This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is the AMD FX 6300 bad for gaming?

#21SinisterSlayPosted 7/2/2014 11:22:46 AM
PhilOnDez posted...
Play with 12 civs and you'll see turns start to take forever. You've got 26 hours played, how many games is that, 2? 2.5?


Yeah, Civ 5 has surprisingly good graphics optimization but it can take forever for turns.
Because of this, my friends and I always host on whoever has the best CPU.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#22WyzeGyePosted 7/2/2014 11:52:56 AM
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.


Don't believe the Intel fanboys.
---
http://puu.sh/8IK8Q/8e25ebacb7.jpg [My Rig + Specs] - - - - http://youtu.be/cfh4MK6kW3w
Wolves don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.
#23Pepys MonsterPosted 7/2/2014 12:31:37 PM
Is AMD bad for gaming?

Yes. AMD = Finished
---
i7-4790K | EVGA GTX 780 3GB | 16GB G.Skill DDR3-1866 | 1TB Crucial M550 SSD | 4TB WD Black HDD | MSI Z97 Gaming 7 | Dark Rock Pro 3 | Antec EA-650 Platinum
#2432x2zPosted 7/2/2014 12:40:04 PM
WyzeGye posted...
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.


Don't believe the Intel fanboys.


----I was told that the AMD 8350 ran mmo's (example: WoW) like crap. I was also told their GPU's ran like crap for WoW. Game never drops below 60 fps at 1080P. Needless to say, anyone who can only recommend one brand (intel vs amd) isn't someone who is worth getting advice from. I'd wager a good sum of money they know little/nothing about computers if opinions are biased.
---
APEVIA X-Hermes--CORSAIR H75--G.SKILL Ares Series 16GB-- ADATA SSD 128GB--AMD FX 8320 Black Edition @ 4.1ghz--Powercolor 2GB 7850 @ 1050/1450--Asus Xonar DGX.
#25KURRUPTORPosted 7/2/2014 3:09:59 PM(edited)
PhilOnDez posted...
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Torchlight.png

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BF4-D3D.png


Yeah, 1-2 FPS.


Those are APU benchmarks?

And yes for the price the 6300 is really good. I've a friend with one that I've watched game many times and I never see him having low fps issues in new games.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#26Pengu1nPosted 7/2/2014 4:06:13 PM
32x2z posted...
WyzeGye posted...
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.

Don't believe the Intel fanboys.


----

I was told that the AMD 8350 ran mmo's (example: WoW) like crap. I was also told their GPU's ran like crap for WoW. Game never drops below 60 fps at 1080P. Needless to say, anyone who can only recommend one brand (intel vs amd) isn't someone who is worth getting advice from. I'd wager a good sum of money they know little/nothing about computers if opinions are biased.


I ran world of warcraft, guild wars and (more recently) star trek online just fine using AMD CPU's and GPU'S all games ran without a hitch.Every now and a gain i load up napoleon total war and that runs just fine as well. TBH i think that Intel has paid some drones to make accounts on here and post negative comments about AMD and steer people looking to build or upgrade a PC away from AMD by using fake info. Because the people who own AMD hardware don't have any of the issues that many an intel fanboy will say.
---
FX 6300, HYPER 212 EVO, 16GB DDR3, 7870 GHZ 2GB, 2TB HDD, 64 GB SATA III SSD, 12X BLU RAY, 750W PSU, X-FI FATAL1TY,WINDOWS 7
#27PhilOnDezPosted 7/2/2014 4:09:02 PM
Core for core the 7850k is going to be faster than the 6300 thanks to its kaveri architecture vs the 6300's piledriver, it's the best AMD has up for sale, APU or not, but it's way too expensive. The 6300 has an extra core/pair of threads over the 7850k but that's not going to help it in most games. You can argue for the future but it's not like the 6300 is blowing the i3 away in the handful games that benefit from the extra threads that are already out.
---
Every time I try to go where I really wanna be it's already where I am, 'cuz I'm already there
XBL, PSN, Steam, Origin, BSN, GFAQs, MC: PhilOnDez
#28iiFroZenHeAveNzPosted 7/2/2014 4:18:17 PM
Amen brothers. Fanboys don't understand that as consumers we don't all care about reaching the ceiling. As long as we get 60 fps on 1080p without dips on high or ultra settings we're happy. I've never had a problem with AMD and my FX-8350 has never treated me wrong. For that performance and $150 that's a pretty darn good CPU
---
AMD FX-8350 4.0Ghz | Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 | 8GB G.Skill Ares DDR3-1600 | EVGA 770 2GB SC ACX | 1TB WD Blue Caviar | CM HAF 912 |
#29ShebeskiiPosted 7/2/2014 4:46:20 PM(edited)
Pengu1n posted...
32x2z posted...
WyzeGye posted...
My 6300 at 4.7ghz hasn't done me wrong yet. Ps2, GameCube and Wii emulation works just fine too.

Don't believe the Intel fanboys.


----

I was told that the AMD 8350 ran mmo's (example: WoW) like crap. I was also told their GPU's ran like crap for WoW. Game never drops below 60 fps at 1080P. Needless to say, anyone who can only recommend one brand (intel vs amd) isn't someone who is worth getting advice from. I'd wager a good sum of money they know little/nothing about computers if opinions are biased.


I ran world of warcraft, guild wars and (more recently) star trek online just fine using AMD CPU's and GPU'S all games ran without a hitch.Every now and a gain i load up napoleon total war and that runs just fine as well. TBH i think that Intel has paid some drones to make accounts on here and post negative comments about AMD and steer people looking to build or upgrade a PC away from AMD by using fake info. Because the people who own AMD hardware don't have any of the issues that many an intel fanboy will say.


We have anecdotes vs. benchmarks. The benchmarks show AMD performing poorly in many PC oriented titles.

In contrast to that evidence, is a bunch of hearsay from people with evidently no standards, as their "experiences" are contrary to the evidence. Most of us have owned an AMD CPU and moved on. I had a 1055T OC'd to 3.4GHz, which is probably very nearly the ballpark of the 6300. It sucked ass compared to my current i5 2500K at stock or OC'd.

Let me reiterate:

Intel recommendations are based on evidence.

AMD recommendations are based on anecdotes/testimony.

Yet AMD owners claim fanboyism. It would be funny if it weren't so ironic and pathetic.

P.S. anecdotes that contain vague, subjective phrases like "just fine", "without a hitch", "don't have any issues" don't carry any weight.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Hard evidence. Apparently the release client runs even more in Intel's favour.

Your subjective statements don't change reality. The reality is your CPU doesn't maintain framerates acceptable for people used to Intel performance.

Stop claiming fanboyism and look in the mirror. You're anything but objective.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#30ShebeskiiPosted 7/2/2014 4:43:23 PM
iiFroZenHeAveNz posted...
Amen brothers. Fanboys don't understand that as consumers we don't all care about reaching the ceiling. As long as we get 60 fps on 1080p without dips on high or ultra settings we're happy. I've never had a problem with AMD and my FX-8350 has never treated me wrong. For that performance and $150 that's a pretty darn good CPU


Except you DO get dips. The benchmarks are there for everyone to see. Your selection bias shows when you act like these titles don't exist, and they're numerous, btw.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens