to a intel i5 3570k
hes now on 2x 780ti's on 3 144hz screens and has room to spair
it seems to me that the fx line starts to chugg once you have an ssd and over about $500 ish in gpu
code optimization really really plays important songs in the symphony of computer parts benching i guess
it also depends on the resolution of course.
for example at 4k you are getting gpu limited mainaly, so the cpu will make less of a diffrence at 4k.
I'm going to wait for DX12 and Vulcan before i make a definitive decision about whether or not the FX range "sucks".
im waiting till dx 12 to upgrade past my win7
when they work out some kinks ill build a whole new rig
FX cpu´s dont suck, they are still capable chips.
But the haswell architecture is simply better, way more efficient in most all day ussage, and gaming.
But remember that the FX cpu´s are allready 3 years old, so for that matter there is not realy much to complain about, highend GPU´s became newer / stronger, they simply need faster core´s to keep up with them on 1080p especialy.
I dont want to get into this discussion at all, and in my opinnion there is nothing to discuss about, Intel haswell is simply better for gaming.
If you are looking for a new gaming rig, and you can afford a haswell i5 without making too much of a secrfice on the GPU side, then in my opinnion there is realy no vallid point to look to a 3 year old dead AM3+ platform anymore for gaming.
And yes, i use a FX8350.
4 Likes
I 100% agree. I only choose AMD out of principal(apart from the i7 in my laptop). AMD offer decent value and no one can argue against that statement.
1 Like