amd build

[yannick121212]

i am building a budget build with the amd fx-6300 and i want to overclock it. does anyone know a budget motherboard?

 

thanks

[Citadelen]

How much does the Sabertooth cost where you are?

[Guest]

Do you already own the FX-6300? Because I highly advise against using it.  

[yannick121212]

10 hours ago, Bobby_Joe_90 said:

Do you already own the FX-6300? Because I highly advise against using it.  

no not yet, why not?

 

10 hours ago, Citadelen said:

How much does the Sabertooth cost where you are?

do you have a link

[Citadelen]

3 minutes ago, yannick121212 said:

do you have a link

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabertooth-990FX-R2-0-Motherboard-Multi-GPU/dp/B008RPYAS8

[Guest]

Just now, yannick121212 said:

no not yet, why not?

The FX-6300 is going to be replaced in about 2-3 months by ZEN CPU's. The Intel i3 4170 outperforms the FX-6300 unless you manage a beefy OC but you will need a better motherboard which in total will cost more than the i3 4170 and a motherboard. If you have a little more to spend i suggest going with an i3 6100 because of the better upgrade path and slightly better performance than the i3 4170.

[yannick121212]

10 hours ago, Bobby_Joe_90 said:

The FX-6300 is going to be replaced in about 2-3 months by ZEN CPU's. The Intel i3 4170 outperforms the FX-6300 unless you manage a beefy OC but you will need a better motherboard which in total will cost more than the i3 4170 and a motherboard. If you have a little more to spend i suggest going with an i3 6100 because of the better upgrade path and slightly better performance than the i3 4170.

thanks i will look in to it

 

 

10 hours ago, Citadelen said:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sabertooth-990FX-R2-0-Motherboard-Multi-GPU/dp/B008RPYAS8

to expensive

[goodtofufriday]

As a huge AMD fan, if you dont already own the fx cpu then get an intel processor.

[TheGroovyMiner]

14 minutes ago, yannick121212 said:

i am building a budget build with the amd fx-6300 and i want to overclock it. does anyone know a budget motherboard?

 

thanks

I Have An AMD 6300 To Be Honest. Its Crap Wait For ZEN Video Rendering Times Suck And Gaming Isn't The Best Either. Go Intel Or A Better 8 Core. I Suggest Waiting For ZEN.

[Shahnewaz]

For a budget build, the FX6300 is fine.

In my bargain gaming build, I use the FX8320E, and the Athlon X4 860K for a tight budget build.

[Citadelen]

11 minutes ago, yannick121212 said:

to expensive

Ah, look for boards with 8+2 power phases.

[sapphirethunder]

Take this from someone who is using AMD FX-8350: DON'T BUY FX SERIES.

Just...don't. They perform poorly, if you want to OC a lot you need good enough motherboard which costs more than the cpu itself.

 

Rather buy i3 6100 and H170 or Z170 motherboard.

 

i3 6100 beats AMD FX-6300 in everything and often matches AMD FX-8350 in gaming.

Only times an FX6/FX8 can beat the i3, is in programs which utilize all threads properly and evenly.

[Shahnewaz]

If you want to buy an Intel CPU for gaming, at least get the lowest end Core i5. No longer should anyone invest in dual core processors for gaming. Games will choke on only 2 threads, and the situation will get worse in the future.

[sapphirethunder]

1 minute ago, Shahnewaz said:

If you want to buy an Intel CPU for gaming, at least get the lowest end Core i5. No longer should anyone invest in dual core processors for gaming. Games will choke on only 2 threads, and the situation will get worse in the future.

i3 works great on gaming because of the 4 threads. And the 6100 can then later be upgraded to i5 or i7.

[Shahnewaz]

1 minute ago, sapphirethunder said:

i3 works great on gaming because of the 4 threads. And the 6100 can then later be upgraded to i5 or i7.

Huh. When did i3s start getting HyperThreading...

 

And I'm not a fan of upgrading later. If you really need the i7, get it now. You'll spend much less money that way.

[sapphirethunder]

1 minute ago, Shahnewaz said:

Huh. When did i3s start getting HyperThreading...

 

And I'm not a fan of upgrading later. If you really need the i7, get it now. You'll spend much less money that way.

They have had HyperThreading for ages. At least research stuff before you suggest anything.

[Shahnewaz]

1 minute ago, sapphirethunder said:

They have had HyperThreading for ages.

I still wouldn't recommend it. Hypethreading isn't anything near an actual core. It's still 2 physical cores trying to do 4 threads though.

[sapphirethunder]

1 minute ago, Shahnewaz said:

I still wouldn't recommend it. Hypethreading isn't anything near an actual core. It's still 2 physical cores trying to do 4 threads though.

Maybe but it still works great on gaming.

 

 

 

 

[Shahnewaz]

12 minutes ago, sapphirethunder said:

Maybe but it still works great on gaming.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying HyperThreading doesn't do anything. It does wonders for some games, but it's really a hit and miss scenario, and it's bound to get worse as DX12 is right around the corner.

 

Also, that's not a fair comparision at all.

[sapphirethunder]

22 minutes ago, Shahnewaz said:

I'm not saying HyperThreading doesn't do anything. It does wonders for some games, but it's really a hit and miss scenario, and it's bound to get worse as DX12 is right around the corner.

 

Also, that's not a fair comparision at all.

DX12 is not just something which magically makes more cores better. It only lowers the cpu overhead, making it easier for cpu to handle data coming from gpu. Whether or not devs start making a use of more cores, is different thing.

So even with DX12, i3 will still do good.

 

Also yes, it's not quite fair comparison, this however is more fair:

 

 

 

 

and this:

 

 

 

 

[Shahnewaz]

4 hours ago, sapphirethunder said:

DX12 is not just something which magically makes more cores better. It only lowers the cpu overhead, making it easier for cpu to handle data coming from gpu. Whether or not devs start making a use of more cores, is different thing.

So even with DX12, i3 will still do good.

 

Also yes, it's not quite fair comparison, this however is more fair:

 

 

 

 

and this:

 

 

 

 

The critical comparison here is the first video, where the Core i3 4130 gets pitted up with the FX 6300, the two ones on equal memory speeds. On those two tests, the Core i3 and the FX 6300 were more or less equal.

 

So in other words, the FX6300 is a six core Core i3 4130. Pretty good for $110. I ignored the other ones because of the large memory speed differences.

 

About DX12, not only does it reduce CPU overhead, it properly makes use of multiple cores:

Tested on Intel Core i7-4770R (Above DX11, Below DX12):

 

 

And tested on AMD FX-8370:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2014/03/20/directx-12/

https://community.amd.com/community/gaming/blog/2015/05/12/amd-enables-incredible-directx-12-performance-in-new-3dmark-api-overhead-feature-test

[sapphirethunder]

10 hours ago, Shahnewaz said:

The critical comparison here is the first video, where the Core i3 4130 gets pitted up with the FX 6300, the two ones on equal memory speeds. On those two tests, the Core i3 and the FX 6300 were more or less equal.

 

So in other words, the FX6300 is a six core Core i3 4130. Pretty good for $110. I ignored the other ones because of the large memory speed differences.

 

About DX12, not only does it reduce CPU overhead, it properly makes use of multiple cores:

Tested on Intel Core i7-4770R (Above DX11, Below DX12):

 -snip-

 

 

Again: it only give possibility to use all threads properly.

Those tests were made with programs which were MADE to use all threads.

It doesn't AUTOMATICALLY use all. Developer needs to make it use all of them.

 

DX11 can use 8 threads as well, but the difference is the DX11 which in itself does most things on thread 1. As your pictures show.

If anything, DX12 helps i3 almost just as much.

 

And it's a Six-core i3 4130...which uses about 40W more power.

 

Right now, FX-6300 can be found for about 11$ less than i3 4150 (4130 isn't really found much)

 

FX-6300: 99$

i3 4150: 110$

i3 6100: 110$

 

For just 11$ more (or for exact same price in case of 4150), you can get a cpu which is about 10-20% faster in majority of things AND which has upgrade path.

 

EDIT:

Also you ignored one of the main points of an i3 6100, the newer and faster memory?

[Shahnewaz]

16 hours ago, sapphirethunder said:

 

Again: it only give possibility to use all threads properly.

Those tests were made with programs which were MADE to use all threads.

It doesn't AUTOMATICALLY use all. Developer needs to make it use all of them.

 

DX11 can use 8 threads as well, but the difference is the DX11 which in itself does most things on thread 1. As your pictures show.

If anything, DX12 helps i3 almost just as much.

 

And it's a Six-core i3 4130...which uses about 40W more power.

 

Right now, FX-6300 can be found for about 11$ less than i3 4150 (4130 isn't really found much)

 

FX-6300: 99$

i3 4150: 110$

i3 6100: 110$

 

For just 11$ more (or for exact same price in case of 4150), you can get a cpu which is about 10-20% faster in majority of things AND which has upgrade path.

 

EDIT:

Also you ignored one of the main points of an i3 6100, the newer and faster memory?

That's not an excuse to buy dual core processors. Developers CAN, and WILL make use of multiple threads through DX12. That is simply how the industry is moving forward, and DX12 is designed to benefit from extra threads.

 

Yes, DX11 supports multithreading, but its implementation is extremely poor and limiting. The reason why DX12 pulls ahead so far with mutithreading is because of fundamental changes in how multithreading works in the API.

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified

 

And if you think DX11 multithreading is just as good as DX12 multithreading, watch this:

 

And if you think DX12 will magically even out the performance difference between a 2 core HT processor and a 6 core processor, then watch this:

 

Power consumption is a pointless argument.

 

As I said earlier, deciding on upgrade paths is path-etic. Not only you end up with the same processor you targeted before but didn't buy in the first place, but your slower processor and the money you spent on it goes completely to waste. You CAN sell it off, but that's a different story, and you lose money either way, compared to buying the faster processor in the first place.

 

Yes, I ignored the other tests with the Core i3, because it is extremely unfair to compare them that way. The other Core i3 tests benefit from 533MHz faster to 1066MHz faster RAM speeds.

[sapphirethunder]

6 hours ago, Shahnewaz said:

That's not an excuse to buy dual core processors. Developers CAN, and WILL make use of multiple threads through DX12. That is simply how the industry is moving forward, and DX12 is designed to benefit from extra threads.

 

Yes, DX11 supports multithreading, but its implementation is extremely poor and limiting. The reason why DX12 pulls ahead so far with mutithreading is because of fundamental changes in how multithreading works in the API.

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/460524/DirectX_11_vs_DirectX_12_oversimplified

 

And if you think DX11 multithreading is just as good as DX12 multithreading, watch this:

 

 

As I said earlier, deciding on upgrade paths is path-etic. Not only you end up with the same processor you targeted before but didn't buy in the first place, but your slower processor and the money you spent on it goes completely to waste. You CAN sell it off, but that's a different story, and you lose money either way, compared to buying the faster processor in the first place.

 

1: I know it's not as good as in DX12

2: B150/H170/Z170 will also support the Kaby Lake, meaning you can later upgrade to i5 7600 and such cpus. While not for sure drastically better than Skylake, is still an improvement.

 

NO matter what, there is ABSOLUTELY 0 reason to even think about getting FX series anymore. Rather get equal modern 2-core 4 thread with upgradability than a cpu which MIGHT get all threads used in few year and MIGHT get truly better performance but has ABSOLUTELY NO UPGRADABILITY.

 

With FX-6300, a person needs to get new cpu, motherboard and RAM within 2 years, completely changing the platform. THAT is a waste of money and WILL cost more than just getting a new cpu later.

 

Also: it's not unfair because that's the point of it. The newer has faster stuff available. That's just how it is. There is nothing unfair about it. One is tech made 1 year ago, other is tech made 5 years ago.

 

 

EDIT: I'm speaking from experience. Bought my FX-8350 in 2013 December in a hurry and because I thought those extra cores would help in gaming.

But in the end I was matched by a i7 2600 and now i3 6100 is trading blows with it. Even on multi-threaded stuff like AC Unity and The Crew.

DX12 will improve it a bit, but Vishera cpus are just so old that getting a whole new platform is much more efficient now.

[Nena Trinity]

New games the FX is great but older games the Intel ones will win because per core is better, games such as Arma & DayZ is good examples of where the FX will be 10fp behind Intel... (fx-63x0 = 4th gen i3) Now then the FX-83x0 can be anything from worse than Pentium to almost i7 depending on the game or program...

 

Edit:

*If you want a 5GHz OC you should go for ASUS Sabertooth...

*If you want around 4.5GHz then MSI 970 gaming would do!