icerider :
maxalge :
damric :
Remember, every application has it's own unique performance demands. Also not everyone's rig is the same, and neither is their monitor. All these factors make it impossible to generalize any "bottleneck" so if you read someone randomly throwing the term "bottleneck" around without knowing your system specs, your monitor specs, and what application you are running you should be very skeptical of their advice.
Just a couple of points:
We CAN make bottleneck generalizations, because we have many benchmarks from a lot of sources to draw comparison data from.
A pentium 4 or an
amd apu are generally a bad idea to pair with a gtx 780/r9 290 etc. etc.
Also "THW is always in need of bottleneck explanation" could be taken the wrong way, might want to reword it a bit.
These are both CPUs not trash apus. They are ranked 2 and 3 on TOMS hiearchy chart respectively when stock. Both are significantly OCed. Since my OP i checked out the 780 TI on the fx-6350 with Unigine heaven and 3D Mark Firestrike and it is scoring well above the benches on TOMs charts for the same card at 1080p. I think I answered my own question. Zero bottleneck
Benchmarks are nice, but how about actual gaming?
A 5ghz 6300 isn't impressive, it takes a 5ghz 8350 to even start to match a stock xeon 1220v3 for example.
Like I said the bottleneck will always be there, depending on title it can be slight or it can be large.
Planetside 2, or watch_dogs.
In fact since properly threaded games are so rare you are actually bottlenecking most of the time while gaming with your setup. Just look at how a 8350 compares to a stock i3.
Seems kinda silly to ask a question and then toss the answer when you don't like it.