Post your bottleneck builds here

[i_build_nanosuits]

my r9 280x hits 98% with my fx 6300 @ 4.5ghz....i wouldnt call that a bottleneck

try some CPU demanding games mate you'll find your bottleneck soon or later if you search for it i guarantee you

[miagisan]

try some CPU demanding games mate you'll find your bottleneck soon or later if you search for it i guarantee you

thats not a bottleneck though....thats just lower performance compared to intel (intel IS a superior chip for gaming, not going to argue that at all)

 

bottleneck (as my understanding to the terminology) in relation to the cpu-> gpu interaction, is when the cpu cant feed the gpu fast enough to use use all its capabilities. CPU performance though is another thing entirely.

 

The FX series is fine for up to a r9 270x (280x if you over clock it a bit). Anything higher though will bottleneck the gpu and would go intel for more high end cards.

[Interfectorem]

My bottleneck isn't that huge, around  85% GPU usage in BF4. AMD FX-8320 (4.8) and GTX 970. But I have settled on upgrading to the flagship 1151 Skylake CPU whenever that comes out.

[i_build_nanosuits]

thats not a bottleneck though....thats just lower performance compared to intel (intel IS a superior chip for gaming, not going to argue that at all)

 

bottleneck (as my understanding to the terminology) in relation to the cpu-> gpu interaction, is when the cpu cant feed the gpu fast enough to use use all its capabilities. CPU performance though is another thing entirely.

 

The FX series is fine for up to a r9 270x (280x if you over clock it a bit). Anything higher though will bottleneck the gpu and would go intel for more high end cards.

right, the R9 280X is still a good match for an overclocked AMD FX processor in most games...especialy if you are not into MMO's and RTS or indie games...if you play more modern stuff you should have the card fed pretty much all it can handle most of the time...it will dip lower in CPU intensive parts of the games though.

[zappian]

try some CPU demanding games mate you'll find your bottleneck soon or later if you search for it i guarantee you

Arma 3 is always funny on FX cpus

[i_build_nanosuits]

My bottleneck isn't that huge, around  85% GPU usage in BF4. AMD FX-8320 (4.8) and GTX 970

BF4 is an AMD sponsored and optimised game..it's one the best game to run on an AMD FX processor therefore its not a good indicator of performance IMHO...if i would have played only BF4 i would still have my FX.

When you get into more demanding games (dead rising 3, watchdogs, ACU, dragon age, planetside, arma3 etc.) the FX gets on it's knees fairly quickly...the CPU usage won't go above 60% in games but the cores are just plain too slow to feed those modern high end GPU's consistently unfortunately...if you play only (or mostly) BF4 then it's fine don't worry about it...if you enjoy other more demanding titles the FX will most likely be a let down (it was for me.)

[Interfectorem]

Arma 3 is always funny on FX cpus

I could imagine it runs like complete shit, I've even heard stories that even on Intel CPUs it doesn't get very good performance.

[zappian]

I could imagine it runs like complete shit, I've even heard stories that even on Intel CPUs it doesn't get very good performance.

 

runs fine on my i3.

 

That game uses 2 cores lol.

 

In which cpu do you think it will run better?

[i_build_nanosuits]

Arma 3 is always funny on FX cpus

ARMA 3 is the worst...this game is so harsh on the CPU...this one too is not a good representative of gaming performance though...it's a worst key scenario...that's what it is.

[Interfectorem]

BF4 is an AMD sponsored and optimised game..it's one the best game to run on an AMD FX processor therefore its not a good indicator of performance IMHO...if i would have played only BF4 i would still have my FX.

When you get into more demanding games (dead rising 3, watchdogs, ACU, dragon age, planetside, arma3 etc.) the FX gets on it's knees fairly quickly...the CPU usage won't go above 60% in games but the cores are just plain too slow to feed those modern high end GPU's consistently unfortunately...if you play only (or mostly) BF4 then it's fine don't worry about it...if you enjoy other more demanding titles the FX will most likely be a let down (it was for me.)

You have a great point there sir, but that's like the only game I ever play, so I'm satisfied. That's why I'm hesitating on spending $500+ on a new CPU and mobo whenever Skylake comes out.

[zappian]

ARMA 3 is the worst...this game is so harsh on the CPU...this one too is not a good representative of gaming performance though...it's a worst key scenario...that's what it is.

 

Nah it just better on intel cpus .

Because of low core usage.

A friend of mine had 8350/970 and it run at 20 fps.

While my i3 runs at 35 fps with a slower card.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I could imagine it runs like complete shit, I've even heard stories that even on Intel CPUs it doesn't get very good performance.

no it does not...you need a 5ghz haswell chip to get into the 60FPS range...it's entirely CPU bound...it's trash...game engine is trash.

[Fate]

Arma 3 is always funny on FX cpus

How dare you talk about Arma 3? That's an old, unoptimized, crappy game that nobody plays! /s

 

Unfortunately I see that statement quite a lot on this forum. Yes it's unoptimized and runs poorly (even on Intel compared to say BF4, but trash on FX), but a ton of people play it and it's a lot of fun. Some games just don't run well on FX and it reduces the amount of games you can actually play.

[Interfectorem]

runs fine on my i3.

 

That game uses 2 cores lol.

 

In which cpu do you think it will run better?

Well if you say that Arma uses 2 cores, the obviously your i3, for obvious Intel superior Per-Core-Performance.

[i_build_nanosuits]

You have a great point there sir, but that's like the only game I ever play, so I'm satisfied. That's why I'm hesitating on spending $500+ on a new CPU and mobo whenever Skylake comes out.

dont do it in that case...wait...i have a huge library and overall i would say about half my games benefit from a stronger CPU...for the other half (BF4 being in this half) it won't change anything, or very little.

[Interfectorem]

no it does not...you need a 5ghz haswell chip to get into the 60FPS range...it's entirely CPU bound...it's trash...game engine is trash.

So I've heard.

[zappian]

How dare you talk about Arma 3? That's an old, unoptimized, crappy game that nobody plays! /s

 

Unfortunately I see that statement quite a lot on this forum. Yes it's unoptimized, but a ton of people play it and it's a lot of fun. Some games just don't run well on FX and it reduces the amount of games you can actually play.

 

I guess i was wrong to want to play games that dont use six cores or more and are sponsored by AMD.

 

Thanks for correcting my ways FATE.

 

/s

On a more serious note a game like skyrim is a better example.

 

Or starcraft 2.

 

Or any emulator.

 

Or dying light since that doesnt even use two cores at max And that game came out like yesterday.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well if you say that Arma uses 2 cores, the obviously your i3, for obvious Intel superior Per-Core-Performance.

yes it does run better on a core i3 than it does on a FX (and so does most games as well) but in BF4 my FX-8320@4.6ghz was stronger than a 3.4ghz core i3, but not by much...it was more consistent.

[Interfectorem]

yes it does run better on a core i3 than it does on a FX (and so does most games as well) but in BF4 my FX-8320@4.6ghz was stronger than a 3.4ghz core i3, but not by much...it was more consistent.

Yea, AMD FX and Frostbite Engine 3 were meant for each other like...milk and cereal?

[zappian]

 

 

In the most perfect game for FX cpus.

[i_build_nanosuits]

In the most perfect game for FX cpus.

indeed, one of the few games in which the FX will match a core i5 CPU.

These benchmarks are suspicious though..i was getting much better performance than this with my FX and GTX 780...and i get MUCH better performance now with my i7-4770k and GTX780 (always above 85FPS in full servers..)

[zappian]

indeed, one of the few games in which the FX will match a core i5 CPU.

And the i3 beats it for a bit,

 

Lol.

[i_build_nanosuits]

And the i3 beats it for a bit,

 

Lol.

These benchmarks are suspicious though..i was getting much better performance than this with my FX and GTX 780...and i get MUCH better performance now with my i7-4770k and GTX780 (always above 85FPS in full servers..)

[zappian]

These benchmarks are suspicious though..i was getting much better performance than this with my FX and GTX 780...and i get MUCH better performance now with my i7-4770k and GTX780 (always above 85FPS in full servers..)

 

The source is credible AFAIK.

[Suika]

This is effectively spam but, just to upset some people...

 

AMD FX / FM2 CPU with anything better than R9 270X or GTX760.

Man, I was just getting ready to say an FX-8350 and GTX 780.