Solved

Will my fx 8320 bottleneck the r9 290?

I've been doing a lot of research about the r9 290 and there are people who say that the fx 8320 will bottleneck the gpu and others say that it won't? If so, will my cpu clocked to 4.2ghz be enough?
14 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 8320 bottleneck 290
  1. its amd so compared to intel in some games yes in most games no
  2. so if I overclock it to 4.2ghz will there still be any bottleneck?
  3. Best answer
    99% of games will hit 60 fps easily. Intel fanboys think that someone getting bottlenecked into 120 fps instead of 150 fps is noticeable.

    EDIT:

    Also consider that with Mantle and True Audio support, you can offload even more off the CPU. Lots of AAA titles in the future with support one or both.
  4. Thnx for the quick replies, I was worried that my fx 8320 was holding back the r9 290.
  5. wurkfur said:
    99% of games will hit 60 fps easily. Intel fanboys think that someone getting bottlenecked into 120 fps instead of 150 fps is noticeable.

    EDIT:

    Also consider that with Mantle and True Audio support, you can offload even more off the CPU. Lots of AAA titles in the future with support one or both.


    You will get lower minimums and worse frame times on the amd.

    Not everyone plays at 60 fps either, also ever look at the cpu help section of this website? Many people have problems getting smooth gaming with this combo.

    Yes you could use the 290 but don't you want the performance you paid for?
  6. benjaminmaz said:
    Thnx for the quick replies, I was worried that my fx 8320 was holding back the r9 290.


    It does. The amount depends on the game.
  7. It will bottleneck and quit badly sometimes. FX chips are old and AM3+ is dead. A 280X is about max for that CPU. However some games are so GPU dependent... your get decent fps. But if your going to benchmark or compare result to that they should be for a 290X you'll be disappointed.

    Just do a quick search here at Tom's, keywords: 8320 and/or 8350 bottleneck.
    There are many "pissed" threads.

    There are no fanboys left, as it's pointless. AMD abandoned the enthusiast long ago...

    Shoot for a 5 GHz overclock(you won't there), but try & give that 290 some "justice". As it's just not fair to mate one of the best GPU's with one of the worst CPU's.
  8. wdmfiber said:
    It will bottleneck and quit badly sometimes. FX chips are old and AM3+ is dead. A 280X is about max for that CPU. However some games are so GPU dependent... your get decent fps. But if your going to benchmark or compare result to that they should be for a 290X you'll be disappointed.

    Just do a quick search here at Tom's, keywords: 8320 and/or 8350 bottleneck.
    There are many "pissed" threads.

    There are no fanboys left, as it's pointless. AMD abandoned the enthusiast long ago...

    Shoot for a 5 GHz overclock(you won't there), but try & give that 290 some "justice". As it's just not fair to mate one of the best GPU's with one of the worst CPU's.



    That's a load of crap. He's the latest devil canyon review on another site and the related FX-8350 delivered more than playable frame rates and minimum frame rates on every game other than a dense section of the Bioshock Infinite bench. If things hang up, give it a minor overclock. I game on a Phenom II X6 every day with what is essentially an R9 280 and have never found myself wanting for more performance.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5
  9. wurkfur said:
    wdmfiber said:
    It will bottleneck and quit badly sometimes. FX chips are old and AM3+ is dead. A 280X is about max for that CPU. However some games are so GPU dependent... your get decent fps. But if your going to benchmark or compare result to that they should be for a 290X you'll be disappointed.

    Just do a quick search here at Tom's, keywords: 8320 and/or 8350 bottleneck.
    There are many "pissed" threads.

    There are no fanboys left, as it's pointless. AMD abandoned the enthusiast long ago...

    Shoot for a 5 GHz overclock(you won't there), but try & give that 290 some "justice". As it's just not fair to mate one of the best GPU's with one of the worst CPU's.



    That's a load of crap. He's the latest devil canyon review on another site and the related FX-8350 delivered more than playable frame rates and minimum frame rates on every game other than a dense section of the Bioshock Infinite bench. If things hang up, give it a minor overclock. I game on a Phenom II X6 every day with what is essentially an R9 280 and have never found myself wanting for more performance.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8227/devils-canyon-review-intel-core-i7-4790k-and-i5-4690k/5


    I also used to game on a x6 amd 1055t @ 3.8ghz with a 7950@ 1100mhz, and far cry 3 made me update.

    I had that old system tweaked up, and it just wasn't enough anymore.

    The difference in performance to my current system is not even in the same league, and I still have the same gpu.

    Even when that old system reached 60fps, the choppy feeling was horrible.
    People just get used to that, not knowing that it is not supposed to be like that.


    Butter smooth now with my i5.
  10. I know this is an old post but I want to tell people who are looking for this combo how my experience with it has been.

    I have a R9 290 Sapphire Tri-X and a FX8320 and a PSU with 650w to power them.

    My experience: It isn't choppy at all, far above 60fps and consistent fps in ALL games I have played so far. Recommend the setup, no issues at all. I bought the FX8320 to save money and to be able to put the saved money on the 290.

    Fun fact: It gets 250+fps in CS GO and in Gmod sometimes 333fps xD Everything pn ultra aswell ofcourse.
  11. I had an i5 2500k and it bottlenecked my gtx 680 so bad it never went above 60fps it was the worst CPU I have ever owned and such a waste of my 320 bucks as well now with mu fx 8350 I have no problems on a 4k monitor and I plan on upgrading to a gtx 970 and the only games I really play are BioShock and battlefield games and those games are were AMD shines so no am3+ is not dieong out and sorry that some people don't have enough cash for a frekin 250 dollar cpu than another 200 for a z97 board amd is good and don't let anyone tell you other wise Intel is good in their own ways but there a little too pricey
  12. Sorry to waken an old thread, I just don't see what these fanboys are talking about... I have an fx 8320 @4.1ghz and a gtx 980 and comparable to my brothers i7 rig with the same GPU the fps even in CPU intensive games are only marginally worse like 5 or 6 fps... Don't see the point in people talking dump
  13. I have a AMD A10 7850K @ 4.3 ghz with the r9 290 and I have never said to myself I want better performance . I can max out gta 5 battlefield 4 and other new games at 1080p no problem. So don't let these people trick you into thinking your CPU will hold you back. Look I do know that the gpu will get better performance with a i7 or i5 but that's not my point
  14. Again reviving this old thread, but I have ridden this horrible rollercoaster before
    Simple answer, yes, it will bottleneck in certain titles. Depends on what you play.
    It IS safe to assume the newer games are getting, the more CPU demand you need. Even with Mantle on many games, my bottleneck was never fully alleviated with my 8350 and R9 290

    As someone who spent HUNDREDS of hours and nearly 50 threads on here nearly 2 years ago on the 290's release, let me shed some light here.
    In certain titles, the 8350 bottles the 290 a ton, drops it down to nearly 70% GPU usage in GPU bound games (biggest problem was BF games)
    In nearly all games you'll see 5 fps loss vs an i7, and maybe lower minimums, but in other games you can see massive drops.
    In certain bottled games, I saw 10fps less on average and saw minimums 25fps lower than I get now with my Intel.
    Not to mention turning down the settings didn't give me much more FPS than Ultra did, this is a VERY significant sign of a CPU bottleneck if the game is CPU bound (today, I'd say 95% or more of titles are).

    Here is some actual data I recorded, not just word of mouth here.
    Pay attention to GPU and CPU graphs as well as usage levels.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcTPLMuQ610
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq9dSLOElX4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaVKMNL-aS4

    In GPU bound games, if your GPU is ever lower than 99% usage with Vsync off, you ARE bottlenecking, and I saw that routinely with the 8350. I show this reading often throughout the videos, and some parts even have it live overlayed on the screen.

    If you want me to explain what some of the graphs mean I can, but basically as seen in the gameplay graph in the bottom left corner, the yellow(CPU) and GPU(green) should be right on top of each other. If one is higher than the other, that part is bottling.


    Since I got my 4790k, I don't ever see lower than 97-99%, it fixed any low FPS issue I was having in all of my games (tested nearly 300 games) OVERNIGHT

    So if I had trouble 2 years ago, I am ssuming today's games still aren't faring any better, if not worse with this combination of hardware.

    If you can live with bottled performance to cut money, grab an 8320/8350, but I highly recommend an i5 over one anyday
    Maybe Zen will be better???
Ask a new question

Read More

GPUs Bottleneck CPUs