[SOLVED] Will fx 6300 bottleneck hard gtx 1060 3gb?

RTX 2080

Commendable
Jun 8, 2020
1,098
279
1,390
65
It depends entirely what you are using it for. If it's a game that's not too heavy on the CPU side of things and you have no intention of going over 60 fps, then you might be fine. But if it's a modern AAA title or you're aiming for low settings and high refresh rates, you'll probably have some issues.
 
Jan 17, 2021
57
4
35
0
It depends entirely what you are using it for. If it's a game that's not too heavy on the CPU side of things and you have no intention of going over 60 fps, then you might be fine. But if it's a modern AAA title or you're aiming for low settings and high refresh rates, you'll probably have some issues.
my minimum wanted fps is 30 fps on medium settings 1080p on AAA title
 

Raz_5_

Reputable
Mar 5, 2017
65
4
4,535
0
This should help you.

 

RTX 2080

Commendable
Jun 8, 2020
1,098
279
1,390
65
This should help you.

Bottleneck calculators are absolute garbage, not even because they're wrong (which they are) but because they don't even remotely come close to giving you even a little bit of factual information. Bottlenecks are resolution dependent, game engine dependent, fps dependent, and hardware dependent.
 
Reactions: King_V and Krotow

Raz_5_

Reputable
Mar 5, 2017
65
4
4,535
0
"This should confuse you."
(FTFY)

Those things, and that one in particular, are pure garbage. No connection with reality.

You can't calculate a "bottlenck" like that and assign a number to it.
Same system over time. Which of these numbers is "correct"?
I figured an idea was better then having no idea at all regardless of the situation, using one of the calculators are better then being completely blind. It's not like using one is going to crash your system.

Also we didn't even get the information we needed, I couldnt be bothered.
 

RTX 2080

Commendable
Jun 8, 2020
1,098
279
1,390
65
I figured an idea was better then having no idea at all regardless of the situation, using one of the calculators are better then being completely blind. It's not like using one is going to crash your system.

Also we didn't even get the information we needed, I couldnt be bothered.
If a bottleneck calculator gave even the faintest idea, it would be at least informative, even if it wasn't accurate (userbenchmark comes to mind as an example). Unfortunately, bottleneck calculators don't even give a general idea; basing any decisions off of one is just as bad as going at it completely blind.
 
Reactions: King_V

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
This should help you.

Bottleneck calculators are trash. They are about as reliable as a Chevy Vega.
 
Reactions: King_V

tennis2

Distinguished
Please give more background to your question. Are we assuming you currently have an FX-6300 and are looking to upgrade ___ GPU to a GTX1060 3GB?

Some games are less sensitive to a "weak" CPU than others (over the years, the Battlefield series *offline gameplay displays very little difference between a range of CPUs). Also, online gaming tends to be CPU-heavy. Contrary to what one would think, turning the graphics settings DOWN doesn't improve the situations much/any if you're in a CPU-limited scenario like an FX-6300 would incur. Graphics settings only changes the "load" on the GPU.

(Oversimplification)
  • The CPU is in charge of telling the GPU what to "draw" in each frame.
  • Once it receives the draw call from the CPU, the GPU draws/renders the frame and sends it off to the monitor.
  • If the CPU is underpowered, it may not be able to compile the draw call for the next frame to be sent to the GPU before the GPU finishes rendering the previous one. The GPU then needs to wait until the draw call comes so it can begin rendering the next frame. This results in <100% GPU utilization.
    • A lot of people with a CPU-limited scenario act to reduce graphics quality settings in search of higher FPS, only to realize that lowering graphics settings does litte/nothing to FPS.
  • If the details of each frame are comparatively difficult to render (aka, lots of details from the game engine and/or high graphics settings) the CPU will be able to "keep up" with sending draw calls to the GPU at/before the GPU finishes the previous frame. This results in at/near 100% GPU utilization. In this situation, a GPU upgrade will be most advantageous.
My best advice: Tell us what games you currently own/play and we'll you which ones are most demanding. Play said game(s) on your existing GPU with a stat overlay that shows GPU usage in-game. If the GPU isn't >90% usage most of the time while PLAYING the game(s), then buying a better GPU isn't going to improve your situation as much (lower % current GPU usage means less improvement with a new GPU).

Don't get me wrong, an FX-6300 wasn't even that "good" when it launched in 2012. It certainly hasn't gotten comparatively better since then....
 
Last edited:
basing any decisions off of one is just as bad as going at it completely blind.
I figured an idea was better then having no idea at all regardless of the situation, using one of the calculators are better then being completely blind.
It's WORSE than going completely blind.


Is that why you're a moderator? That's the most misleading thing yet.
Bottleneck calculators are garbage, and are counterproductive. You screwed up. Stop trying to justify/defend your bad post.
 
Reactions: logainofhades

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS