Fx 8320, still doesn't suck

Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by travm, May 14, 2019.

  1. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Not a very [H] piece of hardware, but I'm kind of annoyed I spent about $1500 a year ago on a new ryzen 1600, 3200ram and an Rx 580, only to have it be marginally better than my girls 8320e with a 570.
    Playing battlefield V she's rarely under 60 on high settings, while I'm rarely over 80. Also burns I bought a 144hz monitor. But that's likely the GPU s fault mostly.
    I really expected the 8320 to need replaced, but I'm not sure that's a fact yet.

    Correction, 570 on other PC not 970
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  2. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Your compairing a 970 vs. a 580.
    The %lows will be better on the Ryzen.
    Weak GPU for 144Hz.
     
  3. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,602
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    144hz is not about just GPU. Its about smoothness as well as reduced input latency. I wouldn't be bummed even if I was using an I3 IGP. 144hz is just a nice experience.
     
  4. Brackle

    Brackle Old Timer

    Messages:
    7,228
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    This tells me that marketing teams really do sucker people to buying shit.

    to run at at a high framerate you need CPU and GPU Speed. None of which a 1600 and 580 could do. You would need at LEAST a 2700-2700x. IMO an Intel 9700x would be better. Also, your GPU sucks for high framerate.

    Basically you got suckered into marketing.

    Luckily if you have a good motherboard you might be able to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 coming out next month.

    But your video card sucks if you want high framerate.
     
    somebrains likes this.
  5. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Stop it. The 2700 you are recommending is microscopically faster then the 1600 he is running, and a Ryzen 3000 will do little to change this. The system is fine. Performance is limited by a GPU that is about %25 faster than his older machine. As I mentioned his frame times should be much better due to the modern Ryzen platform.
     
    Silentbob343 and ManofGod like this.
  6. purple_monster

    purple_monster Gawd

    Messages:
    549
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    oof i bet that 580 was around $500 back then lol. beg your dad for a 1070 or better, you dont need to change anything else in the system. tell him youll mow the lawn and rub his and moms feet for a year.
     
  7. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    I remember people try and convince me I was wrong when (time of when we still could only buy variations of Piledriver) I said that API (newer ones , Vulkan and DX12) would close the gap to IPC effectiveness for processors and not just one or 2 of them but a slew of people on [H] forum. And today people experienced it for themselves :) .

    About the 144hz problem , it depends a little on the game Diablo 3 My setup gets 160fps because it is single core cpu driven game. This changes for certain games or game engines.

    Your best bet is to wait a little longer supposedly beyond Q3 of this year AMD will ship out Navi which is about the same performance as Vega 64 or faster for supposedly a "budget" price.
     
    travm likes this.
  8. tangoseal

    tangoseal [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,602
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Why a 9700?. 2700x cost less and is faster than a 9700.

    2700x is only 9% avg slower in games than a 9900k.

    Bad or misinformed recommendation bro
     
  9. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Now who is misinformed. The 2700x is not faster then the 9700k ESPECIALLY @ 1080p gaming!
    You do not need a flag-ship CPU to play BFV.
    The OP was a little disappointed that his new system is only showing a %30 fps improvement, which is due to his adequate but not stellar GPU.
     
  10. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Wow yeah that's a helluva typo. It's a 570 not a 970. Stupid numbers.
    I wasn't expecting to pin 144hz. My upgrade was from a fx6300 and HD 7870. So I'm not really upset. A little cranked that prices dropped so much, but I made some crypto cash that didn't make the hw free, but offset the jacked up prices pretty good
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  11. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    It's not a real issue, more surprising that the old and hardware is hanging on so well. I knew the 580 would struggle to hit 144hz at 1080, and I picked my monitor expecting it to last through a couple GPUs.
    I had a 22" 60hz monitor prior and the ryzen setup pinned it at 60, I was hoping to run closer to 100+ fps than around 80+ but still happy. The old 6300 and 7870 served me very well for a very long time.

    I have a second ryzen setup in the basement, but how well the 8320 is chugging along it doesn't seem worth the work to transplant parts.

    The 580 actually cost me just shy of 700 CAD. I bought the sapphire SE with the faster Ram and fancy lights. I've actually got two of them, I was hoping mgpu would become a thing, but I can wait for Navi. I sold off my other cards, and put the 570 I had in my GFS system figuring the cpu would be limiting it same as the 580.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  12. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    646
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
  13. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    What are you saying with this link?
    I see the 9700 and 2700 trading blows. I actually don't know what your saying.
    Appears when GPU limited the 2700 is = to, when not the 9700 wins
     
  14. Keljian

    Keljian Gawd

    Messages:
    646
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006

    Generally speaking the 9700 is faster than the 2700x, the exception is when all the threads of the 2700x can be used (so as to feed the huge number of execution units the chip has). The 2700x is definitely a better value chip, $ for $, but it is not faster on the whole, especially when the 9700 is overclocked.

    This surprised me.
     
  15. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    We were talking games only and @1080p. If you had read I assume you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.
     
  16. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    As a fellow Canuck I feel for your GPU purchase last year. Ouch. As I said before, even though your fps only went up %30, your frame time will be so much better on your new system. Smother and faster game-play for that 144Hz monitor. And your well above 60fps to boot. For many [H]ardcore BFV players it would be night and day.
    That R51600 has a lot of OC headroom left as well should you get a new GPU that can use it. Upgrade the cooling from stock and you should see 3.8/4GHz no problem.
     
  17. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Is that worth the investment with Ryzen 3000 around the corner where you could get a stock 6c/12t cpu for $129 (rumoured prices) which have certain benefits for 1080p gaming that both Ryzen 1000 and 2000 do not have.. As well as ipc boost that makes even something as $40 for a cooler over benefits you might get from that versus a bunch of benefits you will certainly get.

    I would hold of on upgrade decisions until this point if anything else the older generation will come down in price as well...
     
  18. DeathFromBelow

    DeathFromBelow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,252
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Now that I think about it, the last time I really noticed an all-around CPU performance improvement was back in college when I upgraded from an Athlon X2 to a Core 2 Quad. Since then I've gone Bulldozer -> Piledriver -> Ivy Bridge E -> Ryzen. As you've already discovered, the performance bottleneck is mostly your GPU.

    My Bulldozer/Piledriver machines still work great at 4.4+ GHz after all these years. I wonder how the benchmarks would look nowadays with all the Intel Meltdown/Spectre/Foreshadow/TLBleed/MDS mitigations in place.
     
  19. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    I am waiting to see if I can put a ryzen 3000 into my x370 MOBO, if not this will be my system for the foreseeable future.
     
    Pieter3dnow likes this.
  20. VanGoghComplex

    VanGoghComplex [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,766
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2016
    Bollocks on those recommendations. I was running 144hz monitors and framerates with a 4790k. And to think you're trying to tell someone they've been suckered in the very next breath.
     
  21. Rockenrooster

    Rockenrooster Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    373
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2017
    I would hope the 9700 is marginally faster..... It's also more expensive...........
     
  22. VIC-20

    VIC-20 Gawd

    Messages:
    916
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Diminishing returns in fps per $ above 2700X/9600K, but some people will pay dearly to have the best.
     
  23. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Aye , pay for the chip with the best security flaws ;)
     
    Master_shake_, Sulphademus and GHRTW like this.
  24. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Again, his CPU is not his bottleneck. His system is fine, hell he could clock it up on the stock cooler if needed.
     
    TheHig likes this.
  25. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    I was making another point :) I did not say he should upgrade his cpu but I was saying that the money spend on the cpu for it to perform better is money better spend elsewhere if it came to that.

    https://hardforum.com/threads/fx-8320-still-doesnt-suck.1981613/#post-1044196210

    Few posts up :)
     
  26. JohnRico

    JohnRico Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    333
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    I have a 8320, not e, and it's not *terrible.* Paired with some F3-1600C9D on the default xmp profile, and a 1060 6gb, i routinely get 50-65fps (i'm bound to my u2412m max refresh rate.) on a lot of games on either high settings or near max settings. *Except* games that are more CPU than gpu. Like Civ, or Stellaris, or cities sky lines.

    My user benchmark. https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/16863637

    I am looking forward to the new ryzens... even the mid-range one, if the leaks are true, are looking preeeeety good.
     
    Pieter3dnow and Sulphademus like this.
  27. funkydmunky

    funkydmunky 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,388
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    BS. What was the focus of the thread? His CPU is more then capable. A fully clocked 1600 is well within %10 of a 2700x.
    I just do not like the "you must upgrade!" BS that a certain elitist groups are professing.
     
    elite.mafia likes this.
  28. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Sorry but you started to suggest:
    my reply
    What I suggested in the first post was not about a cpu at all that came after you suggested an after market cooling solution.
     
  29. elite.mafia

    elite.mafia Broke Back [H]

    Messages:
    11,575
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    You are on a mid to low end GPU, a mid level ryzen, and are trying to hit 144hz. Get a better GPU first before you blame your CPU. In that setup, even a 9900k isn't going to add much FPS to a rx580. I have a 1070Ti and a ryzen 1700x and I am able to hit high fps in most every game I play. I don't play bfv, but I did play bf1 and it gets well over 100fps. You may be able to play with your settings to get closer to 144hz if that is your goal, then you need to sacrifice graphics quality.
     
    JohnRico and funkydmunky like this.
  30. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Wtf.
    No goals here. I'm not looking for 144hz. I upgraded from a 6300 @ 4.3 to a ryzen 1600. HD 7870 to Rx 580.
    The takeaway here is, it's not slower. But I'm surprised how well the old fx processors work for games, still.
    I have a second ryzen 1600 system I'm specifically not using because the effort to swap systems vs a fx 8320 firing on all cylinders is simply not worth it.
    I will get 144hz if I decide I want it. I was hoping for more, only in that I could have saved $100 and gotten a 75hz super wide instead of what I have. I was hoping closer to 100. Still happy.
    And definitely not asking any questions or for any advice.
     
    funkydmunky likes this.
  31. noko

    noko [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,342
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Have a FX 9590 still in use but no longer for gaming. Anyways folks take some benchmark numbers that does show a difference but the real difference when actually playing maybe irrelevant or not even noticeable for the one playing. Yet the conclusions are the FX can't game, will be a slug feast etc. Fanatical thinking is my take. If folks don't look at the numbers but actually played the game to see how it really works for them - there would probably be way less upgrades for the more conscious spenders.
     
  32. elite.mafia

    elite.mafia Broke Back [H]

    Messages:
    11,575
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    So what's the point of your post, to trash talk ryzen? Your post is in amd processors but the issue you have has very little to do with your cpu and a lot more to do with your GPU.
    If you don't want answers or advice why post in a forum. Just so you can make a passive aggressive response after somebody gives you advice and answers questions????
     
  33. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    I think he does not have any issue at all :) . Basically he was surprised that something as ancient and being declared as a dead end architecture would still be able to do okay at 1080p gaming and that is about it :) .
     
  34. Benzino

    Benzino [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,490
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Have an 8320 + GTX 970 for my gaming rig. PubG at 1080 and all graphics settings set to performance settings net me 60-90fps consistently. My old 22" monitor is at 1280x1024 just to get 75hz. Its playable. I have never tried gaming on 144hz so I don't know what I'm missing. This will have to hold me over until I'm married and in a new house as I don't have disposable income right now :)
     
    Pieter3dnow likes this.
  35. mvmiller12

    mvmiller12 Gawd

    Messages:
    859
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    I gifted my FX-8350 w/stock cooler, 16G of RAM, Asus M5A97 EVO mainboard, a 256G SATA SSD, a 500G HDD, and an Antec 900 case to my brother-in-law for his wife. These were left over from my old media center PC build. He added an RX 580 video card, a Seasonic 750W power supply and a 1080p monitor to that and his wife is a very happy camper playing games now. She WAS using an AMD A8-based laptop and this new-to-her system is leagues faster.

    Of course, the most intense games she plays are Tomb Raider and Smite...
     
    Pieter3dnow likes this.
  36. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Best of luck mate, marriage and home ownership don't lend themselves to disposable income
     
    alxlwson likes this.
  37. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    If it wasn't for the crypto craze I would have just bought a $200 480 and been still running my fx. I was hoping crypto would pay for the upgrade. All I got out of it was the inflated prices offset. Stupid Bitcoin.
     
  38. XoR_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    814
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Fastest Bulldozer CPU were worse than Nehalem i7 920 OC'ed @4GHz from 2008 in pretty much everything
    It was terrible CPU design, worse for its time than Netburst ever was and AMD marketing was terrible as well with fake cores and all

    Please do not compare Bulldozer to Zen !!!!1
    Thank you =)
     
  39. travm

    travm Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    354
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2016
    Hi
    I'm running them side by side. I actually wish I'd simply kept my $3k and only upgraded the GPU. With good MOBO good Ram, in my use case (BF V), my vishera 8320 is equal to my ryzen. Sure if I turn the fps graphs on ryzen is a little faster, otherwise same settings. Both running polaris GPUs.

    This kind of bad press is widespread and uninformed.

    No question zen is better than all fx CPUs, but from a usability standpoint they were far nicer than any review ever said. Then you had people using shitty cheap mobos and the stock hsf that was terrible (my dozer hsf is cooling an phenom X3 presently). These people had terrible performance with the cpu throttling all over the place. Some even tried to overclock, that was worse.

    I don't have any quad core i5s to test but I've heard reports they struggled with microstutter in bf1 and bfv. Oddly the inferior and obsolete fx chips don't have this issue.

    I'm sure all this will be taken incorrectly. I am happy with my zen systems. I really thought all the bulldozer bad mouthing I read everywhere had a sliver of truth and I'd see a much larger contrast. I was wrong. My zen systems are awesome, unfortunately so were my ancient dozer systems.
     
    noko, KATEKATEKATE and ManofGod like this.
  40. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,789
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Yeah that fake core business again. No where in cpu design does it state that you need to have floating point unit for each core.