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

What video card can I go up to without my FX-6300 bottlenecking it?

#31KURRUPTORPosted 7/21/2014 11:34:57 AM
When speaking of the ever important lows that define your experience, on settings people actually use, Intel wins by a wide margin. Anyone considering any type of competitive-oriented game/genre shouldn't be looking at AMD for even a moment.

Again another shady argument from Intel users, any benches I've seen where amd had substantial lows Intel does too. People like to point at sc2 benchmarks and say "look at the lows on amd it's only 18 fps that's unplayable" while ignoring the i5 right next to it with it's 22 low because that's totally more playable.

Also I want to know where they get their benches for sc2. It's obviously a custom game with absurd amounts of units on the screen, because in the actual game even in 4v4 new amd CPUs or Intel cpus shouldn't be dropping that low regardless.

And that is like the worst case scenario in gaming for amd, like I said earlier in 95 percent of gaming there isn't going to be any difference from an amd cpu because the games are completely limited by what the gpu can crank out.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#32DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/21/2014 3:17:58 PM(edited)
KURRUPTOR posted...
When speaking of the ever important lows that define your experience, on settings people actually use, Intel wins by a wide margin. Anyone considering any type of competitive-oriented game/genre shouldn't be looking at AMD for even a moment.

Again another shady argument from Intel users, any benches I've seen where amd had substantial lows Intel does too. People like to point at sc2 benchmarks and say "look at the lows on amd it's only 18 fps that's unplayable" while ignoring the i5 right next to it with it's 22 low because that's totally more playable.

Also I want to know where they get their benches for sc2. It's obviously a custom game with absurd amounts of units on the screen, because in the actual game even in 4v4 new amd CPUs or Intel cpus shouldn't be dropping that low regardless.

And that is like the worst case scenario in gaming for amd, like I said earlier in 95 percent of gaming there isn't going to be any difference from an amd cpu because the games are completely limited by what the gpu can crank out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgfRQBDVAQE

Seriously, most of the people complaining about AMD's performance are people who've been using AMD for years.
Also, in 1080p, using any modern, worthwile GPU, you will be CPU-bound in the majority of games at least in some situations, Those 30fps lows when everything else seems to be 45~50? Yeah, that's your AMD CPU.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#33YOeastonYOPosted 7/21/2014 3:26:40 PM
A 6300 bottlenecking a Tahiti. Now that's a good one.
#34DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/21/2014 3:37:09 PM
TBQH, it's not hard for a 6300 to bottleneck a GF104 either.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#35godplaysSNESPosted 7/21/2014 3:39:27 PM
Bottlenecking doesn't equal bad performance. But if you drop below 30 FPS because of your CPU, no GPU is going to change that.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#36KURRUPTORPosted 7/21/2014 5:00:44 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
KURRUPTOR posted...
When speaking of the ever important lows that define your experience, on settings people actually use, Intel wins by a wide margin. Anyone considering any type of competitive-oriented game/genre shouldn't be looking at AMD for even a moment.

Again another shady argument from Intel users, any benches I've seen where amd had substantial lows Intel does too. People like to point at sc2 benchmarks and say "look at the lows on amd it's only 18 fps that's unplayable" while ignoring the i5 right next to it with it's 22 low because that's totally more playable.

Also I want to know where they get their benches for sc2. It's obviously a custom game with absurd amounts of units on the screen, because in the actual game even in 4v4 new amd CPUs or Intel cpus shouldn't be dropping that low regardless.

And that is like the worst case scenario in gaming for amd, like I said earlier in 95 percent of gaming there isn't going to be any difference from an amd cpu because the games are completely limited by what the gpu can crank out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgfRQBDVAQE

Seriously, most of the people complaining about AMD's performance are people who've been using AMD for years.
Also, in 1080p, using any modern, worthwile GPU, you will be CPU-bound in the majority of games at least in some situations, Those 30fps lows when everything else seems to be 45~50? Yeah, that's your AMD CPU.


Yeah... Lets compare an old phenom ii to a new i7. That's a totally fair comparison, no crap Intel is going to do better there, the processor costs 3x as much, it f'n better perform better. If you compared an Intel processor from the same time frame with a similar price tag the difference would be just as bad.

Also I understand the point of that custom game is to strain your cpu to the limit but if you are actually playing the game that's not a realistic situation to ever be in.

so I mean seriously what were you trying to prove with that video, that an 4770k is better than a phenom? I think we are all aware of that fact, no one is arguing against it. It doesn't actually address anything I've been saying at all. I've been saying that in real world gaming the new amd processors aren't going to be holding your gpu back, and you show an old amd processor in a not at all real world gaming situation... Wtf man.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#37Haley Joel OsmentPosted 7/21/2014 5:36:26 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
Yeah... Lets compare an old phenom ii to a new i7. That's a totally fair comparison, no crap Intel is going to do better there, the processor costs 3x as much, it f'n better perform better. If you compared an Intel processor from the same time frame with a similar price tag the difference would be just as bad.

True. But the thing is, Intel have released far better CPUs since then. AMD haven't. You realise that the 1100T and 6300 are basically identical in terms of performance, right? Clock for clock there's <5% between them. All Piledriver did was get back to K10's level of performance after the Bulldozer disaster. The 6300's only real advantage is that it overclocks better.

---
I see dead people.
#38KURRUPTORPosted 7/21/2014 6:02:03 PM
Haley Joel Osment posted...
KURRUPTOR posted...
Yeah... Lets compare an old phenom ii to a new i7. That's a totally fair comparison, no crap Intel is going to do better there, the processor costs 3x as much, it f'n better perform better. If you compared an Intel processor from the same time frame with a similar price tag the difference would be just as bad.

True. But the thing is, Intel have released far better CPUs since then. AMD haven't. You realise that the 1100T and 6300 are basically identical in terms of performance, right? Clock for clock there's <5% between them. All Piledriver did was get back to K10's level of performance after the Bulldozer disaster. The 6300's only real advantage is that it overclocks better.


Again that's just not relevant to the point I'm trying to get across and also ignoring the extra cores and performance you can get from an 8320/50.

I will be the first to say that i7's are the best processors that money can buy (though 8350s still win in some benchmarks). I'm not trying to refute that at all. It's pretty much a fact.

My point is that in real world gaming they are overkill...as are most all modern CPUs. If a 150 dollar 8320 is not limiting to below 60fps in real world gaming any more than a 250 dollar i5 or even a 350 dollar i7, then why pay more? Especially for the topic creator who would also need a new mother board which adds an extra 100 or so.

People just aren't looking at the real picture, they aren't looking at real world gaming situations when comparing Intel amd. They look at weird ass benchmarks that aren't even remotely related to actually playing a game.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#39DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/21/2014 6:19:03 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
KURRUPTOR posted...
When speaking of the ever important lows that define your experience, on settings people actually use, Intel wins by a wide margin. Anyone considering any type of competitive-oriented game/genre shouldn't be looking at AMD for even a moment.

Again another shady argument from Intel users, any benches I've seen where amd had substantial lows Intel does too. People like to point at sc2 benchmarks and say "look at the lows on amd it's only 18 fps that's unplayable" while ignoring the i5 right next to it with it's 22 low because that's totally more playable.

Also I want to know where they get their benches for sc2. It's obviously a custom game with absurd amounts of units on the screen, because in the actual game even in 4v4 new amd CPUs or Intel cpus shouldn't be dropping that low regardless.

And that is like the worst case scenario in gaming for amd, like I said earlier in 95 percent of gaming there isn't going to be any difference from an amd cpu because the games are completely limited by what the gpu can crank out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgfRQBDVAQE

Seriously, most of the people complaining about AMD's performance are people who've been using AMD for years.
Also, in 1080p, using any modern, worthwile GPU, you will be CPU-bound in the majority of games at least in some situations, Those 30fps lows when everything else seems to be 45~50? Yeah, that's your AMD CPU.


Yeah... Lets compare an old phenom ii to a new i7. That's a totally fair comparison, no crap Intel is going to do better there, the processor costs 3x as much, it f'n better perform better. If you compared an Intel processor from the same time frame with a similar price tag the difference would be just as bad.

Also I understand the point of that custom game is to strain your cpu to the limit but if you are actually playing the game that's not a realistic situation to ever be in.

so I mean seriously what were you trying to prove with that video, that an 4770k is better than a phenom? I think we are all aware of that fact, no one is arguing against it. It doesn't actually address anything I've been saying at all. I've been saying that in real world gaming the new amd processors aren't going to be holding your gpu back, and you show an old amd processor in a not at all real world gaming situation... Wtf man.


The fact of the matter is, that "old phenom II" outdid FX8150 when it came out in multithreaded performance. The newer FX processors are slightly better, but AMD still hasn't moved past that old K10 performance.
Any AMD processor will perform about as well as 1100T does. That's not isolated to SC2, either, it's just hard to find actual legitimate benchmarks of AMD processors because of all of this "processor doesn't matter, amd is just as good" fanboyism going around. The original Borderlands will run downright terribly in some of the expansion areas. "baw baw unoptimized port", but it does. So will anything running UE3 that's remotely demanding, in fact.
I think even some vanilla UT3 maps, a game from 2007 that wasn't that demanding at the time, will drop below 60fps on any AMD CPU at all.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#40Haley Joel OsmentPosted 7/21/2014 6:58:54 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
Again that's just not relevant to the point I'm trying to get across and also ignoring the extra cores and performance you can get from an 8320/50.

It's entirely relevant to your last post, which was complaining about a benchmark without having any idea what you were talking about. But that's okay. The 8320/50 chips are irrelevant in a topic about the 6300 though. Indeed, they're largely irrelevant to gaming as a whole right now outside of a small handful of scenarios like Battlefield 4 multiplayer.

I will be the first to say that i7's are the best processors that money can buy (though 8350s still win in some benchmarks). I'm not trying to refute that at all. It's pretty much a fact.

My point is that in real world gaming they are overkill...as are most all modern CPUs. If a 150 dollar 8320 is not limiting to below 60fps in real world gaming any more than a 250 dollar i5 or even a 350 dollar i7, then why pay more? Especially for the topic creator who would also need a new mother board which adds an extra 100 or so.

People just aren't looking at the real picture, they aren't looking at real world gaming situations when comparing Intel amd. They look at weird ass benchmarks that aren't even remotely related to actually playing a game.

That's fair enough... up to a point. However, the idea that games which ask more of a CPU than any AMD chip can offer don't exist (or are even limited to a small handful of titles) is nonsense. MMOs and open world games in general as entire genres generally struggle on AMD CPUs. Even something as old as WoW (not that it hasn't had a huge number of graphical upgrades over the years) runs like absolute crap on any AMD CPU ever made when you're in capital cities or doing 25-man raiding.

Things will probably get slightly better for AMD chips when it comes to console ports thanks to the new consoles using pitiful laptop processors with awful single-threaded performance but MOAR CORES (the universal AMD design philosophy), but at the same time it'll probably get worse for PC-centric titles that demand more horsepower than an architecture from 2007 can provide, muh cores and muh gigglehertz or not.

It's not like anybody is revelling in AMD's ineptitude though. They used to keep Intel on their toes. Back when things were much closer, Intel pooped out Sandy Bridge and ushered in a new performance paradigm. Since then, with AMD stuggling to even match K10, it's been 5-10% increases at best. Hopefully AMD can be competitive again at the high end when K12 arrives... in 2016.

---
I see dead people.