Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bottlenecking

Last response: in Systems
Share
March 25, 2012 3:47:34 AM

Hello,

im trying to buy a gaming pc and i just worried that the cpu and the motherboard will create bottlenecking for the graphics cards

my spec are

AMD FX-8150 8-Core Black Edition CPU, 3.60 GHz, 16MB
Cache, Socket AM3 , 32nm, up to 4.2GHz with Turbo Core
AMD Original Cooling Fan With HeatSink
All-in-one AMD 870G/880G Chipset Motherboard
8GB (2 x 4GB) Dual Channel DDR3 PC-10600 (1333MHz)
240-pin
AMD HD6990 4GB 512-bit GDDR5 PCI-E 2.1/2.0/16x
3.5" 1TB / 1000GB SATA III 7200rpm HDD
ATX Midi Tower Case Black
850W Gaming PSU with 14cm Super-Silent Fan

More about : bottlenecking

a b À AMD
March 25, 2012 4:07:19 AM

For gaming, the graphics card is all important. You are very good there.

Unless you are an AMD stockholder, Intel will be a stronger gaming cpu.
Few games use more than 2 or three fast cores, so 8 core cpu's are largely useless.
Also, bulldozer was a disappointment so far as individual core strength was concerned.
A 2500K is as good as it gets for gaming today.
m
0
l
March 25, 2012 4:15:20 AM

Is this an entirely new build? There are several bad choices here.

as geofelt mentioned, AMD build are nowhere near Intel right now in terms of performance per dollar. going with an i5 2500k will give you much better performance.
also, a 6990 seems a poor choice unless you are getting a very good deal. a 7970 or gtx 680 would offer similar performance at a similar price, but would be way less power hungry and MUCH quieter.

m
0
l
Related resources
a b À AMD
March 25, 2012 4:49:09 AM

Intels gaming "advantage"is mostly an illusion . Monitors refresh at 60 Hz or 60 FPS so building a machine that can run 120 fps is pointless . It will never appear on the screen anyway .

By all means stick with the FX processor . Id use the 6200 for the higher clock speeds , since more cores wont help in gaming situations.

ONLY use motherboards with the 970 or 990 series chipsets since only these have full compatibility with FX processors .

RAM should be 1.5 volt [ or less]

There are newer better performing radeons . A pair of 7870's in crossfire , or a pair of 7950's should give better performance
And they are available .

850 watt psu is overkill [ depending on your graphics card set up ]
http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page362.htm

m
0
l
March 25, 2012 4:54:41 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Intels gaming "advantage"is mostly an illusion . Monitors refresh at 60 Hz or 60 FPS so building a machine that can run 120 fps is pointless . It will never appear on the screen anyway .


It's posts like this that remind me why i very rarely visit this website anymore.

the framerate limit of a monitor is totally irrelevant unless you are getting a constant minimum framerate above 60fps in every situation . since this build will not be in that situation, it is important to get what performance you can.

besides, regardless of your thoughts, the fact of the matter is that an intel CPU WILL offer more performance for the same or less cash. right now AMD simply cannot compete at the higher end of the market.

It doesn't matter if the speed limit is 60mph, its still worth getting a ferrarri over a punto.

OP, an intel CPU absolutely will offer more performance for the price unless you are getting it at a complete bargain. check out any number of reviews for confirmation.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
March 25, 2012 9:38:43 AM

welshmousepk said:


besides, regardless of your thoughts, the fact of the matter is that an intel CPU WILL offer more performance for the same or less cash. right now AMD simply cannot compete at the higher end of the market.



Its posts like yours that remind me I should post on this mb. Some people fail to understand digital technology on very fundamental levels

AMD's FX processor produce very similar fps to intels units at high resolutions when using the same graphics systems . At 1080p the difference is smaller than the natural variations .
To argue that an intel is superior because it can produce uselessly high fps on low resolution monitors is a lot like arguing you look faster in ferrari than in a punto ......when both are going the exact same speed .

I guess some people care about appearances and some care about getting to the destination
m
0
l
Anonymous
March 25, 2012 9:49:45 AM

Outlander_04 said:

is a lot like arguing you look faster in ferrari than in a punto ......when both are going the exact same speed .

I guess some people care about appearances and some care about getting to the destination



but won't you pick up more chicks in a ferrari? :lol: 
m
0
l
March 26, 2012 5:00:09 AM

Outlander_04 said:
Its posts like yours that remind me I should post on this mb. Some people fail to understand digital technology on very fundamental levels

AMD's FX processor produce very similar fps to intels units at high resolutions when using the same graphics systems . At 1080p the difference is smaller than the natural variations .
To argue that an intel is superior because it can produce uselessly high fps on low resolution monitors is a lot like arguing you look faster in ferrari than in a punto ......when both are going the exact same speed .

I guess some people care about appearances and some care about getting to the destination



If you could save a decent amount of money with the fx processor, your argument would be completely valid. Except that the intel processors are better in virtually every situation for virtually the same cash. It has nothing to do with low resolution monitors. if you can get better performance for the same overall cost, why on earth wouldn't you?

If you already have an amd system, then yes, the performance benefit is certainly not worth a change. but building from scratch you absolutely get more for your money from an intel chip.
m
0
l
!