Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will an AMD FX-6350 bottleneck a GTX 770?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 9, 2013 10:28:33 AM

I am making a build for about $1000 (including monitor and OS), and I am planning on getting an AMD FX-6350 and an Asus DirectCU II GTX 770. Will the FX-6350 bottleneck the GTX 770? Update: I plan on having two monitors and I looked over it again and it is about $1300. I plan on playing Arma 3 and BF3 @ 1080p. Thank you.
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 10:36:56 AM

It depends on a lot of things, like resolutions, in game settings, and which game.

If you like playing at huge resolutions (or multiple monitors) then it shouldn't be any sort of bottleneck. I doubt that's the case since you want everything, monitor included, to come in under $1000.
If you play a Cid Meyers Civ game, then same things, it shouldn't, since A.I. don't take their turns when you do.

The GTX 770 is basically a GTX 680 that's a little more powerful from clock speed, with a few power adjustments. Have you read the review for the 770? What games are you looking to play?

There are already a lot of threads like this one. Maybe the CPU is a bit different, or the GPU is another one, but in general they are all the same class.

As they say, there is always something that's being a bottleneck, it's whether you notice it or not that matters.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 175 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
June 9, 2013 10:37:58 AM

not in any meaningful way unless you like civ5...
m
0
l
Related resources
June 9, 2013 10:54:37 AM

I would pick a better processor. A stock i3 dual core benches higher than a FX-6350 in gaming.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 175 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
June 9, 2013 11:55:33 AM

KnowItAll said:
I would pick a better processor. A stock i3 dual core benches higher than a FX-6350 in gaming.


couldn't be more wrong. ugh... i can't believe i responded to this intel troll again, should have read the username.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
June 9, 2013 12:35:29 PM

ingtar33 said:
KnowItAll said:
I would pick a better processor. A stock i3 dual core benches higher than a FX-6350 in gaming.


couldn't be more wrong. ugh... i can't believe i responded to this intel troll again, should have read the username.


Sometimes I wish this forum had an ignore feature...some people are really worth putting on "silent mode".
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 5:09:12 PM

mods please take a look at user KnowItAll, come on:certified in Sarcasm MCSE from Milf University. Really?! Also he's giving faulty information, many newer games are utilizing 4 cores and perform much better on the fx 6350.
m
0
l
June 9, 2013 5:15:05 PM
June 9, 2013 5:17:10 PM

L Helps said:
mods please take a look at user KnowItAll, come on:certified in Sarcasm MCSE from Milf University. Really?! Also he's giving faulty information, many newer games are utilizing 4 cores and perform much better on the fx 6350.


What's wrong with MILF University, is that an illegal term?? FAulty information? I produced TOMS HARDWARE benchmarks. ARe you saying TOMS benchmarks are false?? Wow, your really digging deep huh?

I never said there are not games out that utilize four cores. I also never said the i3 would win every benchmark. The benchmarks I've show show that the FX has to be over 4.3ghz to even match the i3 in many games. At that point, it's tdp is nearly 3 times the i3's tdp.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 9, 2013 5:33:01 PM

Alright leave your description as it is but the i3 vs fx 63xx:
Games now perform better on the fx 63xx then the i3


m
0
l
June 17, 2013 10:45:15 AM

KnowItAll said:
I would pick a better processor. A stock i3 dual core benches higher than a FX-6350 in gaming.


No it isn't, your stupid. Any performance benchmark will show that Fx-6350 will crush any i3 whether is cores, clock speed, cache, single threaded performance, 3D mark, anything. The day you buy an i3 over a FX-6350 will be a sad day for the person who bought it.

Go to http://www.cpubenchmark.net/ and read the benchmarks.

Also keep in mind that all those benchmarks, none of them were actually with the 6350 so, fail. And also remember that some games are more optimized for intel and viceversa with AMD. The same thing with GPU's some games prefer nvidia and some prefer Radeon. But over all, the FX-6350 will be better because of benchmarks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2013 3:37:18 PM

hafijur said:
Cofffeeeee the i3 will crush the fx6350 on single threaded performance by about 45%.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/699?vs=677


please leave, you're just a fanboy and you're information is not always right either. Sure the i3 single core performance is a bit better but many games now and in the future support more then 2 cores wich is the reason why the fx 6300 beats the i3.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2013 3:43:20 PM

hafijur said:
globalgbt really needs an i5 2500k 3570k 4670k etc or even the fastest amd cpu out now the fx8350 for that gtx770.


If you look at the benchmarks I posted the fx 6300 wouldn't even bottleneck the gtx titan.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
June 17, 2013 3:56:27 PM

For a 770 I would recommend a 8350 or a 3570k, especially for games such as BF3 which is quite CPU heavy. i3 or 6300 is going to be a bit of a problem now and a bit more of a problem in the future, IMO 6300 > i3.
m
0
l
June 17, 2013 4:30:41 PM

If you overclock it to 4.5 ghz i am sure that it will handle gtx 770 prety well.
You should buy 6300 instead of 6350, because its same cpu but with lower stock clocks and bit more cheaper. You will put extra money for better motherboard and hyper evo cooler.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 175 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
June 17, 2013 11:18:31 PM

hafijur said:
L Helps said:
hafijur said:
globalgbt really needs an i5 2500k 3570k 4670k etc or even the fastest amd cpu out now the fx8350 for that gtx770.


If you look at the benchmarks I posted the fx 6300 wouldn't even bottleneck the gtx titan.


Those games are not cpu demanding as in very low cpu requirements.


in single gpu setups an A8-5600k is the lowest speed quad core cpu needed to not "bottleneck" 95% of games in any meaningful way. The a8 will bench within an average of 2fps of ANY other cpu when attached to a titan in the vast majority of titles out there.

yes, there are games like civ5 this is not the case... but speaking purely as an owner of a PhII x4 965 (which is only an eyelash faster then the aforementioned A8) who is rolling with a 7770 and playing civ5 on the highest graphic settings at 1080p... though i'm only pulling 20fps... the game feels smooth, and isn't choppy. That's because Civ5 probably would look smooth as silk at 10fps. it simply doesn't need high framerates because there is almost no animation.

so though i'm sure an i5 would roll out 120fps in that game, i do have to ask a simple question... why should anyone care? hell, i'm playing the newest tomb raider on high settings and averaging 45fps according to the Tomb Raider benchmark option... that also looks smooth and not choppy. makes me tempted to try it on very high or ultra.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 175 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
June 18, 2013 1:14:37 AM

hafijur said:
ingtar33 60fps looks perfect imo. Games like f1 2010 dirt 2 dirt 3 dirt showdown etc are completely different games at 40-60fps compared to lets say 20-30fps. The motion feels so snooth. Same for driver san francisco its like two different games going from 35fps to 60fps.


I agree... having played tomb raider at 45fps (on high settings) and 60fps (on normal settings), i can tell (barely) the improvement at normal... its a lot more apparent when i switch to "very high" settings and am pulling 27fps... at that point the difference is pretty obvious.

That said, i can't say i would be able to tell with civ5... i mean it already is smooth and not choppy and it's like 20fps (sometimes 15)... as a title that one really doesn't benefit from higher framerates... at least i can't see the advantage.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2013 8:49:38 AM

KnowItAll said:
I would pick a better processor. A stock i3 dual core benches higher than a FX-6350 in gaming.


:no:  ^ Completely false ^ :no: 

No, the i3 is no longer competitive. Even Intel fans will tell you it's not a good choice anymore.

If you have an Intel platform, an i5 is a much better choice but will also cost you a bit more than an FX6300/6350. In some markets the FX 8350 can also be found on sale for the same or less than a good i5.

If you have an AM3+ platform and your budget is limited, save yourself some money and get the FX 6300 instead of the 6350. They are basically the same chip, just the 6350 has a higher base clock. Invest the money saved into a good cooler, overclock that puppy, and enjoy.


Sources: Tek Syndicate, Actrons FX 6100 vs 3770k BF3 comparison video, Hardware Canucks, Hardware Info, Legit Reviews.
m
0
l
July 12, 2013 6:24:37 AM

It will in some cases but not others. I would either drop down to a GTX760 or upgrade the platform to a Core i5.

Owner of an FX-8350 / GTX670 setup here.
m
0
l
July 12, 2013 7:45:52 AM

OK. All those i3 people, one basic thing which all of us are forgetting is that i3 has a GPU, whereas FX 6350 doesn't. That's why it benches better. Now, getting back to GlobalGBT's question, an FX6350 will in NO WAY bottleneck GTX 770. Straight forward and clear!

First: The 6 cores are really helpful.
Second: intel's hyperthreading + GPU will do good, but you won't get 6 physical cores.
Third, and this is important: Don't Pay For An Integrated Gpu If You Already Have A Good Discrete GPU (GTX 770). Instead Invest On More Cores.
m
0
l
a c 104 À AMD
a c 218 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
July 15, 2013 4:09:25 PM

GlobalGBT said:
I am making a build for about $1000 (including monitor and OS), and I am planning on getting an AMD FX-6350 and an Asus DirectCU II GTX 770. Will the FX-6350 bottleneck the GTX 770? Update: I plan on having two monitors and I looked over it again and it is about $1300. I plan on playing Arma 3 and BF3 @ 1080p. Thank you.


The FX 6350 is a six core with a high stock speed so you will not be bottlenecked by it and there have been articles posted that show AMD processors work better with Nvidia then their own brand, so combining the FX 6359 with the GTX 770 would be a very good choice.

Certianly there are more and more games using 4 cores or more so the days of dual core CPUs are about finished even though an i3 is a good CPU it is beginning to have it's limitations.

We also don't need these kind of forum wars to erupt in a thread where someone is seeking help with a question, so if you don't mind just post your answer and cease with the arguments.



m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 210 à CPUs
July 15, 2013 5:06:01 PM

hafijur said:
The gtx770 is a beast of a card, any cpu intensive game and the fx6350 will crumble as it will struggle to give the gtx770 enough power to run to its potential.

You need an i5 quad sandy bridge onwards or from amd side the fx8350 minimum if you want to run the gtx770 to basically its full potential in most games.


Trololololololololol
m
0
l
a c 104 À AMD
a c 218 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
July 15, 2013 5:22:40 PM

Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 15, 2013 5:40:37 PM

hafijur said:
The gtx770 is a beast of a card, any cpu intensive game and the fx6350 will crumble as it will struggle to give the gtx770 enough power to run to its potential.

You need an i5 quad sandy bridge onwards or from amd side the fx8350 minimum if you want to run the gtx770 to basically its full potential in most games.


That's just not true. Why are you lying to the OP? Maybe you don't care that he/she has a budget and is looking to spend his/her hard earned cash on something semi-affordable but that OP sure as hell does care about his/her hard earned money.

AMD FX-6300 Bottleneck a Radeon HD 7970 or GTX 680?
CLICK ME HERE!

Short answer... no.
Long Answer... by a few frames per second (~1-5FPS) in situations over 70FPS.
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 109 à CPUs
July 16, 2013 12:02:18 AM



hafijur said:
inzone said:
Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247
Arma 3 doesn't seem to matter much it seems. I was on about getting the fps the gtx770 can deliver, the fx6350 while it maybe 6 cores others will see it as a 3 core cpu. Anyway just checked benchmarks and it seems the fx6300 series piledriver cpus perform similar to the fx8350, I was just assuming the fx8350 getting beaten badly by i5 or i7's in a fewgames meant the fx6300 or fx6350 would have no chance. It seems only certain games amd struggle with. An i3 2100 gets 1fps more on arma 3 alpha compared to an fx6300 so its not really demanding game.


Keep stroking to intel's big blue logo like a good little fanboy. Hell why don't we post more links to older games and more importantly poorly optimized ALPHA stage games. That will show'em.
m
0
l
July 16, 2013 2:19:41 AM

inzone said:
Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...


The thing is, i7 has integrated GPU, whereas FX6350 does not. And, BTW, who cares about some benchmark. :)  The performance factor comes when you are really doing stuff.
For instance, Download a torrent + burn a DVD + Listen to a song + Play BF3. FX6350 + GTX 770 will handle it like a boss.
I'm not an AMD pro guy or Anti Intel Guy, but just that, some silly benchmarks can only be used to show off. :p  ;)  :D 
m
0
l
July 20, 2013 6:32:27 PM

nmakes said:
inzone said:
Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...


The thing is, i7 has integrated GPU, whereas FX6350 does not. And, BTW, who cares about some benchmark. :)  The performance factor comes when you are really doing stuff.
For instance, Download a torrent + burn a DVD + Listen to a song + Play BF3. FX6350 + GTX 770 will handle it like a boss.
I'm not an AMD pro guy or Anti Intel Guy, but just that, some silly benchmarks can only be used to show off. :p  ;)  :D 


How does that matter in the slightest? It may have an integrated GPU, but it's twice as much money and you will never even use it if you are serious about gaming. The i7 is a horrible choice for gaming, an i5 will perform on level in any game with the i7 as games can't even use hyperthreading. People care about "some benchmark" because that is how you gauge how a processor performs and how to spend your money. Those "silly benchmarks" are what shows the true performance.
m
0
l
a c 104 À AMD
a c 218 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
July 20, 2013 7:27:16 PM

@ hafijur
If you no longer have anything to post that will help the OP then do not post in this thread, you are only responding to others that have posted and arguing about which CPU is better.
m
0
l
July 21, 2013 4:59:39 AM

hafijur said:
inzone said:
Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2306247
Arma 3 doesn't seem to matter much it seems. I was on about getting the fps the gtx770 can deliver, the fx6350 while it maybe 6 cores others will see it as a 3 core cpu. Anyway just checked benchmarks and it seems the fx6300 series piledriver cpus perform similar to the fx8350, I was just assuming the fx8350 getting beaten badly by i5 or i7's in a fewgames meant the fx6300 or fx6350 would have no chance. It seems only certain games amd struggle with. An i3 2100 gets 1fps more on arma 3 alpha compared to an fx6300 so its not really demanding game.


Seanctk10001 said:
nmakes said:
inzone said:
Please don't make such statements without proof to back it up, a six core processor with a stock speed of 3.9ghz and a Passmark score of 7000 is not going to crumble with a CPU intensive game.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6350+Six...


The thing is, i7 has integrated GPU, whereas FX6350 does not. And, BTW, who cares about some benchmark. :)  The performance factor comes when you are really doing stuff.
For instance, Download a torrent + burn a DVD + Listen to a song + Play BF3. FX6350 + GTX 770 will handle it like a boss.
I'm not an AMD pro guy or Anti Intel Guy, but just that, some silly benchmarks can only be used to show off. :p  ;)  :D 


How does that matter in the slightest? It may have an integrated GPU, but it's twice as much money and you will never even use it if you are serious about gaming. The i7 is a horrible choice for gaming, an i5 will perform on level in any game with the i7 as games can't even use hyperthreading. People care about "some benchmark" because that is how you gauge how a processor performs and how to spend your money. Those "silly benchmarks" are what shows the true performance.


Hey wait! I'm not saying go for i7. I think you misunderstood my statement (or probably I was not clear). A friend of mine has had experiences with FX6350. It can handle the above situation which I mentioned. The point is, FX6350 will not be a bottleneck.
m
0
l
a c 104 À AMD
a c 218 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2013 4:30:25 PM

hafijur said:
I just showed on the link that with a gtx680 similar to a gtx770 on your own website that the i5 games far better overall.


Your not helping the OP, his question is not about an i5 but is about the FX 6350, please get back on topic.
m
0
l
a c 104 À AMD
a c 218 à CPUs
a b C Monitor
July 21, 2013 5:36:35 PM

Again you insist on posting a comparison instead of answering the OPs question. No where in his thread is he asking which CPU is better , he's simply asking if the FX-6350 will bottleneck a GTX 770. If you can't help with the thread question then don't be posting comparisons, post data showing what will answer the OPs question. This is the last time I will warn you next time there will be action taken.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 2, 2013 11:46:23 PM

First off ^ This guy right here is an idiot and needs to learn not to argue with the site mods and leave a forum when he's being an annoyance. And second, I personally own the FX 6350 and it is fantastic. The thing is; you're after 60fps not 90fps unless you own a120hz tv or monitor. Even with my gtx 570 i get constant 50-60fps in every game I throw at it. It's so fluid and strong. I love it. Mind you I have it overclocked to 4.2 Ghz
m
0
l
a b À AMD
a c 174 à CPUs
August 3, 2013 12:04:26 AM

My older overclocked x6 1055t and a 7970 get pretty close to the benchmarked fps for ultra 1080p gaming(BF3/Crysis3/bioshock infinite), and going back to the 7970 vs 680(770) being similar im pretty sure the performance will be what u expect using a 6350 and a 770gtx. There is always a bottleneck and the one caused by the 6350 is not going to be to the point that u need a different cpu. When overclocked the fx 63xx cpus reach performance of a 8350 which competes with the i5 cpus. for the cost the fx 6350 is a great buy and u will not be disappointed. The bottleneck will literally be 1-10fps off if even that.
m
0
l
!