FX6300 How Much Bottleneck For R290

[desertcomputer]

Just received MSI R290 GPU from a mate for a reasonable price ~150, so i wondering how much bottleneck is there? cause i getting it next week when he get his new GPU. Will you notice any difference like frames drop. Im not too fussy about few fps at lest it around 60 above should be reasonable right. Im thinking of getting new motherboard and going with Intel down the track when their sales and stuff, i thinking of getting i5 unlocked or i7 depending how the pricing when purchase. 

 

Specs:

FX6300 @ 4.52ghz

8GB RAM ~@1800mhz

Cougar 700W 

SSD 128GB

HHD 3Tb + 1TB

[Majestic]

Which games? But on average, you will have some pretty poor saturation at 1080p

[kronickiller]

prob wont at 4.5 ghz should be fine, i ran my 290x on a old phenom 2 955 at 3200mhz it maxed card out just fine, games werent getting good fps like my 9590 though 

try out gta 5 

should answer your questions

[Fulgrim]

It depends on the game you wish to play mate.

[desertcomputer]

prob wont at 4.5 ghz should be fine, i ran my 290x on a old phenom 2 955 at 3200mhz it maxed card out just fine, games werent getting good fps like my 9590 though 

try out gta 5 

should answer your questions

 

Tried in GTA 5 get around 20fps and drops to 1 fps at full screen at 1080p only can plat at 720p all on low settings. 

 

Which games? But on average, you will have some pretty poor saturation at 1080p

GTA 5 CSGO and some random games which i can already run with all my games at 60+ expect for BF4 and GTA 5

[harrynowl]

I think if you're targetting 60FPS you should be alright for most games unless there is a lot going on in that particular scene.

[Tadgh]

Tried in GTA 5 get around 20fps and drops to 1 fps at full screen at 1080p only can plat at 720p all on low settings. 

 

GTA 5 CSGO and some random games which i can already run with all my games at 60+ expect for BF4 and GTA 5

That's a pretty huge bottleneck tbh, so much so that I think their might be a bottleneck or issue somewhere else in the system. I had heard some grumblings about the 290x not performing well with GTAV but that's ridiculous.

With an FX6300 at stock I wouldn't expect it to be THAT bad.

[Tadgh]

I think if you're targetting 60FPS you should be alright for most games unless there is a lot going on in that particular scene.

Ey lmaaoooo that signiture. That's really impressive mate :')

[Majestic]

Tried in GTA 5 get around 20fps and drops to 1 fps at full screen at 1080p only can plat at 720p all on low settings. 

 

GTA 5 CSGO and some random games which i can already run with all my games at 60+ expect for BF4 and GTA 5

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/03/hardline/charts/bfh_cpu_nv.png

Battlefield 4 should be fine if your aim is 60fps, though as you can see getting a faster CPU will net you better saturation.

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/04/gtav/charts5/gtav_vhigh_cpu.png

For GTA V, AMD FX processors are seriously lacking. Don't expect 60fps+ gameplay the whole time, even with a 290X.

[That Norwegian Guy]

How much bottleneck? Seven point blue percent. Converted to apples, about giraffe and a quarter.

 

PLEASE WITH THESE THREADS

 

It depends on the game.

 

Just get appropriate hardware with appropriate hardware. Screwing yourself is not a gradually quantifiable measure, it's either 0% or 100%!!!!!

[kronickiller]

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/03/hardline/charts/bfh_cpu_nv.png

Battlefield 4 should be fine if your aim is 60fps, though as you can see getting a faster CPU will net you better saturation.

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/04/gtav/charts5/gtav_vhigh_cpu.png

For GTA V, AMD FX processors are seriously lacking. Don't expect 60fps+ gameplay the whole time, even with a 290X.

i get 60-80 with a 290x

msaax2 /no advanced graphix ultra

[Majestic]

i get 60-80 with a 290x

msaax2 /no advanced graphix ultra

 

Anecdotal, relative performance is important. Hence the graph.

[kronickiller]

Tried in GTA 5 get around 20fps and drops to 1 fps at full screen at 1080p only can plat at 720p all on low settings. 

 

GTA 5 CSGO and some random games which i can already run with all my games at 60+ expect for BF4 and GTA 5

gta5 and bf4 love their cores lol

i have had gta5 get up to 70% on my 9590

and bf4 prob bout 60%

they probably max out rather quickly on yours

[Majestic]

gta5 and bf4 love their cores lol

i have had gta5 get up to 70% on my 9590

and bf4 prob bout 60%

they probably max out rather quickly on yours

 

No they don't. Both games don't really scale significantly beyond 4 cores. Battlefield 4 sometimes to 6 in single player, but not in multiplayer.

60-70% load means poor core-scaling, 100% CPU load means perfect core-scaling. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[zappian]

No they don't. Both games don't really scale significantly beyond 4 cores. Battlefield 4 sometimes to 6 in single player, but not in multiplayer.

60-70% load means poor core-scaling, 100% CPU load means perfect core-scaling. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Slick just did a video on this.

The game doesnt scale for crap at over 4 cores.

BF4 runs well on AMD cpus and amd users use this game as the holy grail of anedoctal evidence.

"It runs Bf4 fine must be a good gaming cpu "

No it isnt , an intel cpu , anything over an i3 can run EVERY game flawlessly be it bf4 , new games , old games , emulators.

AMD cpus are plagged by low minimums , severe bottleneck on high end gpu solutions in most cpu intensive games and a miriad of other problems.

Anedoctal evidence aside we have a pretty clear grasp on what runs games better.

If this doesnt convince them I have a wall of benchmarks inbound.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

Slick just did a video on this.

The game doesnt scale for crap at over 4 cores.

BF4 runs well on AMD cpus and amd users use this game as the holy grail of anedoctal evidence.

"It runs Bf4 fine must be a good gaming cpu "

No it isnt , an intel cpu , anything over an i3 can run EVERY game flawlessly be it bf4 , new games , old games , emulators.

AMD cpus are plagued by low minimums , severe bottleneck on high end gpu solutions in most cpu intensive games and a myriad of other problems.

Anedoctal evidence aside we have a pretty clear grasp on what runs games better.

If this doesnt convince them I have a wall of benchmarks inbound.

^Pretty much exactly this.

Off topic, but very nice use of the word "myriad".

[itachipirate]

Tried in GTA 5 get around 20fps and drops to 1 fps at full screen at 1080p only can plat at 720p all on low settings.

GTA 5 CSGO and some random games which i can already run with all my games at 60+ expect for BF4 and GTA 5

none of that sounds right. I have an FX-6300 4.2ghz and GTX 970 (970=290) and I get perfect framerate on BF4 ultra, and perfect FPS on GTA after some tweaking (almost everything set to ultra though) many games it is not a bottleneck. In GTA V I sometimes get as low as 65% GPU usage but it isn't for long, and my FPS doesn't drop below 50. It very rarely goes below 60. That's a bottleneck but still a brand new beautiful game with great framerate

[itachipirate]

Anecdotal, relative performance is important. Hence the graph.

Relative performance is import for influencing a purchasing decision. I believe the OP already has this CPU. What's important is that you won't use your full GPU potential all of the time and you will eventually need to upgrade your CPU to keep up with games. I'd say the same if you had an i3 and 290x

[Majestic]

Relative performance is import for influencing a purchasing decision. I believe the OP already has this CPU. What's important is that you won't use your full GPU potential all of the time and you will eventually need to upgrade your CPU to keep up with games. I'd say the same if you had an i3 and 290x

 

I know, that's why I answered "But on average, you will have some pretty poor saturation at 1080p". Since I don't know the actual games he plays. For a 6300, i'd not advise going over a 280X. The extra performance of the 290 gets averaged out by the CPU and you end up with pretty much the same performance.

[itachipirate]

I know, that's why I answered "But on average, you will have some pretty poor saturation at 1080p". Since I don't know the actual games he plays. For a 6300, i'd not advise going over a 280X. The extra performance of the 290 gets averaged out by the CPU and you end up with pretty much the same performance.

You definitely will get more performance with a 290 over a 280. It's not that big a bottleneck in most cases. While that's anecdotal, it's still my experience. That being said many games utilize less of my GPU, but my 970 still performs better than a 960 would with this CPU. My friend has an 8320/960 and I have a 6300/970. I get better framerate in everything. (960=280x, 970=290x in performance)

[Majestic]

You definitely will get more performance with a 290 over a 280. It's not that big a bottleneck in most cases. While that's anecdotal, it's still my experience. That being said many games utilize less of my GPU, but my 970 still performs better than a 960 would with this CPU. My friend has an 8320/960 and I have a 6300/970. I get better framerate in everything

 

well yeah, in most games 8320==6300. That's not really the same as an i5/960 vs 6300/970.

[itachipirate]

well yeah, in most games 8320==6300. That's not really the same as an i5/960 vs 6300/970.

I was talking about the argument that the 6300/280x will provide the same performance as the 6300/290x due to bottlenecking, because (with Nvidia equivalents) that isn't true, and you will get more performance with the 290x

[Majestic]

I was talking about the argument that the 6300/280x will provide the same performance as the 6300/290x due to bottlenecking, because (with Nvidia equivalents) that isn't true, and you will get more performance with the 290x

 

It suffers from diminishing returns, which was my actual argument. You will not get as many frames out of it than, say, combined with an i5. So the added benefit of paying the premium gets sort of wasted. You're better off getting something balanced, like your friends 8320+960. That's a pretty balanced system.

[desertcomputer]

It suffers from diminishing returns, which was my actual argument. You will not get as many frames out of it than, say, combined with an i5. So the added benefit of paying the premium gets sort of wasted. You're better off getting something balanced, like your friends 8320+960. That's a pretty balanced system.

 Remember guys im going to get new Intel later on, i dont seem to like the fact crossfire board are cheaper in fact and Nivida card only gives a around 10 fps difference so im looking for the long run, i can probs crossfire this bad boy with another one down the track. I dont care the power usage due to the fact it only save me a ~70 dollars down 3 year track which i calculated so. I can in fact sell this card again for more than 150 due to the fact it was close mate selling off this because an Titan dosent work with R290. 

[Doobeedoo]

Some games depend way more on CPU than GPU, so it depends really.

Just to let people know, I have FX 8350 and R9 290 and for now only major performance degradation I notice are with Blizzard games -.-. 

So games that are single threaded, like running on 1 core mainly, there would be a bottleneck.