Would OC-ed FX-8320 bottleneck OC-ed R9 280X?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jethead

Honorable
Mar 9, 2013
42
0
10,530
Hi all, thank you for taking time to read this.

I am going to get R9 280X and overclock it.

Would overclocked FX-8320 be too weak for this GPU? Should I rather cough up additional 60 euros for i5-4670K?

I don't plan to Crossfire, ever.

Last question, would 8320 be good enough to last all the way through PS4/XB1 lifetime?

Thanks again
Jethead
 
Solution
Rammy
There is nothing wrong with the FX8320, it's a decent CPU.
You can make an argument for the FX8320, FX8350, i5-4430/4440 or a 4670K depending on your budget and preferences. None of them should bottleneck a 280X, though it is possible that some future game may be ridiculously CPU heavy, though fairly unlikely.


None of those CPUs are likely to last the full lifetime of the PS4/XB1. Gaming PCs have a shelf life of around 3 years before they become obsolete. They can continue to perhaps 5 years if you are comfortable with increasingly having to reduce settings etc, but that's generally not ideal.
In the last few years, CPU progress has been fairly static, so a 3year old high end CPU (say a 2500K) is more or less as good now as it was...
Sort by date Sort by votes
OllieOxenFree

OllieOxenFree

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
309
0
10,860
Cough up those extra euros.
you could build a ps4 equivalent for 400 bucks.
8320 processor is a good one but the i5 outperforms in gaming and has yet to be a bottleneck for any GPU in single configuration.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rammy

Rammy

Honorable
Sep 3, 2012
2,492
0
12,960
There is nothing wrong with the FX8320, it's a decent CPU.
You can make an argument for the FX8320, FX8350, i5-4430/4440 or a 4670K depending on your budget and preferences. None of them should bottleneck a 280X, though it is possible that some future game may be ridiculously CPU heavy, though fairly unlikely.


None of those CPUs are likely to last the full lifetime of the PS4/XB1. Gaming PCs have a shelf life of around 3 years before they become obsolete. They can continue to perhaps 5 years if you are comfortable with increasingly having to reduce settings etc, but that's generally not ideal.
In the last few years, CPU progress has been fairly static, so a 3year old high end CPU (say a 2500K) is more or less as good now as it was then. This would suggest that a CPU bought today should still be good in a few years, but that's very hard to say. Graphics cards have continued to progress in this timeframe. The previous console generation stretched to 8 years though, and nobody can predict how long this one will last, or how well PC hardware will hold up in comparison. An 8 year old PC would struggle to run any modern game.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
J

Jethead

Honorable
Mar 9, 2013
42
0
10,530
Thanks a lot for the answers, that's a big investment for me, that's why I'm trying to get as many opinions as possible.

From reading this forum, I'm getting the impression that trying to future-proof your system is pointless because there's no telling which way the development will go and what hardware will become obsolete first.
Nobody knows which CPU is going to do better in games that don't exist yet, some say single-core performance will continue to make the winner, others - that number of cores will become much more important.
So the most sensible thing to do would be to get the cheapest CPU that does well with current games, which in this case would be 8320. It seems that more expensive CPUs provide only a minimal improvement in current games (on a single GPU).

Any comments?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rammy

Rammy

Honorable
Sep 3, 2012
2,492
0
12,960
There's a lot of sense and logic in what you are saying, the issue is that progress doesn't always make sense.

I think it's safe to say that we are clearly moving towards greater threading in applications. The issue is that games of the last few years have generally been limited to exploiting two cores at best, and it's only in relatively recent times that a quad core has actually started to pull ahead. It's perfectly feasible that a computer bought today with a quad core will live out it's standard lifespan of 3+years without ever really becoming a performance limiter.

I think the best thing is always to base your decisions around the best machine you can build at the time, rather than planning for a future which probably won't happen. At the price they sit at, the FX8320 is kinda without a direct Intel rival, so it's a great value option. If you decide that you prefer the various advantages of an Intel based system (better single threaded performance, lower power usage, more motherboard flexibility), then go for a basic i5 as it is unlikely to cost you too much more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom