Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is it worth Getting an AMD build?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 28, 2013 7:18:49 AM

Someone please enlighten me. Why should I consider building an AMD system in terms of gaming?

Correct me if I'm wrong. FX cpus are meant to be overclocked right?

So we take an FX-6300 for example, and we Must pair it with a decent motherboard of at lease 140w TDP and most mobo at this range costs $100.

Est cost $119 (fx-6300) + $100(140W MOBO) + $30 (CPU COOLER) = $250.

Now we take an intel i5 3470 for $185 + $50 (Intel mobo) = $238

And the FX still cannot out perform the i5 even when overclocked in gaming.

Why get an amd still?

More about : worth amd build

August 28, 2013 7:28:14 AM

Which mobo do you have in mind for 50$?.. Because Intel motherboard are more expensive than AMD in my opinion no?
m
0
l
a c 199 à CPUs
a c 204 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
August 28, 2013 7:32:22 AM

If ya total system budget is less than $850, Id consider a AMD build
m
0
l
Related resources
August 28, 2013 7:37:41 AM

personally I searched out results for the games I play & found the stock fx-6300 quite acceptable (my overclock makes it nice).

The main reason I actually bit was that I found the CPU cooler (CM seidon 120m for $15 AR) and the $115 mobo had the features I wanted. I have owned the $50 intel motherboards in the past and I was quite disappointed, I would not buy something without sata 6.0 (for ssd) and usb 3.0, but on top of that the on board audio on my new one actually sounds good for once. Now you're talking a ~$70 or $80 Intel motherboard and the comparison becomes a little less clear on price.


That and the fact that I like to use VMware, and that I appreciate having more parallel CPU power from the 6 core setup.

i5 setup is definitely a little better for the average workload, but I'm enjoying my build so far. It may not always be worth it but some times it comes out a very comparable option.
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 7:40:50 AM

JackNaylorPE said:
If ya total system budget is less than $850, Id consider a AMD build


rylt said:
personally I searched out results for the games I play & found the stock fx-6300 quite acceptable (my overclock makes it nice).

The main reason I actually bit was that I found the CPU cooler (CM seidon 120m for $15 AR and the $115 mobo had the features I wanted. I have owned the $50 intel motherboards in the past and I was quite disappointed, I would not buy something without sata 6.0 (for ssd) and usb 3.0, but on top of that the on board audio on my new one actually sounds good for once. Now you're talking a ~$70 or $80 Intel motherboard and the comparison becomes a little less clear on price.


That and the fact that I like to use VMware, and that I appreciate having more parallel CPU power from the 6 core setup.

i5 setup is definitely a little better for the average workload, but I'm enjoying my build so far. It may not always be worth it but some times it comes out a very comparable option.


hmm i see. but the common user doesnt need an ssd or usb 3.0. But even if your getting $70 thats only exceeding the $30 mark and im sure everyone can save up for that.
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 7:46:39 AM

also stock coolers still suck. My i5 2400 would go over 70c on stock, so I ended up buying a pretty basic $20 cooler. eh.. it was still a good build, but I wanted more options & overclock ability. I am really disappointed with Haswell. I figured I'd get a good general use/ gaming PC to try and hold me out. I'm currently waiting for the ddr4 generation of chips before I drop any real money.

Honestly I am enjoying this build more than my 2500k (too expensive with a good board) and about as much as my last i5-2400 build.. I would re-build my i5 again in a heartbeat if the price was right, but it hasn't been very good for discount chips lately. I got that one for ~125 after tax at fry's.
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 8:00:33 AM

kebbz said:
Someone please enlighten me. Why should I consider building an AMD system in terms of gaming?

Correct me if I'm wrong. FX cpus are meant to be overclocked right?

So we take an FX-6300 for example, and we Must pair it with a decent motherboard of at lease 140w TDP and most mobo at this range costs $100.

Est cost $119 (fx-6300) + $100(140W MOBO) + $30 (CPU COOLER) = $250.

Now we take an intel i5 3470 for $185 + $50 (Intel mobo) = $238

And the FX still cannot out perform the i5 even when overclocked in gaming.

Why get an amd still?


As mentioned, a $50 Intel mobo is a very bad idea. You should at least spend the same ~$100 on a decent Intel mobo. Also, if you plan on overclocking, you'll need something more like $50-$100 for cooling to get close to the most overclock out of either an Intel or AMD CPU.

In addition, bear in mind that most software compiled in the last ~3 years or so is increasingly multi-core/multi-thread optimized, and really, what we're talking about when we say 'cores' is integer cores (which is what AMD means when it says, for example, that the FX-4350 is a '4 core' CPU, or the FX-6300 is a '6 core CPU'. A lot of people have criticised AMD for calling their cores 'cores', but it's quite a valid approach, as x87 FPU code is depricated and virtually never used any more, as FMA/AVX/SSE optimizations are far more efficient, or the floating point is simply offloaded to the GPU (hence AMD's push for HSA).

So why buy AMD? Simple. First, the integer processing power you're getting is much greater than what Intel is selling you at the same price points. Many don't seem to grasp this, but it is becoming increasingly apparent, when, for example, the old Phenom II X4 CPUs suddenly started to beat the Core i3 in newer, multi-threaded games. It's integer cores that matter now, and will only continue to matter more and more as the floating point calculations are offloaded to the GPU. Second reason to pick AMD over Intel: you can take the $50 or so that you saved over the Intel CPU to put towards that increasingly important GPU. These days, $50 makes the difference between getting a GTX660 or a GTX760 on the nVidia side, or between a Radeon 7850 and a 7950. In other words, quite a significant impact on your gaming experience. Third reason to go AMD is AMD's socket longevity. AMD customers can often upgrade CPUs two or even three times before having to buy a new mobo. Intel is already saying the Broadwell chips won't work on the existing socket 1150 platform they just released for Haswell. Do you really want to support company that does that to you? Fourth reason to go AMD? Well, in addition to the extra value proposition and generally longer platform life, AMD could also REALLY use your money right now. :)  Buying an AMD CPU now will mean AMD will be around to produce Steamroller, Excavator and beyond.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 28, 2013 8:08:58 AM

This seems like flame bait to me but here goes.

I have three rigs and all three can handle any game I have and then some.
First:
FX-8120 OC to (4GHz multiplier only)
MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboard
16gig DDR3 G. Skill 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7950 Crossfire

Second:
FX-8350
ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 Motherboard
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7970 Crossfire

Third:
i5 3570K
Asus Z77 Sabertooth
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI

All three have there own triple Asus 27" monitor setup in Eyefinity/Surround and can handle any and all games i have and that is over 250 in Steam and over 50 in Origin plus over a hundred boxed editions.

Both of my FX rigs can keep up with my i5 3570K in every game with no problems at all. Fitting a FX CPU with a good motherboard and GPU can make a system every bit as capable of a gaming rig as a i5 with out a doubt.
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 8:47:34 AM

bryonhowley said:
This seems like flame bait to me but here goes.

I have three rigs and all three can handle any game I have and then some.
First:
FX-8120 OC to (4GHz multiplier only)
MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboard
16gig DDR3 G. Skill 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7950 Crossfire

Second:
FX-8350
ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 Motherboard
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7970 Crossfire

Third:
i5 3570K
Asus Z77 Sabertooth
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI

All three have there own triple Asus 27" monitor setup in Eyefinity/Surround and can handle any and all games i have and that is over 250 in Steam and over 50 in Origin plus over a hundred boxed editions.

Both of my FX rigs can keep up with my i5 3570K in every game with no problems at all. Fitting a FX CPU with a good motherboard and GPU can make a system every bit as capable of a gaming rig as a i5 with out a doubt.


A little off topic, but what the hell do you do with so much computer power!?! I'm running an overclocked 7950 and that handle 3x23" screens with no hassel.
I'm not trying to complain here, im actually very jealous, just curious as to why you have so much kit and what for?

Regards,
Woodlore
m
0
l
a c 108 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 28, 2013 8:50:05 AM


bryonhowley said:
This seems like flame bait to me ....


+1



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 8:59:03 AM

It really depends on your budget and personal preference. The two best gaming CPU's in terms of performance for the money are the i5-3570k (4670k) and FX-8350 which roll in around $200-$240, respectively. Neither of these will bottleneck even the most powerful GPU's (Titan, etc.) and both are overclockable.

If on more of a budget, I would suggest nothing lower than an i5-3350 or FX-6350, if you still want very good performance. Anything less than that, stick with AMD and overclock as much as you can. Intel really doesn't have many strong budget CPU's as their lower-end offerings seem to only be dual-core parts. IMHO, dual cores, even with hyper-threading, just won't cut it anymore in terms of gaming, going forward.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The i5's are stronger in stock form, but the AMD's catch up no problem with overclocking. Personally, if I were to build a system on a tighter budget, I would build an AMD system mainly for the cost/performance value. Intel makes nothing in the $120-150 range than can compete with the FX-6350. Again, the core i3's *might* keep up in certain games, but that is a quickly diminishing light moving into the future where more cores will become essential for gaming.

The APU's from AMD, while somewhat impressive (compared to IGPU's of the past), they require higher speed RAM (2133 for the A10-6800k) for the best performance, which is more expensive. If you factor in the cost for the A10-6800k and the more expensive RAM required, you'd be better off with an Athlon X4 750k, cheaper 1600 RAM and discrete GPU like an HD 7770/7850 or similar for the same amount. That combo will blow the A10 out of the water. But don't get me wrong, the APU's have their place, but here were talking in terms of more heavy gamers on a budget. APU's IMO are not quite there just yet.

Boiling it all down, AMD is actually in a great position at the moment and there are many reasons to go that route. They have the low-end and mid-range gaming market pinned as all their CPU's are at least quad core parts with a ton of overclocking potential, while Intel only has dual-core offerings on anything new below $180. In terms of mid to high-end gaming, AMD is very competitive with the 8350 (which, btw is compatible with faster 1866 RAM if you want that little extra edge).

Power consumption, I think people make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. The difference isn't so drastic and if you're like me, you care more about the performance than a few extra watts under heavy load. ;) 

I'm going with an i5-4670K for my build, but a major part of that decision came from the fact that there are no AM3+ (AMD FX series) motherboards in the m-ITX form factor, and I'm building a Fractal Design Node 304 gaming rig in the $1200 range, thus, I don't have much of a choice. If I had to chose between the 8350 and 4670k, it would be a difficult decision for me (not that I wouldn't be happy with the 4670k...).

Going back to personal preference; what is it you'll be doing with the machine? What form factor? Are you energy-conscious or do you just want the best performance per dollar? Are you in to overclocking or prefer to just build it and leave it? Weigh all the options, compare apple to apples, ask questions and make your decision based on facts, not fluff. :) 


(Before anyone jumps on me, please note the prices I stated are Canadian)
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 9:03:07 AM

anubis44 said:
kebbz said:
Someone please enlighten me. Why should I consider building an AMD system in terms of gaming?

Correct me if I'm wrong. FX cpus are meant to be overclocked right?

So we take an FX-6300 for example, and we Must pair it with a decent motherboard of at lease 140w TDP and most mobo at this range costs $100.

Est cost $119 (fx-6300) + $100(140W MOBO) + $30 (CPU COOLER) = $250.

Now we take an intel i5 3470 for $185 + $50 (Intel mobo) = $238

And the FX still cannot out perform the i5 even when overclocked in gaming.

Why get an amd still?


As mentioned, a $50 Intel mobo is a very bad idea. You should at least spend the same ~$100 on a decent Intel mobo. Also, if you plan on overclocking, you'll need something more like $50-$100 for cooling to get close to the most overclock out of either an Intel or AMD CPU.

In addition, bear in mind that most software compiled in the last ~3 years or so is increasingly multi-core/multi-thread optimized, and really, what we're talking about when we say 'cores' is integer cores (which is what AMD means when it says, for example, that the FX-4350 is a '4 core' CPU, or the FX-6300 is a '6 core CPU'. A lot of people have criticised AMD for calling their cores 'cores', but it's quite a valid approach, as x87 FPU code is depricated and virtually never used any more, as FMA/AVX/SSE optimizations are far more efficient, or the floating point is simply offloaded to the GPU (hence AMD's push for HSA).

So why buy AMD? Simple. First, the integer processing power you're getting is much greater than what Intel is selling you at the same price points. Many don't seem to grasp this, but it is becoming increasingly apparent, when, for example, the old Phenom II X4 CPUs suddenly started to beat the Core i3 in newer, multi-threaded games. It's integer cores that matter now, and will only continue to matter more and more as the floating point calculations are offloaded to the GPU. Second reason to pick AMD over Intel: you can take the $50 or so that you saved over the Intel CPU to put towards that increasingly important GPU. These days, $50 makes the difference between getting a GTX660 or a GTX760 on the nVidia side, or between a Radeon 7850 and a 7950. In other words, quite a significant impact on your gaming experience. Third reason to go AMD is AMD's socket longevity. AMD customers can often upgrade CPUs two or even three times before having to buy a new mobo. Intel is already saying the Broadwell chips won't work on the existing socket 1150 platform they just released for Haswell. Do you really want to support company that does that to you? Fourth reason to go AMD? Well, in addition to the extra value proposition and generally longer platform life, AMD could also REALLY use your money right now. :)  Buying an AMD CPU now will mean AMD will be around to produce Steamroller, Excavator and beyond.


Okay that enlightened just a little. Im still confused about cheap motherboards because, some people are not having problems with it at all based on my research.

bryonhowley said:
This seems like flame bait to me but here goes.

I have three rigs and all three can handle any game I have and then some.
First:
FX-8120 OC to (4GHz multiplier only)
MSI 890FXA-GD70 motherboard
16gig DDR3 G. Skill 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7950 Crossfire

Second:
FX-8350
ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX R2.0 Motherboard
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Sapphire HD 7970 Crossfire

Third:
i5 3570K
Asus Z77 Sabertooth
16gig G. Skill DDR3 1600
2x Gigabyte GTX 670 SLI

All three have there own triple Asus 27" monitor setup in Eyefinity/Surround and can handle any and all games i have and that is over 250 in Steam and over 50 in Origin plus over a hundred boxed editions.

Both of my FX rigs can keep up with my i5 3570K in every game with no problems at all. Fitting a FX CPU with a good motherboard and GPU can make a system every bit as capable of a gaming rig as a i5 with out a doubt.


Hey buddy, im not making any flame thread, here for real. Im serious when i said "Why get amd still?".

First of all I built an AMD rig. I got the fx-6100 and i am so disappointed with it. Right now i have 2 choices,
1. Switch to intel.
- This option, i must sell my fx-6100 in order to afford an i5.

2. Buy a high end motherboard. And 1 in local stores is an Asrock 970 extreme 3. This will have me sell my current $45 3 phase motherboard as well.


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 9:10:02 AM

Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 9:10:09 AM

MEC-777 said:
It really depends on your budget and personal preference. The two best gaming CPU's in terms of performance for the money are the i5-3570k (4670k) and FX-8350 which roll in around $200-$240, respectively. Neither of these will bottleneck even the most powerful GPU's (Titan, etc.) and both are overclockable.

If on more of a budget, I would suggest nothing lower than an i5-3350 or FX-6350, if you still want very good performance. Anything less than that, stick with AMD and overclock as much as you can. Intel really doesn't have many strong budget CPU's as their lower-end offerings seem to only be dual-core parts. IMHO, dual cores, even with hyper-threading, just won't cut it anymore in terms of gaming, going forward.

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The i5's are stronger in stock form, but the AMD's catch up no problem with overclocking. Personally, if I were to build a system on a tighter budget, I would build an AMD system mainly for the cost/performance value. Intel makes nothing in the $120-150 range than can compete with the FX-6350. Again, the core i3's *might* keep up in certain games, but that is a quickly diminishing light moving into the future where more cores will become essential for gaming.

The APU's from AMD, while somewhat impressive (compared to IGPU's of the past), they require higher speed RAM (2133 for the A10-6800k) for the best performance, which is more expensive. If you factor in the cost for the A10-6800k and the more expensive RAM required, you'd be better off with an Athlon X4 750k, cheaper 1600 RAM and discrete GPU like an HD 7770/7850 or similar for the same amount. That combo will blow the A10 out of the water. But don't get me wrong, the APU's have their place, but here were talking in terms of more heavy gamers on a budget. APU's IMO are not quite there just yet.

Boiling it all down, AMD is actually in a great position at the moment and there are many reasons to go that route. They have the low-end and mid-range gaming market pinned as all their CPU's are at least quad core parts with a ton of overclocking potential, while Intel only has dual-core offerings on anything new below $180. In terms of mid to high-end gaming, AMD is very competitive with the 8350 (which, btw is compatible with faster 1866 RAM if you want that little extra edge).

Power consumption, I think people make a bigger deal out of this than it really is. The difference isn't so drastic and if you're like me, you care more about the performance than a few extra watts under heavy load. ;) 

I'm going with an i5-4670K for my build, but a major part of that decision came from the fact that there are no AM3+ (AMD FX series) motherboards in the m-ITX form factor, and I'm building a Fractal Design Node 304 gaming rig in the $1200 range, thus, I don't have much of a choice. If I had to chose between the 8350 and 4670k, it would be a difficult decision for me (not that I wouldn't be happy with the 4670k...).

Going back to personal preference; what is it you'll be doing with the machine? What form factor? Are you energy-conscious or do you just want the best performance per dollar? Are you in to overclocking or prefer to just build it and leave it? Weigh all the options, compare apple to apples, ask questions and make your decision based on facts, not fluff. :) 


(Before anyone jumps on me, please note the prices I stated are Canadian)


I already have an AMD rig and im so disappointed with it's performance. They say the Fx-6300 beats intel when they are overclocked, but that is not entirely true after really doing some hard digging of information on the web.

Right now im torn between Switching to intel and getting the i5 3350P which you mentioned, pair it with at least $50 or $60 motherboard OR, stick to AMD and sell my crappy 3 phase motherboard and replace it with a 970 extreme 3.
m
0
l
August 28, 2013 9:13:19 AM

MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 10:12:32 AM

kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more the limiting factor in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, it's a decent system considering the cost and there are some things you can do to optimize it and make it run better. :) 

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.

m
0
l
August 28, 2013 10:30:31 AM

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 28, 2013 10:52:52 AM

kebbz said:
ImPain said:
Which mobo do you have in mind for 50$?.. Because Intel motherboard are more expensive than AMD in my opinion no?


Thats not true unless you want lots of usb 3.0 ports and want to overclock.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...



1.) You can't overclock on any of those boards.

2.) You can overclock a FX 6300 on a 95W TDP 970 Series board quite well...some of those are a mere $70 and come with WAY more features than any B series Intel board. That puts your total cost around $170 for the combo.

3.) A FX 6300 @ 4.5-4.7 GHz ~ 3570k, at that point, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

4.) $50 is better spent on a GPU as FX 6300 @ 4.6 + HD 7870 > 3570k + 7850

5.) AMD 990FX boards have more lanes of PCIe bandwidth...2 x16 lanes in fact, so if you want to CF/SLI the $100 AMD board is better than any Z77 or Z87 board you can buy for any amount of money. You'd have to go to LGA 2011 and buy a $200-300 MB to get as much PCIe bandwidth for multiple cards.

6.) All the cheap B75 boards you chose have many poor reviews to show their great quality...there are not many 970/990 boards you can find bad reviews about.

7.) The difference the extra $60-70 spent on Intel gets you out of the box is typically 2-5 FPS in 90-95% of games, and the few that have any significant difference above that are 2+ year old games and were poorly optimized to begin with.

8.) The future of gaming is going to more cores/threads, and the 6300 will see that day come better than the 3570k would.

9.) Troll-o-meter sensor is going off at the site of this thread...
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 28, 2013 10:55:56 AM

kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 11:10:33 AM

kebbz said:

Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. :)  The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?


m
0
l
August 28, 2013 6:22:47 PM

8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling


Could you show me some of those $70 board? I can't find any 970 thats less than $100 locally. Don't forget, to get a 4.5ghz we need a good cooler. Isn't that gonna make it more expensive?

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:

Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. :)  The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?




Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2013 6:46:07 AM

kebbz said:

Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.


You mentioned earlier that it couldn't be your GPU because it was only at 50% load. I don't think that necessarily tells the whole story. Your GPU only has 1GB of Vram, which isn't a whole lot.

I'm guessing your being forced to run bf3 on medium because your running out of Vram. The GPU itself is having no trouble on the processing side, but has limited memory.

Running a 7850 2GB version would probably yield a significant improvement. I'd almost put money on it. ;) 
m
0
l
August 29, 2013 7:12:20 AM

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:

Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.


You mentioned earlier that it couldn't be your GPU because it was only at 50% load. I don't think that necessarily tells the whole story. Your GPU only has 1GB of Vram, which isn't a whole lot.

I'm guessing your being forced to run bf3 on medium because your running out of Vram. The GPU itself is having no trouble on the processing side, but has limited memory.

Running a 7850 2GB version would probably yield a significant improvement. I'd almost put money on it. ;) 


Buttttttt that can't be the case cuz, Bf3 on singplayer gets a neat 60 fps constant on high settings. :o 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2013 7:54:56 AM

kebbz said:


Buttttttt that can't be the case cuz, Bf3 on singplayer gets a neat 60 fps constant on high settings. :o 


Oh, so it only lags on multi-player? hmmmm...

What's your CPU usage when it's lagging?

I'm actually a little surprised. Just checked the tom's CPU gaming hierarchy chart and the FX-6100 is down in tier 4. I'd heard the bulldozer series CPU's (FX-4100, 6100 and 8100) were not exactly stellar performers, but figured they'd be better than tier 4.

You may be right. It very well could be your CPU that's bottle necking your system. :( 

That being said, do you have an over all budget if you do decide to upgrade your motherboard and CPU?

m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 29, 2013 9:45:17 AM

kebbz said:
8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling


Could you show me some of those $70 board? I can't find any 970 thats less than $100 locally. Don't forget, to get a 4.5ghz we need a good cooler. Isn't that gonna make it more expensive?

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:

Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. :)  The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?




Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $174.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-29 12:44 EDT-0400)
m
0
l
August 29, 2013 10:04:42 AM

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:


Buttttttt that can't be the case cuz, Bf3 on singplayer gets a neat 60 fps constant on high settings. :o 


Oh, so it only lags on multi-player? hmmmm...

What's your CPU usage when it's lagging?

I'm actually a little surprised. Just checked the tom's CPU gaming hierarchy chart and the FX-6100 is down in tier 4. I'd heard the bulldozer series CPU's (FX-4100, 6100 and 8100) were not exactly stellar performers, but figured they'd be better than tier 4.

You may be right. It very well could be your CPU that's bottle necking your system. :( 

That being said, do you have an over all budget if you do decide to upgrade your motherboard and CPU?



8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling


Could you show me some of those $70 board? I can't find any 970 thats less than $100 locally. Don't forget, to get a 4.5ghz we need a good cooler. Isn't that gonna make it more expensive?

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:

Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. :)  The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?




Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $174.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-29 12:44 EDT-0400)


Man you guys are lucky, newegg sells their items at cheap prices. There is no $64 motherboard with those features in my country.

I saw a Asrock 970 extreme 3. Will that hold up? I can spend about 100 bucks
m
0
l
a c 210 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
August 29, 2013 10:07:28 AM

kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:


Buttttttt that can't be the case cuz, Bf3 on singplayer gets a neat 60 fps constant on high settings. :o 


Oh, so it only lags on multi-player? hmmmm...

What's your CPU usage when it's lagging?

I'm actually a little surprised. Just checked the tom's CPU gaming hierarchy chart and the FX-6100 is down in tier 4. I'd heard the bulldozer series CPU's (FX-4100, 6100 and 8100) were not exactly stellar performers, but figured they'd be better than tier 4.

You may be right. It very well could be your CPU that's bottle necking your system. :( 

That being said, do you have an over all budget if you do decide to upgrade your motherboard and CPU?



8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
8350rocks said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:
MEC-777 said:
Kebbz, can you list your entire setup (CPU, Mobo, GPU, Ram (including ram speed), PSU etc.) so we can see all the components you're running? That will help us make a better recommendation.

Thanks. :) 


Sorry I havent mentioned it earlier.

Fx-6100
HD 7770 1GB DDR5
Asrock N68-VS3 FX
8GB DDR3 Gskill + Kingston Hyperx blu (Both are set at same timings) 1600mhz
Thermaltake Litepower 500w


Ok, there are a few things with this set up that could be related to the less than adequate performance you're experiencing.

First off, I wouldn't expect i5 performance from an FX-6100. Overclocked, it would be closer but ultimately still not quite there. An FX-6350 overclocked could probably trade blows with an i5-3350p. That being said, the HD 7770 is probably more responsible for the bottlenecking in your system. Upgrading to a 7850 with 2GB of ddr5 and you'd probably see a good bump in gaming performance. If you can stretch it, a 7870 or even 7950 would be even better. Prices have dropped drastically making those cards a great bargain right now.

Cheap motherboards do not necessarily hinder gaming performance. However they will hinder overclocking potential. They generally consist of lower-grade components and lack a lot of features.

Another thing that stuck out to me is the RAM you have, which I'm assuming is two sticks of 4GB, both at 1600, but from different manufacturers. Your motherboard supports up to 8GB max. and dual-channel. What I would suggest is swap out the RAM you have with an 8GB dual channel kit (will be 2x 4GB sticks). Dual channel RAM will perform better than just 2 single sticks added together.

One thing to always remember is that you get what you pay for. I'm guessing you built this system on a low budget? In such a case, you can't and shouldn't expect it to be super-fast. However, that being said, there are some things you can do to optimize and make your system run better.

While I wouldn't advise overclocking on a cheap motherboard, I don't think the CPU is what's holding your system back in terms of gaming performance any ways. Upgrading your graphics card and swapping the RAM for a proper dual channel kit would be better use of your money if you want to see immediate improvements and not break the bank.



Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


Skyrim is a 2+ year old game...it was poorly optimized to start with. That's not a game that represents modern titles at all.

What other games do you play?

Also, look at Tom's Hardware's K10 vs. FX comparison, the FX 6350 @ 3.9 GHz was hot on the heels of the 3570k, and @ 4.5 GHz the difference was marginal.

The FX 6300 is a 15% performance bump over your 6100. You just bought a CPU that wasn't well refined yet. Sell yours or trade it, and get a 6300 it will be FAR better than what you're getting now.

EDIT:With a 990FX board, 4.5-4.6 GHz is very typical on a 6300, many hit higher than that with air cooling


Could you show me some of those $70 board? I can't find any 970 thats less than $100 locally. Don't forget, to get a 4.5ghz we need a good cooler. Isn't that gonna make it more expensive?

MEC-777 said:
kebbz said:

Actually It's not my gpu because Gpu usage is 50% at bf3 64 players. Cpu is at average 70 - 80%. What made me really disappointed was it performs very similar to my previous processor which is the Athlon x3 455. I sold that to get the fx-6100 and im not getting any performance increase.

My ram is running in Dual channel.

I was not expecting i5 performance but, looking back at how the total money i spent, i could already afford an i5. :( 
In this benchmark
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-...

The Fx-6300 at 4.8ghz can't beat the i5 2400 in skyrim high settings. The 3350p is significantly better than the 2400 so i dont see how the 6300 could beat that? Also at 4.8ghz is probably liquid cooling. And liquid cooling solutions is already too expensive :/ 


I've never heard of running 2 different sticks of ram in dual channel, but if you say so...lol. learn something new everyday. :)  The ram is not as detrimental to gaming performance as the CPU/GPU parts are any ways, so long as you have enough of it, which you do.

Important question: What games are you playing and at what resolution/settings?




Getting the 2nd ram stick was a gamble :p  I researched online about running 2 different ram brands but i was getting mixed information. There's no real answer to it actually. But i decided to give it a try. I can confirm it works. But it has to be the same frequency.
Fps games eg. Battlefield 3, forced to play on medium because of cpu bottleneck. 1680X1050 resolution.


PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/mo27/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus M5A97 LE R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($64.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $174.98
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-08-29 12:44 EDT-0400)


Man you guys are lucky, newegg sells their items at cheap prices. There is no $64 motherboard with those features in my country.

I saw a Asrock 970 extreme 3. Will that hold up? I can spend about 100 bucks


It would, I would go with the regular M5A97 R2.0 or the M5A99X EVO R2.0 for that money though. The Asrock board was a better buy @ $80-85, it's more expensive now...
m
0
l
!