Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would the amd 1090t bottleneck the amd 7970?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Gtx
  • Bottleneck
  • AMD
Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 16, 2012 4:24:24 AM

Would the amd 1090t bottleneck the amd 7970 or the gtx 680

More about : amd 1090t bottleneck amd 7970

February 16, 2012 4:33:29 AM

In general, no. Compared to just about anything Intel Core i series, yes. I could not find it right away, but Tom's did a recent article about AMD CPUs causing some sort of bottleneck.

One other thing to look out for is if you play any older DX9 games, you'll likely be disappointed. It seems the new cards have some sort of issue there. DX11 games should be fine.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 4:43:25 AM

stanistheman said:
Would the amd 1090t bottleneck the amd 7970 or the gtx 680

nope it should work fine without any problem so yep
m
0
l
Related resources
February 16, 2012 4:45:51 AM

I Mean i could go with the bulldozer thoughts?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 4:53:04 AM

stanistheman said:
I Mean i could go with the bulldozer thoughts?

well i did and the bulldozer depends on your use beacause how it works poeple would say go with tthe 1090T but i would get a FX 4100 and a H70, H80 or H100 and overclock it to death but whatever the bulldozer ones will not bottleneck it but people say they suck but they really work very well for me so it's your choice. on dirt 3 i saw all 8 threads being used like 1/8 of the thread usage so it runs epicly then benchmarks say so if you want to either overclock a 4 core bulldozer, get a 6 core bullzoder and maybe overclock it a bit or get an 8 core bulldozer but anyway ive used it on games and it works fine i have no idea how benchmarks can say such resaults i have a FX 8120 and it works almost like a 8 core sandy bridge but i think the bulldozer only does bad while your rendering things.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 4:59:56 AM

stanistheman said:
I Mean i could go with the bulldozer thoughts?


The Bulldozer would actually be worse. Take a look at Tom's latest gaming hierarchy chart. You'll notice that even low end Sandy Bridge chips such as the Core i3 series, beat anything AMD has to offer, even when the AMD is overclocked(refer to the first page of the article. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

As a long time AMD fan(since 386dx40), it makes me sad. But I am also pragmatic. I go with whatever is best for my situation whenever I build.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:03:51 AM

tlmck said:
The Bulldozer would actually be worse. Take a look at Tom's latest gaming hierarchy chart. You'll notice that even low end Sandy Bridge chips such as the Core i3 series, beat anything AMD has to offer, even when the AMD is overclocked(refer to the first page of the article. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

As a long time AMD fan(since 386dx40), it makes me sad. But I am also pragmatic. I go with whatever is best for my situation whenever I build.


So your telling me that a core i3? dual core would beat the 1090 wow that makes me NOT wanna get the 1090t AT ALL

but i mean i can get the 1090t for 149.. so yea
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:09:06 AM

I WANNA CRY :-( I really had my heart set to amd gaming rid you know? just to be different from the rest *sigh* i might just wait for ivy bridge....
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:14:10 AM

The reason to get the 1090t would be if you had apps that could take advantage of all those cores. In gaming, I cannot think of any that I play, although I am sure there are a few out there. Keep in mind also that the Core i3 is multi-threaded, so it acts basically like a quad core. Also, where I live, I can get them for $99 all day long at Microcenter.

I would also note the disclaimer at the bottom of the first page of the Tom's article which states that the comparisons are for gaming only. If you factor in other things such as video encoding/editing, 3D modeling, or other multicore friendly apps, then the advantage would swing towards AMD at least in terms of price.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:15:56 AM

BigMack70 said:
You can go ahead and get the AMD rig, just be aware that you'll be spending slightly more money (even moreso considering that overclocking is basically a requirement for a new AMD rig - add $30 for a Hyper 212+ cooler minimum).

So, you spend $30 more (960T) or $60 more (1090T - dangerously close at that point to the FAR superior i5-2400) than an i3-2100 to get roughly equal gaming performance as the i3 IF your CPU can hit 4.0 GHz+. And, you sacrifice any sort of drop-in upgrade path.

I'm not saying you can't do it, just that if you're gonna do it you should go in eyes open to what you're getting from an AMD build.


hehe thanks man for your time. im gonna have a long hard think about this thanks for everyhting
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:17:51 AM

BigMack70 said:
For gaming the dual core i3-2100 will beat any stock AMD processor. It takes a 4.0 GHz+ Phenom x4 or x6 to be even with the i3-2100.

The theoretical computing power of a 6 core Phenom is probably higher than the i3, but the i3 will perform better in games and it gives you a great upgrade path to a 2500k or higher later on if you need an upgrade. (edit - my CPU usage while gaming typically sits between 25-35%.... games just don't need/use tons of cores)

There's no reason to build a new rig around AMD right now for gaming unless you are a die hard AMD fanboy. And, like I said - the 960T at $125 is a better deal than the 1090T at $150. Sadly the i3-2100 is a better deal for gaming than either of them :( 

Do you even realize how aged all those single threaded games are? The entire article was catered for intel.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:22:24 AM

stanistheman said:
So your telling me that a core i3? dual core would beat the 1090 wow that makes me NOT wanna get the 1090t AT ALL

but i mean i can get the 1090t for 149.. so yea

nope thats wrong the phenom is much better then a i3 i dont know what he's talking about
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:31:07 AM

Whatever you need top know that benchmarks are not gaming tests they are just seing how fast the cpu will start outputing numbers on a full load nothing to do with the game itself.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:39:36 AM

stanistheman said:
Would the amd 1090t bottleneck the amd 7970 or the gtx 680

Im just gonna tell you the awnser of what you asked

NO the phenom is far from being able to bottleneck something like that but the only reson why people say the bulldozer iss so bad is beacause how it runs but it's fine in gaming and really works but benchmarks just tell you basicly for example the time it took for the cpu to add 1 to 10,000 numbers whichs really dont do much for gaming and for the price of a 1090t vs i3 or i5 the 1090t will win for overall be better for that price.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:41:49 AM

BigMack70 said:
Please come back when you are interested in posting in english with coherent argumentation.

I like how you think that gaming benchmarks have "nothing to do with the game itself".... :pt1cable: 

first im talking about non gamig bencharks
second gaming bencharks depend on the gpu to
third find the same setup with both CPUs on a gaming benchark that uses cpu power to then ask me
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:45:20 AM

BigMack70 said:
Random note: If you have a microcenter store anywhere near you, you should get intel no questions asked - they have the i3-2100 for $100, the i5-2400 for $150, and the i5-2500k for $200.


i5-2500k = $180

http://www.microcenter.com/
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 5:55:58 AM

melikepie said:
first im talking about non gamig bencharks
second gaming bencharks depend on the gpu to
third find the same setup with both CPUs on a gaming benchark that uses cpu power to then ask me


Non gaming benchmarks are irrelevant to this discussion since the OP is building a gaming rig. Not all benchmarks are GPU dependent. It depends on which game.

I am afraid your third sentence did not translate well so I cannot respond.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 5:57:49 AM

tlmck said:
Non gaming benchmarks are irrelevant to this discussion since the OP is building a gaming rig. Not all benchmarks are GPU dependent. It depends on which game.

I am afraid your third sentence did not translate well so I cannot respond.

translate well? whats that
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 6:09:33 AM

melikepie said:
translate well? whats that



It means it made no sense.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 6:31:40 AM

Here is the Deal.

The 1090t WILL bottleneck the 7970 in some cases. The main ones of concern would be Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and Battlefield 3 (Multiplayer). Both these games are fairly poorly optimised for CPU performance and only fully use 2 or 3 threads, as a result the lower single threaded performance of the 1090t will cause the bottleneck.

In comparison the i3 2100 has excellent Single threaded performance, and although it only has 2/4 Cores/Threads, games that are out these days barely utilise that fully (Although 4 - 6 threaded games are becoming more common). As a result the i3 2100 performs better than the 1090t.

Bare in mind that an i5 2300/2400/2500/2500k will outperform a 1090t in all cases including the heavily threaded applications due to the fact that its single threaded is higher even than that of the i3 AND it has twice as many cores.

Unfortunatly this leaves AMD without a recommendable CPU at any price point - the Sandy Bridge CPU Architecture is simply too strong - Even the Dual Core Pentiums are going head-to-head with the Phenom II 955 and keeping up.

And most people forget this little comparison but Intels Single Core Celeron G540 @ 2.5Ghz is much faster than its price point counterpart the Athlon II 250 Dual Core @ 3.0Ghz.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g5...
This helps prove the point that single threaded performance still matters and Sandy Bridge has LOTS of it.

TL: DR - 1090t will be a bottleneck in some games, in Skyrim and BF3 you will notice FPS spikes and/or lower than 30fps gameplay in certain cases.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 6:36:58 AM

deadjon said:
Here is the Deal.

The 1090t WILL bottleneck the 7970 in some cases. The main ones of concern would be Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and Battlefield 3 (Multiplayer). Both these games are fairly poorly optimised for CPU performance and only fully use 2 or 3 threads, as a result the lower single threaded performance of the 1090t will cause the bottleneck.

In comparison the i3 2100 has excellent Single threaded performance, and although it only has 2/4 Cores/Threads, games that are out these days barely utilise that fully (Although 4 - 6 threaded games are becoming more common). As a result the i3 2100 performs better than the 1090t.

Bare in mind that an i5 2300/2400/2500/2500k will outperform a 1090t in all cases including the heavily threaded applications due to the fact that its single threaded is higher even than that of the i3 AND it has twice as many cores.

Unfortunatly this leaves AMD without a recommendable CPU at any price point - the Sandy Bridge CPU Architecture is simply too strong - Even the Dual Core Pentiums are going head-to-head with the Phenom II 955 and keeping up.

And most people forget this little comparison but Intels Single Core Celeron G540 @ 2.5Ghz is much faster than its price point counterpart the Athlon II 250 Dual Core @ 3.0Ghz.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g5...
This helps prove the point that single threaded performance still matters and Sandy Bridge has LOTS of it.

TL: DR - 1090t will be a bottleneck in some games, in Skyrim and BF3 you will notice FPS spikes and/or lower than 30fps gameplay in certain cases.

whatever but the 1090t is fine for gaming i all cases well not 4 6990s on crossfire but even a 2600k can't handle that
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 6:43:32 AM

melikepie said:
whatever but the 1090t is fine for gaming i all cases well not 4 6990s on crossfire but even a 2600k can't handle that


I'll quote myself here.

Quote:
1090t will be a bottleneck in some games, in Skyrim and BF3 you will notice FPS spikes and/or lower than 30fps gameplay in certain cases.


Lower than 30fps....

LOWER than THIRTY FPS

http://www.overclock.net/t/1184541/fixed-skyrim-issue-1...

This is a post from a user using the 1090t and 2 GTX 460s - Look at the GPU usage comparison at the bottom.

This is NOT okay.

Oh and a 2600k could handle it fine if it weren't limited by its 20 PCI-E 2.0 lanes.

a 3930k would be fine with it right now :) 
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 9:48:40 AM

No one is considering the cost of a high end amd mobo vs a high end intel with the same features.. U save a bit on the amd and amd3+ will be supported by the next amd cpus code name piledriver
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:18:22 AM

BigMack70 said:
Please post benchmarks rather than conspiracy theories if you want to show where the AMD chips outperform their Intel counterparts in games. And don't say BF3 multiplayer... I'm talking about quantifiable, non-anecdotal evidence that shows that in general (not in one or two outlier cases), a $120 AMD chip will outperform a $120 i3-2100.


Oh, now you want to reduce your statement to only include a $120 amd chip?

Quote:
For gaming the dual core i3-2100 will beat any stock AMD processor.


running away already doesn't look good for defending your statements.

Lets look at overclocked cpus since thats what the OP is planning. http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4350/amd_fx_8150_bulld...

aside from hawx 2 and farcry 2, thats a tie with Intel having a 500 mhz advantage, 5.2 ghz I7 vs 4.7ghz BD. not looking good for saying Intel >>>> AMD.

so farcry 2 won on the intel by quite a bit, and I am sure everyone will agree that if you check any and all farcry 2 benches, its all intel cpus >> all amd cpus ... ever stop and wonder why?

Quote:
From the earliest stages of development, Intel engineers worked closely with Ubisoft Montreal to make sure the Dunia engine could bring the game world fully to life by being multi-threaded. The result is the kind of game the Intel® Core™2 Extreme was made for.

http://game-on.intel.com/eng/games/farcry2/default.aspx


wow .. so if Intel works on developing a game from the start, AMD suffers at the hands of Intel. Imagine that.

So what other games have Intel had their hands on (or should I say wallet). http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2007/20...

Ok, now intel owns an entire physics engine. Guess what AMD, your out of luck getting any use out of that. What does that include?

Spoiler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_(software)
Oh, look there is starcraft II, Just cause 2, and Skyrim

obviously some games are going to use the havoc engine more than others, but they aren't hard to spot.

Wether the game choices by toms was an accident or not is anyone's guess. Looking at the remaining 3 titles, you have metro 2033, your I3 handily loses to 4 of amd's cpus, and the other 2 games, BF3 and Dirt 3 are a tie.

How about some resident evil 5, another look at Hawx 2, and Stalker. those aren't on the havoc engine list. whats that at the bottom twice?
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/14/

Trying to find reviews that cover the I3 2100 are fairly few, mainly because its not considered a future proof cpu.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 10:31:55 AM

deadjon said:
Here is the Deal.

The 1090t WILL bottleneck the 7970 in some cases. The main ones of concern would be Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and Battlefield 3 (Multiplayer). Both these games are fairly poorly optimised for CPU performance and only fully use 2 or 3 threads, as a result the lower single threaded performance of the 1090t will cause the bottleneck.

In comparison the i3 2100 has excellent Single threaded performance, and although it only has 2/4 Cores/Threads, games that are out these days barely utilise that fully (Although 4 - 6 threaded games are becoming more common). As a result the i3 2100 performs better than the 1090t.

Bare in mind that an i5 2300/2400/2500/2500k will outperform a 1090t in all cases including the heavily threaded applications due to the fact that its single threaded is higher even than that of the i3 AND it has twice as many cores.

Unfortunatly this leaves AMD without a recommendable CPU at any price point - the Sandy Bridge CPU Architecture is simply too strong - Even the Dual Core Pentiums are going head-to-head with the Phenom II 955 and keeping up.

And most people forget this little comparison but Intels Single Core Celeron G540 @ 2.5Ghz is much faster than its price point counterpart the Athlon II 250 Dual Core @ 3.0Ghz.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g5...
This helps prove the point that single threaded performance still matters and Sandy Bridge has LOTS of it.

TL: DR - 1090t will be a bottleneck in some games, in Skyrim and BF3 you will notice FPS spikes and/or lower than 30fps gameplay in certain cases.

SKyrim is for the most part a single-thraded game, saying BF3 is the same is a complete load of crap. your link to the forum post showed skyrim jacking one cpu core to 99%, the next one was 30% the main issue ended up being a problem with Nvidia's drivers .. imagine that ..

BF3 multiplayer



BF3 cpu usage

http://www.techspot.com/mediagallery.php?f=458&sub=imag...

Battlefield 3 is one game that absolutely loves multiple cores. see how the i5 takes a hit compared to the i7? imagine what the i3 does. wonder if its down there with the 980 or 560.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 16, 2012 11:53:49 AM

noob2222 said:
SKyrim is for the most part a single-thraded game, saying BF3 is the same is a complete load of crap. your link to the forum post showed skyrim jacking one cpu core to 99%, the next one was 30% the main issue ended up being a problem with Nvidia's drivers .. imagine that ..

BF3 multiplayer

http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2506?k=142b45af179c625ccd8f53fea7385155

BF3 cpu usage

http://www.techspot.com/mediagallery.php?f=458&sub=imag...

Battlefield 3 is one game that absolutely loves multiple cores. see how the i5 takes a hit compared to the i7? imagine what the i3 does. wonder if its down there with the 980 or 560.


Ill give you this, BF3 can run on up to 8 Threads - I guess I've not looked into it since the Beta (It was terribly optimized back then)

The i3 will run fine thanks to HT and excellent IPC anyway.

And we still have the issue with Skyrim (which is TERRIBLY optimised I know)

What bothers me is that a Dual Core is keeping up with a 6 Core in almost every game. Even the games optimised for Quads are showing the i3 to be a better deal.
BF3 is where the Phenom II has the edge - but only BF3.

Obviously I look forward to games optimised for 8 Threads in the future - add that to the performance increase that Piledriver is promising and AMD might be come a usable choice. I can't say they'll be the best choice, but it might be less retarded to go AMD by then.

I've built people tons of AMD machines in the past - my favorite one was the Phenom II 720BE - I unlocked the 4th core and OCed it to 3.6Ghz for the guy, hes still using it now!

Either way - I used to be an AMD fan like you, then I bought a Q6600. Then I bought a 2500k. in 2013 I will buy whatever is the top performer.





m
0
l
February 16, 2012 8:28:36 PM

Im really only looking at the 8150 and 1090t. i feel like trying amd and then judging them for my self seeing that the 1090t perfroms the same as the 8120 and is cheaper ill go with 1090t i think
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 9:15:55 PM

boy this crap gets old after awhile..Intel is..blah blah blah..AMD is ..blah blah blah.people need to get off the benchmark and numbers argument....So who cares if rig A is running at 200 FPS and rig B is running at 150 FPS.....As long as the game(in this case) seems fine to You,Thats what really matters.

I've used both and both have been fine.right now i'm using an 1100t,2-6950'(both stock and at 6970 speed)s..BF3..ultra....both GPU's 100% usage as is the cpu....No bottleneck.My back up has a AMD 980 quadcore,same result.some of the guys I game with are running i5's and i7's with amd/nvidia..they all play fine.

Unfortunatly these always end up being a bash fest.I cant/wont recommend either,but advise you on what I have atm and how it works for me.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
February 17, 2012 12:36:35 AM

stanistheman said:
Im really only looking at the 8150 and 1090t. i feel like trying amd and then judging them for my self seeing that the 1090t perfroms the same as the 8120 and is cheaper ill go with 1090t i think

well thats ok i have a 8120 and it works great here's the thing the only time the cpu is bad is when it can't keep up with the system and a core 2 duo would do fine just don't mix it with quad 6990s and you will be fine but the core 2 duo is not what you are doing anyway but i don't see why it matters to even overclock a core 2 duo, 2500k or even an i3 i mean the CPUs now are fine playing games it's just make sure you don't buy a $50 graphics card and you will be good like my 8120 works on dirt 3 fine and overclocking it won't help increase the fps since it's mostly the gpu but if i underclocked it to like 1GHz the gpu cant get data that fast so i would rather buy a $300 GPU and a $200 CPU then a $400 GPU and a $100 cpu basicly as long as the cpu is not a pentium 4 then i would say your good. i meant though why in the world would someone overclock a i7 extreme?????????
m
0
l
a c 83 à CPUs
a b À AMD
March 12, 2013 2:08:20 PM

BigMack70 said:
stanistheman said:
So your telling me that a core i3? dual core would beat the 1090 wow that makes me NOT wanna get the 1090t AT ALL


For gaming the dual core i3-2100 will beat any stock AMD processor. It takes a 4.0 GHz+ Phenom x4 or x6 to be even with the i3-2100.

The theoretical computing power of a 6 core Phenom is probably higher than the i3, but the i3 will perform better in games and it gives you a great upgrade path to a 2500k or higher later on if you need an upgrade. (edit - my CPU usage while gaming typically sits between 25-35%.... games just don't need/use tons of cores)

There's no reason to build a new rig around AMD right now for gaming unless you are a die hard AMD fanboy. And, like I said - the 960T at $125 is a better deal than the 1090T at $150. Sadly the i3-2100 is a better deal for gaming than either of them :( 


You're probably thinking i5. The i3 is not good for a serious gaming rig. I wouldn't consider spending money on anything less than an i5 personally.

On modern multithreaded games like Metro 2033, Crysis 3, Dead Space 3, etc... the 1090t works as well, and in some cases slightly better than, the i5. Depends on how many cores the game will use.

Between i5/1055 and 1090t/AM3+, platform cost will be so close though you may as well just go with the hardware you know best. The only time I can see it being worth the switch is if you simply want the best of the best. In which case, just go into debt for an i7 extreme and a pair of Titans and be done with it.

PS - Nevermind, this has been explained in detail above. XD
m
0
l
!