FX 8350 with R9 390 (will it bootleneck?)

[lionheart051]

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.

 

[g1abhi]

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.

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.

You are at the wrong place buddy. I told them in the first post about this. Btw getting an 8320 is a good option if you are on tight budget . Else I would recommend to go for skylake processors , which will serve you much longer than an 8350/8320 without need of upgrade. You can get a second hand AMD cpu . Buying a new 8350 is not really value for money right now , since you will have to upgrade sooner. Its already 3 years old.

 

[g1abhi]

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.

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!

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.

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.

Well i agree with that , no one could have said it better. My post might seem biased , but the truth is in my country a 390 costed 50% (YES 50% ) more than a 970 so thats a pretty good reason to be.

 

[gab_th]

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.

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!

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.

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.

Well i agree with that , no one could have said it better. My post might seem biased , but the truth is in my country a 390 costed 50% (YES 50% ) more than a 970 so thats a pretty good reason to be.

The difference in performance is rather slight, so going for the cheaper option is reasonable. What country is that, BTW? I've never seen Nvidia products priced cheaper than AMD in Newegg, Amazon, etc.

 

[superstition]

All CPUs bottleneck high-performance GPUs generally somewhat. If you want minimal bottleneck get the fastest Skylake i7.

Or, you can (if you have the right equipment) overclock your FX chip to 4.6 GHz or so (with APM off). It won't be as fast as the i7 but it's cheaper and should be fine for most games. You can get an 8 core FX for $100 at Microcenter and get $40 off a board. All 8 core FX chips should overclock to 4.5 GHz, at least, with decent voltages. But you will need a board with at least a 4 doubled phases digital VRM and a fan blowing onto the VRM sink.

Interestingly enough, in some games at 4K with two GPU setups, AMD FX chips can outperform a $1000 Haswell or be right with it. I suppose it's because such scenarios are more GPU-bound. Lower resolutions tend to magnify the differences in CPU performance.

 

[Negativelead]

I have a 390x with an 8350. I don't really see any lag or screen tear when I run my games. But.........when I bench them the number are not all that impressive. I benched ACU at around 45 fps today.

So I really think bombtech4 made an intelligent post. The history of PC 's(Consumer and otherwise) has consisted of moving a bottleneck from one place in the system to another. Technically speaking the PCI Bus can bottleneck your GPU. But will you have sufficient game play. Yes! Will you notice any real world detriment. Not really.

So you'll be ok. But a lot of it is going to be psychological. If you constantly think about the bottleneck you may be more apt to notice it. But if you want to enjoy your games and just have fun you have a very comparable system

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

Hello,

"Lag" is frame times, and screen tear is because a display has a static refresh rate, GPU's don't. Both of which don't depend on what GPU brand you're using, one GPU isn't going to have less consistent frame times because it's NVIDIA, that's how well they optimise games, nor is it going to reduce screen tearing. Bottleneck however, FX CPU's are definetely bottlenecking even mid end GPU's, especially in MMO's, I own FX...


All the best!

 

[superstition]

MMOs are bottlenecking FX because they aren't threaded worth a darn. If you spend a lot of time with them you may want to switch your BIOS to "one core per module" and overclock the heck out of the CPU to increase single thread performance.

 

[assassin445522]

you WILL experience FPS drops in most games except AMD (8 core)optimized games and in non CPU intensive games just warning you, if u got a decent i5 you would get a more stable FPS i know this from experience no AMD or INTEL fanboys try to tell me otherwise
you WILL bottleneck in games that only use 2 cores and require CPU power in certain modes like Starcraft2 4v4 matches minecraft servers if you use Graphical mods etc...

Tip obviously OC if you can and unpark your cores if your running an OS that doesn't un park them by itself un parking cores if your skilled enough at OC'ing you will have amazing performance

 

[Negativelead]

Hello,

"Lag" is frame times, and screen tear is because a display has a static refresh rate, GPU's don't. Both of which don't depend on what GPU brand you're using, one GPU isn't going to have less consistent frame times because it's NVIDIA, that's how well they optimise games, nor is it going to reduce screen tearing. Bottleneck however, FX CPU's are definetely bottlenecking even mid end GPU's, especially in MMO's, I own FX...


So I'm just asking here; are frame times handled exclusively by the CPU?

Would you be kind enough to distinguish between Frame times and FPS?

 

[Negativelead]

Every time someone posts this question it becomes a hotbed of activity. I'm not going to act like my knowledge level is higher than it is, but I find it interesting that there is still so much debate over the issue.

Does anyone know of a web site were you can compare all the bench marks given the different pairs of GPU's and CPU's?
The data really should have put this topic to bed by now. But I'll have to admit, owning a 8350 myself, I see all the data out there and anything Sandy or IVY usually beats the 8350 (there's always one game that comes along though) But I can't say that I've seen the i5 blow it out of the water?

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

I wrote that just to make it clear that NVIDIA doesn't run better than AMD, in games when it comes to "lag". Some games are optimised some aren't. With that said, in the past, it did matter what GPU you were using, though not as much anymore. As far as bottlenecks are concerned, even older Intels' beat AMD's FX lineup, it's just so weak in certain situations. Yes, people get upset about that, but for those that look at the real performance, leaving brands out of it, it's not hard to tell how much better Intel currently is/was. The flame wars are mostly caused by people that intentionally want to start them, not because they're trying to prove that FX is better, from what I've learned anyways.

 

[Negativelead]

I wrote that just to make it clear that NVIDIA doesn't run better than AMD, in games when it comes to "lag". Some games are optimised some aren't. With that said, in the past, it did matter what GPU you were using, though not as much anymore. As far as bottlenecks are concerned, even older Intels' beat AMD's FX lineup, it's just so weak in certain situations. Yes, people get upset about that, but for those that look at the real performance, leaving brands out of it, it's not hard to tell how much better Intel currently is/was. The flame wars are mostly caused by people that intentionally want to start them, not because they're trying to prove that FX is better, from what I've learned anyways.

So whats a good site to look a bench marks?
I just wonder because I'm really on the verge of breaking down and throwing another 600$ at the tower with an i7 6700k and a VIII Hero board. But it's kind of hard to do because so far the couple games I've played on my new 390x run flawlessly- you know. So if the numbers are marginal I may have a hard time sleeping at night.
Maybe I'm just an idiot that needs to spend money, but I cant help wanting the best machine. I already know what I'm going to end up doing, I'm just trying to coerce people and to talking me into it so I can mentally justify it.

 

[Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163]

I wrote that just to make it clear that NVIDIA doesn't run better than AMD, in games when it comes to "lag". Some games are optimised some aren't. With that said, in the past, it did matter what GPU you were using, though not as much anymore. As far as bottlenecks are concerned, even older Intels' beat AMD's FX lineup, it's just so weak in certain situations. Yes, people get upset about that, but for those that look at the real performance, leaving brands out of it, it's not hard to tell how much better Intel currently is/was. The flame wars are mostly caused by people that intentionally want to start them, not because they're trying to prove that FX is better, from what I've learned anyways.

so far the couple games I've played on my new 390x run flawlessly

Nothing else matters. You're overthinking this.

 

[Negativelead]

I wrote that just to make it clear that NVIDIA doesn't run better than AMD, in games when it comes to "lag". Some games are optimised some aren't. With that said, in the past, it did matter what GPU you were using, though not as much anymore. As far as bottlenecks are concerned, even older Intels' beat AMD's FX lineup, it's just so weak in certain situations. Yes, people get upset about that, but for those that look at the real performance, leaving brands out of it, it's not hard to tell how much better Intel currently is/was. The flame wars are mostly caused by people that intentionally want to start them, not because they're trying to prove that FX is better, from what I've learned anyways.

so far the couple games I've played on my new 390x run flawlessly

Ahh!! you didn't say what I was trying to coerce you into saying Suzuki
But you really are right. That is practically the same thing I was telling the OP in my first post.
But you did explain something I have been asking many too for sometime now. What Screen tear actually was.

Nothing else matters. You're overthinking this.

 

[g1abhi]

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.

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!

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.

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.

Well i agree with that , no one could have said it better. My post might seem biased , but the truth is in my country a 390 costed 50% (YES 50% ) more than a 970 so thats a pretty good reason to be.

The difference in performance is rather slight, so going for the cheaper option is reasonable. What country is that, BTW? I've never seen Nvidia products priced cheaper than AMD in Newegg, Amazon, etc.

India

 

[The Giant]

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.

BS Benchmark results are mostly or the same OR 15-20 FPS HIGHER than the 970

 

[Negativelead]

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.

BS Benchmark results are mostly or the same OR 15-20 FPS HIGHER than the 970

True. Many of the Bench Marks I reviewed showed the 390x right up there with the 980.

 

[joeyd921]

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.

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!

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.

 

[joeyd921]

Why is it when I come to this site, as soon as I'm here my laptop lags and the CPU fan kicks into high gear. This isnt a bad laptop, 8gigs of ddr3, amd a8 APU. A fucking thread shouldnt be causing my computer to lag. It must be all the god damn advertisements. Its aggravating. Anyone else have this issue?

 

[gab_th]

Why is it when I come to this site, as soon as I'm here my laptop lags and the CPU fan kicks into high gear. This isnt a bad laptop, 8gigs of ddr3, amd a8 APU. A fucking thread shouldnt be causing my computer to lag. It must be all the god damn advertisements. Its aggravating. Anyone else have this issue?

I don't have it, but you might be better off starting a new thread for that.

 

[Sharptooth]

A little late but, I'm running a FX-6300 OC to 4.5ghz on air @1.3x Vlt. It's paired with a Power Color 390x with 0 bottleneck issues Even with Ark Survival Evolved "Terribly optimized game atm". Witcher 3 runs above 60fps also no bottle neck albeit with Hair works off. BF4 is in the 3 digit FPS range no BN. So in my personal experience the 6300 has performed just fine. Many other games in the list that have been fine.

 

[assassin445522]

A little late but, I'm running a FX-6300 OC to 4.5ghz on air @1.3x Vlt. It's paired with a Power Color 390x with 0 bottleneck issues Even with Ark Survival Evolved "Terribly optimized game atm". Witcher 3 runs above 60fps also no bottle neck albeit with Hair works off. BF4 is in the 3 digit FPS range no BN. So in my personal experience the 6300 has performed just fine. Many other games in the list that have been fine.

Try playing SC2 on 4v4 or planetside 2 in a big battle, BF4 is "AMD" optimized (aka it just uses 8 cores)
Have you played any CPU intensive games besides BF4? Just a question not fanboyism btw

 

[Sharptooth]

I've played plenty of the Starcraft 2 series. Recently just played a 2v2 match with a buddy a few hours ago. I've never played planetside though. I'll make a short list of what I remember off hand. Dying Light,Helldivers,Ark Survival Evolved,Arma,BF4,Assasins Creed "multiple ones", Borderlands Pre Sequel, Witcher 3,2 ,1,Warframe,Sins of the solar empire,Tera,Aion,Wow,Warframe,Starbound,Eve Online,Dead Island both,Tomb Raider,Shadows of Mordor "with HD pack",New Battlefront,MGS FP. More probably but thats offhand what I remember.

 

[assassin445522]

I've played plenty of the Starcraft 2 series. Recently just played a 2v2 match with a buddy a few hours ago. I've never played planetside though. I'll make a short list of what I remember off hand. Dying Light,Helldivers,Ark Survival Evolved,Arma,BF4,Assasins Creed "multiple ones", Borderlands Pre Sequel, Witcher 3,2 ,1,Warframe,Sins of the solar empire,Tera,Aion,Wow,Warframe,Starbound,Eve Online,Dead Island both,Tomb Raider,Shadows of Mordor "with HD pack",New Battlefront,MGS FP. More probably but thats offhand what I remember.

Ok thanks, I have an fx 4130 non OC'ed but it has massive stuttering in 64 player rush in bf4 (understandable lol) and in 4v4 in starcraft 2, i have actually been limited by this CPU and have been stuck in lower leagues because my framerate dips in important battles and i cannot micro manage everything correctly (even in some 1v1 or 2v2 matches), i recently got an i7 4790k lol, Quite an upgrade i think lolol no more stuttering for me.

I dont think the OP's build will bottlekneck, ever but it could suffer frame rate drops in extremely CPU intensive game modes but for BF4 its ultra smooth

 

[Sharptooth]

Yea that CPU is a beast congrats man! I agree, the fx 6xxx+ series is definitely slower in comparison to high end Intel's out there. But with a nice OC at least in my system, it runs everything so far flawlessly.