Will an fx 8320 or fx 6300 bottleneck a gtx 970?

kimonheliotis · May 21, 2015

I am thinking about buying a new gpu and i currently have a fx 4130 but i dont know if it is wise to buy the gtx 970 without knowing the cpu probs. I also have an 78lmt-s2 mobo which i dont know if it is good enough for my future upgrades.

LouieSmith66 · May 21, 2015

Yes your cpu will bottleneck the GPU and the motherboard isnt the best board but it will do

boosted1g · May 21, 2015

All 3 cpus will bottleneck the card on any game that is cpu intensive.

A 4130 will bottleneck the crap out of a 970, it will even bottleneck a 960 pretty bad.
A 6300 will bottleneck the card enough to only give you minor gains over a 960
A 8320 will bottleneck the 970 to a noticeable amount, but it will still play better over a 960. If you overclock the 8320 (which means a better cooler then stock) that you could greatly reduce your bottleneck.

To be able to install and overclock and 8320 you will also need a better motherboard.

So at the end of the day I purpose one of two options:
1) Go all out and upgrade to an i5 and preferably an h97/z97 board but if budget is a large factor then an h81.
Trying to upgrade your current system to support a 970 will cost more then this option and perform less.
2) Get an fx-8320e which your board should support and a R9-280x which performs better then a GTX-960.

mrhippo900 · May 21, 2015

boosted1g :

The two in bold are true, but the 8320 is not. Look at my build there is not noticeable bottleneck. 8320 is basically an underclocked 8350. The 8 core FX should be just enough for a 970. If you feel that there is a bottleneck simply overclock.

boosted1g · May 21, 2015

mrhippo900 :

Yes your 8350 will not bottleneck a 970 (or just barley in highly cpu intensive games). The OP was asking about an 8320 which would need to be overclocked back up to an 8350 speed to not bottleneck the card.

Either way his board is not designed for overclocking and if going to have to do a full upgrade the OP might as well get an i5 which will perform better.

mrhippo900 · May 21, 2015

boosted1g :

mrhippo900 :

Yes your 8350 will not bottleneck a 970 (or just barley in highly cpu intensive games). The OP was asking about an 8320 which would need to be overclocked back up to an 8350 speed to not bottleneck the card.

Either way his board is not designed for overclocking and if going to have to do a full upgrade the OP might as well get an i5 which will perform better.

He could just get an 8350. Its only a few dollars more.

boosted1g · May 21, 2015

The OPs motherboard only supports 95w processors, thus the normal 8320 or the 8350 (which are 125w CPUs) are out of the question.
Technically the 8320e is not even on the support list but should work fine since the 8100 is listed as supported with f3 version bios.

Thus to get an 8350 it would require him to upgrade his motherboard and that the cost of a 970 or 990 chipset board plus the 8350 he might as well just go intel i5 which is better.

mrhippo900 · May 21, 2015

boosted1g :

Question for OP, how much are willing to spend for an upgrade? Also I highly recommend a new Motherboard if you are thinking of upgrading to a very high end to mid range CPU and GPU.

Lets be honest upgrading the CPU and GPU to high end components then leaving the motherboard that barely supports an 8 Core is like having a potato power and hold them together. You will lose performance and have problems with your PC in general.

boosted1g · May 21, 2015

Now neither of these boards is very high end and wont support overclocking, this is just a budget minded comparison.
The i5 is both cheaper and faster:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($167.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3P ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $223.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-21 14:47 EDT-0400

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($166.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($41.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $208.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-21 14:48 EDT-0400

mrhippo900 · May 21, 2015

boosted1g :

The AMD gigabyte board actually from what I've heard is pretty supportive of Overclocking. I was thinking he should get an 8320 or 8320e with the same Board I have.

DubbleClick · May 22, 2015

Even a fx 9590 bottlenecks a gtx 970, I don't know where people get their information from but it sometimes seems to be pulled out of the darkest part of their body.

Montblanchill · May 22, 2015

Given your current items, I would assume that you do not have a huge budget for a monitor. You're likely using a monitor which has a refresh rate of 60hz, in which case your games will be limited to 60 fps.

If this is correct, it renders much of this discussion moot. Whilst those chips could potentially bottleneck the 970, you'd be looking at 80fps rather than the 100fps that the card is capable of, both of which you will not approach with a 60hz monitor.

Sometimes all of the information is required to make a fully informed decision. When just asking about bottlenecks or not, you start getting into the realms of personal preference.

To make it clear, any PC setup will technically have a bottleneck with one or more of its components when doing certain tasks and performing to a certain level. It is critical to ascertain the level at which you are looking to perform before considering bottlenecks. Hence, if you're just looking at 60fps on a 970, any of those chips mentioned will achieve that in the majority of titles at the moment - you may have to look at the 6 or 8 core depending on how demanding these are on the CPU.

mrhippo900 · May 22, 2015

DubbleClick :

It doesn't... 9590 clocked at 4.7GHz? Bottlenecks a 970? Lol. Where ever that came from you need to seek some help big boy.

kimonheliotis · May 22, 2015

i just checked and i saw that even an fx 6300 can handle a gtx 970 just fine...LoL, these intel fanboys...

DubbleClick · May 22, 2015

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/06/19/intel-core-i7-4790k-devil-s-canyon-review/5http://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8

That is a bottleneck. Pretty clear one, actually. And before you're trying to talk down the credibility of the websites, not only anandtech is owned by same company as tom's (the website we're posting on), but their results are reproduced by other benchmarks as well. Even though, it's easier to find information about the fx 8350.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_processor_review,18.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

I think everyone does agree that an i3 is going to bottleneck a gtx 970 in most titles - and the i3 still produces better results than the fx 9590.

kimonheliotis :

Yeah, just as my 15 years old pentium 4 handles a gtx 970 "just fine", too.

mrhippo900 · May 22, 2015

Intel fanboyism is clear. Just another one these people who think an i3 is better the any AMD chip. What next? Intel Atom beating an 8350? Can't wait to see someone pull that directly out of there ass...

DubbleClick · May 22, 2015

Yup, guess all review sites are simply intel fanboys and don't actually run benchmarks.

I never said an I3 is per se better than a fx 8xxx, by the way. In multithreaded workloads, the fx is almost twice as fast. For playing games however, an I3 beats fx cpu's in the majority of titles.

mrhippo900 · May 22, 2015

DubbleClick :

The i3 will get destroyed in most games. The lack of cores are futile. With multiple applications being used at once or simple computing the i3 struggles to keep up. In games it does well if nothing in the background is running. i3 to pentiums are more for basic computing. Again, if you plan on multitasking with one you won't get so far.

DubbleClick · May 22, 2015

mrhippo900 :

I'd advise you to actually read up on reviews, the i3 doesn't get crushed at all. In fact, it wins over the fx in most titles, ties in some and just loses by a little in very few. If you're thinking otherwise, feel free to show benchmarks supporting your opinion, but as it stands, with me having provided benchmarks that support my statement, it currently stands.

con635 · May 22, 2015

DubbleClick :

Its how you interpret the benchmarks, the anandtech one to me for example shows those games will run fine on any modern cpu with sli 970 on 60hz monitor even a thuban. I also know from experience when a modern low end amd struggles in an online 'cpu dependent' title with min frames sometimes of say 15fps and the high end intel is getting say 25fps both situations are a stutterfest equally as bad, like walking through luzern on the napf map in dayz overpoch.

mrhippo900 · May 22, 2015

DubbleClick :

crispytheone · May 23, 2015

Ugh, the Fx series is fine, it has older archetecture and does drag a bit, but a bottleneck would be a hard limit on data, you know only this much data can pass through, which is not the case, it scales up nicely to match the card your using.

Its really a 2 fold issue, optimization, and older architechture

This is what I'm talking about, the 5350 shows what a REAL bottleneck is and how the 8320 scales up

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

LookItsRain · May 23, 2015

Intel performs better, the platform has more features, uses way less energy, produces way less heat, why would you buy into a 3 year old platform that does not even support pcie 3.0 and has less performance, and no amd is not cheaper.

crispytheone · May 23, 2015

LookItsRain :

Because you need a system to perform certain tasks that an FX chip is suited for, like multitasking. Say you want to make a video for youtube, with an 8350, you can record video with one program, and sound with another, and play a game at the same time and not really see a drop in performance, I know, cause I've done it, I was really impressed.

the FX line is exactly one year older than 1150 and both socket are technically "dead" its just Intel has a broader range of chips on the one socket.

PCIE 3.0 does not yet have a huge advantage over PCI 2.0 found in the AM3+ boards, It will, but not really yet, sorta like putting a mechanical hard drive on a Sata 3 port, no, sorry you are not going to get 6gb/sec tranfer rate, sorry

And AMD is cheaper. I can get a FX-6300 and be above minimum specs for EVERY game coming out, or spend more money to make sure my Intel CPU is at least minimum specs for modern games. that = cheaper

The REAL advantage Intel has is upgrade path, you can go from the lowly g3258 to an I7-4790k, a MASSIVE jump in capability with the same motherboard.

The issue is this, is the builder going to upgrade, or have the money to buy a different CPU, when I was younger, I save, got my parts and was stuck for a few years, I just did not have very much money, thats life and reality.

And for the love of GOD if someone asks a serious question about an AMD processor, stop replying with "Intel is better" THAT'S NOT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION!

Now if its just trolling bait, then by all means, please

mrhippo900 · May 23, 2015

crispytheone :

LookItsRain :

Because you need a system to perform certain tasks that an FX chip is suited for, like multitasking. Say you want to make a video for youtube, with an 8350, you can record video with one program, and sound with another, and play a game at the same time and not really see a drop in performance, I know, cause I've done it, I was really impressed.

the FX line is exactly one year older than 1150 and both socket are technically "dead" its just Intel has a broader range of chips on the one socket.

PCIE 3.0 does not yet have a huge advantage over PCI 2.0 found in the AM3+ boards, It will, but not really yet, sorta like putting a mechanical hard drive on a Sata 3 port, no, sorry you are not going to get 6gb/sec tranfer rate, sorry

And AMD is cheaper. I can get a FX-6300 and be above minimum specs for EVERY game coming out, or spend more money to make sure my Intel CPU is at least minimum specs for modern games. that = cheaper

The REAL advantage Intel has is upgrade path, you can go from the lowly g3258 to an I7-4790k, a MASSIVE jump in capability with the same motherboard.

The issue is this, is the builder going to upgrade, or have the money to buy a different CPU, when I was younger, I save, got my parts and was stuck for a few years, I just did not have very much money, thats life and reality.

And for the love of GOD if someone asks a serious question about an AMD processor, stop replying with "Intel is better" THAT'S NOT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION!

Now if its just trolling bait, then by all means, please

Basically this

Will an fx 8320 or fx 6300 bottleneck a gtx 970?

Reputable

Honorable

Titan

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Admirable

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Admirable

Distinguished

Admirable

Distinguished

Admirable

Honorable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Share this page