Which CPU to upgrade to?

[TheLunarHero]

Hi everybody, about 10 months ago I built my first gaming system on an extremely limited budget. Since then I've upgraded some of the key components; but I think it's now time to replace the dated and frankly, underwhelming FX-6350 CPU. Money most certainly IS an object (I'm a student) and I've considered most of the common chips on the market at this point. If I upgraded to an 8350 I wouldn't have to buy a new motherboard but I didn't think the performance benefits would be drastic enough to warrant such an upgrade. Perhaps the monster 9590 with its 5GHz turbo clock would be right for me. Sure, the performance would be great but in my opinion the FX line is a bit dated, so I'm a bit worried about longevity. Not to mention my Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo would have a tough time keeping up with its massive TDP. On the blue team, I've considered the i5 4690k which would give a moderate performance boost for a relatively affordable price, but once again; I'm looking long term here. Which brings me to the i7 4790k, an absolute monster, that can adequately be cooled by the Evo, so no cooling upgrades needed, and which would be an enormous jump from the 6350 all at a price of... $500 (Asus Z97-A motherboard included). Money does not come easy for me, so I need this chip to be competitive for 4-5 years. My PC is used primarily for gaming (I play all genres), content creation is not a concern for me at this time. Basically, is a CPU upgrade even necessary or is the 6350 adequate. What's the sweet spot for price:performance when it comes to hardcore gaming? Thanks for your time.

 

By the way, this CPU will be paired with:

 

Asus R9 280x

CM Hyper 212 Evo

Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB DDR3 RAM

[Guest]

Go for intel because depending on your motherboard you maybe couldn't be able to use it with 9590 because of power consumption.

I would take 4690k if I were on tight budget. Its enough for hardcore gaming.

[Paul_VB]

the FX 6350 should'nt be bottlenecking unless you have a really killer GPU setup. Do you know if the 6350 is getting maxed out during games?

[sapphirethunder]

Your 6350 is more than adequate on playing games and doing basic rendering/content creation.

 

 

If you really want to upgrade, you can simply get 8350 together with Corsair Hydro H100i or H110 to make it play cool no matter what you do and possibly even overclock it to 4.5 for some extra performance while still staying at nicely cool temperatures.

 

Getting high end i7 like 4790k is not exactly worth it unless you are planning on some heavy 4k gaming. In which case you would also need to upgrade your gpu AND monitor.

 

 

 

But long story short: You have absolutely no reason to upgrade your cpu.

[itsmyjobtoknow]

I am not sure what motherboard you have as some motherboard can't handle the 9590's power usage

 

I would probably say go for the 8350, attempt to overclock it because the 9590 is essentially a 8350, just guarantee to hit 5.0ghz

[Majestic]

the FX 6350 should'nt be bottlenecking unless you have a really killer GPU setup. Do you know if the 6350 is getting maxed out during games?

 

280X, it's very plausible it is...

[SpagettiNinja]

If you are thinking of going Intel, the 4690k is more than enough. You really dont need the 4790k as it wont be that much of a difference.

[Paul_VB]

280X, it's very plausible it is...

an FX 6350 shoudltn be bottlenecking that card. Does the CPU ever get to 100% usage?

[johngo90]

This is my 2 cents... 

 

If you are strictly gaming go with the 4690k and you must be willing to overclock your processor if you plan not to upgrade for the next 4-5 years. Your evo cooler will do a decent job of cooling your CPU and you should at least be able to overclock up to a steady 4ghz or slightly above. The 4790k is a better performer, so if you can find a sweet deal on one jump on it.

 

Either way you'll be looking pretty set for at least a couple years with the 4690k or 4790k. 

[TheLunarHero]

My Motherboard is an MSI G46 something or other; I'm fairly confident it's not equipped to handle the 9590.

[itsmyjobtoknow]

My Motherboard is an MSI G46 something or other; I'm fairly confident it's not equipped to handle the 9590.

 

I don't even think that will handle a 8350 either...

 

So go to Team Blue, get a somewhat cheap z97 board and get a 4690k

[Faceman]

My Motherboard is an MSI G46 something or other; I'm fairly confident it's not equipped to handle the 9590.

No its not, nor the FX8350.

 

What kind of games are you playing that you're unhappy with the performance in?  Honestly, the FX6 *should* be ok with the R9 280X in most games.  Some games will be worse than others.

[Majestic]

an FX 6350 shoudltn be bottlenecking that card. Does the CPU ever get to 100% usage?

 

It doesn't have to be at 100% to limit the performance. It's not a single-core CPU, it has 6 cores, meaning to be at 100% load it has to be 100% across 6 cores. No game is that well threaded. 

[sapphirethunder]

My Motherboard is an MSI G46 something or other; I'm fairly confident it's not equipped to handle the 9590.

 

You should not really think about the FX-9xxx series.

 

Most games are not all that cpu heavy in the first place, meaning you wouldn't need an actual upgrade for years with 6350.

But if you want to play it safe, you can get 8320 or 8350.

 

Both will last you 100% for any gaming for next 5-10 years.

 

 

Also you better get a motherboard with AMD 990FX Chipset.

I'm using an Asus M599X EVO R2.0 for example which is great little motherboard for around 80-100$

 

Using FX-8350 with Corsair H100i as cooler.

Gpu is NVidia Geforce GTX 970 (MSI Gaming 4G)

[Paul_VB]

It doesn't have to be at 100% to limit the performance. It's not a single-core CPU, it has 6 cores, meaning to be at 100% load it has to be 100% across 6 cores. No game is that well threaded. 

true. I should have clarified that i meant weather or not any of the cores are at 100% load. 

[TheLunarHero]

No its not, nor the FX8350.

 

What kind of games are you playing that you're unhappy with the performance in?  Honestly, the FX6 *should* be ok with the R9 280X in most games.  Some games will be worse than others.

The Elder Scrolls Online in particular, but most games in general. My buddy has a Gtx 770 (comparable to a 280x) but his frame rates are a lot better than mine because his CPU is slightly stronger. I fear my 280x is not reaching its full potential because of the 6350.

[Majestic]

You should not really think about the FX-9xxx series.

 

Most games are not all that cpu heavy in the first place, meaning you wouldn't need an actual upgrade for years with 6350.

But if you want to play it safe, you can get 8320 or 8350.

 

Both will last you 100% for any gaming for next 5-10 years.

 

I'm not going to sugarcoat this; that is bull. 5-10 years lifetime on a 8320? Please.. It can barely keep up now..

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/266481-an-issue-with-people-bashing-the-fx-cpus/page-4#entry3620861

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/KAVERI-APU/KAVERI-APU-62.jpg

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/KAVERI-APU/KAVERI-APU-66.jpg

 

Games not CPU heavy?

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2014/11/far_cry4/charts/fc4_n_1920.png

The how come the 4690K runs an average 26fps higher than the 8350 on the same graphics card?

 

 

The Elder Scrolls Online in particular, but most games in general. My buddy has a Gtx 770 (comparable to a 280x) but his frame rates are a lot better than mine because his CPU is slightly stronger. I fear my 280x is not reaching its full potential because of the 6350.

 

 

MMO's, always go Intel. They are more reliant on per-core performance.

 

[Analog]

I would go Intel i5 4670K, because it is enough for gaming. The FX 8320/50 is not really that much of an upgrade, especially for heavily CPU-bound games. 

[Faceman]

The Elder Scrolls Online in particular, but most games in general. My buddy has a Gtx 770 (comparable to a 280x) but his frame rates are a lot better than mine because his CPU is slightly stronger. I fear my 280x is not reaching its full potential because of the 6350.

Yea, thats an MMO.  You are definitely being held back by your CPU.  You need an Intel processor to be able to play MMOs, and that game in particular at acceptable framerates.  I think a Z97 and unlocked i5 processor is your best bet to get the most out of your money and be happy from now until 3+ years in the future, maybe longer.  Because all you do is game, don't get the i7.

[TheLunarHero]

Thanks for all your help everybody, one last question. Will the 4790k have a tangible performance benefit over the 4690k? Thanks.

 

Judging from all the responses, I'd guess no; but just making sure before I pull the trigger.

[Majestic]

Thanks for all your help everybody, one last question. Will the 4790k have a tangible performance benefit over the 4690k? Thanks.

 

Judging from all the responses, I'd guess no; but just making sure before I pull the trigger.

 

A little bit due to the extra cache. Though, you're better off getting a nice board and a 4690K and overclock it.

 

I gotta say though, those load% tell me that the game has a very shitty engine. Even WoW uses more threads..

[sapphirethunder]

 

Games not CPU heavy?

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2014/11/far_cry4/charts/fc4_n_1920.png

The how come the 4690K runs an average 26fps higher than the 8350 on the same graphics card?

 

 

Those are on really high graphical quality with HUGE Anti-Aliasing.

I never said it would be on Ultra graphics with everything turned up to highest possible.

 

The question was if it's enough to run games that long, no matter of graphical quality.

 

Yes, if you want to play all games at near maximum graphics for that 5-10 years, it's not enough.

But if you care to lower the quality enough for the game to run, YES it is enough.

 

It's not like you ALWAYS have to be able to play ALL games at highest possible graphics.

 

 

 

 

Also, I too am playing Elder Scrolls Online. Also playing The Crew and AC Unity.

AC Unity is the only one not running 60fps at Maximum/Ultra

[Majestic]

Those are on really high graphical quality with HUGE Anti-Aliasing.

I never said it would be on Ultra graphics with everything turned up to highest possible.

 

The question was if it's enough to run games that long, no matter of graphical quality.

 

Increasing graphical quality has nothing to do with the CPU performance. That impacts the GPU load.

Only features like phsyics or effects have a small impact on CPU performance. But if a game runs shit on Ultra on an FX CPU, it'll run shit at 720P @ Low aswell.

 

Also, your arguments are very subjective and lack substance. 

 

The elder scrolls practically runs on 1-2 Cores. Having a 6 or 8 core CPU with very poor per-core performance will just not work. Even a haswell pentium Celeron will outperform a 8320 8-core in the Elder Scrolls.

[sapphirethunder]

Increasing graphical quality has nothing to do with the CPU performance. That impacts the GPU load.

Only features like phsyics or effects have a small impact on CPU performance. But if a game runs shit on Ultra on an FX CPU, it'll run shit at 720P @ Low aswell.

 

Also, your arguments are very subjective and lack substance. 

 

True, it's mostly on physics, but still that doesn't change the fact that the games now do NOT need top end cpu necessarily. An FX-4xxx sure wouldn't last 5 years, FX-6xxx is on the edge.

FX-8xxx should easily last 5 years, up to 6 years in gaming. 10 years if you stretch it + we never know to where the game development goes from now.

 

 

And it's still a fact that the lower settings also mean less work on cpu or otherwise the cpu requirements in games wouldn't be so flexible.

Even now people are still able to play the newest games with stuff like AMD Phenom II X4, which by your logic shouldn't be able to do that.

 

 

The benchmarks are simply showing what are the best or Maximum performance. Not what actually is adequate. Which is why, unless you are planning on heavy high graphical quality gaming, you should take benchmarks with a grain of salt.

For casual gaming over 5 years, FX-6xxx is adequate, then needs upgrade. FX-8xxx does the job well, may need upgrade after 5 years but can still last few years after that, especially if you decide to do a bit overclocking.

[Majestic]

Whatever dude, you stay in denial. I won't bother.