GPU Bottleneck?

[JeremyLeijssen]

Hi all,

 

I am looking to buy a new GPU, and i am interested in the GTX 970.

Will my amd fx-4300 @ 3.9GHz bottleneck it?

if so, what would be the best alternative for a gpu?

or what cpu should i get to be able to not bottleneck the 970.

 

thanks in advance

 

   - Jeremy

[Pulunen]

I'm absolutely sure your processor won't cause a bottleneck.

[Raxzer]

I guess it depends on which game we're talking about.

 

CPU-intensive games will take a hit when it comes to the frame-rate, though most games lean towards taxing the GPU nowadays. 

[Faceman]

Hi all,

 

I am looking to buy a new GPU, and i am interested in the GTX 970.

Will my amd fx-4300 @ 3.9GHz bottleneck it?

if so, what would be the best alternative for a gpu?

or what cpu should i get to be able to not bottleneck the 970.

 

thanks in advance

 

   - Jeremy

 

That CPU will absolutely bottleneck a high end GPU like the 970.  Even an FX8 bottlenecks the 970.

 

Should you still buy the 970?  Yes, because most games are GPU bound, but you will need to upgrade your CPU and motherboard to Intel sooner or later if you want to get the most out of your GPU and be able to play all games.

 

 

I'm absolutely sure your processor won't cause a bottleneck.

You.  Leave now.

[Fate]

I'm absolutely sure your processor won't cause a bottleneck.

I'm absolutely sure you're giving false information.

Jeremy, it will unfortunately bottleneck is just about every relatively demanding game. My Phenom II 960T overclocked, which is a little stronger than an FX-4300, bottlenecks even my R9 270 in some games.

 

@JeremyLeijssen

[Scarymonkeys]

I would think so. AMD has weaker cores. They're not bad at all, but for that level, it isn't the greatest. As said before though, the GPU would still give you a decent fps increase most likely. Depends on what you have now.

(I have never tested any of these parts, and I can therefore never guarantee no faults.)

[Silent_R493]

It will bottleneck the GTX 970.  Personal experience with a friends computer.  We couldn't get Borderlands 2 to run smoothly beyond Low/Med at 1080p. 

 

Look into a new system. Build planning sub board can help.

[JeremyLeijssen]

I currently have a GTX 660 , will the 970, even though it is bottlenecked, give me better performance?

[Raxzer]

Yes, it probably would, but I'm not going to take a guess om how much. Your CPU is indeed a bit on the weaker side, so the performance will be inconsistent to say the least.

But AMD's more powerful processors are only bottlenecks in CPU-intensive games. Most games will be GPU-limited.

[SteveGrabowski]

I currently have a GTX 660 , will the 970, even though it is bottlenecked, give me better performance?

 

You'd be better off spending the $350 on an i5-4690k and a Z97 board, or a Xeon E3-1231v3 and an H97 board, depending on whether you'd rather overclock or have hyperthreading. Then in a year buy the new Nvidia 70 series GPU when you have a system that won't bottleneck the card.

[JeremyLeijssen]

You'd be better off spending the $350 on an i5-4690k and a Z97 board, or a Xeon E3-1231v3 and an H97 board, depending on whether you'd rather overclock or have hyperthreading. Then in a year buy the new Nvidia 70 series GPU when you have a system that won't bottleneck the card.

 

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

[SteveGrabowski]

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

 

Why are you wanting to install an Nvidia card then?

[Faceman]

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

AMD has nothing to offer that won't bottleneck this high end of a GPU.

[LabRat]

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

 

 

 the fastest are the FX processors. and really good when over clocked. ( you'll need a board to support those ( power requirements ). The best "average" amd cpu would be the 8350 for that socket. (depends on what board you have now ).

[Pulunen]

Alright then... I was wrong I admit that.

[Imakuni]

So you sell AMD stuff: try telling them that they need to make a decent CPU. There's just nothing good on their side: their stuff is either outdated, or super expensive grilling machines.

 

Now, about the bottleneck, it depends on the game. I'm using the a6-3500 with my gtx970. You should know how much of a mismatch that is; in fact, weaker than the 4100. Now, I had a hard time playing Tomb Raider, having to lower several settings to get good FPS, whereas I'm maxing out Crysis 2: Maximum Load (except for shadows on low), and getting just above 60 fps. And the game looks stunning, much more beautiful than the Tomb Raider. So it really depends on the game.

 

Still, it's worth getting the 970. VERY worth it. And I don't see a problem in selling AMD and having an Intel PC. After all, AMD is generally geared towards lower budget / non intense gaming PCs. While Intel is better suited for high end gaming. In fact, that's actually being honest with your clients, instead of being a fishy salesman saying "just get AMD cuz get AMD".

[Briggsy]

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

 

the FM2+ 860K is the best cpu that AMD have to offer at the moment for per-core performance in gaming. technically a 4300 is fine, as I gave my brother my gtx 760 last year and his FX4130 doesn't bottleneck his gameplay in the slightest compared to when I had the 760 paired with my 3570k, In fact I would say his system is fairly balanced. but a 970 would get cpu bound on his system I'm sure, but there might be hope for an 860K if you are determined to go with an AMD cpu and a 970 (and overclock the snot out of the 860k).

[Hieb]

So you sell AMD stuff: try telling them that they need to make a decent CPU. There's just nothing good on their side: their stuff is either outdated, or super expensive grilling machines.

 

Now, about the bottleneck, it depends on the game. I'm using the a6-3500 with my gtx970. You should know how much of a mismatch that is; in fact, weaker than the 4100. Now, I had a hard time playing Tomb Raider, having to lower several settings to get good FPS, whereas I'm maxing out Crysis 2: Maximum Load (except for shadows on low), and getting just above 60 fps. And the game looks stunning, much more beautiful than the Tomb Raider. So it really depends on the game.

 

Still, it's worth getting the 970. VERY worth it. And I don't see a problem in selling AMD and having an Intel PC. After all, AMD is generally geared towards lower budget / non intense gaming PCs. While Intel is better suited for high end gaming. In fact, that's actually being honest with your clients, instead of being a fishy salesman saying "just get AMD cuz get AMD".

 

That's strange... Tomb Raider is one of the least CPU dependent games to be released lately. A Pentium, Athlon and i7-5960X all get near-identical performance in it lol.

Although I'm not sure AMD is the best suited to budget gaming either. Of course their CPUs aren't very expensive, but at most price brackets Intel's options seem to provide better gaming performance. I'd use AMD for low-cost work systems though since they do pretty damn well in video editing/encoding, file compression, spreadsheets, etc. at lower price points.

 

 

I know, many people sugest going for intel, but my brother and I both sell AMD cpu's.

We are sponsored by AMD, for our local hardware store, though i am quite new in the buisness.

I just don't have the money for an entirely new pc, and i can't sell AMD stuff while showing off my intel pc.

Isn't there a good AMD cpu that won't bottleneck the 970? or should i be better off with a lower tier gpu

 

Then don't show your customers your personal computer, or be straight and make it clear that Intel provides higher end options but perhaps costs more. I mean if you want a CPU to support a GTX 970 you're looking at getting an i5 at least, which costs the same as AMD's top of the line eight-core CPUs but performs better in most games. You don't need to feel guilty about having an Intel CPU for a higher-end gaming system while selling low-cost AMD systems, unless you tell people that AMD is the best regardless of their needs... then I would feel guilty.

[Sandvich]

It will bottleneck even if you overclock it, you might want to get a i5 4690k and a r9 290.

[LabRat]

it doesn't matter what gpu you use. the bigger it goes the slightly more performance you will get. There comes a point in how big vs how much money - it all just doesn't seem to make sense anymore. ( cpu/gpu-gpu/cpu )  that's why there are so many cards with varying performance for $ ratios.

 

what motherboard do you have?

[Matthew12106]

That CPU will absolutely bottleneck a high end GPU like the 970.  Even an FX8 bottlenecks the 970.

 

Should you still buy the 970?  Yes, because most games are GPU bound, but you will need to upgrade your CPU and motherboard to Intel sooner or later if you want to get the most out of your GPU and be able to play all games.

 

 

You.  Leave now.

you are wrong, your using 'bottleneck' in the wrong context

[Matthew12106]

JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO 

[Faceman]

JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO

That video means absolutely NOTHING!

 

He is using an Intel i7 and downclocking it to match lower end Intel CPUs.  In case you haven't come to the realization yet:  INTEL CORES ARE STRONGER!!!

 

How about some benchmarks to show how badly an FX is a bottleneck to high end GPUs?

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

 

Out of 18 graphs that have an FX8 and i3 in them, the i3 is the superior option 16 times.  In every single graph, the Intel i5 is the superior option.  Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU.  Just monitor GPU loads.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"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."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"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."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

[Imakuni]

Dude, he wanted the video to show what "bottleneck" actually means. No rage please.

[Matthew12106]

That video means absolutely NOTHING!

 

He is using an Intel i7 and downclocking it to match lower end Intel CPUs.  In case you haven't come to the realization yet:  INTEL CORES ARE STRONGER!!!

 

How about some benchmarks to show how badly an FX is a bottleneck to high end GPUs?

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

---

 

Out of 18 graphs that have an FX8 and i3 in them, the i3 is the superior option 16 times.  In every single graph, the Intel i5 is the superior option.  Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU.  Just monitor GPU loads.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

http://pclab.pl/art57842.html

 

 

"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."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"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."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

If you had bloody watched the video he said "A bottle neck is when your GPU no longer runs 100% utilization simply because the CPU is sending a signal to the GPU saying 'I can't handle this mess'". I can bloody assure you that my 970 runs at 100% utilization when gaming! Yes intel is stronger thus you will be getting a better frame rate but that doesn't mean that with an AMD processor the GPU is being bloody bottlenecked, you don't understand what it means. DID U EVEN F**KING WATCH THE VIDEO!!!!! I never said that your going to get the same FPS with amd but it doesn't mean the GPU is being bottlenecked!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 

In terms of your logic an FX-8350 is as powerful as whatever he said I think I3-3220U or some shit when he observed actual bottlenecking this is what you will observe if you CPU is bottlenecking you GPU and I can assure you, you won't see that on a FX-8350. As he said at the start of the video which applies to you "generally it's by somebody who has absolutely no fucking clue what there doing when it comes to computers "