fx 8350 bottleneck

[Sintezza]

yes of course it won't make sense...even the 144hz display itself will in fact bottleneck dual GTX 980's at 1080p

 

but but i got 75Hz and i am cpu + gpu bottlenecked lol

[i_build_nanosuits]

but but i got 75Hz and i am cpu + gpu bottlenecked lol

time for upgrades then hehe

i'm 60hz my machine is somewhat overkill but the 780 can't achieve 60FPS capped in many games maxed out...i would love a stronger GPU even for 1080p honestly.

and i don't know why but i have a VERY HARD TIME lowering the settings i just LOVE to play on ultra...i rather have crappy anti-aliasing and not miss a thing...i only turn off motion blur cause it's shit.

[Priller]

she's way to recent a model for me anyways man

 

Still got that uhhhhh new car smell.....

[Sintezza]

time for upgrades then hehe

i'm 60hz my machine is somewhat overkill but the 780 can't achieve 60FPS capped in many games maxed out...i would love a stronger GPU even for 1080p honestly.

and i don't know why but i have a VERY HARD TIME lowering the settings i just LOVE to play on ultra...i rather have crappy anti-aliasing and not miss a thing...i only turn off motion blur cause it's shit.

 

ya i want a 5820k and 390X

But i first going to wait for the 390X hit the market.

[Suika]

4770k shows nowhere real superiour results, not $150,- more worth of results atleast

It's like you're making a genuine attempt to troll.

 

Get an i5 for gaming. Whatever result the i7 got, an i5 would get the same or better. An i7 is only ever recommended with media production in mind (and even then, an i5 won't fall that much behind).

[i_build_nanosuits]

ya i want a 5820k and 390X

wait for skylake then...it's very likely that a quad-core with hyperthreading on a new architecture will provide better gaming experience than a 6 core haswell IMHO.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Still got that uhhhhh new car smell.....

i don't know about the smell man... :huh:

[i_build_nanosuits]

It's like you're making a genuine attempt to troll.

 

Get an i5 for gaming. Whatever result the i7 got, an i5 would get the same or better. An i7 is only ever recommended with media production in mind (and even then, an i5 won't fall that much behind).

you've got an i7...turn off hyperthreading in your bios and play assassin's creed unity, farcry4, dragon age inquisition or even crysis 3 you'll see it's nowhere near as smooth.

i read all day in here that an i5 is all you need but i've been reading this on forums since like the day the first i5 came out...it was true until about a year ago mate!

[sgloux3470]

i hope you do realise that this is unrealistic 4K benchmarking...at 1080p the difference between both CPU's when paired with dual GTX980's in SLI would be insanely huge...like almost double.

 

Right, but at some point ( I like to go with 60 FPS, maybe others have different preferences) it doesn't matter.  The difference between 100 FPS and 120 FPS isn't even noticeable, as someone using a 144Hz monitor.  

[Sintezza]

wait for skylake then...it's very likely that a quad-core with hyperthreading on a new architecture will provide better gaming experience than a 6 core haswell IMHO.

 

yes but.

 

With the 5820k i am able to add 2 cores 4 threads to my virtual machines, let them run on stock clockspeeds, and i am able to overclock the other 4 cores higher for my gaming experiance.

 

Atleast that was my wishfull thinking

[i_build_nanosuits]

yes but.

 

With the 5820k i am able to add 2 cores 4 threads to my virtual machines, let them run on stock clockspeeds, and i am able to overclock the other 4 cores higher for my gaming experiance.

 

Atleast that was my wishfull thinking

if you do need the cores for other stuff then i understand...some games also benefit of up to 12 cpu threads (DA inquisition and cod AW for example) though it's way overkill as both of them run's just fine with 8 threads and COD even 4 threads is enough for smooth gameplay.

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-advanced-warfare-benchmark-performance/

Talk about optimisation for multi-core CPU...there it is.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Right, but at some point ( I like to go with 60 FPS, maybe others have different preferences) it doesn't matter.  The difference between 100 FPS and 120 FPS isn't even noticeable, as someone using a 144Hz monitor.  

then what's the point of buying a GTX980 for 60FPS at 1080p...especialy if you pair it with a CPU that can't even hold 60FPS steady in many games? you're wierd man...

[Sintezza]

if you do need the cores for other stuff then i understand...some games also benefit of up to 12 cpu threads (DA inquisition and cod AW for example) though it's way overkill as both of them run's just fine with 8 threads and COD even 4 threads is enough for smooth gameplay.

 

http://www.hardwarepal.com/call-duty-advanced-warfare-benchmark-performance/

 

Talk about optimisation for multi-core CPU...there it is.

 

 

Oh yes definitely for just gaming a X99 platform isnt gonne make a whole lot of sense.

There are indeed a few games, that have the capabillity to use all availeble threads.

But still there isnt much of a benefit.

 

As far as i have seen from video's from Bryan from Tech Yes City, skyrim and BF4 also benefited from the 5820k.

But i think its also related to the amount of cache aswell in these games.

But yeah, you talk about such high fps numbers even on a 4670K that it doesnt gonne make a whole lot of sense anyway.

That why for gaming X99 is a bit of waste in most situations.

[sgloux3470]

then what's the point of buying a GTX980 for 60FPS at 1080p...especialy if you pair it with a CPU that can't even hold 60FPS steady in many games? you're wierd man...

It does hold 60 FPS steady in many games, from my testing tonight.  (Arma 3 being the exception.) In most games it's running anywhere from 85-100 FPS. (My 270X crossfire mostly did that, the biggest issue was VRAM and frametimes.)

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

I intend to upgrade past 1080p eventually, of course.  I couldn't do that with 2 GB VRAM.

 

and I wanted to try the green team.  I haven't had a nvidia card since a TNT2 Pro...

[i_build_nanosuits]

It does hold 60 FPS steady in many games, from my testing tonight.  (Arma 3 being the exception.) In most games it's running anywhere from 85-100 FPS. (My 270X crossfire mostly did that, the biggest issue was VRAM and frametimes.)

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

I intend to upgrade past 1080p eventually, of course.  I couldn't do that with 2 GB VRAM.

 

and I wanted to try the green team.  I haven't had a nvidia card since a TNT2 Pro...

you happen to have a library filled with many non cpu intensive games...try watchdogs or any of the assassin's creed series games...metro games...hitman...GTA...theres so many i can't think of right now...i actualy happen to play CPU intensive stuff to be honest.

 

EDIT: dead rising 3, far cry 4, sleeping dogs....: you have farcry3...try that one...or skyrim i heard is cpu dependant a lot...never played that i don't play that kind of game.

[sgloux3470]

you happen to have a library filled with many non cpu intensive games...try watchdogs or any of the assassin's creed series games...metro games...hitman...GTA...theres so many i can't think of right now...i actualy happen to play CPU intensive stuff to be honest.

 

EDIT: dead rising 3, far cry 4, sleeping dogs....: you have farcry3...try that one...or skyrim i heard is cpu dependant a lot...never played that i don't play that kind of game.

I have a library with damn near any game you can think of.

 

Unity ran at 60 FPS with a couple of drops to 55, seemed pretty stable.  

AC4 ran at 60 FPS before and I assume it still does.

Skyrim varied quite a bit, but the lowest it got was 66 FPS. 

Crysis 3 runs at 60 FPS on very high with the TXAA cranked,

 

Arkham Origins ran at 140 FPS on my 270X's, can only get better.

FC3 had a minimum of 77 FPS, can only get better.

Sleeping Dogs ran well over 60 FPS on 270X CF.  Can only get better.

 

I guess I don't own Watchdogs or Dead Rising 3 to test.  

 

The fact is that most games are GPU limited.  I'm sure you could find more that perform like Arma 3... but I own 700 games on Steam and haven't had too many issues with FX performance in over a year of using them.  My 270X CF was killing it until this year, where games really didn't like the limited VRAM.

 

Throw enough GPU power at stuff and it stops mattering.  You could get the min framerates I get with much less with intel, but I'm pretty happy with them as is.

[SkilledRebuilds]

$389 versus ~$200 for a handful of frames.

Hold on, I have a $400 RAM kit to sell you.

Yeah but replace that i7 with an i5.

Not expensive.

[FuzzyYellow]

I generally advocate the same thing I'd the situation calls for it, but do you have a source on this?

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

[sgloux3470]

Yeah but replace that i7 with an i5.

Not expensive.

 

Take difference in cost.  Divide by 3-5 which was the average framerate difference.  That's how much $/frame you're paying extra.  Still not worth it.

[HippY]

 

So in short: you will see huge performance gains over the single 7870 in games.  You don't have to spend $200-400 replacing your motherboard and CPU with an i3/i5 to experience a worthwhile performance upgrade.  You will however get better performance if you do, but it's going to cost you way more money.

the important bit.

If you already have the Fx 8350 you might use it as well

If you think that it is not enough for you and holds you back at gaming, then get a intel CPU+mobo, but it will cost extra money.

 

 

 

Pretty much telling me AMD always have heat issue whether its CPU, APU, GPU or motherboard, not all the time but many times.

Right now my FX-8350 is throttling during the hot summer days here in Australia, yes I am using a stock cooler and yes I have a crappy motherboard but even at idle it shouldn't be like this.

R9 290 are very hot but luckily I choose the Vapor-X cooler which is like $100 more than other non-reference coolers, never goes beyond 75 degrees Celsius but it is still quite hot for a premium cooler.

No they do not have always heat issues.

Nvidia had heat issues at GPUs, the r9 290 ( that people remember now, as all we now, internet has a short memory spawn) had shit reference cooler, but as you mentioned, your GPU gets at 75 C with high ambient temperatures. Look at GTX 780 benchmarks, they are not 50 degree at load.

APU is a CPU AND a powerful GPU at area of a CPU. Of course it will need good cooling.

 

 

I read a few pages again( no idea why.. they are always the same) and I think I see one flaw in the discussion.

 

This guy already has this config and has money to buy an r9 290x

Of course, he could upgrade for a 5820K for the best results ( slight exaggeration here), but why should he invest another $300, if an fx 8350 would be enough for his entertainment?

Of course, an intel would be quicker, but extra $300 quicker over his current set up? it would be him to decide, whether he wants/can invest or not

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

Throw enough GPU power at stuff and it stops mattering.  You could get the min framerates I get with much less with intel, but I'm pretty happy with them as is.

that's not how it works and your numbers for assassin's creed raise a strong concern for me as i was not getting anywhere near 60FPS with my 4.6ghz FX even at lowest possible resolution to remove the GPU of the equation.

[sgloux3470]

that's not how it works and your numbers for assassin's creed raise a strong concern for me as i was not getting anywhere near 60FPS with my 4.6ghz FX even at lowest possible resolution to remove the GPU of the equation.

It is how it works.  I just demonstrated it in this thread.  The only game that showed no difference so far is Arma 3.  Everything else saw framerate increases.  Throwing more GPU at it works. (And yes, that includes minimum framerates.  WoW went from 35 FPS to 51 in the most CPU limited area I've played the game in.)  

 

I've clearly demonstrated that a GTX 980 is not bottlenecked by an FX8core.  It doesn't perform *as well* as it would on Intel, but excluding arma 3 the minimum framerate, average framerate and maximum framerate has increased in every single game I've tested.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

It is how it works.  I just demonstrated it in this thread.  The only game that showed no difference so far is Arma 3.  Everything else saw framerate increases.  Throwing more GPU at it works. (And yes, that includes minimum framerates.  WoW went from 35 FPS to 51 in the most CPU limited area I've played the game in.)  

 

I've clearly demonstrated that a GTX 980 is not bottlenecked by an FX8core.  It doesn't perform *as well* as it would on Intel, but excluding arma 3 the minimum framerate, average framerate and maximum framerate has increased in every single game I've tested.  

alright man if you say so...look i'll not argue with you i feel it's not worth it i have had a different experience than you obviously and it's alright as long as you are happy with your FX CPU it,s all good...you should have went with a GTX970 BTW the extra 250$ you've spend for the 8% performance increase on the 980 should have been invested toward a proper CPU IMHO.

peace out!

[sgloux3470]

alright man if you say so...look i'll not argue with you i feel it's not worth it i have had a different experience than you obviously and it's alright as long as you are happy with your FX CPU it,s all good...you should have went with a GTX970 BTW the extra 250$ you've spend for the 8% performance increase on the 980 should have been invested toward a proper CPU IMHO.

peace out!

A 970 wouldn't have been much of an upgrade, unfortunately.  270CF pushes about as many frames as an r9 290X/970 when it's not gimped by vram.

[Sintezza]

IF a gpu gets "significant" more frames on 1 cpu then on the other.

That simply means that there is a cpu bottleneck.

However if its realy noticable or not, thats a diffrent story..

 

Anyhow upgrading a from a midrange gpu to a highend gpu, will allways give you performance increases.

No matter which cpu.