FX-8350 CPU bottleneck?

[ChuckFx]

No, 1080p same as FRAPS.


QuickSync

FRAPS

the smaller one is running at 60fps and the other at 120, it explaines a part of the variation. Also, the bigger one has audio encoded.

 

[Puppies04]

Well I do want to go dual 1080 screens at same time as my new r9 290 arrives and a 3rd in 4-6months.

Dual screens doesn't really work for gaming. The "middle" of the picture is smack in the middle of the bezels. go for 3 .

 

[ChuckFx]

Dual screens doesn't really work for gaming. The "middle" of the picture is smack in the middle of the bezels. go for 3 .

I'll start with 2, one as battlescreen and then when I am ready, I'll get the third. Might be sooner than expected, my missus (that's the way we call em here right?) wants to buy the 2 missing screens for xmas..

 

[ChuckFx]

For those who were asking, here is my rig:

Cooler Master 932 HAF
Sabertooth 990FX AM3+ (v1)
AMD FX-8350 stock...for now (soon Corsair H100 on top)

For OS and games: Intel series 330 180G SSD, Crucial 80Gb
Media: 2TB WD 5400 RPM

8GB Sniper G.Skill @ 1866
Corsair HX1050 PSU

And then... R9 290X at the end of the month.

 

[NTMBK]

Clock the nuts off it. Make that water cooler earn its keep!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

the smaller one is running at 60fps and the other at 120, it explaines a part of the variation. Also, the bigger one has audio encoded.

Yeah I saw that...

There is no audio to record in the BioShock benchmark.

I also went and redid it with 120 fps for QuickSync and slightly higher Mbps.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7176975g7kwju04/BioShockInfinite_2013_11_21_17_50_53_529.mkv

File isn't very big, 180mb... I suggest downloading it as apposed to viewing the compressed version online (compression is worse than even Youtube).



That said, on to your question:

a) I wouldn't do CFX with a 8350, there is a reason it is an unpopular gaming CPU - It performance is erratic at best, sometimes decent like in BF4, other times incredibly bad like in Shogun 2.

b) I wouldn't do 290x, let alone 290x crossfire. Have you not seen the 290 reviews? It's $400 instead of $550+, that's $150 in your pocket right there, and another $150 if you decide to go CFX later. If you want 290x performance wait for aftermarket 290s or raise the fan speed.

c) Google 8350 290x CF review, you won't get any related hits, ask yourself why that is.

 

[AtenRa]

That said, on to your question:

a) I wouldn't do CFX with a 8350, there is a reason it is an unpopular gaming CPU - It performance is erratic at best, sometimes decent like in BF4, other times incredibly bad like in Shogun 2.

b) I wouldn't do 290x, let alone 290x crossfire. Have you not seen the 290 reviews? It's $400 instead of $550+, that's $150 in your pocket right there, and another $150 if you decide to go CFX later. If you want 290x performance wait for aftermarket 290s or raise the fan speed.

c) Google 8350 290x CF review, you won't get any related hits, ask yourself why that is.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6985/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-at-1440p-adding-in-haswell-

 

[guskline]

ChuckFX: I have the same mb AND rev #. I gave my son-in-law a Rev2 mb with a FX8320 and he loves it. I run 2-8 gb mem chips of DDR3-1866 for a tota;l of 16 gb. Right now it is OC'd to 4.6Ghz (21 x219) which seems to be the sweet spot for the chip in terms of temperature and power. I have the Vcore set to 1.46 and it has run solid since the 8350 came out. My Intel chips in rigs 1 &2 below bench faster but the AMD 8350 feels every bit as fast in game play using the same video card set up.

With the 290X you will have a blazing FAST rig but I would opt for the R9 290 with the idea of CF later. Your PSU is plenty even for CF of the 290. Good luck.

 

[guskline]

BTW, in the "for what ever it is worth" department here is the Anandtech benchmark comparison of the FX8350 vs the 4670k:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837

With specs that close and all you have in your FX8350 rig I would not jump to a 4670k. When I Googled FX8350 and 290x CF I got hits on Google and some of the posters felt that there wasn't much difference.

I think we all have our Biases about Intel vs AMD and I understand that. I'm telling you from my own personal experience owning the 2 Intel rigs listed below in my sig and the AMD rig 3 which I don't have room in my sig below to post which is:
mb -Asus Sabertooth FX990 Rev1
CPU-FX 8350 OC'd to 4.6Ghz (21x219)
CPU cooler-Corsair H100
Ram - 2 8GB DDR3 Gskill 1866
HDD-120gb ssd (OS) 2 TB WD Black (data)
Vid- PNY gtx680
PSU-Antec TP II 750W
Case -CM922
OS-Win 8.1
Monitor Hanns G HZ281

that the FX 8350 is a great gaming rig with the games I own including BF4, COD Ghost, Bioshock and Il2 Battle of Stalingrad Alpha (cool flight sim just released!) When I jump from rig to rig playing the SAME game I don't feel that much if any difference due to cpu. Really the difference is in the video cards. The R9 290 will perform well in your 8350.

I hope this thread doesn't "devolve" into a flame war between the Intel camp and the AMD camp. Considering the rigs I own in sigs 1 and 2 I would hardly consider me a Pro AMD fan. However, if I was in ChuckFx's shoes I think the prudent and money smart idea is to upgrade his present FX8350 rig with a R9 290 (save the $$ for an aftermarket cooler). Again good luck ChuckFX.

 

[ShintaiDK]

In terms of gaming benchmarks. Be careful not to use prescripted benchmarks for CPU load.

As Balla aleady showed with Tomb Raider. 40% FPS difference between 800Mhz and 4800Mhz in benchmark. 400% difference when actually playing the game.

Same applies for Rome 2 for that matter as example.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

GPU limited benchmarks

Even in best case the 8350 is lagging behind, 290x CF is faster than 7970 CF. Faster cards won't make the situation for the 8350 better, they make it worse.

"for what ever it is worth"

It's not worth much, since a single 680 is nothing compared to 290x crossfire in terms of performance and power required to push them.


I'm sure it won't come to flames, but at some point the AMD crowd needs to accept their processors have hard limitations. And when someone is talking about spending $1200 on video cards AMD is the last, and worst choice, period.

 

[AtenRa]

Even in best case the 8350 is lagging behind, 290x CF is faster than 7970 CF. Faster cards won't make the situation for the 8350 better, they make it worse.



It's not worth much, since a single 680 is nothing compared to 290x crossfire in terms of performance and power required to push them.


I'm sure it won't come to flames, but at some point the AMD crowd needs to accept their processors have hard limitations. And when someone is talking about spending $1200 on video cards AMD is the last, and worst choice, period.

OK, show me CF R9 290 with FX8350 @ 4.6GHz. Until then what you say is only your opinion without any data to prove it.

Oh, and he only considers the CF 290X because he is aiming for a dual or Triple monitor eyefinity. You know, more than 1440p resolution.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

OK, show me CF R9 290 with FX8350 @ 4.6GHz. Until then what you say is only your opinion without any data to prove it.

I can't because nobody is running it, only people who aren't are recommending it.

I can pull up a fairly large number of graphs where the 8350 pales in comparison to the i5/i7 with just one card, do we need to go there though?

 

[SlowSpyder]

An Intel rig will be faster, but I doubt it is worth the money seeing as you already have an AM3+ board and 8350. And we still haven't seen how Mantle may change things.

 

[AtenRa]

I can't because nobody is running it, only people who aren't are recommending it.

I have posted a link from an AT review providing data that shows an FX8350 @ default and HD7970 in CF being within 2 to 4 fps of any Intel combination. You on the other hand havent provided any data to support your claiming and you keep acting like what you saying is a fact.
Sorry but until you provide any data the Anandtech review shows that FX8350 is more than capable to drive two high end GPUs in CF.

I can pull up a fairly large number of graphs where the 8350 pales in comparison to the i5/i7 with just one card, do we need to go there though?

No need, we are talking about CF here. And dont forget it is only you that stated that you wouldn't CFX with FX8350 without even having any data to provide any numbers.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

~snip~

Look we both know exactly what you are. This isn't a conversation I care to have with you.

You're only going to post pro AMD graphs from games that are benched with minimal CPU dependency, while downplaying the losses it sustains and ignoring the beatings it takes.

 

[Aithos]

I have posted a link from an AT review providing data that shows an FX8350 @ default and HD7970 in CF being within 2 to 4 fps of any Intel combination. You on the other hand havent provided any data to support your claiming and you keep acting like what you saying is a fact.
Sorry but until you provide any data the Anandtech review shows that FX8350 is more than capable to drive two high end GPUs in CF.



No need, we are talking about CF here. And dont forget it is only you that stated that you wouldn't CFX with FX8350 without even having any data to provide any numbers.

I'll provide three links for you, since no one listened to my post where I mentioned the article I'm about to link anyway:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5

That is showing a dual Titan SLI system with a direct comparison between everything from the AMD chip in question to the top Ivy-E and the Haswell i5/i7. The i5-4670k CRUSHES the 8350 in everything except Tomb Raider.

Then there are the Tom's Hardware articles, these look at SLI and CF scaling and whether or not AMD CPUs actually prefer NVIDIA GPUs. It's got some interesting points about the CPUs and specifically which ones the more powerful GPUs run better on:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html


So now let's stop trying to say that with the 290s in CF that the OP shouldn't be upgrading to Intel. The 8350 falls woefully short in every task that isn't heavily threaded, and since BF4 is virtually the only heavily threaded game currently available it's stupid to use it as an example for why AMD is ok. Games aren't going to change overnight, it's going to take longer than the lifespan of the OPs build for engines and games to become heavily optimized for more cores/threads.

The reason being that game developers need their games to run on the majorities systems, not just the enthusiasts. They want them to run on shitty $400 laptops, not just $1200+ gaming rigs. Until the cheapest laptop at Bestbuy is more than 4 cores and includes HT or the equivalent you won't see games heavily optimized because it alienates too many casual consumers. That's why consoles are taking market share from PCs, the barrier for entry is too high for most people while anyone can save up for an XB or Playstation.

Edit: Also, the benchmarks you linked were 1440p with cards that aren't nearly as powerful as what the OP is looking at. If you ran 1440p or multiple monitors at 1080p with a couple 290s, a couple 780s or some Titan's you would see a bigger gap. Higher resolutions are more GPU limited, but your GPU scaling is still influenced by the power of your CPU...as the Tom's hardware articles show.

 

[AtenRa]

Look we both know exactly what you are. This isn't a conversation I care to have with you.

You're only going to post pro AMD graphs from games that are benched with minimal CPU dependency, while downplaying the losses it sustains and ignoring the beatings it takes.

So now you posting graphs from the AT review that you dismissed a few post earlier ??? And you personally attacking me by saying we both know what I am ??? And what exactly am I ???

If you dont care to have a conversation with me then why did you responded to my posts in the first place ??

And not to mention what the OP asked, i dont believe that Civ V is what the OP was aiming for.

The sole purpose of this computer is to play BF4/fraps and other demanding games.

ps: That Civilization graph only shows half the story. The way Anandtech becnhmark's Civilization is not how people would actually play the game. You dont play Civilization full Zoom out all the time. You Zoom in and out and you move around the map. AT only bench with the camera static in one position and with full Zoom out making the game CPU limited. Not only that, but there is a problem with Civ and FX + CF, as you can see they got less fps than in single card.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Every single reviewer of high end video cards, and mgpu reviews uses a modern Intel CPU because it is recommended by both AMD and Nvidia to show their graphics cards in the best possible light without any impedance from the cpu.

Even AMD uses an Intel CPU in their own marketing material to show the performance of their newest graphics cards.

If this doesn't point you in the correct direction, when every professional, and even the companies themselves use Intel to demonstrate their graphics cards than the wealth of reviews which show the 8350 isn't even as good as an i5-2500k from 2010 should be enough.


Sell your 8350 and board, use that money and the money you save going with the 290s instead toward a Intel setup. You can't lose here, there are only positive gains.

 

[AtenRa]

So now let's stop trying to say that with the 290s in CF that the OP shouldn't be upgrading to Intel. The 8350 falls woefully short in every task that isn't heavily threaded, and since BF4 is virtually the only heavily threaded game currently available it's stupid to use it as an example for why AMD is ok.

For the second time, the OP specifically asked about BF4/FRAPS. Next time read what the Op is asking. Also, quoting a SLI TITAN review is irrelevant since the OP asked about 290x CF.

 

[Aithos]

For the second time, the OP specifically asked about BF4/FRAPS. Next time read what the Op is asking. Also, quoting a SLI TITAN review is irrelevant since the OP asked about 290x CF.

The Intel chip will do just fine in BF4, the Intel will do much better than the AMD in pretty much everything else. The 290x CF is a pretty close comparison to a Titan SLI so it's pretty damn relevant. I'm sorry you prefer AMD, but there is so much evidence of Intel CPUs being superior for gaming you have no logic on your side at all.

Some BF4 Benchmarks:

(GPU) http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html
(CPU) http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

What you should see there is for BF4 the Intel chips still win, it's just basically the same as the AMD, which is also true of games like Tomb Raider in the other article I quoted (and you obviously didn't look at). The fact remains that for at least 85% of the games on the market (and upcoming) the Intel chipset destroys the AMD one. Now stop being stubborn, the data is pretty conclusive.

Edit: OP - Go to Intel and don't look back, a few hundred bucks is worth the upgrade and you'll get more logevity out of Intel chips than AMD. This is why people with brand loyalty are frustrating to me, I look at hard numbers and I don't care who makes what. I've built AMD machines and Intel machines at various times over the years based on cost, performance and what my intent with a particular machine is. My two most recent builds were both gaming machines so I went with Intel, a previous one was more for software development and video editing so I went with AMD. There is nothing wrong with AMD, the focus of their chips are just not brute force computing, it's heavily threaded applications....which is also how their GPUs are geared to a lesser extent. That's why some games prefer AMD and others prefer NVIDIA, it's just not as striking of a difference on the GPU side as the CPUs. Maybe AMD will eventually change their architecture, although I wouldn't hold my breath because R&D is stupidly expensive and starting over is basically the same as just leaving the business. Until then, pick your CPU by your main function: Gaming = Intel, 3d modeling/encoding = AMD.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

i5-4670k is faster than the 8350 in BF4 MP, with the addition of Quick Sync to record gameplay they're probably not even comparable.

 

[KingFatty]

Hmm if you have nothing to lose because you already have it, may as well try out the AMD chip to see how it fares before making the decision.

If it's just too slow, then get the superior Intel solution. But that will likely involve also buying new motherboard and possibly ram etc. (depending if you want to sell off your whole old computer as a working system, or just the separate pieces).

I'm not understanding why you need to decide right now before even trying out the AMD? It just feels so much better when you see the experience first hand and really feel it and try it, and decide it's time to upgrade, and have no regrets to spending the extra money because it was worth it.

 

[ChuckFx]

Well at the moment I have a potential buyer for a combo Mobo/CPU for around 300$ which means I drasticly cust my losses. If I wait, the value of the gear will depreciate and my losses will be greater. That is why I wanted to know what was best at the moment.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Intel is best at the moment, and if you're getting $300 you can do the switch for less than $100.