FX 8350 vs i7 4770k possible bottleneck with R9 290x? (Will CF in future)

pon raul · Jan 14, 2015

Hi I'm in the process of buying a new computer (For high performance gaming and web surfing) and really cannot decide between these two CPUs. From what I've seen so far its fanboys on either side with completely opposite information.

I know that the FX 8350 is an 8 core (sort of) while the i7 4770k is 4 core. However the 4770k has better performance in the majority of benchmarks I've seen.

My question is; is it worth the extra $100-$200 I'll be spending on an intel motherboard + CPU compared to the AMD one? Also will either of the CPUs bottleneck my R9 290x (I will OC both the CPU and GPU) which I will be cross firing in the future ?

Thank you for any help. The most I ask for is a neutral opinion.

Edit: If you're wondering I'm going to be playing at 1080p resolution but also have a smaller second monitor which I run at 1400x900.
I'll be getting 16gb of DDR3 ram and either a 990fx with the 8350 or Z97 with the 4770k.

sincreator · Jan 14, 2015

For one r9 290x the AMD chip is fine. For crossfire 290x you will want to get the intel chip to not bottleneck in CPU intensive games.

Here is some good reading: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html Even xfire 7970's ran into a bottleneck with the AMD chip, so you can imagine what will happen with xfire 290x. Hope this helps you somewhat.

PS: I just upgraded from a Phenom II x6 at 4.2ghz to my current i5 4690k. AMD didn't have a powerful enough CPU to consider since I was running xfire myself, so I decided to go for Intel this time around. I was not disappointed.

atmos929 · Jan 14, 2015

the FX might bottleneck on heavy CPU games that are not optimized for multithreaded processing.

i7 are really good single thread performers and multithread performers but really expensive... whereas the AMDs are not so good in single thread (i5s are a lot better for this) but good multithread performance (better than i5s)...

So I would say that AMDs are good multithread options on a budget if you really need multithread performance, that would be virtual machines, image editting, video editting etc.

Also... check on the Intel Xeon E3-1231v3... it's pretty much a 4770 without the GPU part, not overclockeable, and 70 bucks cheaper than the 4770. Xeons are usually related to server and workstations applications, but they work just as good as i7s for everyday home applications and gaming.

ifreestylin · Jan 14, 2015

If you can afford Intel then get the i7 4790K and don't look back. The FX 8350 will bottleneck a single R9 290X but not so much its unplayable, just noticeable not to mention your planing on CF.

Gaming at 60FPS at 1080p or higher resolution the FX 8350 will be ok but if you want to game at 100+FPS or have less FPS drops Intel all the way.

Check out this Battlefield multiplayer video comparing both the FX 8350 vs the i7 4790K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvGr6Hu8n3c

Smudgy · Jan 14, 2015

i'm running i7 4770 an 2x290x's an have no issues what so ever. little overkill for my 144hz 1920x1080p monitor so i'd say go for the 4770k or if you got the extra cash 4790 or if you wanna save some $ go with an i5 devils canyon cpu an overclock goodluck. an as to no bias in products lol amd gpu intel cpu it just works

pon raul · Jan 14, 2015

Thanks for the responses guys. It looks like I'll go for the i7 4770k then.

jkteddy77 · Jan 7, 2016

I would recommend the i7. That or an i5 if money is tight.
I used to have the 8350, and it was definitely hurting my brand new 290's performance way back when.
Longer story below if you're interested in HOW and WHY the 8350 bottles the 290/970/780/390 and above GPU's if you want to take a look

As someone who spent HUNDREDS of hours and nearly 50 threads on here nearly 2 years ago on the 290's release, let me shed some light here.
In certain titles, the 8350 bottles the 290 a ton, drops it down to nearly 70% GPU usage in GPU bound games (biggest problem was BF games)
In nearly all games you'll see 5 fps loss vs an i7, and maybe lower minimums, but in other games you can see massive drops.
In certain bottled games, I saw 10fps less on average and saw minimums 25fps lower than I get now with my Intel.
Not to mention turning down the settings didn't give me much more FPS than Ultra did, this is a VERY significant sign of a CPU bottleneck if the game is CPU bound (today, I'd say 95% or more of titles are).

Here is some actual data I recorded, not just word of mouth here.
Pay attention to GPU and CPU graphs as well as usage levels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcTPLMuQ610
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq9dSLOElX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaVKMNL-aS4

In GPU bound games, if your GPU is ever lower than 99% usage with Vsync off, you ARE bottlenecking, and I saw that routinely with the 8350. I show this reading often throughout the videos, and some parts even have it live overlayed on the screen.

If you want me to explain what some of the graphs mean I can, but basically as seen in the gameplay graph in the bottom left corner, the yellow(CPU) and GPU(green) should be right on top of each other. If one is higher than the other, that part is bottling.

Since I got my 4790k, I don't ever see lower than 97-99%, it fixed any low FPS issue I was having in all of my games (tested nearly 300 games) OVERNIGHT

Maybe Zen will be better?

Search

FX 8350 vs i7 4770k possible bottleneck with R9 290x? (Will CF in future)

pon raul

Reputable

sincreator

sincreator

Splendid

atmos929

Distinguished

ifreestylin

Honorable

Smudgy

Reputable

pon raul

Reputable

jkteddy77

Honorable

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page