What AMD processors don't bottleneck an r9 290x?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jack Field

Reputable
May 6, 2015
8
0
4,510
I am creating this thread to ask for a list of AMD processors that are powerful enough to run 1 r9 290x. If possible can you list the AMD processors in price order.

Thanks.
 
Solution
nottheking
The real answer's a lot more difficult here, as there's no hard-and-fast measure.

Simply put, it's 100% application specific; each game can place a different load on each machine's parts. Some games are much heavier on the GPU than the CPU, and others vice-versa. So it'd be useful to know what applications (games) you'd like to run are.

While it's often-repeated truth that the Core i5s offer much better gaming performance than AMD FX CPUs, citing that as an answer is shortsighted twofold: for one, the asker may already have an AMD motherboard, so once you throw in the cost of a brand-new Intel motherboard, the benefit may not be worth the purchase price. Secondly, the benefit may not be that great at all, depending upon the...
Sort by date Sort by votes
gloryofthesky

gloryofthesky

Honorable
Oct 11, 2013
62
0
10,660
Your asking if a CPU is powerful enough to run a graphics card? I believe you mean on the same performance level of your GPU while playing games? Pretty much every AMD CPU will support your graphics card, but performance is a different story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gloryofthesky

gloryofthesky

Honorable
Oct 11, 2013
62
0
10,660


Why would you say that? AMD has some nice mid range CPU's that can handle a 290x? Yes, intel makes good processor, and yes, better than AMD. But I don't believe AMD will bottleneck his GPU.

Also, he probably has an AMD socket, and not an intel one, so it wouldn't matter unless he wants to replace his motherboard which is a pain for little performance gain.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lazyboy947

lazyboy947

Splendid
Jun 11, 2012
2,749
0
21,460
Bottleneck is way overused, my friend uses a 6300 with his 8gb 290x, with no problems. He prob loses maybe a few fps, but nothing drastic. I noticed zero difference between my oc'd 8320 to a 5820k, but thats only with a 7970 not a 290x, but close enough. I've used a x6 1055t @3.7ghz, 8320 @ 4.4ghz, and now the i7 5820k @4.3ghz with my gpu and have seen no major fps gain to justify a cpu change. Now obviously the 290x is a stronger gpu, but im certain a fx 6300 would be a minimum and prob should be overclocked. and for stock use at least a 8350+ or overclocked 8 core if sticking to amd on the cpu
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
G

gonf

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2008
300
0
18,860
With only one GPU an over clocked AMD fx8350 will do the job.
just remember this. a lot of people will tell you i5 is the only way to go. but the fact is that it doesn't matter that much with only 1 GPU.
with a sli or 3 way sli. then you will need a High end Intel.

some will say the yer but the benchmark say other...
take a look at this

AMD 10792
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1541/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD%20FX-8350&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i5 11642
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1613/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i5-4670K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

which is 7?8? % difference

but with crossfire.

AMD 14665

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1541/905/15392?minScore=0&cpuName=AMD%20FX-8350&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i5 16875
13?14?%

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1613/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i5-4670K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

Intel i7 18771

22?23? %
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/fs/P/1605/905/500000?minScore=0&cpuName=Intel%20Core%20i7-4770K&gpuName=AMD%20Radeon%20R9%20290X

so. if any one tell you go to for the i5. just ignore them. go for AMD "cheap way" or i7 "ALL IN".
don't go for something that is in the middle. it kinda pointless.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
Bottlenecking = cpu not delivering all information and calculations in time and therefore limiting the gpus potential. When a fx 8350 gets 90 fps and an I5 4590 gets 120 fps that's a clear bottleneck from the fx. Sure, you get acceptable performance, but you could have got an I5 for the same price, resultig in better performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

crispytheone

Reputable
Mar 9, 2015
150
0
4,710


an I5 is not the same price as a fx 8350, well maybe the lowest end I5, and I have only seen one video where a 8350 was actually a bottleneck, all 8 cores right at 100%

Most monitors run at 60hz, meaning 90fps or 120fps, don't matter, cause your seeing 60fps

Bottleneck is way WAY overused, most games are GPU dependant, not all, but even with a 6300 most games would do really well with an r9 290x



 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460
The term bottleneck is not overused at all. Also, an I5 4590 is $180, works fine with a $50 b85 (or $30 h81, if you don't care about more than basic ports) board and the stock cooler.
For the fx 8350 ($160) you'll need a $70+ motherboard and a cpu cooler, along $20 at very least. That's $20 extra for less gaming performance.

Bottlenecking has absolutely nothing to do with your cpu hitting 100% load. The fx 83xx may very heavily bottleneck with just 12,5% load on it, if the application does only run on a single core.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
C

crispytheone

Reputable
Mar 9, 2015
150
0
4,710


Uh, I have a 8350 running on a stock cooler, why do I need either a $20 cooler, or a $70 board, that is not true. The biggest problem with all this I5 vs 8350 stuff is that people can point to benchmarks, which can give you an idea, but are not totally the whole story, and videos of either ARMA 3 for the I5 or BF4 for the FX series for example.

The I5 has some advantages when it comes to current gaming, and even when games are really optimized for all 8 core, pretty sure an I5 4690k will still beat an 8350 in gaming

But were talking bottlenecks, which is the point wher the CPU can no longer scale up to support the GPU and the FPS is stagnant, not a difference in the total FPS from one arcitecture to another, because the 8350 has some disadvantages compared to the I5, like Per core and the PCI lane speed.

This is my favorite video that shows what a real bottleneck is compared to an lowly Athlon 5350 and a FX-8320 at 4ghz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Uw7oN1CaE


Thats a bottleneck
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

crispytheone

Reputable
Mar 9, 2015
150
0
4,710


A bottleneck is not 110FPS vs 93FPS, both are ALOT, and on a normal monitor wont be noticed, so yeah, the 8350 does , uh, drag its feet a bit, but it still can run current GPUs with great framerates
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


Dragging it down is.. the definition of a bottleneck? Just because you don't like the term and/or it's often viewed as something extremely awful doesn't make it something else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gloryofthesky

gloryofthesky

Honorable
Oct 11, 2013
62
0
10,660
Stop your bickering, he asked for an AMD cpu, so why suggest an intel one? I'm sure he asked for an AMD processor, because he has that type of socket.

Did he ask if intel was better? He asked for the best AMD CPU, so recommend the best AMD CPU. Yes, you can suggest an intel would be a better choice, but there no reason to have a debate about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


I just said that there is no amd cpu that does not bottleneck a r9 290x. Which is an answer to exactly what was asked. The op has not asked for any cpu specifically, neither have I suggested one. I don't see where you can see the op's motherboard either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Vaggos

Vaggos

Reputable
Feb 18, 2015
151
1
4,690
every time, every f***ing time. someone ask a question and always someone will say "why this?" "buy this instead".answer the f****ing question already and dont suggest smt else exept they said so.everyone knows that intel is better in per core performance
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


Did you even read the title? "What AMD processors don't bottleneck an r9 290x?" This is what I answered, the list is empty. There has not been any request of suggesting a cpu to get.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


So you're actually looking to buy one, in that case, we need to know your motherboard (socket, preferably also chipset) and what you intend to use it for.

As the title with the r9 290x implies you're probably looking at a gaming cpu, in this case if your motherboard isn't a 990fx board with great vrms, a fx 6300 with a high oc should give you the best gaming results. If your motherboard is strong enough and you also do a fair share of rendering or alike, it does make sense to spend $30 more to get a fx 8320. In case you have a am3+ motherboard, seems to be the most common.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
C

con635

Honorable
Oct 3, 2013
645
0
11,010

So next year when zen and skylake come out and on the same game, same gpu they deliver 140 and 160 fps is the i5 then a bottleneck?
I see bottlenecking as not being able to turn the settings up enough to load the gpu to 100% or max settings because of cpu performance. Amd is fine for 60hz monitors, want 120/144hz and its intel all day, I dont know how people can stand the screen tearing going over 60fps on a 60hz monitor?? It makes me want to vomit and ruins nice graphics for me.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DubbleClick

DubbleClick

Admirable
Jun 16, 2014
2,116
1
6,460


It would, yes, if by then games come out that scale to faster cpus.

About screen tearing, in some games response time is much more important than a little bit of tearing. I do myself notice a fair share of it in cs:go due to 300 fps on a 60hz monitor, but limiting framerate or even enabling vsync gives way worse results.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RobCrezz

RobCrezz

Expert
Ambassador
Mar 14, 2013
19,080
99
75,190


+1 Dubbleclick is totally correct.

The fact that you can still get good FPS with a 8350 or whatever isnt the point. The question was about the bottlneck.
 
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