Will an AMD fx 6300 bottleneck a Gtx 960?

[jyluk]

I am building a new gaming pc and i don´t know if an 6300 it´s kind of short for the gpu. Thx guys

 

[007agentHP]

dont get a 960, get a r9 280 which beats the 960 in every game
and yes, the 6300 wont bottleneck either the 960 or the 280

 

[Michael Clancy]

Get the 960, much better card than the 280, 280x isn't even close to a 960 why recommend a 280, the 285 is the only card in the price range that gives it a challenge.

The CPU is fine btw.

 

[TechyInAZ]

dont get a 960, get a r9 280 which beats the 960 in every game
and yes, the 6300 wont bottleneck either the 960 or the 280

Pretty much what he said.

However, the real advantage the gtx 960 has is efficiency, and feature set. So if you have a special feature nvidia has that you want, then get gtx 960.

That is the reason I got a GTX 750 ti over a R9 270X, because I wanted Nvidia PhysX.

 

[Sig2525]

Get the 960, much better card than the 280, 280x isn't even close to a 960 why recommend a 280, the 285 is the only card in the price range that gives it a challenge.

The CPU is fine btw.

you kidding? the 280x is the fastest among the r9 280 version - it delivers performance that matches with the gtx 770.

the gtx 960 is only on par with a 670 and slightly better than a 760.

but the gtx 960 does deliver performance at a much lower power consumption and has more new features

 

[mdocod]

The FX-6300 is a mediocre CPU for gaming no matter what GPU you choose.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

unless you want Nvidia features I'd get the r9 280 or r9 280x, the fx6300 is perfectly fine on a budget, there's plenty of videos all over youtube of it playing BF4 multiplayer on 1080p ultra with an r9 270x or gtx 760 level GPU.

I have the 1055t which is comparable, and at 3.5ghz I get in the high 40s as lows to capped at 60 in multiplayer 64 player with an hd 7870ghz on 1080p ultra (no msaa)

 

[That_one_guy2013]

unless you want Nvidia features I'd get the r9 280 or r9 280x, the fx6300 is perfectly fine on a budget, there's plenty of videos all over youtube of it playing BF4 multiplayer on 1080p ultra with an r9 270x or gtx 760 level GPU.

I have the 1055t which is comparable, and at 3.5ghz I get in the high 40s as lows to capped at 60 in multiplayer 64 player with an hd 7870ghz on 1080p ultra (no msaa)

BF4 isnt fair to use due to the optimization bonus AMD got with BF4 and DICE.

I choose nvidia for power efficiency, heat issues, and better customer experience. Worth it for 5 FPS in many cases.

 

[nekulturny]

unless you want Nvidia features I'd get the r9 280 or r9 280x, the fx6300 is perfectly fine on a budget, there's plenty of videos all over youtube of it playing BF4 multiplayer on 1080p ultra with an r9 270x or gtx 760 level GPU.

I have the 1055t which is comparable, and at 3.5ghz I get in the high 40s as lows to capped at 60 in multiplayer 64 player with an hd 7870ghz on 1080p ultra (no msaa)

BF4 isnt fair to use due to the optimization bonus AMD got with BF4 and DICE.

I choose nvidia for power efficiency, heat issues, and better customer experience. Worth it for 5 FPS in many cases.

What do you mean its "not fair"? lol. some games are optimized for AMD cards, some are optimized for Nvidia, if the OP spends a lot of time playing BF4, then it might make sense to consider a card that plays BF4 better even if it under performs in every other game on the market than a comprable one from another manufacturer. That the advantage of customer computer building, you're building something specifically to meet your needs rather than the general "one size fits most" you get from a retail PC manufacturer. Sheesh.


In answer to the OPs question, yes its fine. Most games on the market are limited by the graphics card you buy, not so the CPU. Obviously, you wouldn't want to buy a 30 dollar CPU and pair it with a 600 dollar graphics card, but if you're trying to fit a budget to meet your needs, as a general statement without information about what you plan to do with your computer, you'll *probably* not have any complaints.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

Yeah, it really doesn't take as much as people like to portray to play stuff on 1080p high/ultra. Even people with the "old" i5 2500k will be fine for many more years to come due to the weak hardware inside the consoles which will be used as the lowest common denominator for years to come (no matter if we like that or not, it's just reality)

For my needs tbh if I were building another pc over again, I'd go with the fx 6300, 8gb of cheap ram since speed really doesn't matter for gaming, it's marketing to try and get you to spend more money, and a 750ti and cheap 430w corsair builder psu and some cheap black case. You live and learn though, and I'm just telling you from 1st hand experience OP that the extra money for intel wasn't worth it for me personally for my uses, i.e. the normal user, aka browsing/multitasking online and playing a game at the same time. Maybe it's from a lifetime of playing consoles before I built my pc over 2 years ago, and my continued use of an xbox 360 and ps4, but, as long as the game is 30fps+ to me that's fine while having decent visuals.

If you get trapped into the cycle of "having" to max every little useless setting out, it'll eat your wallet alive.

tbh I'd sell my i5 pc if the value for the parts hadn't plummeted due to bitcoin mining, and pc parts in general just having horrible resale value, then due to scammers online trying to sell stuff >_>

It entirely depends on the users needs, but in short, yes AMD cpu like the fx 6300 and 8320 will age very well, both consoles only use (rather anemic ~1.6ghz) 8 core AMD apu, with an hd7790 level one in the Xbox 1 and an overclocked hd 7850(maybe 7870m lvl gpu supposedly) in the PS4, with 8gb of unified shared ram.

will my 1055t get the best fps in rts or mmo? Hell no....but then again I'm not into those games at ALL, and if I ever do play them it's casually. I'm more into FPS playing online with friends, or other co op stuff, none of which is very demanding, my friends get by on way weaker hardware than mine. One games on an old Athlon x2 64 4000 dual core 2.2ghz cpu, 3gb ram, and a 2gb ddr3 hd 6670, the other has a quad core AMD APU a8 5500 I think, 3.2ghz, and just uses the integrated graphics, with 8gb ram. Some prebuilt HP Desktop from Bestbuy with Beat's Audio built in he swears by lol.


so yes, the 6300 is enough to game/multitask with when paired with a good gpu. Even the 750ti is no slouch, videos are all over youtube showing how it can play games on 1080p at ultra or at the worst high, barring the taxing MSAA, which I turn off on my HD 7950 and HD 7870 pc anyway. AMD ever since the summer I believe, has had their equivalent of Shadowplay anyway in the raptr app.

 

[Usacomputer]

The FX-6300 is a mediocre CPU for gaming no matter what GPU you choose.

The fx 6300 is actually a great cup via price to performance ratio
What I can gather is your just an Intel fanboy, true the fx 6300 isn't as fast per core compared to an i5, but it's $100 and it is plenty powerful for the 960, 280 and 280x, personally I'm actually in the market for a new gaming pc and I will be picking up a 6300 and a 280x because the 280x performs actually quite a bit more to the 960, I found a sapphire trix on newegg for $240, backplate, 3 fans the whole deal, and for $240, it smokes the 960, sure Nvidia has better features like DSR and MFAA but the r9 280x for the money is just so much better