Does my cpu bottleneck my vga?

It depends on the game. If you play TF2 or Counter Strike, for example, your CPU won't bottleneck your GPU because they're not CPU intensive. However, in BF4 and Crysis 3, at stock speeds you may notice stutters or jittery gameplay. That is because your CPU is slowing you down a little. A mild overclock to 4.5GHz (achievable on stock cooler) or more will help tons. You don't just determine whether your CPU is going to bottleneck your GPU by what GPU/CPU you have, you determine it by what games you're playing too.

FX-6300 won't bottleneck a R9-270. Battlefield 4 is optimized to run better on AMD systems actually and Crysis 3 can use the 6 threads quite efficiently so no bottlenecks will happen with this card. You can't overclock FX-6300 to 4.5 GHz on the stock cooler; it already runs hot on full load at stock.
The FX-6300 is only few frames lower than the i5-4670k and i5-3570k respectively for both these well threaded games:
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-discussion-1000004/crysis-3-is-an-example-of-how-well-amd-cpus-perfor-29356784/
What is more important is what is the resolution you will be playing at? If you will be playing at 1080p maxed out graphics settings you will need a stronger GPU than the R9 270.

I don't know what you consider "hot" for a CPU, but something tells me you're not too experienced/have outdated knowledge when it comes to overclocking. Keep your temps under 80c and you're fine. I'm sure you can hit 4.5GHz under 80c on the stock cooler. I've done it on a buddie's system with a 8320. Maybe you haven't mounted your cooler properly/have bad thermal paste, AnEwG? Also, I know for a fact that those Crysis 3 benchmarks are innacurate. Sorry, but the 8350 is not faster than a 3770k. Find more reliable sources, such as the ones on Toms itself. I'll let you do you own homework. Also, I think you need to redefine bottleneck, because clearly you don't understand what it means. You're contradicting yourself. If the MARS II gets 128FPS avg on a 3970x and only 88FPS on a FX6300, the FX6300 is bottlenecking the card A LOT. Obviously the 270 isn't nearly as powerful as a MARS II, however there should be at least 10FPS between the 6300 and a 3770k for example. And simply bumping that clockspeed to 4.5GHz or more will close that gap and you will have a much smoother gameplay. That's 20FPS (unplayable) to 30+ FPS (very playable). You're right about his GPU though. The 270 is a mid range card. You will need at least a 280x or 760 to play 1080P max graphics.

Actually the 6300 shouldn't operate at temperatures higher than 60 degrees unless he wants to shorten its life span, and anywhere near 70 is too much. 80 degrees for a 8320 or 8350 is what I call pushing it too far and I don't need to be an overclocking expert to realize that, just a simple Google search will prove that these are extreme temperatures that these chips are not designed to operate at. People won't be buying aftermarket coolers for their FX-6300 if that was the case, and you can ask any fx-6300 owner here on the forum, and they will tell you that the stock cooler barely does the job at stock clock under full load.
He is not talking about the MARS II now is he? He was asking whether the FX-6300 will bottleneck the R9-270 which I don't believe is going to happen. Any mid-range card is a perfect match to the FX-6300. And of course there would be a huge difference when the HIGHEST end card used in the benchmark with the highest Intel processor at the time when compared with the FX-6300.
A 4.5 GHz overclock on a FX-6300 is not achievable without a decent aftermarket cooler and unless he has the cash to spare, I don't think it is even necessary to go as far as overclocking his processor 1 GHz. I would only recommend overclocking if he is planning to get a top of the line graphic card otherwise with a mid-range card his system will probably be GPU bottle-necked rather than CPU-bottle-necked and if that is the case, it won't really matter whether he is using the i7 or the fx-6300.

I'm not going to argue with you. 80c is safe operating temperature. Anything above 65 (not 60) is the point where overclocks MAY become less stable and may require higher voltage to remain stable. Unless you're running 1.5V or something insane, 80c is okay, especially if you only hit it when doing a stress test. You will never hit prime 95 temps playing a game such as BF4.

I already pointed out that we're not talking about a MARS II. Please read my whole post before wasting our time. I'm done wasting mine, waste yours all you want.

OP, if you want better performance, do some homework, overclock to 4.5GHz or more and keep your temps under 80c. If he's scared you about overheating your processor, which was baked at about 300c whilst being made, spend 25$ on a hyper 212 evo. If you can't for whatever reason achieve 4.5GHz on the stock cooler, a hyper 212+/evo absolutely can and your temperatures should be below 65c with that heatsink. You should also overclock your GPU with MSI afterburner. Do some homework first, of course. The r9 270 is a very nice overclocker. There's my advice, do what you will.

"Also, I think you need to redefine bottleneck, because clearly you don't understand what it means. You're contradicting yourself. If the MARS II gets 128FPS avg on a 3970x and only 88FPS on a FX6300, the FX6300 is bottlenecking the card A LOT. "
Where did I contradict myself? You compared their performance based on a much stronger GPU than the one in the question and then you claimed there will be 10 fps difference if they both ran a benchmark with a R9 270. I understand quite well what a bottleneck means, if what you are saying is true, then with the i7 processor you can squeeze even more fps from a HD 5450 or a GT 640! That obviously is not true! If the system is GPU bottlenecked, then a faster processor won't contribute to any significant performance increase.
The max temperature for the FX-6300 is around 60 or 61 degrees C. operating the processor near 70 degrees is not advisable:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-6300.html
http://www.buildcomputers.net/cpu-temperature.html

"if what you are saying is true, then with the i7 processor you can squeeze even more fps from a HD 5450 or a GT 640!"

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I did an experiment. I have a GT430 (Same as GT620) in a core 2 duo 2.8GHz system. The core 2 duo would sit at 100% load in every game I played and the GPU would sit anywhere between 30-80%, hovering around 40%. On my system, with a 3770k at 4.8GHz, the framerate nearly DOUBLED in every game, including BF4 and Crysis 3. However, they were obviously still unplayable. In Crysis 3 I went from 5FPS to 20FPS on minimum settings 1280x720p. I can't remember the rest, but I have the benchmark results saved on my desktop which I don't have access to at the moment.

And yes, Intel and AMD recommend not surpassing around 70c. That's because if your CPU dies and it's because you were running your CPU at 1.52v at 90c, you've already been notified by intel that they do not "recommend" surpassing 1.52v and above 70c. In other words, if you fry your CPU due to your own stupidity, it's not Intel's fault. CPUs are a LOT tougher than you think they are, obviously. I have a pentium D extreme edition (Pentium D with HT and unlocked multiplier) and I've been running that thing for the past 6 years at 4.1GHz and a crazy voltage (forget, it's been a while) and it hits 82c and I have that baby folding 48 hours every week in those conditions, pinned at 100% load. For 6 YEARS. That's a MUCH more agressive overclock, considering they didn't "recommend" going above something like 60c back then! Again, clearly you're not very experienced with overclocking. Temperature is not at all what determines safe operation! A CPU running at stock clocks and voltage at 90c is a hell of a lot safer than a CPU running at 5GHz at 1.5V at 70c. And even under those conditions, you can expect AT LEAST 5 years of CPU lifetime. Unless you plan on having that same setup for 10 years, don't overclock or invest in some heavy duty cooling. I thought that was common knowledge though. Of course higher temperature, clocks and voltage are going to reduce the lifetime. How well the CPU was made will affect the lifetime as well. There are MANY factors that affect the lifetime of the CPU. If you determine what's safe for a CPU by Intel saying "dont go past 70c hur durr lol" then you shouldn't be giving other people advice on the topic. Go back to being a student for a while before trying to be a teacher. Not only is my job related to all of this, but it's also what I put most of my free time into as well. Trust me, I'm an expert. AnEwG doesn't know what he's talking about.

You are comparing an old Intel 2.8 GHz dual core to a modern i7-3770k quad with hyper-threading while running modern games that utilizes up to 8 threads that is why the dual core performance suffered that much! It won't be the same if you are comparing it with a modern AMD processor with the same number of threads obviously!
ANY OC REAL EXPERT who actually KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT will tell you NOT to overclock the FX-6300 without an after market cooling solution. Your cpu power consumption and heat generation will increase with OC even if the overclock is stable under stock voltage. Increasing the voltage increases the heat generation and hence the temperature even more. Even here at tom's you will find that the REAL EXPERTS agree with me:
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1769931/overclock-fx6300-stock-cooler.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1961721/fx6300-stock-cooler-overclocking-9ghz.html

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I did an experiment. I have a GT430 (Same as GT620) in a core 2 duo 2.8GHz system. The core 2 duo would sit at 100% load in every game I played and the GPU would sit anywhere between 30-80%, hovering around 40%. On my system, with a 3770k at 4.8GHz, the framerate nearly DOUBLED in every game, including BF4 and Crysis 3. However, they were obviously still unplayable. In Crysis 3 I went from 5FPS to 20FPS on minimum settings 1280x720p. I can't remember the rest, but I have the benchmark results saved on my desktop which I don't have access to at the moment.

Click to expand...

You didn't get more performance out of your GPU, you just removed the CPU bottleneck... Please, don't post misinformation. You've done it in all of your posts on this thread.

Trust me, I'm an expert.

Click to expand...

That's a horrible argument. No disrespect meant, but are you even being serious?


Sorry, physics says otherwise... That's ridiculous.

The recommendations are there for a reason, CPUs are rated and built to run in those conditions, exceed those conditions and any flaw in the CPU is much more likely to show itself and wreak havoc (Have you heard of "binning" within the CPU industry?). Don't go around recommending extreme/dangerous/unsafe overclocking to someone who's not interested. If stamval wants to experiment on his own, that's fine. Just don't say it's safe, when it really isn't.

And no, the 6300 will not bottleneck the R9 270. AnEwG does know what he's talking about, Mr. Expert.