AMD FX 8320 Will Bottleneck One GTX 970 ?

[blithe]

AMD FX 8320 4.1 OC Will Bottleneck One GTX 970 ?

Here is my BF4 Gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5RYdJWAqkI
3D Mark Fire Strike : http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3653401

Full Rig:

ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 | AMD FX X8 8320 @ 4.1 GHZ OC - Cooler Master HYPER LGA | GSKILL 8gb (2X4GB) RipjawsX DDR3 1600 | Evga GTX 970 SuperClock ACX 2.0 | Corsair 120 GB SSD | Seagate 3.5" 1TB Barracuda | Cooler Master G750M 80Plus 750w | Zalman Z3 Plus MidT ATX

 

[TopLuca]

Per core performance isn't everything , if you think that's the case then the intel i5-4460 beats the more expensive Xeon E5-2697 v2 .

Every CPU is unique , so are apps , some are single threaded and other are multithreaded.

In gaming IPC and per core performance is make or break and means everything.

That's not true , not all games are single threaded.

The per core performance for something like a G3258 is much superior than the athlon x4 750K yet the 750K beats the 3258 in some cases ( single threaded games ).

 

[AHBman]

Please stop debate, each side have solids arguments : singlecore performance and efficiency with Intel, general performace and price with AMD

Conviniently to budget and needs for people, each side can be a solution

 

[TopLuca]

Tek Syndicate is a very known youtuber , he tests it and have fun : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Jayztwocents : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8

In conclusion , what matters the most is price to performance.

 

[TopLuca]

Please stop debate, each side have solids arguments : singlecore performance and efficiency with Intel, general performace and price with AMD

Conviniently to budget and needs for people, each side can be a solution

The main topic is bottlenecking and yet the benchmarks I provided says otherwise , it's not just one -two benchmarks , its 6 benchmarks for different games and with different GPUs and what's apparent is that Intel performs better ( thanks to its superior single threaded performance ) with mainstream gpus and high end ones however the FX performs well too .

When it comes to Multigpus Intel dominates AMD ( not in every case ) , however the OP's case is the first case.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html ( exceptions to the 2nd rule ).

 

[TopLuca]

Per core performance isn't everything , if you think that's the case then the intel i5-4460 beats the more expensive Xeon E5-2697 v2 .

Every CPU is unique , so are apps , some are single threaded and other are multithreaded.

In gaming IPC and per core performance is make or break and means everything.

That's not true , not all games are single threaded.

The per core performance for something like a G3258 is much superior than the athlon x4 750K yet the 750K beats the 3258 in some cases ( single threaded games ).

LOL the i5 4960K will still be more powerful than an AMD 8 core using all 8 threads because of once again IPC and per core performance. Athlon II x4 750K is not faster in any game and never beats out the G3258 LOL nice try spreading false info.

Here's some False info : http://gyazo.com/ba01a8ce9db944fee65a69f732d5d7c1

only true to oppose my opinion , if you oppose my integrity then the case would be different.

The mods here don't appreciate stuff like that.

 

[TopLuca]

It seems that Link doesn't read my comments , Yes the intel beats AMD but by how much and is the price to performance on Intel higher ? no.

Understand what the other guy is saying not just arguing for the sake of argument.

N.B : I run intel too but not because AMD is bad , because they don't suit my needs.

 

[TopLuca]

Please stop debate, each side have solids arguments : singlecore performance and efficiency with Intel, general performace and price with AMD

Conviniently to budget and needs for people, each side can be a solution

The main topic is bottlenecking and yet the benchmarks I provided says otherwise , it's not just one -two benchmarks , its 6 benchmarks for different games and with different GPUs and what's apparent is that Intel performs better ( thanks to its superior single threaded performance ) with mainstream gpus and high end ones however the FX performs well too .

When it comes to Multigpus Intel dominates AMD ( not in every case ) , however the OP's case is the first case.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html ( exceptions to the 2nd rule ).

Your benchmarks are offline and do not show minimum frame rates were AMD is weak. I don't know why you guy's think AMD is so good when it is not. I spent money on Intel because they are better and I did my research for years.

Clearly they are offline and doesn't show minimum FPS yet I provided this

Yes the minimum fps on intel's side is better but the game is unoptimized for AMD platforms.

Also the AVG FPS , you should not makes lots of difference as if they stuttered all the way then the avg would be much lower.

Why don't you start showing us your benchmarks ?

 

[TopLuca]

I don't like your Sarcasm , read carefully before you comment .

Minimum FPS :

Clearly competing with an i3.

Has the Highest Minimum FPS here too ( with 980 SLI ) .

 

[toms0033]

My current rig is an FX 8350 at stock with a GTX 980. I play BF 4 almost exclusively, and have never experienced the "bottleneck" described regardless of the number of people in a server. Hell the CPU rarely breaks 25% usage even under the heaviest game load. Meanwhile, i'm pumping an average 95 - 140 FPS @ 1440p with a custom mix of medium - ultra video settings. Could you experience some issues with older, single threaded games?!?! Maybe. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is busting out the wallet for an Intel setup worth it at this point? I cannot answer that question for you, but may i suggest getting the graphics card first, trying it and then making a decision based off the results your experiencing. You're current 8320 will probably do just fine, especially if all you're doing with it is gaming, word processing and surfing the web.

 

[TopLuca]

He said they are better gaming processors , which is true and if you read my comments you'll understand that I admit they are superior in gaming however with that being said The 8320 will only bottleneck slightly and its not going to be a major issue ( which I've said since my first comment ) .

 

[AHBman]

We didn't say the contrary
We said that AMD is fine for budget gaming, and bottleneck are not an issue all the time

In somes situations, going with AMD can be better

i5 4460 (180$) + R9 280X (210$) = 390$
FX 8320 (140$) + R9 290 (250$) = 390$
Boards :
GB 970A UD3P = 75$
GB H97 HD3 = 75$

FX 8320 + R9 290 > i5 4460 + R9 280X

 

[toms0033]

I don't like your Sarcasm , read carefully before you comment .

To answer the thread yes the 8320 will bottleneck a 970.

As said by Moderator Tradesman1 in regards to Intel vs AMD FX 8350 "Amd simply falls far behind Intel in single core performance, even the 4690K (or 4670K or even 3570K) are better gaming performers."
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2456361/intel-4790k-amd-8350-gaming.html

I believe the more appropriate question / answer here is:
Will the GTX 970 preform at its absolute best performance with an FX 8320 Overclocked to 4+Ghz? No, the benchmarks most likely don't lie, however the positives of replacing the current graphics card with a GTX 970 will far out way the bottleneck. Again, get the graphics card, try it, and reevaluate the current system after getting a few hours of play time in.

 

[TopLuca]

He said they are better gaming processors , which is true and if you read my comments you'll understand that I admit they are superior in gaming however with that being said The 8320 will only bottleneck slightly and its not going to be a major issue ( which I've said since my first comment ) .

This is a thread in regards to gaming performance. Intel is better. FX chips will let you down consistently when wanting to play some of your favorite games and new ones you are looking forward to.

I don't think you get what me and AHBman are saying . You're saying something irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[toms0033]

AMD FX 8320 4.1 OC Will Bottleneck One GTX 970 ?

Here is my BF4 Gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5RYdJWAqkI
3D Mark Fire Strike : http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3653401

Full Rig:

ASUS M5A97 EVO R2.0 | AMD FX X8 8320 @ 4.1 GHZ OC - Cooler Master HYPER LGA | GSKILL 8gb (2X4GB) RipjawsX DDR3 1600 | Evga GTX 970 SuperClock ACX 2.0 | Corsair 120 GB SSD | Seagate 3.5" 1TB Barracuda | Cooler Master G750M 80Plus 750w | Zalman Z3 Plus MidT ATX

Well, since you already have the card, and your frames seemed to hover in the mid 90s with all video settings cranked to the max what do you think? Do you think you'll have a better gaming experience? I honestly don't think you're going to see an improvement in actual game play. Especially at 1080p / 60hz.

So, to answer your thread, is the CPU bottle necking your GPU? yah a little, but your frame rate is averaging north of 90fps, so your monitor @ a 60hz. refresh rate is seeing more frames per second than it can process anyway. IMO it's not worth being too concerned about any bottle necking issues you may be experiencing at this point in time. if you're planning to step up to a higher resolution & or higher refresh rate monitor, then a CPU / MoBo upgrade may be warranted.

On the other hand, if your looking for an excuse to upgrade, then YES it's bottle necking your GPU and you'll see a performance improvement by upgrading, so go for it 😀

 

[M0kujin]

Intel will bottleneck your budget, so go for an 8320 with a better graphics card, don't worry you wont see the difference when gaming..

 

[toms0033]

I don't like your Sarcasm , read carefully before you comment .

To answer the thread yes the 8320 will bottleneck a 970.

As said by Moderator Tradesman1 in regards to Intel vs AMD FX 8350 "Amd simply falls far behind Intel in single core performance, even the 4690K (or 4670K or even 3570K) are better gaming performers."
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2456361/intel-4790k-amd-8350-gaming.html

I believe the more appropriate question / answer here is:
Will the GTX 970 preform at its absolute best performance with an FX 8320 Overclocked to 4+Ghz? No, the benchmarks most likely don't lie, however the positives of replacing the current graphics card with a GTX 970 will far out way the bottleneck. Again, get the graphics card, try it, and reevaluate the current system after getting a few hours of play time in.

I rather a CPU I don't have to worry about weather or not it's going to get bottlenecked by a game engine or weather it straight up has the power to drive a GPU or not. That's why I went with Intel this time around.

I agree, and if I were building a high performance gaming system from the ground up right now, AMD would loose out to Intel. The latest gen Haswell - E series is rather impressive (to bad DDR4 memory is so expensive ). That being said, AMD FX 8320 and up are still very capable. To prove that point the author of this POST also provided 3-D mark scores and a short streaming video playing BF-4, in which their frames seldom dipped below 90 FPS and seemed to average near 95FPS with maxed out settings. They are using a 1080p / 60 Hz monitor. Quite frankly, unless they decide to upgrade to a high refresh rate and/or 1440p+ monitor this debate really won't help them (IMO Pumping more frames to a 60 Hz monitor is not going to improve matters, and if anything may make screen tearing worse.) So, is their current system being bottle necked by the installed CPU, yep, will it matter for improved game play, probably not with their current monitor configuration. Is my opinion incorrect? If it is, please let me know.