Will an FX-6300 @ 4.5 Ghz Bottleneck an R9-290

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The_

Reputable
Nov 11, 2014
15
0
4,520
Will an FX-6300 @ 4.5 Ghz Bottleneck an R9-290, and also on a side note, what would be the best AIO cpu coller to do so?
 
Solution
a 6300 at 4.5ghz stable is not going to bottleneck a 290 - thats a fact,bottleneck is a dirty word & should only be used in extreme cases.

It may limit max fps in some heavily single threaded titles but bottleneck?? NO

If youre happy with 60 fps vsynced it will do the job in 99% of titles at max settings.

A 212 evo or raijintek themis is capable of cooling a 6300 at that speed fairly easily - theres no need to spend a massive amount on expensive coolers - you will more likely be limited by the chip itself - once past 4.3ghz most fx chiups require a substancial voltage increase & the performance to temp/power trade off isnt worth it - hence mine running at 4.3ghz.
Mine was entirely capable of 4.6ghz but at 1.4v+ not worth it - it...
I see. However, even with 8 cores being used (they are, most games start about 50+ threads), that's not where the limitation happens. When you code software, you create different modules for different tasks. Taking a mmo as example, there is one for stat and damage calculations, one for movement calculations, one for skill usage, one for each UI part, one that handles the chat, one for network communication, one for things like a trading post, one for mouse hovers, etc, etc, etc. Now, the game does use 8 cores, but simply not efficiently. Most of these modules need very few cycles per long (cpu) time interval. The one handling and synchronising all these modules, usually the "main thread", which is launched upon application start, tmay take the most time, or another one that is very cpu intensive, such as physics, therefore the movement module. That runs on a single core and the fx cpu's can't get the required calculation done "in time". Now you could have 6 cores, 8 cores, 12 cores or 128 cores - no difference unless the single core performance is increased.