Will FX 8320 create bottleneck next year?

-Arke- · Jan 13, 2016

Hello there! I was a bit far away with my December / January sales, and i spent more money than i was supposed to do. I'm not in trouble but still I'm thinking about sending back my CPU+mobo change.

I had one FX 8320 and just saw the Amazon sales, so i picked up one I5 4960 (non K) at 141€ for the future, as I've heard that FX processors are already starting to create little bottleneck with high end GPUs. Looking at the next 2 years (I might get a "GTX 1070" or "R9 480", just to say) this year or something like mid-end the next one, so I was afraid about this little bottle neck becoming larger and more noticeable, so I wonder about its future.

This means, I'll be thankful about any information regarding bottlenecking chances with an hipotetical next gen GPUs.

Dunlop0078 · Jan 13, 2016

An 8320 would bottleneck a current entry level GTX 960 in some games nevermind something like a 980 ti. In fact my 6350 at 4.7ghz bottlenecks my little 760 quite a bit in fallout 4, but to be fair that game runs like hell on all amd cpu's. I doubt a 4690 will bottleneck the next generation of gpu's in any large way.

RCFProd · Jan 13, 2016

To be fair It's going to bottleneck less and less since games are becoming more and more multithreaded.

Outlander_04 · Jan 13, 2016

Dunlop0078 :

I doubt a GTX 760 is going to play Fallout4 that well either

Dunlop0078 · Jan 13, 2016

RCFProd :

In my experience newer games are bottlenecking me more and more. Fallout 4 which seems to be somewhat multithreded as it performs better on i7's than i5's, runs like absolute trash on my amd cpu.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

Dunlop0078 · Jan 13, 2016

Outlander_04 :

It doesn't lol. But my cpu usage is quite a bit higher on average than my gpu usage in that particular game.

Gam3r01 · Jan 13, 2016

Phenom II and a 760... Everything set to absolute minimum and some .ini tweaks (my own Vsync) and I can manage 60FPS on 1600x900 (my native resolution for my dorm monitor). Its sad.

Outlander_04 · Jan 13, 2016

Dunlop0078 :

Outlander_04 :

It doesn't lol. But my cpu usage is quite a bit higher on average than my gpu usage in that particular game.

What kind of fps are you getting and what is your monitors resolution?

Dunlop0078 · Jan 13, 2016

1080p 25-60fps depending on the area im in, with rampant stuttering. I got it running better with a dynamic shadows mod, lower quality texture mods, and ENBoost its at least playable now but nowhere near what I would like.

Outlander_04 · Jan 13, 2016

Dunlop0078 :

I guess its time for an upgrade

Dunlop0078 · Jan 13, 2016

Outlander_04 :

That it is. Unfortunately Im a little tight on money at the moment. Maybe in a couple months.

Gam3r01 · Jan 13, 2016

If you havent already disable the games Vsync in the properties files and enable it through Gforce experience. That gave 20 more fps.

dudeman509 · Jan 13, 2016

Perhaps it's just the 760. FO4 runs pretty well on my 8320/970 in max settings @ 1080p. I'm only seeing marginally lower FPS in cities than those with Intel chips and similar graphics setups.

RCFProd · Jan 13, 2016

Dunlop0078 :

Believe me, that is just Bethesda's engine. I still believe in AMD's Vishera cores in games that properly utilise it to the max. But I know from Bethesda's history and the way their games perform It's always been better for Intel and bottom-of-the-barrel bad for AMD. There are plenty of new multithreaded games that prove the quality of the AMD FX CPU's like Far Cry 4, GTA V, Arma 3 when properly tweaked and Battlefront too.

-Arke- · Jan 13, 2016

So it's not worth investing 70€ in moving from 8320 to 4960? It is the amount it took for me the change, as I got the I5 in the amazon sales... a bargain, if you ask me. Still not sure about if it was worth.

assassin445522 · Jan 13, 2016

-Arke- :

it is massively better than the fx 8320 for gaming currently

To make a long story short before the AMD and Intel war starts

AMD runs multi-threaded games for cost effectiveness much better than intel but in some games it suck and dips down to 10 fps (i know this from experience)

For the extra cost the i5 4690k runs all games with a much more consistent fps with near no FPS drops in intensive moments where the 8320 would be unplayable in a game that uses a low number of cores

The i5 4690k is a great choice for future proofing for a couple of years it will not bottleneck any current GPU's ever

The fx 8320 is a great choice for less it runs hotter though and runs kinda bad in CPU intensive moments in games like planetside 2 starcraft 2 LOL etc... it is by no means a bad cpu the i5 4690k just has no drops and a higher fps generally

-Arke- · Jan 13, 2016

Thanks. I'll go ahead with the 4690 (non K) and never look back, I think : )

assassin445522 · Jan 13, 2016

-Arke- :

you won't regret it.

RCFProd · Jan 14, 2016

With the AMD FX-8320 you have to deal with low performance in some games, It's up to you if you can live with that. In terms of your original question, which is if the FX-8320 is becoming more and more of a limitation, based on that I don't think so.

It is only known that an Intel i5 is going to be performing at higher framerates in most of the games, but I still rate the FX-8320 for It's 8 true cores/threads.

Will FX 8320 create bottleneck next year?

Distinguished

Titan

Expert

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Titan

Dignified

Expert

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Expert

Share this page