GTX 970 & FX 8350

[Jumals]

So thanks everyone who have helped me to solve this issue, this also helped my friend.

This really was an eye opener for me, that video which faceman showed made a good point.

FX 8350 won't be good for high end cards like 780, 970 or 980 (or others).

If i would have card like GTX 660 Ti, I probably wouldn't have this issue.

[dandrix]

Who ever says 8350 will bottleneck a 970 is high on acid or Intel biased.

[arniks8]

Who ever says 8350 will bottleneck a 970 is high on acid or Intel biased.

Dafuq? Are you high or something ?

 

[Jumals]

Who ever says 8350 will bottleneck a 970 is high on acid or Intel biased.

Lol, it's a proved fact.

[Viking Kong]

8350 and not overclocking...

[Jumals]

8350 and not overclocking...

That CPU runs hot as hell at stock speeds with my cooler, I could't even OC enough so I would notice any difference so why bother.

[dandrix]

Lol, it's a proved fact.

As i said, lots of Intel bias turds here high on acid.

[arniks8]

As i said, lots of Intel bias turds here high on acid.

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors. A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.

For the majority of games, the FX will be fine. But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money. Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths. That is what Intel provides. You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine. If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.

My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made. I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.

The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking. In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum. I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.

Gaming Graphs

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

The culprit behind the FX's poor gaming performance is its Instructions Per Cycle(IPC)

When you recommend someone an FX8 for gaming, you're really recommending them an FX4

Productivity and Content Creation, An area of the FXs Strength

Power Consumption & Temperatures

i5-4670k Vs. FX8350 Aggregate Comparison

FX8350 Vs. i5-4670k Ultimate Showdown Video

This is the bare minimum for an overclocked FX8 processor that will still under achieve compared to an Intel processor no matter how high you manage to overclock it, and leave you unable to play some of those games I mentioned above all while bottlenecking high end GPUs with no upgrade path.

Think that this is only available in the U.S.? Think again.

iUpgraded to an i7: A 30 Day Journal

Upgradability

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop. $225 equals $225 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

Sorry about performance comparisons not showing up #using_ltt_mobile_edition

[Jumals]

As i said, lots of Intel bias turds here high on acid.

Is that so?

 

Take a look at this comparison that I made:

 

AMD FX 8350 & GTX 970 (everything at ultra MSAA x8) 1080p

 

 

Intel i5 4690k & GTX 970 (Everything at ultra MSAA x8) 1080p

 

 

 

AMD just got rekt boyo, I also tried different games and the difference was day and night.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Who ever says 8350 will bottleneck a 970 is high on acid or Intel biased.

The wall of text that many users have pasted proving via TESTS that it's performance is lacking, no doubt isn't fully read by true AMD fans,.. why would they want to be proven wrong....

 

 

That's funny... Just came back two weeks ago from my mates house, he had a X6 1100T and a 8350 (Both OC'd to their relative Maximums), neither of them could produce Dying Light performance close to his own mates i7 stock/2xGTX970 performance, so my mate went with Intel (against his wishes, he needed a new faster machine obviously...but it's the ONLY product that performs to HIS NEEDS)

Being feeding two GTX 970's for his Rift + his AAA titles without these STUPID DIPS, his Dying Light game improved so much he was so taken back by it he's so pissed off at AMD for not having something for his needs...  An Enthusiast CPU for High End GPU's and Super High FPS.

 

An Important bit...

It's not across the board for all software to perform worse, but a LOT of games and software perform like shit on FX CPU's. I dont mean to a standstill crawl, but it certainly isnt a comparatively performing product.

 

It can get 'playable/acceptable' frame rates, but it certainly isn't efficiently used across ALL GAMES, and suffers for it in some extreme cases (MINFPS moreso,but even AVGFPS)

When your software threading is limiting your CPU load distribution abilities, and your FPS is not ideally comparable to the competition,...45fps avg with dips to the 20's,.. whether high or ultra or LOW, that's an issue!

I can't wait for these ancient CPU's to be dead and buried... Bring on ZEN already, it's 2 years too late.

 

Proof is in the research done and tests performed (and this is MANY TIMES tested across MANY reviewer & enthusiast websites).... but thats okay, AMD fans can keep their heads in the sand until ZEN arrives or read the proof for themselves.

[dandrix]

Is that so?

 

Take a look at this comparison that I made:

 

AMD FX 8350 & GTX 970 (everything at ultra MSAA x8) 1080p

 

 

Intel i5 4690k & GTX 970 (Everything at ultra MSAA x8) 1080p

 

 

 

AMD just got rekt boyo, I also tried different games and the difference was day and night.

Nice try ROFL

[dandrix]

People think they are getting a good deal when they buy an FX for gaming, and they are not.

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will fall WAY behind the equally priced Intel processors, and in some instances, become unplayable unless you are fine with 15-20fps when the action starts.

Then there are other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as they would be on Intel because minimum framerates(which are the most important), drop much more significantly with FX processors. A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V, Assassin's Creed, etc..

Then there are a lot of games where the FX will perform similar to Intel, provided you're using a 60Hz Monitor and don't see the bottleneck happening.

For the majority of games, the FX will be fine. But why would you want to spend more or the same amount of money on an old, and inferior product, when you can get a new and superior product for the same amount of money. Why play 4 out of 5 games well, when you can play 5 out of 5 games well, with no bottlenecking, lower energy costs, and future upgrade paths. That is what Intel provides. You will see below that even the less expensive Intel i3 is outperforming the FX8s in many games, and the locked i5 is running away with it.

I always advocate the right tool for the job, and for some jobs, the FX processor is the best tool for the job, but you need to be aware of what your priorities are when building your machine. If your priority is gaming, then Intel is the clear winner regardless of price point. I don't hate AMD, and I have experience with both processors, and have owned both Intel and AMD.

My goal here is to help others by avoiding costly mistakes that so many before them have made. I see so many users on this forum complaining about their gaming experience with FX processors that it is time to put a stop to it, and the best way to do that is nip it in the bud and recommend the correct tool for the job.

The most common problems are unsatisfactory results in certain games, VRM throttling, and GPU bottlenecking. In my links below I will show you many different, yet conclusive results compiled from respected hardware reviewers and other members of this forum. I hope to paint a picture as to why the FX processor is the inferior option and why it is a bad choice for a gaming machine.

Gaming Graphs

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

The culprit behind the FX's poor gaming performance is its Instructions Per Cycle(IPC)

When you recommend someone an FX8 for gaming, you're really recommending them an FX4

Productivity and Content Creation, An area of the FXs Strength

Power Consumption & Temperatures

i5-4670k Vs. FX8350 Aggregate Comparison

FX8350 Vs. i5-4670k Ultimate Showdown Video

This is the bare minimum for an overclocked FX8 processor that will still under achieve compared to an Intel processor no matter how high you manage to overclock it, and leave you unable to play some of those games I mentioned above all while bottlenecking high end GPUs with no upgrade path.

Think that this is only available in the U.S.? Think again.

iUpgraded to an i7: A 30 Day Journal

Upgradability

Referring to the FX as the budget option, or good for its price needs to stop. $225 equals $225 but the performance of one does not equal the other in games.

Sorry about performance comparisons not showing up #using_ltt_mobile_edition

It all started about you saying that 8350 would bottleneck single 970. Heres a fact for you, back in day when it went gainst 3570K 8350 won almost every where in gaming, except your mentioned crappy ports like Arma, Planetside an such who cant use multi threading, 3570K in nowa days doesnt bottleneck a 970, so how the hell 8350 can ? EXPOSED your bullshit right there.

[dandrix]

The wall of text that many users have pasted proving via TESTS that it's performance is lacking, no doubt isn't fully read by true AMD fans,.. why would they want to be proven wrong....

 

 

That's funny... Just came back two weeks ago from my mates house, he had a X6 1100T and a 8350 (Both OC'd to their relative Maximums), neither of them could produce Dying Light performance close to his own mates i7 stock/2xGTX970 performance, so my mate went with Intel (against his wishes, he needed a new faster machine obviously...but it's the ONLY product that performs to HIS NEEDS)

Being feeding two GTX 970's for his Rift + his AAA titles without these STUPID DIPS, his Dying Light game improved so much he was so taken back by it he's so pissed off at AMD for not having something for his needs...  An Enthusiast CPU for High End GPU's and Super High FPS.

 

An Important bit...

It's not across the board for all software to perform worse, but a LOT of games and software perform like shit on FX CPU's. I dont mean to a standstill crawl, but it certainly isnt a comparatively performing product.

 

It can get 'playable/acceptable' frame rates, but it certainly isn't efficiently used across ALL GAMES, and suffers for it in some extreme cases (MINFPS moreso,but even AVGFPS)

When your software threading is limiting your CPU load distribution abilities, and your FPS is not ideally comparable to the competition,...45fps avg with dips to the 20's,.. whether high or ultra or LOW, that's an issue!

I can't wait for these ancient CPU's to be dead and buried... Bring on ZEN already, it's 2 years too late.

 

Proof is in the research done and tests performed (and this is MANY TIMES tested across MANY reviewer & enthusiast websites).... but thats okay, AMD fans can keep their heads in the sand until ZEN arrives or read the proof for themselves.

Precisely what every Intel bias user copy pastes, just made out facts from nowhere, backed up by unreliable sites and their benchmarks, real life performance shows something else tho, AMD is still a good way to go, but you guys cant simply handle that, you must attack everyone who doesnt agree with you whether theyre right or wrong.

[-iSynthesis]

-snip-

From the pics it doesnt look like the cpu is a problem, all cores under 60% load. GPU load is still a lot too low, maybe try to restart your pc a few times and update drivers, i had a similar problem with my gtx cards.

[Jumals]

From the pics it doesnt look like the cpu is a problem, all cores under 60% load. GPU load is still a lot too low, maybe try to restart your pc a few times and update drivers, i had a similar problem with my gtx cards.

Do you think that I didn't do that?

I restarted my PC like million times and all drivers were up the date.

You should stop defending AMD bad CPUs which doesn't provide enough power for these high end GPUs.

Because soon as I put my intel CPU in, I saw huge difference.

Many games that I play didn't run at all (I don't count playing with 30-40 fps running a game) but when i swapped to intel, i got the fps high as 70-100.

 

As many benchmarks and other videos prove, AMD FX CPUs just aren't powerful enough to provide enough juice to run the high end GPUs with their full capacity.

I've seen many many people with this same issue, i was lucky enough to notice it in time.

 

I'm not fan of either of these, I just pick the one which can provide me the gaming experience that I'm looking for and for now it's Nvidia card + intel CPU.

[Jumals]

Nice try ROFL

Ehh?

 

If you don't believe me, try it out yourself, you can't max out that game with AMD CPU.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Funny how out of the whole post, they pick on the one thing (copy/paste) being done by a user.....and disregard the rest... being the actual results from those tests.

Precisely what every Intel bias user copy pastes, just made out facts from nowhere, backed up by unreliable sites and their benchmarks, real life performance shows something else tho, AMD is still a good way to go, but you guys cant simply handle that, you must attack everyone who doesnt agree with you whether theyre right or wrong.

Quite hilarious...

 

"Backed up unreliable sites and benchmarks..."

 

The same ones we all use for other hardware too when your researching your own parts,.. Oh but wait... there are ALSO real life performance metrics shown as well in the huge wall of text that keeps getting posted,.... did you skip past those too?

There are SO many sources going into that copy/paste it doesn't all come from one place, not just reviewers but users too,.. to think their made up/fabricated shows ignorance.

 

I didn't say it couldn't get playable framerates either... but it really does TANK like hell on certain titles.. so yeah... it's not a fully fledged performance product that ever maximized your machines potential towards higher end GPU's.

I don't think I attack anyone who doesn't agree with it...it's fact that if you cannot see it for yourself your not looking hard enough at the data.

Citing we made up these facts from nowhere... when OBVIOUSLY those sites did tests... not just making up those numbers... They came from somewhere....

 

Then there are the real world examples we cannot provide proof for,.. just what we've seen with our own eyes... when going from one instance AMD to Intel of a game on similar hardware (GPU) and finding the hindering performance completely gone... yeah.. that says nothing at all.

[dandrix]

Funny how out of the whole post, they pick on the one thing (copy/paste) being done by a user.....and disregard the rest... being the actual results from those tests.

Quite hilarious...

 

"Backed up unreliable sites and benchmarks..."

 

The same ones we all use for other hardware too when your researching your own parts,.. Oh but wait... there are ALSO real life performance metrics shown as well in the huge wall of text that keeps getting posted,.... did you skip past those too?

There are SO many sources going into that copy/paste it doesn't all come from one place, not just reviewers but users too,.. to think their made up/fabricated shows ignorance.

 

I didn't say it couldn't get playable framerates either... but it really does TANK like hell on certain titles.. so yeah... it's not a fully fledged performance product that ever maximized your machines potential towards higher end GPU's.

I don't think I attack anyone who doesn't agree with it...it's fact that if you cannot see it for yourself your not looking hard enough at the data.

Citing we made up these facts from nowhere... when OBVIOUSLY those sites did tests... not just making up those numbers... They came from somewhere....

 

Then there are the real world examples we cannot provide proof for,.. just what we've seen with our own eyes... when going from one instance AMD to Intel of a game on similar hardware (GPU) and finding the hindering performance completely gone... yeah.. that says nothing at all.

Your damage control is impressive, i gotta give you that.

[sgloux3470]

Saints row IV definitely bottlenecks on FX.

 

 

It's going to vary a lot game to game.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Saints row IV definitely bottlenecks on FX.

 

 

It's going to vary a lot game to game.

you finaly start coming clean? at first it was only ARMA 3...now i see you refer to more and more games...are you starting to size what that chip is really capable of by any chance mate?

[sgloux3470]

you finaly start coming clean? at first it was only ARMA 3...now i see you refer to more and more games...are you starting to size what that chip is really capable of by any chance mate?

 

Well in SRIV's case it doesn't really have a huge impact in playability.  I've never argued that FX was the best, I argue that it offers very playable experiences in most games.  Arma 3 is my example of a game that truly dips into unplayable territory (sub 30 FPS) that would be playable on an Intel chip everything else being the same.

 

I did a little 1080p performance test and you can see bottlenecking and wild framerate variance, but it never really stops being playable.  The physics seems to be the big culprit since the more physics stuff going on the worse it performs.  With the FPS capped at 60 you likely wouldn't even notice the dips without the counter. (Although obviously it's less than ideal for 120 FPS gaming.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDw1gt55Wq0&feature=youtu.be

 

 

 Personally, with g sync on (which had to be disabled for the video) it's a game that is a very smooth experience.  But it does have obvious issues with CPU performance holding back the GPU.

[arniks8]

It all started about you saying that 8350 would bottleneck single 970. Heres a fact for you, back in day when it went gainst 3570K 8350 won almost every where in gaming, except your mentioned crappy ports like Arma, Planetside an such who cant use multi threading, 3570K in nowa days doesnt bottleneck a 970, so how the hell 8350 can ? EXPOSED your bullshit right there.

Dunno why you think that fx competed with ivy, but it was more like fx vs sandy. Source http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8 and also this http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5 .And by the way when sandy is oc'd it pushes fx out of the way. I don't want to start flame war, but it is utterly wrong to say that fx competed with ivy.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Snip 

 

Oh my, the bottle neck in saint's row is bad, I didn't imagine it would slow down the 970 this much. 

Even my 280x was able to keep above 55fps when running in the streets.  That said, people need

to turn off the fps counter when playing games :lol:. 

 

I wasn't able to see the difference between 40fps and 60fps. Others might have more sensitive eyes.   

[i_build_nanosuits]

Oh my, the bottle neck in saint's row is bad, I didn't imagine it would slow down the 970 this much.

he has a GTX 980..

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

he has a GTX 980..

 

I must be blind 

But that makes it even worst