Which would get beter graphics and or preformance?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
H

HolyGear

Honorable
Dec 8, 2013
17
0
10,510
First Build-
GPU:EVGA GTX 650 Ti Boost

Processor: AMD FX-6300 Black Edition, 3.5GHz

MotherBoard: ASUS M5A97 R2.0, Chipset AMD 970

Ram: 2 x 2GB Kingston DDR3, PC3-10600 (1333MHz), CL9

Monitor: Monitor LED Gateway de 21.5", Resolución 1920 x 1080

Pro:
-Its got 6 cores (The 4 cores costs the same where I live so obviously going for the six core..)

Con:
-The mother board available doesn't have a 3.0 PCIe x16...(IDK if that makes that much of a diffrance but the card I'am getting does say its a 3.0 PCIe x16 card...)
-its around 100 bucks more expensive..
______________________________________________________________________________________________

GPU: EVGA GTX 650 Ti Boost

Processor: Intel Core i3-3240 3.4Ghz

MotherBoard: ASUS H61M-C, ChipSet Intel H61 Exp

Ram: 2 x 2GB Kingston DDR3, PC3-10600 (1333MHz), CL9

Monitor: Monitor LED Gateway de 21.5", Resolución 1920 x 1080

Pro:
-The motherboard available to me does get the 3.0 PCIe x16 slot....which is a plus
-It's 100 bucks cheaper

Con: It's only got 2 cores, and I've read most games run a lot beter with 4 cores....
===============================================================================================

Imporant things to keep in mind:
I'll mostly be playing Planetside
2, TERA, World of Warcraft MOP, Warframe.....Not sure if these need 4 cores...but I'll eventualy get bf4...

Here is a list of parts that I can get my hands on....

http://pcel.com/computadoras/arma-pc-custom-ensamble-bundle

So basicly which would be beter? getting those 4+ cores? or getting the 3.0 PCIe x16 slot...?
 
Solution
photonboy
FX-6300 build.

Given only those two choices then the FX build for sure. The i3 has the advantage of higher single-thread performance, but the dearth of core count is problematic. In the FUTURE we'll see games using more cores.

We've already seen recent games scaling much better on the FX-8350 for example (8 cores). That CPU is 40% slow in Skryim but about EQUAL in performance in a game like BF4 that can use the number of cores better when compared with a new Intel i5 with four cores.

The FX-6300 has six cores but they aren't as efficient as Intel's. Many games still only use ONE of the cores really well. A lot can use most of TWO cores, but beyond that scaling drops down. So again, newer games will start using your FX-6300 much...
Sort by date Sort by votes
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,550
3,221
143,290
In newer titles that can take advantage of more cores, Crysis 3 and BF4, the FX 6300 would be the better option. If you are playing something like WoW or Starcraft II, the i3 would probably do better vs a stock FX. The FX can be overclocked as well, though, to make up any difference in such titles where as the i3 cannot. I would go with a Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P over that Asus board. It has better overclocking ability due to its 8+2 power phase for VRM. They have been the same price here lately.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
FX-6300 build.

Given only those two choices then the FX build for sure. The i3 has the advantage of higher single-thread performance, but the dearth of core count is problematic. In the FUTURE we'll see games using more cores.

We've already seen recent games scaling much better on the FX-8350 for example (8 cores). That CPU is 40% slow in Skryim but about EQUAL in performance in a game like BF4 that can use the number of cores better when compared with a new Intel i5 with four cores.

The FX-6300 has six cores but they aren't as efficient as Intel's. Many games still only use ONE of the cores really well. A lot can use most of TWO cores, but beyond that scaling drops down. So again, newer games will start using your FX-6300 much better.

The PS4 and XB1 consoles will also encourage game developers to optimize for a higher core count, thus we'll see cross-platform games become well optimized. The PS4 and XB1 have eight cores each, with six of them available for a game.

Other:
There is NO requirement for PCIe version 3. Even a GTX770 (and probably a 780) won't be bottlenecked. They'd be bottlenecked by the CPU long before the PCIe bandwidth was an issue.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
logainofhades

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
Apr 27, 2009
37,550
3,221
143,290


The GPU you have chosen wouldn't even be bottlenecked in a PCI-E x16 1.1 slot. No single GPU graphics card would bottleneck in a 2.0 x16 slot either.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom