Will 4.5 GHZ FX 8350 bottleneck 2 GTX 970s in SLI?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Sort by date Sort by votes
Ra_V_en

Ra_V_en

Honorable
Jan 17, 2014
1,296
0
11,960
Ill throw this link on the other hand:
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/55/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-2560x1440/index.html

Yes Intel has generally better performing CPU as stated above because you cannot use all of the FX cores but that situation might change since PS4 and Xbox One have AMD's APU's inside and quite many of new games are primarily designed for consoles... furthermore ports are used.
I'm not gonna forecast anything but Tomb Raider is a good example how much you can still take out of AMD CPUs if you actually instead of lazy codding try some optimizations.... and still TR is not well multi threaded title.

In gaming its always about something bottlenecking something but that all depends of many variables like game engine, optimization, quality settings etc. The higher the quality settings the lower the CPU influence.
Its like a debate few years ago about having 2 cores or 4 cores... i had the same thoughts is it worth to swap C2D E8400 for C2Q Q8400. At that time i thought i made a bad decision since most of the games used 2 cores and the first one has higher stock speed and was more eager for OC, but now that difference is obvious.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kiwi213

kiwi213

Reputable
Aug 21, 2014
35
0
4,530
Yes, in the future, if game devs will start optimizing the code for more than 4 cores/threads, what, AMD 8-cores will give the same performance as Intel 4 cores? They are still weaker cores in the end.

Go for Intel, you won't regret it. I made the stupid decision of going through 3 AMD processors expecting performance to be better, before switching to Intel. Save yourself the trouble.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
I assume you're aiming for something higher than 1080p @ 60hz? Otherwise, there's no point going SLI 970s, complete overkill.

The question I ask then is whether you're going for a 120/144hz monitor, or whether you're going a higher resolution. If you're going a high resolution then that'll put most the load back on the GPUs, which means an FX (in most cases) will do just fine. If, however, you're getting a 120/144hz monitor and are targeting 100+fps, then that FX starts to become more of an issue IMHO.

I do agree with others though, if this is a new build and you're laying out the money on 2x970s, better to go Intel. If you're upgrading an existing build though and you're only targeting 60fps, I tend to think the FX will do just fine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ra_V_en

Ra_V_en

Honorable
Jan 17, 2014
1,296
0
11,960
@ above... that was about to be my point in the current reply. This is situational specific debate to do a proper recommendation its about what workload will be put on those card and/or is it an upgrade or a new build.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Poor bill

Poor bill

Reputable
Jul 14, 2015
17
0
4,510
I have an 8320e at 4.5 ghz with h60 with two 970s evga sc in sli. It plays very well. Fallout 4 plays like butter now, it stuttered often with one 970 but it doesn't now with two and it did with any processor from what I read. Benchmarks may not be that high but if you overclock to around 4.3 or higher you won't see that much of a difference in a stock speed processor like the 4690 i5 in framerates because I already tested it.

The stuttering does happen more in amd processors than intels but after I got two 970s in SLI it went away. I get 24000 firestrike score in the graphics department which is still pretty high. Now the overall score sucks compared to intels because of single core performance but framerates in games isn't that far off. From what I see only about 5 to 10 in SLI.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom