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?

#41KURRUPTORPosted 7/21/2014 8:49:45 PM(edited)
Some real world gaming benchmarking for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4et7kDGSRfc&list=UUNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg&index=15

http://www.overclock.net/t/1458927/home-review-amd-fx-8320-4-5-vs-intel-3570k-4-5

http://www.overclock.net/t/1333027/amd-fx-8350-vs-i5-3570k-delidded-single-gpu-and-crossfire-gpu

Then an all-around productivity benchmark for you just because:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-8350+Eight-Core

I think this all speaks for itself, in real world gaming AMD is doing just fine. You can point your finger at those games playing at 1024x768 and brag about how intel does better in that situation all you want to but many others actually play games in a realistic every day fashion, and when you play games in a realistic way *gasp* AMD does just as well as intel does... and costs way less.

Show me some actual benchmarks of AMD getting grossly out-performed by intel in real world gaming, not a flippin bran new i7 vs an old ass phenom ii in a totally unrealistic custom game of sc2; which is just the dumbest comparison I've seen in a long time.

Seems like you guys are just grasping at straws trying to somehow prove that AMD CPU's are lackluster when all evidence proves opposite.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#42DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/21/2014 10:03:54 PM(edited)
I see a lot of random forum posts and synthetic benchmarks. Howabout something substantial?
Since this is such an old hat discussion, why not show some actual benchmarks of actual CPU-limited situations? Say, a large scene in BL2, max settings, or that hill in the second stage of Crysis, from the top of the korean building, looking down at the village. Since things like Shadowplay and DXTory are so lightweight, it should be easy.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#43JKatarnPosted 7/21/2014 11:31:31 PM
If you really want to max out every game in 2014 and beyond at 1080p, you would be looking at a rig with a higher end Core i7 and AT LEAST a single 780ti (or AMD equivalent), though even that would probably struggle to keep 60fps at all times on some upcoming games. If you can tolerate the odd frame drop and making the odd graphical concession here and there you can save a lot of money.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#44JKatarnPosted 7/21/2014 11:33:50 PM
ThisGuy101 posted...
tiger8191 posted...
Weird. I get 60fps on Alann wake with a 6300/7850.


This is maxed out with the draw distance cranked, 8 MXAA, 16 AF, etc.


EVERYTHING is cranked to max, and I funnel between 50 and 60 FPS. For all I know that could have just been the opening sequence. I haven't ran it with fraps since getting into the game. That kills the atmosphere, and Alan Wake is literally my number one game as far as atmosphere goes.


I think you're being a little dramatic here, on the rig in my sig I play at 4xaa with max in-game settings and though I get the odd drop it's never unplayable and most of the time it runs smoothly. If 50 FPS is truly "unplayable" for you, then drop down to 4xAA, I seriously doubt you'd notice much difference in a game this dark and it should lock you at/near 60 FPS.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#45ThisGuy101(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2014 12:01:23 AM
JKatarn posted...
ThisGuy101 posted...
tiger8191 posted...
Weird. I get 60fps on Alann wake with a 6300/7850.


This is maxed out with the draw distance cranked, 8 MXAA, 16 AF, etc.


EVERYTHING is cranked to max, and I funnel between 50 and 60 FPS. For all I know that could have just been the opening sequence. I haven't ran it with fraps since getting into the game. That kills the atmosphere, and Alan Wake is literally my number one game as far as atmosphere goes.


I think you're being a little dramatic here, on the rig in my sig I play at 4xaa with max in-game settings and though I get the odd drop it's never unplayable and most of the time it runs smoothly. If 50 FPS is truly "unplayable" for you, then drop down to 4xAA, I seriously doubt you'd notice much difference in a game this dark and it should lock you at/near 60 FPS.


Nowhere did I say unplayable. It's perfectly playable, and I do play it.

What I said was that if my rig can't keep up a consistent 60 FPS on a 2012 game, how's it gonna handle a 2014 and 2015 game?
---
AMD FX-6300 | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ | Kingston HyperX 8GB DDR3-1600 | MSI Radeon R9 270X 2GB TWIN FROZR
My first gaming rig
#46DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/22/2014 12:20:06 AM
There's a ton of games that no AMD CPU will hold 60fps in.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
#47KURRUPTORPosted 7/22/2014 5:25:45 AM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...
There's a ton of games that no AMD CPU will hold 60fps in.


Yeah, and like all those benchmarks I posted showed... intel slows you down in those same situation just as much, in some cases more in other cases less; but it's always pretty damn similar.

I showed you quite a substantial amount of real world benchmarks where AMD is neck and neck with intel sometimes winning by a hair sometimes losing by a hair. In both crossfire and single gpu rigs, in benchmark tests and in actual gameplay. Your rebuttal is that I need to show even more benchmarks? Those ones weren't good enough for you?

How about you show me some benchmarks where AMD has some massive slowdown and intel doesn't, I looked and linked what I found. You can even look at the "lowest FPS" on any of those tests (what AMD always gets scoffed at for) and again intel and AMD were neck and neck in those numbers.

So yeah I've shown some actual proof for what I'm saying, and you intel fanboys just come back with... well nothing. Seriously get some evidence on your side; find some real gaming benchmarks where intel is crushing AMD like everyone says they do (based on no evidence whatsoever). I've been looking into building a new rig for a brother and have actually looked into these benches quite a bit lately and much like that video I linked I was very surprised to see that there is almost no difference between i5's and 8300's and in most situations even i7's aren't any better so why would I spend more on intel ( I can get an 8320 and a 990 mobo for ocing for 250 bucks... the same price as just an i5). I was initially just going to get him an i5 because I had the same mindset that many other people did that the i5 is "THE gaming cpu", but with his budget I figured I'd look around a bit. I was surprised but at least I accepted the numbers in front of me (something intel fanboys seem incapable of doing), and can now save him about 100 dollars on the cpu/mobo combo and get him a way better GPU.

OTHER THOUGHTS: I realize that the 8150 line was crap... that was a terrible release, and all I can figure is people stopped even looking at the facts and benchmarks out there after that and just said "well intel is way better" and never looked back. Yeah intel was crushing face at that time but AMD came back with 8350/20 and if you actually search around for some gaming benchmarks (like I actually have) you will have to come to the same conclusion that I did... The 8350/20 is just as good as an i5 for gaming. This isn't still the age where you can point and laugh and say "haha your old phenom ii's are better than your new stuff" it's just not the case anymore. If you try to say that it is you are just being straight up ignorant sorry.

I guess the question to you intel fanboys is how many benchmarks can you just straight up ignore before you actually look at the damn numbers out there and realize what the actual situation is?
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
#48JKatarnPosted 7/22/2014 10:01:57 AM
ThisGuy101 posted...
JKatarn posted...
ThisGuy101 posted...
tiger8191 posted...
Weird. I get 60fps on Alann wake with a 6300/7850.


This is maxed out with the draw distance cranked, 8 MXAA, 16 AF, etc.


EVERYTHING is cranked to max, and I funnel between 50 and 60 FPS. For all I know that could have just been the opening sequence. I haven't ran it with fraps since getting into the game. That kills the atmosphere, and Alan Wake is literally my number one game as far as atmosphere goes.


I think you're being a little dramatic here, on the rig in my sig I play at 4xaa with max in-game settings and though I get the odd drop it's never unplayable and most of the time it runs smoothly. If 50 FPS is truly "unplayable" for you, then drop down to 4xAA, I seriously doubt you'd notice much difference in a game this dark and it should lock you at/near 60 FPS.


Nowhere did I say unplayable. It's perfectly playable, and I do play it.

What I said was that if my rig can't keep up a consistent 60 FPS on a 2012 game, how's it gonna handle a 2014 and 2015 game?


But each game is different, some (like Alan Wake) employ a lot of particle effects and shadowing that can be particularly intensive, even for newer cards, some engines/games are buggy or unoptimized etc. I'm sure there are odd instances of 780 ti owners not getting a locked 60 at max settings because of how an engine or game is designed, drivers etc. Chasing "60fps at all times" across all games can be very expensive, and you'll save a lot of time and frustration if you can tolerate the odd drop here and there.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#49ThisGuy101(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2014 10:28:47 AM
JKatarn posted...
ThisGuy101 posted...
JKatarn posted...
ThisGuy101 posted...
tiger8191 posted...
Weird. I get 60fps on Alann wake with a 6300/7850.


This is maxed out with the draw distance cranked, 8 MXAA, 16 AF, etc.


EVERYTHING is cranked to max, and I funnel between 50 and 60 FPS. For all I know that could have just been the opening sequence. I haven't ran it with fraps since getting into the game. That kills the atmosphere, and Alan Wake is literally my number one game as far as atmosphere goes.


I think you're being a little dramatic here, on the rig in my sig I play at 4xaa with max in-game settings and though I get the odd drop it's never unplayable and most of the time it runs smoothly. If 50 FPS is truly "unplayable" for you, then drop down to 4xAA, I seriously doubt you'd notice much difference in a game this dark and it should lock you at/near 60 FPS.


Nowhere did I say unplayable. It's perfectly playable, and I do play it.

What I said was that if my rig can't keep up a consistent 60 FPS on a 2012 game, how's it gonna handle a 2014 and 2015 game?


But each game is different, some (like Alan Wake) employ a lot of particle effects and shadowing that can be particularly intensive, even for newer cards, some engines/games are buggy or unoptimized etc. I'm sure there are odd instances of 780 ti owners not getting a locked 60 at max settings because of how an engine or game is designed, drivers etc. Chasing "60fps at all times" across all games can be very expensive, and you'll save a lot of time and frustration if you can tolerate the odd drop here and there.


I see.

My main thing I want is to be able to hit 60 FPS on GTA 5.
---
AMD FX-6300 | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ | Kingston HyperX 8GB DDR3-1600 | MSI Radeon R9 270X 2GB TWIN FROZR
My first gaming rig
#50DarkZV2BetaPosted 7/22/2014 12:03:13 PM
KURRUPTOR posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
There's a ton of games that no AMD CPU will hold 60fps in.


Yeah, and like all those benchmarks I posted showed... intel slows you down in those same situation just as much, in some cases more in other cases less; but it's always pretty damn similar.

I showed you quite a substantial amount of real world benchmarks where AMD is neck and neck with intel sometimes winning by a hair sometimes losing by a hair. In both crossfire and single gpu rigs, in benchmark tests and in actual gameplay. Your rebuttal is that I need to show even more benchmarks? Those ones weren't good enough for you?

How about you show me some benchmarks where AMD has some massive slowdown and intel doesn't, I looked and linked what I found. You can even look at the "lowest FPS" on any of those tests (what AMD always gets scoffed at for) and again intel and AMD were neck and neck in those numbers.

So yeah I've shown some actual proof for what I'm saying, and you intel fanboys just come back with... well nothing. Seriously get some evidence on your side; find some real gaming benchmarks where intel is crushing AMD like everyone says they do (based on no evidence whatsoever). I've been looking into building a new rig for a brother and have actually looked into these benches quite a bit lately and much like that video I linked I was very surprised to see that there is almost no difference between i5's and 8300's and in most situations even i7's aren't any better so why would I spend more on intel ( I can get an 8320 and a 990 mobo for ocing for 250 bucks... the same price as just an i5). I was initially just going to get him an i5 because I had the same mindset that many other people did that the i5 is "THE gaming cpu", but with his budget I figured I'd look around a bit. I was surprised but at least I accepted the numbers in front of me (something intel fanboys seem incapable of doing), and can now save him about 100 dollars on the cpu/mobo combo and get him a way better GPU.

OTHER THOUGHTS: I realize that the 8150 line was crap... that was a terrible release, and all I can figure is people stopped even looking at the facts and benchmarks out there after that and just said "well intel is way better" and never looked back. Yeah intel was crushing face at that time but AMD came back with 8350/20 and if you actually search around for some gaming benchmarks (like I actually have) you will have to come to the same conclusion that I did... The 8350/20 is just as good as an i5 for gaming. This isn't still the age where you can point and laugh and say "haha your old phenom ii's are better than your new stuff" it's just not the case anymore. If you try to say that it is you are just being straight up ignorant sorry.

I guess the question to you intel fanboys is how many benchmarks can you just straight up ignore before you actually look at the damn numbers out there and realize what the actual situation is?


DarkZV2Beta posted...
Since this is such an old hat discussion, why not show some actual benchmarks of actual CPU-limited situations? Say, a large scene in BL2, max settings, or that hill in the second stage of Crysis, from the top of the korean building, looking down at the village. Since things like Shadowplay and DXTory are so lightweight, it should be easy.


Still waiting.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross