FX 8350 with R9 390 (will it bootleneck?)

lionheart051

Reputable
Sep 28, 2014
14
0
4,510
0
So will this cpu bottleneck a R9 390 gpu? I think i read somewhere, some time back it's ok with a R9 290x but since the R9 390 is a newer card i was wondering if this cpu will cause a bottleneck.
 
No, it won't bottleneck.

Intel i5 and i7 and also FX 6300 and 8300 series CPUs won't bottleneck a single high end GPU in modern, multi-threaded games.

They also won't bottleneck most 2nd tier Crossfire/SLI setups either, such as R9 280 / HD 7950.

FX 6300 with dual R9 390 or GTX 980ti will start to have a bottleneck in some games.


Example: I had an old Phenom II x6 1090T @ 4.0GHz that would fully load both of my HD 7950 GHz ed. (R9 280) in crossfire with Crysis 3 on max details except for 2x SMAA (* Tom's recommended AA mode for best performance/appearance balance). CPU would be around 90-95% usage on all 6 cores. GPUs would both be at 95-99% usage. No bottleneck, well balanced, average FPS in the 50s.

Midrange OC of 4.4-4.6GHz on FX 6300 or 8350 will be plenty to handle pretty much any single GPU.
 

g1abhi

Honorable
Ambassador
Jun 13, 2015
958
0
11,360
122
OFcourse it will .
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2688169/motherboard-holding-back-hardware.html
This guys problem is your solution, he is getting noticable spikes due to 8350 coupled with a gtx 970.

And its just ok , not the best pairing. and neither is the choice of a r9 390 which is a mere renaming. read 300 series reviewed on tomshardware homepage . you will know that switching to a gtx 970 is the better choice. Also SLI is more refined then crossfire. Nvidia is working their asses off optimizing games , while amd is slacking these days.
 
No, it won't bottleneck.

Intel i5 and i7 and also FX 6300 and 8300 series CPUs won't bottleneck a single high end GPU in modern, multi-threaded games.

They also won't bottleneck most 2nd tier Crossfire/SLI setups either, such as R9 280 / HD 7950.

FX 6300 with dual R9 390 or GTX 980ti will start to have a bottleneck in some games.


Example: I had an old Phenom II x6 1090T @ 4.0GHz that would fully load both of my HD 7950 GHz ed. (R9 280) in crossfire with Crysis 3 on max details except for 2x SMAA (* Tom's recommended AA mode for best performance/appearance balance). CPU would be around 90-95% usage on all 6 cores. GPUs would both be at 95-99% usage. No bottleneck, well balanced, average FPS in the 50s.

Midrange OC of 4.4-4.6GHz on FX 6300 or 8350 will be plenty to handle pretty much any single GPU.
 

lionheart051

Reputable
Sep 28, 2014
14
0
4,510
0

I asked for an answer, not your bias fanboyism. The r9 390 has already destroyed the GTX 970 and GTX 980 (in some benchmarks). So don't come at me with foolishness. The guy in the thread is complaining about his mobo not his cpu, his mobo is the problem. Stop letting your fanboyism cause you to give bad advice, i might not be a pro but i know a little about computer hardware (enough to detect foolishness). Your kind of advice is dangerous to people who are new at this sort of stuff and the reason why some people don't want to ask quests on Tom's Hardware.

I usually don't respond to these kinds of posts but I'm tired of guys like you spreading misinformation and foolishness because of you blind fanboyism. Stop it!
 

g1abhi

Honorable
Ambassador
Jun 13, 2015
958
0
11,360
122

LOL , show me a real game benchmark in which it has even touched the performance of a 970 . You are living in an illusion. PLz read articles on tomshardware before declaring people fanboys
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,4178-6.html
Even the r9 390X is destroyed by a gtx 980. And you say the r9 380 is oh so goooooood. I detect foolishness and fanboyism in your post dude.
 
No need to start an argument over nothing. Modern graphics cards are all fast enough to give you playable framerates, a difference of 5, 10, 15 FPS is basically non existent because it's not enough to even make a noticeable performance increase with these high end cards, which is what matters the most.
 

g1abhi

Honorable
Ambassador
Jun 13, 2015
958
0
11,360
122
The only time it performs better than a 970 is for games part of the gaming evolved campaign. I agree nvidia is at a disadvantage at high res gaming and in future it may surpass 970 due to its higher vram. but if you have 4k displays then you wont buy such measly cards .
p.s. not here to argue , i get your point now , just considering it a discussion. Its just that these days amd is not optimizing their games well (gta v in my case , for which i need to buy a new system) . hence more inclined towards nvidia now. 2 years back they were a better choice , every game was literally under amd ge campaign.
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
229
It does bottleneck a r9 290, therefore it bottlenecks a r9 390. Yes, you'll still get playable performance, but an (I3/)I5/I7 will give better results. This is shown by any and every review google search lets you find. There is currently no amd cpu that doesn't noticeably holds back high end gpus.

Anyone claiming there won't be a bottleneck does either not understand the word, has no knowledge on this area (didn't read benchmarks and/or has no idea by what it's caused) or is simply straight out denying facts (fanboy).
 


5-10 FPS compared to say, an i7-4790k =/= "bottleneck." A "bottleneck" would mean that there is a MASSIVE performance hit compared to a comparable component (say, an i5). For instance, a first-gen i5 coupled with a GTX 980.

The 8350 can hold its own at 50+ FPS in almost every game out there on a decent graphics card.
 

IamTimTech

Admirable
Oct 13, 2014
1,686
0
6,160
158


You're misinformed and you're biased. Don't even know where to begin.
 

g1abhi

Honorable
Ambassador
Jun 13, 2015
958
0
11,360
122


Actually bottleneck means , unable to let other components perform to their maximum. If you can replace that part with another and obtain better performance , then YES that part is bottlenecking it , whether you accept it or not. It doesnot matter how much amount , and by that definition even an i5 bottlenecks the GPU when compared to a i7 oced.
 

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
229
Exactly, even I5's and I7's do bottleneck high end gpus in a few situations, although the difference between an I7 4790k and an I7 5960x @ 4.4ghz is usually very small, below 5%. The difference between a fx 8350 and an I7 4790k on the other hand is around 20-30% on average, higher on ftv and stutters.

So even if you'd like to call minor differences "measuring inaccuracy", a fx 8350 would still absolutely bottleneck a r9 390 in the majority of titles.

 

BombTech4

Reputable
Jun 28, 2015
1
0
4,510
0


The average gamer will ALWAYS have a bottleneck somewhere in their system. If you are like 99% of PC gamers who buy parts based on a specified budget, you can't get around it. Everyone wants to whine and complain about bottlenecking something, when the average user won't even noticed the subtle difference. Like the other guy said, a true bottleneck is when you pair a drastically lower end something with a drastically higher end something. The way you explained it, the subtle differences in electrons passing through the motherboard can be considered a bottleneck (which is technically true, but obviously not noticeable). Short of buying every high end component brand new every 6 months, you just can't get around it (even then I don't think you can if you go by the technical definition). Here's an idea, stop telling people they are bottlenecking unless they are truly going to surpass the limitations of a component. And if you don't really know what the true limitations are, then put your fanboyism aside and stop regretting the ridiculous cost of your Intel components that are still... gasp... bottlenecked by definition.

 

partiesplayin

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2013
90
0
18,630
0
the fx 8350 will diffently bottleneck 2 high end cards such as two 290x's or two 780ti or 980ti's . My fx was bottlenecking my cards 980ti's and holding them back because the ability of the cpu to render physics was just too low.
 

g1abhi

Honorable
Ambassador
Jun 13, 2015
958
0
11,360
122

Another Crybaby comes. Go read my posts, you noob. I havent even once mentioned buying intel processor. It is people like you who are really promoting fanboyism. Just go buy a console and dont bother people for amd vs intel when the discussion was for a gfx card.
 

gab_th

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2010
247
0
18,710
7


The 980 is definitely a beast and I would hesitate to compare it with the R9 390, but to be honest, the 970 is comparable to it, and I think the 390 wins out. I don't know if you have already, but take a look at this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-nitro-r9-390-8g-d5,4245.html

They're more or less on par, with the 390 being slightly above in most games, GTA V being more noticeable, so I would be more inclined toward getting the 390, and if I could find it for cheaper then it would be an absolute no-brainer.

I think it's a situation similar to the 960 vs r9 280. The 280 is SLIGHTLY (DISCLAIMER: SLIGTLY) more powerful in most games, and despite that, the 960 is SLIGHTLY more expensive.

 

Bem-xxx

Reputable
Sep 20, 2015
163
0
4,710
12


FX won't bottleneck anything.



 

ddog

Reputable
Oct 11, 2014
44
0
4,540
2
I have been using an AMD 8350 paired with a Gigabyte R9 390 for about 3-4 months now, and haven't had any issues to run some of the more demanding games. Almost all games that I have run are in the 60fps range maxed out. I use a 1080p 60Hz monitor and have to turn on vsync for most of the games to stop screen tearing.

Just to give some examples at max settings, Far Cry 4 runs at 60 fps and over, Metro series at around 60fps, MK X at 60fps, MGS5 60fps while Crysis 3 manages 30 - 40s fps and is completely smooth and playable.

The only problems I encountered so far were dying light and Evolve. Dying light runs like crap on max settings, though from research this game seems to not run properly on AMD GPUs. Evolve on the other hand runs at 60fps on max settings but there are some instances when I noticed a slight "stick" with a dip in the fps for like 1 ms then it continues on smoothly at 60fps. Sure enough using msi afterburner shows that there is a bottleneck in THIS particular game with the 8350 being at 100% utilization with the GPU at 35 to 40% utilization, however it is completely playable to me. But comparing Evolve to the likes of FarCry 4 I will assume this was just bad optimization.

I have run a lot more games on it that I didn't mention, that all ran flawlessly. Based on first hand experience I can recommend this setup.
 

Eyeball07

Reputable
Oct 11, 2014
51
0
4,630
0


Sorry to revive this thread, but you're saying that an FX-6300 won't bottleneck an R9 390. I currently own an FX-6300 (clocked at 4.9 GHz) and an R9 390, and I'm getting bottlenecked out the ass. In BF4, my CPU utilization goes up to 95% and I'll get 48fps (not always, but it's ridiculous that it would go below 60fps at 1080p).
I need to upgrade my CPU, so should I go with an FX-8350/8320? I don't want to be stuck in this same situation.
 

gab_th

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2010
247
0
18,710
7


If you're unwilling/can't afford a change of mobo+ CPU to an i5, then FX-8350 is the way to go for you. The i5 is the best CPU for gaming currently, but the FX-8350 is still a very powerful one, and luckily uses the same socket as the FX-6300.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS