FX-8320 Bad Performance

[UnbendingNose]

Getting very poor performance from FX-8320 with my R9 290. I've done research regarding this combination, and I'm fully aware that the fx 8320 is a bottleneck. Although, I don't think it should be as bad as it is. Here's a video of BF3 showing how my R9 290 is only getting less than 70% usage because the fx8320 can't feed it data fast enough. If I play BF4 with mantle enabled the R9 290 runs perfectly fine at 99% gpu usage and over 90fps avg. 64 player. I know it's not the GPU, single player runs fine, but the more CPU intensive mutliplayer struggles. I've tried underclocking, reinstalls, overclocking, nothing is working, I'm guessing it's the motherboards fault, but I'm not going to waste money keeping this platform alive, would just switch to Intel.

 

Here's all readings, CPU temps are fine, VRM temps good, clock speeds are constant, yet gpu usage sucks because if the fx8320.

[Astralify]

Unfortunately this is what it is with this CPU. And as I see it's not even overclocked. So... yeah... sorry.

[harrynowl]

this doesn't come as a total surprise unfortunately

[flibberdipper]

Yup. That 8320 is a bottleneck. Which makes me need to make a topic now.

[UnbendingNose]

Unfortunately this is what it is with this CPU. And as I see it's not even overclocked. So... yeah... sorry.

Yah, I had it at 4.2ghz but it didn't help. Thought it might be throttling so I brought it back down to stock clocks and disabled turbo.

[Faa]

World of a difference
 

 

Yup. That 8320 is a bottleneck. Which makes me need to make a topic now.

Tried OCN marketplace to get a deal? 2500K's should be going for 100$.

[UnbendingNose]

 

World of a difference

 

 

Tried OCN marketplace to get a deal? 2500K's should be going for 100$.

 

I'll probably wait for some microcenter deals during the holidays and get staples to price match me an i5 or xeon.

[Faa]

I'll probably wait for some microcenter deals during the holidays and get staples to price match me an i5 or xeon.

Forget a xeon, for BF3 which only takes advantage of 4 cores, you want a quadcore thats overclockable.

[Joshua Ondangan]

well that's sad but at least it works >.< if you're not happy with it. you can always live with what you have right now and just save some cash and then make money rain on some shops pocket as you buy a beast of a rig next time.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i ended up selling my FX-8320 which was a good overclocker and moved to intel to get rid of bottlenecks, i'll never look back at AMD until they pull off something really good.

[UnbendingNose]

well that's sad but at least it works >.< if you're not happy with it. you can always live with what you have right now and just save some cash and then make money rain on some shops pocket as you buy a beast of a rig next time.

That is the internal debate I have with myself right now. The fx8320 does fine in bf4 thanks to mantle and I play that game the most. Dragon Age: Inquisition and the next Mass Effect will be the other two games that I'll be playing mostly and they'll support mantle. The only up and coming game that I'll be really interested in that will probably run like crap on AMD is the Witcher 3.

Sending money on the intel swap will mostly help in my older games like BF3, Skyrim, Witcher 2.

So whether or not I just wait it out and deal with it, or fix the problem now is my issue. Funds are not an issue, but I don't like spending money for no reason. The usb drivers on my PC have been starting to malfunction recently by not recognizing on boot, maybe that's a sign my motherboard is going bad and I need to switch now?!

i ended up selling my FX-8320 which was a good overclocker and moved to intel to get rid of bottlenecks, i'll never look back at AMD until they pull off something really good.

How much did you get for it? Swapping now might be the best option if I can mitigate the cost by selling the AMD platform because maybe the parts will be worth a lot less next year.

[Hendrics]

i ended up selling my FX-8320 which was a good overclocker and moved to intel to get rid of bottlenecks, i'll never look back at AMD until they pull off something really good.

I did the same thing man, very recently actually, with my fx 6300 overclocked to 4.4ghz

I play Arma2 Dayz Mod and Dayz a hell of a lot, and even some Elder Scrolls Online and running an GTX770 SLI setup, needless to say, a bottle neck, only getting 30% usage per card in Arma games / Dayz, both CPU intensive games. Even elder scrolls online was only getting to 40% per card.

Went up to an i5 4690k, also overclocked to 4.4ghz. Now im getting 80-90% or more utilization in Arma / Dayz / ESO, night and day and totally surprised on how big the difference is.

Get a good i5 k card, decent cooling, either AIO water or good Heatsink, overclocking Mobo, and I think youll be surprised too.

Old FX 6300 results - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2959734 - 9259

New i5 4690k results - http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3008672 - 11261

And the only thing changing between those 2 tests is the CPU/MB

[Faa]

I did the same thing man, very recently actually, with my fx 6300 overclocked to 4.4ghz

I play Arma2 Dayz Mod and Dayz a hell of a lot, and even some Elder Scrolls Online and running an GTX770 SLI setup, needless to say, a bottle neck, only getting 30% usage per card in Arma games / Dayz, both CPU intensive games. Even elder scrolls online was only getting to 40% per card.

Went up to an i5 4690k, also overclocked to 4.4ghz. Now im getting 80-90% or more utilization in Arma / Dayz / ESO, night and day and totally surprised on how big the difference is.

Nice to hear someone saying the difference is huge. Usually you have types of this Fooshi guy who basically claim there's no difference: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/236363-i7-4770k-and-280x-or-fx-8350-and-gtx-980/

[Perplexor]

I'm actually about to switch to intel as well. I'm just waiting for some good deals to come around. My 8320 was good to me but intel has the performance i want for gaming.

[UnbendingNose]

I'm actually about to switch to intel as well. I'm just waiting for some good deals to come around. My 8320 was good to me but intel has the performance i want for gaming.

Yah, thinking i5 4690k from microcenter for $199 or a xeon e3 1230 v3 for $199 with a cheap B85 board for some hyperthreading. Leaning towards the xeon because I believe hyper threading will be more potent than overclocking in the future.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

How much did you get for it? Swapping now might be the best option if I can mitigate the cost by selling the AMD platform because maybe the parts will be worth a lot less next year.

I sold the FX-8320 and the Gigabyte 970A-UD3P online for 200$ canadian...prices are a little higher here and this was about 3 months ago.

I guess today in the US such a kit would be worth around 140 or 150$ max. in good shape with the box and everything included.

i went from 4.6Ghz FX-8320 to 4.3ghz i7-4770K and in some games the difference is very noticeable...in many other games in the other hand there was no CPU problem so the performance purely rely on GPU power...but i feel overall much better now that i have a very good CPU to play my favorite games and i don't have to worry about GPU loads everytime i launch a new title...

[Sintezza]

in cpu bound scenario´s the diffrence between intel and amd is indeed very huge.

But this is because intel haswell cpu´s have a much better single threaded performance.

 

Thats why BF3 single player, works totaly fine.

But as soon as you go online, with a server full people, then there is much more going on in the game.

People fly every where, more explosions and what not.

Thats the part where the FX cpu´s start to strugle to keep up with higherend video cards.

 

Even a locked i5, kicks a FX9590´s ass in cpu bound gaming scenario´s.

But BF4 is a bit better optimized, for multi threading.

However you will still suffer from some bottlenecking, wenn you disable mantle.

 

Multiplayer is allways cpu bound.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Thats why BF3 single player, works totaly fine.

But as soon as you go online, with a server full people, then there is much more going on in the game.

People fly every where, more explosions and what not.

Thats the part where the FX cpu´s start to strugle to keep up with higherend video cards.

 

Multiplayer is allways cpu bound.

BF3 used to be a lot less stressful on the CPU i remember playing karkand full 64 servers with an intel Q6600@3.4ghz with a HD7950 and i was getting my 60FPS on ultra 1080P... believe it or not i can hardly do that nowadays with a core i7-4770K@4.3ghz and a GTX 780...they've broken that game to a degree i cant explain what happened.

BF4 on the other hand has become flawless i now get over 80FPS in any maps full server.

[Sintezza]

BF3 used to be a lot less stressful on the CPU i remember playing karkand full 64 servers with an intel Q6600@3.4ghz with a HD7950 and i was getting my 60FPS on ultra 1080P... believe it or not i can hardly do that nowadays with a core i7-4770K@4.3ghz and a GTX 780...they've broken that game to a degree i cant explain what happened.

BF4 on the other hand has become flawless i now get over 80FPS in any maps full server.

 

Well BF3 is less optimized to spread its load over all available threads.

So basicly you could also say, that BF3 is more stressfull then BF4.

Because BF3 will top stress out only a few cores. On which BF4 can spread its load over all availeble 8 threads.

Thats why the FX8 cores cpu´s do a littlebit better in BF4 then BF3.

But its just not as good as intel.

Because of amds cmt architecture

[Krytopsy]

I don't think we can call a good overclocker a processor that don't get so much % increase since his real performance pool suck here's an exemple :

Getting 30% of a 1000 pts = 1300 pts

VS

Getting 15% of a 2000 pts = 2300 pts

Is pretty much what AMD vs Intel real performance wise is lol

Overclock make the processor work at high frequency but it doesn't change the base performance of the chip, whatever the frequency you overclock your Pentium 4 to, it will not beat a i7 processor Sorry AMD guys lol

[i_build_nanosuits]

I don't think we can call a good overclocker a processor that don't get so much % increase since his real performance pool suck here's an exemple :

Getting 30% of a 1000 pts = 1300 pts

VS

Getting 15% of a 2000 pts = 2300 pts

Is pretty much what AMD vs Intel real performance wise is lol

correct.

[Faa]

Well BF3 is less optimized to spread its load over all available threads.

So basicly you could also say, that BF3 is more stressfull then BF4.

Because BF3 will top stress out only a few cores. On which BF4 can spread its load over all availeble 8 threads.

Thats why the FX8 cores cpu´s do a littlebit better in BF4 then BF3.

But its just not as good as intel.

Because of amds cmt architecture

BF4 isn't multithreaded as people make up to be.

Right, quickly explaining this program, this just shows how much CPU a thread actually uses, since each thread can be only active on core at a time it can only use 8.3% of my CPU (3930K 12 cores so 100/12 = 8.3%). We mainly see 6 big threads and the rest are soooo minor that you can forget about them. Basically game is just 6 threaded. Not sure what you mean by spreading the load, multithreading is just about having for each task a thread. You need a 2nd thread to use a 2nd core etc.

Anyways I recorded like 20 mins of footage, with a huge cpu bottleneck as my standards, the game mostly averages at 32% load (4 cores) and sometimes just spikes to 40%. Basically a crappy multithreaded game. Btw taskmanager is "bullshit", making 4 threads in prime95 you see each core having a load that's because threads can alternate between cores and windows just logs this. To illustrate this; http://i.imgur.com/Jc1Tycj.png

We got one more thread but if you remember the video I posted there was no performance gain of more than 4 cores, different story again. Having x amount of threads doesn't mean you get performance from x amount of cores. BF3.exe never surpasses 32% load (4cores).

Quite funny that even BC2 is slightly better multithreaded >.> 

Quite a huge difference, isn't it? 70% lol. If I swap from map, it's bottlenecking apparently at 20% load so 8 cores mean nothing there and you want single core performance this time.

[Veil]

Why anyone listens to Faa is beyond me.

What resolution are you even running at? 720p? And the CPU load increases? You don't say... I'm shocked...

Battlefield 4 isn't as multithreaded as people make it out to be?

AMD:

http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/battlefield4-beta-9.jpg?resize=579%2C607

Intel:

http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/battlefield4-beta-8.jpg?resize=579%2C606

Totally, it doesn't balance the load between cores at all...

OP:

You're not really being descriptive of your problem. Is it lag spikes from your internet? Are you having problems with frames per second online during a 64 player conquest map? What is your CPU load and GPU load at?

There's more going on then saying "My performance isn't great, so AMD sucks".

[Sintezza]

What i try to say is, BF4 has the abillity to utilize all the threads there are availeble.

That you dont gain any fps from an i7 over an i5, thats offcourse true.

 

But still, if you play BF4 multiplayer, its allot more stressfull for an i5, then an i7.

Because BF4 has the abillity to use all the availeble threads.

This basicly means that you have less loads on the cpu cores with an i7 then with an i5.

 

This situations can be handy wenn streaming for example.

[Faa]

Why anyone listens to Faa is beyond me.

What resolution are you even running at? 720p? And the CPU load increases? You don't say... I'm shocked...

Battlefield 4 isn't as multithreaded as people make it out to be?

AMD:

http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/battlefield4-beta-9.jpg?resize=579%2C607

Intel:

http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/battlefield4-beta-8.jpg?resize=579%2C606

Totally, it doesn't balance the load between cores at all...

How exactly is this a proof? I've shown you the process how many threads it contains. As seen from the cycles delta we only have 6 threads and rest are trashthreads that use almost nothing of the CPU so lets forget about them, you can't use 8 cores with 6 threads.

Just leave the mouse alone, let the pausebar just disappear and you can see the usage of BF4.exe 

 

OP:

You're not really being descriptive of your problem. Is it lag spikes from your internet? Are you having problems with frames per second online during a 64 player conquest map? What is your CPU load and GPU load at?

There's more going on then saying "My performance isn't great, so AMD sucks".

 

AMD bottlenecks as being proven in my first post.

Ping doesn't affect your FPS.