Bottlenecked OCd 1090T with 290x

[realmadrid12]

Hey guys, im trying to gauge my options here because I really dont want to buy a new board right before DDR4 gets released.

ASUS Crosshair V
AMD 1090T 1.46v @ 4.1
Gskill 8GB
AX850 Gold PSU
Sapphire 290x
MOSFET, CPU, and GPU are all water cooled.

Now I know my mobo can only handle a 140w CPU, but im not interested in a 220w CPU anyways since thats insane. What I am looking at is the AMD 8350, its 125w which still leaves a bit of power for OCing and according to a few benchmarks should really allow me to open up the 290x.

Im buying a 144hz 1080p Asus monitor so I really want to get the best out of this 290x. Is it worth the 200 bucks for this processor and do you think it will really help boost the performance to something I will notice? At this point im not looking to upgrade the board as I said because DDR4 is coming out soon and things are going to change a bit. Also keep in mind this board is PCIe 2.0 only and I really have not looked into how much that holds performance back either.

Thanks for any help in advance!

 

[ShrimpBrime]

A new FX probably won't cure bottle neck unless your scaling past the 6 current available cores you have now, not to mention single threading performance hit. Just cause you get 2 extra cores, doesn't mean it's going to alleviate any type of bottle neck you may have.

The only REAL choice would be Intel 4670K or something of the like.

Personally I'd say stick with the 1090T @ 4.1ghz and save moneys either way. Want higher FPS, OC VGA or X-FIRE it.

 

[manu2b]

^Agreed: per core, your [email protected] roughly equals a [email protected].

Only cure would be to go Intel.

 

[Mandrake4565]

A few things:

1. You're motherboard is good enough to handle the 8350.
2. The 125 w Tdp on the 8350 is when it's at stock and cool and quiet is enabled, overclock it and have all the cores enabled the 125w Tdp is laughable.
3. I don't see you getting much performance gain switching to the 8350. This also depends on what games you're playing. I know in BF4 for example, the difference at stock clocks between the 8350 and the 1100t is 2 FPS at best. With your 1090 overclocked it's probably the same or less. Furthermore, the difference between the 4770k and the 1100t at stock clocks is 3 fps this is also at 1900x1200.

Gpu's usually don't start being bottlenecked unless it's a really low end Cpu or you start running Xfire/Sli. If one is running XFire/Sli the difference between Intel and AMD really becomes apparent as well as a low end Cpu vs a high end, but that isn't the case here.

 

[realmadrid12]

A new FX probably won't cure bottle neck unless your scaling past the 6 current available cores you have now, not to mention single threading performance hit. Just cause you get 2 extra cores, doesn't mean it's going to alleviate any type of bottle neck you may have.

The only REAL choice would be Intel 4670K or something of the like.

Personally I'd say stick with the 1090T @ 4.1ghz and save moneys either way. Want higher FPS, OC VGA or X-FIRE it.

To be honest I didnt think the core count was going to give better performance, just that the chip was at a higher frequency and then I could OC it even more. The problem Im having is the 290x (slightly OCd) pins my cpu at 95%+ under high loads with only one 21.5 16:9 screen connected.

I knew one day Id be going back to intel for a reason similar to this :/ If Im going to switch I would go with a i7-4770, I have a great gpu so theres no point in not matching it with a great cpu.

^Agreed: per core, your [email protected] roughly equals a [email protected].

Only cure would be to go Intel.

Yeah thats a bummer, I was hoping it would help a bit but I figured this would be the case. Ill probably hang on and see what Black friday does to see if there are any crazy intel deals but if not ill wait until DDR4.

 

[manu2b]

It actually depends on the game, Borderland2 or Metro Last Light are quite CPU dependant:
http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html

 

[realmadrid12]

A few things:

1. You're motherboard is good enough to handle the 8350.
2. The 125 w Tdp on the 8350 is when it's at stock and cool and quiet is enabled, overclock it and have all the cores enabled the 125w Tdp is laughable.
3. I don't see you getting much performance gain switching to the 8350. This also depends on what games you're playing. I know in BF4 for example, the difference at stock clocks between the 8350 and the 1100t is 2 FPS at best. With your 1090 overclocked it's probably the same or less. Furthermore, the difference between the 4770k and the 1100t at stock clocks is 3 fps this is also at 1900x1200.

Gpu's usually don't start being bottlenecked unless it's a really low end Cpu or you start running Xfire/Sli. If one is running XFire/Sli the difference between Intel and AMD really becomes apparent as well as a low end Cpu vs a high end, but that isn't the case here.

1. I pretty much assumed that but I rather not start melting connectors
2. I literally just looked that up before you posted and I laughed.
3. When benchmarking my physics scores are really poor. Here and Here

Im getting sub 20fps during those tests, which I believe is what is holding me back right now.

 

[caddi daddi]

it all depends on the game and if it uses the gpu or cpu.
I game on a 6300 clocked to 5.0 with a 7850 card and right next to it is a 2600k rig with the same card and i would rather game on my and rig. the chv is fine for any fx or phenom processor, no issues there.

flight sim 10 is all about the cpu, my rig wins, why? it's water cooled and dead silent other than that I would never know wich rig i was on.......

 

[caddi daddi]

scratch that, go intel and I'll help you by letting you sell me your 1090T.......

 

[TeknoBug]

The X6 1090T shouldn't be bottlenecking, the R9 290X is known to downclock when it gets hot, should've waited for aftermarket cooler releases.

With your motherboard limiting to 140W CPU's, maybe OC'ing it to 4.1 @ 1.46v is a tad high and possibly pushing 200W under load, I OC'd mine to 3.8 @ 1.35v 24/7 because it didn't behave well when I was OC'ing it to 4 @ 1.45v due to the motherboard's limitations (4+1 phase). That could also be a factor.

Statements in the above posts makes me think if I should pull out my 4350 and put the 1090T back in, the 4350 however runs significantly cooler.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

To be honest I didnt think the core count was going to give better performance, just that the chip was at a higher frequency and then I could OC it even more. The problem Im having is the 290x (slightly OCd) pins my cpu at 95%+ under high loads with only one 21.5 16:9 screen connected.

I knew one day Id be going back to intel for a reason similar to this :/ If Im going to switch I would go with a i7-4770, I have a great gpu so theres no point in not matching it with a great cpu.



Yeah thats a bummer, I was hoping it would help a bit but I figured this would be the case. Ill probably hang on and see what Black friday does to see if there are any crazy intel deals but if not ill wait until DDR4.

Well with the 3770K that I've been using, I do prefer it over the FX-8320. Strictly because of the older game titles liking the threaded performance per core over the Gpu usage. Basically I'm talking Source Engine games TF and L4D and back in 06/07 was big CSS HL2DM and Quake UT on and on the performance boost with Intel from AMD is a night and day difference. Again this is older stuff, much of it I play occasionally.

Lets see, when comparing to Cinebench, the numbers between FX and i7 are close. Not real close... but not real far off. Well the FX processors have a decent amount of cache to work with and the multi threading design obviously shows. Even with newer game titles, AMD Phenom II and FX aren't real bad in comparison, but tend to compete pretty well.

As far as working goes, the Intel is plenty good. The one thing that always stood out for me was the Zipping or un-zipping of files. The Phenom II you have is a beast at this. You hardly need 8 cores and I can tell you is faster at it than the i7 3770K, and it's plenty noticeable. I see it clear as day being have been using AMD for a main rig for years and years until these current offerings came to me as a bit disappointing, And in more aspects than one.

The fact that I can go and purchase a 760G chipset board for 45$ NEW and slap an FX8 core cpu in it and run it boggles my mind. WHY oh why did AMD cut it off. 790FX chipsets where just fine, and this would have probably sold a few more cpus due to not needing to buy yet again another 250$ motherboard to say that you "need" 8+1 to run this cpu..... when it's already just not so true. And then the design. The chip design is essentially .... um.... just not working for AMD. And why they continue to stick with it is beyond me.

I'd argue any day that A8-3850 for example, based off Phenom II architecture is better than FX and it doesn't even carry L3 cache. Now why AMD dropped it? Stupidity. plain and simple. It was a great design and would probably be closer to performance of that Intel carries the crown for. I mean the current FX is not a complete failure, but it's also not a step towards overall performance of anything we call current and fast. Just because it says 5ghz, doesn't mean it's "fast"

My 2 cents on it all. So I purchased Intel this year for the overall performance gain AMD couldn't offer this time.... or probably next unless I get a server platform 32 cores any one?

 

[manu2b]

it all depends on the game and if it uses the gpu or cpu.
I game on a 6300 clocked to 5.0 with a 7850 card and right next to it is a 2600k rig with the same card and i would rather game on my and rig. the chv is fine for any fx or phenom processor, no issues there.

flight sim 10 is all about the cpu, my rig wins, why? it's water cooled and dead silent other than that I would never know wich rig i was on.......

Are you sure your rig wins?
http://jetlinesystems.com/performance.php

 

[realmadrid12]

scratch that, go intel and I'll help you by letting you sell me your 1090T.......

LOL, if I do sell it ill post it up here. If your really interested ill PM you first.

The X6 1090T shouldn't be bottlenecking, the R9 290X is known to downclock when it gets hot, should've waited for aftermarket cooler releases.

With your motherboard limiting to 140W CPU's, maybe OC'ing it to 4.1 @ 1.46v is a tad high and possibly pushing 200W under load, I OC'd mine to 3.8 @ 1.35v 24/7 because it didn't behave well when I was OC'ing it to 4 @ 1.45v due to the motherboard's limitations (4+1 phase). That could also be a factor.

Statements in the above posts makes me think if I should pull out my 4350 and put the 1090T back in, the 4350 however runs significantly cooler.

290x is water cooled, which is why I didnt wait I wasnt worried about heat. I have no issues with stability where I am now. Any higher on the OC and it became very randomly unstable. People push these chips much harder than I have, like 1.5-1.6. Its possible ive maxed out the mobo but I have not measure power consumption at the wall to really know.

 

[realmadrid12]

I'd argue any day that A8-3850 for example, based off Phenom II architecture is better than FX and it doesn't even carry L3 cache. Now why AMD dropped it? Stupidity. plain and simple. It was a great design and would probably be closer to performance of that Intel carries the crown for. I mean the current FX is not a complete failure, but it's also not a step towards overall performance of anything we call current and fast. Just because it says 5ghz, doesn't mean it's "fast"

My 2 cents on it all. So I purchased Intel this year for the overall performance gain AMD couldn't offer this time.... or probably next unless I get a server platform 32 cores any one?

I agree with you entirely. After looking at this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-3.html

The intel chips kills the 8350 on the physics side. Im 99% sure this is where my issues come from, poor physics performance with the 1090T. There are some games that appear to be closer, which im assuming they are more gpu bound. If you look at the benchmark for F1 2012 the 3770 kills it, and also considering I have a 1090T that seems to perform slightly less than the 8350 while gaming (Most 3dmark scores seem to support this) I think moving it intel might be the better move.

So your saying you dont regret switching to intel this time around?

 

[caddi daddi]

pm me when you think about it.

manu2b, they sit side by side all I do is move one cable and that's why the intel rig is here.
if it was water cooled it would be a wash.

loading and updating my aircombat game, it's all about the card and that's next.

 

[bassnut]

which air combat game CD?

 

[manu2b]

C_D, I've ran FSX on both my 2600K watercooled and my 8120 watercooled.

Both at stock and both OCed@5GHz with a 6970 2GB.

The Intel was giving way more FPS.

FSX uses 4 cores at max (and no HT) and is heavily IPC dependant.

My PhenomII x4 (@4.1GHz), that I was swapping, was giving the same FPS as my 8 cores [email protected].

Edit: we are hijacking the thread and that's not cool! You're right, Let's take it to pm if you like, but tomorrow. Bed time for me lol!

 

[caddi daddi]

good find manu2b, what would the 2600 k be equal to in that intel listing?

 

[caddi daddi]

I'm talking about gamming pleasure, not out and out frame rates.and we are pulling this off his topic.

 

[manu2b]

^Agreed, see ninja edit