Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Closed

AMD 8150 with two radeon 7970s

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Register or log in to remove
Power supply Expert

Disable every other core (or take every other core's P states down with PSCheck while improving them for the remaining cores) and overclock that CPU. Overclocking the CPU/NB frequency is also a good idea. It'll improve that CPU's gaming performance greatly. Also, make sure that you're using the proper graphics drivers for those 7970s. Also, what memory frequency does your 16GB of RAM run at?
Related ressources
Ask the community
Power supply Expert

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_7970_cpu...

Not having an i5 or an i7 usually doesn't make a big deal overall. Being significantly faster in gaming is almost irrelevant when other models are already either fast enough or can be fast enough through minor to moderate overclocking. It's when you want 3D and/or 120FPS gaming were you're more likely to run into issues with CPUs that don't have a great focus on performance per core.

Crossfire increases CPU bottle-necks due to it's considerable overhead, but overclocking should be able to make up for that without being unreasonably high overclocking.

OP dont pay atention to this Intel lovers, read this Review from someone that actually took the time to show all intel lover that FX8150 by no means its a bad CPU... he went ahead and did some test with FX8150 + CF7970
http://www.overclock.net/t/1287618/bulldozers-got-game-...

also this is a good not biased review FX8150 vs intel 2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

another example that FX8150 its not that far behind being a $180 dollars CPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLrGJWw6P3M

its true u can get more with the intel CPU but its not that much any way it cost more :) 

Matters more than you might think... the 8150 can't touch the i5 and i7 CPUs from Intel for gaming and definitely is the problem for the OP. Putting a pair of high end GPUs on an 8150 is a horrible idea.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

(and also the following pages)

From their conclusion:
Quote:
Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.
Power supply Expert

BigMack70 said:
Matters more than you might think... the 8150 can't touch the i5 and i7 CPUs from Intel for gaming and definitely is the problem for the OP. Putting a pair of high end GPUs on an 8150 is a horrible idea.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

(and also the following pages)


That's at stock. CPU frequency overclocking, P state altering, and CPU/NB frequency overclocking can change that greatly.

BigMack70 said:
Matters more than you might think... the 8150 can't touch the i5 and i7 CPUs from Intel for gaming and definitely is the problem for the OP. Putting a pair of high end GPUs on an 8150 is a horrible idea.

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

(and also the following pages)

From their conclusion:
Quote:
Sadly, with Bulldozer, AMD has moved in the opposite direction. The Phenom II X4 980, with four "Stars" cores at 3.7GHz, remains AMD's best gaming processor to date. The FX-8150 is slower than the Phenom II X6 1100T, and the FX-6200 trails the X4 980 by a pretty wide margin. Only the FX-4170 represents an improvement from one generation to the next, and it costs more than the Phenom II X4 850 that it outperforms. Meanwhile, all of the FX processors remain 125W parts.

We don't like pointing out AMD's struggles any more than many of you like reading about them. It's worth reiterating here that the FX processors aren't hopeless for gaming—they just perform similarly to mid-range Intel processors from two generations ago. If you want competence, they may suffice, but if you desire glassy smooth frame delivery, you'd best look elsewhere. Our sense is that AMD desperately needs to improve its per-thread performance—through IPC gains, higher clock speeds, or both—before they'll have a truly desirable CPU to offer PC gamers.



lol i have seing a tons of videos on youtube ppl using the FX8150 and i always see 60fps... i dont know what are u talking about
Power supply Expert

BigMack70 said:
Exactly. Get your 8150 to about 7 GHz and you have a good gaming CPU. Techreport's analysis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> random youtube videos.

Don't hate the messenger.


Big Mack isn't really trolling, just exaggerating. It wouldn't take 7GHz CPU frequencies (although that can actually be stable with only two cores enabled and 6GHz or so is no big deal with only four cores enabled) to get comparable performance to Intel.

The point is that the OP's problem is that his CPU is not good enough to power a pair of 7970s.

You need either a HEAVY overclock on your CPU, or you need to switch to a 2500k or better intel CPU in order to not bottleneck that GPU setup.
Power supply Expert

BigMack70 said:
The point is that the OP's problem is that his CPU is not good enough to power a pair of 7970s.

You need either a HEAVY overclock on your CPU, or you need to switch to a 2500k or better intel CPU in order to not bottleneck that GPU setup.


OR, instead of doing this the Netburst way, OP could also overclock the CPU/NB frequency and minimize the P states for the second core of each module to alleviate the front end bottle-neck on the first core of each module.

re-play- said:
OP dont pay atention to this Intel lovers, read this Review from someone that actually took the time to show all intel lover that FX8150 by no means its a bad CPU... he went ahead and did some test with FX8150 + CF7970
http://www.overclock.net/t/1287618/bulldozers-got-game-...

also this is a good not biased review FX8150 vs intel 2500k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kd4dvLJQP4

another example that FX8150 its not that far behind being a $180 dollars CPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLrGJWw6P3M

its true u can get more with the intel CPU but its not that much any way it cost more :) 


on the first link you posted, i didn't read it but it looks to me as if the 8150 is bottlenecking the gpus in EVERY graph. I never see anything above 70%gpus usage which screens bottleneck.

Also blazorthorn is a hard core amd backer fyi guys. You shouldn't have to overlook like crazy to get decent performance.
Power supply Expert

cbrunnem said:
on the first link you posted, i didn't read it but it looks to me as if the 8150 is bottlenecking the gpus in EVERY graph. I never see anything above 70%gpus usage which screens bottleneck.

Also blazorthorn is a hard core amd backer fyi guys. You shouldn't have to overlook like crazy to get decent performance.


You don't have to overclock like crazy and if you can't even spell my user name right when it's right in front of you, then learn how to copy/paste. Also, when FPS is already higher than a 60Hz display can go, it doesn't matter if you go higher with a 60Hz display. As was said earlier, having lower average time between frames is still important, but even moderate overclocking can solve that. Heck, overclocking only the CPU/NB frequency and dropping the P states of the second core of each module is enough to boost performance per Hz per core higher than Nehalem/Westmere (albeit highly threaded performance takes a considerable drop).

blazorthon said:
You don't have to overclock like crazy and if you can't even spell my user name right when it's right in front of you, then learn how to copy/paste. Also, when FPS is already higher than a 60Hz display can go, it doesn't matter if you go higher with a 60Hz display. As was said earlier, having lower average time between frames is still important, but even moderate overclocking can solve that. Heck, overclocking only the CPU/NB frequency and dropping the P states of the second core of each module is enough to boost performance per Hz per core higher than Nehalem/Westmere (albeit highly threaded performance takes a considerable drop).


Will you just admit the 8150 is bottlenecking these gpus.... Jeeze

btw Im on my phone and don't really care too much if i spell your name right.

Power supply Expert

cbrunnem said:
Will you just admit the 8150 is bottlenecking these gpus.... Jeeze

btw Im on my phone and don't really care too much if i spell your name right.


I never said that the 8150 isn't bottle-necking these cards. Right now, it probably is, but we haven't specifically tested that to be sure. I offered solutions to solve that (assuming that it is that case) without having to spend several hundred dollars on a new motherboard and CPU.

BigMack70 said:
The point is that the OP's problem is that his CPU is not good enough to power a pair of 7970s.

You need either a HEAVY overclock on your CPU, or you need to switch to a 2500k or better intel CPU in order to not bottleneck that GPU setup.


thats why you have your 2500k at 4.8?? because if not u will see bottleneck too :D 
Power supply Expert

re-play- said:
thats why you have your 2500k at 4.8?? because if not u will see bottleneck too :D 


BigMack70's Signaturei7-2600k @ 4.8 GHz | Noctua NH-D14 | 2x MSI 7970 Lightning in CF-X @ 1205/1800 MHz | 8 GB DDR3-1600 | ASRock z68 extreme7 gen3 | OCZ Agility 3 240GB | Corsair AX1200 | CM Storm Trooper


Even without overclocking, most games simply aren't great CPU hogs, so it's not necessary to avoid bottle-necking in every situation.

For those that claim that you MUST have an i5/i7 in order to eliminate any chance of a bottleneck with HD7970s Crossfired, I submit the following:

In this thread, the OP has an FX8150 and 2 HD7970s and is averaging 130 fps in BF3 (1080p):
http://www.overclock.net/t/1268452/phenom-ii-vs-fx-cros...

In this review, they are using a Intel Core i7-3960X with 2 HD7970s and are averaging 118 fps (1080p):
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/XFX-Radeon-...

I think this shows the FX8150 will do fine handling the Crossfired 7970s.

OP, what drivers are you using?
Power supply Expert

maui67 said:
For those that claim that you MUST have an i5/i7 in order to eliminate any chance of a bottleneck with HD7970s Crossfired, I submit the following:

In this thread, the OP has an FX8150 and 2 HD7970s and is averaging 130 fps in BF3 (1080p):
http://www.overclock.net/t/1268452/phenom-ii-vs-fx-cros...

In this review, they are using a Intel Core i7-3960X with 2 HD7970s and are averaging 118 fps (1080p):
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/XFX-Radeon-...

I think this shows the FX8150 will do fine handling the Crossfired 7970s.

OP, what drivers are you using?


TBF, BF3 isn't really a good title to count on for this. The 8150 can do fine with two 7970s, but not necessarily at stock frequencies and core configuration.

blazorthon said:
TBF, BF3 isn't really a good title to count on for this. The 8150 can do fine with two 7970s, but not necessarily at stock frequencies and core configuration.

Duly noted and I agree.

Its just hard to find articles/threads that compare oranges to oranges. I can find lots of articles on HD7970 crossfire performance, but they are usually using Intel setups.

mubin said:
Dont pay attention to youtube video. Check the benchmark first to see real difference. Its not about intel loving, its about performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...


yeah because everyone said XFX7950 will be *** and i can get mine to 1050/1500 with stock voltages... i dont trust tomshardware reviews since they favor intel in CPU... i like to see real usage thats why i see videos on youtube showing FPS etc :hello: 

mubin said:
Dont pay attention to youtube video. Check the benchmark first to see real difference. Its not about intel loving, its about performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

No one is arguing whether Intel is better than AMD. In CPU-bound games, Intel does do better.

However, the OP's question is why are they not getting good results with their Crossfired HD7970s and FX8150? Telling the OP to get rid of the FX8150 and get an Intel rig is a waste of time and money. The 8150 overclocked will be more than adequate to handle the 7970s.

OP, we need more info in order to help you. Why do you feel your system is lagging? What games are you playing? What is your monitor setup?

maui67 said:
For those that claim that you MUST have an i5/i7 in order to eliminate any chance of a bottleneck with HD7970s Crossfired, I submit the following:

In this thread, the OP has an FX8150 and 2 HD7970s and is averaging 130 fps in BF3 (1080p):
http://www.overclock.net/t/1268452/phenom-ii-vs-fx-cros...

In this review, they are using a Intel Core i7-3960X with 2 HD7970s and are averaging 118 fps (1080p):
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/XFX-Radeon-...

I think this shows the FX8150 will do fine handling the Crossfired 7970s.

OP, what drivers are you using?


no one cares about single player. its such a small percentage of the game. this is funny though because in your attempt at making a point you make yourself look worse because single player is SOOOO gpu limited compared to online. Everyone knows that or at least should.

blazorthon said:
TBF, BF3 isn't really a good title to count on for this. The 8150 can do fine with two 7970s, but not necessarily at stock frequencies and core configuration.


i might agree if the OP comes back and says that he is getting much better fps but my point is that he shouldnt have to overclock like you are wanting him too.

maui67 said:
Duly noted and I agree.

Its just hard to find articles/threads that compare oranges to oranges. I can find lots of articles on HD7970 crossfire performance, but they are usually using Intel setups.


they are usually intel for a reason....

blazorthon said:
The FX-8150 isn't even in those benchmarks, most certainly not with my recommendations nor even with standard overclocking tests.


No its not. Just giving re-play- idea of AMD cpu.

re-play- said:
yeah because everyone said XFX7950 will be *** and i can get mine to 1050/1500 with stock voltages... i dont trust tomshardware reviews since they favor intel in CPU... i like to see real usage thats why i see videos on youtube showing FPS etc :hello: 


Tom dont favor intel cpu, they just compare price/performance between intel and AMD.

blazorthon said:
Giving someone the idea of how different CPUs perform is nearly useless.


I am not giving idea about fx-8150 but about amd vs intel as he said not to pay attention to intel lover. Cause there is no one arguing about Intel is better than AMD

Quote:
maui67 said:
No one is arguing whether Intel is better than AMD. In CPU-bound games, Intel does do better.

However, the OP's question is why are they not getting good results with their Crossfired HD7970s and FX8150? Telling the OP to get rid of the FX8150 and get an Intel rig is a waste of time and money. The 8150 overclocked will be more than adequate to handle the 7970s.


I am not suggesting about buying a intel cpu but willing to know about OP's game fps.

cbrunnem said:
no one cares about single player. its such a small percentage of the game. this is funny though because in your attempt at making a point you make yourself look worse because single player is SOOOO gpu limited compared to online. Everyone knows that or at least should.

I don't play BF3 but I do realize, from other threads, that single player is different from multi-player. It was the only two pages I could find right away that can be used to show 8150 + 2 X 7970 vs. i7 + 2 X 7970. So I guess the 12 fps difference can be chalked up to different gpu brands or mobos or ram or something because if it is gpu-limited then it couldn't be the cpus.

I am beginning to think that this thread was started just to see an Intel vs AMD fight break out because the OP hasn't made another post.
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!