-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
whats your thoughts on a FX-6300
- Thread starter ikpthegame
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
I3 6100 looks like it's only $20 more than the FX 6300. It looks like it smokes the 6300 in games.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
I'll take a Fx 6300 over a I3 any day for daily computing. Additionally what exactly classifies "smokes"? I game on my 6300/8350 i7 4770k/i7 6700k and i5 2500k and do not notice any real world difference while playing BF4 on a 1080p monitor when using the same Gpu. If I actually measured the frame rates I may see some difference but actual seat of the pants, I don't. Yes some games will tax the Cpu more and the Intel counterparts will outperform the Fx chips but I've yet to see where it makes a huge difference.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
I know that for standard TV/display anything over 60fps is meaningless, but I just fear what the future holds for FX CPU's including my own, now that there are some newer titles out there that will hit 30 FPS CPU bound on an FX.
Rise of the Tomb Raider is one, The game suffers terribly even with my GTX 980Ti @ 1080p (not my normal resolution, but for testing) there are many areas that my game will crawl at 30 to 40 fps while my GPU is utilized 50 - 70 %. Crank up the Res to 3440x1440p, Frame rate stays exactly the same.
Looked @ some youtube videos of 6300's vs the I3 6100, in games like Grand Theft auto, and frames can drop into the 30s on the 6300, while the I3 6100 is holding 50's +. That's a big smoothness gap for just a CPU difference. Some other games weren't too bad and seemed to have similar results, but there are those titles, where big open areas with lots of objects just hammer you in the CPU.
The reason I'm looking @ FX 6300's compared to I3's now is because I recently helped a friend with a tight budget gaming PC. I put him on a 6300 because I thought for some reason DDR4 was really expensive, and I wasn't familiar with the Skylake I3's and how awesome the single threaded price/performance was. I just assumed that with a tight budget, I was looking @ AMD. Now to realize that for nearly the same price he could have had the I3 6100 build I feel guilty. I don't really have any faith in the future of Multi threaded gaming right now, I have a feeling that that single threaded reliance is where it's staying, and watching frame rates drop into the 30's knowing now that for $20 more it could have stayed in the 50's or higher in the same areas based on CPU performance alone... you know?
Rise of the Tomb Raider is one, The game suffers terribly even with my GTX 980Ti @ 1080p (not my normal resolution, but for testing) there are many areas that my game will crawl at 30 to 40 fps while my GPU is utilized 50 - 70 %. Crank up the Res to 3440x1440p, Frame rate stays exactly the same.
Looked @ some youtube videos of 6300's vs the I3 6100, in games like Grand Theft auto, and frames can drop into the 30s on the 6300, while the I3 6100 is holding 50's +. That's a big smoothness gap for just a CPU difference. Some other games weren't too bad and seemed to have similar results, but there are those titles, where big open areas with lots of objects just hammer you in the CPU.
The reason I'm looking @ FX 6300's compared to I3's now is because I recently helped a friend with a tight budget gaming PC. I put him on a 6300 because I thought for some reason DDR4 was really expensive, and I wasn't familiar with the Skylake I3's and how awesome the single threaded price/performance was. I just assumed that with a tight budget, I was looking @ AMD. Now to realize that for nearly the same price he could have had the I3 6100 build I feel guilty. I don't really have any faith in the future of Multi threaded gaming right now, I have a feeling that that single threaded reliance is where it's staying, and watching frame rates drop into the 30's knowing now that for $20 more it could have stayed in the 50's or higher in the same areas based on CPU performance alone... you know?
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
Totally understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I really only have experience playing Fps games mainly BF4. I did look up some benchmarks in Tomb Raider and the Fps shouldn't be dipping that low on the Fx 6300, at least from what I can tell from the benchmark. Not saying it's not happening but it could be a driver issue causing it. 
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
I made a couple videos demonstrating bad CPU bottlenecks in ROTTR, one of these vids is especially bad getting 28 FPS @ 1080p with roughly 50% GPU utilization. Sorry its not Shadowplay, I didn't want to have that program influence the numbers.
Also just finished playing a trial of Black Ops III. GPU utilization roughly 70%, seeing frame rate drops all over the place and at one point, I can't explain it, but my 8 cores were maxed out, 98% CPU usage overall. Weird, but this seems to be a trend as of late.
Note none of these are Vram related, I'm not maxing out Texture quality, and I'm watching it stay well below my 6gigs.
Check out the Steam Forums for ROTTR. The guys with Skylake CPUs are doing fine, for everyone else this is an issue across the board.
Also just finished playing a trial of Black Ops III. GPU utilization roughly 70%, seeing frame rate drops all over the place and at one point, I can't explain it, but my 8 cores were maxed out, 98% CPU usage overall. Weird, but this seems to be a trend as of late.
Note none of these are Vram related, I'm not maxing out Texture quality, and I'm watching it stay well below my 6gigs.
Not saying it's not happening but it could be a driver issue causing it.
Check out the Steam Forums for ROTTR. The guys with Skylake CPUs are doing fine, for everyone else this is an issue across the board.
Last edited:
