Can AMD FX-6300 work for Dying Light?

[Luis Barragan]

I would like to find out if my PC can run dying light under the AMD FX-6300 processor or if I have to get the AMD FX-8320 to be able to run my pc for the minimum.
PC SPECS:
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46
CPU: AMD FX-6300
RAM: 8 GB 1866 mhz Kingston Hyper
GPU: nVidia GTX 750

The minimum requirements for Dying Light are:

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500 @3.3 GHz / AMD FX-8320 @3.5 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM DDR3
Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 / AMD Radeon™ HD 6870 (1GB VRAM)

 

[Ravi idark]

It will be told to get it to play that. But you can play it with fx 6300 at medium settings smoothly

 

[slyu9213]

The FX 63XX and FX 83XX perform very similarly when they are clocked identically (1-3 FPS). Shouldn't be a problem at all.

 

[TechsavvyAMD]

http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=7982&game=Dying+Light&p_make=AMD&p_deriv=FX-6300&gc_make=Nvidia&gc_deriv=GeForce+GTX+750&ram=8&checkSubmit=#systemRequirements
I think CPU will bottleneck,so if u have FX 8320,it will work fine with dying light................but why to change the processor for matching the system requirements to play a single game? If u can play at medium to high range,then don't change the processor and stay with your current system

 

[slyu9213]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

 

[Jumpman_x]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

 

[Simon Ayres]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

a 6300 will severely bottleneck a 970

 

[Jumpman_x]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

a 6300 will severely bottleneck a 970

In those single core games, definitely. But you think it'll be to the point where Dying Light is unplayable?

 

[Simon Ayres]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

a 6300 will severely bottleneck a 970

In those single core games, definitely. But you think it'll be to the point where Dying Light is unplayable?

nope i think you will still be able to play just at lower fidelity then the 970 is able to push.

 

[Simon Ayres]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

the 6300 is in the 3rd tier down, maybe sever is a bit harsh of a word but definitely noticeably so.

 

[slyu9213]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

a 6300 will severely bottleneck a 970

In those single core games, definitely. But you think it'll be to the point where Dying Light is unplayable?

The FX 6300 will bottleneck the GTX 970 but I don't think to a point of unplayable gameplay. For example 6300 + 980 can max out DA:I with an average FPS of 60. In most situations where a game doesn't put as much importance on the CPU the FX 6300 wil be pretty fine. Even with Far Cry 4 where CPU is important you can get 60-65 FPS AVG with a GTX 980. My point is in general even with a bottleneck you will be able to play games maxed out with a average of 60 FPS on 1080P. Lowering the settings a little should save you any trouble if games run a bit worse. The good thing here is that you can get a better GPU (GTX 970 for example) and play Dying Light with the 6300 + new GPU. If it plays well like I think it will then you will be fine. If you cant take the occasional drops of FPS then you can always change your motherboard and CPU into Intel in the future.

 

[Jumpman_x]

Your goal is minimum and I think it should be fine. The GTX 750 isn't strong enough to cause a crazy bottleneck in my opinion. But the CPU is important for gaming too. As mdcod has a particular saying that I can't really say myself. I didn't even know that the this game has yet to release. At this point we can't help you that much. The GPU is pretty much on par with an GTX 560 Ti I think but being new and more energy efficient might make it better, especially with an OC. I don't see the point in going from an 6300 to an 8320 for one game either. At the lease wait till the game is released and for the benchmarks or wait for the release and play the game. If you can't play the game to what you expect then maybe you'll want to get the 8320.

you said the gtx 750 isn't strong enough to bottleneck. How about a GTX 970 and a 6300? I think that can do this game at high to max. No?

a 6300 will severely bottleneck a 970

In those single core games, definitely. But you think it'll be to the point where Dying Light is unplayable?

The FX 6300 will bottleneck the GTX 970 but I don't think to a point of unplayable gameplay. For example 6300 + 980 can max out DA:I with an average FPS of 60. In most situations where a game doesn't put as much importance on the CPU the FX 6300 wil be pretty fine. Even with Far Cry 4 where CPU is important you can get 60-65 FPS AVG with a GTX 980. My point is in general even with a bottleneck you will be able to play games maxed out with a average of 60 FPS on 1080P. Lowering the settings a little should save you any trouble if games run a bit worse. The good thing here is that you can get a better GPU (GTX 970 for example) and play Dying Light with the 6300 + new GPU. If it plays well like I think it will then you will be fine. If you cant take the occasional drops of FPS then you can always change your motherboard and CPU into Intel in the future.

That makes me feel a bit better. I'm just looking for High to Ultra1080p 30fps, anything better is always accepted lol.

 

[slyu9213]

That makes me feel a bit better. I'm just looking for High to Ultra1080p 30fps, anything better is always accepted lol.

Ah if High/Ultra 1080p 30FPS is your goal then the FX 6300 shouldn't be a problem at all when paired with a high end video card like the GTX 970 as you will still get more than 30FPS at your chosen settings.

 

[Simon Ayres]

That makes me feel a bit better. I'm just looking for High to Ultra1080p 30fps, anything better is always accepted lol.

Ah if High/Ultra 1080p 30FPS is your goal then the FX 6300 shouldn't be a problem at all when paired with a high end video card like the GTX 970 as you will still get more than 30FPS at your chosen settings.

see with me it is "give me 60 FPS or give me death"

 

[RuinedXJake]

The recommendation is the 8320, so I would definitely recommend getting that if you can. The board looks good, what's your psu? The GTX 750 will do well with the game in my opinion, but you may have to overclock the 8320.

The fx 6300 is very overclock-able if you have the 6300k. What's your cooling system?

I would recommend the Noctua NH-D14, as it does a very good job at what it does. Don't let other people fool you about AMD. It has good potential in the future, works better with background programs, and does a decent job these days with gaming.

People like to think intel gives them the BEST performance possible, which it does. Gaming is not as CPU oriented as these enthusiasts like to think. That said, I would expect a noticeable drop in frame-rate in comparison to intel processors. I have tried both worlds and understand the needs of users. AMD fx 8320 can outperform intel in several benchmarks, but it generally only shines with multitasking, where more cores can be utilized, unlike games that may only support so many cores.

A lot of people don't know that intel i5's don't hyperthread, and that more cores with the same amount of threads are easier to cool.

You have an AMD computer, so regardless of what people's opinions are, you are stuck with it for better, and for some worse stuff. Try overclocking the 6300 to 4 Ghz. slowly increase the clock while using prime 95. more voltage is more stable, but is hotter. Test it out with prime 95 on different loads, use AMD overdrive to be safe, and....

Get the 8320 if the 6300 doesn't work out. Good luck,
an old, proud owner of the fx6300

 

[slyu9213]

The fx 6300 is very overclock-able if you have the 6300k. What's your cooling system?
No such thing as a 'k' version for AMD FX. They are all overclockable

Gaming is not as CPU oriented as these enthusiasts like to think.
Actually it is when you play at higher resolutions + higher FPS (screen refresh rate that are like 100+), multitasking, and if you want to get your GPU to perform the best at highest details then Intel will get the job done


A lot of people don't know that intel i5's don't hyperthread, and that more cores with the same amount of threads are easier to cool.
Anyone who doesn't know that i5's don't have HT are what we call new comer/novices. They have been out since before 2010 so everyone current with PC tech should know the difference between Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5, i7, Xeon.

You have an AMD computer, so regardless of what people's opinions are, you are stuck with it for better, and for some worse stuff.
OP isn't stuck with it. If things don't turn out well he could go with an FX Vishera 8-Core like you suggested or change to a total different socket/Computer. At this point if the FX series isn't enough the OP only has Intel left until around 2016 when AMD releases their next tech.

 

[RuinedXJake]

The fx 6300 is very overclock-able if you have the 6300k. What's your cooling system?
No such thing as a 'k' version for AMD FX. They are all overclockable

Gaming is not as CPU oriented as these enthusiasts like to think.
Actually it is when you play at higher resolutions + higher FPS (screen refresh rate that are like 100+), multitasking, and if you want to get your GPU to perform the best at highest details then Intel will get the job done


A lot of people don't know that intel i5's don't hyperthread, and that more cores with the same amount of threads are easier to cool.
Anyone who doesn't know that i5's don't have HT are what we call new comer/novices. They have been out since before 2010 so everyone current with PC tech should know the difference between Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5, i7, Xeon.

You have an AMD computer, so regardless of what people's opinions are, you are stuck with it for better, and for some worse stuff.
OP isn't stuck with it. If things don't turn out well he could go with an FX Vishera 8-Core like you suggested or change to a total different socket/Computer. At this point if the FX series isn't enough the OP only has Intel left until around 2016 when AMD releases their next tech.

Sorry I meant black edition, which I now know that there is no other variant. Regardless of my misinformed self on the awareness of others' knowledge, the OP appears to be a novice, so I am trying to help with my own experiences. Why can't you appreciate the knowledge I did put that you failed to comment on?

I think when I say one is stuck with AMD, it doesn't mean he is stuck with his processor. Obviously, he is only stuck with his motherboard. Most people don't want to shell out $500 and 1 or 2 more hours of disassembly and reassembly to get a slightly better performance in gaming with intel. This guy wants single screen performance and I made it very clear about the disadvantages I had with AMD.

 

[RuinedXJake]

The fx 6300 is very overclock-able if you have the 6300k. What's your cooling system?
No such thing as a 'k' version for AMD FX. They are all overclockable

Gaming is not as CPU oriented as these enthusiasts like to think.
Actually it is when you play at higher resolutions + higher FPS (screen refresh rate that are like 100+), multitasking, and if you want to get your GPU to perform the best at highest details then Intel will get the job done


A lot of people don't know that intel i5's don't hyperthread, and that more cores with the same amount of threads are easier to cool.
Anyone who doesn't know that i5's don't have HT are what we call new comer/novices. They have been out since before 2010 so everyone current with PC tech should know the difference between Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5, i7, Xeon.

You have an AMD computer, so regardless of what people's opinions are, you are stuck with it for better, and for some worse stuff.
OP isn't stuck with it. If things don't turn out well he could go with an FX Vishera 8-Core like you suggested or change to a total different socket/Computer. At this point if the FX series isn't enough the OP only has Intel left until around 2016 when AMD releases their next tech.

It's like every idea I gave, you took away my counter argument and called me a liar. If you read my post, you'd know that I said there are pluses and minuses for having AMD, and if someone read your reply with botched quotes, I would be an AMD fanboy. Please refrain from doing this.

 

[slyu9213]

Sorry I meant black edition, which I now know that there is no other variant. Regardless of my misinformed self on the awareness of others' knowledge, the OP appears to be a novice, so I am trying to help with my own experiences. Why can't you appreciate the knowledge I did put that you failed to comment on?

I think when I say one is stuck with AMD, it doesn't mean he is stuck with his processor. Obviously, he is only stuck with his motherboard. Most people don't want to shell out $500 and 1 or 2 more hours of disassembly and reassembly to get a slightly better performance in gaming with intel. This guy wants single screen performance and I made it very clear about the disadvantages I had with AMD.

While I applaud you for trying to explain yourself, deciding the OP is a novice because of what he appears to be is like me deciding you're on the sensitive side for being upset for a post I made to you and that I don't 'appreciate' your post. It's great that you're trying to share your experience. If you meant by the motherboard than you should make should word your post the way you mean because you can give off the wrong idea if you do not. Two you can't automatically thing most people don't want to shell out money or spend a few hours disassembling/reassembling a computer. OP is willing to buy a GTX 970 to ~$320 for good performance in gaming. When you can get an i5 + LGA 1150 motherboard (cheapest) for below $500 and pretty much secure your CPU requirements for the future I wouldn't say it's a waste of money and it's not a slightly performance gain. Most games that are badly optimized and that place importance on the strength of the CPU will perform vastly better. The OP doesn't need the Intel kind of performance now but thing can change in the future for him. Secondly I don't think there is a reason I have to 'appreciate' your post when I'm not the OP looking for help. The whole comment I made was to correct some of the misinformed parts of your post so I wouldn't have a reason to comment on the parts you did get correct.

It's like every idea I gave, you took away my counter argument and called me a liar. If you read my post, you'd know that I said there are pluses and minuses for having AMD, and if someone read your reply with botched quotes, I would be an AMD fanboy. Please refrain from doing this.

Once again I'm not arguing your total post was a piece of crap. That is why I removed all the parts that were correct and only kept the ones I believed that were wrong advice. By removing the unnecessary parts (correct parts) it takes away the chance of people thinking the correct parts were also wrong and it clutters the thread less with unnecessary quoting. Next when did I call you a liar? Never, I only post a reply that tried to correct/counter some of your claims that I believed was wrong. Does that mean you purposely told the OP wrong information, I wouldn't know (only you) but I did not believe you were trying to lie. There are pluses and minuses of AMD. You only said they had their plus and minuses and the only minus you stated was AMD being particularly weak in gaming because some games use only so much cores/threads. I'm not here to make you look like a fanboy and the comment isn't meant to frame you for anything you did not do. As I explained previously the way I quote is to refrain from copy and pasting unnecessary information in a thread that people will have to take time to read again, plus make a misconception. If I had quoted the full post and people just skimmed over my reply they would/could have thought your whole post was wrong. So I will continue to quote as I please. I can see that you edited your post approximately 5 hours after I posted a reply to your post. I can see changes where some information is missing, tiny bit rephrasing/rearranging, and maybe adding a little more. Because of this I can't tell if you removed any other things that I might have disagreed on. Anyway we're done and if you want to reply please just PM me so we don't talk about this in someone's post. If you don't want to PM me then I guess this brief talk is over.

Sorry to the OP for accidentally choosing RuinedXJake's post as the solution briefly. i was trying to quote/reply to the user but I pressed the solution button on my phone

 

[leo162]

I would like to find out if my PC can run dying light under the AMD FX-6300 processor or if I have to get the AMD FX-8320 to be able to run my pc for the minimum.
PC SPECS:
Motherboard: MSI 970A-G46
CPU: AMD FX-6300
RAM: 8 GB 1866 mhz Kingston Hyper
GPU: nVidia GTX 750

The minimum requirements for Dying Light are:

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-2500 @3.3 GHz / AMD FX-8320 @3.5 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM DDR3
Hard Drive: 40 GB free space
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 560 / AMD Radeon™ HD 6870 (1GB VRAM)

I play on high, medium texture in full hd. With fx 6300 + 8gb + r7 265, video showing the performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jsrMw_HJ4w