2 X 7950 -- Bottleneck a 8350 @ 4.5GHz? (Pls. Advise or Predict)

[Martini1991]

The guy who has this setup says it is not bottlenecked, I know one of the above does not own the FX-8 and says it will. What gives?

It'll bottleneck, that's a fact, that doesn't make it unplayable though (Which I assume is what Panos means) Phix gives an example of his BF3 being bottlenecked (An i5 bottlenecks too cards in BF3 too, although it's not down to grunt, it's more like the CPU just gets confused and it can't throw things down threads it doesn't have.)

And you've missed off Allmighty's results as well.

Facts are facts, personal opinions tend to be clouded.

 

[Marine-RX179]

The guy who has this setup says it is not bottlenecked, I know one of the above does not own the FX-8 and says it will. What gives?

The thing is...FX8 might have SOME chance of not bottlenecking CF7950, IF it was a single player game that's not too CPU demanding and would use all 8 cores; anything that doesn't use all 8 cores, it is immediately guaranteed to bottleneck.

Funny enough, most i5 owners are not delusional enough to claim high overclocked i5 ain't gonna bottleneck CF7950, yet we get people with the generally slower FX8 claiming it won't bottleneck...it's really purchase justification more than anything else really.

The annoying thing is some individuals always claim the FX8 being better than what they really are in reality, and as a result of their misinformation, it is the people seeking advice and went down that route suffer, and end up paying money for something that doesn't match their expectation.

You always see me and Martini posting on the CPU forum because we don't want people seeking advise to suffer. I know if I was someone who was no too knowledgable with hardwares seeking advice, and bought a FX8 base on those ridiculous claims of "the IPC are the same/per core performance are equal" "the FX8 is faster than the i5", I know I'd be gutted when I actually get round to using it.

 

[Phixsator]

Phix, I can't tell if you were agreeing with me lol.

I was overall agreeing with you m8. Thing is though if we look at BF3 again, singleplayer performance would bang against the roof of 170-200 fps ceiling using my FX-8350 meaning maxed out 7950s. Multiplayer was a different beast. The problem as i see it some people read into the figures wrong when they are looking for advice and when this happens the FX-83x0 is put in a bad light and it does not belong there.

When we have these CPU intensive Multiplayer games the FX-8350 usually beats the snot out of an I5 but looses a fair bit to an i7, yet people would go look at some graph somewhere and say "hey the i5 have 30 more frames than the FX-83x0 in this 1024x768 benchmark which is uber rubish for a gamer anyway. The only question that should be asked is:"can it max out the GPU/GPUs i want to run with it for the price i can pay" .

Im sorry Martini, im ranting like crazy here.. Please forgive me.. ignorance is just one of the things that ticks me off(not aimed at you).

 

[Martini1991]

Yeah, fair enough Phix.

I'm not sure what CPU intensive multiplayer games you're talking about though?
Due to FPU performance, even if a game uses 8 threads, there's never going to be a massive difference in a game, even if that is multiplayer.

An i5 and FX83 in multiplayer BF3 with a dual GPU, aren't massively different from each other.

And the only other one I can think of is Crysis 3? Which I don't have figures on, so that's a potential of 1 game.

And then possibly BF4 when it's finished (Can't use beta figures given their patch notes)

And that's all I can really think of for heavily threaded games really (That aren't in an absolute state)

You always see me and Martini posting on the CPU forum because we don't want people seeking advise to suffer. I know if I was someone who was no too knowledgable with hardwares seeking advice, and bought a FX8 base on those ridiculous claims of "the IPC are the same/per core performance are equal" "the FX8 is faster than the i5", I know I'd be gutted when I actually get round to using it.

I've given up there.

 

[NoobCannon]

my 3570k @ 4.7ghz used to massively bottleneck my xfire 7970's, would see 40-60% gpu usage in bf3 mp.

changed to an i7 at the same clocks and saw a huge gain in gcard usage and a much smoother game. 90-100% usage

 

[Martini1991]

The BF3 and i5 with dual GPU's is proper weird, because the scaling figures are mental really, far more than HT conventionally adds.

It is literally like the i5 just doesn't know what it's doing.

 

[MOOGLEYS]

I do not see these massive gains when using my 4770k system over the 4670k with a pair of 7970's. Might be the 4x series are a bit better.

Running a pair of 7970's with the 8350 works ok for me but the GPU usage is lower than either the Intel chips. My 8350 runs 4.8Ghz.

If you already have a 8350 system you will see gains going crossfire but not as much as the Intel systems but it's still worth doing if you have the space and a res higher than 1080p/60Hz.

 

[vUNREALv]

I have 2x 7950's both at 1050/1400 with my 8320 which is at 4.6ghz in battlefield 3 my gpu usage is anything between 80 and 99% the only thing is i am gaming at 5760x1080. Coming from a 2500k @ 4.6ghz their is no difference if any difference at all the amd setup feels smoother in bf3 and the bf4 beta infact the only game ive played that felt smoother with the i5 is eurotruck simulator.

Both setups'with 8gb ram at 2133mhz.

Havent personally had a problem with amd or intel over the last 15 years ive always tried both its just right now i have a feeling the amd 8 core cpu's will get stronger with upcoming games as opposed to the same priced intel chips.

Having had sli 670's single 7970 and xfire 7950's in both platforms if their are differences they are only noticed if you watch a graph showing frames in actual use they both feel exactly the same although bf3 is certainly smoother with the amd cpu.

 

[flopper]

Bf4 with Mantle is also likely to alterate how the cpu/gpu works with gaming.
amd cpu 8350 8core as far I can tell is a great buy.

 

[Aderes Devorah]

Why not hope all of us are well?....I hope you are well...lol

Or are there certain ones of us you don't wish well... and who are they...lol

Well, I am just trying to be realistic. I did give it some consideration, and came to the conclusion that some people out there will have had something terrible happen to them, just because of the law of averages. I didn't want them sitting there thinking, "Doing well? Go take a flying leap, buddy!"

But I love everybody one here, and their families and pets, too. You, my friend, are naturally included in this admiration, as well.

Best

 

[gpuerrilla]

Funny enough, most i5 owners are not delusional enough to claim high overclocked i5 ain't gonna bottleneck CF7950, yet we get people with the generally slower FX8 claiming it won't bottleneck...it's really purchase justification more than anything else really.

The annoying thing is some individuals always claim the FX8 being better than what they really are in reality, and as a result of their misinformation, it is the people seeking advice and went down that route suffer, and end up paying money for something that doesn't match their expectation.

Funnily enough I have not owned an i5 and do not pretend to own one. It was other posters who splatted charts and benches which to be honest doesn't really effect me as I don't have a large monitor or uber GPU(s).

Saying I/we/others post for purchase justification sums up pretty much everyone if you want to throw the toys out of the pram. I have justified it plenty of times with martin sticking to value and not spending a lot for a reasonable performance gain. Yet I forgot I must be delusional...

Read some of the other posts and you will see:

I do not see these massive gains when using my 4770k system over the 4670k with a pair of 7970's. Might be the 4x series are a bit better.

Running a pair of 7970's with the 8350 works ok for me but the GPU usage is lower than either the Intel chips. My 8350 runs 4.8Ghz.

If you already have a 8350 system you will see gains going crossfire but not as much as the Intel systems but it's still worth doing if you have the space and a res higher than 1080p/60Hz.

I have 2x 7950's both at 1050/1400 with my 8320 which is at 4.6ghz in battlefield 3 my gpu usage is anything between 80 and 99% the only thing is i am gaming at 5760x1080. Coming from a 2500k @ 4.6ghz their is no difference if any difference at all the amd setup feels smoother in bf3 and the bf4 beta infact the only game ive played that felt smoother with the i5 is eurotruck simulator.

Both setups'with 8gb ram at 2133mhz.

Having had sli 670's single 7970 and xfire 7950's in both platforms if their are differences they are only noticed if you watch a graph showing frames in actual use they both feel exactly the same although bf3 is certainly smoother with the amd cpu.

Bf4 with Mantle is also likely to alterate how the cpu/gpu works with gaming.
amd cpu 8350 8core as far I can tell is a great buy.

It's a shame really as it's only the same people backing each other up (with less ammunition as time goes on) and judging from the tone of this recent post makes me believe maybe your showing your true colours.

 

[almighty15]

It's the same story no matter what the forum or the thread.... There's always people saying the FX they own has no problems in Battlefield and Crysis 3....

Everyone knows in those games the FX is a good performing chip, but what about the games that can't/don't use all 8 threads the FX has?

I'm a PC gamer, my PC was built for gaming and as such I play a multitude of different games that were released at different times and run on a host of different game engines.

Because of this I need a CPU that can push my 7950's as much as possible no matter what game I'm playing and that is the reason I chose to buy an Intel CPU, because unlike AMD CPU's they offer amazing performance in EVERY game I play and no just highly threaded ones.

The OP has asked if he'll notice a performance improvement over a single 7950 and the answer is yes, in highly GPU dependant and highly threaded games there will be a performance increase.

What the OP needs to decide is if the performance increase in only a handful of games is worth the extra cost.

I actually ran the Crysis 1 benchmark today maxed out on my system at 1080p and I'm actually CPU limited on a 4.7Ghz 2600k!!

Both GPU's are only hovering around the 50-60% mark so even I need a new CPU

The FX aren't bad CPU's but people seem to forget that not everyone only plays the latest and greatest multi-threaded games.

OP - Personally I would get a second 7950, it won't help you out much in games that aren't lightly threaded but it'll start to make more sense as time goes on

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I would get a second 7950. Even in games that wont utilize all the cores, you will see a performance boost (although much smaller compare to heavily threaded games). You have a great Mobo for OCing, so why not push 5Ghz if you have the cooling for it, you will surely benefit once you Crossfire?

 

[vUNREALv]

The op wouldnt only be looking at a potential perfromance upgrade in a handful of games adding a second 7950 will improve performance in all games he can play. Just because people reference bf3 or crysis 3 doesnt mean they are the only games an oc'ed fx chip can handle, lets keep in mind the odds are greatly in favour of future releases making use of the 8 core cpu's, surely for £117 which is the cheapest i can find an 8320 is pretty hard to argue against considering how far they overclock?

No matter what brand amd or intel if you are using a current overclocked chip the chances are an extra 7950 will improve gaming. Things certainly seem better fo us xfire users now than they did back i had xfire 5870's and 6950's radeon pro has made sure of that.

I have access to an overclocked fx8320 and an overclocked 2500k both play anything at 5760x1080 with my xfire 7950's but the amd setup cost less money to assemble than the intel one and shows me beter performance in multi threaded games which are very likely what most future games will be.

 

[Martini1991]

EDIT.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Funnily enough I have not owned an i5 and do not pretend to own one. It was other posters who splatted charts and benches which to be honest doesn't really effect me as I don't have a large monitor or uber GPU(s).

Th0nt mate don't take it upon yourself, I wasn't referring to you at all.

It's apparent you might not always know the subjects too well, but at least I can clearly see you are actually keeping an open mind to things. I was more refering to those people with already with their minds made up, and making claims that make no sense at all.

Take the mantle feature for example, I myself was one of the first persons suggested that it might benefit more with using a AMD CPU than Intel CPU, but the reality could well be it work just equal well on both AMD and Intel CPU; yet we already got people over CPU forum passing it off like to fully benefit from Mantle, AMD is the only way to go- like it's already set in stone, despite there's no prove or evidence of AMD CPU would benefit MORE from Mantle than Intel CPU yet.

Some people just seem lack the ability to seperate opinions/predictions/theories away from facts...

 

[gpuerrilla]

The op wouldnt only be looking at a potential perfromance upgrade in a handful of games adding a second 7950 will improve performance in all games he can play. Just because people reference bf3 or crysis 3 doesnt mean they are the only games an oc'ed fx chip can handle, lets keep in mind the odds are greatly in favour of future releases making use of the 8 core cpu's, surely for £117 which is the cheapest i can find an 8320 is pretty hard to argue against considering how far they overclock?

I picked one up for £111, might not be the best for raw performance but a clean purchase of CPU+RAM+Mobo it's a great price for what you get.

I have access to an overclocked fx8320 and an overclocked 2500k both play anything at 5760x1080 with my xfire 7950's but the amd setup cost less money to assemble than the intel one and shows me beter performance in multi threaded games which are very likely what most future games will be.

Apparently a bottleneck. Being able to play them in comparison like that and seeing with your own eyes - aren't you gutted when you get round to using it?

My FX8350 works fine at 4.9Ghz under water, pushing the two 7950s PCS+ running at 1100/1550. Have yet to see a CPU bottleneck affecting performance, except is game using a single core (WoT for example)

...it's really purchase justification more than anything else really.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Th0nt mate don't take it upon yourself, I wasn't referring to you at all.

It's apparent you might not always know the subjects too well, but at least I can clearly see you are actually keeping an open mind to things. I was more refering to those people with already with their minds made up, and making claims that make no sense at all.

Take the mantle feature for example, I myself was one of the first persons suggested that it might benefit more with using a AMD CPU than Intel CPU, but the reality could well be it work just equal well on both AMD and Intel CPU; yet we already got people passing it off like to fully benefit from Mantle, AMD is the only way to go- like it's already set in stone, despite there's no prove or evidence of AMD CPU would benefit MORE from Mantle than Intel CPU yet.

Some people just seem lack the ability to seperate opinions/predictions/theories away from facts...

I was just disappointed to see you write that earlier marine. Up until now your posts were honest and plausible (maybe it was just a one off?)- I can appreciate the advice the forum brings without anyone chipping spin due to the system they have.

I know there have been weaker arguments too, with some crazy talk traded between martin and yourself from individuals but that should not stain all of the blinkers on FX-8 brigade.

The FX-8 isn't the solution for what every person wants from their rigs, but it has a place. I always believe in a good price/performance and it ticks many of those boxes. Intel have plenty of variety to offer and if you can afford it then by all means go with that. Coming from a C2D E8500 I have nothing but praise for that purchase it lasted me nearly six years, if you buy components based on brand only then you are only setting yourself up for a fall at some point.

Mantle does have potential but I wont jump on that bandwagon until there's more evidence - time will tell but the future looks good for all parties.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I was just disappointed to see you write that earlier marine. Up until now your posts were honest and plausible (maybe it was just a one off?)- I can appreciate the advice the forum brings without anyone chipping spin due to the system they have.

I know there have been weaker arguments too, with some crazy talk traded between martin and yourself from individuals but that should not stain all of the blinkers on FX-8 brigade.

The FX-8 isn't the solution for what every person wants from their rigs, but it has a place. I always believe in a good price/performance and it ticks many of those boxes. Intel have plenty of variety to offer and if you can afford it then by all means go with that. Coming from a C2D E8500 I have nothing but praise for that purchase it lasted me nearly six years, if you buy components based on brand only then you are only setting yourself up for a fall at some point.

Mantle does have potential but I wont jump on that bandwagon until there's more evidence - time will tell but the future looks good for all parties.

I never said FX8320 is a bad choice...I myself have recommended it on many occasion. But bottomline is this topic is about whether or not a FX8350 at 4.50GHz would bottleneck CF7950. Since the OP didn't specifically state the resolution, so I just assume it would be a single 1920 res screen, and for this res, the simple answer to OP's question is YES it will bottleneck.

If it was for 5780x1080 which the graphic cards need to rendering 3 times the pixel count, then obviously the graphic card would be stress harder and would be chucking out much lower frame rate, so bottleneck will obviously be lesser than a single 1920 res screen.

For most part, an overclocked FX8320 won't be too much behind the Intel when just using a single 7950 at 1920 res, particularly if only on a 60Hz monitor trying to push 60fps, however in games that are low threaded and when huge graphic grunt such as CF7950 is available, the performance difference would be huge for people that game on 120/144Hz monitor (Skyrim for example).

Also, when I say the FX8320 being "generally" slower than the i5, I don't mean they are behind i5's performance in games that are well threaded and would use up to 8 threads (i.e. BF3, Crysis 3 etc), but more about games in general simply ain't that heavily threaded, with most struggle to even use 4 threads fully.

 

[Martini1991]

vUNREALv's a unique case as he's running 5760x1080, so he's going to be far GPU heavier.