# Will an A10-7850K or Athlon 760K Bottleneck a R9 290X?



## Durvelle27 (Jul 9, 2014)

I'm trying tl find out if either of these processors will be a major bottleneck for a R9 290X. I can't find any benchmarks that use these and a high-end GPU. I mostly game at 2560x1080 (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, TitanFall, Tomb Raider, Watch Dogs etc....). Any help is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 9, 2014)

Yep definitely

R9 290X with a 3770K Firestike score is about 9000

R9 290X with a Athlon 760 will be about 6000

not real sure were the A 10 will fall in there but slightly better then the Athlon


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 9, 2014)

Jetster said:


> Yep definitely
> 
> R9 290X with a 3770K Firestike score is about 9000
> 
> ...


Benchmarks don't really tell the gaming side though.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Benchmarks don't really tell the gaming side though.



If not benchmarks, how are we supposed to answer? How the card feels in game? 

Best answer I can give. You are matching a highend GPU with a mid range CPU, the a10-7850 benches lower than the old Phenom X4... I am sure it will run most games fine, although higher resolutions will have issues.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 9, 2014)

Id say take a shot and see for yourself


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 9, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Id say take a shot and see for yourself


Well this is to replace my current rig due to expenses.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 9, 2014)

depends on the game and settings. Typically the harder you push the graphics card, the less the cpu bottleneck matters. There are some game types such as strategy and etc though that will always show a difference. How much that matters to you is the only real answer you need. Trouble is, you'd need to test it yourself to find out.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 9, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I'm trying tl find out if either of these processors will be a major bottleneck for a R9 290X. I can't find any benchmarks that use these and a high-end GPU. I mostly game at 2560x1080 (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, TitanFall, Tomb Raider, Watch Dogs etc....). Any help is greatly appreciated.


Well in a way yes but also no its going to depend on the game and how high you clock it.

The 760K is a very low end product but its essentially an APU without the GPU on the die however I have seen them clock well and offer some very nice performance.

The 7850k is better single threaded than the previous generation processors so it should not bottleneck a single 290X.  That being said I would definitely overclock it if I were you.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 9, 2014)

Yes I will be overclocking like I always do. 4.7-5GHz hopefully.  Also I mentioned games and res I'll be playing at.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 10, 2014)

It will work but take about a 30% hit on most intensive games. If its just a stepping stone to a new platform then go for it


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

i happen to come across this


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 10, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> i happen to come across this



also incidentally a 7850K has PCIeX 3.0 while the 760K is a 2.0 i had a setup with a 760K+A88X+R9 270X now i have a 6300+990X+R9 290, unfortunately i didn't test the 760K with the 290 since i sold the previous to buy the actual.
well i tested a A10-7700K with the 270X and the feeling + avg framerate was a bit better than a 760K


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> also incidentally a 7850K has PCIeX 3.0 while the 760K is a 2.0 i had a setup with a 760K+A88X+R9 270X now i have a 6300+990X+R9 290, unfortunately i didn't test the 760K with the 290 since i sold the previous to buy the actual.
> well i tested a A10-7700K with the 270X and the feeling + avg framerate was a bit better than a 760K


I was leaning towards the 7850K anyways due to PCIe 3.0 and faster core performance


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 10, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I was leaning towards the 7850K anyways due to PCIe 3.0 and faster core performance


Its a great clocker as I bumped one up to 4.8ghz on a H100i and the temps are well below its thermal limits so I got curious how much further I could go on it (Its for a friend so I still have to be careful ).  But hes also running off the R7 iGPU so I bumped it as well to I believe 1006mhz give or take and its perfectly fine.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Its a great clocker as I bumped one up to 4.8ghz on a H100i and the temps are well below its thermal limits so I got curious how much further I could go on it (Its for a friend so I still have to be careful ).  But hes also running off the R7 iGPU so I bumped it as well to I believe 1006mhz give or take and its perfectly fine.


I have a custom loop with 3x 240MM rads


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 10, 2014)

So yea as you saw there wasn't a scenario in any of those where the AMD wasn't playable. There certainly were situations where you could gain 20-30 fps. The trouble is those situations were all over 100fps anyways, ie not noticeable. (anyone who says otherwise is a flat out liar). Some of use can't stand losing a single frame to bottleneck. Others don't mind at all.


----------



## Pixrazor (Jul 10, 2014)

OP, I see in your sys spec that you already own these hardware (7850k and r9 290) so just try it....
IMHO you will not feel a big difference since you're going to oc it


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

Pixrazor said:


> OP, I see in your sys spec that you already own these hardware (7850k and r9 290) so just try it....
> IMHO you will not feel a big difference since you're going to oc it


No I don't own said hardware but I did acquire it.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 10, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I have a custom loop with 3x 240MM rads


You better put your GPU's in that loop lol.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> You better put your GPU's in that loop lol.


I will eventually


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 10, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> i happen to come across this



So according to those charts above you won't experience bottleneck overall.

The only situation I can see signs for bottlenecking in just 50% of crossfire titles.


----------



## Vario (Jul 10, 2014)

I'd have sold the loop and kept the 4770.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 10, 2014)

Vario said:


> I'd have sold the loop and kept the 4770.


Loop wouldn't fetch much. Also didn't pay much for about $185 give or take.


----------



## UGC6 (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm still working on my system tweaks, but I will start benchmarking my system as soon as I'm done.  I don't regret my purchases so far.  I say PLURRRR to whom ever thinks the A10-7850k + a Mantle supported card sucks.  I really am enjoying the system... BUT there is a bit of work to do to get the most out of the games.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 14, 2014)

parts arrived today


----------



## Champ (Jul 27, 2014)

How is this combo coming along? I happened to be doing random searching and saw this. I don't think the chart tells the a10's performance. I guarantee its the normal games optimized for nvidia situation going on. I'm sure the higher the res. the less difference there is. I wonder if mantle was used?


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jul 27, 2014)

would like to see performance results as well


----------



## Champ (Jul 27, 2014)

Saw this vid. Looks strong


----------



## Mussels (Jul 27, 2014)

It will run fine most of the time, its simply that a faster CPU will provide higher FPS.


doesnt mean its not playable or usable with the A10, merely that faster exists.


----------



## arbiter (Jul 27, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I'm trying tl find out if either of these processors will be a major bottleneck for a R9 290X. I can't find any benchmarks that use these and a high-end GPU. I mostly game at 2560x1080 (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, TitanFall, Tomb Raider, Watch Dogs etc....). Any help is greatly appreciated.



The answer is Yes and No. Reason its that is cause it will depend on the game itself. Some are more cpu bound and others are more bound to what the gpu can process fast enough.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 27, 2014)

arbiter said:


> The answer is Yes and No. Reason its that is cause it will depend on the game itself. Some are more cpu bound and others are more bound to what the gpu can process fast enough.


 Good answer


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 28, 2014)

Champ said:


> How is this combo coming along? I happened to be doing random searching and saw this. I don't think the chart tells the a10's performance. I guarantee its the normal games optimized for nvidia situation going on. I'm sure the higher the res. the less difference there is. I wonder if mantle was used?


So sorry for the late response. Been laid back lol and haven't even assembled it yet.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jul 28, 2014)

I'm a little late to the party but here are some BF4 benchies for CPUs. Quite a list too along with the effects of overclocking on both an AMD and Intel cpu.
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

I still find it amazing how well the lil' i3 chugs along nicely in this.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 28, 2014)

THE_EGG said:


> I'm a little late to the party but here are some BF4 benchies for CPUs. Quite a list too along with the effects of overclocking on both an AMD and Intel cpu.
> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
> 
> I still find it amazing how well the lil' i3 chugs along nicely in this.


I am always just as shocked each time I see this.  Just like I was at how well with an overclocked Pentium anniversary games do!


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 28, 2014)

THE_EGG said:


> I'm a little late to the party but here are some BF4 benchies for CPUs. Quite a list too along with the effects of overclocking on both an AMD and Intel cpu.
> http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
> 
> I still find it amazing how well the lil' i3 chugs along nicely in this.


I wouldn't trust that as that's single player and not as CPU intensive. Multiplayer is way more CPU intensive.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 28, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I wouldn't trust that as that's single player and not as CPU intensive. Multiplayer is way more CPU intensive.


Indeed, but as long as you enable Mantle in BF4 with a GCN card it really does help.  Since I understand you went with a 7850k, if you punch that CPU up to 4.5+ you won't have anything to worry about.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jul 29, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Indeed, but as long as you enable Mantle in BF4 with a GCN card it really does help.  Since I understand you went with a 7850k, if you punch that CPU up to 4.5+ you won't have anything to worry about.


Mehhh rarely ever used mantle.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 29, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Mehhh rarely ever used mantle.


It does help though, I get some extra FPS average with it and a higher minimum.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 2, 2014)

Hi, guys!

I need some advice… I’ve bought exact same CPU and the video card, as described in the thread (A10-7850K and R9 290X), and machine is having *terrible performance* in RIFT on 1920x1080p.

Namely – 25fps on average, in the crowded areas. How is that even possible??

Other hardware is: 16GB RAM, motherboard - GA-F2A88XM-DS2.
Nothing is overclocked.

This PC was already “pre-compiled” in the shop I’ve bought it from. The original CPU was actually 7700k, so I thought it’s better to upgrade it…

There was a problem with the drivers that came with the pc, so _everything_ has been installed from the web..
Could it be software issue? Or not?

I would return it, but it was a present I’ve sent to my friend in other country… so that complicates the issue...
If nothing can be done, however, I’ll have to buy upgrade.. (i7 probably and some motherboard for it)

I have i7, GTX670, 8GB RAM… and RIFT runs on 2560 without a problem.. 60+ fps. Which makes no sense...


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 2, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Hi, guys!
> 
> I need some advice… I’ve bought exact same CPU and the video card, as described in the thread (A10-7850K and R9 290X), and machine is having *terrible performance* in RIFT on 1920x1080p.
> 
> ...



I don't think 25FPS average is normal you should be getting more than that.

Random question why did you go for the APU rather than say the AMD FX 8 core?


----------



## alex79 (Sep 2, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> I don't think 25FPS average is normal you should be getting more than that.
> 
> Random question why did you go for the APU rather than say the AMD FX 8 core?



I'm not a specialist like you guys here... Total newbie, when it comes to hardware. Since it was "bundled" all together in the shop, I thought these APU processor series will be good enough to match the video and everything else..

On AMD website this CPU is highly praised.. http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/a-series-apu

Should have done more research.

Although I feel something is wrong, because there is no way it could be that bad.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 2, 2014)

alex79 said:


> I'm not a specialist like you guys here... Total newbie, when it comes to hardware. Since it was "bundled" all together in the shop, I thought these APU processor series will be good enough to match the video and everything else..
> 
> On AMD website this CPU is highly praised.. http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/a-series-apu
> 
> ...


btw it's not a bottleneck ... i had a 6300 @ 4.4 with a 290 and got 25fps in crowded area, kinda usual for AMD cpu/apu, same for a 760K and A10-7700 with a 270X  (RIFT or Firefall or any mmo ... ) mmo's are CPU bound for that point. 
with a 4690K @ 4.5 and the same 290 i have better FPS, the CMT configuration from AMD can be considered as a dual core with HT (or triple core with HT in my case) 

and with a 8320/50 i would had the same fps since game wise they offer the same FPS when paired with a good gpu
for regular gaming 6300 and above are just a notch under a i5 (2500K/3750K/whatever) for online gaming ... well let's say you have a i3 dual core with HT but cheaper and who will pack a bit more punch in non online games ... 

the APU are good and the review reflect it, but it's not for what you do with it. never buy the praise on a manufacturer site ... for one or another brand the product they made is always: "awesome, revolutionary, top in his class" and such other superlative, read reviews instead.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 2, 2014)

alex79 said:


> I'm not a specialist like you guys here... Total newbie, when it comes to hardware. Since it was "bundled" all together in the shop, I thought these APU processor series will be good enough to match the video and everything else..
> 
> On AMD website this CPU is highly praised.. http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/a-series-apu
> 
> ...



That link is AMD's website, of course they would say their product is the best. They are biased and want you to buy it! AMD isn't going to say their APU sucks on their own website.

You need to visit independent websites.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 2, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Hi, guys!
> 
> I need some advice… I’ve bought exact same CPU and the video card, as described in the thread (A10-7850K and R9 290X), and machine is having *terrible performance* in RIFT on 1920x1080p.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a normal problem to me. Overclocking would be my suggestion


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

Thanks for all the replies, guys..

I've did some research and yes, turns out that it's RIFT, which is horribly optimized + the relatively weak CPU..

And true about AMD site... shouldn't have bothered with checking their site. Too gullible.


Far Cry 3 dragon blood runs on ~45-55, on average.. which is _much better._
Waiting for other tests..

@Durvelle27 sorry for the lame question, but how do you overclock? If you could give me a link to a thread for newbies, it would be highly appreciated.
Also.. would it improve performance just by 20-25% max?.. It would be still horrible... 

@GreiverBlade what CPU would your recommend for online games? (mmo's primarily). Something with more "physical" cores rather than APU's?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Thanks for all the replies, guys..
> 
> I've did some research and yes, turns out that it's RIFT, which is horribly optimized + the relatively weak CPU..
> 
> ...




intel CPU's have the fastest performance per core, which is why they tend to be preffered by gamers. They also cost a lot more unless you grab a second hand bargain.

That said, yeah a 20% gain from overclocking is certainly possible, but it will take you a lot of time to test it and be sure its stable.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

Mussels said:


> intel CPU's have the fastest performance per core, which is why they tend to be preffered by gamers. They also cost a lot more unless you grab a second hand bargain.
> 
> That said, yeah a 20% gain from overclocking is certainly possible, but it will take you a lot of time to test it and be sure its stable.



Hi, Mussels.

I see... The thing is, I'm ready to pay for great performance.. I don't have time tinkering with the hardware + I don't understand how to do it..
For some reason I thought that this CPU can compete with i7. And turns out only FX9 series can.. (and not really)

What i7 would you personally recommend under 300 euro? 
i7-4820K
i7-4770K
i7 3770K

?....

The problem I have with intel CPU's is that they are ALL in the same price range..
There are literally 10+ options for this price range. And I don't understand the
differences they have (or the impact these differences would have on gaming).

Would i7 improve performance by 50%?

Also... this A10-7850K seems to be really loud (cooler), when under load.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

I had a 750K, overclocked to 4.4Ghz (literally took 2 minutes, increased multi, set the vcore to 1.4v), all on a low profile cooler in an ITX case) paired with a GTX 780. I played damn near every game without a hitch. You people are far too dismissive. Sure it sucks balls at RTS games, but every other game in existence plays absolutely fine. An i5 is not necessary, it's just preferrable. Modern games don't care about the CPU.

Just take a look at the games you play, search around forums and see if they are CPU load heavy. If not, no point in upgrading. If so, time to buy an i5.

Overclocking is also not a necessity at all. You can happily get by with a stock i5 and a H97 motherboard. Saves you money, overclocking is not going to magically make games crazy fast. The gains are limited.

EDIT: my recommendation is a Non-K i5, like the 4670 or whatever, and a midrange H97 board, with the decent USB 3 and features you feel you might like. i7's are completely unnecessary for gaming, they are a more frivolous part, few games will benefit greatly from the extra 4 threads.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

Perhaps...

But MMORPG's and RTS's are what it was meant for.. We're not really interested that much in FPS and such.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Perhaps...
> 
> But MMORPG's and RTS's are what it was meant for.. We're not really interested that much in FPS and such.



Then an i5 would be preferable, however from my knowledge most MMO's and RTS's only use a single cpu core, so a higher model i3 would do the job just as well. i3's have the extra oomph with their hyperthreading too, so the games that are capable of 4 threads will use them.

Perhaps an i3 4360 or an i5 4590, either would serve you well with a H97 MoBo.

Tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, I get the impression you'd rather not spend copious amounts on this. If you have cash to splash, go Z97 and i5 4690K all the way.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Then an i5 would be preferable, however from my knowledge most MMO's and RTS's only use a single cpu core, so a higher model i3 would do the job just as well. i3's have the extra oomph with their hyperthreading too, so the games that are capable of 4 threads will use them.
> 
> Perhaps an i3 4360 or an i5 4590, either would serve you well with a H97 MoBo.
> 
> Tell me if I'm barking up the wrong tree, I get the impression you'd rather not spend copious amounts on this. If you have cash to splash, go Z97 and i5 4690K all the way.



Does that mean that processor with very high single CPU core speed will be the best?

4690K isn't that good? I'm looking for something that can provide ~50-60fps on max, on 1920.

EDIT: Tomb Raider on everything max runs on 35fps on average, in the very beginning.. Doh...


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Does that mean that processor with very high single CPU core speed will be the best?
> 
> 4690K isn't that good? I'm looking for something that can provide ~50-60fps on max, on 1920.
> 
> EDIT: Tomb Raider on everything max runs on 35fps on average, in the very beginning.. Doh...



Highest single core speed is the best for RTS games specifically, and most MMO's. Some MMO's perform differently, of course, but I doubt many of them are particularly fancy on the CPU requirement front. The 4690K is pretty much the best quad core available.


----------



## Frick (Sep 3, 2014)

How about that anniversary Pentium? The unlocked one?


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Highest single core speed is the best for RTS games specifically, and most MMO's. Some MMO's perform differently, of course, but I doubt many of them are particularly fancy on the CPU requirement front. The 4690K is pretty much the best quad core available.



Isn't i7-4820K better?

Crysis 3 runs on 25fps...


----------



## arbiter (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Isn't i7-4820K better?
> 
> Crysis 3 runs on 25fps...



Its still a quad core part like 4690k just with HT, 4820 is based on the older ivy bridge chip. both will run about same in performance but 4690 is bit lower TDP


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Isn't i7-4820K better?
> 
> Crysis 3 runs on 25fps...



4820K is basically a 4770K with ECC support and a few other server-like features. There really is zero reason to go for a X79 system. It's an old platform with less features than H79/Z79.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Hi, Mussels.
> 
> I see... The thing is, I'm ready to pay for great performance.. I don't have time tinkering with the hardware + I don't understand how to do it..
> For some reason I thought that this CPU can compete with i7. And turns out only FX9 series can.. (and not really)
> ...



if you arent overclocking, dont get an intel K - those are the OCing chips.

find the highest clocked i5 or i7 you can find. my current i5 (see my specs) came out almost 40% faster  than my old 3.6GHz 1090T in pure CPU tests, upto 4 threads - doing 4 vs 6 they came out even.

the more modern ones are faster still.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> If you have cash to splash, go Z97 and i5 4690K all the way.



+1 will not disappoint. Even the 4690 and a H97


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

Mussels said:


> if you arent overclocking, dont get an intel K - those are the OCing chips.
> 
> find the highest clocked i5 or i7 you can find. my current i5 (see my specs) came out almost 40% faster  than my old 3.6GHz 1090T in pure CPU tests, upto 4 threads - doing 4 vs 6 they came out even.
> 
> the more modern ones are faster still.



i7-4790K, Quad Core, 4.00GHz. Looks like the fastest one by far.
It's K though.. Is it bad? I probably won't be doing overclocking, but it seems to be much faster than other ones.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> i7-4790K, Quad Core, 4.00GHz. Looks like the fastest one by far.
> It's K though.. Is it bad? I probably won't be doing overclocking, but it seems to be much faster than other ones.



K is not bad, it just allows overclocking. If you are not going to overclock (it is not a necessity for gaming), then buy the non-K version that is cheaper. They have boost clocks anyway that improve speeds by themselves.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> K is not bad, it just allows overclocking. If you are not going to overclock (it is not a necessity for gaming), then buy the non-K version that is cheaper. They have boost clocks anyway that improve speeds by themselves.


If I understand you correctly, there must be same version without K? There is 4790, 4790S and 4970T, 3.6Ghz, 3.2Ghz, 2.7Ghz respectively.. No 4.0Ghz.

EDIT: Seems that it is the fastest.. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/389068/intel-releases-fastest-ever-core-i7-clocked-at-4ghz

And there is that i5 4690k you recommended.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> If I understand you correctly, there must be same version without K? There is 4790, 4790S and 4970T, 3.6Ghz, 3.2Ghz, 2.7Ghz respectively.. No 4.0Ghz.
> 
> EDIT: Seems that it is the fastest.. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/389068/intel-releases-fastest-ever-core-i7-clocked-at-4ghz
> 
> And there is that i5 4690k you recommended.



The 4790 is basically the same, it just has a minimal clock speed reduction, it makes intel able to change prices of processors with varying clockspeeds to fit different margins.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> @GreiverBlade what CPU would your recommend for online games? (mmo's primarily). Something with more "physical" cores rather than APU's?



well my i5-4690K does more than fine ... i mean in crowded zone in mmo i get 40-60fps but i could care less for my fps in a crowded zone ... unless pvp ... ofc, and the mobo i use is pretty cheap for what she offer.

so any of the RCoon recommendation are fine (OC or not )



alex79 said:


> Crysis 3 runs on 25fps...


what the... i played Crysis 3 on a 760K +270 then 270X then A10-7700K + 270X and finally on the FX6300+290 ... how do you get 25fps where i never went under 45


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> well my i5-4690K does more than fine ... i mean in crowded zone in mmo i get 40-60fps but i could care less for my fps in a crowded zone ... unless pvp ... ofc, and the mobo i use is pretty cheap for what she offer.
> 
> so any of the RCoon recommendation are fine (OC or not )
> 
> ...



------

Got it... Now it's clear what is needed.

I don't know. I guess I shouldn't use 16x FSAA (or whatever it's called) in Crysis 3? When played on 2x, fps are 50-60, dropping to 35-40 sometimes. Maybe motherboard is terrible?
(and it is)

Off topic... Why in the world I don't see full text of the post unless I reply directly??
I'm discovering that people wrote more than I see without replying...


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 3, 2014)

Either AMD 8 core or intel quad... I get a bottleneck on twin 290's with a 4790K unless I run it at 4.8ghz

But then again I always push it beyond the norm, but for stock AMD has the best bang for the buck.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> I guess I shouldn't use 16x FSAA



Yeah, you wanna turn that stuff down. Bare in mind a lot of people can't play Crysis 3 on max settings, and they have beastly hardware.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Yeah, you wanna turn that stuff down. Bare in mind a lot of people can't play Crysis 3 on max settings, and they have beastly hardware.



I see... In Metro Last Light it's the same case.. When it's 16x it drops from ~40 to 20fps immediately.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> I see... In Metro Last Light it's the same case.. When it's 16x it drops from ~40 to 20fps immediately.



Can't you use a more basic setting like 4 or 8x AA. MSAA and other forms tend to cause a great deal of performance loss. MSAA literally halves frame rates. It renders the image at double the resolution and then downscales to smooth the edges. I never use MSAA, even on my system.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 3, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Can't you use a more basic setting like 4 or 8x AA. MSAA and other forms tend to cause a great deal of performance loss. MSAA literally halves frame rates. It renders the image at double the resolution and then downscales to smooth the edges. I never use MSAA, even on my system.



Hm.. But it was testing.. I think none of the MMO's have these MSAA settings, gladly.


----------



## john_ (Sep 3, 2014)

Just saw this thread and I have a question. Don't know if already done and answered. 
Why buy a 7850K if you are going for a 290X? I can understand the option of 750K. You save money that you can keep in your pocket or spend them on a faster graphics card compared to going for an eight core FX or a four core Intel, but WHY pay for the most expensive APU that will offer you an integrated GPU that you are NOT going to use?


----------



## RCoon (Sep 3, 2014)

john_ said:


> Just saw this thread and I have a question. Don't know if already done and answered.
> Why buy a 7850K if you are going for a 290X? I can understand the option of 750K. You save money that you can keep in your pocket or spend them on a faster graphics card compared to going for an eight core FX or a four core Intel, but WHY pay for the most expensive APU that will offer you an integrated GPU that you are NOT going to use?



That topic has already passed, it's since been changed to a different user's problems.


----------



## RejZoR (Sep 3, 2014)

The differences aren't that big anyways. For example, my ancient i7 920 hardly gets any less FPS than 4770. And we're talking like 5 years difference. It's the graphic card that brings the most, serious bottlenecks only happen when running SLi/CrossX on a PCIe 2.x mobo.


----------



## Dent1 (Sep 3, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Hm.. But it was testing.. I think none of the MMO's have these MSAA settings, gladly.




Create a new thread. Because people will get confused and read page 1 only and then answer the OPs question.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 4, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Create a new thread. Because people will get confused and read page 1 only and then answer the OPs question.



It's okay.. I've got the answer.



The only help I need now is this - I'm buying i7 4790k and Asus Z97M-PLUS (thought it might be worth to overclock a little. Why not?)
Will this PSU handle it? http://www.fsp-europe.com/professional/fsp700_50arn_88plus.php
It's the current one.

For those who missed other hardware - 16 GB RAM, Asus R9 290x, current CPU - A10-7850K, current motherboard - GA-F2A88XM-DS2.

Please let me know if PSU needs upgrade too.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 4, 2014)

alex79 said:


> It's okay.. I've got the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but for what its worth, you only need a 550-600W PSU. It may be worth investing in a quality gold rated 550 or 600W PSU instead. 600W will be enough to allow for OC room (which you said you won't be doing). 750W is more for crossfire/SLI purposes. It's probably better to get efficiency if you don't intend on running multiple GPUs.

Seasonic's G series 550W would be my first choice, but there's always the Seasonic made XFX XTR 550W, or the EVGA G2 series (again, gold rated), or the Corsair RM series. Depends entirely on budget.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 4, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Yes, but for what its worth, you only need a 550-600W PSU. It may be worth investing in a quality gold rated 550 or 600W PSU instead. 600W will be enough to allow for OC room (which you said you won't be doing). 750W is more for crossfire/SLI purposes. It's probably better to get efficiency if you don't intend on running multiple GPUs.
> 
> Seasonic's G series 550W would be my first choice, but there's always the Seasonic made XFX XTR 550W, or the EVGA G2 series (again, gold rated), or the Corsair RM series. Depends entirely on budget.



What is the difference between gold and "normal" PSU? Stability?

I've just took a quick peak in the shop... Both "Bronze" and "Gold" have 80 rating, but they are very differently priced? 
And thank you for the help, appreciate it.


----------



## RCoon (Sep 4, 2014)

alex79 said:


> What is the difference between gold and "normal" PSU? Stability?
> 
> I've just took a quick peak in the shop... Both "Bronze" and "Gold" have 80 rating, but they are very differently priced?
> And thank you for the help, appreciate it.



Golds are _usually_ made from better quality components. That being said, there are a lot of dodgy PSU manufacturers chasing the bronze standard, because nobody buys a PSU without at least that if they have half a clue. Also Golds have better power draw efficiency. Efficiency is what the PSU is drawing from the wall. A typical PSU that's 550W, if the system is pulling 550W, it's actually going to be pulling more from the wall. A higher efficiency means less wasted power is drawn from the wall to provide the 550W. Gold saves you more pennies than a silver, silver to bronze, etc. Myself, I have a platinum, but arguably the difference in power cost savings is minimal. I just prefer higher efficiency PSU's as they tend to be built a lot better.

Also, Seasonic are by far the greatest PSU manufacturer anyway, hence why they're expensive.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 4, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Golds are _usually_ made from better quality components. That being said, there are a lot of dodgy PSU manufacturers chasing the bronze standard, because nobody buys a PSU without at least that if they have half a clue. Also Golds have better power draw efficiency. Efficiency is what the PSU is drawing from the wall. A typical PSU that's 550W, if the system is pulling 550W, it's actually going to be pulling more from the wall. A higher efficiency means less wasted power is drawn from the wall to provide the 550W. Gold saves you more pennies than a silver, silver to bronze, etc. Myself, I have a platinum, but arguably the difference in power cost savings is minimal. I just prefer higher efficiency PSU's as they tend to be built a lot better.
> 
> Also, Seasonic are by far the greatest PSU manufacturer anyway, hence why they're expensive.



Got it, thanks. Basically it means I will be paying more for electricity.

Checked Seasonic. G and X gold models from 550w to 650w are around 115 euro here.. Hmm, I guess it will wait for a month or two.

_"...because nobody buys a PSU without at least that if they have half a clue."_


----------



## RCoon (Sep 4, 2014)

alex79 said:


> Got it, thanks. Basically it means I will be paying more for electricity.
> 
> Checked Seasonic. G and X gold models from 550w to 650w are around 115 euro here.. Hmm, I guess it will wait for a month or two.
> 
> _"...because nobody buys a PSU without at least that if they have half a clue."_



You don't absolutely have to buy a Gold PSU. You can buy a Bronze, just ensure it's a quality made unit. Head over to JonnyGuru's site, he's the master of PSU reviews. Check out his range of reviews on 550 and 600W units and find one that has a good score that you like the look of, and also that's within your price range. You also don't have to buy a Seasonic, there are other manufacturers that make good PSU's, just check reviews first. Manufacturers like FSP, SuperFlower, Seasonic, XFX, Enermax, beQuiet, Antec and Corsair are all reputable makes. Look for some reviews is the best advice I can give you.


----------



## alex79 (Sep 4, 2014)

RCoon said:


> You don't absolutely have to buy a Gold PSU. You can buy a Bronze, just ensure it's a quality made unit. Head over to JonnyGuru's site, he's the master of PSU reviews. Check out his range of reviews on 550 and 600W units and find one that has a good score that you like the look of, and also that's within your price range. You also don't have to buy a Seasonic, there are other manufacturers that make good PSU's, just check reviews first. Manufacturers like FSP, SuperFlower, Seasonic, XFX, Enermax, beQuiet, Antec and Corsair are all reputable makes. Look for some reviews is the best advice I can give you.



That's a great site, thanks again!


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 4, 2014)

Thought this thread died O.O

Seems kinda odd though as i've never had issues with games like Rift or DOTA


----------



## Phillip.Phillip (Sep 5, 2014)

You all don't even know what bottle necking is !!!!!!!!!!! Watch the Video on you tube


----------



## estehanio (Nov 16, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I'm trying tl find out if either of these processors will be a major bottleneck for a R9 290X. I can't find any benchmarks that use these and a high-end GPU. I mostly game at 2560x1080 (BF4, BF3, Crysis 3, TitanFall, Tomb Raider, Watch Dogs etc....). Any help is greatly appreciated.



How did it turn out? I got myself an r290x but I'm planning to get an A10 7850K, (at the moment A4 7300 stutters like hell)...
Are satisfied with the performance?


----------



## john_ (Nov 16, 2014)

If you have a 290X why buy a 7850K and not for example a 860K?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 16, 2014)

860K would get further in oc due to reduced power draw.


----------



## Serhat (Nov 16, 2014)

i have a10 7850k with Asus r9 280x and i am playing games at 1920x1080 without any problem (with no overclock)
other system specs are
msi a88x g45
8 gb kingston hyperx beast 1600
evga süpernova g2 850w

and suggestion if you want to do that comp u should have a good PSU and dont try to o.c upper 4.5 if u dont have a water cooling  i dont have water cooling and i tried 4.5mhz ipc handled strees test just for 5 min 

i have akasa venom air cooling and i am using 4.2mhz without no problem


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 16, 2014)

I can't understand why anyone would buy the fastest single GPU AMD card and a slow processor. An i5 would be minimum if you ask me (or an overclocked G3258).


----------



## Serhat (Nov 16, 2014)

i can explain for mine  if you live in Turkey like me  i am an agricultural engineer and my monthly salary is 750$ . in this summer i need a new pc . then i checked my budged i bought this a10 7850k with asus aa8xm-a mainboard first  then i used its gpu for a while next month i bought a ssd + cooling fans. and then next month i bought msi a88x g45 mainboard . then next month i bought asus r9 280x ( i got some extra Money )  then this month i bought evga g2 süpernova 850w  in my case all about Money and i said i earn 750$ per month and that a10 7850k is nearly 220$ in Turkey , in US(checked at newegg) its 159$  and i wanted to buy an i5 processor this value is going upper and upper . in my country if u dont have more Money sometimes 100 $ means many thing  i bought that evga g2 süpernova 850w for 220$ and its priced at newegg 144 $ . if i can explain we are not lucky ( talkin about myself ) i made my pc part by part . for now i am happy with my pc performance if it handle me for 2 years i feel good and i think a10 7850k cpu performance is good if you are a gamer and if u are not playing with 4k


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 16, 2014)

9700 Pro said:


> I can't understand why anyone would buy the fastest single GPU AMD card and a slow processor. An i5 would be minimum if you ask me (or an overclocked G3258).


its not slow in anyway. its more than what most games can handle these days.
gaming *DOES NOT REQUIRE A VERY GOOD CPU. *even a mediocre one at best would suffice.
how eVer fuTure proofing is a diffeRNT issue


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 16, 2014)

estehanio said:


> How did it turn out? I got myself an r290x but I'm planning to get an A10 7850K, (at the moment A4 7300 stutters like hell)...
> Are satisfied with the performance?


It turned out great but I would suggest a 860K over a 7850K

Only reason I used a 7850K was because I already had it


----------



## Frick (Nov 16, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> its not slow in anyway. its more than what most games can handle these days.
> gaming *DOES NOT REQUIRE A VERY GOOD CPU. *even a mediocre one at best would suffice.
> how eVer fuTure proofing is a diffeRNT issue



AFAIK some games are pretty CPU bound.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 16, 2014)

Id say the 860K unless you absolutely need the gpu side of the apu.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 16, 2014)

There is basically no AMD CPU or APU I'd use with a discrete high end GPU. None. They're really only good for bang for buck systems using lower end GPUs.

The ones in denial about this might be happy, until that is they play these monster resource hoggers that are coming out lately. Really depends if you want to keep up on the times or not.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 17, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> There is basically no AMD CPU or APU I'd use with a discrete high end GPU. None. They're really only good for bang for buck systems using lower end GPUs.
> 
> The ones in denial about this might be happy, until that is they play these monster resource hoggers that are coming out lately. Really depends if you want to keep up on the times or not.


I found this very untruthful but your opinion is your opinion 

Just a heads up I've used A10s, FXs, and i7s for gaming recently with high-end GPUs (7970s, 780, 290s, 290Xs etc...)

Ran perfectly fine for my needs.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 17, 2014)

^Then "for your needs" is likely in understanding you're eventually going to run into shortcomings if you want to play most AAA titles at launch, or even a good percentage of the games coming out lately. I don't care what's happened in the *past*, most of the complaints about AMD CPU performance are escalating *recently*. It's not a good time to buy an AMD CPU.

You'd think that AMD recently promising to do better with their next architecture would have made that clear, but to each their own.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 17, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> ^Then "for your needs" is likely in understanding you're eventually going to run into shortcomings if you want to play most AAA titles at launch, or even a good percentage of the games coming out lately. I don't care what's happened in the *past*, most of the complaints about AMD CPU performance are escalating *recently*. It's not a good time to buy an AMD CPU.
> 
> You'd think that AMD recently promising to do better with their next architecture would have made that clear, but to each their own.


Play most of all AAA games ultra to max settings @1080P


----------



## Mussels (Nov 17, 2014)

Frick said:


> AFAIK some games are pretty CPU bound.




and apparently i play mostly those games, as going from my old 1090t 6 core to an i3, even the i3 was faster.


I don't get why people still argue about this.

1. AMD CPU's can still run the games at max settings
2. faster intel CPU's will run the game at the same settings, but smoother and at a higher FPS.
3. The intel CPU's will cost you more


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 17, 2014)

Frag Maniac said:


> There is basically no AMD CPU or APU I'd use with a discrete high end GPU. None. They're really only good for bang for buck systems using lower end GPUs.
> 
> The ones in denial about this might be happy, until that is they play these monster resource hoggers that are coming out lately. Really depends if you want to keep up on the times or not.


what you said has very little truth to it.

i can play bf4 AND encode videos/archive with 7zip at ultra, at the same time without either taking a performance hit.

also i can play railworks 2014 maxxed out at 40fps(entry level GPU bottlenecks) which is near impossible on most intel CPUs because it is a real CPU hogger.

i dont know where you hear your complaints about AMD performance from, but my 8320 matches the score of an i7 3770 in cine bench exactly. and it cost me half.

you can expect performance from a quad core apu that costs the same as an intel i3.
you have to add in the cost of the discrete gpu for the i3 system to make the comparison make any sense.
the integrated IGPUs in apus are quite a long way ahead of intel HDxxxx



Frick said:


> AFAIK some games are pretty CPU bound.


still doesnt matter much. I played bioshock 2 +DLCs maxxed out on my laptop which really doesnt even have the best APU or the best crossfire. whats more its clocked at 2GHz.
how ever cpu bound a game is, its still stuck at using 4 threads or less



Mussels said:


> I don't get why people still argue about this.
> 
> 1. AMD CPU's can still run the games at max settings
> 2. faster intel CPU's will run the game at the same settings, but smoother and at a higher FPS.
> 3. The intel CPU's will cost you more



+1. and its often that the fps difference is not noticeable. who really cares about fps differences when its all above the 60fps mark.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 17, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> +1. and its often that the fps difference is not noticeable. who really cares about fps differences when its all above the 60fps mark.



I dont think i can manage 60FPS solid in any game i play. i'd have to fire up 5 year old ones to achieve that.

the other stuff you said about not taking a hit can only because you're bottlenecked elsewhere.


----------



## Kissamies (Nov 17, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> its not slow in anyway. its more than what most games can handle these days.
> gaming *DOES NOT REQUIRE A VERY GOOD CPU. *even a mediocre one at best would suffice.
> how eVer fuTure proofing is a diffeRNT issue


Even with GTX470 there was a huge difference when I upgraded from Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.7GHz to i5-2500K.. Now I have older hardware since my Z68 mobo died, this old i7 runs games also pretty fine.

But no AMD for me anymore. They are good for a smaller budget (like the FX-6300), but I prefer Intel.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 17, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> 860K would get further in oc due to reduced power draw.



Actually I thought the same but was very wrong. The locked iGPU processors consume the same amount of power for some reason. Although their maximum potential OC seems a lot higher.



eidairaman1 said:


> Id say the 860K unless you absolutely need the gpu side of the apu.



This is pretty sensible information. Why pay more?



de.das.dude said:


> how ever cpu bound a game is, its still stuck at using 4 threads or less



Actually of the 13 review benchmarks I've done, only 2 games ran on more than 2 cores. The fewer cores a game uses, the more important the IPC is, and APUs are not exactly well known for strong single core performance. It entirely depends on the array of games you play. You may be comfortable with 40 FPS on not very CPU bound games. Other people may play more frivolous titles, and consider 60 FPS a standard fluid experience, in which case the APU doesn't quite cut it.

I used to run a 750K with a 780 last year for poops 'n' giggles. It played everyday junk just fine, but BF and Crysis and similar performance minded games just did not run on acceptable framerates on higher settings. If you're a LoL/Indie game player, then I see no point in anything beyond an i3.

It's also worth noting minimum FPS is greatly affected by the processor. You shouldn't just talk about games in maximum FPS, or even just average. You should pay attention to minimum FPS too, because that's what causes stutter depending on just how bad your minimum is.



de.das.dude said:


> i can play bf4 AND encode videos/archive with 7zip at ultra



I can't run WinRAR whilst simultaneously running OpenBroadcaster and run Warframe at maximum settings on an i5. So I think that's rather stretching the pony a bit. I know BF4 has mantle, a single processor doing all that work is not feasible, or sensible.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 17, 2014)

9700 Pro said:


> Even with GTX470 there was a huge difference when I upgraded from Phenom II X4 965BE @ 3.7GHz to i5-2500K.. Now I have older hardware since my Z68 mobo died, this old i7 runs games also pretty fine.
> 
> But no AMD for me anymore. They are good for a smaller budget (like the FX-6300), but I prefer Intel.




as i was saying... AMD is enough to get by. they will not bottleneck like everyone seems to think.



RCoon said:


> I can't run WinRAR whilst simultaneously running OpenBroadcaster and run Warframe at maximum settings on an i5. So I think that's rather stretching the pony a bit. I know BF4 has mantle, a single processor doing all that work is not feasible, or sensible.


completely feasible.
i allocate 4 to handbrake and the game can take the rest.


----------



## Frick (Nov 17, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> as i was saying... AMD is enough to get by. they will not bottleneck like everyone seems to think.



But they do.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 17, 2014)

Well the 860k is an excellent processor to say the least and its the same chip (Minus GPU) you get on like the A10-7700K or 7850K so its a great overclocker and has enough performance especially when overclocked for any modern game.

You do have to overclock to really get the max of the performance in a game but I have generally hit 4.8 on 7850K's and got 5.0ghz on an 860K recently for a friend on an inexpensive AIO.  It performs well matched with an R9 280X in all games and its plenty smooth at 1080p without anything to speak of that I noticed in testing.



Frick said:


> But they do.


Depends, honestly in the end an intel will get slightly higher FPS in some game but many show very little changes on an intel CPU or AMD cpu when they are at 4.5ghz+ (But I am mostly referencing the FX series) and that's normally because of (Depending how you look at it) optimization issues.

You can game on any AMD or Intel CPU and get great performance as long as you have a good card, your not going to miss much but buying an say FX 6300 and overclocking versus say buying an unlocked i5 nor are you going to be seeing severely reduced performance (you might end up depending on the game up to 5FPS average on a recent game).


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 17, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> what you said has very little truth to it.


Given what you said in this post, if anything it only verifies my point.

This is the common AMD CPU defense response. They mention a known multicore title, and multi thread bench, that don't accurately represent the whole of gaming software. The only difference is this time there's one obscure title thrown in that many don't play or have even heard of.

Mussels has it right and the experience to back it up. I take the majorities word for it, I don't need to see it for myself. There are plenty testimonials and GAME benches that test a broad range of titles both quad+ core and not to back it up. I don't see any reason to blow money on one to see for myself they are right. Furthermore, AMD have promised to do better with their next architecture and have obviously put most of their focus into low budget APUs for laptops and low end OEM desktops. Without the console contracts they got, their APU/CPU division would have taken a serious blow. The only real business they're doing in high end gaming regarding CPUs anymore is from diehard AMD fanatics that refuse to let go and are a bit in denial.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 17, 2014)

it aint only the diehards who go amd cpu these days dude. some have less cash and know that when needed 8 amd cores are still better than 4 intel for eg. not everyone cares so much about the highest fps as long as they get playable framerates.

i know when i spec builds up for people it is all about helping them get the best from their budget, if the amd route helps get a better gpu then it aint even a question if they want a games machine. i mean i doubt anybody would try to argue in favour of a strong cpu and weak gpu for gaming as we all know the gpu does most of the work.

but this is the crux of the debate, and a point which most seem miss. a faster cpu will always be better for getting the most from your gpu. now someone said earlier in the thread that his mutli gpu setup is bottle neck if he runs anything less than 4.8ghz. now they will perform worse, but to call it a bottleneck when the scaling would be linear to the speed increase is just foolish. it is a misuse of the term and it is this blurring of the term which worries people.

a bottleneck is when you get a big reduction in a particular situation. think about how fast an upside down bottle empties x amount of liquid, then think about a glass with the same diameter as the bottles base doing the same.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 18, 2014)

Just saw a sale at Fry's on the 4790k for $288. Kinda hard to want AMD when you can get deals like that. I think a lot of people are either impatient, naive, or paranoid, to the point of having someone else build them something vs doing it themselves, and that's where that difference in price goes. Not worth it IMO.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Still close to 300.


----------



## de.das.dude (Nov 18, 2014)

Frick said:


> But they do.


depends on your definition of bottle neck.

do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes


i went from a phenom ii x4 945 to a 8320 and i noticed very little difference.


----------



## DayKnight (Nov 18, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Modern games don't care about the CPU.



Lolwut?

Please enlighten me.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 18, 2014)

bottom line is that
1. amd's are slower then the equally priced intel parts
2. amd's use more power and generate more excess heat for performance/watt


----------



## RCoon (Nov 18, 2014)

DayKnight said:


> Lolwut?
> 
> Please enlighten me.



Most manshoots and mandriveshoots are entirely GPU bound. I don't see why you find that surprising. Only a few games are even capable of using more than 2 cores as it is these days.

Also feel free to take the time to read that entire post.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 18, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Most manshoots and mandriveshoots are entirely GPU bound. I don't see why you find that surprising. Only a few games are even capable of using more than 2 cores as it is these days.


thats wholly inaccurate most recent games can use at least 4
I can't think of a title that is limited to only two cores


----------



## RCoon (Nov 18, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> thats wholly inaccurate most recent games can use at least 4



Very very recent perhaps. The few I've tested do not.


----------



## Frick (Nov 18, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> depends on your definition of bottle neck.
> 
> do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
> but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes
> ...



For one thing the IPC on those to are similar. And if you're on the Asus Swift you pretty much need all the horsepower you can get.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 18, 2014)

pretty much everything in the last 3-4 years can use a quad core
I don't know what games you test but you need to find some more modern titles
and even if a particular title can only use 2 cores that doesn't render a quad core or better ineffective


----------



## RCoon (Nov 18, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> pretty much everything in the last 3-4 years can use a quad core
> I don't know what games you test but you need to find some more modern titles
> and even if a particular title can only use 2 cores that doesn't render a quad core or better ineffective



You would be surprised I think. A lot of modern games (I mean all modern games, not just AAA) just don't use that many cores sometimes. But I wholeheartedly agree, it does not render a shiny quad/hyperthreaded core worthless in the slightest, just a worthy sacrifice when on a budget.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 18, 2014)

i love fanbois me. their lack of logic and inability to see beyond the pr bullshit makes me laugh.

and cry a little as they are still allowed to breed....


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 18, 2014)

While AMD stuff is okay for cheap builds, it seems rather odd to buy a lower end processor (with 2 FPUs) yet buy AMD's flagship single-die GPU, IMO. Some games may be okay, but pretty much everything I play needs an Intel CPU to maintain the high framerates I expect. My 5820K 6c/12t overclocked CPU still fails to completely open up my GTX 980 in many scenarios in Guild Wars 2 for instance, I'll watch the GPU usage stay at 99% much of the time, but then the framerate and GPU usage drops, especially in somewhat populated areas of the maps. AMD APUs seem alright for lower end GPUs though, but meh. I'm hoping AMD's Carrizo or whatever is next is actually better, so the people who love these chips have a better experience.

This thread reminds me of the MSI GX60 notebook, which has an HD 7970M but is stuck with an AMD A10-5750M processor. Unfortunately, the same GPU performs much better with an Intel mobile quad core. Have a look at this review of that notebook: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook

I'm happy with my cheaper notebook (purchased for $960) that has an i7-4700MQ processor and GTX 765M 2GB graphics, even though the graphics may not be as fast as the 7970M, BUT the performance is much more predictable and I haven't run across anything unplayable due to CPU limitations at least (GPU does well too).


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

Jstn7477 said:


> While AMD stuff is okay for cheap builds, it seems rather odd to buy a lower end processor (with 2 FPUs) yet buy AMD's flagship single-die GPU, IMO. Some games may be okay, but pretty much everything I play needs an Intel CPU to maintain the high framerates I expect. My 5820K 6c/12t overclocked CPU still fails to completely open up my GTX 980 in many scenarios in Guild Wars 2 for instance, I'll watch the GPU usage stay at 99% much of the time, but then the framerate and GPU usage drops, especially in somewhat populated areas of the maps. AMD APUs seem alright for lower end GPUs though, but meh. I'm hoping AMD's Carrizo or whatever is next is actually better, so the people who love these chips have a better experience.
> 
> This thread reminds me of the MSI GX60 notebook, which has an HD 7970M but is stuck with an AMD A10-5750M processor. Unfortunately, the same GPU performs much better with an Intel mobile quad core. Have a look at this review of that notebook: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook
> 
> I'm happy with my cheaper notebook (purchased for $960) that has an i7-4700MQ processor and GTX 765M 2GB graphics, even though the graphics may not be as fast as the 7970M, BUT the performance is much more predictable and I haven't run across anything unplayable due to CPU limitations at least (GPU does well too).


I'm fine


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2014)

de.das.dude said:


> depends on your definition of bottle neck.
> 
> do they give lower fps than intel ones? yes.
> but is that above the limit of fps what we can see? yes
> ...




that doesn't prove anything, did you bench how much faster those CPU's were per thread, instead of as a whole? AMD went slightly backwards with performance per core with their latest stuff, and added more cores/threads instead.

saying an AMD->AMD upgrade made no visible difference is the point, the AMD's havent sped up as far as games are concerned - sure, you can now run more things at once... but you could do those things and more with higher performance on a more expensive intel.

Why is it when people have AMD and intel setups that they get ignored, but people with just one or the other are 100% convinced in their information


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

Mussels said:


> that doesn't prove anything, did you bench how much faster those CPU's were per thread, instead of as a whole? AMD went slightly backwards with performance per core with their latest stuff, and added more cores/threads instead.
> 
> saying an AMD->AMD upgrade made no visible difference is the point, the AMD's havent sped up as far as games are concerned - sure, you can now run more things at once... but you could do those things and more with higher performance on a more expensive intel.
> 
> Why is it when people have AMD and intel setups that they get ignored, but people with just one or the other are 100% convinced in their information


I have both AMD and Intel if that counts


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I have both AMD and Intel if that counts




now benchmark the crap out of them, so you know total and per core performance, and them make direct comparisons between their architectures instead of broad sweeping assumptions, and i'll make sweet, sweet love to you. or just thank your post.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

Mussels said:


> now benchmark the crap out of them, so you know total and per core performance, and them make direct comparisons between their architectures instead of broad sweeping assumptions, and i'll make sweet, sweet love to you. or just thank your post.


I have and sorry I don't make assumptions


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I have and sorry I don't make assumptions




expect some sweet sweet lovin to come your way tonight then.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

Mussels said:


> expect some sweet sweet lovin to come your way tonight then.


----------



## Frick (Nov 18, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> and cry a little as they are still allowed to breed....



I thank god everyday because you are allowed to spill your seed wherever you want. Honestly it's what keeps me going: you feverishly jizzing onto everything resembling a vagina. My only regret is that your aim sucks and you have terrible taste, so the only ones you have succesfully impregnated are close family members.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2014)

Frick said:


> I thank god everyday because you are allowed to spill your seed wherever you want. Honestly it's what keeps me going: you feverishly jizzing onto everything resembling a vagina. My only regret is that your aim sucks and you have terrible taste, so the only ones you have succesfully impregnated are close family members.



dude not cool, i almost spilled coke in my keyboard.

let's keep this thread civil, except for comments aimed at de.das.dude because he's silly and i like teasing him.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Nov 18, 2014)

I look at it like this. Does a computer with a Intel CPU outperform a comparable computer with an AMD CPU? Yes, so therefore there is a bottleneck of some kind going on there, regardless of whether the AMD based system can perform at acceptable levels.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2014)

i think a lot of this comes down to personal definitions of the term bottleneck.

a bottleneck means a limit, something you cant just ram more performance past - a faster GPU and faster RAM wont speed up a games performance, because the CPU is the limiting factor.

Thats what we're all talking about, and its true - compared to the intel CPU's, the AMD is the bottleneck. Acceptable performance is an entirely different thing.

OP's question based on thread title: will A10 or comparable CPU's be a limit to min or max FPS on a high end GPU like the 290x, compared to other CPU's: yes.
 does it make it unusable, or provide unacceptable performance: no, depending on the user, and what games and settings they use.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

Mussels said:


> i think a lot of this comes down to personal definitions of the term bottleneck.
> 
> a bottleneck means a limit, something you cant just ram more performance past - a faster GPU and faster RAM wont speed up a games performance, because the CPU is the limiting factor.
> 
> ...


Games where named along with Res


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

All hardware bottlenecks. Even fiber bottlenecks- its the physical limitations we have in this world. Since the person has an apu set up already a logical choice would to get a 860K and push that lil monster.

If thats the last processor for it build another rig or swap mobo out for something in the future.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

I hope you guys know I'm the OP


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I hope you guys know I'm the OP



estehanio necroed your thread it had been dead since september


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> estehanio necroed your thread it had been dead since september


Tf was the first part of your sentence


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Tf was the first part of your sentence



What is Tf?


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> What is Tf?


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tf


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tf



Lmao- anyways if you go to the last post for September, Estehanio-a new member asked about upgrading from a 7300 to a 7850K earlier this month and that is why your thread is in chaos lol.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 18, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Lmao- anyways if you go to the last post for September, Estehanio-a new member asked about upgrading from a 7300 to a 7850K earlier this month and that is why your thread is in chaos lol.


Oh yea


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Nov 18, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> Still close to 300.


And worth every penny of it. It comes down to whether you want to compromise or not. I look around at the chat about the most resource hogging games and all the problems associated with them, and there's the guy's with 4790k CPUs happily reporting solid performance.

I paid $270 for my 950 4 years ago. It's still holding up, but nothing special compared to today's CPUs. I consider the 4790k at $288 to be a deal I'd jump on a LOT quicker.

Had I stuck to my original plan of going high end Maxwell after two years on my 7970, and upgrading my whole platform at the same time, I'd have already gone for that deal and a 970.

It remains to be seen whether I'll regret that, but so far Unity is the only game that does not play acceptably on this system, a common scenario for many, and they've acknowledged it needs a performance patch, so. Plus I'm just not the type to upgrade a GPU after only 2 years.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 18, 2014)

I pieced mine together over the year because i cant buy it all outright. Since i have a 290 i wont be jumping till 600/700 series


----------



## Mussels (Nov 19, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> I hope you guys know I'm the OP




some of my posts were generic advice, and not specifically aimed at anyone. i assume its the same with others.


----------



## Gmr_Chick (Nov 21, 2014)

A chaotic thread, yes. But oddly enough, still rather informative.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2014)

Only here could someone ask a short question and need 6 pages of responses thread necro or not Post #130 is pretty much the answer I would have given, thread remains informative though so I am going to close it (people can still read it).


----------

