First PC build: Bottleneck confusion

[ReaperPandah]

Okay so I'm planing on building My first PC,

It's suppose to be a Gaming/Music Production PC and its more of a Budget build I guess BUT I want to go with a R9 390 because of the 8GB o vram the reason being that I'm scared of what the future holds in terms of the sudden Vram requirements.  :unsure:

 

And here is the Thing, I want to go with a FX-8350 because of the high amount of cores, threads and clock speed for a very nice price BUT When I tell people that I'm going with a FX-8350 they start screaming about Bottle necking and say that i should go with a i5-4690k.

 

So I'm really confused and would like to know how:

 

FX-8350 4.0GHz, 8-Core, 8 Threads, 8MB L2 + 8MB L3 Cache, 125W, IS a Bottleneck for the R9 390 

 

i5-4690K 3.5GHz, 4-Core, 4 Threads,  6MB, 88W Is NOT a Bottleneck for the R9 390  

 

I'm new to PC building I genuinely don't know how the i5 can be the better choice besides power consumption and temperatures.  :wacko:

Also sense It's music production PC as well, I need the extra Cores/Threads. 

 

[Mr.Tech.Qc]

snip

1: make a pc part picker for your parts

2: why more than 4  cores? recording? streaming? video editing? 4 core for gaming is fine ^^

3: none of the 2 cpu's you mentionned you bottleneck a R9 390, i think...

[megaant4]

Okay so I'm planing on building My first PC,

It's suppose to be a Gaming/Music Production PC and its more of a Budget build I guess BUT I want to go with a R9 390 because of the 8GB o vram the reason being that I'm scared of what the future holds in terms of the sudden Vram requirements.  :unsure:

 

And here is the Thing, I want to go with a FX-8350 because of the high amount of cores, threads and clock speed for a very nice price BUT When I tell people that I'm going with a FX-8350 they start screaming about Bottle necking and say that i should go with a i5-4690k.

 

So I'm really confused and would like to know how:

 

FX-8350 4.0GHz, 8-Core, 8 Threads, 8MB L2 + 8MB L3 Cache, 125W, IS a Bottleneck for the R9 390 

 

i5-4690K 3.5GHz, 4-Core, 4 Threads,  6MB, 88W Is NOT a Bottleneck for the R9 390  

 

I'm new to PC building I genuinely don't know how the i5 can be the better choice besides power consumption and temperatures.  :wacko:

Also sense It's music production PC as well, I need the extra Cores/Threads. 

 

Also I have the 8350 and I think it performs perfectly fine. I also don't believe that it will be much of a bottleneck anyway.. Maybe slightly, but not anything to worry about.

Here is a link to CPU Boss comparision between the two CPUs. Take it for what you will. They are both great CPU's

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

[App4that]

Someone linked CPUBoss, now it's a party LOL. I'm all seriousness though the benefit of the 4690 over the 8350 other than performance is upgrade path. Get the 8350 and you're done, get the 4690 and you can at least get a 4790 to replace it later if you need the power.

[KemoKa]

Don't worry, this is how I started out. It's the painful lesson everyone has to learn at some point.

Back in the olden days of computers, Whichever CPU could execute the higher number of instructions per clock was the fastest chip, no questions. That was what we call the Gigahertz war. In the post-gigahertz war, core count and clockspeed matter less because processor architectures have gotten to the point where one architecture can be superior to the other simply based on how it executes instructions. FX processors come from the server market where their Bulldozer architecture-based chips shone. In the consumer market, however, where fewer, faster (more efficient) cores are favoured, Intel has been crucifying AMD's chips, because for the past 4 years their architectures have been superior at executing code. AMD cores are simply not as efficient. Not to mention they are for the most part on 32/28nm processes, whereas Intel has moved to 22, 16 and 14nm processes, which make the

tl;dr, gigahertz and clockspeed don't matter anymore. What matters is how efficient the processor cores are at processing instructions, and in pretty much every single gaming benchmark, Intel's quad core processors (especially hyperthreaded i7s, which are even more efficient) beat the AMD 8-cores hand over fist.

[KemoKa]

Also I have the 8350 and I think it performs perfectly fine. I also don't believe that it will be much of a bottleneck anyway.. Maybe slightly, but not anything to worry about.

Here is a link to CPU Boss comparision between the two CPUs. Take it for what you will. They are both great CPU's

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-8350

CPUboss is a joke. Look at them. Where do they get their numbers? Outta their ass, that's where. There's not a shred of evidence to back up their arbitrary figures, not a single benchmark. Just a load of unreliable drivel. They're not recognized by most of the tech community as a reliable source of information. They're also super-biased.

[megaant4]

Someone linked CPUBoss, now it's a party LOL. I'm all seriousness though the benefit of the 4690 over the 8350 other than performance is upgrade path. Get the 8350 and you're done, get the 4690 and you can at least get a 4790 to replace it later if you need the power.

Ahaha should I not be using CPUBoss?

[megaant4]

CPUboss is a joke. Look at them. Where do they get their numbers? Outta their ass, that's where. There's not a shred of evidence to back up their arbitrary figures, not a single benchmark. Just a load of unreliable drivel. They're not recognized by most of the tech community as a reliable source of information. They're also super-biased.

 

They run 5 standard benchmarks with each CPU.. What are you talking about?

[App4that]

They run 5 standard benchmarks with each CPU.. What are you talking about?

Sorry my brother from another mother but they are in fact a joke. I don't even think they pull the numbers out of their ass, if that was true they would accidentally be right once and awhile. I'm convinced they're wrong on purpose, only explanation.

[ReaperPandah]

Someone linked CPUBoss, now it's a party LOL. I'm all seriousness though the benefit of the 4690 over the 8350 other than performance is upgrade path. Get the 8350 and you're done, get the 4690 and you can at least get a 4790 to replace it later if you need the power.

 

 

Don't worry, this is how I started out. It's the painful lesson everyone has to learn at some point.

Back in the olden days of computers, Whichever CPU could execute the higher number of instructions per clock was the fastest chip, no questions. That was what we call the Gigahertz war. In the post-gigahertz war, core count and clockspeed matter less because processor architectures have gotten to the point where one architecture can be superior to the other simply based on how it executes instructions. FX processors come from the server market where their Bulldozer architecture-based chips shone. In the consumer market, however, where fewer, faster (more efficient) cores are favoured, Intel has been crucifying AMD's chips, because for the past 4 years their architectures have been superior at executing code. AMD cores are simply not as efficient. Not to mention they are for the most part on 32/28nm processes, whereas Intel has moved to 22, 16 and 14nm processes, which make the

tl;dr, gigahertz and clockspeed don't matter anymore. What matters is how efficient the processor cores are at processing instructions, and in pretty much every single gaming benchmark, Intel's quad core processors (especially hyperthreaded i7s, which are even more efficient) beat the AMD 8-cores hand over fist.

Thank you so much people!! This cleared up so many things for me. now I can finally get some sleep! 

[braneopbru]

Every other thread the same question. bottleneck this, bottleneck that.

 

You know what REALLY is a bottleneck? The neck of the bottle that I'm drinking from right now.

 

Between your CPU, your GPU and your RAM, there is an a tightly knit relationship. All three will bottleneck each other. ALWAYS. No matter how fast the components that you pick are, the poorest performing of the three will hold back the other two. No matter what you pick, if you upgrade any one of those three you will get a performance improvement, therefore, the component you replaced was the bottleneck.

 

"But I have a Titan X and an i7 6700k and 3200Mhz DDR4. I have no bottlenecks"

 

Get a second Titan X in SLI and you'll see an increase in fps - I guess your Titan X was bottlenecking your CPU.

Overclock that CPU to 5Ghz and you'll see an increase in fps - I guess it was really your CPU that was bottlenecking your GPU

Get faster RAM and you'll see.........Actually you won't see fuck all because you can't get faster RAM, But you get my point

 

Get the fastest hardware that you can afford/justify and be happy; stop worrying about potential, minute gains in performance and enjoy what you have.

 

Asking about bottlenecks is as productive and useful as asking about whether you should buy X today or wait for Y to come out six months (I'm looking at you, Zen speculators)

[KemoKa]

They run 5 standard benchmarks with each CPU.. What are you talking about?

yeah, they also have the 8350 down as getting 8.79GHz on water cooling. That's bullshit. No processor, no matter how well-binned can pull that much speed on water cooling. The voltage alone required to sustain that clockspeed would cook the processor outright. That insanely exaggerated result is where they're getting their numbers.

[App4that]

Every other thread the same question. bottleneck this, bottleneck that.

You know what REALLY is a bottleneck? The neck of the bottle that I'm drinking from right now.

Between your CPU, your GPU and your RAM, there is an a tightly knit relationship. All three will bottleneck each other. ALWAYS. No matter how fast the components that you pick are, the poorest performing of the three will hold back the other two. No matter what you pick, if you upgrade any one of those three you will get a performance improvement, therefore, the component you replaced was the bottleneck.

"But I have a Titan X and an i7 6700k and 3200Mhz DDR4. I have no bottlenecks"

Get a second Titan X in SLI and you'll see an increase in fps - I guess your Titan X was bottlenecking your CPU.

Overclock that CPU to 5Ghz and you'll see an increase in fps - I guess it was really your CPU that was bottlenecking your GPU

Get faster RAM and you'll see.........Actually you won't see fuck all because you can't get faster RAM, But you get my point

Get the fastest hardware that you can afford/justify and be happy; stop worrying about potential, minute gains in performance and enjoy what you have.

Asking about bottlenecks is as productive and useful as asking about whether you should buy X today or wait for Y to come out six months (I'm looking at you, Zen speculators)

Bottlenecks happen, it's a good question to ask. Big difference between synthetic benchmarks and in game time though. Firestike causes a hellacious bottleneck for me, my 4690k holds back my crossfire badly. But in game I never cross 60% CPU usage, even in Witcher 3. Try that with the 8350.

[gunmaster117]

they're will always be bottlenecking no matter what, you cant go wrong with either processor you picked, personally i like he 4690k over the FX-8350 but if you're on a budget the FX-8350 has the better bang for your buck, the only downside would be that AMD processors tend to have higher temperatures and need more watts when it comes to usage and the positive side is that you're going to get higher GHz while overclocking then the 4690k and also the FX-8350 is also cheaper than it making it a better performance to dollar ratio. at the end you shouldn't be worried on bottlenecking your cup or GPU but to get the best quality and high end parts you can possibly get for your money. 

[braneopbru]

Bottlenecks happen, it's a good question to ask. Big difference between synthetic benchmarks and in game time though. Firestike causes a hellacious bottleneck for me, my 4690k holds back my crossfire badly. But in game I never cross 60% CPU usage, even in Witcher 3. Try that with the 8350.

I personally could not care less about benchmarks. I ran firestrike once because my brother was breaking my balls that it was a stupid decision to get a second 760 for SLI and that I was nowhere near the performance of his 970. The only metric he gave me to compare was a firestrike score, so I had to run it to compare.

 

Benchmarks are useless to me. I really couldn't care if I got a score of 2000 in firestrike. What matters to me is if the game I'm playing runs smoothly at the quality and resolution that I pick. I know that benchmarks matter to some; i'm just not one of those people.

 

BTW, for anybody wondering, a pair of 760 in SLI is within 5% of the score of a single 970.

[App4that]

I personally could not care less about benchmarks. I ran firestrike once because my brother was breaking my balls that it was a stupid decision to get a second 760 for SLI and that I was nowhere near the performance of his 970. The only metric he gave me to compare was a firestrike score, so I had to run it to compare.

Benchmarks are useless to me. I really couldn't care if I got a score of 2000 in firestrike. What matters to me is if the game I'm playing runs smoothly at the quality and resolution that I pick. I know that benchmarks matter to some; i'm just not one of those people.

BTW, for anybody wondering, a pair of 760 in SLI is within 5% of the score of a single 970.

A 390/290 crossfire will beat a Titan X

[braneopbru]

A 390/290 crossfire will beat a Titan X

Plus I'll save a bunch of money on my heating bills. 

[App4that]

Plus I'll save a bunch of money on my heating bills.

No joke LOL, I have ten case fans LOL.