Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Will I see a increased performance if I upgrade my CPU?

Tags:
  • Performance
  • Bottleneck
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 22, 2014 12:39:49 AM

Hi,

I play BF4, alot. But atm, I think my CPU is my bottleneck, so I figured I ask here if it's worth it. Currently, im playing at 1920x1080 with ultra/medium and AA off. I have like 3-4 settings on ultra, others are on medium. I have around 65FPS, but more likely 40-50FPS average.

How big would the differance be if I get AMD FX-6300? Should I get more RAM?

Current setup:
AMD FX-4300, 4.3GHz
AMD Radeon R9 270X 2GB GDDR5, 1110MHz core clock
Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
8GB RAM 1600MHz.

Thanks in advance

More about : increased performance upgrade cpu

a b à CPUs
May 22, 2014 12:46:14 AM

Yes, especially if you are playing CPU dependent games, you will see an increase of fps. I am not saying you are bottlenecking your card right now, it is not, but some games will perform better if you have a better CPU. Your 8GB of ram is enough for gaming.

eg. Crysis, GTA 4, Starcraft
m
0
l
May 22, 2014 12:48:00 AM

Alright. But is it my graphic card os CPU that is my bottleneck? My GPU is fine, isnt it?
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b à CPUs
May 22, 2014 12:49:09 AM

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-ben...

Go just under half way down and you will see a chart on processors vs frame rate. You are experiencing exaclty what they have in the plot. All the data is there, chose how much more speed you want.
Share
May 22, 2014 12:53:51 AM

OOo wie, thank you. I will take a look at it :)  Ooo btw!!

Regarding pagefile memory. My total paging file size for all drives is 8GB. And I have 8GB RAM.. Is this good, or should I lower this to increase performance?
m
0
l
a c 168 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 1:17:03 AM

Yeah your GPU is fairly decent mid range card, but your CPU is not very good.

If I were you I would swap out the CPU for the 8320/8350 with a good CPU cooler (the stock ones are junk, and these cpus are worth overclocking).
m
0
l
May 22, 2014 1:45:29 AM

Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.
m
0
l
a c 168 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 3:25:30 AM

Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 3:54:49 AM

RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games. And it costs a lot more.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games, as it has the same core per core performance as an FX-8350, only losing out in games that use 8 cores. Which, as mentioned, is like 2.
m
0
l
a c 168 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 3:59:32 AM

Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 4:00:59 AM

RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.


Because the FX-6350 binned higher and is already overclocked from the factory, making it virtually identical to a home-overclocked FX-6300, but more stable and with less work.
m
0
l
a c 168 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 4:05:12 AM

Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.


Because the FX-6350 binned higher and is already overclocked from the factory, making it virtually identical to a home-overclocked FX-6300, but more stable and with less work.


So you are paying more to not spend 2mins in the bios adjusting the multiplier.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 4:06:55 AM

RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.


Because the FX-6350 binned higher and is already overclocked from the factory, making it virtually identical to a home-overclocked FX-6300, but more stable and with less work.


So you are paying more to not spend 2mins in the bios adjusting the multiplier.


No, you're paying more for that, and for the longer CPU lifespan, because as mentioned, the FX-6350s were binned higher and handle higher voltages better.
m
0
l
a c 168 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 4:09:36 AM

Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.


Because the FX-6350 binned higher and is already overclocked from the factory, making it virtually identical to a home-overclocked FX-6300, but more stable and with less work.


So you are paying more to not spend 2mins in the bios adjusting the multiplier.


No, you're paying more for that, and for the longer CPU lifespan, because as mentioned, the FX-6350s were binned higher and handle higher voltages better.


Proof of them handling higher voltages better? I have seen tons of the unlocked FX chips hitting the next bin higher on the same voltage with no problem. You might hit a better overclock with a 6350 than a 6300, but your arguement is based on not overclocking.

Better lifespan? Dont believe that for a second.
m
0
l
a c 85 à CPUs
May 22, 2014 4:12:35 AM

RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Rationale said:
RobCrezz said:
Alanthor said:
Yea, I have Hyper Evo 212. And overclocking is standard for me, haha. But I got 2 options, either I keep my 4300, or upgrade to 6300 and OC the hell out of it.. Anything above 6300 is not current.


Why not the 8320/8350? They are much better than the 6300...


The FX-8320 is the same speed as the FX-6300 core per core. The FX-8320 will only be an upgrade in games that use all 8 cores, which I believe is exactly 2 games right now. Really not worth the cost.

The FX-8350 really is better, but only for its higher overclock ceiling, otherwise it'll also perform the same as an overclocked FX-6300 in 99% of games.

Since he's stuck with the AM3+ socket anyway, I'd just recommend he stick his Hyper 212 EVO on an FX-6350 and not bother with overclocking. That'll perform better than an FX-8320 in most games.


But why wouldnt you overclock? on them CPUS?

If you dont want to overclock you are better selling the 990fx and 4300 and getting a B85 mobo with an i5.


Because the FX-6350 binned higher and is already overclocked from the factory, making it virtually identical to a home-overclocked FX-6300, but more stable and with less work.


So you are paying more to not spend 2mins in the bios adjusting the multiplier.


No, you're paying more for that, and for the longer CPU lifespan, because as mentioned, the FX-6350s were binned higher and handle higher voltages better.


Proof of them handling higher voltages better? I have seen tons of the unlocked FX chips hitting the next bin higher on the same voltage with no problem. You might hit a better overclock with a 6350 than a 6300, but your arguement is based on not overclocking.

Better lifespan? Dont believe that for a second.


It really doesn't matter at all to me what you believe.
m
0
l
!