(Bottlenecked)R9 390 Review

[AMDisTheBEST]

I did the opposite. I upgraded my fx 6350 (4.8Ghz 1.455v) to an i7 4790k (stock then) and still kept my 7870. The only game I vividly recall exact numbers on was in BF4. Like you, I got 70fps+ (high preset 2x msaa), although I never had dips below 60fps with my shiny new cpu. Before it was 45-70 every game. That was the reason I got upgraded my cpu first. In any other game there was the normal range of ~20fps difference between max/min, but I could, and would, adjust the graphics settings to get that magic 60fps minimum. 

 

I couldn't stand that no matter the settings, the minimum fps with my overclocked fx 6350 was trash.

Mine never dips below 60 fps in multiplayer. I do get dips down to 50+ fps in single player though. 

[boboman342]

I WOULD OC BUT THE CX BANDWAGON POSTS VIDS ABOUT THEM BLOWING UP

>had cx600m

>used it on my fx6350 4.8Ghz 1.455v and hd7870

>is now powering friends 3570k @4.2Ghz 1.28v and r9 290x 1100/1400

>perfectly quiet and no problems

[boboman342]

Mine never dips below 60 fps in multiplayer. I do get dips down to 50+ fps in single player though. 

ok

[AMDisTheBEST]

You could overclock all you want. In cpu bound games an i5 4460 beats the fx 9590.Even an i3 beats a 9590 in cpu bound games. You cant get around the fact that amd cpu's have about 40% less IPC then intel. Overclocking will not make up for that.

 

Yeah damn you Americans and microcenter 

Not if the game is mutithreaded. Mutithreaded is faster than single thread because more threads means more number crunching. AMD has more cores and the mutithread calculations combine surpass any i5. It all depends on the games. Old games need single thread and hence fx loses to even the lowest i3. but modern games like tom raider, you dont see the difference. fps is about 1-3 lower for amd. thats about it. 

[Notree]

Not if the game is mutithreaded. Mutithreaded is faster than single thread because more threads means more number crunching. AMD has more cores and the mutithread calculations combine surpass any i5. It all depends on the games. Old games need single thread and hence fx loses to even the lowest i3. but modern games like tom raider, you dont see the difference. fps is about 1-3 lower for amd. thats about it. 

I did say cpu bound games did I not. Even on multi threaded games you'd need 4.5ghz+ overclock to compare to a stock i5. Add in $100 cooler so you can overclock and suddenly its not cheaper. Anyway.. Lets let the amd/intel war rest  :lol:

[reapersivan]

You could overclock all you want. In cpu bound games an i5 4460 beats the fx 9590.Even an i3 beats a 9590 in cpu bound games. You cant get around the fact that amd cpu's have about 40% less IPC then intel. Overclocking will not make up for that.

 

Yeah damn you Americans and microcenter 

You could overclock all you want. In cpu bound games an i5 4460 beats the fx 9590.Even an i3 beats a 9590 in cpu bound games. You cant get around the fact that amd cpu's have about 40% less IPC then intel. Overclocking will not make up for that.

 

Yeah damn you Americans and microcenter 

But Damn, their PSU prices are pretty bad. If only they had like an EVGA G2 Gold Certified 750 modular PSU for like 80$, similar to NewEgg. Micro Center has that for like 120$

[reapersivan]

I did say cpu bound games did I not. Even on multi threaded games you'd need 4.5ghz+ overclock to compare to a stock i5. Add in $100 cooler so you can overclock and suddenly its not cheaper. Anyway.. Lets let the amd/intel war rest  :lol:

Will DX12 help AMD CPUS

[AMDisTheBEST]

I did say cpu bound games did I not. Even on multi threaded games you'd need 4.5ghz+ overclock to compare to a stock i5. Add in $100 cooler so you can overclock and suddenly its not cheaper. Anyway.. Lets let the amd/intel war rest  :lol:

I have to disagree. fx 6300+mb=120 dollars at microcenter. slap in a 30 dollars 212 evo from newegg, total is 150 dollars. oc it to above 4.0 ghz is possible. i5 4460 and mb costs $220. 

And guess what? the two performs the same.  fx 8350 is not that great tho. 8320 or 8320E should be the go to chip if consumer wants more cores.

[reapersivan]

I have to disagree. fx 6300+mb=120 dollars at microcenter. slap in a 30 dollars 212 evo from newegg, total is 150 dollars. oc it to above 4.0 ghz is possible. i5 4460 and mb costs $220. 

And guess what? the two performs the same.  fx 8350 is not that great tho. 8320 or 8320E should be the go to chip if consumer wants more cores.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgmKb-tIxoI

Taxes, make sure you have decent motherboard. If you know how to OC go ahead. But for someone who doesn't have any parts, might as well spend an extra 100 to get a 4590

[AMDisTheBEST]

Taxes, make sure you have decent motherboard. If you know how to OC go ahead. But for someone who doesn't have any parts, might as well spend an extra 100 to get a 4590

My advice is for those on a budget. if you have the cash to burn, by all means, get i5 xxxxk or i7 xxxxk. I am still waiting for the day when AMD will once again give intel a run for the money, most likely it will come when zen is released. 

[Notree]

I have to disagree. fx 6300+mb=120 dollars at microcenter. slap in a 30 dollars 212 evo from newegg, total is 150 dollars. oc it to above 4.0 ghz is possible. i5 4460 and mb costs $220. 

And guess what? the two performs the same.  fx 8350 is not that great tho. 8320 or 8320E should be the go to chip if consumer wants more cores.

 

The i3 is getting  almost the same fps too, so what. GTA v is not a cpu bound game. As you can see when they overclock there is very little if any difference. And we all don't have the luxury to shop at microcenter.

 

Will DX12 help AMD CPUS

I'm sure it will .But i still doubt its going to make up for the ipc.  Will have to wait and see. Lets all just hope ZEN is good. I'm actually waiting for it to upgrade my cpu.

[xAcid9]

I have to disagree. fx 6300+mb=120 dollars at microcenter. slap in a 30 dollars 212 evo from newegg, total is 150 dollars. oc it to above 4.0 ghz is possible. i5 4460 and mb costs $220. 

And guess what? the two performs the same.  fx 8350 is not that great tho. 8320 or 8320E should be the go to chip if consumer wants more cores.

-snip-

 

About that video, he use 980 and only get 30-40 ish FPS? I guess he use 8xMSAA or play it at 4K which both option will reduce CPU bottleneck significantly.

Second he use Nvidia Maxwell card which multithread efficiently even on FX CPU.

[AMDisTheBEST]

The i3 is getting  almost the same fps too, so what. GTA v is not a cpu bound game. As you can see when they overclock there is very little if any difference. And we all don't have the luxury to shop at microcenter.

 

I'm sure it will .But i still doubt its going to make up for the ipc.  Will have to wait and see. Lets all just hope ZEN is good. I'm actually waiting for it to upgrade my cpu.

"so what" the point is, if you are left with the options of either an i3 or fx 6300, picking the 6300 over i3 is a no brainer, unless you wish to upgrade to a i5/i7 in the future of course. Zen has an ipc of of 40% improvement over the excavator which by itself has an ipc improvement of 30% over the first bulldozer. By pure mathematics, that means zen will have better ipc than the latest intel skylake. By the time zen is launch, intel will have launch babylake. battle over dominance lies upon these two chips, really because we can already tell skylake wont be able to complete with zen. 

[Notree]

"so what" the point is, if you are left with the options of either an i3 or fx 6300, picking the 6300 over i3 is a no brainer, unless you wish to upgrade to a i5/i7 in the future of course. Zen has an ipc of of 40% improvement over the excavator which by itself has an ipc improvement of 30% over the first bulldozer. By pure mathematics, that means zen will have better ipc than the latest intel skylake. By the time zen is launch, intel will have launch babylake. battle over dominance lies upon these two chips, really because we can already tell skylake wont be able to complete with zen. 

I never once said an i3 is a good choice but ok. And I know everything there is know about ZEN already so why are you telling me this?

[AMDisTheBEST]

About that video, he use 980 and only get 30-40 ish FPS? I guess he use 8xMSAA or play it at 4K which both option will reduce CPU bottleneck significantly.

Second he use Nvidia Maxwell card which multithread efficiently even on FX CPU.

you can check out i3 vs 6300 on YouTube. other games will give similar results. sometimes fx 6300 is better, sometimes i3. often fx 6300 is behind by only 1-3 fps. that is on stock, no oc. 

[reapersivan]

you can check out i3 vs 6300 on YouTube. other games will give similar results. sometimes fx 6300 is better, sometimes i3. often fx 6300 is behind by only 1-3 fps. that is on stock, no oc.

no point in even getting an i3, might as well get a g3258 for like 40-50$, making it less of a loss when you upgrade

[AMDisTheBEST]

no point in even getting an i3, might as well get a g3258 for like 40-50$, making it less of a loss when you upgrade

i3 has 4 threads. you cant run modern games on two threads.

[Kobathor]

No point in going AMD if you expect over 100 fps. Even for CSGO. I5s are quite cheap, 4460 and mobo at Micro Center for like 260$

309 FPS in CS:GO highest settings (200 average )

71 FPS average in Battlefield 4 (high preset, you can feel the old GPUness on Ultra.) 

You can feel a burn in Fallout 4, though, since it's already horribly optimized. I get 75 FPS in most places, and it drops as low as 20 FPS deep into Boston. 

70 FPS average in Rainbow Six: Siege

Like every Source game: over 150 FPS

103 average Battlefield 3 (more when my CPU /GPU combo was popular) ultra settings

 

All games on highest settings other than Battlefield 4 and Fallout 4 running at 1080p. My monitor is 75hz, so games at 70ish FPS are frame capped (Fallout 4, R6:S) that I'm too lazy to remove. 

 

AMD CPUs can really hold their own if the game is optimized. 

[reapersivan]

i3 has 4 threads. you cant run modern games on two threads.

obviously. No point in wasting more money on an i3, especially when going to an i5. Might as well OC the g3258 and play with games that don't require 4 cores. You only suffer but at least you save up a lot for your next cpu

[reapersivan]

309 FPS in CS:GO highest settings (200 average )

71 FPS average in Battlefield 4 (high preset, you can feel the old GPUness on Ultra.) 

You can feel a burn in Fallout 4, though, since it's already horribly optimized. I get 75 FPS in most places, and it drops as low as 20 FPS deep into Boston. 

70 FPS average in Rainbow Six: Siege

Like every Source game: over 150 FPS

103 average Battlefield 3 (more when my CPU /GPU combo was popular) ultra settings

 

All games on highest settings other than Battlefield 4 and Fallout 4 running at 1080p. My monitor is 75hz, so games at 70ish FPS are frame capped (Fallout 4, R6:S) that I'm too lazy to remove. 

 

AMD CPUs can really hold their own if the game is optimized.

there's also many factors like game optimization as well as OS

[App4that]

AMD is the best for budget (150 USD and under) and performance-per dollar. i am adamant about that. I didnt see the quote there, thought you were talking about zen.

No one wants to be stuck in a budget build though, budget builds need a upgrade path and no AMD build offers that. A i3 that fits a 1150 socket can be replaced with a 4790k someday, plug and play.

[reapersivan]

No one wants to be stuck in a budget build though, budget builds need a upgrade path and no AMD build offers that. A i3 that fits a 1150 socket can be replaced with a 4790k someday, plug and play.

what would be the main difference between the g3258 and i3? I feel like if you are doing a budget build, start off with g3258 and then go to 4460 or 4690k later on. The CPU would be a small investment to keep you with the lga1150 socket

[App4that]

what would be the main difference between the g3258 and i3? I feel like if you are doing a budget build, start off with g3258 and then go to 4460 or 4690k later on. The CPU would be a small investment to keep you with the lga1150 socket

Just the treads you gain with the i3. But yeah a g3258 is enough to get started and still leaves you in the position to upgrade over time.

[Notree]

AMD is the best for budget (150 USD and under) and performance-per dollar. i am adamant about that. I didnt see the quote there, thought you were talking about zen. 

The FX 6350 is over $150 here just for the cpu so I guess that blows your budget already. Then adding in a decent mobo which can handle an overclock, $130. Then hyper 212 as you said $30. So thats $310 + taxes. An i5 4460 is $220 and $80 for a mobo. Thats $300 taxes. You were comparing an i5 in the first place so.  I mean I wont argue about an i3 its never really a good choice unless you wanna upgrade like you said. But I will argue an i5 is a better value. You'll get good performance no matter the game. Thats  better performance-per dollar in my books.

[AMDisTheBEST]

No one wants to be stuck in a budget build though, budget builds need a upgrade path and no AMD build offers that. A i3 that fits a 1150 socket can be replaced with a 4790k someday, plug and play.

that all depends how long you plan to upgrade. 1150 is a dead end platform. Future cpus wont be supported. You can pop in a higher tier icores of course but right now AMD users also have the option of buying a budget 6300 which can easily last until zen comes out. so its this: 1150 pentium g325>i5>i7 all haswell generation  or under.

OR

fx 6300 am3+ and buy a new am4 board and then zen 1 year later. we do have an upgrade option.