How high a graphics card can go up to before a cpu bottleneck?

[Rebenei]

I am asking this regarding my friend. He has an fx-8320 cpu and an rx 560, but he said that he's getting a summer job and is going to use the income to get a 1070 ti, but the real question is, is this going to work out, and how much cpu bottlenecking will occur?

[andreasaspenberg575]

i ran both gtx 1070 and 1080 ti on an i7-7700. that is only slighly higher clocked than FX-8350 but, the FX-8350 have more cache. 8 megabytes of L2 cache and and 8 megabytes of L3 cache while the i7-7700 have only the L3 cache and fewer cores(4 cores against the FX-8350`s 8). the fx-8350 therefore would not bottleneck any modern gpus more than the i7-7700.

[vadim]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

i ran both gtx 1070 and 1080 ti on an i7-7700. that is only slighly higher clocked than FX-8350 but, the FX-8350 have more cache. 8 megabytes of L2 cache and and 8 megabytes of L3 cache while the i7-7700 have only the L3 cache and fewer cores(4 cores against the FX-8350`s 8). the fx-8350 therefore would not bottleneck any modern gpus more than the i7-7700.

LOL

[andreasaspenberg575]

seriously?

[vadim]

From your point of view, switching from FX to Ryzen should be significant downgrade. After all, Ryzen, allegedly, has the same number of cores and lower clock rate.

[tacoshy]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

seriously?

you know the clockrate says nothing about how good or strong the CPU is. Its like comparing and engine by it's RPM. S nuclear submarine runs its engine at real low RPM to create less cavitation and being more silent. A sport car has it engine at high RPM for accleration. What engine is stronger the sports car high RPM or the submarines low RPM?

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3647vs1489

just yous ee the 7700K runs circles around the FX-8350.

The FX-8350 doesnt have 8 real cores. It has 2 cores connected to one lane. Thats the same as hyperthreading with Intel just much worth engineered by the pure way it works as it is hardware fixed and not software bound and could been disabled for higher single core performance.

besides that more core also not equal betetr gaming performance. AN i9-7980XE has 18 cores and performs way less as the single core is to weak compared and most games cant even utilize more then 4 cores.

[SPAC3M4R1N3 ×͜×]

FX-8350(in 4 physical modules)got 4 Dualcores.So its not a real 8 Core CPU.Any K Modell from Intel above 2500k will be much better than that CPU. But it depends on what you wanna do with this CPU.

[Omega]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

i ran both gtx 1070 and 1080 ti on an i7-7700. that is only slighly higher clocked than FX-8350 but, the FX-8350 have more cache. 8 megabytes of L2 cache and and 8 megabytes of L3 cache while the i7-7700 have only the L3 cache and fewer cores(4 cores against the FX-8350`s 8). the fx-8350 therefore would not bottleneck any modern gpus more than the i7-7700.

Clockspeed does not in any way reflect the actual performance of a CPU. A 5Ghz FX 9590 "8 core" doesn't even hold a candle to a 3.9Ghz Ryzen 2400g.

[andreasaspenberg575]

there is multiple factors that decide how powerful a cpu is: clock rate(including boost clock), cache and number of cores. the i7-7700k is clocked higher and its boost goes higher but it have only 4 cores versus the fx-8350`s 8. the ryzen 2400g is actually only 3,6 and it have less cache and fewer cores than the fx-8350

[tacoshy]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

there is multiple factors that decide how powerful a cpu is: clock rate(including boost clock), cache and number of cores. the i7-7700k is clocked higher and its boost goes higher but it have only 4 cores versus the fx-8350`s 8.

wrong... from the basic on wrong.

yoou might want to read up what boost clock is and does. YOu might want to read about clock rate and IPC and last but not least you want to read into which cores using more then 4 cores and would then profit from more then just 4 cores.

[Omega]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

there is multiple factors that decide how powerful a cpu is: clock rate(including boost clock), cache and number of cores. the i7-7700k is clocked higher and its boost goes higher but it have only 4 cores versus the fx-8350`s 8.

Then why does a 5Ghz "8 core" get heavily outperformed by a 3.9Ghz quad core with SMT?

Lookup some benchmarks, the specsheet of a CPU does in no way tell you how powerfull it actually is. The only way to check is to compare benchmarks.

If what you are saying is true everyone would be running the FX 9570. It's dirt cheap, has high clocks and is a "8 core".

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

the ryzen 2400g is actually only 3,6 and it have less cache and fewer cores than the fx-8350

The Ryzen has a 3.9Ghz boost but only on a single core I believe.

[andreasaspenberg575]

it does not. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about so please leave.

[tacoshy]

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3647vs1489

7700K beats the FX-8350 by 74%

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-AMD-FX-8350/3892vs1489

Pentium G4560 (dual core) beats the FX-8350 not only in price but overall even by 3%

... so where is your proof?


--

We have it explained it proofen to you, so stop arguing about stuff you clearly have no diea with or try to proof your stories.
CPU's performance doesnt work the way you think they do.


Just to make it easy try to explain:
-what do cores do and what is the difference between Physical core and logical core
-what is a Lane
-what and how do Turbo Boost work
-What is the clockrate and what does it do
-what is the IPC

and you see how much off you off the track. Just try to awnser the question ehre and you'll learn it or I'll help you to understand it.

[Omega]

andreasaspenberg575 eredeti hozzászólása:

it does not. you clearly have no idea what you are talking about so please leave.

Then
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3647vs1812
Why
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-2400G-vs-AMD-FX-9590/m433194vs1812
Do
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-8100-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3942vs1812
All
https://www.anandtech.com/show/8316/amds-5-ghz-turbo-cpu-in-retail-the-fx9590-and-asrock-990fx-extreme9-review/8
These
https://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2673-battlefield-1-cpu-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12-i5-i7-fx/page-2
lower clocked
https://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
CPUs outperform these
https://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
higher clocked
https://wccftech.com/witcher-3-cpu-benchmarks-fx-63008350-i7-4790ki5-4690ki3-4130g3258-oc/
6 year old FX CPUs?

[andreasaspenberg575]

i have explained it you and yet you refuse to listen so please leave.

[tacoshy]

Oh yeah beside that lets do a Cinebench challange. Run Cinebench and post your score here with a screenshot or Timespy. I'll post mine and you see how much the FX is bottlenecking a GTX 1080 Ti and how far behind the CPU is.