fx 6300 and gaming

[Osnaps]

Any of you cats on here pretty big gamers and use a 6300? I am just wanting to hear some opinions on it seeing as how most threads I come across on the net end up being trolled and turned into a intel vs. amd discussion. What games do you play and how does it do?

Thanks fellas

 

[ssjwizard]

I have to say definitely yes its a big improvement over BD. I think for the gamer the 6300 is the sweet spot. You get more cores than you need for games without the extra cost/heat from eight cores. The Vishera chips are significantly smoother past 4.2Ghz than BD.

 

[Knufire]

CPUs don't really matter terribly much for gaming, the FX-6300 should be plenty of power to push any current GPUs out there.

 

[Anonaru]

CPUs don't really matter terribly much for gaming, the FX-6300 should be plenty of power to push any current GPUs out there.

This, with an addition:

The CPU-dependant games out there (think MMO's, Planetside 2, FSX, and to a lesser extent, Skyrim) mostly can utilize multiple cores, but none of them utilize 8 cores very well. Until you get into crazy cooling solutions, a 6300 will get a higher OC than an 8-core counterpart, netting you an INCREASE to typical gaming performance.

The 6300 is a beautiful little chip, and gives Bulldozer chips a resolute back hand across the face I use one on my benching table at work all the time, and it loves being subject to voltage range, maxium frequency, and benchmark stressing. Not many things short of high-end number crunching, compression, or simulation would net you a noticable difference between a cool, lean 6300 and a meltdown-hot 8350

 

[Osnaps]

Thanks fellas, its mainly the cpu dependent ones I was curious about. I love the price area its in @ $129 on tigerdirect. I definitely heard its a sweet oc'er.

 

[Anonaru]

Thanks fellas, its mainly the cpu dependent ones I was curious about. I love the price area its in @ $129 on tigerdirect. I definitely heard its a sweet oc'er.

Its a damn good buy at its price point, I can tell you that You need pretty good cooling with these, as with anything released by AMD in the past 5 years--

A 212 or even an H80i was enough to get it into the 4.75-4.8 realm.. It goes much, much higher on LN2 though

 

[Osnaps]

hahahahah the 212 I got, dunno if ill ever get ahold of ln2 though I have been considering a liquid cooling solution of some sorts, I'm just debating on buying one or trying to build my own.

 

[Osnaps]

Still curious if anyone is using one currently and gaming on it. I'd jump on it, but according to toms hierarchy its same tier as what i have now, which by their logic is a sidegrade at best.

 

[peanutbudder]

Why do you feel the need to upgrade? Does your 4170 not perform well in the games you play?


In my opinion I would just hold on to your 4170 and save the money for another 7950.

 

[Anonaru]

Still curious if anyone is using one currently and gaming on it. I'd jump on it, but according to toms hierarchy its same tier as what i have now, which by their logic is a sidegrade at best.

I use it for in-game benchmarks and the sort at the shop.. its more than a sidegrade from a 41xx.. A 15% improvement going from a 41xx to a 43xx without OCing in mind is already a big "side grade".. and you're adding 2 cores to the mix..

It will be substantial in CPU-dependant titles. There's a few users on the forum that use the 6300 in day-to-day, which, while I use one almost daily, isn't my at-home gaming rig.

They will advocate for it where I cannot fully do so

 

[Osnaps]

Why do you feel the need to upgrade? Does your 4170 not perform well in the games you play?


In my opinion I would just hold on to your 4170 and save the money for another 7950.

It performs ok I think for the most part, just a little more sluggish feeling than I'd like. I may be wrong, but I dont think my 4170 could even justify another 7950 lol, the 2nd one would be twiddlin its thumbs


I didnt think about the fact that the 4300 was 15% improvement over the previous 4100(is it the same with the 4170 as well? If so definitely didnt know or take that into consideration)

Ah decisions, decisions

 

[Anonaru]

It performs ok I think for the most part, just a little more sluggish feeling than I'd like. I may be wrong, but I dont think my 4170 could even justify another 7950 lol, the 2nd one would be twiddlin its thumbs


I didnt think about the fact that the 4300 was 15% improvement over the previous 4100(is it the same with the 4170 as well? If so definitely didnt know or take that into consideration)

Ah decisions, decisions

Look at it in the "medium" overclock range especially. A 4170 will cap out in "worth it" gains in OCing at 3.8. You basically get nothing once you break 4.3GHz

The 6300 would be about 15% better (A 4170 is clocked slightly higher than a 4100.. so let's bring this number down to 12%) before you factor in two cores, as per the typical gains of moving from BD to PD. It will get MUCH farther ahead of its little brother once you break 3.8, and this will continue on beyond the 4.3GHz finish line (4.3 is very easy to get on a 6300.. the 6300 will also scaling pretty well well up into the 4.8GHz range..). I can't put a percentage gain by adding 2 more cores, but you can imagine the picture I'm painting here.

I like the idea of another GPU, but that leaves you with crossfire scaling issues, a CPU bottleneck, and redundancy at 1080p gaming.

I'd say buy the CPU now.. then save up for a while.. and get a bigger, newer card. By the time you NEED an upgrade, the 8000 AMD series should be going full bore.. And you can can take advantage of that, or the ever-dropping prices of the 7xxx series

 

[Hicksimus]

It performs ok I think for the most part, just a little more sluggish feeling than I'd like. I may be wrong, but I dont think my 4170 could even justify another 7950 lol, the 2nd one would be twiddlin its thumbs


I didnt think about the fact that the 4300 was 15% improvement over the previous 4100(is it the same with the 4170 as well? If so definitely didnt know or take that into consideration)

Ah decisions, decisions

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

A useful little review to give you an idea in gaming(sometimes I find TomsHardware too heavy on the synthetics).

Edit: By the way don't let people on here mislead you about CPU's and gaming. They may be casual gamers who aren't bothered when the odd title runs slowly enough to adversely affect gameplay, but that doesn't mean CPU's are not significant. There are quite a few fairly recent titles kicking around where any AMD processor(including a reasonable overclock) will leave you with sustained moments of ~30fps and less. Usually because the developers were lazy, not really AMD's fault unless you consider that AMD should take these lazy folks into account.

 

[Osnaps]

Picture painted perfectly Picasso

Makes perfect sense and clears up a few things for me. Thanks man for the advice and the art work lol. Gonna wait til after the holidays and see if I can't possibly swing and extra goody or two

 

[Anonaru]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0

A useful little review to give you an idea in gaming(sometimes I find TomsHardware too heavy on the synthetics).

Edit: By the way don't let people on here mislead you about CPU's and gaming. They may be casual gamers who aren't bothered when the odd title runs slowly enough to adversely affect gameplay, but that doesn't mean CPU's are not significant. There are quite a few fairly recent titles kicking around where any AMD processor(including a reasonable overclock) will leave you with sustained moments of ~30fps and less. Usually because the developers were lazy, not really AMD's fault unless you consider that AMD should take these lazy folks into account.

FSX

If I OC the best 2 cores of my 8350 to 5.4GHz, FSX runs pretty damn well, so I dispute your bull-headed and unbaised claim! (I'm kidding I'm kidding!)

FSX is almost impossible to get to run at full fps, which is retarded. In this age, there shouldn't be a single game out there that can't fully utilize at least 4 cores, as basically every processor out there either has 4 physical cores, or has HT for 2 + 2 virtural cores. Its supported in compilers, supported in the graphics engines.. really just lazy developers now'days.. Was shocked to find a game like Aion Online able to fully and evenly utilize all 8 cores of an 8350 though haha

 

[Hicksimus]

FSX used to be one of my favorite offenders but there are some more annoying and much more recent titles.

Planetside 2 takes every spot on the podium. It's multithreaded in a near completely useless way because they chose an engine where the heaviest load can only be a single thread. What could possibly go wrong there? I took my X6 down to an X3 and lost no performance(30fps in large battles either way). Then I took it to an X2 and still averaged about 30fps but with some infrequent stutters. So I posted the result on their forums and they responded(privately) saying that the big load is a DirectX9 limitation(Hint: PS2 is dx9 only). So you get Sandy/Ivy Intel users with their big IPC performance saying the game runs fine and it's AMD's fault that their product is garbage. But will Sony tell them the real reason? Nope.

Skyrim seemed to dislike my 4.7Ghz FX-6100 in built up areas or near small forts. It was a noticeable slowdown. However, I saw discussions about x87 and thread checking neither of which mean much to me but the arguments seemed logical and the Skyrim x87 fix was helpful. Here is what I'm talking about. I was up on a cliff where I could look around within about 300 degrees and get a very high FPS count(CPU bottlenecked but it was like 120fps so no big deal) but there was a tiny fort and looking near it would drop my FPS to 40 and under with noticeable small stutters. Not AMD's fault, but annoying.

World of Tanks isn't too demanding but it is too demanding for 1 AMD core if you want foliage and grass settings turned up. Once again this fuels the Intel>>>>>>AMD argument even though using 1 core for the game is the real issue. Some maps aren't so bad and the new maps are focusing on using the GPU to assume more roles but there are still 2 maps that make me want to buy a 3570 or even a little i3.

Other games that suffer poor performance from poor development include X3, NFS Hot Pursuit(2008 ish?), some areas in Borderlands 2(console ports yay!), and I know I'm forgetting or haven't played a few more because I've had to comment in threads where people don't recognize the issue(usually MMO games and console ports).

Anyway, I just feel the need to point these out on these forums when I get the chance because there are some members that really believe CPU's are insignificant. There are quite a few exceptions and if you like to play a wide range of games you will find them. This still hasn't stopped me from thinking about getting a 6300, but the more bad experiences I have with poorly optimized titles the more I think about going Intel. I'm just not sure if I think the price difference is worth it quite yet....but with their frequent mini-upgrades maybe I can get a used 2500k for 6300 money .

 

[Anonaru]

FSX used to be one of my favorite offenders but there are some more annoying and much more recent titles.

Planetside 2 takes every spot on the podium. It's multithreaded in a near completely useless way because they chose an engine where the heaviest load can only be a single thread. What could possibly go wrong there? I took my X6 down to an X3 and lost no performance(30fps in large battles either way). Then I took it to an X2 and still averaged about 30fps but with some infrequent stutters. So I posted the result on their forums and they responded(privately) saying that the big load is a DirectX9 limitation(Hint: PS2 is dx9 only). So you get Sandy/Ivy Intel users with their big IPC performance saying the game runs fine and it's AMD's fault that their product is garbage. But will Sony tell them the real reason? Nope.

Skyrim seemed to dislike my 4.7Ghz FX-6100 in built up areas or near small forts. It was a noticeable slowdown. However I saw discussions about x87 and thread checking neither of which mean much to me but the arguments seemed logical and the Skyrim x87 fix was helpful. Here is what I'm talking about. I was up on a cliff where I could look around within about 300 degrees and get a very high FPS count(CPU bottlenecked but it was like 120fps so no big deal) but there was a tiny fort and looking near it would drop my FPS to 40 and under with noticeable small stutters. Not AMD's fault, but annoying.

World of Tanks isn't too demanding but it is too demanding for 1 AMD core if you want foliage and grass settings turned up. Once again this fuels the Intel>>>>>>AMD argument even though using 1 core for the game is the real issue. Some maps aren't so bad and the new maps are focusing on using the GPU to assume more roles but there are still 2 maps that make me want to buy a 3570 or even a little i3.

Other games that suffer poor performance from poor development include X3, NFS Hot Pursuit(2008 ish?), some areas in Borderlands 2(console ports yay!), and I know I'm forgetting or haven't played a few more because I've had to comment in threads where people don't recognize the issue(usually MMO games and console ports).

Anyway, I just feel the need to point these out on these forums when I get the chance because there are some members that really believe CPU's are insignificant. There are quite a few exceptions and if you like to play a wide range of games you will find them. This still hasn't stopped me from thinking about getting a 6300, but the more bad experiences I have with poorly optimized titles the more I think about going Intel. I'm just not sure if I think the price difference is worth it quite yet....but with their frequent mini-upgrades maybe I can get a used 2500k for 6300 money .

Aye, skyrim didn't do well on the 6100, this I know (It does a fair share better on a 6300, still not as good as intel takes it). Planetside 2, yep This and FSX can only be played on my 3930k rig, even then Planetside 2 does DECENTLY on the 8350 haha. I agree with you for sure, the CPU is more relevant than people think it is (And more so than it should be for sure).. 6300's are still an amazing entry at their price point

I love my intel rig, but I have a hard time suggesting Intel unless the user is specifically looking at games that have the two disaster points for AMD:

1. Heavy Single / light-threaded work loads
2. Inability to utilize multiple cores efficiently

They just seem to be too high at every price point. Feels like buying department store brand clothing when you can get the same stuff at Target

 

[Heater]

With my 8350 there is not a game that i play that i cannot hold 60fps solid. Will an i5 i may get a bit more fps but with my 60hz monitor there is no point. Vishera is a great cpu with a great price. It still lacks single thread performance vs intel but is much more fun to play with and oc like a beast. For a new build i would say get intel as you can pick up a nice board for the same price as AM3+ and the CPU price is worth the extra bit imo. But if you already have and Am3 board, there is no reason to spend $100+ (if you can sell your cpu/mb) for the small increase you will see. A better gpu will always give you more. Either platform is viable for gaming now days.

 

[MacAllister]

Anonaru: thanks much for the clarity! I appreciate the info.

Great discussion everyone, thanks for sharing. I think you've convinced me to hang on to my own 4170, as Osnaps. I also found a review guide that deals with CPUs relative to gaming: Best Processor for Gaming. Interesting stuff. Previously, I had always assumed that CPUs were much more important for games, and that Intel was the way to go, but I'm glad to get down to the nitty-gritty of this stuff. Thanks again, guys.

Anyone else have good experience with the 8350? That's what I've got my sights on for the next processor I buy... And I'm glad to hear your good review, Heater.

 

[ssjwizard]

The 83xx CPUs are great. Vishera makes Zambezi look like a dumb idiot honestly. I have run numerous benches between my 8120 and my 8320 in both clock for clock and pushing the limits type runs and every single step of the way the 8320 beats the **** out of my 8120. If your primary goal is gaming with minimal multi-tasking the 63xx are a better choice, but if your like me and run alot of programs ALL THE TIME, especially well threaded workloads(Transcoding, CAD/Rendering, compressing/decompressing archives, etc) the 83xx would be my suggestion on the AMD side of things.