fx 8350 bottleneck

[TorqueS]

This is nothing to do with absolute (44-45fps in game X or Y) performance, and everything to do with relative (45 vs 75 fps in set scenario) performance. I don't think you quite understand my point. If the scene is heavy, like the one you described, both the Intel and AMD have a hard job. Meaning, the results will be equally likely (that's a very important rule if you're going to add statistics into this) results. If the i5 gets 75fps and the fx 45 (arbitrary numbers!), that means the intel is 75/45*100 = 66.7% better.

Sure, the game might be playable on both CPU's, but it does not negate the i5 clearly being better at the same task on the same GPU. Given the pricing, you have a much more smooth experience on the i5...

That's correct, i never negated that.. I was pointing specifically to OP's situation. It seems stupid to look for a GPU, and then decide to postpone it and change the platform, in this case.

 

If your GPU can attain 75fps at given settings, but your CPU only manages to squeeze out 45, that's bottlenecking. That's why you shouldn't really couple the 8350 with anything higher than you're currently using.

That's also correct, but i think I can safely get an R9 280X for 1080p.

Later on, i'm gonna upgrade...maybe switch to intel if zen turns out to be disappointing, but I'm used with crappy game performance, and I can't say that 8350 is delivering crappy performance, at least in my case. That's my opinion. I'm not suggesting it's better than an i5, nor I recommend it for gaming. It's just that, for me, it does the job. For you, it might not.

[cooperb21]

I'm sure they won't be biased, as soon as you realise what a mistake you made.

 

Please do it, your rationalization would make for a very funny post to watch.

Im just trolling you guys im not gonna do that i already wasted my money on the i7 better not waste more. 

[Majestic]

That's correct, i never negated that.. I was pointing specifically to OP's situation. It seems stupid to look for a GPU, and then decide to postpone it and change the platform, in this case.

 

That's also correct, but i think I can safely get an R9 280X for 1080p.

Later on, i'm gonna upgrade...maybe switch to intel if zen turns out to be disappointing, but I'm used with crappy game performance, and I can't say that 8350 is delivering crappy performance, at least in my case. That's my opinion. I'm not suggesting it's better than an i5, nor I recommend it for gaming. It's just that, for me, it does the job. For you, it might not.

 

Then it's all good I guess. 280X is pushing the limits, you might have to OC that CPU a bit.

[TorqueS]

Updated signature.  I'll bump more if i need it,  but for the time being, it doesn't seem to be required. Probably because the setup is not pushing the CPU.

Never gets past 56 degrees socket(Only 59-60 in Prime95) and 50 on cores..so plenty of headroom left.

[Priller]

 

Also this is the image for the CPU+GPU.

SNIP

 

 

I don't see any 9590 + R9 295x2...

 

 

It was basically the same slide but it had been changed. 

 

Google is failing me right now and I cant remember where I saw it.

[cooperb21]

 

Also this is the image for the CPU+GPU.

 

 

I don't see any 9590 + R9 295x2...

 

When does this take affect wow seems pretty good deal to me. 

[Faceman]

Thats interesting the result you got... considering that Welcome To The Jungle is the one map out of that entire game that is properly multithreaded.

 

 

 

It would be one thing if there was a single review out there claiming that the Intel is superior, but when every single reviewer except for one is showing the Intel i3s and i5s as superior to FX8s, then its not a matter of if the benchmarks being used are accurate or strenuous enough, but it becomes a question as to why the FX processors continue to get recommended for gaming rigs?  Price is not a valid excuse because a locked i5 is the same as an FX8.  An i3 is much less than an FX8.  You cannot use just cost of processor alone, because with AMD, you need to have an adequate motherboard which costs more, evening out the price.

[TorqueS]

I totally agree with you here @Faceman, I can't see why would someone recommend and FX8 for gaming other than pure fanboyism.

And yes, it's true, you need a proper motherboard and a a good cooler(things I was totally aware of, when I built the system), while on intel side, you can live with the cheapest board and stock cooler.

 

As for Crysis 3, there might have been something wrong with my HDD...it's an old tired Green WD S-ATA II(doesn't impact performance, but qualifies its age). I don't have enough space on the SSD to try the game again.

Now that I come to think BF3(legit from Origin) runs smoother from the SSD(both SP and MP) than it was from my HDD(and i'm talking about raw FPS, not level loading times).

 

Hmm...so you see this is what i've been talking about. Different scenarios, systems show different results.

I didn't benched the game profesionally, I was just saying what I experienced, so this might indicate that something's wrong with my system. 

[Faceman]

I totally agree with you here @Faceman, I can't see why would someone recommend and FX8 for gaming other than pure fanboyism.

And yes, it's true, you need a proper motherboard and a a good cooler(things I was totally aware of, when I built the system), while on intel side, you can live with the cheapest board and stock cooler.

 

As for Crysis 3, there might have been something wrong with my HDD...it's an old tired Green WD S-ATA II(doesn't impact performance, but qualifies its age). I don't have enough space on the SSD to try the game again.

Now that I come to think BF3(legit from Origin) runs smoother from the SSD(both SP and MP) than it was from my HDD(and i'm talking about raw FPS, not level loading times).

 

Hmm...so you see this is what i've been talking about. Different scenarios, systems show different results.

I didn't benched the game profesionally, I was just saying what I experienced, so this might indicate that something's wrong with my system. 

Right, I do agree with the different scenarios.  I read through the translated website via Google just now, and while their test system does have an SSD, it doesn't mention if the games were run off of the SSD, because there is also an HDD. 

 

I can tell you from personal experience that I used to have my steam library on an external 2TB HDD, moved it all to a new 7200rpm Seagate Internal HDD, and I no longer get hitches when loading some programs.  For some reason Mozilla Firefox was the worst.  I would always get a second-long hitch when opening Firefox and some games, but to a lesser extend...   Anyways, when it came to gaming the in game performance was the same.  Maybe levels loaded faster?  It wasn't noticeable if they did but there was a noticeable difference in the amount of time, and smoothness of opening programs directly from an Internal HDD compared to External HDD, that was likely 5400rpm and only had USB2.0 speeds to go through compared to SATA6gb/s and 7200rpm of the Internal HDD. Once the program is running though, it feels the same.

 

So yes, something as seemingly insignificant *can* have an impact on the in-game performance.  At least in my case, I never experienced it, but I could see where the potential for variables can arise to create more abnormalities.

[Faa]

 

 

This picture is pure proof that 8320's are a bottleneck for a 280x and up. Gotta love fools trapping in AMD's marketing and complain about Intels "premium" prices while they're clearly saying here their CPU's were overpriced (they still are, 230$ for G3258/i3 performance). Just a quick list of what prices we have seen for their 8 cores with a 10% boost through a 1.5GHz OC;

8150 released 250$

8150 cut down to 200$

8350 200$

8350 cut down to 180$

5GHz edition of the 8320 1000$

9590 cut down to 300$

9590 cut down to 230$

Best part is they charge you 80$ for a stock cooler while you get one for free on Intel >.>

[huracan]

well i dont know about ppl but i have a fx 8320 and a gtx970 they work perfectly fine in any game i play. im pretty sure fx8350 will keep up with r9 290x.

[i_build_nanosuits]

well i dont know about ppl but i have a fx 8320 and a gtx970 they work perfectly fine in any game i play. im pretty sure fx8350 will keep up with r9 290x.

- monitor your gpu load while gaming

- realise your 100$ fx cpu greatly limits the performance of your 400$ gpu

- invest in a good intel cpu that matches the performance of your gpu

- enjoy!

 

been there, done that.

[i_build_nanosuits]

This picture is pure proof that 8320's are a bottleneck for a 280x and up. Gotta love fools trapping in AMD's marketing and complain about Intels "premium" prices while they're clearly saying here their CPU's were overpriced (they still are, 230$ for G3258/i3 performance). Just a quick list of what prices we have seen for their 8 cores with a 10% boost through a 1.5GHz OC;

8150 released 250$

8150 cut down to 200$

8350 200$

8350 cut down to 180$

5GHz edition of the 8320 1000$

9590 cut down to 300$

9590 cut down to 230$

Best part is they charge you 80$ for a stock cooler while you get one for free on Intel >.>

lol...and you saw that: ''introducing our 8 core FX processors''...those are crippled 4 modules inneficient parts that came out in like 2011...no need to ''introduce'' nearly 5 years old outdated parts wtf!

[huracan]

- monitor your gpu load while gaming

- realise your 100$ fx cpu greatly limits the performance of your 400$ gpu

- invest in a good intel cpu that matches the performance of your gpu

- enjoy!

 

been there, done that.

lol hello man how are you its been awhile! and id say my gpu is working at its full capacity at all times and so far im pretty impressed with fx 8320 a mere 100$ cpu keeping up with rest of 200 to 400 cpus!

[Majestic]

and id say my gpu is working at its full capacity at all times and so far im pretty impressed with fx 8320 a mere 100$ cpu keeping up with rest of 200 to 400 cpus!

 

I believe that you believe that is true. Ignorance is bliss huh.

[huracan]

I believe that you believe that is true. Ignorance is bliss huh.

excuse me?

[TorqueS]

well i dont know about ppl but i have a fx 8320 and a gtx970 they work perfectly fine in any game i play. im pretty sure fx8350 will keep up with r9 290x.

I wouldn't pair my 8350 with a GTX 970, unless I oc it to 5.2-5.3Ghz, which I don't think it will happen any time soon.

 

As long as you enjoy your gaming experience..what can I say, goof for you, but from my perspective you wasted money on the GPU(not in the sense it's not worth it, but in the sense that you're not using it to its full capacity)...

[huracan]

I wouldn't pair my 8350 with a GTX 970, unless I oc it to 5.2-5.3Ghz, which I don't think it will happen any time soon.

 

As long as you enjoy your gaming experience..what can I say, fine for you, but from my perspective you wasted money on the GPU

i dont want to argue about this but i want to say one final thing, i spent my money very well and im pretty happy that im able to max out most of the games and im extremely happy that i chose amd over intel.

[cooperb21]

This picture is pure proof that 8320's are a bottleneck for a 280x and up. Gotta love fools trapping in AMD's marketing and complain about Intels "premium" prices while they're clearly saying here their CPU's were overpriced (they still are, 230$ for G3258/i3 performance). Just a quick list of what prices we have seen for their 8 cores with a 10% boost through a 1.5GHz OC;

8150 released 250$

8150 cut down to 200$

8350 200$

8350 cut down to 180$

5GHz edition of the 8320 1000$

9590 cut down to 300$

9590 cut down to 230$

Best part is they charge you 80$ for a stock cooler while you get one for free on Intel >.>

You dont want to be running an amd card or even intel with a stock cooler they get to hot.

[cooperb21]

lol...and you saw that: ''introducing our 8 core FX processors''...those are crippled 4 modules inneficient parts that came out in like 2011...no need to ''introduce'' nearly 5 years old outdated parts wtf!

They came out in 2012 actually. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

They came out in 2012 actually. 

this architecture was introduced with bulldozer CPU and then slightly improved with piledriver which is this series of CPU...bulldozer was developped in 2010 with server purposes in mind and was released as an ''enthousiast'' part in october of 2011 and even at the time it was meh.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

[cooperb21]

this architecture was introduced with bulldozer CPU and then slightly improved with piledriver which is this series of CPU...bulldozer was developped in 2010 with server purposes in mind and was released as an ''enthousiast'' part in october of 2011 and even at the time it was meh.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_%28microarchitecture%29

Im talking about the cpu. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Im talking about the cpu. 

im also talking about the cpu.

[TorqueS]

i dont want to argue about this but i want to say one final thing, i spent my money very well and im pretty happy that im able to max out most of the games and im extremely happy that i chose amd over intel.

 

See that's the difference between me and various other users...i'm an AMD user, not an AMD fanboy.

While I enjoy the experience that my 8350 is delivering, I can't argue that in gaming, it's weaker than the i5s, hell it's than some i3s in some games. But the fact that gaming is not all I do, and various other aspects(such as the time when i bought the system, the deals I found at that time, the parts I had previously, budget for parts at that time..) made me choose the 8350 over an i5. But this was like 8 months ago. Right now, the cases when an FX is more suitable than an i5 are pretty much inexistent...

[i_build_nanosuits]

See that's the difference between me and various other users...i'm an AMD user, not an AMD fanboy.

While I enjoy the experience that my 8350 is delivering, I can't argue that in gaming, it's weaker than the i5s, hell it's than some i3s in some games. But the fact that gaming is not all I do, and various other aspects(such as the time when i bought the system, the deals I found at that time, the parts I had previously, budget for parts at that time..) made me choose the 8350 over an i5. But this was like 8 months ago. Right now, the cases when an FX is more suitable than an i5 are pretty much inexistent...

i did the same i was on a core 2 Q6600 and i bought an HD7950 to replace my HD5870 and the CPU was no longer enough so i bought an FX-8320 in january 2014 to match my 7950 (R9 280) and it was great and then i caught a deal on a 780 and oh boy my surprise was to realise that i was getting anywhere from 65 to 85% GPU loads in most games except a handful of games in which the FX was able to max out my GPU (BF4...that's about it...crysis3...maybe...) so i had to upgrade the CPU AGAIN after only about 3 months of using it AMD owe me nearly 200$ lost in my book.