Would a amd fx 9590 bottleneck a 1080

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Solution
Geekwad
I certainly wouldn't call it the optimal pairing, but there are no issues with compatibility.

I wouldn't be surprised to see large differences in results (say compared to a 4770k, or even an i5) depending on game and resolutions, but in others it would be very close:

http://wccftech.com/fx-8370-i5-6400-gaming-comparison/

NOTE: The difference in gaming performance you could expect to see between a FX 8370 and 9590 are not substantial.
Sort by date Sort by votes
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
Okay, let me answer this.

1) YES and NO.

2) Bottlenecking VARIES significantly between games, and can even switch between the GPU and CPU in the same game depending on several factors (such as a large battle suddenly doing a lot more CPU Processing calculations).

3) You can expect a 40% loss in some cases, but again it varies so the best I can do is link different CPU Scaling results. In some games your FPS will be good enough anyway. Some games will have MINIMAL loss.

*This is just one example, and is one of the WORST CASE examples for a modern game (I think both my examples use a GTX980Ti and 1440p res):
http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2182-fallout-4-cpu-benchmark-huge-performance-difference

The i7-4790K is actually almost 50% faster than the FX-9590. Ouch!!

Rise of the TR:
Conversely, here's another benchmark with less issues:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1128-rise-of-the-tomb-raider-benchmarks/page5.html

You lose a bit on the MINIMUM but get about the same on AVERAGE.

4) Future games are (slowly) getting more optimized for the CPU so having an 8-thread CPU like yours is only going to improve as DX12/Vulkan comes out and games PROPERLY optimize for the CPU.

Summary:
So it's absolutely not a "YES OR NO" answer. It is an "it varies" answer.

If this matters, then know that a GTX1080 will give better performance than a GTX1070 in many games, just not all of them due to a CPU bottleneck.

*Many games have a minimal loss versus a good i7 Intel. BATTLEFIELD games for example have done a very good job of trying to spread out the jobs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Geekwad

Geekwad

Admirable
Sep 25, 2015
2,368
1
6,960
I certainly wouldn't call it the optimal pairing, but there are no issues with compatibility.

I wouldn't be surprised to see large differences in results (say compared to a 4770k, or even an i5) depending on game and resolutions, but in others it would be very close:

http://wccftech.com/fx-8370-i5-6400-gaming-comparison/

NOTE: The difference in gaming performance you could expect to see between a FX 8370 and 9590 are not substantial.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
There will absolutely be cases where the 9590 bottlenecks a 1080.

If you're only aiming for 60hz gaming (like a 4K, or 1440P ultrawide 60hz display), then the 9590 will probably hold up okay. I don't know of any games where it's not up to pushing 60fps most of the time, whatever the resolution. But if you've got a higher refresh rate display and you're looking to make good use of it, like 100fps +, there will absolutely be games where the 9590 starts to hold you back.

Here's GTA V: http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html
Even with a (Maxwell) Titan X - slower than a 1080), is showing up a CPU bottleneck on the 9590 around 73fps

Battlefield 1: http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html
There's no 9590 there, but you can see the minimum fps of the 8370 is miles below the 6600K & 6700K. Again, it's fine for 60fps, but if you're targeting more, it will become an issue in some games.

No fanboy-ism here. I'm cheering on Zen as much as anyone, but the brutal truth is that there is just no place for an AMD CPU in a high end gaming PC right at the moment.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


update:
hope nobody read the post I changed (was looking at DX12 score not DX11), but I did more reading and yes DX12 for Battlefield does a lot to improve the AMD CPU's, but it may still be a bit buggy/stuttery.

Otherwise DX11 can be a lot slower though still give a great FPS anyway with an FX-9590 + GTX1080 so arguably not a huge issue.

In his above link you can see a LOW SCORE that's pretty low for DX12 (due to some DX12 coding issues), but the average is higher than DX11. Not sure if that still applies, but we should see the game fix this so that the CPU bottleneck mostly disappears with an FX-9590.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990

I should have been clearer... I was totally ignoring the DX12 benchmarks because they're clearly broken.

I was making the case on the DX11 results.
For DX11, the 8370 has min 82 and max 91fps.
The 6600K pulls 114 min, 140 max. The 6700K is even higher again.

That's my argument. The 9590 can handle 60fps gaming. But I'd expect most people with a 1080 are sporting a 90hz + monitor (or at least, probably, should be!), and for that, there will be a good number of games where the 9590 is not fully up to the task.

Even if OP only ever wants to game at 60 fps though... I actually think the biggest problem for those stupidly high end FX processors are the price anyway. You can get an i5 6500 for less than a 9590, plus the intel will run just fine on a dirt cheap B150 or H110 CPU with a stock cooler while the FX needs a beefy cooler and mobo with serious power delivery. For the total platform you pay more for a hotter, hungrier and slower CPU.

Maybe someone could argue for getting an 8320E for $110 and trying to OC it as much as possible. But I think by the time you get a capable mobo and cooler, you've at least reached price-parity (and probably exceeded the cost) of an i5 6500 on a cheap mobo... and it's still slower anyway (especially for gaming). But the 9590 just doesn't make sense by any metric IMHO.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990

I did... and took ages to respond! :)

Ah well. See my response above, I was totally referring to DX11 results.

I hope you're right about DX12 but I can't say I share your optimism. We'll see I guess.

If OP already has the 9590, it's not going to be a major issue, particularly for a 4K @ 60 gaming system. It's not like any games will be unplayable. If we're talking a fresh build though, really should be going Intel.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

Dingo8YourBaby

Prominent
Mar 6, 2017
1
0
510
Yes, it will. At 1080p your FX 9590 will bottleneck a GTX 1070, GTX 980 ti, and GTX 1080. At 1440p and 2160p you'll notice it less as now the GPU will be the bottleneck. You will get anywhere from 20-40 fewer frames per second with the FX 9590 at 1080p. Will you be able to play most games at 60fps, probably, but when a FX 9590/GTX 1080 combo might get 45-58+ fps in Witcher 3 at 1080p maxed, the i5-6600k/GTX 1080 combo will get around 70+ fps at the same resolution. At 1440p and 2160p, you'll be getting around 60fps and 50fps respectively with an Intel cpu (i5 skylake or higher) and 40fps and 30 fps respectively with a Bulldozer/Piledrizer(excavator) architecture CPU. This is because of AMD's very poor IPC performance. You must also realize that AMD's 8 core cpu's perform much closer to a quad core at half AMD's advertised speed. So an FX 9590 8 core 4.7ghz is more like a 3ghz Quad core. This is because each physical core in the chip shares it's lanes with 1 other core, effectively turning it into a Quad core because of its very sub par IPC.

 
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