Bottleneck 960 fx8320

[GrimmVoid]

Hi! I'm building a pc and i was wondering if my cpu and graphics card wont bottleneck Thanks in advance!!!
here are my specs
AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor
Zalman CNPS8900 Quiet CPU Cooler
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
EVGA GeForce GTX 960 2GB SuperSC ACX 2.0+ Video Card
Corsair 100R ATX Mid Tower Case
Corsair CX 500W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply

 

[gskill support]

Looks good, some DDR3-1866 RAM to top it off would be perfect.

 

[mlga91]

I'd get another PSU :

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-power-supply-p1550sxxb9

 

[CTurbo]

Trade the AMD cpu for an Intel cpu
Trade the nvidia gpu for an AMD gpu
Get a better psu

 

[fatboytyler]

Trade the AMD cpu for an Intel cpu
Trade the nvidia gpu for an AMD gpu
Get a better psu

None of these are needed. His selected will work just fine. Nvidia VS. AMD is a lot of preference. Grant it, AMD's new tech looks promising and its quite affordable. However, having owned 4 AMD cards and one Nvidia card, I personally prefer the Nvidia software better, but won't go wrong with either one.

I'm sick of the AMD vs Intel debate. For the the price you can't beat AMD. If you're gaming, then AMD is perfectly fine. The 8350 (which the 8320 is quite close to in performance) is equal to (or better than) i5's in gaming nowadays with new technology. I recommend Intel myself, but there is nothing wrong the the 8320, but I would recommend the few extra bucks for the 8350.

As for the PSU, it will suffice, but the CX series is Corsair's entry level/budget series PSUs. I would suggest their TX series or better. The XFX that was linked earlier would be nice too. For your setup though, there's no need to go more than 650 watt PSU tops. That will give you more than enough headroom.

 

[CTurbo]

I'm sick of the AMD vs Intel debate.

Me too. I can't believe it still exists considering how old the FX/AM3+ platform is.

None of these are needed. His selected will work just fine. Nvidia VS. AMD is a lot of preference.

Agreed, but I'm assuming this person wants the most for their money so I'm trying to help with that.

For the the price you can't beat AMD.

False. Not only would a locked i5 + H97 setup outperform that FX + 990FX setup, it would be cheaper too.

The 8350 (which the 8320 is quite close to in performance) is equal to (or better than) i5's in gaming nowadays with new technology.

No. This is not the case for 99% of the games on the market.

I recommend Intel myself, but there is nothing wrong the the 8320, but I would recommend the few extra bucks for the 8350.

I agree there is nothing "wrong" with the FX8320 or FX8350, but he/she could get more performance for cheaper by going with a locked i5 + H97.

As for the PSU, it will suffice, but the CX series is Corsair's entry level/budget series PSUs.

The Corsair CX series is not completely terrible, but why would anybody want such a mediocre psu when they can get a GREAT psu like the XFX you mentioned for just a little more. Plus the psu is like the single most important piece so it's the last thing you want to cheap out on.




And I don't recommend the GTX960 because it is way overpriced in almost every market. The R9 280 is just as good and is usually considerably cheaper especially in the US. The R9 280x is better for about the same price.

 

[fatboytyler]

Me too. I can't believe it still exists considering how old the FX/AM3+ platform is.

All I'm going to say is HBM... Just wait.

Agreed, but I'm assuming this person wants the most for their money so I'm trying to help with that.

I was just saying it isn't needed. I agree with you, the 960 is overpriced. The 280x is cheap nowadays and it handles anything you can throw at it and is what I run.

No. This is not the case for 99% of the games on the market.

Yes. Yes it is. I have seen this real world numerous times and the 8350 is very equal to an i5 in gaming. Plus, most games are starting to take advantage of more and more cores, giving AMD even more of an edge. Benchmarks may say otherwise, but then again I have never had any results even close to online benchmarks.

I agree there is nothing "wrong" with the FX8320 or FX8350, but he/she could get more performance for cheaper by going with a locked i5 + H97.

This is very debatable. It all depends on the i5 and H97. Some would be cheaper, but performance would not be as great. He could also drop to the 970 Mobo instead of the 990.

The Corsair CX series is not completely terrible, but why would anybody want such a mediocre psu when they can get a GREAT psu like the XFX you mentioned for just a little more. Plus the psu is like the single most important piece so it's the last thing you want to cheap out on.

100% agree. I was stating the CX will suffice. Its not a bad budget PSU. But the XFX is better.

 

[CTurbo]

Yes. Yes it is. I have seen this real world numerous times and the 8350 is very equal to an i5 in gaming. Plus, most games are starting to take advantage of more and more cores, giving AMD even more of an edge. Benchmarks may say otherwise, but then again I have never had any results even close to online benchmarks.

The common i3 outperforms the FX8350 in a lot of games, especially if the FX is at stock speeds. The i5 is better in almost every game. I don't believe for a second that the +3 year old FXs are going to all of a sudden start gaining on Intel. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that MOST games are starting to take advantage of more cores.



PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($176.98 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard: ASRock H97 Anniversary ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($69.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $246.97

vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($164.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($74.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $239.97

You pretty much HAVE to add an aftermarket cooler to the FX to even compete which drives the price up. That is the CHEAPEST AM3+ motherboard that is actually worth a crap. Of course you could get a cheapo 780 series board for the FX but it will run like **** and throttle all the time. You could throw the i5 in a $40 H81 motherboard and it is going to run 100%

 

[fatboytyler]

The common i3 outperforms the FX8350 in a lot of games, especially if the FX is at stock speeds. The i5 is better in almost every game. I don't believe for a second that the +3 year old FXs are going to all of a sudden start gaining on Intel. It's also a bit of a stretch to say that MOST games are starting to take advantage of more cores.

In new modern games that take full advantage of the 64 Bit architecture and multicore technology the i3 does not beat an 8350. Where are you getting this information? I've seen the 8350 at stock/turbo speeds go toe-to-toe with my overclocked i5 too many times in modern games. I'm not going by benchmarks, but rather real world comparisons and experiences.

 

[CTurbo]

In new modern games that take full advantage of the 64 Bit architecture and multicore technology the i3 does not beat an 8350.

Yes, but you are talking about a small percentage of games. MOST games still only utilize 2 cores. The i3 still does just as well in some games that utilize 4 cores.

 

[CTurbo]

Here is an example of i3 vs i5 vs AMD. You'll see even the i5 4460 is above the 5.0ghz FX9590 and a couple of i3s above the FX8350

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/test-of-cpu-for-gaming-30-cpus-compared.200132/

 

[DubbleClick]

I'm sick of the AMD vs Intel debate. For the the price you can't beat AMD.

At any budget there exist cpu's from intel that do much better in gaming than their amd counter parts. This does now even include integrated GPU gaming.

 

[fatboytyler]

Here is an example of i3 vs i5 vs AMD. You'll see even the i5 4460 is above the 5.0ghz FX9590 and a couple of i3s above the FX8350

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/test-of-cpu-for-gaming-30-cpus-compared.200132/

Thew NEW games. Those aren't new. I'm talking Battlefield Hardline, Witcher 3, etc.


@DubbleClick, APUs in the A8 and A10 range typically blow the socks off of HD graphics... Grant it the CPU is much weaker.

 

[DubbleClick]

Here is an example of i3 vs i5 vs AMD. You'll see even the i5 4460 is above the 5.0ghz FX9590 and a couple of i3s above the FX8350

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/test-of-cpu-for-gaming-30-cpus-compared.200132/

Thew NEW games. Those aren't new. I'm talking Battlefield Hardline, Witcher 3, etc.


@DubbleClick, APUs in the A8 and A10 range typically blow the socks off of HD graphics... Grant it the CPU is much weaker.

Not true anymore with the iris pro 6200. It blows any previously existing intergrated gpu out of the water.

 

[fatboytyler]

Here is an example of i3 vs i5 vs AMD. You'll see even the i5 4460 is above the 5.0ghz FX9590 and a couple of i3s above the FX8350

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/test-of-cpu-for-gaming-30-cpus-compared.200132/

Thew NEW games. Those aren't new. I'm talking Battlefield Hardline, Witcher 3, etc.


@DubbleClick, APUs in the A8 and A10 range typically blow the socks off of HD graphics... Grant it the CPU is much weaker.

Not true anymore with the iris pro 6200. It blows any previously existing intergrated gpu out of the water.

I've seen Iris Pro compared to an A10 in person before and the A10 won hands down graphically. Besides, in the coming year Intel is about to get their work cutout for them with AMD's HBM technology.

 

[DubbleClick]

You may have not taken a good look then, as the iris pro beats A10 APU's by 30-100% - usually closer to 100%.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

 

[fatboytyler]

You may have not taken a good look then, as the iris pro beats A10 APU's by 30-100% - usually closer to 100%.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

You also realize how expensive they are? The laptops will be similarly priced to mine, but at that cost I'll take my 970m over integrated any day of the week. The desktops are pointless, because you can still get way better performance gaming wise with a entry level discrete card. I'm not arguing this anymore because I don't/won't use an APU/Inegrated chipset. And chances are if you are trying to go with an integrated chipset you're on a budget in which AMD will win 10/10 times. Now if you're just trying to build a little Mini PC and have a good budget, then by all means go for it.

 

[DubbleClick]

And chances are if you are trying to go with an integrated chipset you're on a budget in which AMD will win 10/10 times.

I just prove that this is not the case. At ANY budget point, anywhere from $70 to $1000 there exist intel cpus doing better than amd cpus. This is currently the case, there's no denying. You can "not want to talk about it anymore" as much as you want, it doesn't change facts.
AMD has great budget cpus for rendering or entry workstations, but saying they have any use for gaming is just denying facts.

 

[fatboytyler]

And chances are if you are trying to go with an integrated chipset you're on a budget in which AMD will win 10/10 times.

I just prove that this is not the case. At ANY budget point, anywhere from $70 to $1000 there exist intel cpus doing better than amd cpus. This is currently the case, there's no denying. You can "not want to talk about it anymore" as much as you want, it doesn't change facts.
AMD has great budget cpus for rendering or entry workstations, but saying they have any use for gaming is just denying facts.

Are you kidding me? Where are you getting these facts? Your closing statement is just pure ignorance. The 8350 and 4690k go toe-to-toe in gaming benchmarks. Look it up. THESE are FACTS. Guess what else is a fact? The 8350 is much cheaper than the 4690k. You know what else is a fact? Quality AMD motherboards are much cheaper than quality Z series boards for Intel. Take your Intel fanboyism elsewhere because you are spreading false information. Before you try to call me an AMD fanboy I run Intel and prefer Intel. I'm just stating facts, because you are spewing false knowledge.

EDIT: I don't suggest anything below the FX 8xxx series. Although I have done a 6000 series build for a friend and it does phenomenal for his gaming purposes. I understand and agree that there are better Intel counterparts for most price points. But at the 4690k price of $220-230 and the 8350 price point of $160-180.... I mean save $60 and get MAYBE 5% less performance in gaming?

 

[DubbleClick]

Are you kidding me? Where are you getting these facts? Your closing statement is just pure ignorance. The 8350 and 4690k go toe-to-toe in gaming benchmarks. Look it up. THESE are FACTS.

Lol, discussion ends here. I don't know where you get your facts from, but it must be your ass.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/5
http://www.tomshardware.de/fx-8350-vishera-review-Benchmarks-Test,testberichte-241128-14.html

A fx 8350 doesn't even get close to the gaming performance of an i5 4460 on a board as low as $30. It can't even strike even with 3 generation old sandy bridge i5's.

As for motherboards, yes, it might look like that on first view, however, compare what you get with z97 boards to what you get with amd 990fx boards - the former yielding a lot more. M.2, Sata-E, Pcie gen 3, usb 3.1, etc, etc, etc. Also, a $120 z97 board is very well capable driving an i7 4790k to it's overclocking limits. With the fx 8350, a $120 board won't do - you can try, but will likely just burn the vrm's.