GPU with 8350

[TheRunningOtaku]

Hey guys,

I'm intending to get a good GPU that'll mainly be used for gaming but sometimes video encoding - not a huge matter, though.

I'm set on either an 8350 or 8320E, but I'll be OCing both as high as I can with an NH-D14. 

Right now, I'm looking at a sub-$300 card that'll be able to play 1080p games for quite a while at med/high. (Ultra would be nice, too)

The card I'm considering is the R9 290 at $270 with a $20 combo discount with my mobo. Considering I intend to play all 4 games i get with the 290 (I'm placing them at $50 value total), are there any better options out there? Power draw and cooling aren't really an issue for me, and I'm getting the MSI R9 290.

 

EDIT: Will the card bottleneck the CPU, and will it be a problem in the future? 

[PuNkPoEtS]

the R9 290 would be a good match fore either one of those CPUs as im running a R9 290 on my rig with my 6300 and it runs all games well over 100fps on the highest setting (except crysis 3 and it kills all gpus)

[Jetster]

The fx8350 will not be bottlenecked by any GPU but there is no future for the FX. Another thing just to keep in mind if you encode video a lot Nvidia does GPU encoding better

[Faceman]

The FX will bottleneck that high end of a card.  If your priority is gaming, get Intel.  Even a lock i5 will outperform even the highest overclocked FX processor, and it won't bottleneck high end GPUs like the FX would.

[TheRunningOtaku]

the R9 290 would be a good match fore either one of those CPUs as im running a R9 290 on my rig with my 6300 and it runs all games well over 100fps on the highest setting (except crysis 3 and it kills all gpus)

The fx8350 will not be bottlenecked by any GPU but there is no future for the FX. Another thing just to keep in mind if you encode video a lot Nvidia does GPU encoding better

Thanks! I think I'll settle for that, unless a better deal comes up in the next 2 weeks.

 

The FX will bottleneck that high end of a card.  If your priority is gaming, get Intel.  Even a lock i5 will outperform even the highest overclocked FX processor, and it won't bottleneck high end GPUs like the FX would.

Even if I OC the 8350?

From a value perspective, would there be a better deal? The R9 270's only $100 cheaper, and I get a $50 game free with the 290. 

Video encoding isn't my priority, and the rig is more to look good and for tinkering - I like the 8350 because I can OC it, and it has 4 or more cores. I intend to use this rig for 4-5 years, only replacing parts when they die, or to replace parts in my HTPC/guest computer when the parts there die.

 

Would the MSI be a good choice for the cooler? Are there better performing coolers out there?

[kichilron]

The FX will bottleneck that high end of a card.

 

Can you elaborate on that and bring forth some evidence to back this up?

[TheRunningOtaku]

Can you elaborate on that and bring forth some evidence to back this up?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k--4.8ghz--multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html

Did some research, found this! The 8350 isn't a great gaming CPU, unfortunately. (Right now at least)

I don't think the bottleneck is a huge deal, though. My screen is 60Hz and only 1080p, and I'm fine with medium details.

 

I'm just wondering if DX12 will make it better, and if future games will use more GPU horsepower but similar CPU horsepower (speculation here, wondering about opinions)

[Faceman]

@TheRunningOtaku

Can you elaborate on that and bring forth some evidence to back this up?

I'm on my kindle otherwise I would show you all of the benchmarks and links proving this. Basically, the cores on the FX are weak. It's an old processor from 2012, and the architecture is even older from 2009. The IPC of this processor is very weak and will not be able to properly feed high end GPUs, no matter how overclocked. I3s are consistently beating FX8s in games. Games want strong cores, not many weak ones.

Those "4 extra cores" are next to meaningless for games becAuse they share resources. 1 Intel core basically equals 2 AMD cores, and those AMD cores still have trash IPC. You would end up spending the same amount of money trying to overclock the FX as a locked i5, and still come away with worse performance. In order to overclock the FX, you need a more expensive motherboard, and sufficient cooling. Neither of which are problems with a locked i5, and if you decided to go unlocked i5, the voltage regulation is done on the chip, so an expensive mobo is not necessary. You would still want aftermarket cooling though.

The FX8 isn't going to last you 4-5 years. The i5 will, and you have an upgrade path. There is no upgrade path with AMD. You say you want to get the most out of your purchase to last the most amount of time. The i5 gives you what you're looking for, longevity. Even if you don't get to overclock, you are getting much better gaming, and all around performance.

[TheRunningOtaku]

-snip-

I understand that it'll bottleneck after my research. The architecture is *not* from 2009, it's from 2012. It's merely based on an architecture made in 2009. Yes, it does get beaten out by the i3 in some games.

However, OCing is important to me. I'm already gonna spend a lot on a cooler, and I consider the cooler a long-term investment, since Noctua upgrades the mounting hardware for new sockets for free. 

The 4 extra cores share some resources, but it's arguable how much of the shared resources are used in games. I don't want to get into the modules vs cores argument here. I understand that most games only use 2-4 cores as of now.

The motherboard in question isn't very pricey - $126, and it's the right color/has the right expansion slots for me.

Will it last 4-5 years at 1080p at medium settings? I'm sure it will, especially with DX12 and Windows 10 which help with multithreading, and especially with DX12 lowering the CPU usage. 

The question I asked, however, wasn't if the 8350 was a good choice. The question I'm asking, is if there's a better bang for your buck for a GPU at $270, once you consider the $50 savings from the beyond earth game and the $20 bundle deal I get? 

 

tl;dr: I didn't ask if the 8350 was a good CPU. I asked if it would be bottlenecked, and if there was a better value of a GPU at $200.

[Jetster]

The FX8350 will not bottleneck on any GPU. Even SLI or crossfire. Its will score slightly less in benchmarks but you cannot feel the difference. Over clocked both I7 and FX are fine gaming CPUs. You cannot deny FX "bang for buck" CPU for gaming. The problem with FX is its a dead socket. They are discontinuing it.

 

Hell I can get desent benchmarks out of a Pentium G and a GTX 970.

[anthonyc813]

@TheRunningOtaku

I'm on my kindle otherwise I would show you all of the benchmarks and links proving this. Basically, the cores on the FX are weak. It's an old processor from 2012, and the architecture is even older from 2009. The IPC of this processor is very weak and will not be able to properly feed high end GPUs, no matter how overclocked. I3s are consistently beating FX8s in games. Games want strong cores, not many weak ones.

Those "4 extra cores" are next to meaningless for games becAuse they share resources. 1 Intel core basically equals 2 AMD cores, and those AMD cores still have trash IPC. You would end up spending the same amount of money trying to overclock the FX as a locked i5, and still come away with worse performance. In order to overclock the FX, you need a more expensive motherboard, and sufficient cooling. Neither of which are problems with a locked i5, and if you decided to go unlocked i5, the voltage regulation is done on the chip, so an expensive mobo is not necessary. You would still want aftermarket cooling though.

The FX8 isn't going to last you 4-5 years. The i5 will, and you have an upgrade path. There is no upgrade path with AMD. You say you want to get the most out of your purchase to last the most amount of time. The i5 gives you what you're looking for, longevity. Even if you don't get to overclock, you are getting much better gaming, and all around performance.

Don;t know wether to be happy or sad that I read this... I just like AMD and thier products. never had a driver issue in all the years using the hardware... persoanlly I do not do any video editing or photo shop- just PC gaming. time to start researching a Intel CPU and MoBo...

 

Sorry to derail the thread. kinda blown away with this post and the other comments on my beloved AMD FX 8320.... thought I would be able to have it destroy new games for at least another 2 years. but thank you for the information, it does help. lets see what black friday has instore for us all

[Faceman]

@Faa I'm on my phone, would you kindly explain to these two guys that buying an overclocked fx with expensive cooling is a waste of money and the pit falls of his decisions please. Also the other guy yammering about how FX doesn't bottleneck.

[Faa]

The FX8350 will not bottleneck on any GPU. Even SLI or crossfire. Its will score slightly less in benchmarks but you cannot feel the difference. Over clocked both I7 and FX are fine gaming CPUs. You cannot deny FX "bang for buck" CPU for gaming. The problem with FX is its a dead socket. They are discontinuing it.

 

Hell I can get desent benchmarks out of a Pentium G and a GTX 970.

Let's not lie please. 

 

I understand that it'll bottleneck after my research. The architecture is *not* from 2009, it's from 2012. It's merely based on an architecture made in 2009. Yes, it does get beaten out by the i3 in some games.

However, OCing is important to me. I'm already gonna spend a lot on a cooler, and I consider the cooler a long-term investment, since Noctua upgrades the mounting hardware for new sockets for free. 

The 4 extra cores share some resources, but it's arguable how much of the shared resources are used in games. I don't want to get into the modules vs cores argument here. I understand that most games only use 2-4 cores as of now.

The motherboard in question isn't very pricey - $126, and it's the right color/has the right expansion slots for me.

Will it last 4-5 years at 1080p at medium settings? I'm sure it will, especially with DX12 and Windows 10 which help with multithreading, and especially with DX12 lowering the CPU usage. 

The question I asked, however, wasn't if the 8350 was a good choice. The question I'm asking, is if there's a better bang for your buck for a GPU at $270, once you consider the $50 savings from the beyond earth game and the $20 bundle deal I get? 

 

tl;dr: I didn't ask if the 8350 was a good CPU. I asked if it would be bottlenecked, and if there was a better value of a GPU at $200.

To overclock a 8350 you need at least a board of around 100$ and a 30$ cooler would probably bring you a 400MHz OC at best if you want more than that you're going to need a more expensive cooler and a better board around 150$, you're basically ending up paying a hell a lot more than a i5 which is easily up to twice as fast in CPU limited games and especially in SLI/CF configs. Don't go for the 8350 when it's performance is exactly the same as the 4300 thats 100$ cheaper in nearly every game out there. All you really need to overclock a 4670K to whatever it can do eg 4.6GHz is the cheapest Z97 board (80$) and a simple evo 212.

What games are you playing? MMO's and many multiplayer games AMD can perform horrible. You're not justying enough of the 970's price with a 8350.

[Faceman]

I understand that it'll bottleneck after my research. The architecture is *not* from 2009, it's from 2012. It's merely based on an architecture made in 2009. Yes, it does get beaten out by the i3 in some games.

However, OCing is important to me. I'm already gonna spend a lot on a cooler, and I consider the cooler a long-term investment, since Noctua upgrades the mounting hardware for new sockets for free. 

The 4 extra cores share some resources, but it's arguable how much of the shared resources are used in games. I don't want to get into the modules vs cores argument here. I understand that most games only use 2-4 cores as of now.

The motherboard in question isn't very pricey - $126, and it's the right color/has the right expansion slots for me.

Will it last 4-5 years at 1080p at medium settings? I'm sure it will, especially with DX12 and Windows 10 which help with multithreading, and especially with DX12 lowering the CPU usage. 

The question I asked, however, wasn't if the 8350 was a good choice. The question I'm asking, is if there's a better bang for your buck for a GPU at $270, once you consider the $50 savings from the beyond earth game and the $20 bundle deal I get? 

 

tl;dr: I didn't ask if the 8350 was a good CPU. I asked if it would be bottlenecked, and if there was a better value of a GPU at $200.

The architecture is from 2009.  It was released in 2012.  Understand the difference.  If OCing is so important to you, buy an unlocked i5.  The amount of money you are going to spend trying to overclock the FX is wasteful.  You will get worse performance for the same amount of money.  It has yet to be seen if DX12 will help, and even then, it still wont help in games that desire strong cores like MMOs, Indies, RTS, Skyrim, Assassin's Creed, Starcraft, etc..  You will be bottlenecking that high end of a GPU.

 

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

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

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8427/amd-fx-8370e-cpu-review-vishera-95w/3

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,3929-7.html

 

@Jetster

"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."

 

"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."

 

If the FX8 can't even power a single R9 290, then how do you imagine it will do in SLI?  The FX is a relic, its not competitive in the modern gaming world.  "bang for buck" is an illusion.  $220 = $220 which is what you would pay to go with a locked Intel that will outperform the FX8 in ALL games.

 

If you want 4-5 years, buy a modern processor, not a dinosaur that requires draining the Le Brea tar pits.

[TheRunningOtaku]

Don;t know wether to be happy or sad that I read this... I just like AMD and thier products. never had a driver issue in all the years using the hardware... persoanlly I do not do any video editing or photo shop- just PC gaming. time to start researching a Intel CPU and MoBo...

Sorry to derail the thread. kinda blown away with this post and the other comments on my beloved AMD FX 8320.... thought I would be able to have it destroy new games for at least another 2 years. but thank you for the information, it does help. lets see what black friday has instore for us all

Yeah, AMD is more for the budget market now - their Athlon line and APUs are decent for the price you pay, but they have nothing against Intel in gaming, unfortunately.

If you're using a midrange card though you'l be fine don't bother to upgrade if you're gonna stick with a low-end GPU.

-snip-

-snip-

Guys, if you don't want to help, please stop replying to the thread.

You guys didn't even read the post properly. I *AM SET* on the 8350. CPU performance *DOES NOT* matter to me so much. what matters more is OCing. I *AM ALREADY* buying the NH-D14 because I consider it a long-term part. Same reason why I'm spending $70 on a case on a $800 build instead of getting a $30 one when they do the same thing.

I asked for a better value for money for the *GPU* at $200 compared to the R9 290. Please read the post before replying next time. I don't need AMD/Intel fanboyism in here.

[Faceman]

Guys, if you don't want to help, please stop replying to the thread. 

You guys didn't even read the post properly. I *AM SET* on the 8350. CPU performance *DOES NOT* matter to me so much. what matters more is OCing. I *AM ALREADY* buying the NH-D14 because I consider it a long-term part. Same reason why I'm spending $70 on a case on a $800 build instead of getting a $30 one when they do the same thing.

I asked for a better value for money for the *GPU* at $200 compared to the R9 290. Please read the post before replying next time. I don't need AMD/Intel fanboyism in here. 

Well when you want someone to help, open your mind and accept that you are making a mistake with your reasoning and your budget.  We're the ones trying to help and you're ignoring it. 

 

You want a long term investment?  Buy a processor that has architecture from this decade! 

 

That won't bottleneck high end cards, that doesn't need a super expensive motherboard and cooling, that will allow you to do everything that you want to do.  It seems like you're prioritizing being able to overclock over anything else, and that is a mistake.

 

There is no fanboyism, I have owned both and am telling you the truth.  Use the best tool for the job.  In terms of value, the R9 290 at $200 is fantastic, its unbeatable value, but you aren't going to be able to utilize that GPU to the max because you are limiting yourself with a processor with architecture from 2009.

 

Do whatever you want, just don't come to a forum with a closed mind.

[Clyne]

Well when you want someone to help, open your mind and accept that you are making a mistake with your reasoning and your budget.  We're the ones trying to help and you're ignoring it. 

 

You want a long term investment?  Buy a processor that has architecture from this decade! 

 

That won't bottleneck high end cards, that doesn't need a super expensive motherboard and cooling, that will allow you to do everything that you want to do.  It seems like you're prioritizing being able to overclock over anything else, and that is a mistake.

 

There is no fanboyism, I have owned both and am telling you the truth.  Use the best tool for the job.  In terms of value, the R9 290 at $200 is fantastic, its unbeatable value, but you aren't going to be able to utilize that GPU to the max because you are limiting yourself with a processor with architecture from 2009.

 

Do whatever you want, just don't come to a forum with a closed mind.

Yeah..OP, just don't make the same mistake as me, buying a 8320............

[Faa]

Guys, if you don't want to help, please stop replying to the thread. 

You guys didn't even read the post properly. I *AM SET* on the 8350. CPU performance *DOES NOT* matter to me so much. what matters more is OCing. I *AM ALREADY* buying the NH-D14 because I consider it a long-term part. Same reason why I'm spending $70 on a case on a $800 build instead of getting a $30 one when they do the same thing.

I asked for a better value for money for the *GPU* at $200 compared to the R9 290. Please read the post before replying next time. I don't need AMD/Intel fanboyism in here. 

Your question was if the 8350 would bottleneck a 970 which you got somewhat a yes answer to and you'd have it much less or not with Intel. How is it fanboyism when we recommend a cheaper and superior solution? 

[I/O]

I don't buy the dead socket metric. When has Intel ever offered an upgradable socket for new CPUs without investing in a whole new platform ?

[TheRunningOtaku]

I don't buy the dead socket metric. When has Intel ever offered an upgradable socket for new CPUs without investing in a whole new platform ?

I'm pretty sure it's dead - it's been a few generations already, and I think their new architecture will be so different it'll be tough to keep with the old socket.

[I/O]

I'm pretty sure it's dead - it's been a few generations already, and I think their new architecture will be so different it'll be tough to keep with the old socket.

So it's ok for Intel to force everyone to upgrade platforms for every new CPU but AMD is not allowed to do the same ?

[TheRunningOtaku]

-snip-

When I say I'm set, it means I've already done my research. 

 

I KNOW it's slower than an i3 in games. I KNOW I could save $100 and go with the Pentium anniversary edition and get better value. I KNOW it runs hot, it's an old architecture (from 2012 - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piledriver_(microarchitecture): Piledriver is a microarchitecture developed by AMD as the successor to Bulldozer. Produced: from mid-2012 to present.), it's 8 cores barely match up to an i5 in multi-threaded apps, etc etc. In builds for my friend, i recommended an i5 4440 and an i5 4690K.

 

What YOU don't know, is that I'm gonna get the NH-D14 anyways, since it looks great, and Noctua sends updates for its mounting hardware. I'm gonna do video rendering, which the 8 cores will help with. I like supporting the underdogs, so I'm going with AMD. Overclocking is important to me, and that's my view and my choice. 8 cores is nice for me for multitasking. My family's been using Intel for as long as I remember, and I want to see what AMD's like. I only need the performance at medium/high at 40FPS at 1080p. The games I want to play are mostly Minecraft, the total ware series and GMod, and I only buy older games since they aren't as expensive.

 

If you say that the Intel chip comes with the NH-D14, if Intel is the underdog, if Intel has a quad-core CPU that's overclockable at the same price bracket, if buying an Intel CPU means that I'll experience what and AMD chip is like, if the 8350 can't get me medium settings in the games I want to play, and if buying Intel means that AMD will get more support for its R&D, tell me, and I'll reconsider. 

 

When i was looking at GPUs, I was looking at the GTX 760 or R9 270. However, a GTX 760 at $200 or an R9 270 at $170 wasn't a better deal than an R9 290 at $200. You don't know where I'm coming from. I've already stated that I'm happy for games at *MEDIUM* settings. I know what I'm getting into.

 

The *ONLY REASON* why I'm getting an R9 290 is that it's $270 (minus $20 minus $50) compared to the R9 270 at $170 and GTX 760 at $200. That's why I'm set. I don't need more performance. I'm happy to play games at medium. If my R9 290 performs as well as an R9 270 with my CPU, so be it. It's only $30 more, in my mind.

 

bottleneck a 970

I wish you'd read the post. I never said 970 anywhere. I was asking about the R9 290, and whether there was a better value. I don't know where the GTX 970 came into the picture

[TheRunningOtaku]

So it's ok for Intel to force everyone to upgrade platforms for every new CPU but AMD is not allowed to do the same ?

To me, I buy a CPU/Motherboard and use it until either is dead - by then there are newer technologies and I'll pick up a new board. (That's coming from most people I know)

Honestly, it's up to them - if it's a big enough selling point, then the market will decide which brand they prefer. 

 

I never said AMD wasn't allowed to do the same - I don't think I ever brought the socket and upgrades to the 8350 into the picture, really. Their socket has supported 2 generations of CPUs already, and has maintained backwards compatibility. I applaud AMD for managing to stay within the constraints of maintaining a chipset and socket for that long, and I'm perfectly fine if they replace the AM3+ with something else, since by the time the Zen architecture drops it'll be more than 5 years old.

[I/O]

To me, I buy a CPU/Motherboard and use it until either is dead - by then there are newer technologies and I'll pick up a new board. (That's coming from most people I know)

Honestly, it's up to them - if it's a big enough selling point, then the market will decide which brand they prefer. 

 

I never said AMD wasn't allowed to do the same - I don't think I ever brought the socket and upgrades to the 8350 into the picture, really. Their socket has supported 2 generations of CPUs already, and has maintained backwards compatibility. I applaud AMD for managing to stay within the constraints of maintaining a chipset and socket for that long, and I'm perfectly fine if they replace the AM3+ with something else, since by the time the Zen architecture drops it'll be more than 5 years old.

Intel kills their own sockets all the time. AMD socket dies an old age is a great ideal to me.

[TheRunningOtaku]

Intel kills their own sockets all the time. AMD socket dies an old age is a great ideal to me.

Doesn't really matter to me, honestly. By the time i chuck a CPU it's so old and the motherboard's already dead, so I just get a new CPU/Mobo combo.

It would be nice if they didn't, though, since then motherboard manufacturers will be able to cut costs and give consumers more options in terms of motherboard choices.