So /g/, I got this shit in my rig right now, paired with a gtx770 2 gb. Currently running it at 4.6 GHz @ 1.35 V (not a bad chip I guess).
If I overclock it a bit more, could it handle a gtx1070 with some tolerable bottleneck? I'm gonna be using a 1080, 60Hz monitor for at least a year or two more and I know the 1070 is an overkill for that, but my plan is to switch to 1440p 144Hz in a few years, keep that 1070 and replace CPU/mobo
Yes, but a 1070 isn't gonna keep up with games at 1440p 60+fps in a few years.
>>55102607
Yeah it'll do fine, especially for dx12
>>55102607
>4.6 GHz @ 1.35 V
Jesus fucking Christ, i guess this is acceptable for AMD chips.
My 4790k hits 4.6 GHz at 1.205 volts and i can push it to 4.7 GHz at 1.245 volts but it gets a little to warm for my liking.
So i clocked it to 4.2 GHz at 1.115 volts and it stays cool. I have no reason to overclock anyways apart from saying "I've done it". I found out i like my system to run nice, cool and quiet.
>>55102695
I think that the FX8350's stock voltage setting for the default 4 GHz is 1.375.
Most MAD OC-ers are only able to stabilize at 4.6-4.7 GHz if they push that shit well above 1.4 V.
>>55102607
No. FX-8350 and basically the whole vishera line only supports pci-e 2.0. Only the more recent apus support 3.0. If you want to go 1440p 144hz you really need to update your cpu/mobo.
>>55102607
you will be cpu bottlenecked
a few years in the computer world is a very long time. Technology will change a lot by then.
>>55102695
My 2500k is at 1.313v for 4.5ghz
the fuck you on about?
I wish I could OC 3470 on Dell mobo
>>55102884
Mine goes 4.5 at 3.1. I like it, keeps my hot pockets warm.
>>55102695
Fx8350 is 32nm.
>>55102631
>>55102802
OP here, confused by the contradictory info. What are your respective arguments?
I know the FX will bottleneck the 1070, I'm not a retard. My question was would it be in amounts I could tolerate. For example, if I can get 75 fps in game X with my FX and get 90 fps if I switched to some Skylake CPU in the same game, I have no reason to up my CPU.
I know I fucked up by going AMD in the first place, it was my fucking budget and first rig built since... 2001 or something. I'm asking about the FX8350 specifically, "should have gone intel" guys don't need to bother.
>>55102695
I bought this chip in October 2015 for gaming because motherboard bundle. I fucked up didn't I?
>>55102607
What do you even do with 8 cores?
>>55102607
>AMD
Enjoy your bottleneck.
>>55102987
Depends.
If you got a good deal on it, I'd say no - you can get through 2016 with it and just go Zen when it hits the shelves.
>>55103005
I just love how everyone spews this "bottleneck" bullshit left, right and centre without even knowing what it means.
For the record, in this case it means your CPU is too weak to utilize the full capabilites of your GPU, which can be easily determined through monitoring your hardware usage. If your CPU is going 99% and your GPU is on 55%, you are officially, for all aim and purposes, bottlenecked.
But that doesn't mean anything by itself, except that you don't actully get the full, most effective GPU performance you paid for.
In other words, you can be bottlenecked out of your ass with dat fx shit, but at the same time have just some negligible 20-25 fps difference between that and a buffed i7 paired with an identical gpu.
>>55103013
1 year out of a cpu, motherboard, and ram kinda sucks. I only got like $20 off the cpu for the bundle.
>>55103096
>Negligible 20-25 fps difference
do you even understand what you're saying?
>>55102976
A 8350 will bottleneck a 980 let alone a cad nearly twice as powerful.
8350 @ 4.6 goodluck finding anything paired with 1070 that you'll even notice a bottleneck.
>>55102607
Waiting for zen to pair with my CPU upgrade here
>>55103314
GPU*
Could even have Vega by the time zen is around too.
>>55102607
get rid of the 770 and get AMD 480 for $200 and call it a day
>>55103262
Yeah, no.
It actually doesn't. Getting a slightly lesser framerate in a game compared to an intel setup with the same gpu is NOT a bottleneck.
>>55103391
It does, any CPU bound game an Intel setup will trounce AMD.
>>55103222
If you play 1080p 60Hz and have v-sync enabled (which most people do), what exactly is the difference between 70 fps and 90 fps?
>>55103396
And that's not what a bottleneck is.
Congratulations, you're retarded.
>>55103402
Why even buy a 1070 if you're only going to game at 1080p?
>>55103391
>>55103413
It is you fucktard. The GPU is sitting idle while the CPU is running at 100% and your fucking money is being wasted.
>>55103413
Yeah, this is what a bottleneck is
>>55103453
>>55103423
>2 GPUs
>no bottleneck
>1 GPU
>On Tom's hardware
>Bottleneck
>>55103474
Yeah, that 3-4 fps gain is definitely going to make me waste 600 euro on an intel mobo and cpu.
Mods, close this one. It's getting bottlenecked by faggots.
>>55103474
>7970
Yeah because the GPU is bottlenecking
>>55103505
>>55103474
You can shill all you want, but at some point you're going to hit a game that will be cpu bound and your shit will be bottlenecked hard.
2 7970s are less powerful than a 1070 easily.
>>55103474
>>55103505
I don't know, OP. Is GTX 1070 future proof? Is it worth the price? Are you better off buying $200 card now and another one in the future?
It will bottleneck. And two years is a long time to wait in order to fully utilize something you've bought now.
>>55103423
>Why even buy a 1070 if you're only going to game at 1080p?
Well OP did say he's planning to upgrade in the future.
>>55103505
You have to rely on the fact that it may be optimized for AMD, otherwise you're getting bottlnecked hard on the CPU end.
But keep deluding yourself into thinking it doesn't happen.
>>55103548
>Planning to upgrade in the future
Then buy the card in the future along with the CPU, you'll probably get the card cheaper too as a side bonus.
Get a 1070 and you won't notice so much of a performance leap unless you hit the AMD lottery on a few cherrypicked games.
>>55103561
>unless you hit the AMD lottery on a few cherrypicked games
DELETE THIS!
Ashes of shitty strategy game that nobody enjoyed is great!
why the fuck are these shills talking about bottlenecks when almost no game, application or encoder is saturating even an 8350 that is overclocked? its like half you fuckers believe you can even be bottlenecked by past two or 3 intel gens or even AMD's fx range with OC. Single threaded performance is most important and even then most games and applications will only utilise what ever it's given, cpu bottlenecks barely exist since quad cores came to be when you purely look at single threaded performance. And OP fuck you for being duped you suck at gathering information and retaining the causality. You would be bottlenecked if any program or game actually utilised more then 8 cores that are oced beyond standard benchmarks. give it a break you fucking gnorant plebcucks
>>55103099
300 dollars a year isn't shit.
Just get a 5820k and cheap x99 board that will last you 5 or 6 years.
Zen is going to be trash.
>>55102976
you could gain at least 30fps
>>55102695
You're an idiot. Voltage is irrelevant between two different architectures. Skylake requires more voltage than Haswell, despite being a newer architecture on a newer process. Most 6700Ks need between 1.35-1.4V to reach 4.6-4.7GHz, and that's a perfectly safe range for them even on air.
Don't listen to these cucks. That FX 8350 will only hold up in very specific user cases. There's no way it will hold up across the board, it's a massive bottleneck for a 970... running a 1070 on it will be a huge waste of untapped performance that won't breathe any life for some years to come when you "upgrade CPU/Mobo".
>>55104007
Don't listen to this cuck. That FX 8350 will only bottleneck you in very specific user cases. There's no way it will bottleneck across the board, it's not a massive bottleneck for a 980 Ti... running a 1070 on it will be a fine and breathe life for some years to come into your current CPU/Mobo.
>>55104030
>>55104035
>cherrypicking one of the most CPU-bound games in existence
>>55103833
The reason the faggy 8350 isn't fully saturated is because it has 2 cores per a module that share the same cache as well as the same pipeline and thus it cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently.
Get rekted m9e
>>55104086
stay mad shilling dogshit cuck
>>55104086
>>55104150
>>55104086
stay mad poojabber pajeet
>>55104150
>>55104158
>>55104150
>>55104158
idk about with a titan x, but with a 7970 going from a [email protected] to a 4790k also effectively at 4.2ghz I saw a 10+ fps increase on medium-high settings in real world usage.
because you have to remember that in the real world people aren't just running the game and nothing else. They have a web browser open, they're playing music, the have skype and all other sorts of things running in the background that can make even my older 4670k chug
>>55104086
hows it going shoveling shit with your hands pajeet
5 bing points have been deposited to your designated account
I have a 1080 and had to change my i5-4460 s it bottled to fuck on games.
Changed up to the i7-4790k and its made a such a difference.
>>55103833
You're a moron.
>falling for AMD's marketing tactics
https://youtu.be/04ITA1_XoqM
Reminder to all cucks >>55102796
>inb4 intel shill
> I have an 8350
>>55102607
better wait for zen so the cpu prices would be cut into half.
>Bottleneck this and bottleneck that
Only in CPU bound programs, which in the case of more recent games are becoming less and less common with the console ports making large part of new releases. Higher the resolution, less likely the cpu bottlenecking.
Sure, some games that cannot into multithreading, but eat every bit of IPC available, always bottleneck gpu, no matter what cpu. There is no cpu out currently that doesnt bottleneck current high-end gpu at 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 resolution in Arma2 for example.
>1440p 144Hz
Keep swallowing marketing shit and you will be fine.
>>55102796
PCIe 2.0 is still fast enough for any video card. Only for NVMe SSDs there is a noticable difference.
>>55109186
And the Pcie 2 vs 3. Wow, dont make me laugh, doesnt make any difference with gtx980 and wont make significant difference with 1070/1080 either.
>>55109204
i don't understand this that well. but am i seeing a 1-3% differance between x16 2.0 and 3.0?
>>55109292
You're seeing right. In other words, there isnt any difference to speak of.
>>55102607
>>>55102607
>you will be cpu bottlenecked
This is correct op.
It will be enough to disappoint you on your 1070 performance. I had a fx 8320 oc'd to 4.5 Ghz and upgraded gpu to 980ti. Basically, got okay frames but performed horribly on stress tests. Upgraded to 4790k and blew the shit out of the water. Night and day difference on frames and test scores. Would recommend a new cpu as next upgrade.
>>55109415
well does 2.0 to 3.0 have any newer shit like features and stuff?
>>55102619
Nor will your pants when you complete your body bloating regime.
In a few yr we will upgrade to the current tech then, just as we assume you will succumb to your need for a larger waistband.
I have a 6300 at 4.3ghz and a 970. I am not going to upgrade this gpu until i get a new cpu because it will really start to bottleneck
>>55102607
OP ignore all the shills
Get a RX480, then save up for when Zen, GP100 and Vega land
>>55109748
Better for enterprise SSDs on servers.
>>55102607
Just wait for Zen/vega
The real question here is -
As somebody with a GTX 960 and an AMD FX 8350, will I get better framerates if I upgrade to a GTX 1070 and keep the AMD FX 8350, REGARDLESS OF BOTTLENECKS?
Because I KNOW it'll bottleneck, that is NOT AT ALL the point. WILL I GET BETTER FRAMES?
>>55111903
Ayy lmao I have the same config as you. Make sure to OC both cpu and gpu. I got 4.4 easy with a cheap AF 212 evo.
Buy an i5 poorfag
>>55103402
>60hz
lol pleb the eye can only see 24 FPS MAN YOU QUEER
>>55111747
oh, well i dont really own a server so sticking to pci-e 2 o3o
