fx 8350 bottleneck

[cooperb21]

What currency?  Because I just showed you in the bellow post that in every region on PcP, the i5 is less expensive.

 

Thats funny about the motherboard considering AM3+ is so old that it doesn't have many of the modern features that LGA1150 motherboards have.  Fan headers is a simple fix with a splitter, and can be controlled with software or in the BIOS.

 

Did you even read that post I told you to read?  I'm guessing not because ignorance is still spilling out of your mouth.

There is still very minor difference in games and 8320 out does i5 and i3 in applications and editing and such. 

 

If anything i would buy 8320 and buy a cheap cooler later on and oc it when i need more performance. 

 

[Faceman]

 

There is still very minor difference in games and 8320 out does i5 and i3 in applications and editing and such. 

 

If anything i would buy 8320 and buy a cheap cooler later on and oc it when i need more performance. 

 

 

Listen to me.  No matter how high you overclock an FX, it is not going to perform as well as an i5.  It will bottleneck high end GPUs, and cost you a lot more in energy per year.  You are spending way more adding in a CPU cooler and energy than a locked i5.  I'm talking about gaming, strictly gaming, the i5 wrecks anything FX throws at it.  For productivity, there are very few programs that really make use of all 8 threads and unless your priority is content creation, I would much rather have the better gaming experience than the 30 second(arbitrary number) faster render times.  There is not a "minor difference" in games.  Some games show as much as a 50% increase in FPS going from an FX8 to i5.  And in ALL games, you will get higher minimum fps, which is the most important fps.

 

Read the post.

[cooperb21]

Listen to me.  No matter how high you overclock an FX, it is not going to perform as well as an i5.  It will bottleneck high end GPUs, and cost you a lot more in energy per year.  You are spending way more adding in a CPU cooler and energy than a locked i5.  I'm talking about gaming, strictly gaming, the i5 wrecks anything FX throws at it.  For productivity, there are very few programs that really make use of all 8 threads and unless your priority is content creation, I would much rather have the better gaming experience than the 30 second(arbitrary number) faster render times.  There is not a "minor difference" in games.  Some games show as much as a 50% increase in FPS going from an FX8 to i5.  And in ALL games, you will get higher minimum fps, which is the most important fps.

 

Read the post.

As long as my games are running 60fps i dont care thats why im going to amd next time and same my money on my next build and drop my i7 for w/e amd comes out in 3-4. years. 

[Majestic]

Pretty sure at this point cooperb21 is either trolling or a special need case. Just save your energy for something else, faceman.

[cooperb21]

Pretty sure at this point cooperb21 is either trolling or a special need case. Just save your energy for something else, faceman.

Wow thanks alot go to insulting users instead of a debate. 

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

lol at the same 3 guys still amd bashing with thier same benchmarks

 

i just ordered my second 280x , 2-280x crossfired >gtx 980. i will take benchmarks with video proof to show what its made of.

 

does the 8350 bottleneck in some games? yes some games are optimized so crappy that even a 5930k will bottleneck multiple gpu's.

 

does the 8350 do more than good enough with multiple gpus or one badass gpu? hell yes it does.

[Dabombinable]

Wow thanks alot go to insulting users instead of a debate. 

Look, once I have my overclocking rig sorted out, I will show you just how bad AMD cpus are when my Xeon X5450 (remember this is a server grade CPU from late 2008) beats the crap out of them clocked at the same speeds. I've actually had my Core 2 duo for example aproaching the single thread performance of the i7 k series cpus at the same speeds as an FX 8350. And the Core 2 duo is based on a 45nm manufacturing process, not the 32nm of the more recent AMD cpus. The point is that if old Intel lga775/771 cpus, which if you include a motherboard and decent liquid cooling, is able to exceed the performance of an FX 8350 for example whilst costing less than the FX 8350 on its own, AMD just isn't good value for money.

BTW, I'm able to overclock on a 3+1 phase mobo with a CPU that is rated at the same TDP as an FX 8350 and with a VRM that has no heatsinks. I highly doubt an FX 8350 can do the same from what people have been experienceing.

 

[Fate]

lol at the same 3 guys still amd bashing with thier same benchmarks

 

i just ordered my second 280x , 2-280x crossfired >gtx 980. i will take benchmarks with video proof to show what its made of.

 

does the 8350 bottleneck in some games? yes some games are optimized so crappy that even a 5930k will bottleneck multiple gpu's.

 

does the 8350 do more than good enough with multiple gpus or one badass gpu? hell yes it does.

lol same guy with only opinions denying facts

lol

topkek

 

earth is flat you guys are wrong, it's not round you have no proof!

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Look, once I have my overclocking rig sorted out, I will show you just how bad AMD cpus are when my Xeon X5450 (remember this is a server grade CPU from late 2008) beats the crap out of them clocked at the same speeds. I've actually had my Core 2 duo for example aproaching the single thread performance of the i7 k series cpus at the same speeds as an FX 8350. And the Core 2 duo is based on a 45nm manufacturing process, not the 32nm of the more recent AMD cpus. The point is that if old Intel lga775/771 cpus, which if you include a motherboard and decent liquid cooling, is able to exceed the performance of an FX 8350 for example whilst costing less than the FX 8350 on its own, AMD just isn't good value for money.

 

 

thats not gonna happen. i have a e5450 (same as x5450) and had it overclocked to 4 ghz on my p45 gigabyte motherboard...oc'd to 4ghz it matched a i5 4430 in single core speed and it still bottlenecked my r9 280x in games like bf4...did great in 80% of games tho. as soon as i upgraded to 8350 i saw incredible performance.

 

in fact..if i dont find a use for it i may give away the xeon

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

lol same guy with only opinions denying facts

lol

topkek

 

earth is flat you guys are wrong, it's not round you have no proof!

with your 3570k and r9 270 lol acting like 8350 is butt when your cpu is like 5% better if that.

 

like i said..i have a second 280x come out and i'll post video proff showing yes it may bottleneck..but it will still get crazy good performance

[Majestic]

Wow thanks alot go to insulting users instead of a debate. 

Pretty sure someone tried that already, numerous times.

 

lol at the same 3 guys still amd bashing with thier same benchmarks

Oh look, it's "that guy" denying facts again. Cognitive bias much. 

 

earth is flat you guys are wrong, it's not round you have no proof!

I nearly died.

[Fate]

with your 3570k and r9 270 lol acting like 8350 is butt when your cpu is like 5% better if that.

 

like i said..i have a second 280x come out and i'll post video proff showing yes it may bottleneck..but it will still get crazy good performance

wow much amaze cant wait grats on bringing my specs into the conversation when they're completely irrelevant!

[Dabombinable]

thats not gonna happen. i have a e5450 (same as x5450) and had it overclocked to 4 ghz on my p45 gigabyte motherboard...oc'd to 4ghz it matched a i5 4430 in single core speed and it still bottlenecked my r9 280x in games like bf4...did great in 80% of games tho. as soon as i upgraded to 8350 i saw incredible performance.

Lmfao, It can hit 4.7GHz easily when liquid cooling is used, and so far the current record is 4.8GHz, it will shit all over an 8350. And I have an i5 4440 to do comparisons with so I will be showing proof of the performance when I have the liquid cooler.

 

Edit: and remember that only games that are optimized for more than 4 cores will see any benifit from an FX 8350, and even then that will be a stretch.

[Majestic]

wow much amaze cant wait grats on bringing my specs into the conversation when they're completely irrelevant!

Much fallacies, such adhominem, wow!

[WaitForMeImOnDialUp]

Lmfao, It can hit 4.7GHz easily when liquid cooling is used, and so far the current record is 4.8GHz, it will shit all over an 8350. And I have an i5 4440 to do comparisons with so I will be showing proof of the performance when I have the liquid cooler.

 

Edit: and remember that only games that are optimized for more than 4 cores will see any benifit from an FX 8350, and even then that will be a stretch.

okay yeah with liquid you can get good clocks i hit 4 on a xeon with a old artic 7 air cooler.  771 xeons oc very well

 

actually, i may get a cheap refurb h100i form newegg and oc the xeon as high as i can get it...if it beats the 8350 i will admit it.

[Dabombinable]

okay yeah with liquid you can get good clocks i hit 4 on a xeon with a old artic 7 air cooler.  771 xeons oc very well

 

actually, i may get a cheap refurb h100i form newegg and oc the xeon as high as i can get it...if it beats the 8350 i will admit it.

How did you manage to overclock on an arctic 7 cooler? I've got the arctic 7 freezer pro rev 2 and it struggles to keep my core 2 duo cool at 3.6GHz, and my i5 4440 actually overheated when I used it (I couldn't believe it myself either). When it comes to the cooler that was fitted to the P4 630 however, which is the older red blade version of the deepcool winner s915 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/DEEPCOOL-Computer-Radiator-WINNER-Cooling/dp/B00I476P64) and is a simple extruded aluminum block downdraft cooler, I can have the CPU running all day at 4.05GHz and fully loaded and have the temps remain below 74 ^oC (right on the edge), whilst 4.2GHz can be sustained for 1-2 hours.

[Sintezza]

I don't think you understand.

 

 

i do understand dont worry lol .

 

Im not even going to bother into any discussions about this subject.

Because its allready discussed a gazillion times. lol

 

Its just a waste of my beautifull nails hitting my ugly keyboard.

[rtpb5642]

Not going here.

[Dabombinable]

Just found this page: http://www.pc-specs.com/cpu/comparison-versus/1161/1140/xeon-processor-x5450-vs-fx-8350
Apparently that is a comparison between them at stock clock, so with the Xeon overclocked to match the 8350, it should easily surpass it. The score isn't that fair as not everything was compared so keep that in mind.

 

And another:
http://www.youcpu.com/en/compare/AMD-FX-8-Core-Black-Edition-FX-8350/Intel-Xeon-X5450-12M-Cache-3.00-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB

[Hieb]

If a CPU is having to do a lot such as calculate physics (not PhysX) and control the AI in a game it starts to become stressed as its load is extremely high (Crysis 3 pushes my core 2 duo to 100%, and so does 3d mark firestrike). As a result the GPU has to actually wait for the CPU to send it the required data to display what is being run correctly. In solely GPU bound cases however, I had my GTX 970 pushed to the point where I had coil whine that was as bad as when it was in my i5 rig when it was being pushed to the limits, and as a result I could have used the P4 630 that came with my OC rig and gotten the same results.

 

I understand that and I've experienced it first hand as I used to use an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. But there are some games where more CPU power AND more GPU power both increase performance pretty linearly. For example in many Crysis 3 benches I've seen results showing an i7-3930K providing consistently better performance than an FX-8350, but then the FX-8350 also performed better with a GTX 970 than with a GTX 670.

 

So given that the CPU primarily affects performance based on how much delay in feeding the GPU results from it, why would more GPU power improve performance when the CPU is clearly also leaving lots of room for improvement? This is what I don't understand. As  sgloux3470 pointed out there are some games where an Intel CPU will outperform an AMD CPU, but a better GPU will still provide better performance with an AMD CPU. I'm left wondering why this is, since as I understand it when the CPU is limiting things, more GPU power doesn't do anything (and in my experience, more GPU power didn't do anything).

 

Back on my Q6600 my GTX 560 performed identically at 500MHz and 900MHz; I would pretty much always be limited to around 45 fps in BF3/BF4 multiplayer.

 

 

I've seen a lot of benchmarks that show average framerates being within 10% of each other and AMD's minimum being 30-40 frames lower.  To me, this  means that the minimum framerate is being determined by a monkey who is just taking the bottom framerate recorded or whatever and doesn't really represent anything of note statistically.  A spike to 30 isn't great, but it's not going to ruin the game either. I usually try and take a representative sample of the bottom frames, like 1/4 or 1/3 depending on benchmark time and average it.  The better way to do it would be to actually apply more complicated statistics, but that's my quick and dirty way of doing it.

 

For sure on many games it won't matter, depending on the settings and such. And minimum framerates can often be very inaccurate as framerate over time is a lot more relevant and useful (for example Crysis 3 min framerates are always really bad because there's always one part of the game where it spikes super low as it's stressing memory and cache more than any current CPU can handle without slowing down, but that doesn't represent the gameplay the rest of the time).

 

The gap between AMD and Intel will depend greatly on the game, how CPU dependent it is, and the framerates & settings you're targeting. 60 FPS avg gameplay on an AMD CPU in BF4 (I use this example a lot since it's my go-to game) is very doable, and if you're playing at 4K on a GTX 970 there'd be no significant difference between an i7 and an FX-8350. But then if you were someone like me who wants to keep framerate above 60 fps at all times or wants to play at 120/144 fps, it appears an AMD CPU is going to struggle to provide that consistently with any graphics solution (but that's based on all the YT videos I've seen, I haven't used AMD's CPUs personally).

 

Almost every BF4 performance test I've watched on YouTube with FX-6300 performs far lower than an i3 and comparable to (or sometimes worse than) a Pentium, and an FX-8350 far lower than an i5 (and often lower than i3).

[sgloux3470]

I definitely agree that consistent 100+ FPS isn't really viable on AMD. Quite a few games will absolutely do it, but most tend to cap out at 90-100.

I think 1080p 60 on the other hand is vety easy to accomplish. I had great framerates with my 270X CF, but the limitations of dual gpu solutions and in games like Advanced Warfare VRAM got choked badly.

If you compare 3xxx intel with AMD they're neck and neck, but the 4xxx series is a good 30% better across the board.

I'm certainly not in a hurry to replace my CPU anytime soon.

[Mush Brain]

The only CPU bound scenario is Arma 3.

http://i.imgur.com/HFNBiAK.jpg

 

My framerate in both these areas literally doubled.  (these were the areas I took the biggest performance hit, dropping down to 35-45 FPS in each of them.)  I had old screenshots, but they unfortunately got wiped when I changed out my motherboard and reinstalled windows.  If I get really bored one day, I'll reinstall the cards to take some new screenshots.

I scored better fps in dawn of war 2 with my 2500k and lowly gtx 480.

[Mush Brain]

Here is an old gtx 480 review with a nehalem i7....

[sgloux3470]

I scored better fps in dawn of war 2 with my 2500k and lowly gtx 480.

 

It has always heavily favoured intel.

 

That said, I don't go below 60 when actually playing the game so I don't really care.  Usually floats around 90-120.  They seemed to have fixed the CPU problem with Coh2 since it's almost entirely CPU agnostic.

[Majestic]

It has always heavily favoured intel.

*per-core performance, or IPC. It does not favor a brand.