Will an A10-7850K or Athlon 760K Bottleneck a R9 290X?

[RCoon]

860K would get further in oc due to reduced power draw.

Actually I thought the same but was very wrong. The locked iGPU processors consume the same amount of power for some reason. Although their maximum potential OC seems a lot higher.

Id say the 860K unless you absolutely need the gpu side of the apu.

This is pretty sensible information. Why pay more?

how ever cpu bound a game is, its still stuck at using 4 threads or less

Actually of the 13 review benchmarks I've done, only 2 games ran on more than 2 cores. The fewer cores a game uses, the more important the IPC is, and APUs are not exactly well known for strong single core performance. It entirely depends on the array of games you play. You may be comfortable with 40 FPS on not very CPU bound games. Other people may play more frivolous titles, and consider 60 FPS a standard fluid experience, in which case the APU doesn't quite cut it.

I used to run a 750K with a 780 last year for poops 'n' giggles. It played everyday junk just fine, but BF and Crysis and similar performance minded games just did not run on acceptable framerates on higher settings. If you're a LoL/Indie game player, then I see no point in anything beyond an i3.

It's also worth noting minimum FPS is greatly affected by the processor. You shouldn't just talk about games in maximum FPS, or even just average. You should pay attention to minimum FPS too, because that's what causes stutter depending on just how bad your minimum is.

i can play bf4 AND encode videos/archive with 7zip at ultra

I can't run WinRAR whilst simultaneously running OpenBroadcaster and run Warframe at maximum settings on an i5. So I think that's rather stretching the pony a bit. I know BF4 has mantle, a single processor doing all that work is not feasible, or sensible.

 

[de.das.dude]

Even with GTX470 there was a huge difference when I upgraded from Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.7GHz to i5-2500K.. Now I have older hardware since my Z68 mobo died, this old i7 runs games also pretty fine.

But no AMD for me anymore. They are good for a smaller budget (like the FX-6300), but I prefer Intel.

as i was saying... AMD is enough to get by. they will not bottleneck like everyone seems to think.

I can't run WinRAR whilst simultaneously running OpenBroadcaster and run Warframe at maximum settings on an i5. So I think that's rather stretching the pony a bit. I know BF4 has mantle, a single processor doing all that work is not feasible, or sensible.

completely feasible.
i allocate 4 to handbrake and the game can take the rest.

 

[Frick]

as i was saying... AMD is enough to get by. they will not bottleneck like everyone seems to think.

But they do.

 

[GhostRyder]

Well the 860k is an excellent processor to say the least and its the same chip (Minus GPU) you get on like the A10-7700K or 7850K so its a great overclocker and has enough performance especially when overclocked for any modern game.

You do have to overclock to really get the max of the performance in a game but I have generally hit 4.8 on 7850K's and got 5.0ghz on an 860K recently for a friend on an inexpensive AIO. It performs well matched with an R9 280X in all games and its plenty smooth at 1080p without anything to speak of that I noticed in testing.

But they do.

Depends, honestly in the end an intel will get slightly higher FPS in some game but many show very little changes on an intel CPU or AMD cpu when they are at 4.5ghz+ (But I am mostly referencing the FX series) and that's normally because of (Depending how you look at it) optimization issues.

You can game on any AMD or Intel CPU and get great performance as long as you have a good card, your not going to miss much but buying an say FX 6300 and overclocking versus say buying an unlocked i5 nor are you going to be seeing severely reduced performance (you might end up depending on the game up to 5FPS average on a recent game).

 

[Frag_Maniac]

what you said has very little truth to it.

Given what you said in this post, if anything it only verifies my point.

This is the common AMD CPU defense response. They mention a known multicore title, and multi thread bench, that don't accurately represent the whole of gaming software. The only difference is this time there's one obscure title thrown in that many don't play or have even heard of.

Mussels has it right and the experience to back it up. I take the majorities word for it, I don't need to see it for myself. There are plenty testimonials and GAME benches that test a broad range of titles both quad+ core and not to back it up. I don't see any reason to blow money on one to see for myself they are right. Furthermore, AMD have promised to do better with their next architecture and have obviously put most of their focus into low budget APUs for laptops and low end OEM desktops. Without the console contracts they got, their APU/CPU division would have taken a serious blow. The only real business they're doing in high end gaming regarding CPUs anymore is from diehard AMD fanatics that refuse to let go and are a bit in denial.

 

[vega22]

it aint only the diehards who go amd cpu these days dude. some have less cash and know that when needed 8 amd cores are still better than 4 intel for eg. not everyone cares so much about the highest fps as long as they get playable framerates.

i know when i spec builds up for people it is all about helping them get the best from their budget, if the amd route helps get a better gpu then it aint even a question if they want a games machine. i mean i doubt anybody would try to argue in favour of a strong cpu and weak gpu for gaming as we all know the gpu does most of the work.

but this is the crux of the debate, and a point which most seem miss. a faster cpu will always be better for getting the most from your gpu. now someone said earlier in the thread that his mutli gpu setup is bottle neck if he runs anything less than 4.8ghz. now they will perform worse, but to call it a bottleneck when the scaling would be linear to the speed increase is just foolish. it is a misuse of the term and it is this blurring of the term which worries people.

a bottleneck is when you get a big reduction in a particular situation. think about how fast an upside down bottle empties x amount of liquid, then think about a glass with the same diameter as the bottles base doing the same.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Just saw a sale at Fry's on the 4790k for $288. Kinda hard to want AMD when you can get deals like that. I think a lot of people are either impatient, naive, or paranoid, to the point of having someone else build them something vs doing it themselves, and that's where that difference in price goes. Not worth it IMO.

 

[eidairaman1]

Still close to 300.

 

[de.das.dude]

But they do.

depends on your definition of bottle neck.

do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes


i went from a phenom ii x4 945 to a 8320 and i noticed very little difference.

 

[DayKnight]

Modern games don't care about the CPU.

Lolwut?

Please enlighten me.

 

[OneMoar]

bottom line is that
1. amd's are slower then the equally priced intel parts
2. amd's use more power and generate more excess heat for performance/watt

 

[RCoon]

Lolwut?

Please enlighten me.

Most manshoots and mandriveshoots are entirely GPU bound. I don't see why you find that surprising. Only a few games are even capable of using more than 2 cores as it is these days.

Also feel free to take the time to read that entire post.

 

[OneMoar]

Most manshoots and mandriveshoots are entirely GPU bound. I don't see why you find that surprising. Only a few games are even capable of using more than 2 cores as it is these days.

thats wholly inaccurate most recent games can use at least 4
I can't think of a title that is limited to only two cores

 

[RCoon]

thats wholly inaccurate most recent games can use at least 4

Very very recent perhaps. The few I've tested do not.

 

[Frick]

depends on your definition of bottle neck.

do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes


i went from a phenom ii x4 945 to a 8320 and i noticed very little difference.

For one thing the IPC on those to are similar. And if you're on the Asus Swift you pretty much need all the horsepower you can get.

 

[OneMoar]

pretty much everything in the last 3-4 years can use a quad core
I don't know what games you test but you need to find some more modern titles
and even if a particular title can only use 2 cores that doesn't render a quad core or better ineffective

 

[RCoon]

pretty much everything in the last 3-4 years can use a quad core
I don't know what games you test but you need to find some more modern titles
and even if a particular title can only use 2 cores that doesn't render a quad core or better ineffective

You would be surprised I think. A lot of modern games (I mean all modern games, not just AAA) just don't use that many cores sometimes. But I wholeheartedly agree, it does not render a shiny quad/hyperthreaded core worthless in the slightest, just a worthy sacrifice when on a budget.

 

[vega22]

i love fanbois me. their lack of logic and inability to see beyond the pr bullshit makes me laugh.

and cry a little as they are still allowed to breed....

 

[Jstn7477]

While AMD stuff is okay for cheap builds, it seems rather odd to buy a lower end processor (with 2 FPUs) yet buy AMD's flagship single-die GPU, IMO. Some games may be okay, but pretty much everything I play needs an Intel CPU to maintain the high framerates I expect. My 5820K 6c/12t overclocked CPU still fails to completely open up my GTX 980 in many scenarios in Guild Wars 2 for instance, I'll watch the GPU usage stay at 99% much of the time, but then the framerate and GPU usage drops, especially in somewhat populated areas of the maps. AMD APUs seem alright for lower end GPUs though, but meh. I'm hoping AMD's Carrizo or whatever is next is actually better, so the people who love these chips have a better experience.

This thread reminds me of the MSI GX60 notebook, which has an HD 7970M but is stuck with an AMD A10-5750M processor. Unfortunately, the same GPU performs much better with an Intel mobile quad core. Have a look at this review of that notebook: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook

I'm happy with my cheaper notebook (purchased for $960) that has an i7-4700MQ processor and GTX 765M 2GB graphics, even though the graphics may not be as fast as the 7970M, BUT the performance is much more predictable and I haven't run across anything unplayable due to CPU limitations at least (GPU does well too).

 

[Durvelle27]

While AMD stuff is okay for cheap builds, it seems rather odd to buy a lower end processor (with 2 FPUs) yet buy AMD's flagship single-die GPU, IMO. Some games may be okay, but pretty much everything I play needs an Intel CPU to maintain the high framerates I expect. My 5820K 6c/12t overclocked CPU still fails to completely open up my GTX 980 in many scenarios in Guild Wars 2 for instance, I'll watch the GPU usage stay at 99% much of the time, but then the framerate and GPU usage drops, especially in somewhat populated areas of the maps. AMD APUs seem alright for lower end GPUs though, but meh. I'm hoping AMD's Carrizo or whatever is next is actually better, so the people who love these chips have a better experience.

This thread reminds me of the MSI GX60 notebook, which has an HD 7970M but is stuck with an AMD A10-5750M processor. Unfortunately, the same GPU performs much better with an Intel mobile quad core. Have a look at this review of that notebook: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook

I'm happy with my cheaper notebook (purchased for $960) that has an i7-4700MQ processor and GTX 765M 2GB graphics, even though the graphics may not be as fast as the 7970M, BUT the performance is much more predictable and I haven't run across anything unplayable due to CPU limitations at least (GPU does well too).

I'm fine

 

[Mussels]

depends on your definition of bottle neck.

do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes


i went from a phenom ii x4 945 to a 8320 and i noticed very little difference.

that doesn't prove anything, did you bench how much faster those CPU's were per thread, instead of as a whole? AMD went slightly backwards with performance per core with their latest stuff, and added more cores/threads instead.

saying an AMD->AMD upgrade made no visible difference is the point, the AMD's havent sped up as far as games are concerned - sure, you can now run more things at once... but you could do those things and more with higher performance on a more expensive intel.

Why is it when people have AMD and intel setups that they get ignored, but people with just one or the other are 100% convinced in their information

 

[Durvelle27]

that doesn't prove anything, did you bench how much faster those CPU's were per thread, instead of as a whole? AMD went slightly backwards with performance per core with their latest stuff, and added more cores/threads instead.

saying an AMD->AMD upgrade made no visible difference is the point, the AMD's havent sped up as far as games are concerned - sure, you can now run more things at once... but you could do those things and more with higher performance on a more expensive intel.

Why is it when people have AMD and intel setups that they get ignored, but people with just one or the other are 100% convinced in their information

I have both AMD and Intel if that counts

 

[Mussels]

I have both AMD and Intel if that counts

now benchmark the crap out of them, so you know total and per core performance, and them make direct comparisons between their architectures instead of broad sweeping assumptions, and i'll make sweet, sweet love to you. or just thank your post.

 

[Durvelle27]

now benchmark the crap out of them, so you know total and per core performance, and them make direct comparisons between their architectures instead of broad sweeping assumptions, and i'll make sweet, sweet love to you. or just thank your post.

I have and sorry I don't make assumptions

 

[Mussels]

I have and sorry I don't make assumptions

expect some sweet sweet lovin to come your way tonight then.