Is my CPU a problem?

[caddi daddi]

you know we really need to go over to the motherboard section and have a triple throwdown brawl and answer this highend cpu/lowend board thing once and for all.

 

[Black C5 Z06]

Do it. I'll sub.

lol

 

[RGone]

That sir is a great way to make suggestions. No fan boy shett. Even-handed handling of the constant Intel vs AMD bickering and on top of all that wording that makes freeken sense. Congratulations to you sir.

I have not recommended anything but Intel to GAMER buddies in 2 years. For about the very same reasons you state. Now when there were some good Thuban 1090T and 1100Ts available and money was 'bad tight', we could deal with AMD to an extent and do pretty good.

BUT when AMD dried up the good BE type Thubans to force everyone to FX-BS or was that FX-BD. Hehehe. Then I had to strongly urge a middle of the road Intel setup for pretty good success in 'all' games. The game used makes a pretty good diffrerence in one's results as you have stated.

Now in my mind if one I have need to make a gaming rig suggestion comes along and money is tight...well the FX-6300 and a board with at least 6+2 VRMs can fill the bill fairly effectively >> still money no object for play of any type game...Intel is my suggestion to them. Those just seem to be a set of facts. Mileages may vary. Success stories from both sides may be everywhere, but the law of averages seems to point at any game get Intel but expect to pay a little more overall. RGone...

Did I say I am very happy with my FX-8350 on CHV board and do not game but do editting of home videos regular. So it is what and how a rig is used that makes the specs so critical. RGone...again.

You'd do fine with them but I'll try to keep it simple.

The 6300 is a nice chip, think of it as your chip but having 2 additional cores and slightly (~15%) better performance per core at any given speed and it does so on about the same amount of power as you use now.

More recent/well-made games will perform well on it, the more cores they use the better off you will usually be(assuming they are used well).

What you lose by not going Intel is performance per core. Simply put, there are times when the Intel processor will offer roughly 30-70% better performance per core at similar frequencies to the 6300. Got a game like Skyrim/World of Tanks/Company of Heroes? Those tend to do wayyy better on Intel because they aren't using many cores BUT they are also CPU bottlenecked with most current gaming quality video cards.

With that board you will be able to overclock that chip a long way, so if you grab that setup and a good processor heatsink then you can aim for a nice overclock and it will be a really nice upgrade.

Edit: I'll give you an idea. In Company of Heroes last night I was playing with 1 friend using an fx-6100(stock), 1 friend using an i5 3570(stock) and myself on a 1045T(3.7GHz). At the end of the game it reported our average FPS...the Intel set 37FPS, my 1045T set 18.5 and the 6100 set 13. Because the game uses 1 core the only way to get something smooth is Intel. Alternatively, we all get visually similar FPS in BF3(usually 50 or above) though if we all run stock CPU the 3570 is still a bit ahead. So sometimes the difference is tiny, sometimes the difference can be huge.

 

[caddi daddi]

+1

 

[Black C5 Z06]

That sir is a great way to make suggestions. No fan boy shett. Even-handed handling of the constant Intel vs AMD bickering and on top of all that wording that makes freeken sense. Congratulations to you sir.

I have not recommended anything but Intel to GAMER buddies in 2 years. For about the very same reasons you state. Now when there were some good Thuban 1090T and 1100Ts available and money was 'bad tight', we could deal with AMD to an extent and do pretty good.

BUT when AMD dried up the good BE type Thubans to force everyone to FX-BS or was that FX-BD. Hehehe. Then I had to strongly urge a middle of the road Intel setup for pretty good success in 'all' games. The game used makes a pretty good diffrerence in one's results as you have stated.

Now in my mind if one I have need to make a gaming rig suggestion comes along and money is tight...well the FX-6300 and a board with at least 6+2 VRMs can fill the bill fairly effectively >> still money no object for play of any type game...Intel is my suggestion to them. Those just seem to be a set of facts. Mileages may vary. Success stories from both sides may be everywhere, but the law of averages seems to point at any game get Intel but expect to pay a little more overall. RGone...

Did I say I am very happy with my FX-8350 on CHV board and do not game but do editting of home videos regular. So it is what and how a rig is used that makes the specs so critical. RGone...again.

It's what happened to me. When I got into custom PCs, my friend that got me started was/is an AMD fanboy. Hence, I have a 1090T. I'd absolutely kill to be on an Intel upgrade path.

Now I have 2 generation old hardware and can't afford a serious upgrade to IB. Oh well, live and learn.

 

[RGone]

I hear that man. It happens and for some there seems no way out without picking-up another bucket of money and throwing it at parts.

Vishera seems all we will see in the AMD non-APU market for all of 2013 now that the roadmap seems changed. I can stand that alright enough for my uses. Others will chomp at the bit thinking AMD will catch Intel. NoT. They claim they don't intend to compete in the high-end desktop market. Heck no if you cannot. So we are just here in some respects for another year. RGone...

It's what happened to me. When I got into custom PCs, my friend that got me started was/is an AMD fanboy. Hence, I have a 1090T. I'd absolutely kill to be on an Intel upgrade path.

Now I have 2 generation old hardware and can't afford a serious upgrade to IB. Oh well, live and learn.

 

[Hicksimus]

That sir is a great way to make suggestions. No fan boy shett. Even-handed handling of the constant Intel vs AMD bickering and on top of all that wording that makes freeken sense. Congratulations to you sir.

And now I will be a bit AMD biased! I feel badly for them that many people underestimate the power of an AMD CPU simply because many games are built like it's still 2003. Unfortunately AMD moved on to using many cores while Intel moved up the performance of its cores and that leads to this little picture I tossed together.

Spoiler

This is also a bit for Wafflebutt. The 6300 especially overclocked will clean house in many dx10/11 games like BF3 for example(ok, not clean house....but really it should bottleneck your GPU to over 60FPS so if you're like most people that's a non-issue). But dx9 games and poorly threaded games in general can run really poorly, like Planetside 2. It's not AMD's fault that a demanding game like BF3 runs so great while a stripped down game like PS2 runs poorly, but unfortunately that can be a fact of life when you use AMD. Notice that peak load that moves from core to core...that's a result of using dx9, everything else in the game must wait while my processor's single weak little core works with the graphics card, PS2 has several threads(using several cores), but they've completely failed at multithreading because they've left the biggest load as only being capable of operating on one core. Once again, that's not really AMD's fault, BF3 is much more demanding of the CPU than almost any other game AND it runs better than almost any other game in terms of CPU bottleneck. If I were to have a moderately overclocked i5 that CPU usage graph would look a bit smoother in Planetside 2, but that 1 big load would be handled sufficiently by the CPU which I've seen from standing side by side with a friend results in him experiencing 20 to 35 more FPS than I do...while we get much closer performance in BF3.

I saved $100 by going 1045T and frequently it was totally worth the savings, but as others have mentioned in here...you may regret it. Especially if a game you really like (Planetside 2 for me) turns out to be terribly made.

 

[Dlaw]

+1 caddy. I see that kind of thing with my 960T all the time. Fortunately, I'm used to running super low end hardware, so as long as it's 24FPS or better, I'm good. lol.

 

[Wafflebutt]

Welp, woke up in the morning to see all these replies! I am well certained that I will get the i5 build, it just seems better and I probably won't have to upgrade parts for another 2 years or so.

 

[RGone]

Welp, woke up in the morning to see all these replies! I am well certained that I will get the i5 build, it just seems better and I probably won't have to upgrade parts for another 2 years or so.

Not a problem. Enjoy a new system and have fun. RGone...

 

[Ajay57]

Wafflebutt if you start a new thread in the general hardware section i will help you there. AJ.