FX-6300 + GTX 660, no bottleneck in any game?

Hello, would a FX-6300 CPU bottleneck my GTX 660?
Even if the game only supports 2-4 cores?
I wanna play games with 60+ fps, which I probably would be able to if I play on low graphic settings and if the CPU will let my 660 work at its full capacity.
I would go with the FX-8320 if I had the money, but I will have to upgrade my second computer aswell with a FX-6300, so its a 75 dollar differense in total and I aint got much cash, since I'm a student, getting about 120 dollars a month.
So, I'd like to know if getting a FX-6300 will be enough for my GTX 660 card.
And also, what about GTX 660 TI and FX-6300, since I have GTX 660 TI in my other PC. The reason I have these CPUs is because ppl told me its better to spend cash on a better graphic card and go with a cheaper CPU, I WONT EVER DO THAT MISTAKE AGAIN, because when it comes to heavy CPU games, my FX-4100@ 4,7 ghz bottleneck my GTX 660, and my P II x4 965 be(stock) bottlenecking my GTX 660 ti.

I would rather go with a I5 3570k and a GTX 550 TI but anyways, its too late.. And I'm tired of this bottlenecking.

Thanks!
18 answers Last reply
More about 6300 gtx 660 bottleneck game
  1. it shouldn't bottleneck. obviously cpu heavy games are ALWAYS bottlenecked by the cpu... but no. generally speaking the fx6300 is more then enough cpu for pretty much all gaming.

    frankly an A10-5800k or a PhII x4 965 are about all the cpu you need for gaming.
  2. AMD FX 6300 will still bottleneck your GPU by a little, Intel has simply a better architecture which means the most these days.

    It's always better to spend more money on the GPU. You can check your CPU usage and GPU usage while ingame and see if you actually got a bottleneck, follow my guide and it will get you up and running in no time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIpOmfLRrM

    If your CPU is running at 100% all the time and your GPU isn't, then you got a bottleneck.
  3. ingtar33 said:
    it shouldn't bottleneck. obviously cpu heavy games are ALWAYS bottlenecked by the cpu... but no. generally speaking the fx6300 is more then enough cpu for pretty much all gaming.

    frankly an A10-5800k or a PhII x4 965 are about all the cpu you need for gaming.


    Well, ok thanks but will I see a differense between FX-6300 and FX-4100/P II x4 965BE in games that supports only 4 cores? Ofc I will see a differense in bf3 as it supports 6 cores, I know that.
  4. hasteone said:
    ingtar33 said:
    it shouldn't bottleneck. obviously cpu heavy games are ALWAYS bottlenecked by the cpu... but no. generally speaking the fx6300 is more then enough cpu for pretty much all gaming.

    frankly an A10-5800k or a PhII x4 965 are about all the cpu you need for gaming.


    Well, ok thanks but will I see a differense between FX-6300 and FX-4100/P II x4 965BE in games that supports only 4 cores? Ofc I will see a differense in bf3 as it supports 6 cores, I know that.



    of course you might see a difference.

    it does depend greatly on the resolutions your playing at. the bigger the resolutions and the bigger the monitor the more obvious cpu differences will be...

    if you're planning on playing at 1080p, and on a reasonable size pc monitor (24"), you should be fine with your fx6300. any bottlenecking that might go on will largely be imperceptible for you from play experience. If your monitors refresh rate is 60hz, then you'll never be able to tell the difference from your fx6300 and an overclocked i5-3570k
  5. lostgamer_03 said:
    AMD FX 6300 will still bottleneck your GPU by a little, Intel has simply a better architecture which means the most these days.

    It's always better to spend more money on the GPU. You can check your CPU usage and GPU usage while ingame and see if you actually got a bottleneck, follow my guide and it will get you up and running in no time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIpOmfLRrM

    If your CPU is running at 100% all the time and your GPU isn't, then you got a bottleneck.



    Strange I was just playing a 64 player BF3 map on ultra and my graphics were at 100% and cpu was only at about 60% I have a 6300 Btw
  6. cmi86 said:
    lostgamer_03 said:
    AMD FX 6300 will still bottleneck your GPU by a little, Intel has simply a better architecture which means the most these days.

    It's always better to spend more money on the GPU. You can check your CPU usage and GPU usage while ingame and see if you actually got a bottleneck, follow my guide and it will get you up and running in no time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIpOmfLRrM

    If your CPU is running at 100% all the time and your GPU isn't, then you got a bottleneck.



    Strange I was just playing a 64 player BF3 map on ultra and my graphics were at 100% and cpu was only at about 60% I have a 6300 Btw



    haha! yeah... i'm rolling with a PhII x4 965, and all my buddies with state of the art overclocked i5s and i7s are constantly banging their heads into the wall of reality when they see my system game.

    can't figure out why such a wimpy little chip can play the same games a the same high graphics settings and look just as smooth as their setups. (of course my monitor is smaller and runs a lower resolution, but i'm not gonna tell that THAT's why i'm able to do it, its more fun to make em think i've achieved some magical overclock...)

    obviously your experience won't be universal, as the monitor and resolution settings play a huge role in this discussion but i'm glad to see your AMD system tankin' your game like a champ. We need a healthy AMD out there to keep intel's prices down and innovation up.
  7. Do you already have an AM3+ motherboard? If not, get an i5 3350p. They can be found for around $170.
  8. JD88 said:
    Do you already have an AM3+ motherboard? If not, get an i5 3350p. They can be found for around $170.


    and the fx6300 can be had for $100... hard to argue or justify your suggestion when the fx is just a small half step slower stock... and can overclock far better.
  9. The cheapest I could find them on Amazon was for $115 and they are nearly sold out. Also, to get decent performance you need to overclock using an aftermarket cooler. That's another $30-35. At that price point, might as well get the much better i5.

    As for a Phenom x4 being enough for gaming, you obviously don't like getting 60FPS in Starcraft II, Skyrim, Crysis 3, or Planetside 2.
  10. cmi86 said:
    lostgamer_03 said:
    AMD FX 6300 will still bottleneck your GPU by a little, Intel has simply a better architecture which means the most these days.

    It's always better to spend more money on the GPU. You can check your CPU usage and GPU usage while ingame and see if you actually got a bottleneck, follow my guide and it will get you up and running in no time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIpOmfLRrM

    If your CPU is running at 100% all the time and your GPU isn't, then you got a bottleneck.



    Strange I was just playing a 64 player BF3 map on ultra and my graphics were at 100% and cpu was only at about 60% I have a 6300 Btw



    Because bf3 supports 6 cores, but in games that support only 4 cores might be another thing :) Btw what graphics card do u use?
  11. ingtar33 said:
    hasteone said:
    ingtar33 said:
    it shouldn't bottleneck. obviously cpu heavy games are ALWAYS bottlenecked by the cpu... but no. generally speaking the fx6300 is more then enough cpu for pretty much all gaming.

    frankly an A10-5800k or a PhII x4 965 are about all the cpu you need for gaming.


    Well, ok thanks but will I see a differense between FX-6300 and FX-4100/P II x4 965BE in games that supports only 4 cores? Ofc I will see a differense in bf3 as it supports 6 cores, I know that.



    of course you might see a difference.

    it does depend greatly on the resolutions your playing at. the bigger the resolutions and the bigger the monitor the more obvious cpu differences will be...

    if you're planning on playing at 1080p, and on a reasonable size pc monitor (24"), you should be fine with your fx6300. any bottlenecking that might go on will largely be imperceptible for you from play experience. If your monitors refresh rate is 60hz, then you'll never be able to tell the difference from your fx6300 and an overclocked i5-3570k


    I play on 1920x1200p with a 24" 60/59 hz screen :P
  12. JD88 said:
    As for a Phenom x4 being enough for gaming, you obviously don't like getting 60FPS in Starcraft II, Skyrim, Crysis 3, or Planetside 2.


    apparently i don't.

    Unlike you i don't play with a graphic telling me my framerates... i just go based on how smouth and seemless it plays. it plays smouth and seamless.

    i gave up looking at fps a decade ago, when i realized that 20fps could look and play smoother then 50fps. Its about frame pacing, not rate. 20 can look as good or better then 100 if the frames come in a smooth and regular way.

    So you won't hear me quoting FPS. i've known for a long long time it was a worthless measuring stick. I will tell you everyone who's played any game on my system has been amazed such an ancient machine (it's sporting a 9800GT) could possibly play brand new, state of the art games without any issues at super high settings.

    of course as i said earlier... your monitor and resolution and refresh rates REALLY matters in this discussion. I've seen so many people build insane gaming systems then skimp on a monitor, of course they'll play every game on ultra and it will always look silky smooth, but they probably would be able to do the same on a monitor x2 the size and refresh rate at much higher resolutions. at the same time i've seen people with far better systems then mine really struggle to get a playable experience on medium settings. because of course they have an aircraft carrier sized monitors and have their resolution cranked through the sky.

    that monitor part of the equation is always why i'm leery of telling someone 100% that they'll play a game on ultra settings with their cpu/gpu settup... because it's not that simple.
  13. ingtar33 said:
    JD88 said:
    As for a Phenom x4 being enough for gaming, you obviously don't like getting 60FPS in Starcraft II, Skyrim, Crysis 3, or Planetside 2.


    apparently i don't.

    Unlike you i don't play with a graphic telling me my framerates... i just go based on how smouth and seemless it plays. it plays smouth and seamless.

    i gave up looking at fps a decade ago, when i realized that 20fps could look and play smoother then 50fps. Its about frame pacing, not rate. 20 can look as good or better then 100 if the frames come in a smooth and regular way.

    So you won't hear me quoting FPS. i've known for a long long time it was a worthless measuring stick. I will tell you everyone who's played any game on my system has been amazed such an ancient machine (it's sporting a 9800GT) could possibly play brand new, state of the art games without any issues at super high settings.

    of course as i said earlier... your monitor and resolution and refresh rates REALLY matters in this discussion. I've seen so many people build insane gaming systems then skimp on a monitor, of course they'll play every game on ultra and it will always look silky smooth, but they probably would be able to do the same on a monitor x2 the size and refresh rate at much higher resolutions. at the same time i've seen people with far better systems then mine really struggle to get a playable experience on medium settings. because of course they have an aircraft carrier sized monitors and have their resolution cranked through the sky.

    that monitor part of the equation is always why i'm leery of telling someone 100% that they'll play a game on ultra settings with their cpu/gpu settup... because it's not that simple.


    In 2013 I think most people want to play their games on at least 1080P.
  14. If your CPUs are only at 60%, then it's quite good.

    I like a competitive market, because it only result into better components for the consumer. AMD still pushing Intel in the lower market is good to see.

    I don't hope that someone didn't understand my reply in the right way. Intel does make the best CPUs right now, however the average consumer would still be fine with a CPU by AMD. :)
  15. ingtar33 said:
    cmi86 said:
    lostgamer_03 said:
    AMD FX 6300 will still bottleneck your GPU by a little, Intel has simply a better architecture which means the most these days.

    It's always better to spend more money on the GPU. You can check your CPU usage and GPU usage while ingame and see if you actually got a bottleneck, follow my guide and it will get you up and running in no time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxIpOmfLRrM

    If your CPU is running at 100% all the time and your GPU isn't, then you got a bottleneck.



    Strange I was just playing a 64 player BF3 map on ultra and my graphics were at 100% and cpu was only at about 60% I have a 6300 Btw



    haha! yeah... i'm rolling with a PhII x4 965, and all my buddies with state of the art overclocked i5s and i7s are constantly banging their heads into the wall of reality when they see my system game.

    can't figure out why such a wimpy little chip can play the same games a the same high graphics settings and look just as smooth as their setups. (of course my monitor is smaller and runs a lower resolution, but i'm not gonna tell that THAT's why i'm able to do it, its more fun to make em think i've achieved some magical overclock...)

    obviously your experience won't be universal, as the monitor and resolution settings play a huge role in this discussion but i'm glad to see your AMD system tankin' your game like a champ. We need a healthy AMD out there to keep intel's prices down and innovation up.


    I can't tell if you are making a cocky remark or not but just to clarify my resolution is 1080P on a 42" monitor
  16. It won't at 4.2 GHz and higher
  17. I have exactly the same CPU and GPU you as you. I run in High detail @ 1680 x 1050 and average about 80-90 fps. People who are saying your cpu is bottlenecking your system don't know what they are talking about. Your computer is more than capable of running this game on high detail over 60 FPS. I usually run around 100+ FPS. You will run into some issues setting up your system, but once you iron them out you will have a nice rig.
  18. there's only a few games that fx6300 cpu will bottleneck (only a slight bottleneck) with a gtx660, Skyrim and Starcraft II come to mind. You won't get a huger performance gain from your phenom 965 though, but that depends on game
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=699
    you would be far worse off with the 3570k + 550ti, that gpu is too slow for 1080p regardless of the cpu. Is there any reason you need 2 rigs? sell them both and just have one better pc.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gtx Bottleneck Games CPUs