Will my APU bottleneck my GTX 770

Solution
As a very ROUGH, but educated guess I think you'll get between a 20% and 50% bottleneck depending on the game, compared to using an Intel i5-4440 or similar Intel CPU.

For example, in some CPU-intensive games you might be at 30FPS instead of 60FPS because the system is waiting for the AMD CPU to finish (the GPU part of the APU just goes unused).

However, that doesn't mean I recommend you run out and rebuild your system, especially if you can handle the games you presently play on HIGH or near-HIGH settings and can achieve 60FPS.

(I use Adaptive VSync for most games, and tweak the quality settings so I rarely drop below the 60FPS mark. So, if I can achieve 60FPS+ I'm synched/locked to 60FPS and get no screen tearing. If my computer...

travini

Reputable
Apr 12, 2014
9
0
4,510


Could you dumb that down for me I'm new to this PC thing sorry I literally know nothing.
 
Yes. Definitely.

It will however, vary a lot between games depending on how demanding they are of the CPU.

Starcraft 2 is likely to be very bottlenecked by the CPU in that APU.

I tried to find benchmarks, but for now I just have the following graph and my extensive PC experience to use: http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/cpu/AMD+A6-6400K/review

I know that your APU has two cores and is 3.9GHz. I would have to guess that it would sit below an FX-4100 on average.

The basic CPU scores also sit below an i3-3220 (two core) Intel CPU so I would estimate roughly 75% the performance of that: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-3220-vs-AMD-A6-6400K
 

Remixex

Reputable
Mar 18, 2014
808
0
5,360
oh, FX is another line of CPUs by AMD, just like APUs, but they are newer, made for the new cards like yours and CPUs like the fx 6300, or fx 8320 will not bottleneck that GPU, however your APU is currently bottleneking it
 

travini

Reputable
Apr 12, 2014
9
0
4,510


Glad I didnt buy this know what should be my course of action I really like the value of the 770
 

travini

Reputable
Apr 12, 2014
9
0
4,510


Thanks learning is fun.
 


Actually, every AMD CPU made to date will bottleneck the GTX770 in most games:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-15.html

People keep repeating that the FX-6300 and better won't bottleneck but it's simply not true. It depends on the game, but MOST work better on a good Intel CPU like the i5-4670K.

There are a FEW games that have started to use the extra cores better such as the Battlefield games and we're seeing similar results at times in those.
 

Remixex

Reputable
Mar 18, 2014
808
0
5,360
I've heard from...a somewhat reputable source that fx 6300 won't even bottleneck an r9 270x, i don't know on the Nvidia side though, my apologies for that, as i said i am a newb who knows a little bit and want to help xD
 
As a very ROUGH, but educated guess I think you'll get between a 20% and 50% bottleneck depending on the game, compared to using an Intel i5-4440 or similar Intel CPU.

For example, in some CPU-intensive games you might be at 30FPS instead of 60FPS because the system is waiting for the AMD CPU to finish (the GPU part of the APU just goes unused).

However, that doesn't mean I recommend you run out and rebuild your system, especially if you can handle the games you presently play on HIGH or near-HIGH settings and can achieve 60FPS.

(I use Adaptive VSync for most games, and tweak the quality settings so I rarely drop below the 60FPS mark. So, if I can achieve 60FPS+ I'm synched/locked to 60FPS and get no screen tearing. If my computer drops BELOW the 60FPS mark then Adaptive VSync automatically disable VSYNC so I don't get the STUTTER due to the timing mismatch between monitor and PC. I just get some screen tearing like normal with VSYNC OFF.)

So I do THIS:
1. Start FRAPS
2. Start the GAME
3. Turn VSYNC OFF (may have to force it off in the NVidia Control Panel for some games).
4. Play with quality settings (anti-aliasing, shadows, etc) until I can maintain 60FPS most of the time (80% or better)
5. Turn on Adaptive VSync (force in NVidia Control Panel-> Manage 3D Settings->..)

I hope this has been useful.
 
Solution

travini

Reputable
Apr 12, 2014
9
0
4,510




Thanks I will try that GPU with an Intel CPU.
 

paitjsu sadff

Honorable
Jan 29, 2014
1,231
0
11,660
so much bs, i have an fx-8320 paired with a gtx780 and the only game the fx cpu cant keep up with my gpu and load it to 99% is highly modded skyrim and this is only because that game is poorly optimised and use like 1 ubber dubber heavy thread only...
 


There are lots of benchmarks that disagree with you, and I provided some. Including SKYRIM.

Please provide a link to a benchmark that shows an FX-8320 (or FX-8350) getting the same results as an i5-4670K or similar.

*As for YOUR example, it's not really repeatable because you have "highly modded skyrim" so we have no idea how much that shifts the load to the GPU. You probably have some graphics-intensive mods that are maxing out your GPU.

Here's LINK and a quote from that which summarizes up the FX-8350 and similar: http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

" If you're willing to tolerate more heat and noise from your system, if you're not particularly concerned about the occasional hitch or slowdown while gaming, if what you really want is maximum multithreaded performance for your dollar... well, then the FX-8350 may just be your next CPU. I can't say I would go there, personally. I've gotten too picky about heat and noise over time, and gaming performance matters a lot to me."

I think we can agree to disagree, but I want the OP to make an informed decision based on real-world benchmarks and reviews.
 

travini

Reputable
Apr 12, 2014
9
0
4,510


How do you think my system would preform i5 is nice but the price not sure..
 


I've already given an estimate, however I was modifying my post that you gave "Best Answer" so go back and read that. You may wish to print it as well.

I should also add if you use the Geforce Experience tool it attempts to use settings that run your game at 40FPS with VSYNC OFF (make sure VSync is Off; if not disable it). It's their recommendations for a good compromise of frame rate vs quality.

The problem with VSYNC OFF is that you get screen tearing, so if that bugs you (I hate it) you really need to synch to 60FPS as per my guide. In some cases you can even use the HALF adaptive method (right below Adaptive VSync) which on a 60Hz monitor forces 30FPS cap/synch. It's more suitable for top-down games as it will feel sluggish.

So to summarize, tweak to maintain:
a) 60FPS with VSYNC ON (recommend Adaptive VSync)
b) 40FPS with VSYNC OFF
c) 30FPS with VSYNC ON (recommend Adaptive Half VSync)

*I know this gets confusing which is why I suggest you PRINT some of this then Google some of the terminology and possibly look up tweaking guides as well.

Cheers!
 
*READ THIS*

You have an FM2 socket motherboard which supports APU's and some AMD CPU's. It does NOT support the FX-6300/FX-8300 series. So you'd have to buy a new motherboard, and because of that a new copy of Windows.

However, your other option is to spend $84 and get this 4-core CPU which will fit your motherboard. I think that's the best VALUE decision you could make for an upgrade otherwise it would be over $300 (motherboard + CPU + Windows):
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-ad760kwohlbox

**Go to your motherboard site to see if that CPU is supported.

Here's a VIDEO to watch reviewing the model one step lower (barely). It's hardly an average of lots of games, but it's a good indicator that the CPU I recommend above is mostly doing okay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIT9uLDjZcg

Your results would be closest to the GTX780.
 

dias4589

Reputable
Apr 24, 2014
1
0
4,510
your apu will unfortunately bottleneck a gtx 770 i would recommend getting a athlon II 760k black edition processor overclock it to around 4.3 ghz then lower the clock speed on your gtx 770 for a minimal bottleneck. I had the same rig as you had except with a older a6 when i did this performance increased a lot




 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
I will answer honestly seeing as PhotonBoy isn't being entirely honest. Older DirectX9.0 games (and even older ones from before) were only optimized to run on up to 2 CPU cores. Most of these titles, however, really only use a single core. So if you plan on playing older games, you'd think you might want a CPU that is capable of doing more work per clock (per MHz a.k.a IPC or Integers Per Clock). The thing is, older games don't require powerful hardware. So even a highly threaded CPU (like the AMD FX line) can run these games with ease. You will not get an unplayable scenario with the AMD FX 6300 or above in modern titles (as well as up and coming titles).

The AMD FX line is also far less expensive. So it has that going for it. As PhotonBoy mentioned the AMD FX line does consume more power and their CPUs do tend to run a little hotter. Its not much to be concerned about in the real world. I mean in most areas you won't even notice the difference on your utility bill.

Now with future titles, things get much more interesting. AMD have released an API (its a programming language used to code a game) called Mantle. This API is optimized for MultiCore CPUs. It alleviates CPU overhead while allowing the work sent to the CPU to be spread out more evenly across multiples cores. Under this API AMD's FX line is shining.

Now you may hear people say "So what? Only 3 games use Mantle". True, but Crytek has signed on (makers of Crysis), Electronic Arts have signed on and it looks like Ubisoft may be joining soon. These are companies which make video games.

But even then, Mantle's Adoption rate doesn't matter. Microsoft has now come out and state that they will be following AMD Mantle's path with their new DirectX 12 API. In other words... the future looks bright for the AMD FX line. So a CPU purchase, of the AMD FX type, is a sound one.

Also a CPU bottlenecking a GPU and Vice Versa doesn't matter so long as the frame rates are playable. I mean I usually bump up all of the graphics settings to the maximum my PC can take before the game is unplayable. I rarely use "standard" settings. I always hit the "customize" and max everything out.

So benchmarks shown on the web, never reflect the results I experience. I mean if you're playing a game from what 2003/2004 like World of Warcraft then ya... a faster CPU will give you better performance but when you're running at 100FPS or 80FPS it doesn't matter. The experience is the same.

Its up and coming games that will push your PCs limits. That's where you should focus in terms of the machine you will be building. Focus on what is just around the corner and tailor you machine to it. That means AMD Mantle and DX12.

No need for an Intel CPU unless you're a total performance junky with money to burn like me.