I have an Amd Fx 6300 CPU and a GTX 960 Graphics card. My question is if buying the AMD Fx 8350 is worth getting more FPS than

[MrMuffin]

I have an Amd Fx 6300 CPU and a GTX 960 Graphics card. My question is if buying the AMD Fx 8350 is worth getting because I feel like my Graphics should have more FPS than what it is

( I can run Far Cry 4 on low at 40 Fps and can run Skyrim at about 45 with an ENB)

 

[Justkeeplookin]

I guess so but if your Intrested an i5 4460 or 3770k will crush the FX 6300.

But what comes with the FX 8350 is more heat and more power usage but some speed increase. As you are right you should be getting better FPS than that

 

[cemerian]

it wont give you more performance. the higher clock speed will help a bit, but games depend on strong single core performance more and amd don't have a single product out there that could compete in gaming with intel, like above i5 4460 would give you a lot more performance, so no buying a fx 8350 is totally not worth it, i would suggest a platform change

 

[TheConsiderateIlliterate]

8350 vs 6300 - head to head http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=697

Most of the benchmarks are not games but there are I believe 4 at the bottom to give you a rough idea of you gains.

You'll have gains, but nothing that will blow your socks off your feet. On the bright side, you can keep your motherboard.

Do I think it's worth it? No. You're better off saving up and making "the switch" to Intel.

 

[maddogfargo]

What motherboard do you have, and will it support the FX 8 core or even overclocking the FX 6 core?

The FX series are meant to be overclocked. And they run great when you do so. If you're hitting a CPU bottleneck, try an OC first. Make sure you have good cooling.

Good budget air cooler for the FX 6300 = Cooler master Hyper 212 EVO. You can manage 4.4-4.5GHz with that.

You'll want a better cooler for the FX 8350. I'd recommend a Noctua NH-D14 or D15, Phanteks TC14PE if you have the room in your case, or a Corsair H100i/H110 or better, depending on whether you have 2x120mm or 2x140mm fan mounts on top.

FX 6300 with a moderate OC is a good match for the 960.

FX 8350 with a moderate OC maxed my Gigabyte G1 970 well before the CPU was maxed. On a 990FX board, the FX 8350 + Crossfire or SLI will scale up well and perform very close to a more expensive i7 setup.

But you do not need a 990FX board to overclock. If you are going to stay with 1 GPU, Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is a great overclocking board for the FX series.

 

[ThanatosFX]

You will not get more FPS by upgrading to an 8350, games don't use more than 3 or 4 cores trust me, that 6300 is more than enough for gaming if you want more FPS upgrade the GPU.

 

[maddogfargo]

it wont give you more performance. the higher clock speed will help a bit, but games depend on strong single core performance more and amd don't have a single product out there that could compete in gaming with intel, like above i5 4460 would give you a lot more performance, so no buying a fx 8350 is totally not worth it, i would suggest a platform change

You will not get more FPS by upgrading to an 8350, games don't use more than 3 or 4 cores trust me, that 6300 is more than enough for gaming if you want more FPS upgrade the GPU.

These statements are true of OLD games.

Modern/current releases with multithreaded engines run great on AMD and Intel alike. Many will use all CPU cores. On these titles, the FPS difference between Intel and AMD is single digit, and sometimes AMD even wins a few. So it really just boils down to preference or what platform you like better at this point.

 

[Justkeeplookin]

Thats the thing with AMD i don't completely like. Air temps when OCing on AMD aren't that high as AMD CPU's produce more heat than some Intel Products. You can go farther on air on Intel even with stock coolers

 

[maddogfargo]

Thats the thing with AMD i don't completely like. Air temps when OCing on AMD aren't that high as AMD CPU's produce more heat than some Intel Products. You can go farther on air on Intel even with stock coolers

You can often get the FX 6300 and FX 8350 stable at stock speeds well below stock voltages. I just OC'd an FX 9590 that was stable at 4.7GHz @ 1.325v. That's the kind of voltage I'd expect from a Devil's Canyon i5 / i7, not an FX 9590.

Keep your OC target for voltage and GHz under control and heat will not be an issue.

 

[cemerian]

it wont give you more performance. the higher clock speed will help a bit, but games depend on strong single core performance more and amd don't have a single product out there that could compete in gaming with intel, like above i5 4460 would give you a lot more performance, so no buying a fx 8350 is totally not worth it, i would suggest a platform change

You will not get more FPS by upgrading to an 8350, games don't use more than 3 or 4 cores trust me, that 6300 is more than enough for gaming if you want more FPS upgrade the GPU.

These statements are true of OLD games.

Modern/current releases with multithreaded engines run great on AMD and Intel alike. Many will use all CPU cores. On these titles, the FPS difference between Intel and AMD is single digit, and sometimes AMD even wins a few. So it really just boils down to preference or what platform you like better at this point.

name 10 games that came out in 2014 and that use more than2-3 threads,also every single mmo/rts/online game still is single thread/ipc dependent,so no
he has only two option either overclock the current cpu to around 4,7-5.0ghz or go for intel i5 or i3(from expierience i 3 beat my old fx@5.2ghz in every single game even good damn crysis 3(which has the most optimized engine out there) ran better on i3) even

 

[eddieb101]

While the 8350 would be a worthy upgrade over the 6300 the fps increase would be marginal. You're better off saving some money and buying a better graphics card such as the gtx970 or R9 290 if you have the power supply to handle it

 

[Justkeeplookin]

Thats the thing with AMD i don't completely like. Air temps when OCing on AMD aren't that high as AMD CPU's produce more heat than some Intel Products. You can go farther on air on Intel even with stock coolers

You can often get the FX 6300 and FX 8350 stable at stock speeds well below stock voltages. I just OC'd an FX 9590 that was stable at 4.7GHz @ 1.325v. That's the kind of voltage I'd expect from a Devil's Canyon i5 / i7, not an FX 9590.

Keep your OC target for voltage and GHz under control and heat will not be an issue.

You do know you wasted your money on heat and extra power wasted? Me and my friend achieved 5.2 Ghz on a 8350 on Air still stable. Voltages were at 1.425, he ran it for a day and still not problems. THe 9590 has barely any room to overclock. With the heat wasted i can boil a cup of tea in 10 seconds if i remove the heat sink

 

[Justkeeplookin]

Actually guys for your info. Battlefield 4 is the only game that utilizes all cores to what i know. It also uses all threads

 

[Justkeeplookin]

Your better of with a Quad Core than i3's better go for an i5

 

[WhiteSnake91]

The money for an 8350 and motherboard that wouldn't throttle and air cooler and psu if yours isn't up to par... you could easily get an i5 setup(8350 is power hungry and throttles in cheap mobos)

i5 4440 and h81

I don't think paying more for z97/h97 to "upgrade" to broadwell for another wimpy ~6% improvement is worth it. You could get a Xeon 1230v3 and h81 mobo for the price an i5 and h97 mobo would cost.

Wow, you have to run Far Cry 4 on low? I mean I heard that game was unoptimized like AC Unity but wow....I figured it would scale well like FC3 did. The GTX 960 should at least play that thing comfy on high 1080p with no msaa on. At worst medium, but no way on low... the 960 kinda trades punches with the 7950/r9 280 so it's no slouch.


The 6300 is nice on a budget, but, being honest, it's a budget cpu.


I don't know why people spend more on an AMD setup for more electricity cost and weaker performance by getting the power hungry 8 core, expensive cpu cooler, and expensive motherboard that wouldn't throttle, when you can get a cool running i5 (or hell even i3 is no slouch...) for the same price.

No matter if we like it or not, still to this day all MMO are pretty much 1-2 core heavy, as well as most old games, and even current games will run decent on the overclocked Pentium g3258. An overclocked Pentium g3258 just matches a stock i3 performance though.

I have a phenom x6 at 3.5ghz, most I'm comfy with pushing it on this cheapo 760g board, and...eh...the performance is alright. Maybe only having a regular 7200rpm hdd is the bottleneck when multitasking but it's not as fast as I expected. I'm going to sell it and go mini itx intel g3258/i3 and 750ti. Power efficiency is a big concern for me with the AMD cpu's too. Not to mention their GPU "having" to clock way up and run hot and consume more power with simply using dual monitors when nvidia doesn't have this problem >_>


Something's wrong, no way the gtx 960 should be relegated to playing stuff on low...

I'd expect that in Skyrim though, it's 1-2 core heavy.


I'd suggest selling your 6300 and mobo and getting a haswell i3 and h81 mobo, or a used sandy bridge i5 and mobo is about the same price. Used sandy bridge locked i5s go for about $100 on ebay.

 

[Justkeeplookin]

First of all someone said they played B4 on a g3258 CPU maxed out they played on a single core OCed to 4.5 GHz. AMD has a higher price to performance ratio. I really see no problem in AMD except just reduce heat and power usage and make a smaller architecture, they'll have my money.

An Asrock Z77 Extreme4 is a nice motherboard for LGA-1155 sockets. Like your have. I think the Fx 6300 is bottlenecking the GTX 960

 

[Multimzain1]

The money for an 8350 and motherboard that wouldn't throttle and air cooler and psu if yours isn't up to par... you could easily get an i5 setup(8350 is power hungry and throttles in cheap mobos)

i5 4440 and h81

I don't think paying more for z97/h97 to "upgrade" to broadwell for another wimpy ~6% improvement is worth it. You could get a Xeon 1230v3 and h81 mobo for the price an i5 and h97 mobo would cost.

Wow, you have to run Far Cry 4 on low? I mean I heard that game was unoptimized like AC Unity but wow....I figured it would scale well like FC3 did. The GTX 960 should at least play that thing comfy on high 1080p with no msaa on. At worst medium, but no way on low... the 960 kinda trades punches with the 7950/r9 280 so it's no slouch.


The 6300 is nice on a budget, but, being honest, it's a budget cpu.


I don't know why people spend more on an AMD setup for more electricity cost and weaker performance by getting the power hungry 8 core, expensive cpu cooler, and expensive motherboard that wouldn't throttle, when you can get a cool running i5 (or hell even i3 is no slouch...) for the same price.

No matter if we like it or not, still to this day all MMO are pretty much 1-2 core heavy, as well as most old games, and even current games will run decent on the overclocked Pentium g3258. An overclocked Pentium g3258 just matches a stock i3 performance though.

I have a phenom x6 at 3.5ghz, most I'm comfy with pushing it on this cheapo 760g board, and...eh...the performance is alright. Maybe only having a regular 7200rpm hdd is the bottleneck when multitasking but it's not as fast as I expected. I'm going to sell it and go mini itx intel g3258/i3 and 750ti. Power efficiency is a big concern for me with the AMD cpu's too. Not to mention their GPU "having" to clock way up and run hot and consume more power with simply using dual monitors when nvidia doesn't have this problem >_>


Something's wrong, no way the gtx 960 should be relegated to playing stuff on low...

I'd expect that in Skyrim though, it's 1-2 core heavy.


I'd suggest selling your 6300 and mobo and getting a haswell i3 and h81 mobo, or a used sandy bridge i5 and mobo is about the same price. Used sandy bridge locked i5s go for about $100 on ebay.

games like battlefield are affected by the cores of the processor, for example in one of the missions in the campaign in battlefield, using a dual core processor will show you that the gate is automatically opened, however, using a quad core processor the gate is opened manually by one of the npcs in the game, its no big deal, but I am just saying

 

[WhiteSnake91]

Haven't been around much and just saw the notification, the OP never got back to us with any kind of tests or temps but from the get-go I assumed either the 6300 was throttling, they had a horrible mobo, horrible psu, or GPU was faulty or possibly even ram or HDD that was faulty. FC4 and Ubisoft games in general on PC are known to be pretty badly optimized. I've seen similar setups all over youtube play the game fine on 1080p high with the taxing msaa turned off. I even played a little of it on high with my old hd 7950 so something had to be up. This is an old topic from feb and the argument has been beat to death, but my point still stands it depends on what game you want. I have a fond spot in my heart for AMD, but they don't tend to get the best fps in the world in mmo, which is fine. I probably made my months earlier comment with a little haste as the OP never gave any indication of the brand of their parts or temps,etc. I definitely wouldn't go forward expecting to play stuff well with a pentium or i3, I consider an i5/8 core AMD the baseline for a "real" gaming pc, although the 6 core 6300 or even old Phenom x6 still hold up respectable in games when paired with a decent gpu. As time goes on because the consoles are multithreaded, you're going to see games needing more cpu. I've actually stayed away from recent AAA pc games because of requirements seeming to shoot up so much(i5 2500k being minimum now for games, as well as vram requirements shooting up)...but I guess that's a different story, hopefully dx12 helps fps, but after reading about all the windows 10 privacy issues and their TOS saying they can look at any folder or file of yours they want to, I'm not exactly wanting to move to windows 10 ...