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]

Shouldn't bottleneck too much. Maybe to 4.2?

What's your motherboard? And do you have an aftermarket CPU cooler?

 

[Thomas Read]

I have a 960GM-GS3 FX motherboard, it's kinda sh*t but at the time I was cutting costs. And my aftermath cooler is an hyper 212 evo

 

[sourodip]

Yeah you have a well known decent cooler, the 6300 is likely to bottleneck a 290 but if u can push the 6300 to 4.2-4.5 then the bottleneck would be minimal.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Significantly depending on the game. I absolutely despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock, and they say so based on zero experience. I have a GTX 770, noteably less powerful than an R9 290, as well as an FX-6300 OC'ed to 4.2 GHz, and while on certain games my frame rate never drops and my GPU is constantly working at maximum potential because the game is more GPU bound than anything else (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Alan Wake) on other games the FX-6300 will create a very noticeable bottleneck since these games are CPU Bound (Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, Skyrim).

On the CPU bound side of things, Crysis 1 is hell. I've heard other people with an FX-6300 say otherwise but it's simply not happening for me. While monitoring GPU usage I can clearly tell that something is amiss since my GPU usage is constantly low in Crysis 1 and my frame rate jumps anywhere from 25 - 40 fps. In Borderlands 2 I'm usually at least close to 60, but there will be certain areas that just plummet me to as low as 30 fps (and in Borderlands 2, 30 fps looks awful). In Skyrim, I'm almost always at 60 fps with occasional bouts to 45. All of this due to bottlenecking. I'm also overclocked to a very stable 4.2 GHz and it's done very little to remove these instances of low frame rate. At most I've gained 4 - 8 fps through overclocking to 4.2 GHz, so you should know this for certain: Disregard what anyone says, especially those who do not speak from experience: The FX-6300's bottlenecking will not be "minimal" simply because you overclock. It will be there, and it will be painfully noticeable.

In other words, with some games you won't get any perceivable bottlenecking because either the games will be GPU bound, and hence the GPU will maximize it's potential first, or the FX-6300 will only start bottlenecking your GPU above 60 fps so you won't notice it anyway. However, in other games, you'll notice a lot of frame drops of varying magnitudes, mostly with open world games which are usually more CPU bound.

 

[nikoli707]

personally i wouldn't run anything higher than a 770/280x on a 6300. for me if i can afford a 780/290… i can afford to get an 8350/4670k.

 

[sourodip]

ohh hoh..somehow unselected the current solution..what's this?

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

ohh hoh..somehow unselected the current solution..what's this?

Sorry, that was me. It's nothing personal in the slightest, it's just that I feel very uncomfortable with the misinformation spreading around that the FX-6300 is a decent CPU and that it won't bottleneck you if you merely overclock. That information is spread around too much, and it's simply not true. I have a multitude of games that are clearly and most assuredly performing poorly due to my FX-6300 @ 4.2 GHz not being able to keep up with my GTX 770. Off the top of my head there's Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Batman: Arkham City, ARMA II, Crysis Warhead, and others.

I was in a similar position when I first bought my setup in that people told me my rig shouldn't bottleneck if I overclocked, but it was incredibly disappointing to find out that my FX-6300 wasn't performing up to par at all. That said, most of the games which are bottlenecked don't perform awfully and are still very playable, but it's extremely annoying to find out you spend $400 on a GPU just to realize that your $120 CPU is causing your frame rate to drop to 30 fps every other time you make a movement.

 

[sourodip]

well i'm not misinforming, a 6300 can handle a 7970 when it's O.C'ed by nearly 10%, so it can handle a 290 when it is much more O.C'ed and it is not wise to show wiseness all the time and whether a 6300 can handle a 290 or not also depends on how much cooling ur pc gets.
And yes mr.wise(Deus), i didn't said that a fx6300 will not bottleneck a 290 but i said to O.C it so as to make the bottleneck as minimal as possible.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

I believe what you said was "if u can push the 6300 to 4.2-4.5 then the bottleneck would be minimal". That's not true. The bottleneck will not be "minimal" at all, and what do you mean by "handle a 7970"? Perhaps we should each list our own definition of bottlenecking, because when I refer to bottlenecking I refer to any instance where an application is held back by the CPU where the GPU should be capable of performing better, or for realistic purposes, anytime that a GPU should be capable of hitting a consistent 60 fps but is not able to due to the limitations of the CPU. So when you say that a 6300 can "handle" a 7970, what do you mean? Because it certainly sounds off to me that in a CPU bound game with a 7970 and a 6300 you're getting a consistent 60 fps.

UPDATE: In addition, my PC gets very adequate cooling. My CPU temps under load never exceed 54 degrees and I've passed a 24 hour stress test with my FX-6300 at 4.2 GHz. Also, there's a huge difference in performance between an HD 7970 and an R9 290.

 

[JOOK-D]

Significantly depending on the game. I absolutely despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock, and they say so based on zero experience. I have a GTX 770, noteably less powerful than an R9 290, as well as an FX-6300 OC'ed to 4.2 GHz, and while on certain games my frame rate never drops and my GPU is constantly working at maximum potential because the game is more GPU bound than anything else (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Alan Wake) on other games the FX-6300 will create a very noticeable bottleneck since these games are CPU Bound (Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, Skyrim).

On the CPU bound side of things, Crysis 1 is hell. I've heard other people with an FX-6300 say otherwise but it's simply not happening for me. While monitoring GPU usage I can clearly tell that something is amiss since my GPU usage is constantly low in Crysis 1 and my frame rate jumps anywhere from 25 - 40 fps. In Borderlands 2 I'm usually at least close to 60, but there will be certain areas that just plummet me to as low as 30 fps (and in Borderlands 2, 30 fps looks awful). In Skyrim, I'm almost always at 60 fps with occasional bouts to 45. All of this due to bottlenecking. I'm also overclocked to a very stable 4.2 GHz and it's done very little to remove these instances of low frame rate. At most I've gained 4 - 8 fps through overclocking to 4.2 GHz, so you should know this for certain: Disregard what anyone says, especially those who do not speak from experience: The FX-6300's bottlenecking will not be "minimal" simply because you overclock. It will be there, and it will be painfully noticeable.

In other words, with some games you won't get any perceivable bottlenecking because either the games will be GPU bound, and hence the GPU will maximize it's potential first, or the FX-6300 will only start bottlenecking your GPU above 60 fps so you won't notice it anyway. However, in other games, you'll notice a lot of frame drops of varying magnitudes, mostly with open world games which are usually more CPU bound.

I've owned an FX 6300 and a 7970 (EDIT: just saw your recent post) for testing and I didn't experience any bottlenecking. So if you were referring to me, then no. Of course it's game dependent - I was simply saying for the most part, no.

But if your experience (extensive use) is different then OK, I stand corrected.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

Significantly depending on the game. I absolutely despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock, and they say so based on zero experience. I have a GTX 770, noteably less powerful than an R9 290, as well as an FX-6300 OC'ed to 4.2 GHz, and while on certain games my frame rate never drops and my GPU is constantly working at maximum potential because the game is more GPU bound than anything else (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Alan Wake) on other games the FX-6300 will create a very noticeable bottleneck since these games are CPU Bound (Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, Skyrim).

On the CPU bound side of things, Crysis 1 is hell. I've heard other people with an FX-6300 say otherwise but it's simply not happening for me. While monitoring GPU usage I can clearly tell that something is amiss since my GPU usage is constantly low in Crysis 1 and my frame rate jumps anywhere from 25 - 40 fps. In Borderlands 2 I'm usually at least close to 60, but there will be certain areas that just plummet me to as low as 30 fps (and in Borderlands 2, 30 fps looks awful). In Skyrim, I'm almost always at 60 fps with occasional bouts to 45. All of this due to bottlenecking. I'm also overclocked to a very stable 4.2 GHz and it's done very little to remove these instances of low frame rate. At most I've gained 4 - 8 fps through overclocking to 4.2 GHz, so you should know this for certain: Disregard what anyone says, especially those who do not speak from experience: The FX-6300's bottlenecking will not be "minimal" simply because you overclock. It will be there, and it will be painfully noticeable.

In other words, with some games you won't get any perceivable bottlenecking because either the games will be GPU bound, and hence the GPU will maximize it's potential first, or the FX-6300 will only start bottlenecking your GPU above 60 fps so you won't notice it anyway. However, in other games, you'll notice a lot of frame drops of varying magnitudes, mostly with open world games which are usually more CPU bound.

I've owned an FX 6300 and a 7970 (EDIT: just saw your recent post) for testing and I didn't experience any bottlenecking. So if you were referring to me, then no. Of course it's game dependent - I was simply saying for the most part, no.

But if your experience (extensive use) is different then OK, I stand corrected.

Just curious, what games did you play with your 6300 and 7970 setup, because for some games I don't see bottlenecking at all, and for some games I do. So which games were you playing?

 

[JOOK-D]

Significantly depending on the game. I absolutely despise when people make assumptions that the FX-6300 won't bottleneck if you merely overclock, and they say so based on zero experience. I have a GTX 770, noteably less powerful than an R9 290, as well as an FX-6300 OC'ed to 4.2 GHz, and while on certain games my frame rate never drops and my GPU is constantly working at maximum potential because the game is more GPU bound than anything else (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, Alan Wake) on other games the FX-6300 will create a very noticeable bottleneck since these games are CPU Bound (Crysis 1, Borderlands 2, Skyrim).

On the CPU bound side of things, Crysis 1 is hell. I've heard other people with an FX-6300 say otherwise but it's simply not happening for me. While monitoring GPU usage I can clearly tell that something is amiss since my GPU usage is constantly low in Crysis 1 and my frame rate jumps anywhere from 25 - 40 fps. In Borderlands 2 I'm usually at least close to 60, but there will be certain areas that just plummet me to as low as 30 fps (and in Borderlands 2, 30 fps looks awful). In Skyrim, I'm almost always at 60 fps with occasional bouts to 45. All of this due to bottlenecking. I'm also overclocked to a very stable 4.2 GHz and it's done very little to remove these instances of low frame rate. At most I've gained 4 - 8 fps through overclocking to 4.2 GHz, so you should know this for certain: Disregard what anyone says, especially those who do not speak from experience: The FX-6300's bottlenecking will not be "minimal" simply because you overclock. It will be there, and it will be painfully noticeable.

In other words, with some games you won't get any perceivable bottlenecking because either the games will be GPU bound, and hence the GPU will maximize it's potential first, or the FX-6300 will only start bottlenecking your GPU above 60 fps so you won't notice it anyway. However, in other games, you'll notice a lot of frame drops of varying magnitudes, mostly with open world games which are usually more CPU bound.

I've owned an FX 6300 and a 7970 (EDIT: just saw your recent post) for testing and I didn't experience any bottlenecking. So if you were referring to me, then no. Of course it's game dependent - I was simply saying for the most part, no.

But if your experience (extensive use) is different then OK, I stand corrected.

Just curious, what games did you play with your 6300 and 7970 setup, because for some games I don't see bottlenecking at all, and for some games I do. So which games were you playing?

It was a while ago - some of the source games, arma III, GTA IV (what a waste of time), various DiRT titles, BF3. And probably quite a few more.

I think experiencing a bottleneck and seeing a bottleneck could be defined as different things. If you're on a 60Hz monitor then experiencing a bottleneck could be getting FPS drops but you're always above 60 and you don't [is]see[/i] it, whereas seeing it could be being above 60 and getting drops below it, and seeing poorer framerates.

Then again, at the time I had no other CPU to compare it to, to see whether there actually was a bottleneck. So your experience is probably much more valid.

 

[guggi4]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

I define bottleneck as just experiencing drops below 60 when the GPU should be capable of maintaining that 60. Technically speaking it's nearly impossible for there not to be a true bottleneck. For example, pretend that on some arbitrary, CPU bound game the GTX 780 Ti should be capable of, let's say, 150 fps when paired with an i7-3970X. But let's now say you have an i5-4670k instead. With an i5-4670k, we'll say that the overall frame rate is only maintained at 125 fps with the GTX 780 Ti. So of course in that case, you can say that there's a bottleneck. However, for real purposes I like to keep this theoretical benchmark at 60 since most people, even those with a 120 Hz monitor, have a 60 fps goal in mind. I think that this is especially true for consumers such as the OP, as well as the many who indeed will google search "will an FX-6300 bottleneck such-and-such". For my real purposes, I'd say the answer is yes because I do indeed have the bottleneck occur such that the overall fps is well below my 60 fps mark for my minimum and for my average.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

Yea exactly. I have the exact same thing for those games as well (except Tomb Raider since I don't own it) but for BF3 and CS:S it's the same thing, I literally never drop below 60 or even close to it on CS:S, and on BF3 there was literally only a single time that I remember notice dropping below 60. But then there's the games which have poorly thought up algorithms that maximize the time needed for a CPU to execute a program, and while this effects every CPU it effects the ones at the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. the FX-6300, a lot more. Either that or they take advantage of one CPU architecture over another (e.g. Intel over AMD).

 

[JOOK-D]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

I love how you put "Don't buy a MSI 970 board" :lol: I'm sure we've all been there with blunder purchases.

 

[JOOK-D]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

Yea exactly. I have the exact same thing for those games as well (except Tomb Raider since I don't own it) but for BF3 and CS:S it's the same thing, I literally never drop below 60 or even close to it on CS:S, and on BF3 there was literally only a single time that I remember notice dropping below 60. But then there's the games which have poorly thought up algorithms that maximize the time needed for a CPU to execute a program, and while this effects every CPU it effects the ones at the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. the FX-6300, a lot more. Either that or they take advantage of one CPU architecture over another (e.g. Intel over AMD).

CS:S uses the same engine as TF2 + Gmod, correct? Could I ask what kind of FPS you get in those games? Been wondering whether mine are normal recently. Or just your CS:S avg. and min. FPS. Cheers.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

Yea exactly. I have the exact same thing for those games as well (except Tomb Raider since I don't own it) but for BF3 and CS:S it's the same thing, I literally never drop below 60 or even close to it on CS:S, and on BF3 there was literally only a single time that I remember notice dropping below 60. But then there's the games which have poorly thought up algorithms that maximize the time needed for a CPU to execute a program, and while this effects every CPU it effects the ones at the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. the FX-6300, a lot more. Either that or they take advantage of one CPU architecture over another (e.g. Intel over AMD).

CS:S uses the same engine as TF2 + Gmod, correct? Could I ask what kind of FPS you get in those games? Been wondering whether mine are normal recently. Or just your CS:S avg. and min. FPS. Cheers.

Yepp, it does use the same engine. Let's all just take a second to appreciate how genius the guys at Valve are. Seriously, if you've ever programmed, you know how hard it can be to come up with efficient code, let alone code as efficient as that for an entire game engine! Anyway, I certainly get somewhere around the 150 - 250 fps range for those games though I can't tell you the exact numbers. That's just a guess from when I last played it on my desktop at home, which is unfortunately not accessible to me since I go to College a state away.

 

[JOOK-D]

My 2c:
It REALLY depends on the games. From my experience: tomb raider at ultimate always 99% GPU use, no bottleneck. Bf3 at 64 maps: lowest GPU usage ~90-95%, but framedrops with 99% GPU usage at heavy action, so more or less no bottleneck. Cs:go 80-90% GPU usage at ultra with 8x as, but constant >120fps, no problem. Lol: all maps 80+ fps at 25-40%, except aram map: drops to 30 fps ( but its known to be bad coded, its the smallest map and should be the least taxing one)
Thats my experience with the rig in my signature.

Yea exactly. I have the exact same thing for those games as well (except Tomb Raider since I don't own it) but for BF3 and CS:S it's the same thing, I literally never drop below 60 or even close to it on CS:S, and on BF3 there was literally only a single time that I remember notice dropping below 60. But then there's the games which have poorly thought up algorithms that maximize the time needed for a CPU to execute a program, and while this effects every CPU it effects the ones at the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. the FX-6300, a lot more. Either that or they take advantage of one CPU architecture over another (e.g. Intel over AMD).

CS:S uses the same engine as TF2 + Gmod, correct? Could I ask what kind of FPS you get in those games? Been wondering whether mine are normal recently. Or just your CS:S avg. and min. FPS. Cheers.

Yepp, it does use the same engine. Let's all just take a second to appreciate how genius the guys at Valve are. Seriously, if you've ever programmed, you know how hard it can be to come up with efficient code, let alone code as efficient as that for an entire game engine! Anyway, I certainly get somewhere around the 150 - 250 fps range for those games though I can't tell you the exact numbers. That's just a guess from when I last played it on my desktop at home, which is unfortunately not accessible to me since I go to College a state away.

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.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Deus Gladiorum]

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?

 

[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! ;-)

 

[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.