FX 8350 Bottleneck

[Nikolithebear]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

[Archangel1994]

60-80% on your second GPU = bottleneck

 

Read the links in my signature and base an answer/opinion on that

[EMENCII]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

OC'ing a bit more the cpu? How high is the cpu usage?

[Nikolithebear]

60-80% on your second GPU = bottleneck

 

Read the links in my signature and base an answer/opinion on that

Thanks!  I guess I'll have to save up and upgrade at some point, I wish electronics didn't cost an arm and a leg.

[Nikolithebear]

OC'ing a bit more the cpu? How high is the cpu usage?

4,4ghz is the best i can get on this chip (bad silicon lottery)

[sgloux3470]

Seems like you have a slight bottleneck.

 

I would decide based on your framerates.  If you're happy with them no sense rushing out to upgrade right away, although you'll want to eventually.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.

when you hit a low minimum FPS in a game, at this very moment take a peak are your GPU loads...and tell yourself: well this bad situation that ruins my gaming experience right there i have 900$ worth of GPU's sitting on the table waiting to be fed but i'm getting fucking 41FPS in watchdogs or skyrim or whatever the fuck the game your playing is...then right there it's your bottleneck.

[Priller]

Guess no one is going to ask which games the OP is playing and even check if the game has a decent SLI profile.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Guess no one is going to ask which games the OP is playing and even check if the game has a decent SLI profile.

i thought he'd figure it out with my post...i should have specified that MANY modern games run's on a potato and are basicaly only GPU demanding but we see less and less of these games these days i feel.

but yeah: what games do you play OP? are you on a 120hz display at 1080p or a 1440p 60hz? i'm assuming you didnt bought dual GTX 970 to play games at 1080p 60hz...

[typographie]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

 

What are your framerates like? If you're capped to 60 FPS on 60 Hz displays, that too is a "bottleneck." Your GPUs will be partially idle if they are capable of more than 60, no matter the cause of the cap.

 

I personally doubt an overclocked FX-8350 is going to be a serious bottlenecking issue in the majority of games if you're only aiming for 60 FPS. It's probably worth an upgrade when Skylake debuts, but it's not a crisis.

[i_build_nanosuits]

What are your framerates like? If you're capped to 60 FPS on 60 Hz displays, that too is a "bottleneck." Your GPUs will be partially idle if they are capable of more than 60, no matter the cause of the cap.

 

I personally doubt an overclocked FX-8350 is going to be a serious bottlenecking issue in the majority of games if you're only aiming for 60 FPS. It's probably worth an upgrade when Skylake debuts, but it's not a crisis.

correct, at 1440P or higher resolution and 60FPS (60hz) this completely make sense...anything else though, hummm.

[deathjester]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

 

Depends on the game, depends on the threading of the game. In most console ports, single player games you will not see much bottle necking.

 

In an MMO? Whole nother story. AMD CPU's are vastly underrated for a lot of games. The only time I red flag someone intending to buy one is if they intend to play a lot of MMO's. Intel is worth every penny if you do.

 

Intel is also ahead on OLD games like say Skyrim. Far Cry 4 is horribly threaded, but it runs like arse on my I7 as well, so you aren't missing much there lol.

 

Where an AMD CPU can be inferior. Game that is poorly threaded AND very cpu dependent. When low level API's take over? This will be a non issue. If you could care less about those games? You aren't going to see much difference between an AMD CPU and an Intel.

 

This is also why you see opinions varying greatly on the two CPU's. Someone who could care less about an MMO is not going to run into a really bad "bottleneck" often.

[typographie]

correct, at 1440P or higher resolution and 60FPS (60hz) this completely make sense...anything else though, hummm.

 

OP said he's at 5760x1080. But at 1920x1080 @ 60, the cards would appear even more bottlenecked. You'd see an even lower usage percentage, due to the twin GPUs having proportionally more unused overhead.

[i_build_nanosuits]

OP said he's at 5760x1080. But at 1920x1080 @ 60, the cards would appear even more bottlenecked. You'd see an even lower usage percentage, due to the twin GPUs having proportionally more unused overhead.

5760x1080 is a lot of pixels, GPU's will defenetly be the limiting factor in modern games.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Depends on the game, depends on the threading of the game. In most console ports, single player games you will not see much bottle necking.

 

In an MMO? Whole nother story. AMD CPU's are vastly underrated for a lot of games. The only time I red flag someone intending to buy one is if they intend to play a lot of MMO's. Intel is worth every penny if you do.

 

Intel is also ahead on OLD games like say Skyrim. Far Cry 4 is horribly threaded, but it runs like arse on my I7 as well, so you aren't missing much there lol.

 

Where an AMD CPU can be inferior. Game that is poorly threaded AND very cpu dependent. When low level API's take over? This will be a non issue. If you could care less about those games? You aren't going to see much difference between an AMD CPU and an Intel.

 

This is also why you see opinions varying greatly on the two CPU's. Someone who could care less about an MMO is not going to run into a really bad "bottleneck" often.

open world games in general all run's poorly here and there on AMD CPU's...wheter it's watchdogs, assassin's creed, dead rising 3, dragon age, shadow or mordor etc. they all hit pretty bad minimum's on the FX CPU's. Indeed the performance hit from running those CPU's is a lot more noticeable in mmo's and RTS games in which any AMD CPU's just plain sucks. But it's not correct to assume that because a game is based on single player that it won't be GPU bound with an FX and such a strong GPU, in fact my single GTX 780 was crippled by the FX at 1080p in the vast majority of games that i've played with it up to the day i got fed up of low gpu loads and bad minimums at times in my favorite titles.

[sgloux3470]

OP said he's at 5760x1080. But at 1920x1080 @ 60, the cards would appear even more bottlenecked. You'd see an even lower usage percentage, due to the twin GPUs having proportionally more unused overhead.

 

Running SLI 970''s on 1080p is a tremendously stupid thing to do anyway.  Even bottlenecked, you'll get ridiculously good framerates.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Running SLI 970''s on 1080p is a tremendously stupid thing to do anyway.  Even bottlenecked, you'll get ridiculously good framerates.

no you wouldnt that's where you are wrong and i've seen many users tried to get you corrected on this: if you run an FX 8 core CPU at 1080p with dual GTX 970 in SLI, if the CPU choke the cards and can only push 45FPS in a said game, then 45FPS it is wheter you are running 4 way 980 SLI or a GTX 770...it's 45FPS at that point.

[sgloux3470]

no you wouldnt that's where you are wrong and i've seen many users tried to get you corrected on this: if you run an FX 8 core CPU at 1080p with dual GTX 970 in SLI, if the CPU choke the cards and can only push 45FPS in a said game, then 45FPS it is wheter you are running 4 way 980 SLI or a GTX 770...it's 45FPS at that point.

 

Very few games choke the cards in that manner, although obviously some like Arma 3 will.  Some games like FC4 have certain scenes that choke all FX CPu's to the same framerate, but higher GPU's will still get better performance in most other scenes.

 

I know how CPU bottlenecks work, but the vast majority of games aren't CPU bottlenecked by FX until the 80-90 FPS range.

[typographie]

Running SLI 970''s on 1080p is a tremendously stupid thing to do anyway.  Even bottlenecked, you'll get ridiculously good framerates.

 

I think we ended up losing some of the context with the quoting. The OP is seeing a low usage percentage for the second card, which I suggested could be the result of capping the framerate. So the ridiculously good framerate you could get may account for a low reported usage if capped to 60.

 

5760x1080 is a lot of pixels, GPU's will defenetly be the limiting factor in modern games.

 

Some, sure. I honestly don't really know how dual GTX 970's do at that resolution, but it's fewer pixels than 4K. I suppose it's possible that some games may be hitting 60 FPS or beyond. There are a lot more "new" games than Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, and Dragon Age: Inquisition. Video settings are very important as well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Some, sure. I honestly don't really know how dual GTX 970's do at that resolution, but it's fewer pixels than 4K. I suppose it's possible that some games may be hitting 60 FPS or beyond. There are a lot more "new" games than Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4, and Dragon Age: Inquisition. Video settings are very important as well.

it's 6.2 million pixels...to give you an idea 1440p is 3.7 millions and 4K is around 8.3 millions...so it's in between 1440p and 4K as far as pixel count goes...it's insane.

[Sintezza]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

 

 

Well your scaling is still isnt that bad

 

You will never reach 100% scaling with 970 sli on 1080p in cpu bound games.

As you can see, you run triple monitors, so your scaling is actualy not that bad for 1080p if you ask me.

But thats mainaly because you are getting GPU limited aswell due those triple monitors.

 

Every cpu will bottleneck this.

The 4690K or 4790K will probably scale a bit better, due better single core performance.

But still also that cpu will bottleneck it.

[Faceman]

Hey guys, so im running a FX8350 at 4.4ghz with 970sli and people keep screaming about bottlenecks.  However Im not sure that I have one or can see one in my performance (gaming at 5760x1080).  Others report it throttling just one of your gpus  but when gaming on some of the newest titles i can see my gpu usage hanging at 80-99% usage on the first card while the second one is 60-80% usually.  

Thats a bottleneck on both GPUs.  They should BOTH be at 99% if there was no bottleneck happening.  The fact that even your first card isn't running at full load is a bottleneck, and your second card doing even worse.  Yea, thats a big bottleneck.

 

Now, is the bottleneck visible to you is an entirely different subject.  If you are on 60Hz monitors, and you are never dropping below 60fps, then the bottleneck isn't prevalent.  But in a lot of games, I'd say 1 out of 5, the FX is going to provide you very poor minimum fps, which is the most important.  As a result, you can get frame drops which tend to ruin your gaming experience.  This is all game dependent, but if I have $700 worth of GPUs, I would make damn sure I am using all of that power rather than wasting it on a lowly FX8.

[,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]

Everyone screams BOTTLENECK!

Well did you know, your system will almost always be bottlenecked?

If you own a 5960X your GPU is most-likely bottlenecking it? Same goes if you own 980's SLI and dual-core AMD CPU.

If your GPU's are not maxed out, you are most-likely being bottlenecked. Some games are more CPU intensive than others.

5K gaming on an 8350 is too much, I would suggest upgrading to an intel quad-core processor.

[rtpb5642]

Too bad, i managed to reach 5.3ghz stable but i cant run like that 24/7 due to heat, normally game at 4.6 with temps under 55C.