What AMD processors don't bottleneck an r9 290x?

[Jack Field]

I am creating this thread to ask for a list of AMD processors that are powerful enough to run 1 r9 290x. If possible can you list the AMD processors in price order.

Thanks.

 

[gloryofthesky]

Your asking if a CPU is powerful enough to run a graphics card? I believe you mean on the same performance level of your GPU while playing games? Pretty much every AMD CPU will support your graphics card, but performance is a different story.

 

[DubbleClick]

All will bottleneck, even the fx 9590. You're better off with an I5.

 

[gloryofthesky]

All will bottleneck, even the fx 9590. You're better off with an I5.

Why would you say that? AMD has some nice mid range CPU's that can handle a 290x? Yes, intel makes good processor, and yes, better than AMD. But I don't believe AMD will bottleneck his GPU.

Also, he probably has an AMD socket, and not an intel one, so it wouldn't matter unless he wants to replace his motherboard which is a pain for little performance gain.

 

[ak47jar3d]

+1 dubbleclick

The per core performance of amd processors at the moment will cause some bottlenecking on even the best fx chips. At the minimum, I would use a 290x with anything less than a fx 8150.

 

[crispytheone]

8320 $130
8350 $160
9370 $245
9590 $297

I5 is a better gaming cpu, but any of those can handle a 290x, you might need a slight overclock on the 8320

 

[lazyboy947]

Bottleneck is way overused, my friend uses a 6300 with his 8gb 290x, with no problems. He prob loses maybe a few fps, but nothing drastic. I noticed zero difference between my oc'd 8320 to a 5820k, but thats only with a 7970 not a 290x, but close enough. I've used a x6 1055t @3.7ghz, 8320 @ 4.4ghz, and now the i7 5820k @4.3ghz with my gpu and have seen no major fps gain to justify a cpu change. Now obviously the 290x is a stronger gpu, but im certain a fx 6300 would be a minimum and prob should be overclocked. and for stock use at least a 8350+ or overclocked 8 core if sticking to amd on the cpu

 

[gonf]

With only one GPU an over clocked AMD fx8350 will do the job.
just remember this. a lot of people will tell you i5 is the only way to go. but the fact is that it doesn't matter that much with only 1 GPU.
with a sli or 3 way sli. then you will need a High end Intel.

some will say the yer but the benchmark say other...
take a look at this

AMD 10792
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1541/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD%20FX-8350&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i5 11642
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1613/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i5-4670K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

which is 7?8? % difference

but with crossfire.

AMD 14665

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1541/905/15392?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD%20FX-8350&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i5 16875
13?14?%

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1613/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i5-4670K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i7 18771

22?23? %
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1605/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i7-4770K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

so. if any one tell you go to for the i5. just ignore them. go for AMD "cheap way" or i7 "ALL IN".
don't go for something that is in the middle. it kinda pointless.

 

[DubbleClick]

Bottlenecking = cpu not delivering all information and calculations in time and therefore limiting the gpus potential. When a fx 8350 gets 90 fps and an I5 4590 gets 120 fps that's a clear bottleneck from the fx. Sure, you get acceptable performance, but you could have got an I5 for the same price, resultig in better performance.

 

[crispytheone]

Bottlenecking = cpu not delivering all information and calculations in time and therefore limiting the gpus potential. When a fx 8350 gets 90 fps and an I5 4590 gets 120 fps that's a clear bottleneck from the fx. Sure, you get acceptable performance, but you could have got an I5 for the same price, resultig in better performance.

an I5 is not the same price as a fx 8350, well maybe the lowest end I5, and I have only seen one video where a 8350 was actually a bottleneck, all 8 cores right at 100%

Most monitors run at 60hz, meaning 90fps or 120fps, don't matter, cause your seeing 60fps

Bottleneck is way WAY overused, most games are GPU dependant, not all, but even with a 6300 most games would do really well with an r9 290x

 

[DubbleClick]

The term bottleneck is not overused at all. Also, an I5 4590 is $180, works fine with a $50 b85 (or $30 h81, if you don't care about more than basic ports) board and the stock cooler.
For the fx 8350 ($160) you'll need a $70+ motherboard and a cpu cooler, along $20 at very least. That's $20 extra for less gaming performance.

Bottlenecking has absolutely nothing to do with your cpu hitting 100% load. The fx 83xx may very heavily bottleneck with just 12,5% load on it, if the application does only run on a single core.

 

[crispytheone]

The term bottleneck is not overused at all. Also, an I5 4590 is $180, works fine with a $50 b85 (or $30 h81, if you don't care about more than basic ports) board and the stock cooler.
For the fx 8350 ($160) you'll need a $70+ motherboard and a cpu cooler, along $20 at very least. That's $20 extra for less gaming performance.

Bottlenecking has absolutely nothing to do with your cpu hitting 100% load. The fx 83xx may very heavily bottleneck with just 12,5% load on it, if the application does only run on a single core.

Uh, I have a 8350 running on a stock cooler, why do I need either a $20 cooler, or a $70 board, that is not true. The biggest problem with all this I5 vs 8350 stuff is that people can point to benchmarks, which can give you an idea, but are not totally the whole story, and videos of either ARMA 3 for the I5 or BF4 for the FX series for example.

The I5 has some advantages when it comes to current gaming, and even when games are really optimized for all 8 core, pretty sure an I5 4690k will still beat an 8350 in gaming

But were talking bottlenecks, which is the point wher the CPU can no longer scale up to support the GPU and the FPS is stagnant, not a difference in the total FPS from one arcitecture to another, because the 8350 has some disadvantages compared to the I5, like Per core and the PCI lane speed.

This is my favorite video that shows what a real bottleneck is compared to an lowly Athlon 5350 and a FX-8320 at 4ghz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Uw7oN1CaE


Thats a bottleneck

 

[DubbleClick]

That's a bottleneck, too. That however doesn't interfere with the statement of the fx 8350 bottlenecking current gpus. You may better like limiting, but it's just the same.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

 

[crispytheone]

That's a bottleneck, too. That however doesn't interfere with the statement of the fx 8350 bottlenecking current gpus. You may better like limiting, but it's just the same.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

A bottleneck is not 110FPS vs 93FPS, both are ALOT, and on a normal monitor wont be noticed, so yeah, the 8350 does , uh, drag its feet a bit, but it still can run current GPUs with great framerates

 

[DubbleClick]

That's a bottleneck, too. That however doesn't interfere with the statement of the fx 8350 bottlenecking current gpus. You may better like limiting, but it's just the same.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5

A bottleneck is not 110FPS vs 93FPS, both are ALOT, and on a normal monitor wont be noticed, so yeah, the 8350 does , uh, drag its feet a bit, but it still can run current GPUs with great framerates

Dragging it down is.. the definition of a bottleneck? Just because you don't like the term and/or it's often viewed as something extremely awful doesn't make it something else.

 

[gloryofthesky]

Stop your bickering, he asked for an AMD cpu, so why suggest an intel one? I'm sure he asked for an AMD processor, because he has that type of socket.

Did he ask if intel was better? He asked for the best AMD CPU, so recommend the best AMD CPU. Yes, you can suggest an intel would be a better choice, but there no reason to have a debate about it.

 

[DubbleClick]

Stop your bickering, he asked for an AMD cpu, so why suggest an intel one? I'm sure he asked for an AMD processor, because he has that type of socket.

Did he ask if intel was better? He asked for the best AMD CPU, so recommend the best AMD CPU. Yes, you can suggest an intel would be a better choice, but there no reason to have a debate about it.

I just said that there is no amd cpu that does not bottleneck a r9 290x. Which is an answer to exactly what was asked. The op has not asked for any cpu specifically, neither have I suggested one. I don't see where you can see the op's motherboard either.

 

[Vaggos]

every time, every f***ing time. someone ask a question and always someone will say "why this?" "buy this instead".answer the f****ing question already and dont suggest smt else exept they said so.everyone knows that intel is better in per core performance

 

[Jack Field]

I only have an AMD socket on my motherboard so everyone who is suggesting "get an intel processor" I can't.

 

[DubbleClick]

every time, every f***ing time. someone ask a question and always someone will say "why this?" "buy this instead".answer the f****ing question already and dont suggest smt else exept they said so.everyone knows that intel is better in per core performance

Did you even read the title? "What AMD processors don't bottleneck an r9 290x?" This is what I answered, the list is empty. There has not been any request of suggesting a cpu to get.

 

[DubbleClick]

I only have an AMD socket on my motherboard so everyone who is suggesting "get an intel processor" I can't.

So you're actually looking to buy one, in that case, we need to know your motherboard (socket, preferably also chipset) and what you intend to use it for.

As the title with the r9 290x implies you're probably looking at a gaming cpu, in this case if your motherboard isn't a 990fx board with great vrms, a fx 6300 with a high oc should give you the best gaming results. If your motherboard is strong enough and you also do a fair share of rendering or alike, it does make sense to spend $30 more to get a fx 8320. In case you have a am3+ motherboard, seems to be the most common.

 

[con635]

Bottlenecking = cpu not delivering all information and calculations in time and therefore limiting the gpus potential. When a fx 8350 gets 90 fps and an I5 4590 gets 120 fps that's a clear bottleneck from the fx. Sure, you get acceptable performance, but you could have got an I5 for the same price, resultig in better performance.

So next year when zen and skylake come out and on the same game, same gpu they deliver 140 and 160 fps is the i5 then a bottleneck?
I see bottlenecking as not being able to turn the settings up enough to load the gpu to 100% or max settings because of cpu performance. Amd is fine for 60hz monitors, want 120/144hz and its intel all day, I dont know how people can stand the screen tearing going over 60fps on a 60hz monitor?? It makes me want to vomit and ruins nice graphics for me.

 

[DubbleClick]

Bottlenecking = cpu not delivering all information and calculations in time and therefore limiting the gpus potential. When a fx 8350 gets 90 fps and an I5 4590 gets 120 fps that's a clear bottleneck from the fx. Sure, you get acceptable performance, but you could have got an I5 for the same price, resultig in better performance.

So next year when zen and skylake come out and on the same game, same gpu they deliver 140 and 160 fps is the i5 then a bottleneck?
I see bottlenecking as not being able to turn the settings up enough to load the gpu to 100% or max settings because of cpu performance. Amd is fine for 60hz monitors, want 120/144hz and its intel all day, I dont know how people can stand the screen tearing going over 60fps on a 60hz monitor?? It makes me want to vomit and ruins nice graphics for me.

It would, yes, if by then games come out that scale to faster cpus.

About screen tearing, in some games response time is much more important than a little bit of tearing. I do myself notice a fair share of it in cs:go due to 300 fps on a 60hz monitor, but limiting framerate or even enabling vsync gives way worse results.

 

[Vaggos]

@dubbleclick i read it thats why i wrote that. it wasn't an answer to you. just saying that he didn't ask if intel will bottleneck comparing to amd. with 290x and 83xx and above everything will run smooth and with 60+ fps at very high/ultra settings in every new game. u don't have to worry about bottlenecking
check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAgpvWc4VBM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[RobCrezz]

Stop your bickering, he asked for an AMD cpu, so why suggest an intel one? I'm sure he asked for an AMD processor, because he has that type of socket.

Did he ask if intel was better? He asked for the best AMD CPU, so recommend the best AMD CPU. Yes, you can suggest an intel would be a better choice, but there no reason to have a debate about it.

I just said that there is no amd cpu that does not bottleneck a r9 290x. Which is an answer to exactly what was asked. The op has not asked for any cpu specifically, neither have I suggested one. I don't see where you can see the op's motherboard either.

+1 Dubbleclick is totally correct.

The fact that you can still get good FPS with a 8350 or whatever isnt the point. The question was about the bottlneck.