Is it true that per-core performance is important for high end gaming?

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Should the fact become true, can I purchase a better AMD processor?

The reasons that let me chose AMD Processor:

1 - I use M5A99FX Pro R 2.0 which has AM3+ Socket.

2 - Price

I'm already using AMD FX 6300 with R9 270X. I can see FPS slightly drops at very few views like looking at the bright sun, seeing a bunch of plants sprouted over the rocks in Hitman Absolution. I'm expecting a perfection in it. Can I go with FX 8320 from which I believe the above mentioned issue can be put to an end?

 

[emdea22]

Yes, per core performance does matter a lot in poorly optimized games. Mantle and DX12 should solve that, until then for games like skyrim/CoD/starcraft 2 and others a fast intel cpu with high per core performance is the only way to go, or an heavily overclocked MAD 8350/6300/4300

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Yes, per core performance does matter a lot in poorly optimized games. Mantle and DX12 should solve that, until then for games like skyrim/CoD/starcraft 2 and others a fast intel cpu with high per core performance is the only way to go, or an heavily overclocked MAD 8350/6300/4300

In here, the price difference between 8350 and 8320 is pretty big. Will my performance IN GAMING get better when i go with 8320?

Edit: The performance, I meant in a way that the bottleneck must be drastically reduced and shouldn't face the problem that I stated above.

 

[Eduello]

Yes, per core performance does matter a lot in poorly optimized games. Mantle and DX12 should solve that, until then for games like skyrim/CoD/starcraft 2 and others a fast intel cpu with high per core performance is the only way to go, or an heavily overclocked MAD 8350/6300/4300

I never go under 60 fps in Skyrim with my PC so 'heavy overclocks' are not necessary.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Yes, per core performance does matter a lot in poorly optimized games. Mantle and DX12 should solve that, until then for games like skyrim/CoD/starcraft 2 and others a fast intel cpu with high per core performance is the only way to go, or an heavily overclocked MAD 8350/6300/4300

I never go under 60 fps in Skyrim with my PC so 'heavy overclocks' are not necessary.

I am not able to get the answer yet. Can I go with fx 8320?

 

[Vitric9]

Well It does and it does not. the PS4 uses a about 1.6Ghz on 6 of 8 AMD jaguar( similar to piledriver) cores for games
Note: Consoles have a much lower level 3D API.
For most DX11 games a fast i5 is great. If you ever use Hwinfo you can see each core performance in game. I have seen Most games put Most of the load on 1 core. so it may look like Core 0 90%, core 1 75%, core 2 40%, core 3 20% Just throwing number out but that is the case in many titles....Though Bf4 is the exception as it can make better use of More Cores from AMD FX 8300 processors.

 

[Eduello]

Yes, per core performance does matter a lot in poorly optimized games. Mantle and DX12 should solve that, until then for games like skyrim/CoD/starcraft 2 and others a fast intel cpu with high per core performance is the only way to go, or an heavily overclocked MAD 8350/6300/4300

I never go under 60 fps in Skyrim with my PC so 'heavy overclocks' are not necessary.

I am not able to get the answer yet. Can I go with fx 8320?

Yes, you can. It can run all modern games more than well enough.

 

[Plusthinking Iq]

almost every single game to date is single or 2 core dependant. a i5 4670 is about how high end you can get and its cheap.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Well It does and it does not. the PS4 uses a about 1.6Ghz on 6 of 8 AMD jaguar( similar to piledriver) cores for games
Note: Consoles have a much lower level 3D API.
For most DX11 games a fast i5 is great. If you ever use Hwinfo you can see each core performance in game. I have seen Most games put Most of the load on 1 core. so it may look like Core 0 90%, core 1 75%, core 2 40%, core 3 20% Just throwing number out but that is the case in many titles....Though Bf4 is the exception as it can make better use of More Cores from AMD FX 8300 processors.

Buying FX processor just for BF4 is as crazy as hell. So, can I go forward to buy 8320 FX?... I wish the above stated issue be removed from my pc forever and that's my ultimate target.

 

[Eduello]

Just to make this clear: Yes, Intel processors are better in all games that use no more than 4 cores, but the difference is usually between 100 and 150 fps; You will be limited by your GPU well before that.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

almost every single game to date is single or 2 core dependant. a i5 4670 is about how high end you can get and its cheap.

True, it's affordable but if I opt for this processor, there would be a mandate for me to change my motherboard which makes my wallet empty.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Just to make this clear: Yes, Intel processors are better in all games that use no more than 4 cores, but the difference is usually between 100 and 150 fps; You will be limited by your GPU well before that.

Yes, I can understand this point. On the other hand, you've suggested me before that I can go with FX 8320 but will it be a worth upgrade from 6300 IN GAMING? As I said in above posts, the slight fps drips while playing games in ultra settings have to be gone.

 

[Eduello]

Just to make this clear: Yes, Intel processors are better in all games that use no more than 4 cores, but the difference is usually between 100 and 150 fps; You will be limited by your GPU well before that.

Yes, I can understand this point. You've suggested me before that I can go with FX 8320 but will it be a worth upgrade from 6300 IN GAMING? As I said in above posts, the slight fps drips while playing games in ultra settings have to be gone.

Sorry, I missed that. Are you saying you're playing BF4 on ultra with that GPU? My setup can't handle BF4 on ultra without massive fps drops (even though I get an average of easily over 40fps) simply because the game has really, really bad optimization.

Do these drops happen on lower settings? If yes, then it's the CPU at fault. If not, the GPU is the one to blame.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Just to make this clear: Yes, Intel processors are better in all games that use no more than 4 cores, but the difference is usually between 100 and 150 fps; You will be limited by your GPU well before that.

Yes, I can understand this point. You've suggested me before that I can go with FX 8320 but will it be a worth upgrade from 6300 IN GAMING? As I said in above posts, the slight fps drips while playing games in ultra settings have to be gone.

Sorry, I missed that. Are you saying you're playing BF4 on ultra with that GPU? My setup can't handle BF4 on ultra without massive fps drops (even though I get an average of easily over 40fps) simply because the game has really, really bad optimization.

Do these drops happen on lower settings? If yes, then it's the CPU at fault. If not, the GPU is the one to blame.

Let me make this clear. Just awhile ago, I was playing HITMAN ABSOLUTION in ULTRA settings. This card R9 270x with fx 6300 and M5A99FX Pro R2.0 played very well in it. It looked way better than consoles. But I noticed something while game-play. I observe that there is a slight FPS drop at VERY VERY few spots like looking into bright sun or seeing a bunch of plants. I don't want that to be happening. So, I have decided to upgrade my AMD processor from 6300 to 8320. By doing this, will above specified problem be vanished forever? As a fact, even in TOMB RAIDER, I could see the same issue. Overall, my mind says that this could be a bottleneck problem.

 

[Eduello]

Yes, but we need to know what is causing the bottleneck. If it's caused by the GPU, there's no point in upgrading the CPU.

So, does this still keep happening if you turn down the settings?

 

[Rationale]

Well, considering an i3 outperforms an FX-6300 in most games... I'd say core per core performance matters a lot.

However, you'd get better performance for the cost from overclocking your FX-6300 than you would from switching to an FX-8320. Most games can't use even close to 8 cores, and core per core the FX-6300 is just as fast [slow] as the FX-8320.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Yes, but we need to know what is causing the bottleneck. If it's caused by the GPU, there's no point in upgrading the CPU.

So, does this still keep happening if you turn down the settings?

A good question.
1. The video settings are always kept @ ultra level.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Ca1UKEGwU
Look at this video. I have the same kind of graphic settings. But from 2:59 to 3:20, I have the issue in my computer. A slight difference in graphic performance is visible in my PC. The person who uploaded this video has intel i5 - 2500. What came to my mind is buying the same kind of processor but unfortunately, I have to change my motherboard for it as the current one has AM3+ socket.

3. Should FX 8320 upgrade cannot resolve my problem, shall I go with Intel i3 - 3210 and Asus H67 Chipset motherboard?

Note: I am really sorry if I'm confusing you a lot.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Well, considering an i3 outperforms an FX-6300 in most games... I'd say core per core performance matters a lot.

However, you'd get better performance for the cost from overclocking your FX-6300 than you would from switching to an FX-8320. Most games can't use even close to 8 cores, and core per core the FX-6300 is just as fast [slow] as the FX-8320.

Oh, that's great. I have never done overclocking before, to be frankly said. Can you direct me to a tutorial web page where I can learn overclocking my fx 6300.

 

[Eduello]

Well you could buy a CPU cooler like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo and overclock the FX 6300, that might help and it would definitely be a lot cheaper.

EDIT: Seems this answer came a bit too late.

 

[Eduello]

Well, considering an i3 outperforms an FX-6300 in most games... I'd say core per core performance matters a lot.

However, you'd get better performance for the cost from overclocking your FX-6300 than you would from switching to an FX-8320. Most games can't use even close to 8 cores, and core per core the FX-6300 is just as fast [slow] as the FX-8320.

Oh, that's great. I have never done overclocking before, to be frankly said. Can you direct me to a tutorial web page where I can learn overclocking my fx 6300.

This should work with your setup as well.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1140459/bulldozer-overclocking-guide-performance-scaling-charts-max-ocs-ln2-results-coming

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Well you could buy a CPU cooler like the Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo and overclock the FX 6300, that might help and it would definitely be a lot cheaper.

EDIT: Seems this answer came a bit too late.

Yes I thought of this when Rationale stated it in above post and it's okay if it came late but did you check the reply I've made above to your post? Please look into that too.

 

[Eduello]

It seems you were late this time around Look at my previous answer.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

Well, considering an i3 outperforms an FX-6300 in most games... I'd say core per core performance matters a lot.

However, you'd get better performance for the cost from overclocking your FX-6300 than you would from switching to an FX-8320. Most games can't use even close to 8 cores, and core per core the FX-6300 is just as fast [slow] as the FX-8320.

Oh, that's great. I have never done overclocking before, to be frankly said. Can you direct me to a tutorial web page where I can learn overclocking my fx 6300.

This should work with your setup as well.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1140459/bulldozer-overclocking-guide-performance-scaling-charts-max-ocs-ln2-results-coming

Thank you so much. I am thinking to proceed with this but still I haven't received a reply from the questions that I posted above. If you have missed them, let me post it again for you and they are as follows -

A good question.
1. The video settings are always kept @ ultra level.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Ca1UKEGwU
Look at this video. I have the same kind of graphic settings. But from 2:59 to 3:20, I have the issue in my computer. A slight difference in graphic performance is visible in my PC. The person who uploaded this video has intel i5 - 2500. What came to my mind is buying the same kind of processor but unfortunately, I have to change my motherboard for it as the current one has AM3+ socket.

3. Should FX 8320 upgrade cannot resolve my problem, shall I go with Intel i3 - 3210 and Asus H67 Chipset motherboard?

Note: I am really sorry if I'm confusing you a lot.

 

[MostWantedSoulRider]

It seems you were late this time around Look at my previous answer.

Lol. okay.

Edit: Sorry again but I think you missed out those 3 points. Look just above this post. And in the meantime, I will be looking into that overclocking guide ^_^

 

[Eduello]

1. It sure seems like the CPU is being the bottleneck here...

3. Well going to a 3th gen i3 would maybe help with some games, but in games like BF4 it would actually be a downgrade.

If you do end up getting an Intel CPU, get at least a 4th gen i5, otherwise the upgrade isn't going to be significant.