6300 bottleneck a gtx 670?

[mike dee]

good evening guys!i would like to know if an fx 6300 will bottleneck my gtx 670?i mostly will play bf3 ,bf4 and coh 2!thanks in advance

 

[Swordkd]

No. It won't perform as well as an Intel I5 though, but I wouldn't call it a bottleneck.

 

[mike dee]

the only i5 i can buy is 3350p.but i have to change and moyherboard as well.is this change worth the spent?the resolution of my monitor is 1920x1080.

 

[Swordkd]

Well, figure 190 for a 3470(3350p is 180 so might as well pony up the extra 10 dollars), an AsRock H77M is 65 dollars and you can run with your current Ram assuming it's ddr3 1333+. I think it's worth it for games, you can decide yourself though. Here is a link to a Tom's article that compares 18 sub-200 dollar cpu's in performance. You can find the 3470 and fx 6300 on there to decide for yourself.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427.html

 

[lazyboy947]

My friends 1090t performed well with his 670 and there wasnt a noticeable bottleneck so id say ud be fine as is, plus the 6300 overclocks quite well

Also my friend went to an i7 and only got a 5-10fps gain on already playable fps so all he gained was smoother fps

 

[mike dee]

I have got 16g ram 1600.the previous cpu was an 8120 oc at 4.1ghz.but it ate a lot of power.if i oc the 6300 at 4ghz?will i see a difference?

 

[Swordkd]

Wait, why would you replace a 8120 with a 6300?

 

[cmi86]

Wait, why would you replace a 8120 with a 6300?

Have you ever even used a bulldozer FX chip ? I would trade an 8150 for an i3 they are so horrid. Many changes were made to the piledriver FX's that made them a faster, smoother more enjoyable chip.

 

[lazyboy947]

an overclocked 8120 performs better than a 6300 as the 2 extra cores but obviously in single thread apps a similar clocked 6300(piledriver) wins and the only reason ud take a i3 over it for its single threading

 

[cmi86]

an overclocked 8120 performs better than a 6300 as the 2 extra cores but obviously in single thread apps a similar clocked 6300(piledriver) wins and the only reason ud take a i3 over it for its single threading

It's more than just the clock speeds and IPC difference. BD was poorly designed and just felt sluggish and inconsistent. I speak from experience as I bought a 4100 when they first came out and I was so disappointed I swapped it back for a 960T. When I sold the 960T machine and built my new machine with the 6300 it just felt snappier and more responsive. Gone were the random delays, little screen lags and weird core utilization issues of the old bd system. I'd ditch BD for PD just for that,

 

[MadDog215]

It won't bottleneck, as the games you mentioned are only GPU demanding. If ever you play CPU demanding games such as Planetside 2, Ff14, Guild Wars 2, GTA 4 and other CPU demanding games withouy dipping to 30 fps, I suggest getting high end 6 or more than threads or core CPU's.

 

[lazyboy947]

I get what u mean, i used a 8150 for a bit, it wasnt bad but seemed slightly more laggy than my x6, but not to bad that anything wasnt playable

 

[Swordkd]

The Thuban series was actually really good for single thread performance. I wouldn't swap an 8120 for a 6300 just for single threaded performance though. The performance difference won't be worth the 120 dollars spent.

 

[toostrike]

an overclocked 8120 performs better than a 6300 as the 2 extra cores but obviously in single thread apps a similar clocked 6300(piledriver) wins and the only reason ud take a i3 over it for its single threading

It's more than just the clock speeds and IPC difference. BD was poorly designed and just felt sluggish and inconsistent. I speak from experience as I bought a 4100 when they first came out and I was so disappointed I swapped it back for a 960T. When I sold the 960T machine and built my new machine with the 6300 it just felt snappier and more responsive. Gone were the random delays, little screen lags and weird core utilization issues of the old bd system. I'd ditch BD for PD just for that,

+1 Very true.

I have a FX 6300, but never tried this yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1 core is shared between 2 modules. Lets say you wanted to get better single core performance. It would seem logical that you could turn off ever other core using your bios. I have this option in my bios. You can also turn off cores using Windows 7, under msconfig. Anyway, now you have a 3 core cpu using (1) module per core. That should yield better single core performance. A single core per module is able to exclusively use the single execution core and cache without having to share it with the other integer core. Much more efficient that way.I need to try this and run some benchmarks.


Turning off cores on a 8350 would be a cool test. You would have a true quad core cpu. One advantage would be less heat. Secondly, you could easily save profiles in your bios. Games that are multi- threaded like BF3 would benefit using all 8 cores, but think how many games don't benefit.