fx 8350 bottleneck

[abdoo]

hi guys i have FX 8350 and i want to upgrade my 7870 card to r9 290x

will my fx 8350 at stock speed bottleneck my new card r9 290x ??

[NotCthulhu]

Depends on how cpu bound the game is.

[Archangel1994]

Yes

[Kevin_Walter]

No.

[vlkn´]

maybe? Maybe not

[TheSLSAMG]

There's no definite answer. In some games, sure. But in others, no.

[Guest DollarPC]

No 290X way to fast maybe if you get a R9-295X2 Maybe then sahll it be bottlenecked

[Yoinkerman]

It's fine.

[D3MON]

no it'll be fine, the most cpu limited single threaded games usually have a recommendation of a pentium4 so there wont be problems there.
in more modern titles threads are even so its fine, maybe if you lower the settings down to medium the card wont be fully used but who has a 290x on medium...

edit-just went 7850 to r9-290 so yeah, way overkill.

[abdoo]

thanks very much for your replys

[harrynowl]

What games are you looking to play? As you already have the CPU I'm not going to push Intel CPU recommendations on you but if you're looking to play MMOs, CIV, Minecraft, Total War, Skyrim and games like that you'll encounter a CPU limitation pretty quickly, but in most games you'll have a pretty decent experience- maybe with some bottlenecks but you should be running 60FPS+.

[Mush Brain]

It will bottleneck in the majority of games.

[Jedicake]

Wait... So there actually will be bottlenecks with that? Holy crap AMD. So disappointing.

[wyattzx]

There is such a wide variety of answers here. "Yes." "No." "Maybe." "Definitely." "Definitely not." How is he supposed to know!? He didn't specify a game, but neither did you guys..

[Faceman]

It will bottleneck in the vast majority of games. 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

[Gix7Fifty]

Nope, it will not bottleneck.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

in many games the CPU will be the limiting factor...but it's still worth getting the GPU as the gaming experience will still be miles better...don't worry about ''bottlenecks'' just don't monitor your GPU loads while gaming and enjoy!

[PlayModeOn]

I also moved from R9 270X too.

 

I am using FX-8350 and R9 290. There is a small bottleneck depending on the game.

Please just get an Nvidia card, it will save you the hassle of many games incompatible with AMD.

For example in Metal Gear Solid Ground Zeroes a GTX 770 is beating a R9 290X which is ridiculous and AMD has not released any drivers since then.

 

Save yourself the hassle.

I want to kill my computer right now, can't even run some older games either because they couldn't recognised it's an AMD card because they were ATI back then.

 

Even if it doesn't bottleneck just get a GTX 970, you'll have fun with PhysX and good ports while I don't.

[PlayModeOn]

Any news of your upgrade yet?

[Fate]

Nope, it will not bottleneck.

 

? That video shows nothing. 

8350 =/= underclocked i7.

[Gix7Fifty]

? That video shows nothing. 

8350 =/= underclocked i7.

It shows what is true unoptimization by disabling cores and downclocking, so people are not so scared to put things together.

[cooperb21]

? That video shows nothing. 

8350 =/= underclocked i7.

A better example. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8

[Faceman]

A better example. 

 

 

@Gix7Fifty

Again, those videos show nothing. In the first video, he is using an Intel i7-3770k, and then disabling cores and threads to mimic the performance of lower end hardware.  This does work to an extent, but not when you are trying to tell someone that an FX8 doesn't bottleneck, because as we all know, Intel cores are much more powerful than FX "cores".  Also, when he drops it down to i3 levels, the 3rd gen i3s are no where near as powerful as 4th Gen i3s, which are beating out FX8s in the majority of games.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

The second video is all conjecture, with zero benchmarks, graphs or from a credible reviewer.  Jay is far from a credible source.  While the videos he does on watercooling, and building PCs with his daughter are good and cute, he has a lot of videos that are downright wrong on a very simple technical level.  In this video, he is talking over BF4.  This is one of the few games that actually runs well on an FX8 when Mantle is enabled.  When Mantle isn't enabled?  You have to overclock an FX8 to 5.0Ghz to match an Intel i5-4440 @ 3.1Ghz in BF4 multiplayer paired with an R9 290X.

 

This is what a benchmark looks like, and here are many others just like it showing the Haswell i3s outperforming FX8s in the majority of games.

 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

[FlanK3r]

PC lab is bad exmaple...They dont know much about throtling of CPU and dont cooling VRM of CPU. I had better resulsts in some hard CPU benchmarks than they had (with same settings of CPU FX Vishera)....

[Faceman]

PC lab is bad exmaple...They dont know much about throtling of CPU and dont cooling VRM of CPU. I had better resulsts in some hard CPU benchmarks than they had (with same settings of CPU FX Vishera)....

That doesn't help the argument at all in favor of going with AMD.  But thats beside the point because they are using the Asus M5A97 EVO R2.0 which is a 6+2 VRM phase motherboard, it isn't the best, but it is adequate. 

Even if you want to throw out PClab's results(which I'm not), there are 3 other benchmarks or so that I linked showing how much better even the i3 does than the FX8 in a wide variety of games.

 

By the way, the reason you had better results with your Phenom is because the single core performance of the Phenom is stronger than that of Vishera.