Will upgrading my fx 6300 to a fx 8350 increase my gaming capabilities, have a EVGA 970 FTW

[TheRIvermanStyx]

My current setup is a Gigabyte UD3 with a FX 6300 @ 4.6ghz (Watercooled with a thermaltake Water 2.0) and a EVGA GTX 970 FTW with a 300mhz clock OC and a 400mhz memory OC. I am running with the 750watt EVGA SUpernova as the PS.

My question is: if I upgrade to a FX 8350 and overclock it, will I see better performance? Currently I can run games like The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 (Heavily modded with texture packs and ENBs) at almost all ultra settings with this setup. I am gaming at 60hz and in 1080p

I am not looking to go Intel nor am I looking to to go beyond 60hz or 1080p.

I would also like to know what overclock I am realistically looking at with a 8350 with watercooling.

[I apologize if this is in the wrong thread, this is my first time actually posting in the forums of this site.]

 

[getochkn]

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/fallout-4-test-gpu-2015.html

If you scroll down you'll see the 6300 and the 8350 and I think the only difference. Is clockspeed. As you get to the 9370 and such its more fps because it's faster therefore you oc'd cpu should be doing to same fps at leas for fallout 4 at the same fps of 9590 almost. Explore that site for more benchmarks. They are awesome and one of the only ones that tests battery of cpus as well. 99% of benchmarks focus on a base CPU and different GPUs.

 

[Mr Kagouris]

Yeah in CPU-dependent games like Fallout 4 and GTA V you'll see quite a bit of improvement.

 

[toolmaker_03]

well with 3Dmark benchmark on the free trial version my FX8350 at stock speeds with a GTX480 will have a score of 4600 on fire strike.
my 1100T with the same GTX480 will have a 3000 on fire strike.
I am guessing that your system is currently benching somewhere between these, now so I will give a little practical conversion for gaming as that is what I use my PC's for.
the difference in FPS at the 60Hz 1080p resolution would only be 30FPS at best, and on something like the witcher 3, you might see a 10FPS increase.
the bottle neck is the CPU, but if your considering the FX8350, I would really ask that you take a good look at the FX9590 as that CPU would provide a greater increase in performance.

 

[Mr Kagouris]

He'd need a top-end motherboard for an FX 9590 as the VRMs on the lower end boards simply can't handle the power draw (we're talking Asus Crosshair V Formula), and a beefy cooler. Totaling the cost, it'd be cheaper to upgrade to a 4690k and Z97 board rather than to a setup with a 9590. And even if it made sense to upgrade to a 9590 setup, it'd be simpler to get everything except the 9590, get an 8350 instead, and overclock that to 9590 performance for much lower cost.

 

[toolmaker_03]

I have a gigabyte UD7 AM3+ 990FX mother board and it handles the FX8350 fine and if I got the FX9590 I know that it would handle it fine as well, the reason that the FX9590 in not listed as a compatible CPU for this motherboard, is that the motherboard was made before the FX9590 existed.
I also have a Asus sabertooth 990FX motherboard that can handle the FX8350 CPU fine. I don't understand if his mother board can handle the FX8350, it should handle a FX9590, as they require the same specs, as far as the motherboard is concerned.
it a UD3 motherboard with the 990FX chip set on it right?

 

[Mr Kagouris]

I have a gigabyte UD7 AM3+ 990FX mother board and it handles the FX8350 fine and if I got the FX9590 I know that it would handle it fine as well, the reason that the FX9590 in not listed as a compatible CPU for this motherboard, is that the motherboard was made before the FX9590 existed.
I also have a Asus sabertooth 990FX motherboard that can handle the FX8350 CPU fine. I don't understand if his mother board can handle the FX8350, it should handle a FX9590, as they require the same specs, as far as the motherboard is concerned.
it a UD3 motherboard with the 990FX chip set on it right?

The FX 9590 is basically an overclocked 8350, and like all overclocked CPUs, what makes a massive difference are the motherboard VRMs. This is why lower and mid end boards don't list the 9590 as compatible, because they can't handle the power draw in the long term (not even the short term for the lower end boards), not because they were made before the CPU was put on the market. Pretty much all AM3+ boards can handle anything up to an 8370 (I believe), but after that you need good VRMs, with the 9590 requiring the best you can get.

 

[toolmaker_03]

@Mr. Kagouris
it'd be simpler to get everything except the 9590, get an 8350 instead, and overclock that to 9590 performance for much lower cost.

than the same would be true about overclocking a FX8350 to the 4.7Ghz of a FX9590, the motherboard would need the same good Vrams to achieve this right?

 

[Mr Kagouris]

Yes, it would, but you'd save about 50$ on the CPU by buying 8350 and overclocking. You can probably achieve this with most high end AM3+ boards, maybe yours can do it too, but only the ones that list the 9590 as officially supported can reliably do it in the long term.

 

[getochkn]

If you are gaming at 60hz already, then there is no need to get a faster cpu. If it boosts to you 100fps, you don't care, you only need 60fps for your monitor anyways.

If you read the link I posted, you'll see most games scale on the AMD chips from the 6300 3.5ghz, 8350 4ghz, 9370, 4.4ghz and 9590 4.7ghz fairly evenly and the extra 2 cores don't make a big difference, so running at 4.6ghz, you are already probably at 8350 performance for the majority of games. None of them max all 6 cores on the 6300, so therefore the extra 2 are wasted.;