Proof that AMD FX CPUs do not bottleneck high end GPUs

[Bouzoo]

Those 2 games are quite optimized for both, so no problem there. You like Battlefield Hardline? Try BF4 and see the difference (unless it was patched). Also good luck running older games that heavily rely on 1 or 2 threads, that's where Intel kills AMD. And why do you think AMD is gonna use Intel processors in the new Project Quantum for it's high end models?

Now I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything, but this thread was started by a person that said for the i5 2500k:

 

It will handle any GPU on the market, even 4 way SLI Titan X's

 

So not to sound rude, but does the OP understand what bottlenecking really is?

[harrynowl]

This is not conclusive proof

[KenJimmY]

Honestly this is one of the worst attempts yet.

I had an FX-8350 and a GTX 780 and I had benchmarks to prove you're wrong, lmao.

true that .. i've just read your thread and now i'm fightning with myself again , what to get : a Freesync 144hz 1080p monitor or new CPU+MB ; but then DDR4 on the PC Upgrading timeline is not that far off ; Skylake and Zen , again - not that far off ; i don't have a system that will manage to get all the FPS the monitor i'll be capable of ; DirectX 12 on the horizon .. bad time to upgrade overall , argh D:

[Sam Z Man]

This is not conclusive proof

 

But it's his 2 favorite games, it must be true.

true that .. i've just read your thread and now i'm fightning with myself again , what to get : a Freesync 144hz 1080p monitor or new CPU+MB ; but then DDR4 on the PC Upgrading timeline is not that far off ; Skylake and Zen , again - not that far off ; i don't have a system that will manage to get all the FPS the monitor i'll be capable of ; DirectX 12 in on the horizon .. bad time to upgrade overall , argh D:

 

It's always a bad time to upgrade, there will always be something coming out in the near future.

[XCalinX]

Those 2 games are quite optimized for both, so no problem there. You like Battlefield Hardline? Try BF4 and see the difference (unless it was patched). Also good luck running older games that heavily rely on 1 or 2 threads, that's where Intel kills AMD. And why do you think AMD is gonna use Intel processors in the new Project Quantum for it's high end models?

Now I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything, but this thread was started by a person that said for the i5 2500k:

 

 

 

So not to sound rude, but does the OP understand what bottlenecking really is?

I have some issues with BF 4. The textures fail to load so I can't enjoy it properly even though it's better than hardline. I admit that Intel "kills" AMD in older games but both of them get easily over 60 FPS so you can't see the difference unless you have a 144Hz monitor.

[Elapo]

I have some issues with BF 4. The textures fail to load so I can't enjoy it properly even though it's better than hardline. I admit that Intel "kills" AMD in older games but both of them get easily over 60 FPS so you can't see the difference unless you have a 144Hz monitor.

 

you can still feel the difference though, at least in LoL for me. I run lol at 144FPS on a 60Hz monitor.

[arronleeds]

but amd fx cpu's are far from budget. you can get i5+h81 for the price of fx6300+ decent 970 board.

erm..... people who buy budget cpus also buy budget boards.... common sense doesnt go a miss.

[harrynowl]

erm..... people who buy budget cpus also buy budget boards.... common sense doesnt go a miss.

Budget boards and high power draw CPUs don't go arm in arms.

 

970 is the lowest chipset produced by AMD that was specifically designed for AM3+.

[i_build_nanosuits]

i owned an FX8320 @4.6ghz and even then it was still greatly limiting the performance of my GTX780 in MANY (not all) games...those cpu's are NO MATCH for a gtx980ti...or even a 980, or a 970...unless you game at 1440p or 4K.

[ZetZet]

erm..... people who buy budget cpus also buy budget boards.... common sense doesnt go a miss.

yes, 970 is the cheapest chipset am3+ motherboard, costs twice as much as h81 boards.

[XCalinX]

i owned an FX8320 @4.6ghz and even then it was still greatly limiting the performance of my GTX780 in MANY (not all) games...those cpu's are NO MATCH for a gtx980ti...or even a 980, or a 970...unless you game at 1440p or 4K.

I use 1080P but there's no reason to not use DSR and res scale.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I use 1080P but there's no reason to not use DSR and res scale.

there's also no reason to tolerate games such as dying light or hitman:absolution running at 35FPS with a 700$ graphics card son.

Your gaming experience would drastically improve if you would have a proper CPU for gaming such as the core i5-4690K for example...everything would be much smoother, with much more consistent frametimes and much better minimum FPS in games.

DSR will slightly improve your image quality (i use it a lot also) but it won't be nearly as good looking as a true 1440p gaming experience...and also, you still suffer from poor FPS in many titles.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

@OP And two games specifically designed in a way that compliments FX CPUs. Yep, some really conclusive benchmarks here, dude. Definitely the most scientifically accurate results ever.
Except an FX6350 @4.6GHz bottlenecks a 280x. You're saying an 8350 (which is only marginally more powerful than that) can run a GPU with nearly twice (if not more) the performance? Do you know what bottlenecks are?

[Faceman]

@OP And two games specifically designed in a way that compliments FX CPUs. Yep, some really conclusive benchmarks here, dude. Definitely the most scientifically accurate results ever.

Except an FX6350 @4.6GHz bottlenecks a 280x. You're saying an 8350 (which is only marginally more powerful than that) can run a GPU with nearly twice (if not more) the performance? Do you know what bottlenecks are?

The best part is that his usage graphs actually show GPU bottlenecking.  See all those peaks and valleys in his usage?

[i_build_nanosuits]

The best part is that his usage graphs actually show GPU bottlenecking.  See all those peaks and valleys in his usage?

...and it's not the first post like that we see...they always come here with a battlefield graphs full of spikes and say: see it won't even limit the performance of my GPU...

when running games that are very well threaded like that it's not that bad...i've said it multiple times if i would have been playing stricktly BF4 i would STILL have my AMD FX kit...but i play other titles...and the sad truth: most of them arent well optimised for multicore CPU's and the FX just fell flat 8 times out of 10.

[itachipirate]

Both of those games run pretty well with more cores, especially if you're playing at 4k. The FX CPUs bottleneck high end GPUs because for one they're old CPUs, and for two games usually can't utilize all the power that the Piledriver architecture can provide. DX11 is limited to one CPU core at any time having direct communication with the graphics card, so strong single-core performance is a must

[Prysin]

You run battlefield hardline at 4k... Of course there isn't gonna be a bottleneck since at that resolution the games become gpu dependent. Also not to mention that the price of the 8350 with a 990 fx board and water cooling is as much as an i7.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6/by_merchant/

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  ($128.99 @ Directron)

CPU Cooler: Corsair H80i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($69.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($91.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $290.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:30 EDT-0400

 

i7 4790k

328 USD

 

Sure, its expensive. But A - its a "whole" setup. Add in mobo (Z97 since K) and you are looking at 370 ish USD for intel i7 4790k. Now both the i5 and i7 WILL destroy the FX8320e at single threaded performance, however most popular games made in the last 5-7 years support at the very least 2 threads, thus the FX is still usable.

 

Now, If you OC the FX i listed, it will keep up with locked i5s and even some lower end i7s. Does OC justify the price tag ?  NO. but on the contrary there IS a benefit to this hefty setup. With a radiator, atleast at moderate loads such as less demanding games, a radiator will be "healthier" for your system and quieter then a stock cooler.  There is also the thing about performance to price. And as we stand today, the FX series IS junk indeed. But they are not useless. Take where i live. An FX over here (not the "e" version), costs around half that of a intel i5 and their motherboards really arent that much more expensive. So price where i live, greatly favors AMD even if auxiliary pieces to the CPU is way more expensive.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Now, If you OC the FX i listed, it will keep up with locked i5s and even some lower end i7s.

no it won't, not even close.

Also, here:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($166.95 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($44.45 @ OutletPC)

Total: $211.40

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:35 EDT-0400

VS:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($134.99 @ NCIX US)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($27.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($76.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $239.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:36 EDT-0400

These are the minimum kits to run both the intel i5 and the FX from AMD...you do need an aftermarket heatsink for the AMD because it will overheat and trottle under the stock heatsink and it will not be able to overclock...the i5-4460 on the other end will be perfectly happy to run under the tiny provided intel heatsink cause that chip is very energy efficient and can't overclock...and no matter how good you are, even if you can reach 4.6ghz (like i did) on the AMD FX, it still won't be nearly as strong as the i5 when it comes to gaming.

[Faceman]

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6/by_merchant/

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  ($128.99 @ Directron)

CPU Cooler: Corsair H80i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($69.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($91.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $290.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:30 EDT-0400

 

i7 4790k

328 USD

 

Sure, its expensive. But A - its a "whole" setup. Add in mobo (Z97 since K) and you are looking at 370 ish USD for intel i7 4790k. Now both the i5 and i7 WILL destroy the FX8320e at single threaded performance, however most popular games made in the last 5-7 years support at the very least 2 threads, thus the FX is still usable.

 

Now, If you OC the FX i listed, it will keep up with locked i5s and even some lower end i7s. Does OC justify the price tag ?  NO. but on the contrary there IS a benefit to this hefty setup. With a radiator, atleast at moderate loads such as less demanding games, a radiator will be "healthier" for your system and quieter then a stock cooler.  There is also the thing about performance to price. And as we stand today, the FX series IS junk indeed. But they are not useless. Take where i live. An FX over here (not the "e" version), costs around half that of a intel i5 and their motherboards really arent that much more expensive. So price where i live, greatly favors AMD even if auxiliary pieces to the CPU is way more expensive.

Your recommendation is a ridiculous one for gaming.  It makes absolutely no sense to go with an FX based system for gaming.  A locked i5 system that costs $225 is going to outperform even the heaviest of overclocked FX processors without the need to overclock, or spend a lot of money on cooling and electricity.

 

Is the FX still usable?  Yes.  Does it make sense to buy one today when you view the current landscape of PC components?  No.

[Sam Z Man]

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/nxpdt6/by_merchant/

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/pQRPvK/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor ($128.99 @ Directron)

CPU Cooler: Corsair H80i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($69.99 @ NCIX US)

Motherboard: ASRock 990FX Extreme3 ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard ($91.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $290.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:30 EDT-0400

i7 4790k

328 USD

Sure, its expensive. But A - its a "whole" setup. Add in mobo (Z97 since K) and you are looking at 370 ish USD for intel i7 4790k. Now both the i5 and i7 WILL destroy the FX8320e at single threaded performance, however most popular games made in the last 5-7 years support at the very least 2 threads, thus the FX is still usable.

Now, If you OC the FX i listed, it will keep up with locked i5s and even some lower end i7s. Does OC justify the price tag ? NO. but on the contrary there IS a benefit to this hefty setup. With a radiator, atleast at moderate loads such as less demanding games, a radiator will be "healthier" for your system and quieter then a stock cooler. There is also the thing about performance to price. And as we stand today, the FX series IS junk indeed. But they are not useless. Take where i live. An FX over here (not the "e" version), costs around half that of a intel i5 and their motherboards really arent that much more expensive. So price where i live, greatly favors AMD even if auxiliary pieces to the CPU is way more expensive.

Ha you could beat the shit out of thoes two mobo CPU and cooler options while being the same price, and it supports SLI and overclocking.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Micro Center)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($26.98 @ OutletPC)

Motherboard: Asus GRYPHON Z87 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($77.98 @ Newegg)

Total: $304.95

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-06-28 13:43 EDT-0400

[Prysin]

Your recommendation is a ridiculous one for gaming.  It makes absolutely no sense to go with an FX based system for gaming.  A locked i5 system that costs $225 is going to outperform even the heaviest of overclocked FX processors without the need to overclock, or spend a lot of money on cooling and electricity.

 

Is the FX still usable?  Yes.  Does it make sense to buy one today when you view the current landscape of PC components?  No.

 

At no point did i specify that the OP should buy this. Please read my posts.

 

I simply stated that it would keep up in multi threaded scenarios and nothing else.

Will it lose in single thread? YES, for fucks sake, YES.

 

 

@I_Build_Nanosuits

Read my post, then make post. K ty.

Also, 8320e is often cheaper then the 8320. However it is better binned (thus they can drop the TDP by 30w with only 300MHz loss of freq). So this is a hint that the 8320e is going to, if anything else, OC pretty well. Which a couple of reviewers have stated too. the 8320e is also going to dump less heat out in the first place, so you are better off chosing that one if you are going to grab an FX at all.

I had an FX 8320 myself. It only throttles with stock cooler when running prime95 with adaptive voltage. Once i forced voltage, it ran hot, seriously hot, but it ran at stock speeds just fine. OC however is another thing and yes you DO need a cooler for that.

 

 

 

A locked i5 will only outperform the FX in single threaded enviroments and only while the FX is at stock speed. Now several places have proven more then once that ONCE OVERCLOCKED the FX regains SOME advantage in MULTI THREADED workloads, ONLY. So they perform around a locked i5 and low end i7. THAT IS IT. THAT ONLY applies once ALL 8 cores are doing stuff. If the application cannot utilize all cores THEN IT FALLS BEHIND. It does not beat them, it does not fly ahead. it keeps up around that level of performance and that is all.

 

Am i going to argue that the FX is better then an i5, no. It isnt, it really isnt. But can it keep up given the correct circumstances, YES. It cannot win, it can keep up. That is it and sometimes, that is all you need, for a while. While you save money for something better. Something you should distinguish between is also what the OP said, and what the thread is about contrary to posts inside the thread.

This whole thread is based upon ONE premise "the FX doesnt suck as much as you want it to suck". Which is true. It performs at a tolerable level for day to day tasks and it isnt as horrible at bottlenecking as most want it to be. However it is still not a good choice, if you have a choice that is. Its performance is completely mediocre and relies on overclocking to even make sense. IS that an outrageous premise for  CPU to be usable in 2015? Yes, it bloody well is. But atleast it CAN perform.

 

Phenom II x6 1090T still wrecks the FX though, especially when OC. So there is that.

[kipper]

FX is terrible... AMD made a bomb, then it exploded... like the PSU's powering them, K den.

[Faceman]

At no point did i specify that the OP should buy this. Please read my posts.

 

I simply stated that it would keep up in multi threaded scenarios and nothing else.

Will it lose in single thread? YES, for fucks sake, YES.

 

 

 

A locked i5 will only outperform the FX in single threaded enviroments and only while the FX is at stock speed. Now several places have proven more then once that ONCE OVERCLOCKED the FX regains SOME advantage in MULTI THREADED workloads, ONLY. So they perform around a locked i5 and low end i7. THAT IS IT. THAT ONLY applies once ALL 8 cores are doing stuff. If the application cannot utilize all cores THEN IT FALLS BEHIND. It does not beat them, it does not fly ahead. it keeps up around that level of performance and that is all.

 

Am i going to argue that the FX is better then an i5, no. It isnt, it really isnt. But can it keep up given the correct circumstances, YES. It cannot win, it can keep up. That is it and sometimes, that is all you need, for a while. While you save money for something better. Something you should distinguish between is also what the OP said, and what the thread is about contrary to posts inside the thread.

This whole thread is based upon ONE premise "the FX doesnt suck as much as you want it to suck". Which is true. It performs at a tolerable level for day to day tasks and it isnt as horrible at bottlenecking as most want it to be. However it is still not a good choice, if you have a choice that is. Its performance is completely mediocre and relies on overclocking to even make sense. IS that an outrageous premise for  CPU to be usable in 2015? Yes, it bloody well is. But atleast it CAN perform.

 

Phenom II x6 1090T still wrecks the FX though, especially when OC. So there is that.

Just because a game can utilize all 8 threads, doesn't mean it benefits from it.  Its only in content creation programs where the FX8 outperforms the i5. There is more to gaming than just single thread, but it is supremely important still.

 

Why would you recommend something that costs more, and needs to be overclocked to try and "keep up", when you could spend less, and get a much better overall experience?  Its the same thing with you guys who recommend APUs and 860ks.  Why are you recommending something sub par that has to try and keep up, when you can get a much better experience with something else.  You shouldn't even be mentioning the FX8s/APUs/860ks outside of very specific workloads and scenarios.  It confuses people.

 

No one is wanting the FX to be anything.  It is what it has proven to be.  Take emotion and bias out of this.  Facts reign supreme and the facts show that they are not good processors for gaming compared to other offerings on the market.  Thats it.  End of discussion.

[ltguy]

Dont argue with the OP. The more delusional people convince themselves amd fx processors are still worth the money, the more RD money amd will have to actually build a decent cpu. SO please yes amd is great , buy there crap and line there pockets.

[Swndlr]

Your recommendation is a ridiculous one for gaming.  It makes absolutely no sense to go with an FX based system for gaming.  A locked i5 system that costs $225 is going to outperform even the heaviest of overclocked FX processors without the need to overclock, or spend a lot of money on cooling and electricity.

 

Is the FX still usable?  Yes.  Does it make sense to buy one today when you view the current landscape of PC components?  No.

My boi Faceman comin in hard with his best subject