Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

4790k vs FX 8350 and 9590 benchmarks: Is my 8350 bottlenecking my 780 SLI setup??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 26, 2014 10:17:08 AM

Good day to you all in the land of Tom and the never-ending hardware inquiries! I have two evga FTW 780's running in SLI, a 1000 watt gold 90% psu (evga), 2x8gb gskill trident x ram, FX 8350 cpu, and Asus M5A99FX Pro 2.0 mobo. I'm running them at 2560x1440p on a Qnix 2710 (overclocked to 96hz).

I really feel like I'm not getting near the performance that I should with those cards. BF4 most outdoor maps its around 65 fps with peaks to 75 or sometimes 100 indoors, and dips down to 45-50 with pretty rare instances of fps as low as 25 on maps like Hainan Resort when the building comes down. Is my cpu bottlenecking these cards??Both cards are boosting to 1175 core and around 65-6600 on the memory. I've seen footage of people playing with the same ultra settings and cards running a 4770k and easily staying around 90-110 fps. Everywhere I look there are people saying no way is an 8350 bottlenecking, and then 5 more people that say they are. I tried turning down the settings in BF4 to medium or taking the AA off completely and there was virtually no difference in framerate, and it actually seemed to be higher with the higher settings. What do you think? I know for the price, that processor is a great deal. But I also hate to have spent that much money on those cards and not get the full power from them :/ 
I bought the msi z97 board and had the 4790k pre-ordered until tuesday I canceled because I just wasn't sure how much benefit I would see from it. I was going to send the motherboard back to amazon. Then I saw this video last night (link below) comparing the 4790k against the AMD 9590 and 8350 and the results were staggering o_0
That gap on bf4 and far cry 3 can't be legit can it?? The test results are also kinda iffy since he didn't once mention what the gpu config was...

VIDEO--BENCHMARK COMPARISON: 4790K VS 8350/9590
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVcpAhegWs

Best solution

a b à CPUs
June 26, 2014 10:26:21 AM

Quote:
I tried turning down the settings in BF4 to medium or taking the AA off completely and there was virtually no difference in framerate


I would bet money that your 8350 is holding your system back.

1) The FPS range you mentioned sounds VERY similar to the max FPS the 8350 delivers in BF4(multiplayer). This tells me right away that the CPU seems to be defining your framerate. (i.e. the bottleneck)

2) Turning down graphics settings doesn't increase FPS, because you're not reducing CPU load. If you had a GPU bottleneck, your framerate would be noticeably higher after dialing back the graphics.

You would see not only higher FPS, but also a smoother FPS (less dips) with the 4690K. Short of buying a new motherboard, your only other option would be to OC the heck out of the 8350. Even then, you probably wouldn't even reach stock 4690K performance.
Share
June 26, 2014 10:30:39 AM

DonQuixoteMC said:
Quote:
I tried turning down the settings in BF4 to medium or taking the AA off completely and there was virtually no difference in framerate


I would bet money that your 8350 is holding your system back.

1) The FPS range you mentioned sounds VERY similar to the max FPS the 8350 delivers in BF4(multiplayer). This tells me right away that the CPU seems to be defining your framerate. (i.e. the bottleneck)

2) Turning down graphics settings doesn't increase FPS, because you're not reducing CPU load. If you had a GPU bottleneck, your framerate would be noticeably higher after dialing back the graphics.

You would see not only higher FPS, but also a smoother FPS (less dips) with the 4690K. Short of buying a new motherboard, your only other option would be to OC the heck out of the 8350. Even then, you probably wouldn't even reach stock 4690K performance.


You mean the 4790k? But do you honestly think those results from that video are accurate?? That gap is insane.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2014 10:59:57 AM

It's definitely your CPU. This isn't directed at you, but a lot of people don't realize that AMD CPUs aren't cutting it, even with their mystical more cores than i5s and higher clock speeds. It just doesn't cut it. The 6300 doesn't, nor does the 8320. "Games are using more cores" doesn't matter if your CPU can't keep up.

Rant aside, you will notice much smoother game play. I know when I was playing BF4, I'd get ~110 FPS average with my SLI 780s and 4.2 GHz i5-4670k. This was at 1080p Ultra, max AA settings. With AA off or at 2x (I forget) I was getting around 150 FPS average.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2014 11:04:54 AM

I have almost the exact same setup that you have, but I have a pretty high overclock on my 8350, and my FPS numbers are higher than any intel (barring the socket 2011) CPUs with the same setup can manage. Is your CPU overclocked?
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 11:06:02 AM

i run a single 780 16gb ram 8350 4.5ghz n bf4 runs smoothly between 80-60 for me
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 12:47:36 PM

enemy1g said:
It's definitely your CPU. This isn't directed at you, but a lot of people don't realize that AMD CPUs aren't cutting it, even with their mystical more cores than i5s and higher clock speeds. It just doesn't cut it. The 6300 doesn't, nor does the 8320. "Games are using more cores" doesn't matter if your CPU can't keep up.

Rant aside, you will notice much smoother game play. I know when I was playing BF4, I'd get ~110 FPS average with my SLI 780s and 4.2 GHz i5-4670k. This was at 1080p Ultra, max AA settings. With AA off or at 2x (I forget) I was getting around 150 FPS average.


No offense taken man :)  That sounds about in line with what mine was on 1080p actually. Granted I had a single card then and only purchased the second one after making the jump to 1440p. But I was getting an avg of 65-70 fps for a single card and everything maxed out. Which if I had SLI'd on 1080p it probably would have been around the same. So really this makes me think that it isn't bottlenecking. I get that its a 3 year old processor and would be trumped by a brand new i7 4770k or 4790k, but what matters to me is how much of an increase there is. I thought I'd maybe be getting an extra 10-15 fps by switching to the 4790k and decided not to go through with it; but then saw that benchmark video above, and if those are accurate, I'm pretty blown away.
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 12:51:42 PM

Drew010 said:
I have almost the exact same setup that you have, but I have a pretty high overclock on my 8350, and my FPS numbers are higher than any intel (barring the socket 2011) CPUs with the same setup can manage. Is your CPU overclocked?


I'm only using an h100i to cool the cpu so I can't get crazy with the clock speed. I managed to get stability up to 4.6 but according to HW monitor, under full load in Prime95 the temps on the socket got to 69 degrees and around 54 on the cores. So i backed it down to 4.4 just to keep cores under 50 and they stay around 45.

Are you playing at 1080 or 1440?
m
0
l
June 26, 2014 12:53:04 PM

chucky9 said:
i run a single 780 16gb ram 8350 4.5ghz n bf4 runs smoothly between 80-60 for me


The monitor I'm using is 1440p. Are you playing at that resolution with those fps?
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
June 26, 2014 1:23:05 PM

JNor said:
Drew010 said:
I have almost the exact same setup that you have, but I have a pretty high overclock on my 8350, and my FPS numbers are higher than any intel (barring the socket 2011) CPUs with the same setup can manage. Is your CPU overclocked?


I'm only using an h100i to cool the cpu so I can't get crazy with the clock speed. I managed to get stability up to 4.6 but according to HW monitor, under full load in Prime95 the temps on the socket got to 69 degrees and around 54 on the cores. So i backed it down to 4.4 just to keep cores under 50 and they stay around 45.

Are you playing at 1080 or 1440?


The cores only need to stay under 62C, mine top out at 61C with my setup. Also the socket can go as high as ~80 for ASUS MOBOs if I remember correctly

m
0
l
June 26, 2014 1:31:12 PM

Drew010 said:
JNor said:
Drew010 said:
I have almost the exact same setup that you have, but I have a pretty high overclock on my 8350, and my FPS numbers are higher than any intel (barring the socket 2011) CPUs with the same setup can manage. Is your CPU overclocked?


I'm only using an h100i to cool the cpu so I can't get crazy with the clock speed. I managed to get stability up to 4.6 but according to HW monitor, under full load in Prime95 the temps on the socket got to 69 degrees and around 54 on the cores. So i backed it down to 4.4 just to keep cores under 50 and they stay around 45.

Are you playing at 1080 or 1440?


The cores only need to stay under 62C, mine top out at 61C with my setup. Also the socket can go as high as ~80 for ASUS MOBOs if I remember correctly



Ahh ok. Corsair Link confirms the core temps in HW monitor but AI suite seems to be in line with the socket temps. So whenever the socket hits 65 it gives me a warning. I actually really should just uninstall AI suite, always conflicts with my other monitoring software. It has tried to tell me on several occasions that my motherboard was -128 degrees...b**ch please :no: 
So I will go and push it a bit further later on. If you wouldn't mind I'd like to pm you in regards to your oc. However I'm still curious if you are playing on 1080p or 1440p. Estimated fps avg? Thanks
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2014 7:40:17 AM

I'm playing on 1080p, but getting the ASUS ROG swift when it comes out (1440p, 120Hz).
m
0
l
June 27, 2014 11:09:22 AM

Drew010 said:
I'm playing on 1080p, but getting the ASUS ROG swift when it comes out (1440p, 120Hz).


Yeah I've been eyeballing that monitor for awhile...g-sync is sexayy :love:  At the same time I'm very happy with the Qnix though. And all the screen tearing I had on my old 60hz 1080p Acer disappeared when I overclocked this to 96hz (which is as easy as typing "96" into a box). This was odd to me at first because if i went over 60hz on my old monitor by even just 4 or 5 frames I'd notice the tearing. On the Qnix, even if my fps goes past 96 i don't ever see it at all, which i guess may be because your eyes really can't recognize it at that speed. Sure things can still look "smoother" at 120hz--and supposedly easier on your eyes--but in regards to tearing, you won't see it.
I bought mine from ipsledmonitors.com since its located within the U.S. (not some random guy in Korea), and have a great return policy in case the monitor had any issues upon arrival. Most people can get them to 110 hz if not 120, but pretty much guaranteed at least 96--which in my case is all I need when playing triple-A titles. I honestly don't think I would be able to tell the difference of anything beyond that. The colors are fantastic as well. All for around 275 bucks :) 
m
0
l
June 27, 2014 2:40:13 PM

JNor said:
chucky9 said:
i run a single 780 16gb ram 8350 4.5ghz n bf4 runs smoothly between 80-60 for me


The monitor I'm using is 1440p. Are you playing at that resolution with those fps?


i play at 1080p triple monitor 23"
m
0
l
July 7, 2014 8:11:04 AM

Not sure if anyone is still following this but I thought I'd give everyone an update. After switching over to the Z97 and 4790k, my fps on a SINGLE card (keep in mind this is 1440p) is now avg of 90 with everything maxed. I haven't been able to try SLI yet due to a problem with one of the PCIe lanes (Amazon replacement arrives today). But man that's an insane increase considering I was barely getting 75-80 on the large maps with TWO cards previously (and before you ask, YES SLI was enabled and working correctly). Honestly don't even think I really need the second card now.
m
0
l
July 7, 2014 9:39:17 AM

Nice, that's quite the improvement. It is a shame AMD CPU's aren't cutting it anymore these days. They only appeal they really have anymore is their pricing, but the cost/performance ratio is starting to shift away from it even being worth it anymore. It's a shame because I truly used to sware by AMD back during the athlon x2 days. If they could make chips that could compete that like one would..it would be a totally different ball game.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2014 10:46:06 AM

Right now I am honestly not able to make up my mind between keeping my current build and saving the money, getting a 4790k/M7F, or waiting for Haswell-E...JNor, any significant FPS boosts in any other games?
m
0
l
July 7, 2014 11:04:34 AM

I do know they pushed back broadwell to Q3 2015 (about a year) so there is considerable wait time. I made the slight bump from my i7 4770k to the i7 4790k and I've been completely happy. My i7 4770k was a dud couldn't even remain stable past 4.3Ghz. This 4790k has been stable at 4.7Ghz and 4.8 so far.
m
0
l
July 8, 2014 10:52:25 AM

Drew010 said:
Right now I am honestly not able to make up my mind between keeping my current build and saving the money, getting a 4790k/M7F, or waiting for Haswell-E...JNor, any significant FPS boosts in any other games?


I got the replacement motherboard installed yesterday and SLI is now working. At 1440p I was getting up to 150 fps on ultra (Disclaimer: using SweetFx instead of MSAA) at times but mostly was around 110. I may need to retest with one card because i realized after posting that yesterday, my custom settings in game weren't correct (they had reset to HIGH after reinstalling windows and origin) so that 90 i reported earlier was not accurate, was probably more like 75. Still 75 with one card vs the 50 I got with one card using the AMD cpu is a great improvement. These results I'm giving are also derived from me running the in-game fps overlay while on multiplayer (which is hard to have consistent results due to it being multiplayer and dynamic).

Drew, I only played BF4 and a little Payday 2 last night because I was exhausted. I have a TON of games that I plan on testing today. Any certain titles you're curious about in particular? The only major AAA games I don't have . are Watchdogs and Metro Last Light. I'll do Tombraider, Titanfall, BF3, Crysis 3, Skyrim (might have to re-download), far cry 3, etc. But just ask if you have a few in mind in particular and I'll let you know if I have them. Haswell-E looks to me like crowd control tactics to keep people happy since Broadwell was pushed back. Even though the 6 or 8 core Intel processors will be better than AMD's versions, I was under the impression that game developers aren't utilizing multi-core processors since they aren't the norm yet, and that's why everyone recommends Intel's hyper threading tech over the multi-core options. Hopefully I'm right here, but aren't the new Broadwell chips using the 1150 socket, and are going to be compatible with the Z97 boards? I figured I'd upgrade to Devils Canyon then wait and see how Broadwell performs. Assuming its affordably price I thought I might sell the 4790k down the road if I like what Broadwell brings to the table after it is finally released. Even though it's now pushed back to Q3 2015 (according to Vagrancy) instead of Q4 2014, I'd still probably be able to get $200-250 for the 4790k and could then upgrade to Broadwell while keeping my same board.
m
0
l
July 8, 2014 10:56:13 AM

vagrancyx said:
I do know they pushed back broadwell to Q3 2015 (about a year) so there is considerable wait time. I made the slight bump from my i7 4770k to the i7 4790k and I've been completely happy. My i7 4770k was a dud couldn't even remain stable past 4.3Ghz. This 4790k has been stable at 4.7Ghz and 4.8 so far.


What kind of temps are you getting on full load with that OC? My 8350 oc to 4.6 under prime95 ran around 45 degrees, and idle it was at 15. This chip on stock settings idles for me at around 28 and just playing BF4 for awhile gets it up to 56. Every review article I've read that overclocked it to 4.7-4.8, has had instability when running burn test or prime 95 for longer than a few minutes without it crashing. Being new to the intel bios and options, would you mind going through the bios settings you changed and the voltage changes you made?
m
0
l
!