FX 8350 Bottlenecking?

[notawebsite]

The best CPU I can currently afford that fits my motherboard currently is an AMD FX 8350 8 core. Do you think it would significantly bottleneck a GTX 1060 6GB (or potentially a 1070) to the point where it would be noticeably bad? And before the inevitable "upgrade your motherboard" comments, I don't know enough about PC building to feel confident enough to take apart and unplug everything and set it up on a new motherboard, so that's not happening.

Current Specs (Shit PC IK lmao): 

GPU: AMD RX 560 2 GB

CPU: AMD FX 6300 6 Core

RAM: 8 GB 1600 DDR3 

MB: Gigabyte 970A D3SP

PSU: Not sure of brand but it's 450 watt

[Fasauceome]

I see a title like this and the answer is instantly "yes" in my head. Modern GPU +ancient CPU is a bottleneck.

9 minutes ago, notawebsite said:

I don't know enough about PC building to feel confident enough to take apart and unplug everything and set it up on a new motherboard, so that's not happening.

It is so very much worth learning, and it so easy. You can use the PC you already have as training. I swear you have to try hard to ruin something, it'll go off without a hitch. 8350 isn't worth buying anymore, and won't give tangible gains over a 6300. Your money is more well spent on Ryzen, and your time well spend on learning the simple process of " put motherboard in PC"

[Metallus97]

Wich games do you want to play?
 

Its well worth it to learn how to build a PC dude! 

Were here to help and you always can ask the forum while you're building 

Plz look at some Linus or other YouTubers videos on how to build a pc! You will be able to install a new mobo. There is not much wich can go wrong. Even the Verge ended up with a working PC

[FloRolf]

Yeah, the cpu is shit. Probably not much better than your 6300.

 

Replacing the whole motherboard + ram is not much more difficult than just replacing the cpu. You are better of getting a 2400G than the 8350. 

[AngryBeaver]

28 minutes ago, notawebsite said:

The best CPU I can currently afford that fits my motherboard currently is an AMD FX 8350 8 core. Do you think it would significantly bottleneck a GTX 1060 6GB (or potentially a 1070) to the point where it would be noticeably bad? And before the inevitable "upgrade your motherboard" comments, I don't know enough about PC building to feel confident enough to take apart and unplug everything and set it up on a new motherboard, so that's not happening.

Current Specs (Shit PC IK lmao): 

GPU: AMD RX 560 2 GB

CPU: AMD FX 6300 6 Core

RAM: 8 GB 1600 DDR3 

MB: Gigabyte 970A D3SP

PSU: Not sure of brand but it's 450 watt

Do you have any friends?

Chances are you know someone who would be more than willing to help you do this for the first time. Then you get some hands-on experience and learn how to do it... and have someone there to make sure you don't screw anything up too bad. It really isn't a hard task, but having someone there that has done it before will give you all the confidence you need to tackle

[Ralphred]

1 minute ago, FloRolf said:

Yeah, the cpu is shit. Probably not much better than your 6300.

That would be my initial thought too, but an 8350 clocks 500Mhz faster (4Ghz up from 3.5), and has 2 more cores (1/3rd more, or 25% more, depending on how you look at it).

In retrospect, all bottle-necking issues aside, I think that's quite a lot of extra for a £50 outlay, but then you are gonna want DDR3-2000 next (another £70), and both these items become redundant when you are forced to switch to another socket motherboard.

[Tristerin]

33 minutes ago, notawebsite said:

The best CPU I can currently afford that fits my motherboard currently is an AMD FX 8350 8 core. Do you think it would significantly bottleneck a GTX 1060 6GB (or potentially a 1070) to the point where it would be noticeably bad? And before the inevitable "upgrade your motherboard" comments, I don't know enough about PC building to feel confident enough to take apart and unplug everything and set it up on a new motherboard, so that's not happening.

Current Specs (Shit PC IK lmao): 

GPU: AMD RX 560 2 GB

CPU: AMD FX 6300 6 Core

RAM: 8 GB 1600 DDR3 

MB: Gigabyte 970A D3SP

PSU: Not sure of brand but it's 450 watt

I laugh at all the people who call this a shit CPU

 

Its WAY better than a 6300.  I game on AAA titles with one.  It overclocks easily to 4.5ghz (with appropriate cooling lol)  Once you upgrade past FX you are talking about an approx. 300-500$ investment to the newest Gen - if you can afford it, yes my Ryzen 7 1700 blows my FX 8350 out of the water.  But an FX 8350 on sale is like $79.  So if that's what you can afford, yes its still a viable CPU.  Just don't expect TONS from it, like the latest gen tech.

[Fasauceome]

5 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

I laugh at all the people who call this a shit CPU

 

Its WAY better than a 6300.  I game on AAA titles with one.  It overclocks easily to 4.5ghz (with appropriate cooling lol)  Once you upgrade past FX you are talking about an approx. 300-500$ investment to the newest Gen - if you can afford it, yes my Ryzen 7 1700 blows my FX 8350 out of the water.  But an FX 8350 on sale is like $79.  So if that's what you can afford, yes its still a viable CPU.  Just don't expect TONS from it, like the latest gen tech.

IMO the main problem is how the FPU is shared with 2 cores. Still, the question wasn't "is the CPU good," it's "is there a bottleneck," and the answer is a resounding yes. The CPU works for modern titles sure, but I'd wager Ryzen is money well spent, as opposed to the decrepit FM2 platform.

[Tristerin]

Just now, fasauceome said:

IMO the main problem is how the FPU is shared with 2 cores. Still, the question wasn't "is the CPU good," it's "is there a bottleneck," and the answer is a resounding yes. The CPU works for modern titles sure, but I'd wager Ryzen is money well spent, as opposed to the decrepit FM2 platform.

Typically my responses are based on people not living a luxurious lifestyle that CAN replace it all...or they would just go out and buy another system like they did the first time - if they had oodles of money laying around.

 

I disagree that its a resounding yes, 100%.  Its entirely title dependent.

 

But I also bet, his monitor isn't more than 1080p, probably 1600x900 - so no, no real bottleneck from the CPU.

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Typically my responses are based on people not living a luxurious lifestyle that CAN replace it all...or they would just go out and buy another system like they did the first time - if they had oodles of money laying around.

 

I disagree that its a resounding yes, 100%.  Its entirely title dependent.

 

But I also bet, his monitor isn't more than 1080p, probably 1600x900 - so no, no real bottleneck from the CPU.

higher resolutions ease CPU bottleneck, not lower resolutions, because the GPU is supposed to be working harder. Yes, the bottleneck is title dependent, but then the question of "is this a bottleneck" can be answered so many different ways. I would prefer to approach it from the angle of whether or not a bunch of popular titles will show issues. For example, on my bother's PC, his i5 7400, with higher IPC, faster ram, and similar clocks bottlenecks in titles such as Overwatch and For Honor with his GTX 970. when it comes down to FPU, the 8350 is basically a 4 core, and has an old microarchitecture. Overclocking helps for sure, but the chip still has a lot fo shortcomings. If it's truly all one could get for a system, it's gonna work, but it has bad value in my opinion.

[Tristerin]

Just now, fasauceome said:

higher resolutions ease CPU bottleneck, not lower resolutions, because the GPU is supposed to be working harder. Yes, the bottleneck is title dependent, but then the question of "is this a bottleneck" can be answered so many different ways. I would prefer to approach it from the angle of whether or not a bunch of popular titles will show issues. For example, on my bother's PC, his i5 7400, with higher IPC, faster ram, and similar clocks bottlenecks in titles such as Overwatch and For Honor with his GTX 970. when it comes down to FPU, the 8350 is basically a 4 core, and has an old microarchitecture. Overclocking helps for sure, but the chip still has a lot fo shortcomings. If it's truly all one could get for a system, it's gonna work, but it has bad value in my opinion.

See that makes ZERO sense to me (your testimony of your brothers experience in OW)

 

I run Overwatch at Epic settings with EVERYTHING turned up to max.  On an FX 8350, no OC, running Crossfire HD 7850's (nothing like a single 970) - I have Vsync turned on my crap 1600x900 monitor stuck at 60 FPS (doesn't ever drop an inkling - ever.  I mean everything maxed..my CPU never goes above 50% on all 8 cores (I run 3 diff HW monitors while I game) and my Xfired GPUs share the load at 55% each with 1.4gb of VRAM on master card being used and .6gb of VRAM slave card being used.

 

So my testimony is nothing to your brothers shared experience.  I just don't see Overwatch as a problem at ALL on my FX 8350.  In fact in Balanced Power plans it shuts off 2 cores.  It doesn't need them.  But I don't like that lack of headroom so I run full power so all 8 cores are forced to be used.

 

It comes down to this, my shared experience on my FX 8350 is this - once I replace the GPU I will still have another 2 years of AAA titles out of it.  Since my monitor isn't going to see an upgrade anytime soon.

[notawebsite]

5 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

But I also bet, his monitor isn't more than 1080p, probably 1600x900 - so no, no real bottleneck from the CPU.

Yeah you'd be 100% right with that guess lmao.

47 minutes ago, Metallus97 said:

Wich games do you want to play?

I play mostly CSGO, Destiny 2, Rainbow Six, Overwatch, and on rare occasions Fortnite. The only main games I have performance issues in are Destiny 2 Overwatch and Fortnite mostly. In CS and R6 my performance is fine but that doesn't mean much when one is an old game and the other is optimized to the point where it runs 60 fps on consoles.

 

And as a general statement to the people saying that I should stop worrying about messing up with my motherboard stuff, that isn't the only problem. If I were to upgrade my motherboard, not only would I have to then find an even more expensive CPU (and yes, I know $80 for a CPU isn't very expensive but still), I would need to buy a new motherboard, and I would need to buy 8GB of DDR4 RAM. All of that is a lot more than I have available to spend on my PC currently, and probably more than I will have in a reasonable amount of time.

 

All I'm really looking for at the moment is the ability to run the games I want to run without dropping below 60 fps to be honest.

[aezakmi]

14 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Typically my responses are based on people not living a luxurious lifestyle that CAN replace it all...or they would just go out and buy another system like they did the first time - if they had oodles of money laying around.

 

I disagree that its a resounding yes, 100%.  Its entirely title dependent.

 

But I also bet, his monitor isn't more than 1080p, probably 1600x900 - so no, no real bottleneck from the CPU.

yeah but there are a lot of spoiled shitheads around here who will call crap any CPU that's not an Intel... *rolling the dice* i9 9900K

they think a motherboard, a CPU and new memory for like $600 is better than only replacing the CPU for $100 on an AM3 platform.

 

aaaaanyway, the 8350 is still somewhat relevant but I wouldn't pair it with a 1070, at least not at stock clocks, and given OP's 970 board I don't think overclocking is a good advice, 4 pin only, simple VRMs, simple northbridge cooling, try to go over 4400MHz on an 8350 on that board and you'll end up at least with a burnt power connector, technically it doesn't fully supports the CPU, it's just compatible with it due to the socket, not to mention cooling and the power supply, my old FX literally raped two power supplies while stress testing, a generic TR2 and a EVGA 500 which was also kinda crappy.

It's not the worst CPU out there but it just has a lot of disadvantages when it comes to power phases, northbridges and power supplies.

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, notawebsite said:

Yeah you'd be 100% right with that guess lmao.

I play mostly CSGO, Destiny 2, Rainbow Six, Overwatch, and on rare occasions Fortnite. The only main games I have performance issues in are Destiny 2 Overwatch and Fortnite mostly. In CS and R6 my performance is fine but that doesn't mean much when one is an old game and the other is optimized to the point where it runs 60 fps on consoles.

 

And as a general statement to the people saying that I should stop worrying about messing up with my motherboard stuff, that isn't the only problem. If I were to upgrade my motherboard, not only would I have to then find an even more expensive CPU (and yes, I know $80 for a CPU isn't very expensive but still), I would need to buy a new motherboard, and I would need to buy 8GB of DDR4 RAM. All of that is a lot more than I have available to spend on my PC currently, and probably more than I will have in a reasonable amount of time.

 

All I'm really looking for at the moment is the ability to run the games I want to run without dropping below 60 fps to be honest.

Well I know for a fact rainbow 6 loves core count, but destiny is really well optimized, and fortnite is such a simple game to run, I'm surprised you have performance issues in these games. Using my brother's PC as an example, fortnite has no stuttering or framerate issues whatsoever. kind of an odd contrast, FX processor runs overwatch well but fortnite poorly, i5 runs overwatch poorly but fortnite well, I would just chalk it up to instruction set differences probably.

 

Also, there's value to saving up. You can afford a cheap CPU now, but in a couple months from now, modern hardware might look a little more affordable.

[Tristerin]

 

Just now, fasauceome said:

Also, there's value to saving up. You can afford a cheap CPU now, but in a couple months from now, modern hardware might look a little more affordable.

THIS I can 100% agree with! 

 

When I was younger it was piece-meal my machine with the cheapest single upgrade every few months or whatever.  Now that I am older - save up and just do a single overhaul...I look back at all the wasted money on piece-meal upgrades lol

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

 

THIS I can 100% agree with! 

 

When I was younger it was piece-meal my machine with the cheapest single upgrade every few months or whatever.  Now that I am older - save up and just do a single overhaul...I look back at all the wasted money on piece-meal upgrades lol

And on top of that, when Zen 2 drops, there will probably be some cheap Ryzen 5 1400 chips floating around on eBay.

[tonymc]

According to what this site says https://thebottlenecker.com/calculator there is no bottleneck in that configuration (fx8350 + 1060), the safest thing is that everyone here recommends changing the whole system, but for so little money , is a good update. This CPU must have an equivalent performance in games to a 2nd / 3rd generation corei5 something like a 2500k, 3450,3470. I do not agree with other criteria here, that the difference will not be noticeable with the change from the FX6300 to the FX8350. If the condition is "Do not change the whole system" this decision seems right to me.

[tonymc]

4 hours ago, aezakmi said:

 

aaaaanyway, the 8350 is still somewhat relevant but I wouldn't pair it with a 1070, at least not at stock clocks, and given OP's 970 board I don't think overclocking is a good advice, 4 pin only, simple VRMs, simple northbridge cooling, try to go over 4400MHz on an 8350 on that board and you'll end up at least with a burnt power connector,....

I agree with you, Nothing overclock with the fx8350 and that motherboard, at first glance the VRM of it is not for overclock.

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, easb said:

According to what this site says https://thebottlenecker.com/calculator there is no bottleneck in that configuration (fx8350 + 1060), the safest thing is that everyone here recommends changing the whole system, but for so little money , is a good update. This CPU must have an equivalent performance in games to a 2nd / 3rd generation corei5 something like a 2500k, 3450,3470. I do not agree with other criteria here, that the difference will not be noticeable with the change from the FX6300 to the FX8350. If the condition is "Do not change the whole system" this decision seems right to me.

I own and use both an FX 8350 (2x HD 7850s in crossfire) and a i5 3470 (1x HD 7750 my living room PC)- you are correct in gaming performance that doesn't go over 4 cores/threads the i5 3470 is basically identical in performance if not a HAIR better.

 

But once you hit those multi core games the FX shines imho.  Not all titles support but Overwatch and their ilk utilize all 8 cores on my FX (and all 16 threads on my Ryzen 7) from that generation.

[MedievalMatt]

1 hour ago, notawebsite said:

Yeah you'd be 100% right with that guess lmao.

I play mostly CSGO, Destiny 2, Rainbow Six, Overwatch, and on rare occasions Fortnite. The only main games I have performance issues in are Destiny 2 Overwatch and Fortnite mostly. In CS and R6 my performance is fine but that doesn't mean much when one is an old game and the other is optimized to the point where it runs 60 fps on consoles.

 

And as a general statement to the people saying that I should stop worrying about messing up with my motherboard stuff, that isn't the only problem. If I were to upgrade my motherboard, not only would I have to then find an even more expensive CPU (and yes, I know $80 for a CPU isn't very expensive but still), I would need to buy a new motherboard, and I would need to buy 8GB of DDR4 RAM. All of that is a lot more than I have available to spend on my PC currently, and probably more than I will have in a reasonable amount of time.

 

All I'm really looking for at the moment is the ability to run the games I want to run without dropping below 60 fps to be honest.

its all subjective.  To most of the people here, the difference between a $120 CPU and a $80 is not that great.  If you only have $80, that $120 CPU might as well cost a million dollars.

 

the 8350/GTX1070 will work, but that 1070 will not fully be able to strect its legs.

 

My suggestion long term, get the 1070 now if you can afford it.  but your next upgrade should be CPU/RAM.  if you looking for budget options, a used R7 1700 would be a good pairing for the 1070.

[tonymc]

3 hours ago, Tristerin said:

I own and use both an FX 8350 (2x HD 7850s in crossfire) and a i5 3470 (1x HD 7750 my living room PC)- you are correct in gaming performance that doesn't go over 4 cores/threads the i5 3470 is basically identical in performance if not a HAIR better.

 

But once you hit those multi core games the FX shines imho.  Not all titles support but Overwatch and their ilk utilize all 8 cores on my FX (and all 16 threads on my Ryzen 7) from that generation.

It is true, it is equivalence, I mention it only to have a reference, I agree with you, in some titles one surpasses the other and in others the opposite.

[Tristerin]

14 minutes ago, easb said:

It is true, it is equivalence, I mention it only to have a reference, I agree with you, in some titles one surpasses the other and in others the opposite.

Your reference was spot on   Agreeing with you as well

[Coachdude]

If you aren't willing to upgrade your platform, then the most I'd be willing to recommend you do is to upgrade to either the 1060 or 580 depending on which one is cheaper in your region. They will both perform considerably better than the rx 560 you're currently using, but they both will be bottlenecked by your lackluster processor. It isn't worth upgrading a FX 6300 to anything supported on that platform. If you want to upgrade your processor, I would strongly suggest you upgrade to either a modern Ryzen 5 or Coffee Lake i5 series processor, as these would pair much better with mid range and upper mid range graphics cards such as the 1060-1070. But, if you're dead set on not swapping your current platform, then no, I wouldn't purchase a FX 8350 processor in 2018. It's just too outdated. A modern Ryzen quad core 2200G would perform just as well in multicore performance, and beat it out significantly when it comes to single core performance, whilst costing about the same. A genuine upgrade would be something along the lines of a Ryzen 5 2600+ or on Intel's side any of the Coffee Lake i5's. ( i5 8400+ ). That's just my two cents.

[Metallus97]

On 10/25/2018 at 12:28 AM, Coachdude said:

If you aren't willing to upgrade your platform, then the most I'd be willing to recommend you do is to upgrade to either the 1060 or 580 depending on which one is cheaper in your region. They will both perform considerably better than the rx 560 you're currently using, but they both will be bottlenecked by your lackluster processor. It isn't worth upgrading a FX 6300 to anything supported on that platform. If you want to upgrade your processor, I would strongly suggest you upgrade to either a modern Ryzen 5 or Coffee Lake i5 series processor, as these would pair much better with mid range and upper mid range graphics cards such as the 1060-1070. But, if you're dead set on not swapping your current platform, then no, I wouldn't purchase a FX 8350 processor in 2018. It's just too outdated. A modern Ryzen quad core 2200G would perform just as well in multicore performance, and beat it out significantly when it comes to single core performance, whilst costing about the same. A genuine upgrade would be something along the lines of a Ryzen 5 2600+ or on Intel's side any of the Coffee Lake i5's. ( i5 8400+ ). That's just my two cents.

Do this but go Ryzen!

save some bucks for some beer or something