FX-8350 & Radeon HD 6990

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Hi Guys,

 

In games like GTA V, CS:GO and skyrim, I'm getting no more than like 40-60%  usage on each GPU (0 and 1)

Is my processor bottlenecking the Card?

Will buying a Intel i7 4770 fix this? (or a newer skylake)

 

Games like rocket League & tomb raider 2013 use it 99%. So no problems there.

 

So why am I experiencing this?

 

EDIT - Skyrim is on VSync LOL. 60 FPS cap. So let's exclude that one.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Edgar R. Zakarian

[The Official Czex]

Hi Guys,

 

In games like GTA V, CS:GO and skyrim, I'm getting no more than like 40-60%  usage on each GPU (0 and 1)

Is my processor bottlenecking the Card?

Will buying a Intel i7 4770 fix this? (or a newer skylake)

 

Games like rocket League & tomb raider 2013 use it 99%. So no problems there.

 

So why am I experiencing this?

 

CS:GO is CPU intensive. I don't know about the others.

 

I think your GPU is bottlenecking your CPU at this point.

[don_svetlio]

Vanilla skyrim is CPU-bound
CS:GO and GTA V as well.

Even my i5 bottlenecks in CS:GO

[AlTech]

CS:GO is CPU intensive. I don't know about the others.

GTA V is very heavily CPU intensive.

 

same with skyrim.Although TBh i expected this from an FX8350

[PlayStation 2]

Are you sure that the games are using Crossfire?

[Sharif]

what about both the CPU usage compared to GPU usage at that time? 

[Morgan MLGman]

Nah, you're fine, in new games the GPU is going to be the bottleneck. The CPU might be bad for older games but anything up to the point of R9 390X should be fine with an overclocked 8350

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

CS:GO is CPU intensive. I don't know about the others.

 

I think your GPU is bottlenecking your CPU at this point.

Don't you mean the other way around maybe? I guess this is okay. Still getting above 120 FPS stable. like 160-200 so doesn't really matter . Just wondering.

 

Vanilla skyrim is CPU-bound

CS:GO and GTA V as well.

Even my i5 bottlenecks in CS:GO

I'm capped at 60, vsync, sry .

GTA is a mystery though. Don't feel like all the CPU's cores are on 100%. They're like between 60-85%

 

GTA V is very heavily CPU intensive.

 

same with skyrim.Although TBh i expected this from an FX8350

Don't feel like all the CPU's cores are on 100%. They're like between 60-85%

Are you sure that the games are using Crossfire?

These games all support crossfire yes. And both gpu's are in use.

 

what about both the CPU usage compared to GPU usage at that time? 

They're like between 60-85%

On cs, 6 of the "cores" are on 40-60% and the last 2 are on 0%. (CPU CORE PARKING DISABLED ALREADY)

 

Nah, you're fine, in new games the GPU is going to be the bottleneck. The CPU might be bad for older games but anything up to the point of R9 390X should be fine with an overclocked 8350

MIne is at stock Not overclocking it, cause I don't have a beefy cpu cooler, and don't get much out of the watts/fps?

[PlayStation 2]

Don't you mean the other way around maybe? I guess this is okay. Still getting above 120 FPS stable. like 160-200 so doesn't really matter . Just wondering.

 

I'm capped at 60, vsync, sry .

GTA is a mystery though. Don't feel like all the CPU's cores are on 100%. They're like between 60-85%

 

Don't feel like all the CPU's cores are on 100%. They're like between 60-85%

These games all support crossfire yes. And both gpu's are in use.

 

They're like between 60-85%

On cs, 6 of the "cores" are on 40-60% and the last 2 are on 0%. (CPU CORE PARKING DISABLED ALREADY)

 

MIne is at stock Not overclocking it, cause I don't have a beefy cpu cooler, and don't get much out of the watts/fps?

Hmm...

VRAM bottleneck, I'm calling it.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Don't feel like all the CPU's cores are on 100%. They're like between 60-85%

On cs, 6 of the "cores" are on 40-60% and the last 2 are on 0%. (CPU CORE PARKING DISABLED ALREADY)

 

MIne is at stock Not overclocking it, cause I don't have a beefy cpu cooler, and don't get much out of the watts/fps?

CPU's do not have to be at 100% to be creating bottlenecks.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

MIne is at stock Not overclocking it, cause I don't have a beefy cpu cooler, and don't get much out of the watts/fps?

Well, I believe that you should OC it. Mine is at 4,5ghz with nearly stock voltage, temps don't exceed 50 degrees with my heatsink under full load (exact model is in my sig) and I paid 35$ for it. You might not get that good chip but still achieving 4,5 ghz is not an issue with any of the 8350 CPUs provided you've got a decent motherboard and an aftermarket cooler.

[Kobathor]

I don't know if any of you guys get "bottlenecks."

 

Your CPU will not be bottlenecked by ANY GPUs this generation.

 

Your GPU will not be bottlenecked by that CPU, or ANY CPU newer than it (FX or i5 or i7, i3 would bottle.)

 

Buying a 4770 will not fix your GTA problems, your GPU is kinda old. And, GTAV is well optimized for multi-core CPUs, so you should be fine anyway. You would see a performance boost, but not anything super significant.

 

This is coming from a guy that has an 8350, used a few GPUs, and borrowed his friend's 980ti once. It will not bottleneck ANYTHING.

[SkilledRebuilds]

I don't know if any of you guys get "bottlenecks."

This is coming from a guy that has an 8350, used a few GPUs, and borrowed his friend's 980ti once. It will not bottleneck ANYTHING.

You try 120-144hz gaming (more common everyday a new panel comes out) on 1080p with FX, I have myself and it can't even come close to producing good results....

Overclocked to 4.6Ghz or not... lowering settings or not, no matter how I tweak it to run, it cannot sustain the high-fps my panel requires.

 

The cores are not strong enough to let the high end cards reach the 120-144fps mark I need due to the CPU being shithouse with modern software (call it a optimization problem if you want, regardless it's sub-optimal at BEST, and not the experience I paid for), my locked i5 has ZERO issues with feeding everything and sustaining 120-144fps (when settings are reduced to see how high they can go) in many of my games, the FX falls short by FAR (barely passing 80-100fps in 90% of games) in over half of them with dropped GPU usage to go with it....

 

 

Maybe you need to play more games, or try different USAGE types, because they DO fall flat on their ass in certain usage types, namely High-HZ monitors.

[Kobathor]

You try 120-144hz gaming on 1080p with FX, cos thats something more and more people are doing, I have myself and it can't even come close to producing good results....

 

The cores are not strong enough to let the high end cards reach the 120-144fps mark I need due to the CPU being shithouse, my locked i5 has ZERO issues with feeding everything and sustaining 120-144fps in many of my games, the FX falls short by FAR (barely passing 100fps in 90% of games) in over half of them.

It's not about "handling the cards," it's about whether the CPU can process stuff faster than the GPU can draw frames. Not anything else. If the CPU can do that, then the GPU is fine. A problem arises when the CPU isn't powerful, JayzTwoCents did a video on bottlenecking. Not a perfect test, but in his tests an i3 was the only thing that could bottleneck a GTX 680 (the best card at the time.)

 

An 8350 is powerful enough that it will not bottleneck any single card. It just has to process fast enough.

[SkilledRebuilds]

It's not about "handling the cards," it's about whether the CPU can process stuff faster than the GPU can draw frames. Not anything else. If the CPU can do that, then the GPU is fine. A problem arises when the CPU isn't powerful, JayzTwoCents did a video on bottlenecking. Not a perfect test, but in his tests an i3 was the only thing that could bottleneck a GTX 680 (the best card at the time.)

 

An 8350 is powerful enough that it will not bottleneck any single card. It just has to process fast enough.

While technically more detailed, thats exactly how I see the term 'bottleneck' in regards to FX CPU's.... the CPU not being fast enough for the required task (causing slowdowns elsewhere.... in the expected performance)

 

So I should have just said, FX CPU's process data too slow for high-hz monitors to be used.

 

 

 

OP - 60hz your mostly fine, depending on the game your running and its settings,..... and how it uses the slightly slower cores the FX has.

It could only be 10fps less than the Intel competition, but it may be worse than that in CPU dependent titles (which is more common to see the differences @ 1080p or lower)

 

To be fair, if your chasing 144fps monitors, your prob in a better financial situation to grab an Intel platform to suit the required need.

I've compared my brothers 8350 many times over the years to my 2600k>4690 platforms, it has its uses where it can shine, but they are getting few and far between when the modern Intel CPU's are always getting better and closer to the multicore scores of FX with 4 less cores as well.

[PlayStation 2]

You try 120-144hz gaming (more common everyday a new panel comes out) on 1080p with FX, I have myself and it can't even come close to producing good results....

Overclocked to 4.6Ghz or not... lowering settings or not, no matter how I tweak it to run, it cannot sustain the high-fps my panel requires.

 

The cores are not strong enough to let the high end cards reach the 120-144fps mark I need due to the CPU being shithouse with modern software (call it a optimization problem if you want, regardless it's sub-optimal at BEST, and not the experience I paid for), my locked i5 has ZERO issues with feeding everything and sustaining 120-144fps (when settings are reduced to see how high they can go) in many of my games, the FX falls short by FAR (barely passing 80-100fps in 90% of games) in over half of them with dropped GPU usage to go with it....

 

 

Maybe you need to play more games, or try different USAGE types, because they DO fall flat on their ass in certain usage types, namely High-HZ monitors.

CSGO isn't a good example because Valve can't optimize for shit.

[SkilledRebuilds]

CSGO isn't a good example because Valve can't optimize for shit.

Never mentioned CS:GO ....or any game in particular...

?

 

I'm talking any game at 120-144fps on 120-144hz monitors.

[Kobathor]

-snip-

Your GPU renders frames and sends them by itself. The CPU processes code. My 8350 works fine on a 144hz monitor, I don't think you understand what you're saying.

 

If you're rendering 144 FPS, your 144hz monitor will receive all of those frames. It doesn't matter what CPU you have as long as the game's running that fast.

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Woooooow I don't even know what to read or trust

[Nena Trinity]

Erm I do not think you can use more than 1 GPU for CS:GO and my FPS with FX-8370 with GTX 970 is 150-200fps on every map!

 

CSGO isn't a good example because Valve can't optimize for shit.

You are joking right?

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

Is it overclocked ?

It's because I think We are bottlenecked. My brother with i7-3820 and gigabyte 580 gtx gets 200-300+ in cs. No overclock anywhere.

It's probably just bad single threaded performance ?

[Vrbas]

An 8350 is powerful enough that it will not bottleneck any single card. It just has to process fast enough.

Uh what? It has been proven on this forum many times that it indeed does bottleneck many single card configurations.

OP you're honestly better off just upgrading To a new CPU and GPU.

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

This is coming from a guy that has an 8350, used a few GPUs, and borrowed his friend's 980ti once. It will not bottleneck ANYTHING.

Maybe it does in dual gpu application ? Double The drawcalls ? I dno ?

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

You try 120-144hz gaming (more common everyday a new panel comes out) on 1080p with FX, I have myself and it can't even come close to producing good results....

Overclocked to 4.6Ghz or not... lowering settings or not, no matter how I tweak it to run, it cannot sustain the high-fps my panel requires.

The cores are not strong enough to let the high end cards reach the 120-144fps mark I need due to the CPU being shithouse with modern software (call it a optimization problem if you want, regardless it's sub-optimal at BEST, and not the experience I paid for), my locked i5 has ZERO issues with feeding everything and sustaining 120-144fps (when settings are reduced to see how high they can go) in many of my games, the FX falls short by FAR (barely passing 80-100fps in 90% of games) in over half of them with dropped GPU usage to go with it....

Maybe you need to play more games, or try different USAGE types, because they DO fall flat on their ass in certain usage types, namely High-HZ monitors.

I only use a single 1080p monitor. So not my issue.

[Edgar R. Zakarian]

While technically more detailed, thats exactly how I see the term 'bottleneck' in regards to FX CPU's.... the CPU not being fast enough for the required task (causing slowdowns elsewhere.... in the expected performance)

So I should have just said, FX CPU's process data too slow for high-hz monitors to be used.

OP - 60hz your mostly fine, depending on the game your running and its settings,..... and how it uses the slightly slower cores the FX has.

It could only be 10fps less than the Intel competition, but it may be worse than that in CPU dependent titles (which is more common to see the differences @ 1080p or lower)

To be fair, if your chasing 144fps monitors, your prob in a better financial situation to grab an Intel platform to suit the required need.

I've compared my brothers 8350 many times over the years to my 2600k>4690 platforms, it has its uses where it can shine, but they are getting few and far between when the modern Intel CPU's are always getting better and closer to the multicore scores of FX with 4 less cores as well.

I got a single 1080p 120hz monitor, so not really anything special, or in a specially financially great situation. All The parts are bought used, and work great together except this detail.