How much is the FX chip really bottlenecking things?

Y

y0bailey

Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
558
Alright...I will be the first to admit I have been a bit out of the Hard loop. I'm not gaming as much these days, I don't do any more video editing with my GoPro videos, and overall I'm a casual PC peasant now. Gaming 5 hours a week, surfing, and that is about it.

I'm mostly playing Overwatch and R6 seige these days. 1080p monitor at 144hz free-sync. I am getting a hint of upgraditis, that I will hold off on until Zen is announced.

That being said, I don't think my CPU is even remotely limiting my rig, but I could be wrong.

Current Specs

FX-8350 @ 4.6ghz
16gb DDR3
Some SSD drives
AMD R9 390


I can run most everything on high and still hold 144fps. I have no desire to get to higher resolution gaming, and no desire to plop down the cash for VR until things settle down.

Basically, I've answered my own questions about upgrading, but I want to see if anyone else has the same feels or has any data to back up that most rigs aren't CPU bottlenecked without running SLI/crossfire.
 
If I were you, I would stick with what you have as well. In September of 2015, I upgraded for the FX 8350 to a 6700k setup and in my opinion, after having it for 8 months, it was not worth the $770 I paid for it. Sure, benchmarks were faster but, at 4k when I was using the R9 290x, I saw zero difference at 4k. Then I realized back in June, I had not played any games for more than 4 hours total in the 8 months I upgraded, and that included a 980 Ti. I since then have gone back to a FX 8300 setup and banked the money instead. (I also went to an R9 Fury Nitro + because it looks a lot better on the monitor I have than the 980 Ti did and besides, I am an AMD fan through and through. :) )

Either way, why spend the money if you do not have too, spend it on something you really need if you have too.
 
I am not blaming the CPU yet, but i just switched from a intel G4400 + z170 to a AMD FX8320e / 990fx setup and my fps dropped a lot (both using 290x) My other amd 860k has a turbo core issue, where it downclocks the primary core to 1.4ghz causing a lag, i fixed that by going into AMD overdrive and changed some settings. the 8320e sits at 3.4ghz and doesnt seem to do this.

If i had to guess what my issue is -- to me, feels like the amd system is not loading the entire game into ram -- ill be running along 60fps 2560x1080 on ultra, then all the sudden 3fps for 2 seconds when i suspect its loading new textures from the hard drive? My G4400 system had an older and much slower hard drive, but once the game loaded up didnt exhibit this issue.
 
buttons said:
I am not blaming the CPU yet, but i just switched from a intel G4400 + z170 to a AMD FX8320e / 990fx setup and my fps dropped a lot (both using 290x) My other amd 860k has a turbo core issue, where it downclocks the primary core to 1.4ghz causing a lag, i fixed that by going into AMD overdrive and changed some settings. the 8320e sits at 3.4ghz and doesnt seem to do this.

If i had to guess what my issue is -- to me, feels like the amd system is not loading the entire game into ram -- ill be running along 60fps 2560x1080 on ultra, then all the sudden 3fps for 2 seconds when i suspect its loading new textures from the hard drive? My G4400 system had an older and much slower hard drive, but once the game loaded up didnt exhibit this issue.
Click to expand...

How much ram and what speed please? Also, was a brand new install of Windows or did you just leave it alone like I did?
 
buttons said:
I am not blaming the CPU yet, but i just switched from a intel G4400 + z170 to a AMD FX8320e / 990fx setup and my fps dropped a lot (both using 290x) My other amd 860k has a turbo core issue, where it downclocks the primary core to 1.4ghz causing a lag, i fixed that by going into AMD overdrive and changed some settings. the 8320e sits at 3.4ghz and doesnt seem to do this.

If i had to guess what my issue is -- to me, feels like the amd system is not loading the entire game into ram -- ill be running along 60fps 2560x1080 on ultra, then all the sudden 3fps for 2 seconds when i suspect its loading new textures from the hard drive? My G4400 system had an older and much slower hard drive, but once the game loaded up didnt exhibit this issue.
Click to expand...

The 8320e from what I've heard can OC with less voltage. I would set the multiplier to 20 to match a stock 8350 @4.0GHz without touching the voltage. The chip should scale well without extra voltage to 4.5GHz, but I don't want to get your hopes up in case you missed out on winning the silicon lottery. If you are unstable, bump your Load Line Calibration setting up one notch. Don't go for the extreme on it; some motherboards like the high end Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming will over volt the processor for LN2 runs. After bumping up the LLC, everything should be smooth sailing.

You only really generate extra heat when you have to increase the voltage significantly. A FX chip at 3.4GHz isn't really practical because it will impact gaming performance. 4.0GHz is something that you can noticeably detect while gaming.
 
Both are fresh install of windows 10, both are 8gb of ram except the Z170 was ddr4 -- i dont remember speeds but everything on both is factory settings the G4400 + Z170 was mining ethereum while i gamed too, though i didnt play on ultra -- i found medium settings got me 90fps while mining with the 290x, on the FX8320e i decided to quit mining but cranked the settings to ultra where im getting 60fps except those occasional dips. I realize this is apples to oranges, but the stutter issue i am seeing is kinda alarming especially considering im not even mining in the background. (the game is world of warcraft) I want to play some mechwarrior online too

On doom vulkan drivers ultra settings its smooth as butter, i dont care for the game so i only played it 5 minutes.
 
buttons said:
Both are fresh install of windows 10, both are 8gb of ram except the Z170 was ddr4 -- i dont remember speeds but everything on both is factory settings the G4400 + Z170 was mining ethereum while i gamed too, though i didnt play on ultra -- i found medium settings got me 90fps while mining with the 290x, on the FX8320e i decided to quit mining but cranked the settings to ultra where im getting 60fps except those occasional dips. I realize this is apples to oranges, but the stutter issue i am seeing is kinda alarming especially considering im not even mining in the background. (the game is world of warcraft) I want to play some mechwarrior online too

On doom vulkan drivers ultra settings its smooth as butter, i dont care for the game so i only played it 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

I haven't played WoW in many years, but when they initially went multithreaded there was a setting to enable it. Is it enabled by default now or do you still have to click a box for it? I heard it was getting a 64 bit client. I only know this because my nephew is begging me to come back. ;(

I had over 500 days played many years ago, and I need to stay away from that addiction. Ha ha!
 
cageymaru said:
The 8320e from what I've heard can OC with less voltage. I would set the multiplier to 20 to match a stock 8350 @4.0GHz without touching the voltage. The chip should scale well without extra voltage to 4.5GHz, but I don't want to get your hopes up in case you missed out on winning the silicon lottery. If you are unstable, bump your Load Line Calibration setting up one notch. Don't go for the extreme on it; some motherboards like the high end Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming will over volt the processor for LN2 runs. After bumping up the LLC, everything should be smooth sailing.

You only really generate extra heat when you have to increase the voltage significantly. A FX chip at 3.4GHz isn't really practical because it will impact gaming performance. 4.0GHz is something that you can noticeably detect while gaming.
Click to expand...

I have a 240mm AIO water cooler but currently the FX 8320 is running on factory heatsink. I have a baby due sept 8th, a wedding this weekend, have to install a fence to install -- so maybe next year ill be able to do some overclocking
 
buttons said:
I have a 240mm AIO water cooler but currently the FX 8320 is running on factory heatsink. I have a baby due sept 8th, a wedding this weekend, have to install a fence to install -- so maybe next year ill be able to do some overclocking
Click to expand...

Real life it way more fun than overclocking. ;) If you have the new stock AMD Wraith cooler, you will be good to at least 4.0GHz as that's what they use on all of the chips nowadays. Just turn the multiplier to 20.0 in the bios. Wouldn't even bother with other settings. That should be a stock FX 8350. Turn off the Turbo as you won't need it. The Turbo function works, but I don't like it at all.
 
This question is soo easy to answer however most people seem to "guess" around. why don you just check it out:
Use process explore and see in the thread utilization. if any of them hit 100%/core count. Then you are CPU bottle-necked in that instance.
Also keep and eye out for total CPU utilization if its hits near 100% then you are CPU bottle-necked as well in that instance.


Also this i one of AMD CMT design aka half numbers og FPU. since games are havy on the fpu but typially dont have alot of heavy thread.s t means you can easily run into threading conflicts.
disable every other logical core by affinity on your game, and see if you get a small fps boost. ( you can also use my project Mercury fo automatin this effect. www.techcenter.dk)
 
cageymaru said:
I haven't played WoW in many years, but when they initially went multithreaded there was a setting to enable it. Is it enabled by default now or do you still have to click a box for it? I heard it was getting a 64 bit client. I only know this because my nephew is begging me to come back. ;(

I had over 500 days played many years ago, and I need to stay away from that addiction. Ha ha!
Click to expand...

I really enjoyed the movie, i resub for one month -- enjoyed that too -- however the monthly fee really bothers me. It forces me to play more then i want to feel justified for the expense, i have some friends getting back on so ill resub for now. I was even enjoying the free trial lvl 20 battlegrounds and stuff. Invasion gear is sick, my lvl 20 warlock has over 5,000 health in the 20-29 battleground I remember in vanilla wow when my lvl 60 enhance shaman geared up had maybe 4400
 
SvenBent said:
This question is soo easy to answer however most people seem to "guess" around. why don you just check it out:
Use process explore and see in the thread utilization. if any of them hit 100%/core count. Then you are CPU bottle-necked in that instance.
Also keep and eye out for total CPU utilization if its hits near 100% then you are CPU bottle-necked as well in that instance.


Also this i one of AMD CMT design aka half numbers og FPU. since games are havy on the fpu but typially dont have alot of heavy thread.s t means you can easily run into threading conflicts.
disable every other logical core by affinity on your game, and see if you get a small fps boost. ( you can also use my project Mercury fo automatin this effect. www.techcenter.dk)
Click to expand...

Good ideas, i didnt use process explorer i glanced at the performance tab and amd overdrive. Wow is putting up maybe 20% total cpu utilization, ill check that out though.
 
if that i just 1-2 thrades eating 20% of an 8 cores units you cna still have on therad eating 100% of its 12.5% of the share aka 12.5% + 7.5% = 20% of the total cpu
but sthat still leaves thread 1 struggling at a 100% utilization of a core
 
It depends on the games you play really. If you play on something programmed by Homo Erectus for russian toaster computers such as World Of Tanks, you'll see a huge boost in minimum FPS because it's very constrained to single threaded IPC. Any games supporting Vulkan seem to be gaining a nice boost in performance.I just moved from a FX 6350 at 4.6 to a 6600K @4.6 and the biggest increase I've noticed is less lags, stutters, and FPS dips overall even using my older GPU. My video encoding gained a lot. In stuff like office apps, browsing, streaming I haven't noticed much of a difference.
 
I had an 8320 @ 4.5 and the same 989ti I have now. I struggled to keep 75fps on my 1440p 75hz monitor using adaptive vsync in FO4. It was usually around 45. When I moved to my 6600k @4.5 same video card and settings, I have zero issues maintaining 75fps. In fact, the card now downclocks out of boost because it doesn't need to keep up anymore.
Can't comment on Overwatch, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top