FX-8320 bottlenecks, I5 doens't

[Roycewicz]

Hello guys!
So I have 2 complete builds (specs at bottom). I've rendered the same test videos with the same settings, with almost absolutely no background usage. Also made 3DMark Firestrike's physic test. For the render: I5 6500 was almost the same as FX 8320, I5 beat the FX by 1sec.
The Firestrike showed the FX to be 2FPS faster than the I5.
So the question is, tho I admit already that I'm no expert, so it might be stupid one: How is that the FX chips are told to be bottlenecking even with the GTX 900 and R9 300 series, not to mention the newest ones, but the I5 can happily even go with the GTX 1080, while both CPUs seem to be working with the same overall power at 100% on all cores.
What I don't want to see here is, FX sux, even I3 is better. The thing is that I know that some benchmarks and some games run faster on I3s, as those things have an unbeatable single core performance, same applies to I5s, on 2-4 cores, it'll annihilate any current AMD chips. But when it comes to games like Fallout 4, which I played with CPU monitoring on, and ate 100%@8cores, yet it performed much much much worse than the I5?

 

Also I made sure to use lower settings if necessary and watched the GPUs on both setups, and eliminated the chance of GPU causing problems. No temperature problems. RAM never hit the maximum

Specs - AMD setup:
AMD FX-8320@4.0GHz cooled by Deepcool Maelstrom 240t
ASUS R9 390 (3 fans version)

ASUS M5A99X EVO R 2.0

Crucial 240GB BX 200

Specs - Intel Setup:

I5 6500 @3.2GHz cooled by stock cooler
Gigabyte GTX 1060 3GB windforce
Asrock B150m-HDS

Western Digital 1TB 64MB WD10EZEX

 

Due to my not-so-good english, sometimes things get messy, so the question again: FX-8320 and I5 6500 same performance at 100% at every core. How I5 doesn't bottleneck, while FX does?

[iRileyx]

Because the FX has much lower IPC (instructions per cycle) even when clocked quite a bit higher than the i5.

 

 

[Droidbot]

FireStrike takes advantage of all cores/threads it can get, like games are MEANT to do. 

But not all games take advantage of all cores/threads, and often they only take advantage of the first 4 cores. 

I guess you can say the FX series was ahead of its time?

[Roycewicz]

I'm not really into this which game uses 8 cores which uses 6 cores thing. How many of the latest games use 8 cores?
Like benchmarks show that FX kinda sux at Battlefield 1 for example, though I thought that even some older BFs used 8 cores

[DarkBlade2117]

Ya... The i5-6500 can't be paired with an 1080. I'd even say it is pushing it for a 1070, minimum for 1070 is an OCd 6600k. Especially for high refresh rate gaming situations.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, Roycewicz said:

I'm not really into this which game uses 8 cores which uses 6 cores thing. How many of the latest games use 8 cores?
Like benchmarks show that FX kinda sux at Battlefield 1 for example, though I thought that even some older BFs used 8 cores

You know, the 1060 3GB is 1. slower than a 390 and has lower CPU overhead due to Nvidia drivers being more efficient in that regard.

 

If you swapped the GPUs around then you'd get better performance on both rigs.

[DarkBlade2117]

6 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

FireStrike takes advantage of all cores/threads it can get, like games are MEANT to do. 

But not all games take advantage of all cores/threads, and often they only take advantage of the first 4 cores. 

I guess you can say the FX series was ahead of its time?

Ahead of its time... Hmmm.. Just like a lot of AMD products.

[Droidbot]

3 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ahead of its time... Hmmm.. Just like a lot of AMD products.

Finewine strikes again

[DarkBlade2117]

1 minute ago, Droidbot said:

Finewine strikes again

Hey, not complaining about my 290 bring slightly behind a 970 as of recent drivers

 

[Roycewicz]

1. Ehm, please I don't want an Intel vs. AMD fight here, the question was technical, not which is better? EDIT: same applies to AMD vs NVidia
2. I've been thinking of swapping the cards too, but that's not sure if that would help the FX-8320, you know if the 1060 bottlenecks too, then we would be at the same point. Also the I5+1060 PC is not exactly mine.

[Morgan MLGman]

3 minutes ago, Roycewicz said:

2. I've been thinking of swapping the cards too, but that's not sure if that would help the FX-8320, you know if the 1060 bottlenecks too, then we would be at the same point. Also the I5+1060 PC is not exactly mine.

As I said, that would help the FX for two reasons:

 

1060 3GB is slower than a 390

Nvidia's drivers have lower CPU overhead, thus can be run with worse CPUs.

[Roycewicz]

Also I tried OCing my FX chip, but it seems to be a complete OC-garbage. I went up to 4.4GHz and found the lowest voltage (can't quite remember) by doing Firemark all day and increasing the voltage by just a little tiny small bit every time. So it was fine and stable, and I tried playing something, and almost ended up with a $150 silicon toast. After 20 mins of Rainbow Six, it got too hot, had to stop and underclock back to 4.0

[samcool55]

8 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Ahead of its time... Hmmm.. Just like a lot of AMD products.

Actually, the design of Bulldozer on paper sounded great, especially for servers.

But it's due to a low IPC and the fact it was still based on a big node turned it into a disaster.

 

Maybe in 10 years the idea behind bulldozer might make more sense. But for now, no

[GangstaRas]

While IPC is one aspect, there's a lot at play when it comes to bottlenecking than just the CPU. RAM speed is important, PCIe generation is also somewhat important and AMD FX line up is outdated on both compared to Intel.

[Roycewicz]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

As I said, that would help the FX for two reasons:

 

1060 3GB is slower than a 390

Nvidia's drivers have lower CPU overhead, thus can be run with worse CPUs.

I'm waiting on Ryzen, and will upgrade to that, or some I7 at some point. And the I5 6500+GTX 1060 PC is not mine, also it has a lower PSU, that couldn't handle the R9 390, too much efforts, considering that I will upgrade soon (hopefuly).

[Roycewicz]

I kinda hate myself since I bought this PC. A few months after I put this together Skylake with mainstream DDR4 memory came out. About a year later GTX 1000 series with cheap but beast cards came out.
Now if I want to upgrade my CPU, I must go for DDR4 = new mobo+new memory, also I5s can't really give me much overall CPU performance...

But for the same money I'd buy the FX again. I use it to render videos a lot, so for the same price an I3 would be slower...