GTX 970 With a FX 6300 ... Bottleneck? Help !

DayRider

Reputable
Mar 3, 2014
216
0
4,680
Hey guys !

I just bought a GTX 970 .. I have a GTX 660 at the moment and i just bought this card... i was SO Hyped till i realized it might be a bottleneck . Is there one ? And by how much ?? I plan on upgrading CPU to a i7 in a few months but will i notice a reasonable increase in FPS with a 970?

SPECS: FX 6300

8gb RAM

GTX 970

Win 10


Cheers


-Matt
 
Solution
To nip a few things in the bud, joshyboy & phononboy have covered most if it.

1. A stock 6300 WILL limit the upper fps on newer titles paired with a 970.
2. Overclocked to 4.2ghz you will net above 50fps solid in every title apart from a select few.
3. That GTA v bench is hopelessly outdated , updates allowed a lot better multi core use , you will rarely see a 6309 drop below 50fps at any time now.
4. Your 1366x768 monitor is a bigger 'bottleneck' - I use that term loosely , at 60fps you won't see above 60% usage- the benefits - it'll run incredibly cool & quiet & offers you headroom for the future, a 960 or 380 would have given you pretty much the same performance at that resolution though.

Put it in your system, enjoy it & stop...
Yes, you WILL notice a reasonable FPS increase with an i7,not much else to say. Take this snap as an example.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
like others have stated that card is too much for that cpu. going with an fx 8350 should give you slightly better performance over a core i5 3570k. so if you wanted to save money fotr the time being over building a new pc, then upgrading your existing pc to an fx 8350 would be the way to go.
 


a lot, most newer games will see you get ~40 fps average or lower


you can mitigate it a bit by overclocking the cpu, and turning down anything cpu intensive

but dont expect full usage from the 970 until you upgrade to an i5/i7


 


no, even overclocked it is still very weak


and no, an overclocked 8350 cant reach 60 fps average in gta5 for example


a lot of the newer games are showing the 8350 it's age



9E8eL8.png
 
ok so if it does slighty better than a 3570k then obv it is getting over 70fps on a game like gta 5. so i don't see how you can say it can't reach past 60 fps go look at spgamers benchmark its showing the 3570k pushing 70fps.
 




because EVERYONE that benchmarks gta5 SHOWS it averages ~40 fps ( there is going to be fps surges for short periods like when you look up at the sky, however it will usually sit at around ~40 fps )


see the graph i posted?



the 3570k should fall a little slower than a 4670k, it is a LOT better than a 6300
 
yet spgamer07 shows the 3570k pushing 70fps on very high settings in gta v using a gtx 970 gpu. so either the guy doing the benchmark youtube video comparing the fx 6300, i5 3570k and i7 6700k using a gtx 970 is bs or your graph is...
 
Can I just say that a bottleneck isn't a bad thing? Every computer has a bottleneck. The part that, when it's maxed out, happens first, and the other parts can't max out. It always happens. You're trying to reduce the spread in any build. I guess I don't understand the drama. Every game leverages the CPU or the GPU differently. If you free up the GPU bottleneck, then you know you're going to get better fps, and in games that hit the GPU hard, you'll be glad you have the 970. When you want games that need more CPU power to run faster, at least having the 970 isn't your concern. You treat the word "BOTTLENECK" like it's a ransomware.
 
@DayRider Before posting this response I had to give it some thought because I didn't want to be a kill-joy but.... if I were you I'd return the GTX 970 and wait a month or so for the GTX 1070, or whatever it'll be called. Worse case scenario is that it'll just a tad over a month to buy and perhaps it might initially cost $50 more. My advice goes out the window if you got a great deal on your current GTX 970. A more powerful Pascal variant (GTX 1070) won't improve the bottleneck, but will actually create a greater bottleneck or difference in performance between your CPU and GPU, but I say "So what?".
 
Corrections and tips:

1) Bottleneck amount VARIES significantly from minimal to around 40% (in comparison to what a good i5/i7 would do with same GTX970)

2) FX-8350 is not better than an i5-3570K except a few scenarios (if referring to Tek Syndicate's video that caused a stir then note they were doing software-based RECORDING so the extra cores of the FX-8350 helped... this confused a lot of people to this day)

3) Low res CPU bottleneck:
Raising the resolution MAY shift the bottleneck to the GPU, however the frame rate still drops. The CPU does more processing. The GPU does more processing. What happens in this scenario is that the GPU is required to do PROPORTIONALLY more processing by an amount that it now becomes the choke point and the CPU is no longer the weakest link.

4) Adjust the settings allows you to reach your frame rate goal. If for example, you want a solid 60FPS using VSYNC (60Hz monitor, don't want screen tearing) and drop to about 50FPS then adjust your settings.

5) NCP-> Adaptive VSYNC
This allows you to toggle VSYNC ON or OFF automatically. It's very useful. For example:

a) Game has screen tearing so want VSYNC ON
b) Start game and FRAPS (or Steam FPS monitor)
c) turn VSYNC OFF
d) Tweak game settings until you almost always stay above 60FPS (60Hz monitor)
e) force on Adaptive VSYNC (NCP-> Manage 3D settings-> add game.. save)
f) confirm you cap at 60FPS, and that you get occasional screen tearing

(Using VSYNC causes screen tear to be eliminated, however you will get STUTTERING due to mixed frame times if you drop below the FPS target. If the next frame isn't ready for the monitor to display then it waits for the next frame to be created so you can get a mixture of 1/60th second, 2/60th second or higher frame times which appear as a quick stuttering)

144Hz monitors-> use the "HALF" adaptive VSYNC method as appropriate (want VSYNC to avoid screen tear but can't maintain 144FPS)

Example game for Adaptive VSYNC (or Dynamic with AMD/radeon pro tool).
AC Brotherhood:
I could mostly hit 60FPS (60Hz monitor) solidly, but the game would occasionally have really annoying stuttering. Stuttering happens for several reasons, but in this case turning VSYNC off eliminated this particular stutter. However... screen tear was really, really bad most of the time.

So I had two choices:
a) drop settings even more to minimize drops below 60FPS, or
b) use Adaptive VSYNC and get occasional screen tear instead of stuttering

I applied Adaptive VSYNC, then later on dropped anti-aliasing down to 4xMSAA because screen tearing got too frequent. To me, this was the OPTIMAL setup for this game and my hardware.

(It will cause screen tear for pre-rendered videos if they are below the target such as 30FPS video and 60FPS game play. So don't apply this globally for all games. It will replace VSYNC in-game settings in most (all?) games like most NCP-> Manage 3D settings. I think it works even if game has no easy to access setting like VSYNC for Skyrim done via the config file. It works for some at least.

On a side note, a couple titles like F3, Fallout NV are much, much smoother using the ifpsclamp=60 fix)

Other:
- DX12 will help eliminate the CPU bottleneck when optimized correctly (more threads of CPU used, whilst using more efficient code)

- GSYNC (NVidia) or Freesync (AMD) asynchronous monitors are awesome though expensive. When prices drop, it may make sense to buy a MONITOR as your next upgrade instead of replacing your PC.

- replacing the CPU also means: motherboard, Windows, and possibly the DDR memory (i.e. DDR4). That can get quite expensive, so knowing how to TWEAK your games is pretty important as the same system can give a better EXPERIENCE.

- game tweaks or fixes. Here's an awesome site->
http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Category:Windows


Summary:
*The most important thing when starting a game is to set your tweaking GOAL then tweak to optimize that. Most people do not. That is:
VSYNC ON,
VSYNC OFF,
Adaptive VSYNC,
(or asynchronous mode for GSync/Freesync)

The CPU bottleneck again simply means you'll get lower frame rates in some games. You can still have a great experience, in fact for games you want to run at say 60FPS solidly on max or near-max settings a better CPU makes little difference.

Final summary:
#1 - set tweak goal
#2 - apply settings to reach goal
#3 - investigate other game fixes or tweaks (above PC gaming wiki or other)
#4 - re-tweak settings later in game if needed
 


a) we don't know pricing or reasonable delivery dates.
b) You give no actual BENEFIT for doing this, but state it may cost more. Um... huh?

(In reality it will benefit any scenario that isn't bottlenecked by the CPU or capped via VSYNC without dropping but that's not what you state here, you just said basically it may not help but "so what?").

My advice is ENJOY what you've got. Tweak to optimize your experience and worry about upgrading down the road. Possibly even an AMD Zen (14nm or similar) CPU if cost makes sense such as a 8C/16T which is 50% faster than an FX-8350 for $200USD.
 
To nip a few things in the bud, joshyboy & phononboy have covered most if it.

1. A stock 6300 WILL limit the upper fps on newer titles paired with a 970.
2. Overclocked to 4.2ghz you will net above 50fps solid in every title apart from a select few.
3. That GTA v bench is hopelessly outdated , updates allowed a lot better multi core use , you will rarely see a 6309 drop below 50fps at any time now.
4. Your 1366x768 monitor is a bigger 'bottleneck' - I use that term loosely , at 60fps you won't see above 60% usage- the benefits - it'll run incredibly cool & quiet & offers you headroom for the future, a 960 or 380 would have given you pretty much the same performance at that resolution though.

Put it in your system, enjoy it & stop worrying though , & yes the division at ultra is easily possible at that resolution.
 
Solution