1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

bottleneck

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by cookiemonster, Jul 5, 2014.

  1. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,467 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    599
    Location:
    AZ
    I didn't twist anything. You fired off infomercial "don't use their product" ridiculousness. We have many gifs on gn explaining the level of ridiculousness your post is a part of.

    Name 1 title where an 8350 is incapable of 100fps. Don't worry I'll wait, and be quick to shoot you down as wrong if you think there is one. GPU is most important, always has been always will be. Now sure if you're trying to keep your good old 939 rig alive it may not be such a pleasant experience. But just because benchmark junkies want every possible frame regardless of its affect on playability doesn't mean that amd cpus are in any way incapable of gaming. Your rhetoric implies otherwise and I'm sorry that's simply silly fanboyism and nothing more.

    If you're sitting on a situation where you think an intel cpu would be faster while running 290x crossfire than you are staring down a detail level inferior to your gpu solution. IE you could be playing with much better detail without any lag. Once the gpu begins to actually be used as the monster it is, the fact the cpu can only play the game at 100fps compared with 120 or even 150 for that matter is pointless. So sure at 1080P you'll see a difference, but a single 290X was designed for higher resolutions than 1080p, dual means were talking ultra hd resolutions. Running the game at 4k or even just 2k will find the intel and the amd getting the EXACT SAME FRAME RATE! Meaning if you actually plan on using you're expensive GPU's any extra money you spent on that super hyperactive intel was wasted. You would be better off putting it towards better gpu coolers or more storage space for games.

    Now sure I'm saying this while having just purchased a 4790K but I do more than just game on my rig.
     
  2. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,823 (8.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,076
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    Total War: Shogun II
    Need for Speed (A Criterion Game)
    Starcraft II
    World of Warcraft (Sit in Orgrimmar)

    Couldn't help myself. Don't hate me, I own an 8350.
     
    Vario and eidairaman1 say thanks.
  3. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,467 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    599
    Location:
    AZ
    try running those with your 780 as opposed to your 7950. Nice try though. lol Were targeting cpu in this discussion not gpu, so were saying even at 1280x1024 with no aa no af, no tess, etc the cpu won't hit 100.


    edit:
    Also no V sync. We're not targeting the monitor refresh rate in this discussion either.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  4. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,823 (8.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,076
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    Yeah. With my 780 in the 8350 machine, I cannot get Total War at 100FPS on 1080p (a pretty standard gaming resolution), or any of the other games.

    If you're running at 1280 with no AA, tesselation or af, then you're probably gaming on Intel HD4000 graphics on a Pentium anyway. I honestly don't see the point you're trying to make, you've made a wonferful confusing mess out of all of this.
     
  5. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,875 (11.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,163

    you've got multiple people disagreeing with you, who currently own AMD hardware. can those games manage 100FPS max? sure. can they lag to unplayable rates in game? hells yes.

    If you had a super powered GPU (or just low graphics settings) you will only get so much performance out of a CPU. whether it be bottlenecked from too few cores, or too low IPC (speed per core), you'll hit a limit sooner or later.

    you can pretend that limit goes away by cranking up the graphics settings until your GPU is bottlenecked more than your CPU is, but that doesnt alleviate the original problem: that a modern 8 core CPU, can still be slower than a quad core CPU for gaming.
     
  6. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,467 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    599
    Location:
    AZ
    You're telling me you 780 isn't capable of 100fps in shogun total war 2? 480 sli @ stock on an i7 950 also @ stock was well over 150 frames at 1080p.

    Sorry to call bull but seriously bull.

    an 8350 is identical in single core to the i7 950 (stock to stock) and faster overall. There's no way that magically the 8350 would suddenly be incapable of 100fps at identical single core power to something that can do 150 fps.

    Wtf is up with your 780 then? Or were you pumping up the details to max and then complaining about the cpu? Or are you seriously going to claim that the 4670 suddenly made your 780 fast enough? I call bull again on that.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/9

    read learn get off your crazy train that has not made sense at all.


    Double edit.

    watch the competitions lead completely fade away as the gpu is actually taxed.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

    *but but at 1680x1050 the amd suxxors... False! Game experience is identical. Upping the details reveals the bottleneck but also shows there is little to no loss for doing so. So why game an low res? Does massive pixelation make you happy? I sure didn't get into gaming to watch my fps soar at the price of details.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  7. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,101 (2.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,078
    CFx/SLI responds well to overclocking, especially on high end cards...

    As far as the cranking the AA to make it less CPU dependent, also consider that you are actually sending more data to/through the GPUs (which the CPU handles in some aspects) so that can be a bit counter intuitive I would imagine. ;)
     
  8. Shambles1980

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    541 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    have to say i see the points trying to be made here..
    point a is a cpu is usually only bottle necked at lower resolutions because at higer resolutions the gpu is the bottle neck.

    point b is if your having to rasie the resolutions to change the gpu to be the bottle neck or ballance it out so both are equally to blame and managing to achieve lower frame rates because of it simply means that the cpu was the issue any way.
    and then the argument goes back to if the gpu was more powerfull then you wouldnt have such low frames at the higer resolutions..

    its a pretty round in circles debate though.
    If the gpu is powerfull enough it wont be the bottle neck, is the same argument as if the cpu is powerfull enough it wont be the bottle neck.
    So its just tit for tat.
    balancing performance is great but i do like to start off with a good cpu to start it. after all most things work off of that and the gpu really is a very dedicated addon.
    you also have to have some cpu avaialble for the gpu also.
    if you ever ibt your cpu and run msi kombustor the gpu usage will never get hig at all. "possibly 1-2% usage"
    so if you have a cpu intesive game like rts (shoughun tw 2, star craft and so on) and they stress your cpu to 100% you can tweak your gpu settings all you want. it will still be cpu limited. because the game has the cpu so stressed the gpu cant work properly.

    having said that i dont think any game no matter how cpu bound can stress a modern "quad or better" cpu so much that the Gpu cant work properly even if it is a 8350 or a i5 i7. the 8120 and a q6600 (or any of the core 2 quads) would probably end up struggeling to power the game and the gpu. which would be a bottle neck. but even if the gpu could only work at 70% i doubt it would make the game unplayable.

    Any way as to the OP's actuall question.
    i dont think the system will be bottle necked. and if it is it wouldnt be noticable

    the debate going on right now is a valid one but kind of futile too.
    What are we talking about really. 65fps vs 80fps in heavy cpu dependant games. or 70% gpu useage vs 98% gpu usage?

    as for the amd cpu's vs intel.. Personaly i went back to intel again after trying a 8120 which i had hoped would have been as good as some of the older amd cpu's i had used before core2 duo/quads came allong. it wasnt but the i5 was a good step up.
    I have a 7850 gpu which is not the worlds most powerfull and works just fine with my i5-2500k
    I think if i was going for 2x 290x/s or 2x 295's or something. then i would definatly upgrade to a 3770k 1st (higest my board can support)
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
    Chevalr1c and BarbaricSoul say thanks.
  9. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,823 (8.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,076
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    HAVE YOU NEVER PLAYED TOTAL WAR?????

    Jesus man. Play the goddamn game if you don't believe me.

    Also, derpington mcderpy derp, those anandtech articles are about 1440p, not 1080p (A GPU orientated resolution)

    You have to be one of the most misinformed stubborn people I've seen on here. I have the hardware, and yet you still don't believe me.
     
    Vario, MxPhenom 216, 64K and 2 others say thanks.
  10. rtwjunkie

    rtwjunkie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,784 (1.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    Louisiana
    I thought everyone knew that the Total War games are all cpu-limited? Always have been, no matter what the resolution you play at or what fancy GPU you throw at it.
     
    Chevalr1c and RCoon say thanks.
  11. Shambles1980

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    541 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    thats something a lot of people fail to realize. there are a few cpu intensive games around mostly RTS games as the computer is very hard at work deciding what to do who attacks where and all that lovley stuff (it usually cheats mind you) but all that computing is cpu work and cant be offloaded to the gpu.
    the more advanced the rts games get (the less the computer just cheats to get resources or similar, and the more it actually really has to plan a strategy) then the more cpu power is needed.
    Amd have taken a bit of a hit due to this and i would like toi say its really isnt their fault although the way they share components within cores does mean it is their fault. you would have hoped better utilisation of cores would give them atleast an even playing field. honestly.. if they hadnt decided to share Fp process then they wouldnt suffer and would probably have a better cpu than intel. but they did share it and so here we are.
     
    Vario, 64K, RCoon and 2 others say thanks.
  12. BarbaricSoul

    BarbaricSoul

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,512 (2.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,469
    Location:
    S.E. Virginia
    got to say, I agree with Mussels


    @Shambles1980 , How dare you come in here trying to be the voice of reason!!! :laugh:
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,018
    Excuse me, but Total War wasn't in those benchmarks. It's exception as far as games go in terms of intensity. Obviously its an RTS game, so hundreds of independent units onscreen at one time to render. It's not really a fault of the FX 8350, when you've got a game where you can create almost unlimited units there will be a point where the hardware will reach its limitation. This can happen with i7 too, just the nature of such RTS games with high unit cap.


    I agree, but also keep in mind no CPU will achieve this. There might be spikes of 100FPS, but definitely not minimums or consistent averages on Total War: Shogun II.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
    Shambles1980 says thanks.
  14. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,557 (6.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,634
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You wont gain much from overclocking the memory. CPU clock is king. If you try overclocking the memory, and not know what you are doing, you will cause more head ache.

    God damn, how does such a simple thread turn into a pissing match with yogurt taking most of it in the face?
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. RCoon

    RCoon Gaming Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,823 (8.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,076
    Location:
    Gypsyland, UK
    Yeah I know, but he asked someone to mention a single game that couldn't get 100FPS and he would shoot them down. No shooting was done that day.
     
    Dent1 says thanks.
  16. Shambles1980

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    541 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    thought id go ahead and do it given that no one els wanted to lol
     
    Vario says thanks.
  17. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,018
    Understood, I just wanted to clarify that even i7 couldn't achieve this goal.

    Didn't want anyone to go away thinking the FX 8350 had a huge flaw or something as far as Shogun and 100 FPS averages or minimums.
     
    RCoon says thanks.
  18. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,101 (2.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,078
    "point a is a cpu is usually only bottle necked at lower resolutions because at higer resolutions the gpu is the bottle neck."

    That is not always true... you want all the horsepower you can get to really stretch the legs of high end GPUs. For example, Unigine Heaven benchmark... VERY GPU limited does NOT respond well to CPU speed increases. However, once you rock high end SLI/CFx, one needs to crank on the CPU to get the best score. The 'extreme
    setting (talking Hwbot Heaven) isn't a high res either. ;)

    And how, with this debacle of a new format, do I quote people... this setup is the reason I have been away from this place......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, LOL!
     
  19. Shambles1980

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    541 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    Just click reply on the post you wanna quote ;)

    p.s

    i agree with wanting the most horse power possible to power the gpu(s) as i briefly touched uppon in the posts
     
  20. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    14,167 (4.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,052
    I think this topics is off a wild tangent, Honestly as long as you dont have a major drop of fps from 1 scene to another (no stutter youll be fine) My sig rig ill enjoy once i have the gpu (sapphire 290 Vapor-x) and psu (seasonic 1250). Which is AMD 8350. What has me is a moderator is arguing with another forum member. #Scratching Head#

    The 4350 and higher handle games just fine along with the Phenom II x4. To say an 8350 being bad for gaming is highly mistaken.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  21. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,467 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    599
    Location:
    AZ
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/7

    That's at Ultra quality. Lower it to high or medium and you'll see many solutions capable. The actual cpu instructions do not change going from ultra to medium so again the 8350 should be capable of it, just as my older i7 950 was. Rcoon maxed out the details to where the gpu couldn't handle it, which is not a cpu bottleneck anymore. Then he blamed the cpu... and you're all getting mad at me for this? He also didn't understand the resoning on why we lower the resolution and details to do these comparisons. Do you really think that if I game at 1920x1080 there will be more instructions for my army of 1000 than there are at 1280x1024? Arrows my not be as sharp and their trails may disappear, but somehow the damage still gets calculated and their guys still fall down dead with some sort of animation. Odd magically changing res should have obviously halfed the size of my army the way you all talk. lol

    He also admits that his intel couldn't either at those specs. Which is more to the point of what I was trying to get across. Mussels coming out with "you might as well game at 1fps" nonsense is a ridiculous comment and I will continue calling it so. I don't care if you're all buddy buddying up. Nonsense is nonsense and we have a whole forum for that, perhaps mussels forget which he logged into.

    The amd cpu won't matter in any playability scenario. Sure there are times where intel offers more frames. But you won't be able to increase the intel rig to a detail level the amd will not be able to handle. Perhaps had I said that in the beginning Mussels wouldn't have made his ridiculous comment and we wouldn't have this tirade.
     
  22. Shambles1980

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Messages:
    541 (1.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    102
    handeling games and so on isnt really much of an issue to be fair. but when you start putting multiple High end cards in a system You have to look at your cpu.
    if your spending a lot to get the best performance possible you dont want your cpu to be taxed in some situations to a point where you arent fully utilizing your gpu's power. in single card setup i dont think this is a issue unless your running a stress test on the cpu using it to 100% and then trying to run a stress test on the gpu also which would not get any more than 1-2% gpu utilization because the cpu is under 100% load.

    the ammount of cpu the app utilizes (or has to use) directly reflects upon how much of the gpu can be utilized.
    if the game bottle necks your cpu to a point where no matter how much you tweak the setting you can only utilize your gpu to 30% and your frame rates arent getting better. then no amount of extra gpu power will fix that.
    but as i said. i dont see that happening with any of the modern quad or better cpu's
     
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  23. Dent1

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,334 (1.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,018

    My argument isn't that the FX 8350 can't handle it. I'm saying it can't handle it with 100 FPS average or minimum. Neither can an i7. Especially if we're talking 8 player skirmish online, with maximum unit count on all sides battling. With the exception of coupling it with something bizarre like a £1,000 Titan or a SLI 680 this might be just about achievable at peak but even then you'll see minimums of 30 FPS.

    I agree increasing the resolution might not have a direct impact on the CPU, but it will have a negative impact on performance overall. This negative impact on performance will occur regardless of which processor you have, whether FX 8350 or i7 etc.
     
  24. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,467 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    599
    Location:
    AZ
    well sure if you're absolutely trying to bring any cpu to its knees you will be successful. But I wasn't aware 8 player skirmishes with maxed out units was so common. I'm sure there are mods to skyrim that would bring even a massively clocked Xeon E5-2697 v2 to its knees but that's hardly a typical scenario.
    But in Shogun 2 Total war at least the shadows and other effects surrounding the units on the field still seem to weigh heavy on the gpu. The gpu vram seems to matter a great deal as Crazyeyesreaper will tell you over and over again.

    The game is playable by much lower solutions. Jim bob on his Phenom II X4 980 and R7 270 can't see this argument, he's too busy enjoying his games at decent settings. Even despite the disparaging gpu and cpu power I still see nothing wrong with the OP's solution.

    Sure an Intel will be all around faster, but would he have been able to afford 2 290X's while still getting an i7? Unlikely. An i5 perhaps, but who knows maybe the OP already had the 8350 rig at which point he'd have to sell those parts and buy the intel i5 solution. That wouldn't seem reasonable to me. The gpu power will last him longer. Believe me, I had the option to go with an i7 970 6 core rather than the 950. I put the extra into 480 SLI instead...of course I found out I likely should have gone with a single 480 and a 1440p monitor...but hey nobody's perfect right?
     
  25. Toothless

    Toothless

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    1,752 (4.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,073
    Location:
    Island of Berk
    I could get 100+fps on Tetris on my GT220 / Ahlon II X4 620. Given the resolution was 320x200 on lowest settings.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page