Discussion in 'Desktop Computers' started by Intel_man, Jun 23, 2016.
I never said I was a good listener.
You'd lose enough from the 8350 to end up with 1070 performance anyway.
I'm ok with however it ends up being arranged. As long as it's not just me who constantly updates all the builds.
Because I had mine with a 980 Ti, and at 4K the only game there was a bottleneck in was GTA V. Like I said I would only go with Intel and 1070 if you play at 120+hz
Do you have any sample benchmarks from that setup?
The 8350 is bottlenecking the 1080 in a bunch of Firestrike 1.1 tests.
Some guy with a 8350 w/ a 1080 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8766751
Some guy with a 6700k w/ a 1080 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8775139
Click on the "Show results detail" then go to "Detail Scores" tab to see the data.
Well I didn't say it won't bottleneck, it does at 1080p and 1440p but it will be fine for 60hz gaming, especially at 4k where you won't notice a difference between it and Intel. If my 8350 didn't die I would still be happily using it right now.
13,530 for the FX-8350 vs 20,437 for the 6700K shows a clear CPU bottleneck in this benchmark. That's a massive difference! The i7 6700K is much newer and faster than the old FX-8350 so it doesn't surprise me there's a big difference. I reckon an i5 6600K would still own the FX-8350 with the 1080. Even an older i5 like the 4670K or the 4690K probably would too!
There should be benchmarks on those setups @spirit. Just look em up in the search. I mean.. hell there's still i7-990x combos with people running 1080 in SLi. lol
i5 6600K and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8929151 (23,053)
i5 4690K and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8755319 (19,884)
i5 4670K and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8907884 (17,088)
i5 3570K and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8958021 (18,204)
i5 2500K and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8910724 (16,125)
i5 760 and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8890718 (9,825)
So the FX-8350 comes between the 6 year old i5 760 and the 5.5 year old i5 2500K.
The FX-9590 and the GTX 1080 scores 14,745, making it worse than the 2500K which is two years older than the FX-9590: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8856340
Interestingly, the old Phenom II X4 965 scored higher than the i5 760 despite the i5 760 being faster than the Phenom II X4 965. I remember researching those two CPUs extensively for months trying to decide which to use for my first build! I went with the i5 760 in the end. Here's the score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8857940 the 965 scores 10,632. The X6 1100T scores 12,262: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8840759
i7-990x and GTX 1080: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8858084 (18,354)
@spirit, some of your links are with 2 GTX 1080s.
@spirit The physics score is what matters when it comes to CPUs. the 9590 seems to be between the 4690k and 6600k. I don't know why the combined scores is lower on the 9590 even though the physics score is higher.
Also the 9590 score shows the memory on the GPU running at 1200mhz/2400 effective and 5000/10000 effective on the i5.
@Intel_man Wow the 990x beats my 6700k in physics score. Here's my score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8908029
Dammit I should have checked that. Eurghh... Still, the 4670K with one card is not far off the 4690K with two cards and scores higher than the 3570K with two cards!
Awesome idea. I will be using this as a ref. real soon on my First Build.
So I have a question,
Is "PC PART PICKER" a reliable source for a "No Issue" new build ?
Even the 1st Gen Core i7 Nehalems are doing pretty well. It seems like the PCI-E 2.0 is holding it back slightly though.
What I'd do is when you think you have a full build and have a few questions about it, create a new thread and ask the question. That way, it won't get lost in the other conversations. To answer you question for the time being, PCPartPicker does really well to check for incompatibilities for the most part, but it's not fool proof.
I'm amazed that people are still using these first generation i5 and i7 processors and still putting new hardware like GTX 1080s in these machines. On one hand you'd think that if you can afford a 1080 you'd probably also be able to afford a new system, but on the other hand you have to think that if people are still genuinely using these 6-7 year old CPUs as 'daily drivers' (and are not digging them out from under their beds purely to benchmark them) then that just goes to show that these CPUs have truly stood up to the test of time to remain relevant and adequate some 6-7 years after their launch!
I still have my i7 920 lying around... now that I replaced it with the W3690 (Xeon version of the 990X). Apart from PCIE gen3, USB 3.1, sata express, sata 3, and nvme support... these things are still fast enough to make AMD sweat.
Separate names with a comma.