Will it bottleneck?

[thewafflemaster]

Will my AMD FX-6300 OC ~4.1 GHZ bottleneck an ASUS Strix GTX 970?

[flibberdipper]

It might, depending on if you're playing a game that hammers the CPU or not.

[aidenrelkoff]

debatable, but probably not, i wouldent go any higher then a 660 SLI or a 770 though, with that cpu

[Faceman]

Yup.

 

More and less depending on the game, but overall, yes.

[thewafflemaster]

debatable, but probably not, i wouldent go any higher then a 660 SLI or a 770 though, with that cpu

Why?

[MbV93]

No more than an 8350 would... get the 970.

[Aniallation]

Will my AMD FX-6300 OC ~4.1 GHZ bottleneck an ASUS Strix GTX 970?

Depends what game. Games that are able to use 4-6 cores will be perfectly fine, however games that use only one or two cores will struggle a bit, but nothing major since you're overclocked. Get the 970, but get the Gigabyte Gaming G1. Strix is overrated and overhyped.

[thewafflemaster]

Depends what game. Games that are able to use 4-6 cores will be perfectly fine, however games that use only one or two cores will struggle a bit, but nothing major since you're overclocked. Get the 970, but get the Gigabyte Gaming G1. Strix is overrated and overhyped.

Why exactly would it struggle with games that only utilise 1-2 cores? Besides what games now a days only use 1-2 cores? I looked on Newegg and the Gigabyte Gaming G1 didn't have any big deal breakers to make me pay an extra 20 bucks and I've used Asus before and they are a company I trust.

[aidenrelkoff]

Why exactly would it struggle with games that only utilise 1-2 cores? Besides what games now a days only use 1-2 cores? I looked on Newegg and the Gigabyte Gaming G1 didn't have any big deal breakers to make me pay an extra 20 bucks and I've used Asus before and they are a company I trust.

older games tend to use 1/2 cores. stuff like HL2 uses only 2 cores and stuff like BF4 and skyrim will use everything they get handed.

[Faceman]

older games tend to use 1/2 cores. stuff like HL2 uses only 2 cores and stuff like BF4 and skyrim will use everything they get handed.

No.

[aidenrelkoff]

No.

no to what.... skyrim will take 8 cores if you have them. and HL2 was made in 2004 so anything more then 2 cores in 2004 was either enterprise/server grade.

[Hieb]

Depends what game. Games that are able to use 4-6 cores will be perfectly fine, however games that use only one or two cores will struggle a bit, but nothing major since you're overclocked. Get the 970, but get the Gigabyte Gaming G1. Strix is overrated and overhyped.

 

not really... just because they will use 4-6 cores doesn't mean the CPU will provide extraordinary performance. Even if a program will use 6 cores, the FX-6300 will only provide performance similar to an i3-4160... and that's assuming that it pushes either CPU to 100%. In most games (even those that will use all 6 cores) an i3 would be better since single-threaded performance is still important so that when the CPU does get a task it completes it as fast as possible. Games aren't linear workloads like video encoding.

 

The FX-6300 will most definitely bottleneck a GTX 970 in most modern games... perhaps it won't once we have DirectX 12, but even an FX-8350 bottlenecks a GTX 780 in a lot of modern games so I certainly wouldn't pair a 6300 with a 970.

[Aniallation]

not really... just because they will use 4-6 cores doesn't mean the CPU will provide extraordinary performance. Even if a program will use 6 cores, the FX-6300 will only provide performance similar to an i3-4160... and that's assuming that it pushes either CPU to 100%. In most games (even those that will use all 6 cores) an i3 would be better since single-threaded performance is still important so that when the CPU does get a task it completes it as fast as possible. Games aren't linear workloads like video encoding.

 

The FX-6300 will most definitely bottleneck a GTX 970 in most modern games... perhaps it won't once we have DirectX 12, but even an FX-8350 bottlenecks a GTX 780 in a lot of modern games so I certainly wouldn't pair a 6300 with a 970.

A 6 core FX will outperform an i3 in programs that can use 6 cores/threads, such as editing and games such as Battlefield 4. If you're going for single core performance even an i3 isn't that ideal, since the only thing it adds over the much cheaper G3258 is hyper threading, which in that case you might as well go for AMD and get more physical cores (technically 3 modules on the FX 6300). 

 

In most modern games an i3 will still bottleneck many games since it's a locked CPU, if you do a lot of single threaded workloads then get the G3258, if you also do editing and things like that though, theres nothing wrong with the FX 6300, especially considering how much it costs.

[Hieb]

A 6 core FX will outperform an i3 in programs that can use 6 cores/threads, such as editing and games such as Battlefield 4. If you're going for single core performance even an i3 isn't that ideal, since the only thing it adds over the much cheaper G3258 is hyper threading, which in that case you might as well go for AMD and get more physical cores (technically 3 modules on the FX 6300). 

 

In most modern games an i3 will still bottleneck many games since it's a locked CPU, if you do a lot of single threaded workloads then get the G3258, if you also do editing and things like that though, theres nothing wrong with the FX 6300, especially considering how much it costs.

 

An i3 performs better than an FX-8320 in Battlefield 4 multiplayer unless you have Mantle, in which case they perform identically. I swear people just find one benchmark that favors the FX CPU (such as Passmark) and think that translates to any program that will use X number of cores will perform better on this CPU... that's not how it works though.

 

Using i3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khN2_fjRdcI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7IzrZFw1hw

 

Using FX-6300, FX-6350, FX-8320, FX-8350

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTnlPmx5pc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1ezCWYNsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBmFLkIUgI (with a GTX 780 still cant keep 60 fps at 1080p...)

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYvQf16G7s (this one actually shows ok results for the 8320, but still behind most i3 videos i've found)

 

 

 

Gaming is usually better on an i3, even in games that will use 6 threads. Video encoding is better on the 6300, and this is where the FX-6300 can do really well for the price since video encoding is a linear task. The CPUs will constantly be pushed to their limits to do a fixed amount of work - this is where the maximum potential multi-threaded performance comes into play. It doesn't, and almost never will, come into play during games since CPUs aren't maxed out at 100% or doing a fixed amount of work (except in poorly optimised games like Crysis 3 which pushes most CPUs to 100%). The CPU waits for certain things that need to be processed, and then has to process them as fast as possible. Fps dips and stutters are caused when frames are delayed due to the CPU taking too long to process a certain thing. Total multi-threaded performance does nothing to alleviate this.

 

Just because a program uses 6 threads does not mean that an FX-6300 will perform better than something that uses fewer cores. Keep in mind that even in heavily multi-threaded benchmarks, the FX-6300 only does about 20% better than an i3-4130 - and that's when both CPUs are pushed to nearly 100% constantly and they're doing a linear workload.

Gaming is made up of thousands, millions of extremely small tasks spaced out unevenly. Additionally, they cannot perfectly be spread over numerous cores because you need to assign certain tasks to certain threads. Stuff doesn't just enter a queue to be done at the earliest convenience by any core... programming games doesn't work that way. It just needs tasks completed as fast as possible when they come up to get the frames pumped out as fast as possible - so how quickly individual tasks can be completed is usually more important than how many can be done simultaneously, except when it gets to the point where an i3 isn't fast enough to complete the total amount of work (i.e. it gets maxed out at 100% where an FX-6300 would not)

[Faceman]

An i3 performs better than an FX-8320 in Battlefield 4 multiplayer unless you have Mantle, in which case they perform identically. I swear people just find one benchmark that favors the FX CPU (such as Passmark) and think that translates to any program that will use X number of cores will perform better on this CPU... that's not how it works though.

 

Using i3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khN2_fjRdcI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7IzrZFw1hw

 

Using FX-6300, FX-6350, FX-8320, FX-8350

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTnlPmx5pc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1ezCWYNsM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKBmFLkIUgI (with a GTX 780 still cant keep 60 fps at 1080p...)

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXYvQf16G7s (this one actually shows ok results for the 8320, but still behind most i3 videos i've found)

 

 

 

Gaming is usually better on an i3, even in games that will use 6 threads. Video encoding is better on the 6300, and this is where the FX-6300 can do really well for the price since video encoding is a linear task. The CPUs will constantly be pushed to their limits to do a fixed amount of work - this is where the maximum potential multi-threaded performance comes into play. It doesn't, and almost never will, come into play during games since CPUs aren't maxed out at 100% or doing a fixed amount of work (except in poorly optimised games like Crysis 3 which pushes most CPUs to 100%). The CPU waits for certain things that need to be processed, and then has to process them as fast as possible. Fps dips and stutters are caused when frames are delayed due to the CPU taking too long to process a certain thing. Total multi-threaded performance does nothing to alleviate this.

 

Just because a program uses 6 threads does not mean that an FX-6300 will perform better than something that uses fewer cores. Keep in mind that even in heavily multi-threaded benchmarks, the FX-6300 only does about 20% better than an i3-4130 - and that's when both CPUs are pushed to nearly 100% constantly and they're doing a linear workload.

Gaming is made up of thousands, millions of extremely small tasks spaced out unevenly. Additionally, they cannot perfectly be spread over numerous cores because you need to assign certain tasks to certain threads. Stuff doesn't just enter a queue to be done at the earliest convenience by any core... programming games doesn't work that way. It just needs tasks completed as fast as possible when they come up to get the frames pumped out as fast as possible - so how quickly individual tasks can be completed is usually more important than how many can be done simultaneously, except when it gets to the point where an i3 isn't fast enough to complete the total amount of work (i.e. it gets maxed out at 100% where an FX-6300 would not)

You are spot on, except Crysis3 is very well optimized.  It is the only game that is properly multi-threaded and will make use of all the cores thrown at it.

 

The vast majority 99.9% of games are for 2-4 cores, with 1 main thread.  This main thread is what matters.  You want STRONG cores not many weak cores.  The benchmarks are there, it doesn't make sense for you to buy any FX processor if your purpose is gaming.  Exceptions being if you live outside of the U.S.  In the U.S., at any budget, you will find something better from Intel.  Overclocking FX processors doesn't help bridge the gap, and ends up costing much more money just to reach STOCK intel performance.

 

You want to game?  You buy Intel.  End of discussion.

[Aniallation]

An i3 performs better than an FX-8320 in Battlefield 4

I stopped reading at this. Please just don't put an FX 83xx against an i3, you're making yourself look bad. Linus has already done a whole series on this, and the 8350 can keep up with, and sometimes even pulls ahead against even the i5 3570K in games like FarCry 3, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/56777-fx-8320-vs-i3-4130/

[Aniallation]

You are spot on, except Crysis3 is very well optimized.  It is the only game that is properly multi-threaded and will make use of all the cores thrown at it.

 

The vast majority 99.9% of games are for 2-4 cores, with 1 main thread.  This main thread is what matters.  You want STRONG cores not many weak cores.  The benchmarks are there, it doesn't make sense for you to buy any FX processor if your purpose is gaming.  Exceptions being if you live outside of the U.S.  In the U.S., at any budget, you will find something better from Intel.  Overclocking FX processors doesn't help bridge the gap, and ends up costing much more money just to reach STOCK intel performance.

 

You want to game?  You buy Intel.  End of discussion.

I'm in Canada. An FX-8350 costs the same price as the base model Haswell i3, guess which of the two nobody buys.

[Faceman]

I'm in Canada. An FX-8350 costs the same price as the base model Haswell i3, guess which of the two nobody buys.

And they're making a mistake by going with the FX because of misinformed people and websites like Passmark.

 

Show me multiple, reputable benchmarks where the FX is beating the i5.

 

Here are some benchmarks of the i3 beating the FX8.

 

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

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/

 

The FX doesn't allow you to play ALL games at an acceptable level, and it bottlenecks high end GPUs and multi-GPU setups.  In order to properly overclock the FX8, you will end up spending more money for a high end motherboard and proper cooling.  Two things which aren't required for Intel processor overclocking.

 

Talk to anyone playing Archeage who has an FX processor, they aren't having a good time.

[Aniallation]

Show me multiple, reputable benchmarks where the FX is beating the i5.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/6782-i5-3570k-vs-fx-8350-showdown-part-1-1080p-no-aa/

[Faceman]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/6782-i5-3570k-vs-fx-8350-showdown-part-1-1080p-no-aa/

"The conclusion for this video is pretty simple to me. The 3570K runs away with single threaded performance, but in games that really take advantage of multi-core (and this will become more common in the future) the FX-8350 will take the crown. With that said, the FX-8350 draws more power, kicks out more heat, and DOES perform worse in many modern games. The other thing to consider is that while the FX-8350 may be outperformed by the price-competitive Intel equivalent, it's never to the point where a game is playable on Intel and NOT playable on AMD."

 

The only games that are really well multi-threaded are Crysis3 and Watch Dogs.

 

There are plenty of games that are not playable on AMD compared to Intel, especially when played online in heavily populated areas, specifically MMOs.

[Hieb]

You are spot on, except Crysis3 is very well optimized.  It is the only game that is properly multi-threaded and will make use of all the cores thrown at it.

 

The vast majority 99.9% of games are for 2-4 cores, with 1 main thread.  This main thread is what matters.  You want STRONG cores not many weak cores.  The benchmarks are there, it doesn't make sense for you to buy any FX processor if your purpose is gaming.  Exceptions being if you live outside of the U.S.  In the U.S., at any budget, you will find something better from Intel.  Overclocking FX processors doesn't help bridge the gap, and ends up costing much more money just to reach STOCK intel performance.

 

You want to game?  You buy Intel.  End of discussion.

 

Crysis 3 will support many threads, but it uses a TON of CPU power. An FX-8350 will easily destroy an i3 in Crysis 3... but it takes ages to reach a point where better CPU doesn't provide more performance in it. Even if you were to have a 5960X, you would probably see gains from overclocking it in Crysis 3 That's all I meant... it uses multiple cores quite well, but overall uses way more CPU than it should

 

 

I'm in Canada. An FX-8350 costs the same price as the base model Haswell i3, guess which of the two nobody buys.

 

Bullshit. I'm in Canada as well. The i3-4130 can be bought for $150 reg price, but is usually on sale for around $120-130, while the FX-8350 is about $190 and goes on sale for like $170.

 

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34130

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox

 

Oddly enough, the i3-4160 3.6GHz variant costs even less and its standard price is $130, this is even lower than the FX-8320.

 

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34160

[Faceman]

Crysis 3 will support many threads, but it uses a TON of CPU power. An FX-8350 will easily destroy an i3 in Crysis 3... but it takes ages to reach a point where better CPU doesn't provide more performance in it. Even if you were to have a 5960X, you would probably see gains from overclocking it in Crysis 3 That's all I meant... it uses multiple cores quite well, but overall uses way more CPU than it should

 

 

 

Bullshit. I'm in Canada as well. The i3-4130 can be bought for $150 reg price, but is usually on sale for around $120-130, while the FX-8350 is about $190 and goes on sale for like $170.

 

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34130

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-fd8350frhkbox

 

Oddly enough, the i3-4160 3.6GHz variant costs even less and its standard price is $130

 

http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-cpu-bx80646i34160

Right right, it is a very CPU intensive game, as well as GPU intense.  This is one of the few games where an FX will best an i3.

[Aniallation]

Bullshit. I'm in Canada as well. The i3-4130 can be bought for $150 reg price, but is usually on sale for around $120-130, while the FX-8350 is about $190 and goes on sale for like $170.

Online. At the local PC shop here where everyone gets their parts from, both the i3 and the 8FX are ~170

[Hieb]

I stopped reading at this. Please just don't put an FX 83xx against an i3, you're making yourself look bad. Linus has already done a whole series on this, and the 8350 can keep up with, and sometimes even pulls ahead against even the i5 3570K in games like FarCry 3, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3. 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/56777-fx-8320-vs-i3-4130/

 

There's your problem. You stopped reading right before I provided the evidence for my claim that clearly shows FX CPUs failing to outperform an i3. :-)

I guess you don't want your mind changed

[Aniallation]

There's your problem. You stopped reading right before I provided the evidence for my claim that clearly shows FX CPUs failing to outperform an i3. :-)

I guess you don't want your mind changed

You're on the LTT forum. At least know what goes on around here. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/6782-i5-3570k-vs-fx-8350-showdown-part-1-1080p-no-aa/