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?

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. What video card can I go up to without my FX-6300 bottlenecking it?
1 year ago#61
Clouddx posted...
BeefCastle posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.

Still waiting.


So, you want him to specifically seek out a fleeting situation in a game that will purposely show that intel cpu's are superior, even though he has stated that intel cpu's are faster. His argument is not that AMD cpu's are as fast as intels, he is arguing that in a vast majority of situations for the majority of games amd's cpus perform as well and have similar slowdowns for half the price. Why would anyone do the work for you to prove your point, when you are loading the situation to an obvious, well known intel advantage, i.e that intels chips are faster on a per core basis for extreme situations. You seem silly and you're acting like a child.


This is so untrue, for gaming even i3's outperform the best AMD CPUs. If you're not talking about gaming it's a different story.

Starcraft II, Arma 3, and many other games perform better on an i3 than on the 8350, and these are CPU heavy games.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/4/


FFS STOP.

I get it. Intel CPUs are better than AMDs at single threaded performance. In the majority of situations it won't matter, but in some it'll make a huge difference.

Understood. I'm stuck with AMD as that's what my Mobo allows.

STOP ARGUING, PLEASE. THANKS.
---
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
1 year ago#62
BeefCastle posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.

Still waiting.


So, you want him to specifically seek out a fleeting situation in a game that will purposely show that intel cpu's are superior, even though he has stated that intel cpu's are faster. His argument is not that AMD cpu's are as fast as intels, he is arguing that in a vast majority of situations for the majority of games amd's cpus perform as well and have similar slowdowns for half the price. Why would anyone do the work for you to prove your point, when you are loading the situation to an obvious, well known intel advantage, i.e that intels chips are faster on a per core basis for extreme situations. You seem silly and you're acting like a child.


It's really not as simple as "a few fleeting situations". Those are just some easy examples of consistent performance problems with AMD processors.
They're just not really a good value outside of some mainstream console ports.
---
god invented extension cords. -elchris79
Starcraft 2 has no depth or challenge -GoreGross
1 year ago#63
Clouddx posted...
BeefCastle posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.

Still waiting.


So, you want him to specifically seek out a fleeting situation in a game that will purposely show that intel cpu's are superior, even though he has stated that intel cpu's are faster. His argument is not that AMD cpu's are as fast as intels, he is arguing that in a vast majority of situations for the majority of games amd's cpus perform as well and have similar slowdowns for half the price. Why would anyone do the work for you to prove your point, when you are loading the situation to an obvious, well known intel advantage, i.e that intels chips are faster on a per core basis for extreme situations. You seem silly and you're acting like a child.


This is so untrue, for gaming even i3's outperform the best AMD CPUs. If you're not talking about gaming it's a different story.

Starcraft II, Arma 3, and many other games perform better on an i3 than on the 8350, and these are CPU heavy games.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/4/


Again I'm talking about in actual gaming not stupid tests; that while using games, aren't actually gaming at all. I've said over and over (and people don't seem to be listening) that yes intel has better per core performance and will beat AMD in low threaded processing. More software in general though is starting to use better more optimized code to use more processors which is helping AMD quite a bit lately and regardless AMD's are very rarely bottlenecking a CPU in games... and when they do intel is generally just as bottlenecked (again go refer to all the benchmarks I posted).

Also yes there does exist games where you are better with an intel, again like I said earlier if you are a strategy game junkie then perhaps I could warrant paying (a lot) more for an intel CPU, otherwise though it's generally just wasted money.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
1 year ago#64
BeefCastle posted...
he is arguing that in a vast majority of situations for the majority of games amd's cpus perform as well and have similar slowdowns for half the price. Why would anyone do the work for you to prove your point, when you are loading the situation to an obvious, well known intel advantage, i.e that intels chips are faster on a per core basis for extreme situations. You seem silly and you're acting like a child.


For someone saying someone else is acting like a child you're sure making some ridiculous claims. A $120 6300 isn't going to compete with a $180 i5. It just isn't. It does compete with a $120 i3. In its ideal situation it's about 10% faster than the i3 for the same price, not half (ignoring the fact that the i3 uses less than half the power, is 50% faster in single/double threaded apps, and includes graphics just as fast as AMD's 'quad' core APU's in the same price range, we'll still call them an 'equal' value since we're talking theoretical CPU performance in games and nothing else). It's priced like an i3 because it performs like an i3. Same thing with the 8350, it's priced like a low end i5 because it performs like a low end i5. The reason the i7 is so expensive is because AMD just doesn't have anything to compete with it outside of cherry picked situations. The $220-230 i5 or a $250 Xeon is 99% as fast as the i7 in most situations for close to 50% less money though. A $190 i5 is going to be 90% as fast.

If you want to talk about something offering the same performance for half the price you should be looking at the Pentium G3258 and comparing it to the 8350. That's about the only situation that could possibly apply to.

Is the FX series good enough for 99% of console ports? Yeah. I've never seen anyone say they weren't. Are they 99% the power of intel CPUs for half the price? Not even close unless you go out of you way to make a bad comparison with CPUs that no one buys for gaming, if they were intel wouldn't make a fraction of the sales they do, I know I'd have one if they were, especially if they retained their ability to overclock great on high end boards.
---
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
1 year ago#65
I will address your benchmark though since at least you brought something to the table to discuss instead of acting like a little child.

SC2:Most of the time Starcraft 2 is not a demanding game and can run on pretty much any CPU locked at 60 fps, however we wanted to investigate how CPUs behave in some of the most stressful situations possible and we believe we found the right measure ---quoted right from the bench.

So basically this is just another single threaded cpu test program... not a game. I play SC2 a lot and 300 supply army vs a 300 supply army just doesn't happen, even in 4v4 when you include the amount of workers you have by late game to support large armies you just aren't going to have armies that big going head to head you are limited to 200 supply in that game (per player) and generally 70-90 of that supply is just workers.

ARMA 3: Yep intel beats AMD here... as they do in a lot of games (which I've said many times). 8350's still get over 100fps in min/max/average though so for the vast marjority of gamers it's hitting the 60 fps monitor limit which is again my point. Intel may do better in a lot of games but anything over 60fps is just wasteful performance increase to most gamers out there. THIS IS LIKE THE EXACT POINT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS. You can't just look at which cpu has the longest (or shortest) bar and ignore the numbers or what the graph is actually saying.

COD Ghost: Yeah like every CPU performs the exact same on that game, nothing worth mentioning.

Metro LL: Yeah intel wins this one too but if you look at minimum fps it's pretty much the same across the board right around 50 (i7's do worse than i5's here wtf is that about?). But at the end of the day AMD is averaging 77fps with a 47 low, that's pretty playable.

AC4: Yep intel wins this one hands down I have nothing to say other than it's a crappy port, but that does not change the fact that intel takes it.

Sleeping Dogs: Pretty much every CPU is showing the exact same numbers, obviously a GPU limited game (as most games are) not much to say about that one.

Tomb Raider: Same as sleeping dogs, it's a GPU limited game.

Battlefield: Again a game that intel wins if you just look at the bars but 8350 still has over 100 min/max/average fps marks, so really it's all gravy.

Also even at the end of that benchmarking link they state that AMD is giving you the most for your money.

So yes intel wins in the majority of those tests (and most tests that really push a cpu to the limit), but you need to keep in mind anything over 60 is not going to be used by most gamers, and that AMD even in the tests where they were under 60 for their lows were still at very playable frame rates. I've never claimed that AMD beats Intel in gaming, quite the contrary intel is usually going to be winning. My point all along has been that in the gross majority of actual gaming situations their performance is going to be near identical because they will either both be limiting you to way above frame rates you can actually use or the game is limited by the GPU and the CPU hardly matters at all.

So looking at all this (as a consumer), it's really hard to justify spending ~100 dollars more for an i5 or ~200 dollars more for an i7 when a 8300 is going to be getting you near identical performance in like 95% of real world gaming situations. That extra 100 dollars towards a better GPU is going to net you substantially more fps in games than the CPU would.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
1 year ago#66
You keep saying Intel is so much more expensive than AMD, where are you shopping that i5s are $100 more than an 8350 or even 8320? They start at $180, same as the 8350, the one I recommend most often is $190 with the most expensive being $220, you can get i7 level performance for only $100 more than the 8320, not $200 more than an 8350 (i7s aren't $380), nobody recommends i7s for gaming unless we're making recommendations on a very tip-top of the line rig. You can also pair these with a $50 motherboard and get 100% of their performance on the stock cooler. Sure, the FX line is unlocked, but be ready to pay $100 minimum for a board that will reliably power an 8320/50 and another $30 or more for a cooler if you want to OC.

By your logic everyone should just buy pentium G3258s and spend the extra on their GPU. You'll never see the AMD defense force recommending that though because intel couldn't POSSIBLY have the best price-to-performance CPU on the market.
---
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
1 year ago#67
Hell, a 4670k is about $50 more than the 8350. I have no idea where you're getting your prices from.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png
1 year ago#68
I'd probably go for the 290. Sometimes going up just one step is not a huge performance upgrade and you might be disappointed.
1 year ago#69
i5s are generally about 230

i7s are (less than I thought) about 310

8320s are generally about 150 dollars

So i5s are about 80 dollars more and i7s are about 160 more. My bad on the exaggeration, it's still a significant difference.

The 8320 is a 8350 is a 9370 is a 9590, they just have different factory ocs. They are all the exact same CPU.

As to Phil maybe i3s are good, I really haven't looked into it (but since you mentioned it I will tonight), something tells me a dual core cpu is going to choke on a lot of games out there though.
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
1 year ago#70
DarkZV2Beta posted...

It's really not as simple as "a few fleeting situations". Those are just some easy examples of consistent performance problems with AMD processors.
They're just not really a good value outside of some mainstream console ports.


You keep talking about these consistent performance problems...where are they exactly. Or are we just talking out of our ass again?
---
Drugs are never the answer, unless the question is what isn't the answer.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. What video card can I go up to without my FX-6300 bottlenecking it?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived