Will these components bottleneck each other?
- Thread starter abel98
- Start date
Solution
ShadowsVoid
Honorable
- Jun 23, 2013
- 423
- 0
- 10,960
Yes, your processor could do with being a little better but that's down to you. Maybe upgrade to AMD FX 8350 or even better Intel.
AGx-07_162
Honorable
- Sep 16, 2013
- 217
- 0
- 10,760
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
By definition there is always a "bottleneck." In your case, your parts are sufficiently powerful that in general that bottleneck will not be relevant. You may want to overclock your CPU some. If you are using the stock AMD cooler, you will want to get a better one.
I use and recommend the Xigmatek Gaia over the more often parroted but slightly inferior Hyper212 EVO:
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/07/07/review-xigmatek-gaia-sd1283/7/
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/11/27/review-cooler-master-hyper-212-plus/4/
Unlike the Hyper212 EVO (ignore the URL; it IS the EVO they tested), the Gaia never throttled, although it wasn't always the coolest depending on the fan used. Both got awards, but the Gaia is usually cheaper as well, making it the better choice.
I use and recommend the Xigmatek Gaia over the more often parroted but slightly inferior Hyper212 EVO:
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/07/07/review-xigmatek-gaia-sd1283/7/
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/11/27/review-cooler-master-hyper-212-plus/4/
Unlike the Hyper212 EVO (ignore the URL; it IS the EVO they tested), the Gaia never throttled, although it wasn't always the coolest depending on the fan used. Both got awards, but the Gaia is usually cheaper as well, making it the better choice.
LearningAddict
Reputable
- Mar 7, 2014
- 6
- 0
- 4,520
Define "bottleneck" then. From what I know there's always the "potential" for a bottleneck but that doesn't mean there always is one.
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
A "bottleneck" can be defined as that specific component that, if improved, would have the most significant positive effect on performance. For an analogy, consider pumping water through several sections of pipe all connected together. For example, if there's a 2" section, increasing an 8" section to 12" isn't going to make any difference, but going from 2" to 4" in that one section will make a huge difference. Back to computerese, if your graphics card is a HD6670, it isn't going to matter what CPU you have, you're not going to max Crysis 3. In the case of the rig being discussed, in most things I believe the CPU will be the bottleneck, but it is powerful enough that it may not be relevant, or might be alleviated by overclocking.
I'm building a new computer, on which I'd like to game quite a bit and do the usual stuff as browsing and office.
I'm using the said components as well as a 250 GB Samsung SSD EVO drive, 8 GB RAM and some other less relevant things. I may have the money for the 8350,but not for Intel. By the way, I was planning on buying the Hyper 212 EVO or the Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH Edition, but I'll definitely check out your suggestion. Thanks everyone
I'm using the said components as well as a 250 GB Samsung SSD EVO drive, 8 GB RAM and some other less relevant things. I may have the money for the 8350,but not for Intel. By the way, I was planning on buying the Hyper 212 EVO or the Scythe Mugen 4 PCGH Edition, but I'll definitely check out your suggestion. Thanks everyone
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,037
- 12
- 89,965
Believe it or not, the cost of the AMD rig will end up closer than you might think to the Intel. That is because you cannot use a cheap mobo with a 125W FX-8xxx. See this spreadsheet: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgN1D79Joo7tdE9xMUFlMEVWeFhuckJEVF9aMmtpUFE&gid=4 and make sure you select a board not known for VRM issues. You'll note this immediately excludes the cheap MSI 970A boards. OTOH, particularly if you're not interested in overclocking, you can use a relatively cheap H81 or H87 board with an Intel i5; you also won't need an aftermarket cooler with the Intel, but probably will with AMD, especially if you plan to overclock. The more expensive mobo and cooler will have the AMD rig at or near Intel territory price-wise.
Well, right now I'm looking at the price difference between AMD and Intel. It is about 60 so perhaps I'm going for Intel, so I hope it will go for sale soon. I will buy the pc somewhere around the end of april/may. Thanks for your heads up.
badboyrog2
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2014
- 6,953
- 0
- 18,960
get a ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 instead of ASRock 990FX Extreme 3
990FX Extreme 4 have a printed circuit board more thick an better quality
990FX Extreme 4 have a printed circuit board more thick an better quality
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 54,295
- 4,145
- 174,240
My definition of "bottleneck" in pc terms is a component which keeps any other improvement from being effective.
I think it is much overused.
I would prefer to call such components as limiting factors.
There will always be some limiting factor.
The difference is in the Intel architecture which does more work per clock.
One thing which the OP got right is the balance in budget between the cpu and the graphics card. The graphics card should be budgeted at about 2x the cpu for a balanced gamer.
Talking about graphics cards, the R9 cards are currently overpriced because of demand by the bitcoin miners.
A R9-280X is in the $400-$500 range.
A comparably performing GTX770 will be in the $350 range.
As to intel vs. amd for gaming cpu's, it largely depends on how many threads your game can effectively use.
Just because you see activity in the task manager across all threads, it does not mean that you are multithreaded. You are seeing windows spreading the activity around.
In fact few games can use more than 2 possibly 3 threads.
Look at this older report on <$200 gaming cpu's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html
You will see that the i3-2120 was comparable to a FX-8350.
The 8320 in question is a bit slower and is a $160 chip.
By comparison the i3-3220 in the report is slower than a i3-4130 @$125.
I think it is much overused.
I would prefer to call such components as limiting factors.
There will always be some limiting factor.
The difference is in the Intel architecture which does more work per clock.
One thing which the OP got right is the balance in budget between the cpu and the graphics card. The graphics card should be budgeted at about 2x the cpu for a balanced gamer.
Talking about graphics cards, the R9 cards are currently overpriced because of demand by the bitcoin miners.
A R9-280X is in the $400-$500 range.
A comparably performing GTX770 will be in the $350 range.
As to intel vs. amd for gaming cpu's, it largely depends on how many threads your game can effectively use.
Just because you see activity in the task manager across all threads, it does not mean that you are multithreaded. You are seeing windows spreading the activity around.
In fact few games can use more than 2 possibly 3 threads.
Look at this older report on <$200 gaming cpu's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html
You will see that the i3-2120 was comparable to a FX-8350.
The 8320 in question is a bit slower and is a $160 chip.
By comparison the i3-3220 in the report is slower than a i3-4130 @$125.
TRENDING THREADS
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram