860k bottleneck

[Prysin]

I just get mad that games like Fallout 4 have stupid shit like god rays to intentionally give nvidia an edge

God rays are not the issue, shadow distance is A LOT more taxing.

 

also, Nvidia "bugs" arent visible.

take Crysis 2, where "Nvidia" or the game devs themselves actually HID geometry underneath rocks and concrete blocks. meaning that the GPU had to render non-visible geometry due to a shitty bug. But due to that Nvidia pulled ahead A LOT

[Prysin]

Yes the G3258 is shit. But at that point you drop below the "sweet spot" and then everything is shit. Including the (better) 860K.

 

i3-4130 is better than the FX-6300 though. And with the Skylake 6100 being as good as a 2500K, even that budget is taken by intel now.

i3 4130 is equal the 6300.

 

Skylake i3 6100 is better if you use Z170 board + 2666MHz RAM or faster.

if you need proof that memory speed matters. check out this thread written by Magetank.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/486004-impact-of-memory-speed-on-gaming-performance/

 

the "awesome" part of the 6300 is that it can perform between the 4130 and a 4450.

do not take my word for it. watch ALL these videos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxRbd53JTJU

 

 

FX overclock. is there a real benefit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBs3wZw0xnE

 

 

FX vs FX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koiBqmZ2VpE

 

 

"average gamer with FX setups: 6300 + R9 380"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buRYuvTKM60

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxMI6b3FY28

 

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

 

 

 

Bear in mind.

The FX 6300 costs $90~ish USD, a decent 4+1 970 board with mild OC headroom (capable of sustaining 4.2Ghz core clock) is about 70 bucks. Cheaper boards can be had, but OC would be unwise.

 

an i3 4170 is around $110~ish USD, a decent board that has all Sata3, not sata2, is around 55-70 bucks....

an i5 4460 is around $175~ish USD, and a board is around 55-70 bucks.

 

Given that the i3 is more expensive, for the CPU, we should see more performance. And given that the i5 is NOTABLY more expensive, actually costing nearly twice that of the FX, we should see much higher performance. reality however is that we do not... We see increases or decreases on a game by game basis. Which means that we have to look at use case.

 

First off: haswell is dead, just like FX.

There is no new parts coming for Haswell, ironically FX just got a new 970 board from Asus during CES and more boards ARE on the way, as AMD is doing one last platform refresh this spring before ZEN. FX is still dead. there is not enough performance gain going with a FX8 core to justify "upgrading". However upgrading on intel comes at a notable cost.

 

So given that the FX 6300 can span between a i3 4130 and a i5 4450 we can conclude that for the sub $175 USD CPU market. FX 6300 makes sense from a price to performance standpoint.

 

There is also the argument of chipset features. an argument often overlooked, but still relevant.

Skylake isnt as much the IPC or DDR4 improvements as it is PURE CHIPSET improvements. the Z170 chipset really make me regret buying a Haswell i7 4790k + ASUS ROG Hero board last summer. i should have waited and gotten a Z170 board + 6700k.... but i digress.

What you buy into with Skylake is "the future". DDR4 is the future. Faster, cheaper kits is a given. Kaby lake will come to the 100 series chipset and LGA 1151. You have a few more PCIe Gen3 lanes then previously. Albeit not as user friendly as one might think.

 

But just like Skylake, FX is a "feature" choice.

by dropping an upgrade path, you can choose a "meatier" board, for less money.

 

One can scoff at FX only having PCIe Gen2, but given that they have so damn MANY lanes, AMD makes up for their shortcomings in pure quantity. Sure, for single GPU usage, Intel HAS better offerings with actual Gen3 x16 slots, vs AMD with their Gen2 x16 slots. However, performance difference between Gen2 and Gen3 with single GPU is slim at best. In multi GPU settings, bandwidth matters, especially for GCN2.0 and 3.0 cards such as Bonaire, Hawai, Tonga and Fiji respectively, as these use the PCIe bus for the interconnect instead of the physical bridge. However, here, AMD actually matches or exceeds Haswell. AMD 990FX chipset is infact only beaten by the X99 based 5930k and 5960x in terms of raw bandwidth. In dual configurations, 990FX can provide 2x 16x Gen2 + another 6 lanes for other parts. LGA1150 and LGA 1151 can only provide 2x 8x Gen3 and a single 1x Gen3 on the side. Meaning that in dual configurations, the LGA 1150 and 1151 boards will have issues with NVMe based M.2 drives as they would be bandwidth starved.

AMD on the other hand, have a few boards offering 10GBs Gen2 x4 M.2 slots. It is not enough for the full NVMe speed, but at 2.25 times the speed of your average 850 evo, it is still more then you'd ever need in storage speed.

 

Then again, for 990FX, M.2 or other exotic multiGPU configurations, both AMD and INtel boards are considerably more expensive.

[Majestic]

i3 4130 is equal the 6300.

 

Skylake i3 6100 is better if you use Z170 board + 2666MHz RAM or faster.

if you need proof that memory speed matters. check out this thread written by Magetank.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/486004-impact-of-memory-speed-on-gaming-performance/

 

the "awesome" part of the 6300 is that it can perform between the 4130 and a 4450.

do not take my word for it. watch ALL these videos.

 

Only those DigitalFoundry video's you linked I trust, because i've watched their video's and listened to their deliberations and I feel mostly in agreeance when they test (not because of what comes out, but HOW they test). 1080p, Titan X for nearly no GPU bottlenecking. And those numbers contradict your remarks.

 

Also in these graphs;

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/b4.png (multithreaded)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/csgo.png (4 threads)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/c3_r.png (multithreaded)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/fc4.png (4 threads, heavy mainthread)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/gta5.png (4 threads, heavy mainthread)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/def/w3.png (multithreaded)

 

Those other video's are just randoms on youtube, who don't specify what they're doing and their numbers don't make sense and contradict DigitalFoundry's numbers. These are just hacks who have invested interest in AMD winning and just skew results. I'm sorry if that is cheap, but I have little faith in those random youtubers. I can just fabricate results myself and noone would know.

 

And the 6100 is not only faster on a Z170 board and 2666mhz memory. They're even faster on a dirtcheap H110 board and 2133mhz memory. As per the Digitalfoundry video.

 

Bear in mind.

The FX 6300 costs $90~ish USD, a decent 4+1 970 board with mild OC headroom (capable of sustaining 4.2Ghz core clock) is about 70 bucks. Cheaper boards can be had, but OC would be unwise.

 

an i3 4170 is around $110~ish USD, a decent board that has all Sata3, not sata2, is around 55-70 bucks....

an i5 4460 is around $175~ish USD, and a board is around 55-70 bucks.

 

Given that the i3 is more expensive, for the CPU, we should see more performance. And given that the i5 is NOTABLY more expensive, actually costing nearly twice that of the FX, we should see much higher performance. reality however is that we do not... We see increases or decreases on a game by game basis. Which means that we have to look at use case.

 

4+1 board does not give you OC capability, FX-6300's power usage on OC is not that much different from the 8350. And you forget to add the aftermarket cooler for AMD, which makes up for the 20 dollar defecit in your scenario. 

 

8350

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-26-11.jpg

 

6300

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/932/images/2014-12-17_14-29-51.png

 

So that's disingenuous. You need to grab atleast a 6+2 board, plus the aforementioned cooler. You can make a cheaper i3 build actually, given the stockcooler on the i3 is really silent, for AMD it's not. Hidden costs again, don't neglect them.

 

And I can't help but notice you're talking extremely small margins on a systembuild. This comes nicely to what most people able to step backwards and look at what you're buying, call the sweetspot. Yes, you can maybe skimp on 20-30 dollars with the FX-6300, but that's still bad value. 

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($98.89 @ OutletPC) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($24.88 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($74.98 @ OutletPC) 

Total: $198.75

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-11 18:23 EST-0500

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

 

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($199.98 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: Asus H110M-A Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($51.98 @ Newegg) 

Total: $251.96

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-01-11 18:24 EST-0500

 

Yes, the 6300 (overclockable) platform is 50 euro cheaper. But look at the absolute defecit you're operating under;

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2015/11/game_f4/charts4/f4_cpu_nv.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/oc/b4.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/oc/c3_r.png (that 37fps is corroberated by your own video..)

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/i3_skylake/charts/oc/fc4.png

 

It's sub 60 (sometimes far below) vs. 60+ fps. Meaning for 50 euro, you're buying a much better, smoothly locked 60fps experience. Instead of stuttering sub 50, CPU determined framerate. 

 

Also, debating dual-graphics solutions on budgetbuilds that probably struggle to saturate one card, is a little pointless. Yes the AMD boards have better bandwidth, but no CPU's to handle SLI/crossfire setups. So it's moot

 

AND, and this is probably the most important. On a systemlevel, that 50 euro means absolutely nothing. It's less than 8-10% on the total system. If 800 instead of 750 buys you 60 fps instead of 45-35 fps, it's a trade probably everyone makes.

[Prysin]

@Majestic

my old FX 8320 could handle dual 7950s just fine actually. It didnt show signs of real bottlenecking prior to putting a R9 295x2 into there. Although, that was to be expected.

any FX will handle up to 380X in CF. But that is where i believe it stops. Single GPU wise, FX (any CPU as this is architecture based) will top out around a Reference R9 290.

My R9 295x2 showed mild bottleneks when running single GPU.

I honestly believe that a Reference R9 290, yes the hellishly screaming thing, is the top of FXs capabilities based upon some observations ive done on my own.

There is a FEW 4+1 boards able to handle a mild OC, this is based upon a post from Overclockers where they litterally investigated the caps and VRMs used in the board itself to determine the quality and capabilities of the board. ATM i am on my tablet at work, so i cannot provide all the videos and stuff reliably.

I will say though, the aftermarket cooler is bullshit. My FX8320 did 4GHz on stock cooler. It was hot, it was loud. But IT DID NOT THROTTLE. Then again, some people do not mind a PC being on the louder side. Personally i want my PC quiet, but one of my best friends is on the other spectrum. He is litterally planning to mod a leafblower to blow through the radiators of his PC...

Dont ask why. Cuz i dont understand it either. But i guess, everyone has their own taste.

So with the cooler out of the way, we need to compare CPU + board to CPU + board.

The reason i prefer videos is that you can watch for dips. "manufacturing" evidence is easier if you just write a post with graphs. Because it doesnt show the test itself. Leaving you fully able to botch it all without anyone knowing. When you start to make videos doesnt matter. Every benchmarker has a start, the most important point is that they are consistent. Some of these videos have 5 tests per game, with different overclocks and different GPUs. I just posted ONE out of 5 videos because i know there is a limit to how many you gonna look through.

Most of them explain the system in either the description or in the video itself.

There is two ways to determine a CPU bottleneck.

A: run with the most beastly GPU there is to eliminate bottlenecks

B: run at a lower resolution with a weaker GPU to eliminate bottlenecks.

Personally, i think DF should use 720p with their TitanX tests, because even at 1080p, in say The Witcher 3, you CAN find occasional GPU bottlenecks. Which they admitted in another video by saying "we are using the Titan X overclocked to remove virtually any chance of a GPU bottleneck". The use of the word Virtually means there is a chance in really demanding titles.

i think the FX6 has ONE place.

to replace i3s in BUDGET builds. Purely there.

Like ive been saying with G3258s, which is shit anyway, is that if you are not 100% sure you will upgrade to something better within 6-12 months, AMD is better value.

There is also the question of GPU...

If your budget is tight, a FX + 380 will beat even an i5 + 750Ti in FPS. because most games are vastly GPU bound. Some arent, and in those, FX will tank compared to the much stronger I5.

Then again, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

90 Dollar CPU vs 175 Dollar CPU.

If the 175 Dollar CPU werent better, i would be so pissed you have no idea.

But saying that X CPU is bad because brand or benchmarks showing there EXISTS better, that is purely wrong.

FX makes sense WHEN THEY ARE CHEAP.

That is all there is to it.

They make sense ASLONG as they are CHEAP.

[Morgan MLGman]

SNIP

I'm glad there are still people like you here

 

 

SNP

Off-topic, where are you from? Cause you seem to particularly like PClab.pl benchmarks (which are reliable imo, a great site), just curious

[Majestic]

You can have a CPU bottleneck with both GPU's at 100%, read how drawcalls work. But I really can't be arsed with this autism, he won't be convinced otherwise and I made my statement already

 

@Morgan Netherlands.

[i_build_nanosuits]

@Majestic

Single GPU wise, FX (any CPU as this is architecture based) will top out around a Reference R9 290.

My R9 295x2 showed mild bottleneks when running single GPU.

That would make sense, i had my FX-8320 overclocked to 4.6ghz paired with an overclocked GTX 780 which is a similar card in terms of performance to an R9 290 playing a wide variety of games from 2012 to 2014 with OSD...in many games the GTX 780 wasn't fed at 1080p.

R9 390/390X or GTX 970/980 for example definitly in another league for such an old ass CPU.

 

it's a mid-range CPU it should be paired with such GPU's as a GTX 760/960 for example or an HD7950/R9 280/380 for 1080p.

You can have a CPU bottleneck with both GPU's at 100%, read how drawcalls work. But I really can't be arsed with this autism, he won't be convinced otherwise and I made my statement already

@Morgan Netherlands.

let it go it's alright you'll ruin your 2016 year if you start doing that...i know i've done it plenty in the past, these people havn't experienced any better so they don't understand drawcalls, IPC, efficiency...framepacing, minimum frametime variance...absolute smootness of animation.

The language they speak is more like ''MANY cores'',''MORE GOOD clockspeed'',''LESS ºC'', ''MORE Watts'' ''CHEAPER'' wow that's gotta be a VERY good PC part...and it's alright that way, AMD need the moneys REAL BAD right now anyways...AMD CPU's = GOOD GOOD GOOD.

[Prysin]

That would make sense, i had my FX-8320 overclocked to 4.6ghz paired with an overclocked GTX 780 which is a similar card in terms of performance to an R9 290 playing a wide variety of games from 2012 to 2014 with OSD...in many games the GTX 780 wasn't fed at 1080p.

R9 390/390X or GTX 970/980 for example definitly in another league for such an old ass CPU.

 

it's a mid-range CPU it should be paired with such GPU's as a GTX 760/960 for example or an HD7950/R9 280/380 for 1080p.

let it go it's alright you'll ruin your 2016 year if you start doing that...i know i've done it plenty in the past, these people havn't experienced any better so they don't understand drawcalls, IPC, efficiency...framepacing, minimum frametime variance...absolute smootness of animation.

The language they speak is more like ''MANY cores'',''MORE GOOD clockspeed'',''LESS ºC'', ''MORE Watts'' ''CHEAPER'' wow that's gotta be a VERY good PC part...and it's alright that way, AMD need the moneys REAL BAD right now anyways...AMD CPU's = GOOD GOOD GOOD.

Thing is mate, unlike @Majestic, i am not contesting that the i5 is better. i am proving that the Haswell and older i3s ARE WORSE.

people on these very forums still think a i3 is superior to a FX6 or FX8, they're not. They are equal or WORSE.

 

However, Majestic displays one fatal flaw in his arguments. the flaw of inconsistency.

My whole argument was that the FX would beat the Haswell i3s and Skylake i3s running "slow" 2133MHz RAM.

that is my WHOLE argument. There is nothing more to it.

 

yet someone in this thread has kept arguing "intel intel intel" for the sake of "intel"..... which is bullshit.

fanboyism has kicked in. His only argument returns to "your benchmarks are invalid because...." a game i too can play.... i dun understand a damn polish word, yet he referrs to polish review sites. So to me, they are equally "irrelevant" if i want to go with the fanboy argument.

notice that i under no circumstances, not even ONCE, contest the validity of his benchmarks. Yet his only counter argument is "your benchmarks are shit and fabricated. my benchmarks are real deal"....

 

and to you @i_build_nanosuits

if you actually think i care about core count then lol. you dont know me, and you clearly have no good argument against my case. i care about ONE simple thing.

the best deal for the least cash.

So what is a good deal? is it a super fast CPU? a super fast GPU? a feature packed motherboard? faster storage? memory capacity? storage capacity? expandability? Overclocking?

 

the correct answer is ALL of these.

so why do i care about FX? because it CAN offer all of these, often at once. For quite a reasonable price.

 

so what is a reasonable price?

it is a price based upon worst possible performance.

 

and does this have anything to do with your argument about the FX 6300?

yes it does. Because the FX 6300 is perhaps one of THE most reasonably priced CPUs on the market.

 

it sits below the i3 4xxx and 6xxx series. It can match or succeed them in performance. BUT, since the performance is NOT consistent, but based upon application specific matchups, AMD simply CAN NOT charge more. Because the product itself would be irrelevant. Completely so.

 

FX8 is an irrelevant product.

The 8320 is too low clocked, or rather, so poorly binned they should just cut down two "cores" and use them for high performance low TDP FX6s instead.

8350 is in i5 4460 territory. i5 4460 is more consistently a better product. So the 8350 is POINTLESS. due to being inconsistent. Sure it can be outright better then a 4460 in some titles. but not all.

 

FX9 series is a fucking waste of cash. Was when they came out, will forever stay that way.

 

FX4 is a waste because the Athlon 860k has higher IPC and due to equal core count, it will outperform these chips at a lower cost anyway.

 

So AMD only has 2 real CPU products to "show off". (ignoring APUs for this discussion)

Athlon 860k <- the only "entry" level CPU that should be used anno 2016. Pentiums are shit.

FX 6300 <- the only "cheap ass" level CPU that should be used anno 2016, because with the exceptoin of Skylake i3s, its better then other i3s.

 

and above this. Go intel. Don't even discuss AMD above the FX 6300 price level. Pointless to do so.

[Starelementpoke]

This became debate club.

[Majestic]

Such autism. Sorry but with every post he keeps increasing the number of CAPITAL WORDS and usage of bold lettering.

Clear case of dissonance, any sane person should just tune out. He won't ever be convinced otherwise.

 

And he will also continue to make this stupid argument every time the subject is coined. Oh well.

[i_build_nanosuits]

snip!

Current AMD CPU architecture is outdated and inneficient, locking yourself into any current AMD platform is a very bad uninformed decision regardless of the budget...let's hope zen is good.

[Prysin]

Such autism. Sorry but with every post he keeps increasing the number of CAPITAL WORDS and usage of bold lettering.

Clear case of dissonance, any sane person should just tune out. He won't ever be convinced otherwise.

 

And he will also continue to make this stupid argument every time the subject is coined. Oh well.

And thus, you admitt defeat.

 

for you have nothing to counter-argue with other then ad-hominem.

[Majestic]

And thus, you admitt defeat.

 

for you have nothing to counter-argue with other then ad-hominem.

 

No I admit that continuing the discussion would be the very definition of insanity. 

 

 

 

the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. - Einstein

[Prysin]

No I admit that continuing the discussion would be the very definition of insanity. 

and unfortunatly for you. Einstein was not a psychologist. Sooooo.... that argument has no professional validity behind it and you are now simply thrashing about in order to save face.

 

but, there is nothing to save here. Not now.

 

You lost the moment you decided to post an ad-hominem reply.

[Majestic]

and unfortunatly for you. Einstein was not a psychologist. Sooooo.... that argument has no professional validity behind it and you are now simply thrashing about in order to save face.

 

but, there is nothing to save here. Not now.

 

You lost the moment you decided to post an ad-hominem reply.

 

Dude, I lost the second I decided to disagree with you. You're just too blind to see how unwilling you are to deviate from your own prejudices.

 

The fact you declare a "winner" out of a discussion, just proves how you aproach discussion to start with and how much you judge your own ego by these 'conversations'.

 

Now I will stop responding to you. If you think therefor you won, go fucking right ahead. Nobody will care.

[Guest]

970 boards are insanely unreliable. 

 

Would not recommend anyone getting into that platform. This is coming from someone who did a black friday build that included an fx-8320 and a 970 board. It was extremely cost effective due to the sales and I still got pretty good bang for my buck. However, I have had complications with this platform just working as intended. 

 

I got my 8320 for $110 new shipped and it's overclocked to 4.8 stable. It does bottleneck my 390 in CPU intensive games (that aren't optimized for multiple cores), but I can still receive playable FPS in everything I've thrown at it. 

 

Hopefully DX12 will unlock some more performance. 

 

Depending on what games you play I would definitely go the i3 route, just know that some titles require 4 cores.