Would an FX-8150 Bottleneck a 680GTX

[Stealthymist]

Any way i am getting a FX-8150 mainly because of the price point since i am within a certain budget and i prefer faster graphic card than CPU. Going to use core unlocker on it from the ASUS Crosshair V Formula. At any rate what i am asking is would the CPU bottleneck my single card provided i am not planing on expanding to dual cards. Assuming i OC the cpu as well.

 

[Stealthymist]

PS also forgot to mention i am going to be playing on 1920x1080 most likely on a 24/27 inch monitor. Not planing on expanding to Dual monitors due to the annoying border between them. As i understand from review and comparisons the FX will bottleneck at low res such as 1200 etc but on the higher res + settings from 1920 and up. As i see it the difference is at most 1 FPS which well let's face it isn't worth 400 extra euro spent .

 

[stridervm]

Your basic idea is true.

My only suggestion is that, if possible, I would suggest a Core i5 2500K of 2600K. It will serve you better in the long run. If not, it's fine.

 

[computernewb]

this video may be helpful. he tests a fx 8150 with a gtx 680 and a hd 7970
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pne4ZXIGHx8

 

[Swolern]

second the i5 2500k. $179 @Microcenter

 

[Guest]

Horrible reccomendation to go to an I5-2500K.He obviously just sunk money into the FX proccessor they didnt comeout that long ago.If he were to do anything he would be better off holding out for IVY.I had an 965 be and went to an I5-2500K and didnt see that big of difference only in games like arma 2 that were very cpu intensive.stick with the fx 8150 its still a solid cpu and will be probably for the next couple of years.

 

[SkyWalker1726]

he doesn't HAVE the 8150 yet , he is PLANNING ON buying it , and he's asking if it's the right choice , so the recommendation is quite right , if u want to get a CPU NOW , the 2500K is ur best choice

 

[manu 11]

i 2500k can use the full power of gtx 680. and ivy bridge will be only 2- 10 % faster than current sb. Just go with i5, you will not regret it.

 

[mactronix]

I think you should read this. http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/pc/can-a-300-gaming-pc-compare-to-a-3000-one-1071338/page:3#articleContent

Plenty of people get hung up on trying to run the highest hardware available and "bottlenecking" is over hyped.
See this http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/balanced-gaming-pc-overclock,review-31966.html
Its a little old now but shows the point well that you don't need a high end CPU to play at high settings with a high end GPU.
Its 4 of 4 links to the other 3 are on page 1

Mactronix

 

[Swolern]

Horrible reccomendation to go to an I5-2500K.He obviously just sunk money into the FX proccessor they didnt comeout that long ago.If he were to do anything he would be better off holding out for IVY.I had an 965 be and went to an I5-2500K and didnt see that big of difference only in games like arma 2 that were very cpu intensive.stick with the fx 8150 its still a solid cpu and will be probably for the next couple of years.

Horrible recommendation? Ive never hear that and i5 2500k in the same sentence before. It is still the best gaming CPU for the money. If u dont believe me then believe tomshardware, they stated the same. And read OP post before you talk stupid. "Im getting" future tense, "Ive got" present. Got it. Please no AMD fanboy rage here.

 

[Stealthymist]

Please do not turn this into an AMD vs Intel post i will say it upfront i currently have an

I7 920 and i am going AMD Now. I have no preference to either company with that being said i would like to give you a few points to consider in all of this. As i agree that currently the 2500 is a super good cpu i would like to point out that the AMD is a few months old. As such applications haven't been optimized to take advantage of the multi tread power it has . And based on reviews amd lags out only on single threading. Now as time progresses applications will evolve and so will windows and AMD will pull ahead of the 2500K. IN the long run of 1/2 years buying an AMD now will net me more value for the money i spent on it. Also the AMD goes with a board that has USB 3.0 and PCIE 3.0 near other very cool futures. As far as i know the 2500K doesn't offer any improvement in technology not even a die shrink. So even though the AMD look like it sucks atm i am confident it will pull ahead in due time. And also seeing how the reviews and benchmarking goes at higher resolution the i7 doesn't pull off that much more than the amd. At best it's few FPS.

 

[Microgoliath]

If you got a I7 920, rather stick with that than going FX. Its better than the Phenoms and the Phenoms are better than the FX, so in a sense if you get a FX you won't be upgrading but rather downgrading.

When the first quad cores came out people where raving that *SOON* software and apps will support it, today most things still max out at 2 cores, then its going to 4 and it will be really long before we see 8 core support (for games, general software).

 

[monsta]

The guys are right , the i5 2500K is a great choice and would run the 680 very well.

 

[Guest]

Please do not turn this into an AMD vs Intel post i will say it upfront i currently have an

Also the AMD goes with a board that has USB 3.0 and PCIE 3.0 near other very cool futures. As far as i know the 2500K doesn't offer any improvement in technology not even a die shrink.

your other points are very well thought out. the Z68 H67 P67 and H61 gen 3 motherboard do have USB 3 however though the 2500K does not have PCI 3.0 ivy bridge, the die shrink, will support it on existing Gen3 motherboards and H/Z7x (ivy bridge) motherboards. yes most sandy bridge motherboards will support ivy also.

not trying to turn you "blue" just relaying correct info as you go "green"

 

[Derbixrace]

either wait for ivy and get the 3570K or stay with the 920 its better than the FX, FX would be a downgrade for gaming.

 

[Stealthymist]

either wait for ivy and get the 3570K or stay with the 920 its better than the FX, FX would be a downgrade for gaming.

Seeing the benchmarking during actual games not outside of that the I7 is ahead but not by much. So i am sticking with the FX giving it a shot see how it performs later on when win 8 hits and they can utilize the cores more efficiently. The difference between i7 and FX on BF3 was 1 FPS

 

[techjay]

yea the 8150 is solid... ive been on a i7 .. as of now im running the 8150... things solid... shudnt have ne bottleneck problems...specially with ur 8 core... if anything it cud be your mobo or ram

 

[RussK1]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434

The i5-2500K all but destroys the FX-8150... and the i5 is cheaper!

 

[cbrunnem]

Seeing the benchmarking during actual games not outside of that the I7 is ahead but not by much. So i am sticking with the FX giving it a shot see how it performs later on when win 8 hits and they can utilize the cores more efficiently. The difference between i7 and FX on BF3 was 1 FPS

No offense but someone has brain washed you. The software companies will optimize for the brand or architecture that is most commonly used first then the second rate components. Amd is the second rate component and if this bulldozer architecture is so radical it might not ever be optimized too because its not in anyone's interest too do so. Or we could face the facts and admit that bulldozer is just slow.

 

[RussK1]

Any way i am getting a FX-8150 mainly because of the price point

then don't get the 8150.

Seeing the benchmarking during actual games not outside of that the I7 is ahead but not by much

I do apologize, but the i5 at stock smokes the 8150 with an OC... Compare it to the 2600K and the gap is wider. Honestly there is no comparison... it's your money to waste, but if you want to save cash and put that money to a GPU then, which may seem crazy considering the past, Intel is the way to go.

Things have certainly changed... AMD has become so behind in the CPU race they lose on every front.

 

[Derbixrace]

FX will not perform any better in windows 8 and if it does it will be like a percent or two difference. there is no reason to go with the AMD FX 8 core unless you ONLY render videos or something, for gaming its not good.

check out some gaming benchmarks and there you will see that the 2500K is the best price/performance gaming chip! you will also see that sandy bridge is superior to anything AMD has.

if you still are going to go FX after that then you need your head examined j/k

 

[mactronix]

Don't know if you read my links or not but if you want to save money then you should be looking lower down the FX line up any way.
Performance is relative and once you get above a certain FPS its all bonus points anyway.

I have a PC upstairs that has an E4600 CPU and a HD4770 which can run any game i want it to at high mid settings.
At the end of the day it depends if you want bleeding edge turn everything up performance. In which case you want Intel.
If however you don't mind having things set to just high then an AMD chip is plenty good enough. Gaming wise all you need is the fastest clocked Quad there is.

Mactronix

 

[Microgoliath]

Listen OP, you came in here asking advice and the majority people are telling you to avoid the FX line and rather save up or just get the i5, or better yet stick with your current i7 since its better. If you won't take the advice, why bother asking?

To answer your original question again: Will it bottleneck a single GPU? No, but will it run as good as a intel counter part in games that actually use a CPU? No, but perhaps it will run better as things mature? Yes perhaps in the 4-6 years it takes for programs to adapt and catch up by which time you will be here again asking for advice for your next upgrade.

 

[Stealthymist]

Listen OP, you came in here asking advice and the majority people are telling you to avoid the FX line and rather save up or just get the i5, or better yet stick with your current i7 since its better. If you won't take the advice, why bother asking?

To answer your original question again: Will it bottleneck a single GPU? No, but will it run as good as a intel counter part in games that actually use a CPU? No, but perhaps it will run better as things mature? Yes perhaps in the 4-6 years it takes for programs to adapt and catch up by which time you will be here again asking for advice for your next upgrade.

Yes well the parts are arriving tomorrow and the FX 8150 is among them. I will build the PC test it out and see how it performs if i don't like it i will repack the board + the CPU and 3 days later get the I7 2600K since the 2500 is unavailable or sold out.

 

[Stealthymist]

just go for the i7-2600K and do not look back.
unless saying goodbye to the AMD idea..

Well the parts are coming any way i mean might as well test it out see how it does. At any rate it will be 3 4 days before i get the 2600 any how.