[SOLVED] Will my Fx- 6300 cpu bottleneck a 1650 super?
- Thread starter Jay41206
- Start date
Solution
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,574
- 650
- 91,240
I refuse to use the word bottleneck.
The fx 6300 is an old cpu now, single core performance counts as much in newer titles as core count.
In its favour those 6 threads actually count fairly well for modern titles.
The 6300 will pretty much hold 50-60fps on new titles.
In that respect if you're running a 1080p 60htz screen the 1650 super will be a good pairing.
Enable nvidia adaptive sync in nvidia settings and you're pretty much set for high settings 60fps gaming.
The 1650 super is about as high as I'd go performance wise with a 6300 without intentionally wasting more money than you need to.
What GPU are you currently using?
What game types/titles are you currently playing?
The fx 6300 is an old cpu now, single core performance counts as much in newer titles as core count.
In its favour those 6 threads actually count fairly well for modern titles.
The 6300 will pretty much hold 50-60fps on new titles.
In that respect if you're running a 1080p 60htz screen the 1650 super will be a good pairing.
Enable nvidia adaptive sync in nvidia settings and you're pretty much set for high settings 60fps gaming.
The 1650 super is about as high as I'd go performance wise with a 6300 without intentionally wasting more money than you need to.
What GPU are you currently using?
What game types/titles are you currently playing?
A GT710 was an entry level GPU....even 7-8 years ago. (It plays Quake 3, however, but, so did integrated Intel graphics on 845G mainboards in the year 2000_)
I doubt you will be anywhere near 144 fps with that CPU...or GPU...
But, as long as you are happy with minimum/average FPS, that's what counts.
I doubt you will be anywhere near 144 fps with that CPU...or GPU...
But, as long as you are happy with minimum/average FPS, that's what counts.
- Jan 1, 2013
- 24,574
- 650
- 91,240
Just go for the 1650 super, I find it hard to believe the gt 710 actually manages to play fortnite at any playable fps.
The 6300 is still capable of 100fps+ on fortnite, the 1650 super will be a good choice for you.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,739
- 4,559
- 142,790
Cpu pre-renders all frames according to game code and some in-game settings. The amount of frames it can pre-render in one second is your fps limit.
The gpu takes those frames and finish renders them according to graphic detail levels and resolution. The amount of frames it can paint on screen is the current fps.
So if the cpu can pre-render 100 frames, that's what the gpu receives, 100fps. If the details or resolution is too high, and it can only paint 60 frames then many people call that a gpu bottleneck. If you lower details very low, often that gives the appearance of raising fps, it doesn't, all it means is there's less work for the gpu, so it can finish more frames and paint them. But it's still limited to whatever the cpu sends.
Some games are so graphical simple, that even at ultra details, the gpu has no issue painting everything the cpu sends. Many people refer to this as a cpu bottleneck. It isn't. It's just one game where the gpu is not challenged.
In reality, a bottleneck is something that slows down the flow of information, chokes it. A cpu can never be a bottleneck because it's the source, the cpu puts out whatever it puts out, it slows nothing down. A gpu cannot be a bottleneck because it's not holding back the cpu, it doesn't slow anything down, it takes whatever info is offered and does what it can do.
And yet ppl still throw the word 'bottleneck' out there based on the assumption that whatever game is played it should always get maximum fps from both components in balance, equal, what goes in comes out. Doesn't work that way because games are vastly different. The Sims is nothing like Battlefield5 or CoD. CSGO isn't Gta5. Mmorpgs are nothing like single player games.
Bottleneck is the single most misunderstood and abused word in the pc world.
In reality, the cpu more often than not is stronger than the gpu. And in the games where the gpu is stronger, so what? Just means you could play at higher details without suffering fps loss, minimum frame rates are closer to maximum, gpu temps are lower etc.
A 1650 will be just fine with a 6300, you'll be more limited by the cpu anyway in many modern games. OC on that FX will help bring the fps limit up, maybe enough to start challenging the gpu ability to get all the frames on screen.
The gpu takes those frames and finish renders them according to graphic detail levels and resolution. The amount of frames it can paint on screen is the current fps.
So if the cpu can pre-render 100 frames, that's what the gpu receives, 100fps. If the details or resolution is too high, and it can only paint 60 frames then many people call that a gpu bottleneck. If you lower details very low, often that gives the appearance of raising fps, it doesn't, all it means is there's less work for the gpu, so it can finish more frames and paint them. But it's still limited to whatever the cpu sends.
Some games are so graphical simple, that even at ultra details, the gpu has no issue painting everything the cpu sends. Many people refer to this as a cpu bottleneck. It isn't. It's just one game where the gpu is not challenged.
In reality, a bottleneck is something that slows down the flow of information, chokes it. A cpu can never be a bottleneck because it's the source, the cpu puts out whatever it puts out, it slows nothing down. A gpu cannot be a bottleneck because it's not holding back the cpu, it doesn't slow anything down, it takes whatever info is offered and does what it can do.
And yet ppl still throw the word 'bottleneck' out there based on the assumption that whatever game is played it should always get maximum fps from both components in balance, equal, what goes in comes out. Doesn't work that way because games are vastly different. The Sims is nothing like Battlefield5 or CoD. CSGO isn't Gta5. Mmorpgs are nothing like single player games.
Bottleneck is the single most misunderstood and abused word in the pc world.
In reality, the cpu more often than not is stronger than the gpu. And in the games where the gpu is stronger, so what? Just means you could play at higher details without suffering fps loss, minimum frame rates are closer to maximum, gpu temps are lower etc.
A 1650 will be just fine with a 6300, you'll be more limited by the cpu anyway in many modern games. OC on that FX will help bring the fps limit up, maybe enough to start challenging the gpu ability to get all the frames on screen.
cryoburner
Judicious
- Oct 8, 2011
- 5,753
- 1,357
- 34,840
Yeah, while an FX-6300 isn't exactly a great CPU by current standards, it should arguably still be "alright" for running modern games on, provided you are okay with drops in frame rate from time to time, depending on how demanding the game is on the CPU.
A GT 710 is downright abysmal though, and a graphics card upgrade would make games far more playable. Something like a 1650 SUPER should offer many times its performance, and even allow you to crank the graphics settings up.
It's probably worth asking what sort of power supply your system has though, since a GT 710 will run on pretty much any low-end PSU, but the same isn't necessarily true for a 1650 SUPER. A 1650 SUPER shouldn't ever draw much more than 100 watts under load, so most PSUs should have enough capacity for it, but it's possible that a low-end power supply might not have the necessary PCIe power connector for it, and some expecially low-capacity models might be getting pushed to their limits when combined with the rest of your system's hardware, potentially resulting in system instability.
Also, you might want to verify that your system has the room to physically fit a 1650 SUPER inside. Some small form-factor systems might only be able to fit narrow, "low profile" graphics cards.
A GT 710 is downright abysmal though, and a graphics card upgrade would make games far more playable. Something like a 1650 SUPER should offer many times its performance, and even allow you to crank the graphics settings up.
It's probably worth asking what sort of power supply your system has though, since a GT 710 will run on pretty much any low-end PSU, but the same isn't necessarily true for a 1650 SUPER. A 1650 SUPER shouldn't ever draw much more than 100 watts under load, so most PSUs should have enough capacity for it, but it's possible that a low-end power supply might not have the necessary PCIe power connector for it, and some expecially low-capacity models might be getting pushed to their limits when combined with the rest of your system's hardware, potentially resulting in system instability.
Also, you might want to verify that your system has the room to physically fit a 1650 SUPER inside. Some small form-factor systems might only be able to fit narrow, "low profile" graphics cards.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 34
-
-
Question New pc build r9 7900x3d rtx 4080 super no post only ram rgb turns on- Started by Harvey Durward
- Replies: 4
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 72
-
-
News TSMC to charge premium for making chips outside of Taiwan, including its new US fabs, CEO says
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 22
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram