FX-8320 w/ GTX970 2-way SLI. Will there be bottlenecks?

[Altecice]

Hmm BF4 full 64 operation locker server show me the GPU loads before you lie. Go record it with that amazing streaming cpu. It's a bottleneck end of it. A 8350 is equal to a 4300/6300 in terms of gaming performance think again if those low-end CPU's aren't slower than a modern quad core like a i5.

 

Who said anything about a server lol? Its not a server CPU you shoudnt be using it as a server CPU. AS for the OP's question about gaming (not server). It will be perfectly fine. I have played BF4 and have 0 issues. GPU load is high and CPU is not maxed.

[Faa]

Who said anything about a server lol? Its not a server CPU you shoudnt be using it as a server CPU. AS for the OP's question about gaming (not server). It will be perfectly fine. I have played BF4 and have 0 issues. GPU load is high and CPU is not maxed.

Ha you just admited youre being cpu bottlenecked

[Altecice]

Ha you just admited youre being cpu bottlenecked

 

GPU load being high (90%+) while CPU load is not maxed (AKA <100%) is not a bottleneck thats how normal CPU's work if you did not know.

I am not going to respond to this argument any longer as I have said my part.

[nick99n]

Even with single 970 8320 still gonna bottleneck in some heavy CPU intensive games. I can show video where GTX 780 is being bottlnecked by 8350 in BF4 if you want. However if you gonna upgrade CPU to intel, then it will be okay.

"upgrade to intel and come to the magic land" can you stop this ?

he already has something with similar performance to an i5 why spend money? 

-ohh i know! Intel!

[harrynowl]

yes

[HippY]

 

@vern021

 

Let me get it straight: i5 is in pair with 8320 in games. of course we can find some heavily single threaded games, like skyrim, but there we are talking about over 100 FPS, and you will not notice it.

 

Single GTX 970 will be no problem at all, I would say SLI neither. but if yes, then just buy an i7 ( that is a worthy upgrade from 8320)

 

Everyone is talking about percentages and IPC and whatnot but at the end we are talking about 5-10 % "demolishing" from Intel, that means 3-5 FPS around 50 FPS Average, that you will not notice. 

[vern021]

 

@vern021

 

Let me get it straight: i5 is in pair with 8320 in games. of course we can find some heavily single threaded games, like skyrim, but there we are talking about over 100 FPS, and you will not notice it.

 

Single GTX 970 will be no problem at all, I would say SLI neither. but if yes, then just buy an i7 ( that is a worthy upgrade from 8320)

 

Everyone is talking about percentages and IPC and whatnot but at the end we are talking about 5-10 % "demolishing" from Intel, that means 3-5 FPS around 50 FPS Average, that you will not notice. 

 

Yeah if it's only at 1080p it's ok but I'm looking at getting a 1440p monitor and I need those framerates above 60fps so if an i5 can help me boost it it's ok. Besides, I won't waste too much money in upgrading. Going to sell my current parts to upgrade.

[ALXAndy]

Yeah if it's only at 1080p it's ok but I'm looking at getting a 1440p monitor and I need those framerates above 60fps so if an i5 can help me boost it it's ok. Besides, I won't waste too much money in upgrading. Going to sell my current parts to upgrade.

 

It's a side grade. *sigh* if you only understood.

 

Never mind, your money do what you like with it.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

[deathjester]

GTX970 came out and made me thinking of buying two GTX970 instead of 780Ti since they're at the same price. I'm wondering if my 8320 will bottleneck the GPUs even when the 8320 will be overclocked to 4.5-4.7GHz?

 

Depends on the game. Single player games are rarely CPU bound. Massive Multiplayer games are. In games like Rust, Day-Z, MMO's, Arma you are going to be CPU bound and you are going to be CPU bound on how fast 2 cores are. 

 

This is why you are getting multiple answers. They are right and wrong. Single player games/console ports are rarely cpu bound. An example of a cpu bound single player game would be like Rome Total War where the Intel is quite a bit ahead. So if someone says play Wild Star and WoW and Day-Z and Guild Wars 2? They rightly think AMD is a poor gaming chip. If someone plays console ports/single player games? They think the other people critiquing AMD gaming performance are lying. 

 

Bottom line. Our current API sucks and most games use only 2 cores for the majority of games. The other threads and cores might be active but they are doing minimal taks. When you get the 8320 on Direct X 12 it should be close to an I5 in those games. For the next couple of years Intel is the way to go for ALL genres of games. The AMD can do fine in single player/console ports and BF4 though and it can be hit or miss on some massive FPS games depending on optimization. Planetside 2 got a overhaul for AMD CPU's and now isn't horrible. Sony did this in preparation for the PS4 version. 

 

Also synthetics won't tell the whole story. My I7 crushes an I5 in synthetics and in rendering, but in actual games they are neck and neck depending on clock speed.

[HippY]

Yeah if it's only at 1080p it's ok but I'm looking at getting a 1440p monitor and I need those framerates above 60fps so if an i5 can help me boost it it's ok. Besides, I won't waste too much money in upgrading. Going to sell my current parts to upgrade.

dude, just get the GPu/gpus and if you see extremely low numbers then get an i7 or above

i5 would not worth the amount of money you put in. personally I would not go lower than 5820k,but I am another extreme

[nokturrduk84]

There will be NO Bottlenecks. The issue is the new I5/I7's have higher IPC per core than AMD's current FX core.

It is NOT A BOTTLENECK its just performance lacking (because fx is 8 processor but not all games will use all 8 vs Intels HT cores they are better utilized). But in reality the fps difference is like 2fps and id imagine you would be pushing much more than 60fps anyway so who cares right?

 

I run two 290x's with my 8350 @ 5Ghz and I cant report any bottlenecks at all, Ignore the fanboys.

Performance lacking is the bottleneck.

[nokturrduk84]

"upgrade to intel and come to the magic land" can you stop this ?

he already has something with similar performance to an i5 why spend money? 

-ohh i know! Intel!

Because he will have bottleneck in games. AMD CPU isn't similar to i5. Yes, in some games it comes close, but still loses & in some games even i3 overpowers it.

 

To the OP, now.

Reasons why you should go to Intel:

• AMD got ancient technology, which means they have 8 core, but those cores are weak & slow, comparing to the Intel's cores, which are much stronger & based on a new technology.
• AMD also got bad memory controller. We tested 2400mhz memories both on my CPU & on AMD CPU in memory benchmarks & AMD got much slower score, something similar to the 1333mhz RAMs owners. And he had 2400mhz RAMs. So it bottlenecks high speed RAMs too.
• AMD also is far behind with nm's, while Intel got 22nm CPUs & they are already moving to the 14nm, AMD's still staying with ancient 32nm. Actually they are in a pretty bad shape when it comes to the CPU competition.
• Intel CPUs also consume less power, than AMD, thx to the better architecture.

Another good example how bad are those AMD FX CPUs, bottlenecking such mid-end card as GTX 660ti:

 

As we see here FX-8320 is oc'ed to 4.7GHz paired with GTX 660ti & getting P26673 in 3DMark Vantage.

 

 

 

Now look at this one: i7 3770 oc'ed to 4.3GHz paired with GTX 660 (note it's GTX 660, even slower than GTX 660ti) & it got P28380 in 3DMark Vantage. After this, how some of you say that FX won't bottleneck cards like GTX 970 or GTX 780. Hell, it will be huge bottleneck!

 

 

P.S. Personally I would go with i7 instead of i5 if I were you. If you decide to render something or do some archive extractions, encodings, streamings & etc in the future, i7s are kings without any questions. But it's up to you. If you'll go with i5, it will be still far better than any AMD in gaming.

[Sintezza]

@vern021

 

Which mobo do you have right now?

I did not read over the whole threat..

 

If you are planning to get 2xGTX970, then there could be a bottleneck offcourse.

But the i5 will bottleneck it aswell at a cetrain point, so keep that in mind.

[UnbendingNose]

No bottlenecking would occur at all, the FX-8320 OCed is basically the same as the 8350, and both are very good CPUs, I doubt you'd need to upgrade any time soon. 

I disagree, my fx8320 at 3.8ghz bottlnecks my r9 290 pretty significantly. Mostly in BF3, Witcher 2, COD Ghosts, and Watch Dogs. It runs fine in BF4 thanks to to mantle which shows the cpu bottleneck plain as day. If i can get better frames in BF4 than in BF3 with the same settings then something is up on the cpu end. Yes, I could overclock it, but that's like putting a band-aid over a leaky crack in the wall. The only thing that could potentially save the viability of the FX8320 is dx12 and more games with mantle. I've seen first hand just how much it benefits the 8320, almost 15 to 20fps more than dx11 in BF4 and no stutters.

[Sintezza]

Well just a littlebit offtopic maybe.

 

But people need to realise, that the GM204 is not a highend chip.

What i mean by this, is that the GTX970 / 980 are basicly based on a midrange chip.

By all means its allot cutted down compaired to a GK110.

The only thing that makes those 970 and 980´s perform better then the GK110, is because of the higher clockspeeds.

Some kind of compression voodoo magic, and MFAA voodoo magic.

But in the core, its still the same GTX680 / GTX770

 

Since the GM204 is not the highend chip, and performs better because of some compression tweaks and what not.

i wouldn´t be suprised, if they also perform verywell, on lower end cpu´s

[ALXAndy]

Because he will have bottleneck in games. AMD CPU isn't similar to i5. Yes, in some games it comes close, but still loses & in some games even i3 overpowers it.

 

To the OP, now.

Reasons why you should go to Intel:

• AMD got ancient technology, which means they have 8 core, but those cores are weak & slow, comparing to the Intel's cores, which are much stronger & based on a new technology.
• AMD also got bad memory controller. We tested 2400mhz memories both on my CPU & on AMD CPU in memory benchmarks & AMD got much slower score, something similar to the 1333mhz RAMs owners. And he had 2400mhz RAMs. So it bottlenecks high speed RAMs too.
• AMD also is far behind with nm's, while Intel got 22nm CPUs & they are already moving to the 14nm, AMD's still staying with ancient 32nm. Actually they are in a pretty bad shape when it comes to the CPU competition.
• Intel CPUs also consume less power, than AMD, thx to the better architecture.

Another good example how bad are those AMD FX CPUs, bottlenecking such mid-end card as GTX 660ti:

 

As we see here FX-8320 is oc'ed to 4.7GHz paired with GTX 660ti & getting P26673 in 3DMark Vantage.

 

 

 

 

Now look at this one: i7 3770 oc'ed to 4.3GHz paired with GTX 660 (note it's GTX 660, even slower than GTX 660ti) & it got P28380 in 3DMark Vantage. After this, how some of you say that FX won't bottleneck cards like GTX 970 or GTX 780. Hell, it will be huge bottleneck!

 

 

 

P.S. Personally I would go with i7 instead of i5 if I were you. If you decide to render something or do some archive extractions, encodings, streamings & etc in the future, i7s are kings without any questions. But it's up to you. If you'll go with i5, it will be still far better than any AMD in gaming.

 

Huge pics removed. Fuck me, where do I start?

 

First of all 3DMark Vantage was created in 2008. So obviously it only supports 4 cores. 3Dmark 11 supports 6 cores (because they always code primarily to test Intel chips) and Firestrike et al support 8 cores.

 

Secondly, Windows 7 does not work properly with the FX range of processors. And I mean *all* FX processors. It simply does not understand more than 4 cores. Core parking issues, cores sitting idle.... Any way, I'll leave Microsoft to explain, with patches that did not work properly and were promptly removed, leaving the FX still fucked in Windows 7.

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

 

So first and most foremost, Windows 8 is essential given it actually understands the FX CPU.

 

Then moving on. Judging a CPU because the software you are running on it is shit is absolutely stupid. You wouldn't buy a fucking car, remove three of the wheels and then rate its 0-60 would you? so why are you babbling on about software that doesn't work properly on FX CPUs because it only supports two cores.

 

OK so onward and upward. No I3, not even a Haswell, will touch the FX CPUs. You seem to be forgetting that the FX CPUs are unlocked.

 

Honestly, I do like this place but fuck me some of the crap people talk on here.

 

I'll say it again. Go away and run Cinebench R15, 3Dmark Firestrike and anything that supports 8 cores and then come back to me with your scores.

 

The problem here is not the FX CPU. It is down to Intel. Oh go on, why is that then?

 

Because basically Intel have been far too precious with their multi core technology. Hyperthreading is not a base standard and is reserved for more expensive CPUs. By doing this you create fragments in the market and the developers will always code for the "Joe Public" processors, not the hideously expensive ones.

 

Their processors go from 2 cores to 12 cores. However, they are not all in the same markets and price brackets, meaning that developers just look to whatever is the standard.

 

Support will change now, but not because the devs actually give a fuck about us. All they're doing is coding for an X86 8 core console. That means that code should translate over to the PC. Titanfall is a good example of this, and happily uses lots of VRAM because the consoles have it on tap.

[Sintezza]

Huge pics removed. Fuck me, where do I start?

 

First of all 3DMark Vantage was created in 2008. So obviously it only supports 4 cores. 3Dmark 11 supports 6 cores (because they always code primarily to test Intel chips) and Firestrike et al support 8 cores.

 

Secondly, Windows 7 does not work properly with the FX range of processors. And I mean *all* FX processors. It simply does not understand more than 4 cores. Core parking issues, cores sitting idle.... Any way, I'll leave Microsoft to explain, with patches that did not work properly and were promptly removed, leaving the FX still fucked in Windows 7.

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

 

So first and most foremost, Windows 8 is essential given it actually understands the FX CPU.

 

Then moving on. Judging a CPU because the software you are running on it is shit is absolutely stupid. You wouldn't buy a fucking car, remove three of the wheels and then rate its 0-60 would you? so why are you babbling on about software that doesn't work properly on FX CPUs because it only supports two cores.

 

OK so onward and upward. No I3, not even a Haswell, will touch the FX CPUs. You seem to be forgetting that the FX CPUs are unlocked.

 

Honestly, I do like this place but fuck me some of the crap people talk on here.

 

I'll say it again. Go away and run Cinebench R15, 3Dmark Firestrike and anything that supports 8 cores and then come back to me with your scores.

 

The problem here is not the FX CPU. It is down to Intel. Oh go on, why is that then?

 

Because basically Intel have been far too precious with their multi core technology. Hyperthreading is not a base standard and is reserved for more expensive CPUs. By doing this you create fragments in the market and the developers will always code for the "Joe Public" processors, not the hideously expensive ones.

 

Their processors go from 2 cores to 12 cores. However, they are not all in the same markets and price brackets, meaning that developers just look to whatever is the standard.

 

Support will change now, but not because the devs actually give a fuck about us. All they're doing is coding for an X86 8 core console. That means that code should translate over to the PC. Titanfall is a good example of this, and happily uses lots of VRAM because the consoles have it on tap.

 

The whole problem with fanboys is, that they just "miss-use" the term bottleneck too much 

[Faceman]

@ALXAndy

 

i3 beats an FX:

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/4/

 

If you render then of course the FX is a better processor.  But we're talking about GAMING.

 

Go into Cinebench and run the GPU Test, let me know what your score is with an FX8 OC'd to 4.8Ghz and a 290/780/970/980.  Go ahead, do it.  Also run Firestrike while you're at it.  Let us know your score.

[nokturrduk84]

Huge pics removed. Fuck me, where do I start?

 

First of all 3DMark Vantage was created in 2008. So obviously it only supports 4 cores. 3Dmark 11 supports 6 cores (because they always code primarily to test Intel chips) and Firestrike et al support 8 cores.

 

Secondly, Windows 7 does not work properly with the FX range of processors. And I mean *all* FX processors. It simply does not understand more than 4 cores. Core parking issues, cores sitting idle.... Any way, I'll leave Microsoft to explain, with patches that did not work properly and were promptly removed, leaving the FX still fucked in Windows 7.

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

 

http://support2.microsoft.com/kb/2646060

 

So first and most foremost, Windows 8 is essential given it actually understands the FX CPU.

 

Then moving on. Judging a CPU because the software you are running on it is shit is absolutely stupid. You wouldn't buy a fucking car, remove three of the wheels and then rate its 0-60 would you? so why are you babbling on about software that doesn't work properly on FX CPUs because it only supports two cores.

 

OK so onward and upward. No I3, not even a Haswell, will touch the FX CPUs. You seem to be forgetting that the FX CPUs are unlocked.

 

Honestly, I do like this place but fuck me some of the crap people talk on here.

 

I'll say it again. Go away and run Cinebench R15, 3Dmark Firestrike and anything that supports 8 cores and then come back to me with your scores.

 

The problem here is not the FX CPU. It is down to Intel. Oh go on, why is that then?

 

Because basically Intel have been far too precious with their multi core technology. Hyperthreading is not a base standard and is reserved for more expensive CPUs. By doing this you create fragments in the market and the developers will always code for the "Joe Public" processors, not the hideously expensive ones.

 

Their processors go from 2 cores to 12 cores. However, they are not all in the same markets and price brackets, meaning that developers just look to whatever is the standard.

 

Support will change now, but not because the devs actually give a fuck about us. All they're doing is coding for an X86 8 core console. That means that code should translate over to the PC. Titanfall is a good example of this, and happily uses lots of VRAM because the consoles have it on tap.

What the fuck are you talking about mate?

 

First, where did you see Windows 7? And even if he had 7 so what? If 7 doesn't work better with FX CPUs, everyone should uninstall it & go with 8?

Second so what, that 3DMark Vantage supports only 4 cores? Lots of modern games still support only 4 cores except 2-3 games. So exactly 3DMark Vantage is a good benchmark for testing.

Third, you say i3 doesn't touch FX CPUs? Here, take a good look: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Fourth, you want me to go away & run Cinebench which supports 8 cores? I can easily do it & be sure my i7 gonna destroy your FX in that benchmark. If you really want me, I can do that for you.

 

Here, my 3770k score:

 

 

Now show me your FX score plz. And if this challenge wasn't meant for me, but i3/i5. Yes, in rendering FX may have better scores, but again i7 destroys it,& by the way OP wants his system for gaming, not for rendering. I already told him, if he wants rendering & video editing, he should go with i7, which is still better deal than AMD.

[Toadboy]

to me this sounds like a amd VS intel war 

 

a 8320 will be a fine choice

[vern021]

@vern021

 

Which mobo do you have right now?

I did not read over the whole threat..

 

If you are planning to get 2xGTX970, then there could be a bottleneck offcourse.

But the i5 will bottleneck it aswell at a cetrain point, so keep that in mind.

It's in my signature. Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 rev 4.0

to me this sounds like a amd VS intel war 

 

a 8320 will be a fine choice

Well it is intel vs. amd. what else?

 

All posts have very intriguing opinions and every post has a good point. Maybe as this topic goes on, more people will give opinions. Right now I'm more into the AMD side since I already have it right +now. Wouldn't mind to upgrade to broadwell or skylake in the future tho.

 

 

Do note that I'm upgrading and not buying a whole build atm.

[Altecice]

-snip-

 

 

Well said. I have to agree I have seen a marked performance boost on my FX  when moving from Windows 7 > Windows 8,1... Perhaps this is why I am not getting what Intel fanboys call "Bottlenecks".

 

It's in my signature. Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 rev 4.0

Well it is intel vs. amd. what else?

 

All posts have very intriguing opinions and every post has a good point. Maybe as this topic goes on, more people will give opinions. Right now I'm more into the AMD side since I already have it right +now. Wouldn't mind to upgrade to broadwell or skylake in the future tho.

 

 

Do note that I'm upgrading and not buying a whole build atm.

 

Yep pretty much this has turn into Intel fanboys vs Logical sensible people.

[Toadboy]

It's in my signature. Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 rev 4.0

Well it is intel vs. amd. what else?

 

All posts have very intriguing opinions and every post has a good point. Maybe as this topic goes on, more people will give opinions. Right now I'm more into the AMD side since I already have it right +now. Wouldn't mind to upgrade to broadwell or skylake in the future tho.

 

 

Do note that I'm upgrading and not buying a whole build atm.

Ya i am about to build a new rig soon about to dump about 3000-4000 dollars in my new build i am only waiting to see anything new from AMD

[Faceman]

Ya i am about to build a new rig soon about to dump about 3000-4000 dollars in my new build i am only waiting to see anything new from AMD

You're going to be waiting until 2016 to see a new AMD processor.

[Toadboy]

You're going to be waiting until 2016 to see a new AMD processor.

not necessarily 2016 for new architecture how ever i was talking about a new Graphics card tho