Why/How is the FX 8350 a bottleneck?

[Faa]

That CPU isn't bottlenecking anything don't worry. Just because the CPU isn't at 100% load on all cores doesn't mean that it's bottlenecking your gpu, the 8350 can easily handle most gpu configurations but the most extreme ones   

That's not what we said. If the gpu load isn't at 99% for example 50% your cpu is bottlenecking. The CPU load means jack, forget about it.

[cthomas1489]

That CPU isn't bottlenecking anything don't worry. Just because the CPU isn't at 100% load on all cores doesn't mean that it's bottlenecking your gpu, the 8350 can easily handle most gpu configurations but the most extreme ones   

 

That's not what we said. If the gpu load isn't at 99% for example 50% your cpu is bottlenecking. The CPU load means jack, forget about it.

 

Okay. But given the fact that the GPUs aren't consistantly being utilized and not putting up as high as numbers as they should... that probably indicates the CPU is bottlenecking? I'm trying to understand this correctly.

[D3MON]

This.

I facepalmed when OP said "all 8 cores at 100% load". That's not bottlenecking. Bottlenecking in this situation is when the CPU isn't strong enough to let the GPU be utilized 100%. It doesn't matter how much the CPU is utilized. It matters how much the game's engine utilizes the CPU fully.

Most games are single core. Some are multi-core but only do 2 or 4 threads. They don't know how to use all 8 cores on an 8350. So they only use what they can which isn't enough for the GPU to be used 100%. That's what the bottleneck is.

[Zeruel]

lol... Everyone needs to chillout.

 

Got a 60Hz Monitor? Get a decent graphics card and a decent 2+ core cpu( AMD rocks at low-mid/high range). 

 

Unless you got a 120Hz monitor or want to play Crysis or Metro at ULTRA setting with an even 60fps, then start worrying about bottlenecks. 

[cthomas1489]

lol... Everyone needs to chillout.

 

Got a 60Hz Monitor? Get a decent graphics card and a decent 2+ core cpu( AMD rocks at low-mid/high range). 

 

Unless you got a 120Hz monitor or want to play Crysis or Metro at ULTRA setting with an even 60fps, then start worrying about bottlenecks. 

 

While I agree if I was only playing 108p @ 60hz I wouldn't bat an eye... though I'd probably have a different setup all together. I want to hit 60fps in pretty much everything at 4k and now I'm worried the system won't push it due to the CPU bottleneck.

 

EDIT: 108p - So many pixels. Eyes such hurt.

[Faa]

Okay. But given the fact that the GPUs aren't consistantly being utilized and not putting up as high as numbers as they should... that probably indicates the CPU is bottlenecking? I'm trying to understand this correctly.

Exactly. You could reduce the cpu bottlenecking by overclocking your cpu or getting a new CPU.

GPU bottlenecking isn't hard to explain, unlike other components the GPU cannot bottleneck any other component other than the user itself. So you judge it from its performance - if youre happy you keep the gpu ofc but if you aren't you get a new gpu or go SLI/CF. 

 

Bottlenecking in this situation is when the CPU isn't strong enough to let the GPU be utilized 100%. It doesn't matter how much the CPU is utilized. It matters how much the game's engine utilizes the CPU fully.

Most games are single core. Some are multi-core but only do 2 or 4 threads. They don't know how to use all 8 cores on an 8350. So they only use what they can which isn't enough for the GPU to be used 100%. That's what the bottleneck is.

It's sad that many people don't know this but its bloody annoying if they say it isn't true. Stuff like "monitor your cpu load, if cpu isn't at 100% = no cpu bottleneck" is just getting dry. I got examples of showing a 100% cpu load and 99% on the gpu, pair this up with the fact that many engines are on 2-4 threads the cpu load does mean nothing. Linus his video's about cpu bottlenecks were lacking a bunch of details, theyre far from informative. 

 

 

While I agree if I was only playing 108p @ 60hz I wouldn't bat an eye... though I'd probably have a different setup all together. I want to hit 60fps in pretty much everything at 4k and now I'm worried the system won't push it due to the CPU bottleneck.

 

EDIT: 108p - So many pixels. Eyes such hurt.

4K might make you gpu bound, I can't really guarantee you this but most likely you won't be cpu bottlenecked at all. It's like 720p which is considered now as a cpu bottleneck resolution and 1080p GPU bound but times change 1080p starts to become the cpu bottleneck resolution and 4K the gpu bound resolution

[Faceman]

Moreover, we probably wont see engines that use more than 4 cores for quite some time.  Game developers aren't going to make a game that only those with 6+ cores can run, they are going to make games for the masses.  The masses only have 2-4 cores at their disposal.  We won't see a shift from this 2-4 core design for quite some time.

[Zeruel]

While I agree if I was only playing 108p @ 60hz I wouldn't bat an eye... though I'd probably have a different setup all together. I want to hit 60fps in pretty much everything at 4k and now I'm worried the system won't push it due to the CPU bottleneck.

 

EDIT: 108p - So many pixels. Eyes such hurt.

 

For a 4k system then I recommend the coming 8-core X99 Intel cpus and SLI 880s.  

 

That build will pretty much run 4k no problem in like 6 months lol

[Linus_torvalds]

Can someone try to explain to me why everyone seems to think the 8350 bottlenecks everything? In EVERY game ive played not once has all 8 cores been at 100% load, only during synthetic when the CPU is being evaluated.

we tested FX 8320 same as 8350 at wopping 4.72 GHZ with GTX 660 Ti at 1098 MHZ

ganmes does not use 8 cores up to 4 cores (onluy CRYSIS 3 and bf4 can use 8 cores and 8 threads too i proved it my task manager 8 thread were under load 60-70 %  CRYSIS 3 all ultra settings)

here is result 

 

now look at my i7 3770 at 4.3 GHZ with GTX 660 1080 MHZ  do you know that 660 ti is 15 % faster then 660 non ti. but look at this damm results. my 660 beats higher clocked 660 ti because FX 8320 is bottleneck even on 4.72 GHZ !!!!!

 

[Karumu]

a CPU not at 100% load does not mean its bottle necking

 

 

comes down to game optimizations

some games favor faster fewer cores

i like intel because i can turn off HT

but in games, you can force how many cores it uses and disable say 4 of the cores and have 4 cores to that game, not as fancy as intel and really a pain in the ass, but then again it probably doesnt work in the same way

[qwertywarrior]

but in games, you can force how many cores it uses and disable say 4 of the cores and have 4 cores to that game, not as fancy as intel and really a pain in the ass, but then again it probably doesnt work in the same way

yeah doesnt work in the same way at all

[Thony]

Fx-8350 is not bottlenecking, it just doesnt have as powerful cores as intel i7.

[ShadowCaptain]

While I agree if I was only playing 108p @ 60hz I wouldn't bat an eye... though I'd probably have a different setup all together. I want to hit 60fps in pretty much everything at 4k and now I'm worried the system won't push it due to the CPU bottleneck.

 

EDIT: 108p - So many pixels. Eyes such hurt.

 

108p ftw!

 

But in all seriousness, pretty much no system can hit a consistent 60fps at 4k at maximum settings, even if you had quad sli titan blacks

[Linus_torvalds]

Fx-8350 is not bottlenecking, it just doesnt have as powerful cores as intel i7.

yes but when you buy FX 8320 OC to 4.72 GHZ it needs 60-80 $ cooler plus you buy GTX 660 ti and get less performance then i get on intel CPU even on stock speeds with box cooler and GTX 660 non-ti!!! 

 

it's called bottleneck!!!   your GTX 660 ti is slower then my GTX 660 non-ti and here some people still suggest AMD CPU. it's not cheap guys. you need 60-80 $ cooler and pay more for less GPU power. if you would have bought 660 instead of 660 ti you saved almost 40-50 $ + 60-80 $ = 100-130 $  

 

FX 8350 price is 170$    170$ + 130 $ = 300 $ plus energy price in long run  you could get intel i5 for 220 $ and 60 $ cooler and get waaaaaaay better performance for 50 $ less price then on FX 8350. 

[Thony]

yes but when you buy FX 8320 OC to 4.72 GHZ it needs 60-80 $ cooler plus you buy GTX 660 ti and get less performance then i get on intel CPU even on stock speeds with box cooler and GTX 660 non-ti!!! 

 

it's called bottleneck!!!   your GTX 660 ti is slower then my GTX 660 non-ti and here some people still suggest AMD CPU. it's not cheap guys. you need 60-80 $ cooler and pay more for less GPU power. if you would have bought 660 instead of 660 ti you saved almost 40-50 $ + 60-80 $ = 100-130 $  

 

FX 8350 price is 170$    170$ + 130 $ = 300 $ plus energy price in long run  you could get intel i5 for 220 $ and 60 $ cooler and get waaaaaaay better performance for 50 $ less price then on FX 8350. 

Logan from Tek Syndicate calculated the difference between AMD and Intel cpu power consumption and how much it costs you per year, the number was too small to influence you when running AMD processor. You can find the video on youtube (its from last year).

I dont quiet believe that you get better performance with GTX 660+intel vs GTX 660ti+AMD. Need to see some proof. But Intel is still better even for gaming than AMD is. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Logan from Tek Syndicate calculated the difference between AMD and Intel cpu power consumption and how much it costs you per year, the number was too small to influence you when running AMD processor. You can find the video on youtube (its from last year).

I dont quiet believe that you get better performance with GTX 660+intel vs GTX 660ti+AMD. Need to see some proof. But Intel is still better even for gaming than AMD is. 

The difference in energy consumption between a core i5 and an FX 8 core AT STOCK SPEED is within 8$ to 10$ per year in the US...but if you run them overclocked it can get as high as 15$ a year difference...defenetly not a deal breaker but still something to consider.

 

He will get better performance with even a 660 in SOME GAMES, the CPU INTENSIVE GAMES...(here read MOST MMO'S, RTS games, RPG and some indies...) those are the game that are SINGLE THREADED games and they run only a couple of very heavy threads, something at wich ANY AMD CPU's isn't very efficient to deal with because the cores on AMD aren't as fast as intel and for games that's what is important!

 

I used to have an FX-8320@4.6GHZ and until watch dogs came out i truly believed that this CPU was perfect for future games as they where to require more widely spread threads accross the CPU and they would run better like BF4 was...but i was wrong, the load is indeed distributed across more cores but the piledriver cores even at 4.6GHZ were'nt quick enough to process crucial data to deliver the best gaming experience and consistant GPU load...moving to intel faster cores solved the issue GPU load in watch dogs is always 90% to 99% and framerates are now 55 to 75 FPS. Much smoother.

 

NOW, FX CPU's are very good for the price and i can honestly count on the fingers of one hands the games that i play where the intel CPU makes a true noticeable difference and to anybody on a budget who aim for 60FPS at 1080P in MOST games and looking to pair that CPU with mid-range to lower high-end graphics cards then by all means go for an FX-8320 and overclock it as long as you know what you are getting into and that you are not a big MMO fan, you will like it!

 

I'd still pick an FX over a core i3 for modern games...even the FX-6300 IMHO is a better choice than a locked i3, but after using the FX over 6 months with a powerful GPU i really think a low locked core i5 (i5-4460 for example) along with an H81 or B85 cheap ass motherboard is a better choice over and AMD FX with a cpu cooler and a beefier motherboard.

 

________________________________________________________

and a quick word to the guy that is running dual R9 290 with his FX, you will be CPU bottlenecked to death at 1080P but if you move it to 4K then you just killed the bottleneck because running at 4K is so hard on your GPU they will get much higher loads across the board they are pushing much more pixels...the CPU has nothing to do with the screen resolution, the higher the resolution the harder your GPU will work. i actually think if you go to 4K resolution you will be GPU bound in just about every game and you mentionned aiming for 60FPS @ 4K i think your hopes are too high but its not your CPU that will be your problem but the GPU'S...they arent good enough just yet to push 60 constant FPS at that resolution in the most demanding games...(crysis 3, metro LL, far cry 3 for example...) at least not with full in game settings....but many will run 60FPS on max details.

[Linus_torvalds]

The difference in energy consumption between a core i5 and an FX 8 core AT STOCK SPEED is within 8$ to 10$ per year in the US...but if you run them overclocked it can get as high as 15$ a year difference...defenetly not a deal breaker but still something to consider.

 

He will get better performance with even a 660 in SOME GAMES, the CPU INTENSIVE GAMES...(here read MOST MMO'S, RTS games, RPG and some indies...) those are the game that are SINGLE THREADED games and they run only a couple of very heavy threads, something at wich ANY AMD CPU's isn't very efficient to deal with because the cores on AMD aren't as fast as intel and for games that's what is important!

 

I used to have an FX-8320@4.6GHZ and until watch dogs came out i truly believed that this CPU was perfect for future games as they where to require more widely spread threads accross the CPU and they would run better like BF4 was...but i was wrong, the load is indeed distributed across more cores but the piledriver cores even at 4.6GHZ were'nt quick enough to process crucial data to deliver the best gaming experience and consistant GPU load...moving to intel faster cores solved the issue GPU load in watch dogs is always 90% to 99% and framerates are now 55 to 75 FPS. Much smoother.

 

NOW, FX CPU's are very good for the price and i can honestly count on the fingers of one hands the games that i play where the intel CPU makes a true noticeable difference and to anybody on a budget who aim for 60FPS at 1080P in MOST games and looking to pair that CPU with mid-range to lower high-end graphics cards then by all means go for an FX-8320 and overclock it as long as you know what you are getting into and that you are not a big MMO fan, you will like it!

 

I'd still pick an FX over a core i3 for modern games...even the FX-6300 IMHO is a better choice than a locked i3, but after using the FX over 6 months with a powerful GPU i really think a low locked core i5 (i5-4460 for example) along with an H81 or B85 cheap ass motherboard is a better choice over and AMD FX with a cpu cooler and a beefier motherboard.

I see you learned something  or it's because now you have intel CPU

 

I remember when you had FX 8320 you were talking about FX 8320/8350 as best cpus for future gaming because they are 8 cores. 4-5 people including me were saying that it is not but you didnot listen. You were saying that you have 20 years experience in PCs LOL. I hope you will never suggest shitty FX CPU to people who need right choice for their CPU.

[Thony]

The difference in energy consumption between a core i5 and an FX 8 core AT STOCK SPEED is within 8$ to 10$ per year in the US...but if you run them overclocked it can get as high as 15$ a year difference...defenetly not a deal breaker but still something to consider.

 

...

Everything u said i spot on and made it absolutely clear (at least to me).  I even agree on i3 vs 6300.

AMD is a budget orientated CPU manufacturer and still will be unless they improve the architecture.

[Linus_torvalds]

AMD is a budget orientated CPU manufacturer 

not for long. soon there will be intel 14 nm chips and AMD is still at 28 nm. thats twice the intel techprocess. they are still in 2009! when intell made first CPU from "core i" familly.

[Thony]

not for long. soon there will be intel 14 nm chips and AMD is still at 28 nm. thats twice the intel techprocess. they are still in 2009! when intell made first CPU from "core i" familly.

You think price will go down on intel because of smaller chips ? I dont think so. They will still ask for premium.

[Linus_torvalds]

You think price will go down on intel because of smaller chips ? I dont think so. They will still ask for premium.

Did i say that intel CPUs prices will go down? They ask as much as their CPUs really worth  look at FX 8350 wich is for 170$ needs 60-80 $ to catch up to 2500k in some games (not every) and i5 4670k is for 220 $ 

[Thony]

Did i say that intel CPUs prices will go down? They ask as much as their CPUs really worth  look at FX 8350 wich is for 170$ needs 60-80 $ to catch up to 2500k in some games (not every) and i5 4670k is for 220 $ 

U did this:

ME - AMD is a budget orientated CPU manufacturer

YOU - not for long

Budget = cheap

So what did u really mean by "not for long" ?

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

I see you learned something  or it's because now you have intel CPU

 

I remember when you had FX 8320 you were talking about FX 8320/8350 as best cpus for future gaming because they are 8 cores. 4-5 people including me were saying that it is not but you didnot listen. You were saying that you have 20 years experience in PCs LOL. I hope you will never suggest shitty FX CPU to people who need right choice for their CPU.

Don't get me wrong, as i said in like 90% of the games out there the FX is just fine and even with a GTX 780 if you play with a lot of anti-aliasing and graphics goodies turned on you get the most out of it and a very enjoyable gaming experience!

When it comes down to budget build AMD is very tuff to beat and if one is going to play mostly modern games at 60FPS there is no reason not to consider an AM3+ build...

 

And BTW i do have over 20 years of experience in PC gaming i do have my own computers since i'm 12 years old and even before that my dad always had them at home and i played on them since i'm like 2 years old...i'm 31 now, been in multiple gaming competition and build many of my machines all by myself shopping for parts online and checking reviews (i basicaly checked reviews online for every fucking new pc parts that launch for the last 15 years or so...) but one can't predict how much of an effect a lower IPC CPU can have on gaming...and piledriver cores should theoraticaly be fast enough for any modern game processing but for some reason (bad optimisation most likely) they arent cutting it in SOME modern games, and i want the best so i upgraded that. But do i regret getting in the FX stuff? absolutely not i paid 200$ for the FX-8320 + 970A-UD3P and i sold it 2 weeks ago for 210$

[-iSynthesis]

It shouldnt even bottleneck 2x780tis, heavily dependend on the game of course, but still, it will only be a bottleneck in very few games

[i_build_nanosuits]

«the biggest bottleneck on my system is now the display  and those 120hz monitor are very costly...