Will it bottleneck?



Should be fine. I've seen benchmarks that put the FX-6300 at an average of 70 fps in BF4 as long as it's paired with a strong enough video card (like your R9 290). Ofc, I suspect the FX-6300 will hit its limit before your R9 290 does, in the years to come.
 

Corey Strohecker

Reputable
Sep 1, 2014
102
0
4,710


Thanks man, but in your opinion is an intel cpu better than an amd one?(for around the same price as this)
I only game and browse the internet, no editing or rendering, or anything else too CPU demanding.
And hopefully Mantle will help in the future.


 


The competing Intel CPU at the price point would be the i3-4150. The i3-4150 and FX-6300 perform about the same, with some variance from game to game. Games using 4 cores (or less) will favor the i3-4150, while games using 5+ cores will favor the FX-6300. In certain cases, the i3-4150 can still match the FX-6300 up to 6-core games, such as Watch Dogs, but that is relatively rare. The performance difference mostly becomes notable in MMOs, as virtually all of them use only 2 cores, which leaves the FX series struggling to maintain playable performance in heavily populated areas. Any other situation it's exceedingly rare for either the FX-6300 or the i3-4150 to drop below 60 fps.

The i5-4590, of course, will cost quite a lot more but would perform well enough to unlock all of your R9 290's potential in the future, unlike the FX-6300 or the i3-4150. That's the sort of CPU I would recommend to go with a video card of the R9 290's caliber. But if you're certain about keeping the CPU cost low...

I went with an i3, personally. My rationale is that both the FX-6300 and i3s perform very well in games that use 4 or more threads, and therefore don't need extra performance in those games. The i3's minimum when using few threads is higher, and its maximum when using all threads is slightly lower, making the performance from game to game more consistent.