May AMD CPUs bottleneck the most powerful GPUs?

[quest for silence]

Originally Posted by McSteel

but it's not like you were completely left hanging

Please forgive me: I ended up doing something even worse!

I ended up asking for info even on overclock.net, hoping that Tator Tot and his fellows may give me something about...

[-The_Mask-]

What is it you exactly want to know? Don't you already have the most answers?

[quest for silence]

Originally Posted by -The_Mask-

What is it you exactly want to know? Don't you already have the most answers?

I'm looking for a gaming-rig-design crash course, so that I can understand the most answers.

[quest for silence]

Just a final update for future reference: the rig was updated this week with a Zotac GTX-970.

As probably expected by some of you (I think to rafal, lemmy and some others) at FullHD the FPS rate is about identical but with two more detail level (high to ultra), between a GTX 660 to a GTX 970 (brief test with BF4, ballpark figure 65FPS averagely).

Overclocking the CPU (FX-6300) from 3.5GHz to 4.4GHz virtually didn't increase the FPS of the GTX-970 (benchmarking done with Heaven 4.0).

So, that's all (or so about).

[ilovemygrandpa]

you will notice difference, if you up the graphical settings, aa's and play with supersamplings or dsr, the gpu will be taxed instead of the cpu. this is where you can equal most likely the framerates of an i5 with an amd. upping the IQ. the gtx 970 will bring you beter IQ at higher framerates than the gtx 660. if your monitor doesn't have a better refresh rate than 60hz, you won't notice any difference in higher framerates.
also if you get to a point when playing with the graphical settings, that your game has reasonably high framerates 45>, but you notice some clear stuttering, you have probably reached the limit of the 3.5gb vram of the gtx 970.
also there are some games that are cpu bound, like skyrim and starcraft 2, but luckly, those are a very small percentage of them.

[quest for silence]

Long story short, after a couple of months the FX has been dropped for a Core i5 4690 and an ASUS board, and at stock settings average framerate with BF4 upped from about 65 to about 110.

[McSteel]

i.e. I was right

[Behemot]

Well, 65 to 110 is not that much in playability. But is theere something which went from like 15 to 25, in other words which was not playable before and is now?

[quest for silence]

Originally Posted by Behemot

Well, 65 to 110 is not that much in playability. But is theere something which went from like 15 to 25, in other words which was not playable before and is now?

To be honest, as far as I recall there was not any scenario which was really not playable with the AMD FX cpu (with reference to FPS, even if I didn't use that combo for such a long time).
On the other hand, with online multiplayer BF4 the CPU load decreased of about 30% on average, as well as maps loading time decreased noticeably, while minimum FPS should have increased noticeably, at least according to some benchmarks (Heaven, Valley).

[MGCJerry]

I didn't read the entire post, but this made me decide to go ahead and register and place my $0.02.

I had a FX8120 based system and a H6770 (slow, I know) card. The FX system was exhibiting some odd behaviors and decided to replace it, while doing a sidegrade to an Intel based platform. I got an i5 4460 and a z97 board everything else the same. Didn't reinstall windows, but did clear out old drivers. Did some benchmarks and got a noticeably better 3D score. I believe it was an 6% increase. Not long after that I managed to get a hold of a i7-4790K, and got another 7% increase over the i5 in my 3d score. Using an old copy of performance test for my basic benches. Used the same video card, and same version drivers.

I have since reinstalled a fresh copy of Win7 using its own OEM key, and I don't have those old scores (only the FX8120 OC & i5) to show but I have seen a HUGE difference between the FX8120 & the i5 4460 in my system on the same install of XP & win7.