Why/How is the FX 8350 a bottleneck?

[Linus_torvalds]

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" ?

 

Sorry i meant AMD existence.

[Linus_torvalds]

It shouldnt even bottleneck 2x780tis, 

We need facepalm smiles on this site LINUS!!!

[Thony]

Sorry i meant AMD existence.

Apology accepted  

Yea AMD will have hard time when Intel launches Skylake....

[Buckley]

@Buckley

I have an i5-4670k OC'd to 4.7Ghz + a single GTX780(not overclocked, lost the silicon lottery big time on my GPU) when I play BF4, I get 120-150fps. My settings are Ultra everything, and Texture Resolution 140%.

I eventually turned V-Sync on because there is no sense running at more than 60fps on my monitor.

That's impossible. Literally impossible. @Faa is getting those fps with 2 780's let aalone one

[i_build_nanosuits]

That's impossible. Literally impossible. @Faa is getting those fps with 2 780's let aalone one

On my system BF4 multiplayer full ultra preset 1080P 4X MSAA and 115% scalling i get around 80 to 100FPS depending on the map, GPU load is 98% across the board and i have my GTX 780 overclocked to 1250MHZ...CPU is 4.4GHZ i7 haswell.

If i set the supersampling to 140% like faceman is suggesting i get around 50 to 60FPS...nowhere near what he claims...my guess is he's running without any anti-aliasing maybe? otherwise i can't see this as being true.

[Linus_torvalds]

Guys, guys, you did not ask him what resolution display he has. if he says that GTX 780 (bad overclocker, he said he lost CHIP lottery) has BF4 ultra 120-150 FPS and Texture Resolution 140%.  I assume he has 640x480 display LOL

 

Of course he is running not ultra maybe mid settings. or he is lying!

[Faa]

That's impossible. Literally impossible. @Faa is getting those fps with 2 780's let aalone one

But that was recorded in november back when we didnt have any performance updates yet. I get easily between 100-120 fps with a single card in siege of shanghai but in operation locker you get much more. Honestly comparing your fps with someone else is kinda hopeless over the net

[cthomas1489]

 

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

 

 

Hmm that's interesting. In all honesty I might starting returning this / parting it out. I don't like what I'm seeing with it and I know the CF 290X's will be able to play 4k but they'll still struggle. I have a secondary rig that will run some games for me for now but part of me wants to wait on X99 and next gen amd/nvidia gpu's.

[W1tness]

I've heard something simillar with my friend's overclock but that was his own problem maybe it has to do with game optimization or lack of GPU load.

[Legitsu]

AMD's single thread performance is crap is why a

FX8350 is NOT A 8 CORE its 8 THREADS its basically AMD's version of hyper-threading

AMD chips are slower then intel by a LARGE margin 

disable cores 1,3,5 and 7 

this will essentially make it a quad core but you will pickup a chunk of performance in applications that aren't threaded for 8 execution threads 

this is because you are freeing up resources in the CPU that are normally tied up waiting for other threads it also avoids the issue with this type of hyper-threading in that you aren't starving waiting

threads of execution resources so more instructions are executed per clock 

and for the record a single 780 will get you Ultra 1080P @ about 60FPS with a 780TI managing abut 70 thats on a 64 man server AVG

[Faceman]

I will show you guys proof later this weekend. I'm on vacation and using a Kindle to type. Sometime around Monday I will post screenshots. I've never video captured before, maybe I will get @Faa to help me out so I can post a video of my BF4 results. Ultra Settings everything at 1080p.

[Linus_torvalds]

AMD's single thread performance is crap is why a

FX8350 is NOT A 8 CORE its 8 THREADS its basically AMD's version of hyper-threading

AMD chips are slower then intel by a LARGE margin 

disable cores 1,3,5 and 7 

this will essentially make it a quad core but you will pickup a chunk of performance in applications that aren't threaded for 8 execution threads 

this is because you are freeing up resources in the CPU that are normally tied up waiting for other threads it also avoids the issue with this type of hyper-threading in that you aren't starving waiting

threads of execution resources so more instructions are executed per clock 

and for the record a single 780 will get you Ultra 1080P @ about 60FPS with a 780TI managing abut 70 thats on a 64 man server AVG

that's right. FX 8 core is not 8 core it's 4 module. each module has 2 cores, but they get tasks from one way.

 

now if they made true 8 core CPU that would be ~40% faster than this "8 core" cpus.

 

do you remember when fx 8150 was out 6 core 1100 T was faster then "8 core" FX 8150. AMD said that it was because of windows and then there were 2 updates for specially AMD cpus but nothing happend

[Raxzer]

The FX-8350 is a good CPU. Is it great? Not really, but you won't really notice the difference between a FX-8350 and a i5-3570K. At least I couldn't while gaming, surfing, watching videos etc. You might notice it a bit playing games relying heavily on very few threads. 

The benchmarks exaggerated the differences, which aren't nearly as clear under normal usage. 

 

 

But I will admit that it comes up short. There weren't any reasons to go for it over a i5. It was indeed the sign of AMD giving up on CPUs, and I guess it was the right choice, even though it resulted in Intel now giving us poor products compared to previous generations. 

[Faa]

Hmm that's interesting. In all honesty I might starting returning this / parting it out. I don't like what I'm seeing with it and I know the CF 290X's will be able to play 4k but they'll still struggle. I have a secondary rig that will run some games for me for now but part of me wants to wait on X99 and next gen amd/nvidia gpu's.

Whats your average performance in 1080p? 4K would likely push your 290x's to 99% in BF4, I'd rather get a 4K and just monitor your loads again. If theyre around 80-85% each, you'd likely expect a 15% boost by overclocking or a new cpu.

[Priller]

AMD's single thread performance is crap is why a

FX8350 is NOT A 8 CORE its 8 THREADS its basically AMD's version of hyper-threading

AMD chips are slower then intel by a LARGE margin 

disable cores 1,3,5 and 7 

this will essentially make it a quad core but you will pickup a chunk of performance in applications that aren't threaded for 8 execution threads 

this is because you are freeing up resources in the CPU that are normally tied up waiting for other threads it also avoids the issue with this type of hyper-threading in that you aren't starving waiting

threads of execution resources so more instructions are executed per clock 

and for the record a single 780 will get you Ultra 1080P @ about 60FPS with a 780TI managing abut 70 thats on a 64 man server AVG

 

It would be better to assign both cores to work together. Some boards allow this to happen where you assign the modular to a task instead of cores.

[Buckley]

It would be better to assign both cores to work together. Some boards allow this to happen where you assign the modular to a task instead of cores.

I've never heard of this tactic lol

[Demonking]

I had fun reading this very helpful thread now i know that my I5 4670K is running good with BF4 with all cores nearing 100% same with GPU 

[Faa]

I've never heard of this tactic lol

 

Simplified: It's just to improve the single core performance, you probs have to disable 4 cores in the bios. Why you would do that is because most game engines can't use more than 4 cores anyways, you could go higher in cpu clock and mainly due to how the architecture works. The first core suffers some performance whenever the 2nd core gets used in the same module and vice versa.

So if your application has 4 threads only which means it cannot use more than 4 cores; assigning it to core#0, core#1, core#2,core#3 it wouldn't perform that great as with core#0, core#2, core#4 and core#6. If your app has 8 threads well yeah it would perform best with all cores ofc

[GamerDude]

I have an i5-4670k OC'd to 4.7Ghz + a single GTX780(not overclocked, lost the silicon lottery big time on my GPU) when I play BF4, I get 120-150fps.  My settings are Ultra everything, and Texture Resolution 140%.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I will show you guys proof later this weekend. I'm on vacation and using a Kindle to type. Sometime around Monday I will post screenshots. I've never video captured before, maybe I will get @Faa to help me out so I can post a video of my BF4 results. Ultra Settings everything at 1080p.

I'd like to see this as well. FYI, I get about 120fps to about 200fps with my 3960X at 4.5ghz + 2x R9 290X (1090/1325).....basically, you're saying your i5-4670k OC'd to 4.7Ghz + a single GTX780 equals my much more powerful setup. Mine was at 1200P at maxed out setting.

 

I, too, have an FX8350 at default speed, had it at 4.5ghz but other than it running hotter, I saw very little improvement in framerate so I'd backed it down to default speed. It's a great CPU and does my 2x GTX670 justice, no game is unplayable, basically able to max out all games at 1080P including Metro LL and BF4. Now, would I get higher framerate with an i5/i7? Yep, probably so but as long as framerate is good and games quite playable, I'm not gonna be anal about bottlenecks....but hey, that's just me I guess.

[Buckley]

Simplified: It's just to improve the single core performance, you probs have to disable 4 cores in the bios. Why you would do that is because most game engines can't use more than 4 cores anyways, you could go higher in cpu clock and mainly due to how the architecture works. The first core suffers some performance whenever the 2nd core gets used in the same module and vice versa.

So if your application has 4 threads only which means it cannot use more than 4 cores; assigning it to core#0, core#1, core#2,core#3 it wouldn't perform that great as with core#0, core#2, core#4 and core#6. If your app has 8 threads well yeah it would perform best with all cores ofc

Def gonna try and soar past 5ghz hehe prolly not but one can only dream

And also you can only disable modules if I remember correctly. Disabling cores 1&2,3&4,5&6,7&8 I believe are the options on my C5FZ. I'll check it out tmrw when I'm home

[Faa]

Def gonna try and soar past 5ghz hehe prolly not but one can only dream

And also you can only disable modules if I remember correctly. Disabling cores 1&2,3&4,5&6,7&8 I believe are the options on my C5FZ. I'll check it out tmrw when I'm home

Try it out with a cpu bound game/benchmark. Star swarm eg.

[Vrbas]

Try it out with a cpu bound game/benchmark. Star swarm eg.

Did this with skyrim. Didn't see any noticeable improvement. Maybe 1-2fps

[Buckley]

Did this with skyrim. Didn't see any noticeable improvement. Maybe 1-2fps

Yeah but did you have any mods?

[harrynowl]

Well I benchmarked my 8320 a while back as a 'true' quad core (So no resource sharing) and in Cinebench I got 5.23 @5GHzWatermelons, I then ran it as a CMT quad core (so with resource sharing) and got something like 4.2@ 5GHz

So depending on application that mode would be better than '8 cores active'.

[vm'N]

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 cannot blame AMD for still being at 28nm. They are not in control of the manufacturing process. You could blame GloFo, however that wouldn't help either.

Intel is ahead in the manufacturing process. GloFo is having process. TSMC had some issues (which affect both Nvidia and AMDs GPUs).

Intels first core I series was 45nm.