FX 6300 How much will it bottleneck an R9 290

[Thomas Read]

I have an FX 6300, I'm upgrading my computer, and I don't want to upgrade my CPU just yet. How much do you guys think an R9 290 will be bottlenecked? And how much overclocking do you think I should do to help elevate the bottleneck? Thanks in advance

 

[JOOK-D]

I was going to ask what kind of settings but I guess you probably wouldn't know.

Was just wondering, mine fluctuates all over the place. My minimum seems to be 80-90, max 290. Average is probably in the 110-150 range. I'll have to keep an eye on my GPU+CPU usage next time I play - this is with everything maxed, slapped on full AA and AF and whatever else there is.

And it's very impressive how they can make a game look so good (TF2) and run so well.

My settings are all maximum at 1920x1080.

Odd that I'm getting lower performance. My GPU load doesn't exceed 27% really and I saw my minimum FPS go down to the 60s, though only for a brief moment. This is in G-Mod btw. Only one core of my CPU is utilised, even with multi-core rendering enabled. Weird.

And I'm on 1360x768 ._. I've heard before that my GPU may be stuck in 2d clocks or something since it's hardly being used. I don't even know. What I do know is that it doesn't drop under 60 and that's good.

That seems fairly strange, but Garry's Mod is a whole 'nother story. I play Garry's Mod and mod it out completely as my go-to messing around game, but I remember go noticing a very slight frame drop at some point to around 58 fps because I had overloaded the screen with enemies and was using a mini-gun that had real time ballistics and bullet drop applied to it, so that was my reasoning for guessing so.

If you want to see your FX-6300 get demolished, play Crysis 1. It's easily my worst performing game, yet Crysis 2 which is extremely GPU bound and utilizes the CPU leniently is smooth as butter. Crysis 1 gets me anywhere from 25 - 40 fps with tons of stuttering even on medium settings, and there's certainly not enough GPU usage. I had 1 other person tell me that they had run through the first level of Crysis 1 on high settings at 1920x1080 with an FX-6300 and an HD 7870 and said they got 50 - 70 fps on average. I simply do not and cannot believe them, because in my experience with a stronger GPU and the FX-6300, my performance is piss-poor. I'm actually curious, if you happen to get your hands on Crysis 1, could you play through the entire first level and let me know how your performance was?

If it goes on sale somewhere at some point I'd love to.

On GMod I was just playing a few different gamemodes - many ragdolls though.

I just tried out TF2 and I don't drop below 80-90, average of probably 120 when in actual fights. I can get 240 pretty comfortably when there are only a few sprites or other characters on screen - I imagine CS:S / GO aren't quite as firefight-y as TF2. From what I've seen from other benches with similar processors it's pretty normal. You get the odd person saying they get 400 or whatever (kind of like that 1 other person, haha) but it's best to just ignore them.

I should be getting a 1920x1080 monitor this Christmas, provided I have some nice relatives since I have other money priorities than games right now (cry). If I do, I'll be sure to pick up Crysis and let you know - maybe steam will do a bundle sale on the lot, who knows. I'd love to check it out and see if my performance is similar to that of others - otherwise, something's up. I wouldn't be surprised if my performance is the same as that of a 4300 in most games since hardly any cores are utilised anyway - this 8320 is a beast for rendering though.

 

[leeb2013]

I have an FX 6300, I'm upgrading my computer, and I don't want to upgrade my CPU just yet. How much do you guys think an R9 290 will be bottlenecked? And how much overclocking do you think I should do to help elevate the bottleneck? Thanks in advance

in some games yes, o/c will help to relieve it, but will not be sufficient in some games.

ps. I absolutely despise thieves, rapist and murderers, but not people offering their opinions on FX6300 bottlenecking! ;-)

I don't believe I said I despise anyone. I said I "despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock". That's a big, big difference. What you're saying is that I despise the people. That's not true at all, as I have nothing against them. I merely despise the action.

P.S. Sometimes, thieves and murderers can have valid reasons too

Not so much for rapists, though.

not that it really matters, but I can't see the big difference, because what are you "absolutely despising", if not the people who are making the assumptions? Are you despising the time when the assumption is made? Sorry, it's just not clear what is despicable.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

I have an FX 6300, I'm upgrading my computer, and I don't want to upgrade my CPU just yet. How much do you guys think an R9 290 will be bottlenecked? And how much overclocking do you think I should do to help elevate the bottleneck? Thanks in advance

in some games yes, o/c will help to relieve it, but will not be sufficient in some games.

ps. I absolutely despise thieves, rapist and murderers, but not people offering their opinions on FX6300 bottlenecking! ;-)

I don't believe I said I despise anyone. I said I "despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock". That's a big, big difference. What you're saying is that I despise the people. That's not true at all, as I have nothing against them. I merely despise the action.

P.S. Sometimes, thieves and murderers can have valid reasons too

Not so much for rapists, though.

not that it really matters, but I can't see the big difference, because what are you "absolutely despising", if not the people who are making the assumptions? Are you despising the time when the assumption is made? Sorry, it's just not clear what is despicable.

What's hard to understand? I despise the fact that misinformation is being spread, not those who unknowingly spread it. There's a big difference between the two.

 

[Darkresurrection]

Enough of this!! fx 6300 is a decent CPU, and it WON'T bottleneck your GPU, You can easily overclock your CPU to 4.0 or 4.2ghz, and you will be fine, however for upcoming games, and some games like crysis3 you are going to need a better hyper-threading CPU if you have not bought the CPU yet, you will be fine for a while, and then you can simply upgrade, some of you guys truly abuse the word bottleneck, it is a shame... in accordance with your definitions in bf4 i7-4770k is a bottleneck because fx 6300 performs better than that
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/
enough of this grab the beast and enjoy
''Two things are infinite, the Universe and Humans' stupidity''

 

[palladin9479]

REALLY depends on the game and the exact settings you use. Some settings are more CPU intensive while others are more GPU intensive and all of it is very engine dependent.

For the record I'm using a FX8350 @4.8 with 2 780 Hydro's and experience very little bottle necking and then only on ST games like Skyrim. After I loaded a bunch of lighting, texturing and play enhancement mods that bottle necking shifted away. I play quite a few games using NVidia's 3D Vision and thus the requirement for two 780's. So a 4.8Ghz 8350 won't bottle neck a 780 during normal gameplay, though I'm pretty sure I can twist a bunch of dials and pull some levers to get it to do so.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Enough of this!! fx 6300 is a decent CPU, and it WON'T bottleneck your GPU, You can easily overclock your CPU to 4.0 or 4.2ghz, and you will be fine, however for upcoming games, and some games like crysis3 you are going to need a better hyper-threading CPU if you have not bought the CPU yet, you will be fine for a while, and then you can simply upgrade, some of you guys truly abuse the word bottleneck, it is a shame... in accordance with your definitions in bf4 i7-4770k is a bottleneck because fx 6300 performs better than that
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/4/
www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/
enough of this grab the beast and enjoy
''Two things are infinite, the Universe and Humans' stupidity''

That's not an abuse of the word "bottlenecking" at all. If you're going to criticize someone's use of the word bottlenecking, perhaps you should also define what you think a bottleneck supposedly means? Besides that, the benchmarks you just posted the links for largely contradict what you're claiming (i.e. that the FX-6300 won't be a bottleneck).

At 2560x1440, neither the GTX 770, the 7970 GHz, the GTX 660, nor the Radeon HD 7870 are up to par. Because of that, all four of those become the bottleneck in the system before the FX-6300 can, since at a resolution as high as that the GPU is put under the most strain. So of course in such an instance, the differences between an FX-6300 and an i7-4770k are largely minimized. However, look at the benchmarks for 1920x1080 which you yourself just posted. In most of the cases, for the GTX 770 and the Radeon HD 7970 the i7-4770k is the winner. One instance of an outlier is hardly the basis for a conclusion when the rest of the results clearly show that the i7-4770k (and the i5-4670k) are better CPUs (which should be obvious). For the GTX 660 and the Radeon HD 7870 at 1920x1080, both of those likely become the bottleneck in the system as well before the CPU can.

The other thing which I'm trying desperately to point out is that noticeable bottlenecking (i.e. seeing your frame rate drop below a certain threshold when the GPU should be capable of maintaining that threshold) is game dependent. Like I said, on games like Battlefield 3, anything on the Source engine, Alan Wake, etc, games which are GPU dependent or are coded very well, there won't be noticeable bottlenecking because the frame rate maintains that 60 fps threshold. However, pointing out that an FX-6300 won't bottleneck in "such-and-such game" doesn't mean it won't be a noticeable bottleneck in other games. I can guarantee you that the CPU is the bottleneck in poorly coded games, or particularly CPU bound games like Arkham City, Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, and Skyrim.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

REALLY depends on the game and the exact settings you use. Some settings are more CPU intensive while others are more GPU intensive and all of it is very engine dependent.

For the record I'm using a FX8350 @4.8 with 2 780 Hydro's and experience very little bottle necking and then only on ST games like Skyrim. After I loaded a bunch of lighting, texturing and play enhancement mods that bottle necking shifted away. I play quite a few games using NVidia's 3D Vision and thus the requirement for two 780's. So a 4.8Ghz 8350 won't bottle neck a 780 during normal gameplay, though I'm pretty sure I can twist a bunch of dials and pull some levers to get it to do so.

You know what? You get the best answer. I've been trying to say exactly what you're saying this whole time, yet some people very stubbornly refuse to listen to the idea, which is really annoying since we're basing our conclusions off of personal experience rather than silly, unrealistic benchmarks. I care little about receiving the best answer, I just want this thread to be resolved with a proper, factual answer. It's game dependent, but it can certainly become a source of bottlenecking. Exactly.

 

[nikoli707]

i agree… bottlenecking is subjective. on a game like skyrim a 3970x running at 4.8ghz and a single 660ti will run considerably higher fps than a fx6300 and sli 780ti's. it really depends on how the game is coded. is it really a bottleneck.. i don't know. both setups will run 60fps minimum on the vanilla game so its doubtful anyone would notice gameplay differences until mods are introduced to shift the burden onto the gpu. there are users running sli 780's and unlocked 6 core intel processors with crazy mods on 4k monitors and can only get 30fps in skyrim. if modded to the extreme… skyrim is by far the most intensive game one can throw at a computer… much more than crysis 3. but i imagine this also has to do with the poor optimization of the game engine as well. personally for me… if you not playing on 3 monitors or you don't have a 1440/1600p monitor… the 780/290 are overkill. if you can afford triple monitors or a 1440p monitor and a 290, then i would assume you can afford an 8350 also so for me the 6300 doesn't fit a high end budget anyways. you can always resell the 6300 and throw an 8350 in there down the line anyways.

 

[Darkresurrection]

i agree… bottlenecking is subjective. on a game like skyrim a 3970x running at 4.8ghz and a single 660ti will run considerably higher fps than a fx6300 and sli 780ti's. it really depends on how the game is coded. is it really a bottleneck.. i don't know. both setups will run 60fps minimum on the vanilla game so its doubtful anyone would notice gameplay differences until mods are introduced to shift the burden onto the gpu. there are users running sli 780's and unlocked 6 core intel processors with crazy mods on 4k monitors and can only get 30fps in skyrim. if modded to the extreme… skyrim is by far the most intensive game one can throw at a computer… much more than crysis 3. but i imagine this also has to do with the poor optimization of the game engine as well. personally for me… if you not playing on 3 monitors or you don't have a 1440/1600p monitor… the 780/290 are overkill. if you can afford triple monitors or a 1440p monitor and a 290, then i would assume you can afford an 8350 also so for me the 6300 doesn't fit a high end budget anyways. you can always resell the 6300 and throw an 8350 in there down the line anyways.

In skyrim cpu is not the bottleneck, the software fails to use more cores so software is the bottleneck, not the CPU! and even in skyrim, the OP can tweak .ini so that the game can use more cores

 

[palladin9479]

In skyrim cpu is not the bottleneck, the software fails to use more cores so software is the bottleneck, not the CPU! and even in skyrim, the OP can tweak .ini so that the game can use more cores

Yes and no. Skyrim's default configuration is infected with consolietis, or didn't anyone notice the entire UI is configured for a 360 controller. Because of this it's main game engine is absolute crap, OR Crysis level crap. It will stress a single core on your CPU and the rest are lightly loaded. You can expand the number of cores it'll utilize but if there is no extra work to be done then it simply won't do it and still be stressing that single core. The trick is in the modding, there are tons of mods that lots of useful features. Notably better more dynamic lighting, better texturing and lots of NPC and battle enhancements. That ends up doing two things, placing more of a load on the GPU, and expanding the number of additional things that the engine needs to do on those additional unused cores. It's one of those cases where the game was capable of so much more but the developers handicapped it so that PC players would get the exact same "experience" as the console players.

 

[-Fran-]

It's one of those cases where the game was capable of so much more but the developers handicapped it so that PC players would get the exact same "experience" as the console players.

Totally off topic... I'll play devil's advocate here and say that, Skyrim wouldn't have "consolitis" if people would play in their PCs. This is just like the "people gets the governments they deserve"; there's a big un-balance between the amount of consoles and gaming PCs (for a lot of reasons, yes) so Devs put their budget where the dollars are.

So, they might have the money to make a great XB360 game, but a horrible port (usually in hands of a second, lower budget, studio) is because of the same people buying Consoles instead of making people buy gaming PCs.

Hypocrisy and full circles, I love it!

Cheers!

 

[sourodip]

Ok, the thread has been solved.