Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 8 core and 2 GTX 670s?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 24, 2012 8:50:52 AM

Would an 8 core AMD CPU running at 3.4 Ghz Turbo'd bottleneck two GTX 670's? I have one 670 now and it seems to be underperforming, but I'll ask about that in another thread.

More about : amd core gtx 670s

a c 78 à CPUs
August 24, 2012 8:55:25 AM

Depends on the game, some games, indeed it will.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 9:17:20 AM

at 3.4 ghz in some games yes. at 4.5 ghz, not likely.

easy way to tell, run task manager and watch cpu usage. if it hits 100% across one or more cores then yes.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 11:08:54 AM

Yes, especially with games that only supports single or dual core.
m
0
l
August 24, 2012 11:37:14 AM

try to push it to 4.2 or 4.5 From the research I have done on Amds new processors you basically look at it like this. amd says its 8 core but its basically like 4 cores with intels hyperthreading...I think... but still not as powerful as an intel of the same cores. soooo yea I would suggest ocing as much as you can to keep from bottlenecking.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 12:52:53 PM

It is not basically a Quad with HT, modules and HT are two completely different things and modulation is proven to be faster but AMD have marketed it as a Octo core hence it is a Octo core.

had that issue running the new 7970 GHZ edition cards, disabled cores 2,4,6,8 helped somewhat but the cards are far to strong.
m
0
l
a c 471 à CPUs
a c 118 À AMD
August 24, 2012 2:16:48 PM

Just be aware that the vast majority of games only use 2 cores. There are a few that can use 3 cores and fewer still that can use 4 cores. BF3 is an example of a game that can actually use 4 cores, but only in mulitplayer. However, I am not sure if it can use more than 4 cores. If someone who plays BF3 with an FX-8150 can chime in on that, it would be helpful.

However, BF3 is the exception to the rule of just 2 cores used in games.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 2:32:42 PM

Yeah 2x7970's bottleneck a 8120 stock on BF3, you get spikes of 150FPS down to 90FPS and back, while I noticed the 2500K stock doing the same the spike was well less.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 2:35:36 PM

670's you may get away with, that said a single 670 is more than enough.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 3:49:34 PM

sarinaide said:
It is not basically a Quad with HT, modules and HT are two completely different things and modulation is proven to be faster but AMD have marketed it as a Octo core hence it is a Octo core.

had that issue running the new 7970 GHZ edition cards, disabled cores 2,4,6,8 helped somewhat but the cards are far to strong.


No you're wrong. It is a quad core CPU and modulation is AMD's sad attempt at hyper threading but it was a pathetic fail. The so called 8 core Bulldozer is a quad core with 8 threads just like an I7 with hyperthreading.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 3:59:07 PM

I thought we have already established this, but anyways what was it AMD modulation is 1.75 of a dual core while HT is 1.10 of a dual core but anyways. The reason is nothing to do with the cores but shared Cache memory, latencies and deep pipelines, to few FPU's shared.

Its marketed by AMD as a Octocore, not what you and every tom dick and harry percieve it to be, endo story.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 4:06:41 PM

sarinaide said:
I thought we have already established this, but anyways what was it AMD modulation is 1.75 of a dual core while HT is 1.10 of a dual core but anyways. The reason is nothing to do with the cores but shared Cache memory, latencies and deep pipelines, to few FPU's shared.

Its marketed by AMD as a Octocore, not what you and every tom dick and harry percieve it to be, endo story.


Guess there is a sucker born every day that buys into AMD's false advertising garabage. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 4:14:32 PM

Granted its not a pure octocore, but its theoretically closer to a octo core than a quad core.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 4:15:17 PM

Anyway the point is that as seen in benchmarks, depending on the game Bulldozer can bottleneck a GPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 4:21:04 PM

Yes that is obvious but its nothing to do with the amount of cores, its got to do with engineering at the metal level as before, few shared FPU, deep pipelines, to much shared resources....not the core count.
m
0
l
August 24, 2012 5:15:54 PM

rds1220 said:
No you're wrong. It is a quad core CPU and modulation is AMD's sad attempt at hyper threading but it was a pathetic fail. The so called 8 core Bulldozer is a quad core with 8 threads just like an I7 with hyperthreading.

Please do not try and inform someone, who came on this site to learn something, when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Whatever you may define a "core" as, the FX-81xx has as many "cores" as Intel's 8 "core" Xions for servers. Hyperthreading on an i7 ,as far as I know, does not change any physical properties to the chip. If you want to look at a die shot of an 8 "core" bulldozer and tell me there is no physical difference between a FX-41xx and a FX-81xx, go right ahead, but your wrong.

The module approach of Bulldozer puts two "cores" together, having them share certain parts that are not always used. Each and every "core" is just as powerful as another, but when the two "cores" of a module work together, there can sometimes be losses in performance compared to if the two "cores" were separated.

To answer the OP's question: Yes, you will probably run into bottlenecks if you keep that clock speed. Not a whole lot with a single 670, but with them in SLI that will change.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 5:39:00 PM

I would honestly just get one GTX 670 and spend the savings on an i7.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 5:56:31 PM

viridiancrystal said:
Please do not try and inform someone, who came on this site to learn something, when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Whatever you may define a "core" as, the FX-81xx has as many "cores" as Intel's 8 "core" Xions for servers. Hyperthreading on an i7 ,as far as I know, does not change any physical properties to the chip. If you want to look at a die shot of an 8 "core" bulldozer and tell me there is no physical difference between a FX-41xx and a FX-81xx, go right ahead, but your wrong.

The module approach of Bulldozer puts two "cores" together, having them share certain parts that are not always used. Each and every "core" is just as powerful as another, but when the two "cores" of a module work together, there can sometimes be losses in performance compared to if the two "cores" were separated.

To answer the OP's question: Yes, you will probably run into bottlenecks if you keep that clock speed. Not a whole lot with a single 670, but with them in SLI that will change.


Like I said sucker born everyday.Thats why AMD stays around I guess. Anyway none of the Bulldozer CPU's are what they claim to be. The so called quad core is really a dual core, the so called six core is really a three core and the so called 8 core is really a quad core. Your comparison to Xeon (yea it's spelled XEON not XION how can we take you serious when you don't even know how to spell what you're comparing ) is a load of garbage. The Xeon is 8 real cores with 16 threads (http://ark.intel.com/products/64582/Intel-Xeon-Processo...(20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI) the Bulldozer is quad core with 8 thraeads. Also the Xeon isn't slow as a turtle and doesn't suck nuts.

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-component...

So I'm sorry to dissapoint you but it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about and needs to get a clue. :pfff: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 6:45:53 PM

rds1220 said:
Like I said sucker born everyday.Thats why AMD stays around I guess. Anyway none of the Bulldozer CPU's are what they claim to be. The so called quad core is really a dual core, the so called six core is really a three core and the so called 8 core is really a quad core. Your comparison to Xeon (yea it's spelled XEON not XION how can we take you serious when you don't even know how to spell what you're comparing ) is a load of garbage. The Xeon is 8 real cores with 16 threads (http://ark.intel.com/products/64582/Intel-Xeon-Processo...(20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI) the Bulldozer is quad core with 8 thraeads. Also the Xeon isn't slow as a turtle and doesn't suck nuts.

http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/pc-component...

So I'm sorry to dissapoint you but it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about and needs to get a clue. :pfff: 

Well, it does have eight physical integer cores. I would call it 4 + 4 cores.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 7:46:14 PM

jaguarskx said:
Just be aware that the vast majority of games only use 2 cores. There are a few that can use 3 cores and fewer still that can use 4 cores. BF3 is an example of a game that can actually use 4 cores, but only in mulitplayer. However, I am not sure if it can use more than 4 cores. If someone who plays BF3 with an FX-8150 can chime in on that, it would be helpful.

However, BF3 is the exception to the rule of just 2 cores used in games.

BF3 will use as many cores as there are. its not the only exception. Civ V, RE 5, Dirt 3, ect.

BTW don't mind RDS, hes determined to prove anyone who talks about AMD to be nothing less than a complete idiot.
If HT is superior to AMD's CMT, lets check that.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246/3
http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246/7

Lets look at the two "dual core" as rds wants to call it, as the rest are ~20%.

Intel I5 655 dual core with HT, Skyrm fps, 72, Skyrim + Video transcode, 39, penalty of 46%
AMD FX-4170 dual module , skyrim fps 70, Skyrim + Video transocode, 48, penalty of 32%

Last I checked, taking a 32% hit in performance was better than 46%

ya ... ht is superior in every way ... looks like its someone else who doesn't konw what they are talking about.
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 8:47:49 PM

I was wondering how long it would take the usual fanboys would show up. I'm just determined to streer people away from AMD's Bullcrapper when they can get something better from Intel, sometimes for less, as is seen in the 4100 vs the low-end Sandy Bridges CPU's.

A Pentium cost less and out performs it

You can get an I3 for around the same price as a 4100 and it will out peform the Bullcrapper.

For a 149 dollars you could get a slow 6200 or spend less and get an I3 that will out perform it.

Then there's I5, I7. Yea the Bullzer cost less but when it comes down to it you would be better off with the I5 for gaming or the I7 if your are doing heavy threaded work. So yes you would have to be a complete idiot to buy an AMD CPU. Every AMD CPU get's beaten by Intel CPU's. You can even spend less on Intel hardware and still beat out pretty much all the major AMD Bulldozer CPU's including their so called flagship CPU's. That is just pathetic. Your name fits you so perfectly.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 8:50:44 PM

You mad bro
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 8:52:39 PM

Oh dear lord... :pfff: 
m
0
l
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 8:57:57 PM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Oh dear lord... :pfff: 


???
m
0
l
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
August 24, 2012 8:59:17 PM

rds1220 said:
???


Just the back and forth between everyone on Bulldozer. No one's opinions will be changed...

It's entertaining to read, though, I suppose.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 24, 2012 9:02:00 PM

Its more comic value that a "intel" user feels the need to speculate on how us "AMD" users perceive our chips, like some ritual cult or religion (same thing I guess) bowing to the oh powerful Bulldozer.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 6:49:32 AM

The 8 core Bulldozer is a true 8 core.

The chip is split in to 4 modules. Each module has 2 physical cores in it, each running at the rated speed of the chip (e.g. 3.6ghz). Think of each module as a room in a building and each core as a worker. Each working can run at its maximum speed, but has to share the same door out of the office in to the hall. During normal tasks this is no problem. But when both workers are at full capacity they have to wait for each other to get through the door before they can.

Intel's Hyperthreading is very different. It consists of a single worker (core) with 2 desperate bits of work on his desk. He can choose to do them one at a time, meaning they are finished soon after he started. Or he can do both at the same time with one in either hand. The more he works on one, the less he works on another. But as he is a single man, he has no problems getting out the door.

If using a 3.6ghz bulldozer to assign 2 tasks to a core each, you would have 7.2ghz processing power (albeit 3.6/3.6).

Doing the same on a 3.6ghz Intel would mean you would only have 3.6ghz power. Just each thread can take a percentage of that power (2.2/1.4ghz or 1.8/1.8ghz)

This is why bulldozer is better for truely multi threaded apps as it has twice the power of the equivalent clocked Intel, just the Intel is more efficient.

Fin.
m
0
l
January 15, 2013 11:10:10 PM

Intel has quality CPU's. True Rated CPU's they are as what they are advertised and not a deceptive "all on paper" AMD has
m
0
l
!