Worth upgrading? (FX 8370)
Tags:
- Gtx
-
CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
-
Reply to ifreestylin
You will see no difference in upgrading to another AMD cpu. They all overclock pretty much the same and games almost entirely dont use 6 cores or more. You gain nothing. If you want to upgrade CPUs intel would be the way, but I would probably wait for the next generation. You shouldnt have problems with the 6300 right now
-
Reply to Jameson Clark
m
0
l
Best solution
Related resources
- would a amd fx 8350 or 8370 be worth the upgrade - Forum
- Upgrade from FX-6300 to FX-8370 or FX-8350? - Forum
- CPU Upgrade AMD FX-8370 vs 8350 - Forum
- upgrade to Fx 8370 or intel i5 ? - Forum
- AMD 8370E/8320E vs. FX 6300 vs. FX 6100 for video encoding - Forum
caracol101
September 23, 2014 6:58:18 PM
wss_003
September 23, 2014 8:41:34 PM
En contrare, http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,review-3... The intel i5s give you a decent amound of performance, that translates to roughly 30 extra FPS in most titles. Unless you limited yourself with a 270x, of course.
-
Reply to Alpha3031
m
0
l
wss_003
September 24, 2014 8:14:59 AM
wss_003
September 24, 2014 8:15:41 AM
I can get a FX 8320 for free so i'll test that out when i get my GTX 970 and see if it makes a difference in the games i play. My friend had the same setup as mine except he has and i5 3570k and his average and min fps is better than mines in BF4. I like my fps to stay above 60 at all times in games like BF4 which i play a lot. If my FX 6300 or the 8320 can do that then i wont upgrade until next gen Intel.
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
Jameson Clark said:
You only see those extra frames when A) the gpu is very powerful, 970 might be powerful enough and B) when frames are already well above 60 anyway so its pointklessGetting framerates above 60 is not pointless, since humans can see well beyond that. You also don't need a crazy powerful GPU to get increased framerates. You just need to lower your video settings.
-
Reply to VenBaja
m
0
l
-
Reply to Jameson Clark
m
0
l
Jameson Clark said:
It is pointless to the 99% of people who dont have a 120 or 144hz monitor. Besides going from 90 to 120 frames is quite pointless, especially if you are lowering quality to get there.If you can test one out for free then that sounds like a great way to determine if it is worth it.
It's not pointless actually. There is quite a lot of data and personal testimonials out on the net that reference people being able to tell the difference in framerates all the way up to the 144hz monitors that are gaining popularity now. Having greater than 60fps also matters a great deal even with a 60hz monitor, since it lowers input lag, and increases your minimum fps enough so that you never dip BELOW 60fps. For example, with my old FX-6300 (overclocked), I would average 60-70fps, but with noticeable dips into the 40's and 50's in quite a few online games. With my 4770k now averaging 90 to 100+ fps, I now never dip below 60fps, my monitor's refresh rate, and so never perceive the drops. That's extremely important to people who play online games competitively.
Many people also don't give a rip about lowering video settings. I never play any games on ultra, as high or high/medium usually looks outstanding and yields much better performance. Lowering video settings is quite commonplace for first person shooter players, in order to achieve the highest framesrates possible.
-
Reply to VenBaja
m
0
l
VenBaja said:
Jameson Clark said:
It is pointless to the 99% of people who dont have a 120 or 144hz monitor. Besides going from 90 to 120 frames is quite pointless, especially if you are lowering quality to get there.If you can test one out for free then that sounds like a great way to determine if it is worth it.
It's not pointless actually. There is quite a lot of data and personal testimonials out on the net that reference people being able to tell the difference in framerates all the way up to the 144hz monitors that are gaining popularity now. Having greater than 60fps also matters a great deal even with a 60hz monitor, since it lowers input lag, and increases your minimum fps enough so that you never dip BELOW 60fps. For example, with my old FX-6300 (overclocked), I would average 60-70fps, but with noticeable dips into the 40's and 50's in quite a few online games. With my 4770k now averaging 90 to 100+ fps, I now never dip below 60fps, my monitor's refresh rate, and so never perceive the drops. That's extremely important to people who play online games competitively.
Many people also don't give a rip about lowering video settings. I never play any games on ultra, as high or high/medium usually looks outstanding and yields much better performance. Lowering video settings is quite commonplace for first person shooter players, in order to achieve the highest framesrates possible.
+5 this^^^ when my fps drops below 60 my game lags and get me killed a lot.
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
Alpha3031 said:
The i5 would definitely have a higher minimum and less stutter, and also, with anything better than a R9 280 or GTX 760, have a higher frame rate. Also, I didn't see him post anything about his refresh rate on his monitor.I have a 60hz monitor. i will be getting a 120+hz but that's no time soon. I might not be able to see more that 60 fps on my monitor but i sure can feel it when i'm aiming so i like to be above 60 at all time's.
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
VenBaja said:
Jameson Clark said:
You only see those extra frames when A) the gpu is very powerful, 970 might be powerful enough and B) when frames are already well above 60 anyway so its pointklessGetting framerates above 60 is not pointless, since humans can see well beyond that. You also don't need a crazy powerful GPU to get increased framerates. You just need to lower your video settings.
My settings are already on mostly low and I still dip below 60 in BF4. i know updating my GPU will give me better frames but when buildings start breaking and CPU related stuff starts happening my FX 6300 is gonna lose more frames than an Intel CPU would.
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
Alpha3031 said:
Switch to Intel. AMD CPUs experience serious bottlenecks when used with anything stronger than a R9 280 or GTX 760, except for high resolution gaming at high details. (then again, it should still run at an acceptable frame rate.)They are not bottlenecks. I have an 8350 and my GPU can reach 100% load.
-
Reply to TheMagicalWallaby
m
0
l
ifreestylin said:
VenBaja said:
Jameson Clark said:
You only see those extra frames when A) the gpu is very powerful, 970 might be powerful enough and B) when frames are already well above 60 anyway so its pointklessGetting framerates above 60 is not pointless, since humans can see well beyond that. You also don't need a crazy powerful GPU to get increased framerates. You just need to lower your video settings.
My settings are already on mostly low and I still dip below 60 in BF4. i know updating my GPU will give me better frames but when buildings start breaking and CPU related stuff starts happening my FX 6300 is gonna lose more frames than an Intel CPU would.
If you're already playing on low settings, your GPU is not an issue. The sole reason for your low FPS is the FX-6300. It's a low budget CPU that struggles with compute intensive online multiplayer games. Don't get fooled by people who say the GPU is the more important component in a gaming rig. It's completely dependent on workload. Large multiplayer games require strong per-core performance, which Intel has and AMD lacks.
-
Reply to VenBaja
m
0
l
VenBaja said:
ifreestylin said:
VenBaja said:
Jameson Clark said:
You only see those extra frames when A) the gpu is very powerful, 970 might be powerful enough and B) when frames are already well above 60 anyway so its pointklessGetting framerates above 60 is not pointless, since humans can see well beyond that. You also don't need a crazy powerful GPU to get increased framerates. You just need to lower your video settings.
My settings are already on mostly low and I still dip below 60 in BF4. i know updating my GPU will give me better frames but when buildings start breaking and CPU related stuff starts happening my FX 6300 is gonna lose more frames than an Intel CPU would.
If you're already playing on low settings, your GPU is not an issue. The sole reason for your low FPS is the FX-6300. It's a low budget CPU that struggles with compute intensive online multiplayer games. Don't get fooled by people who say the GPU is the more important component in a gaming rig. It's completely dependent on workload. Large multiplayer games require strong per-core performance, which Intel has and AMD lacks.
I'll stick with my FX 6300 for now. I've done lots of testing and i know for a fact it would much better frames and smoother game play if i had an i5 vs the FX 6300
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
TheMagicalWallaby said:
Alpha3031 said:
Switch to Intel. AMD CPUs experience serious bottlenecks when used with anything stronger than a R9 280 or GTX 760, except for high resolution gaming at high details. (then again, it should still run at an acceptable frame rate.)They are not bottlenecks. I have an 8350 and my GPU can reach 100% load.
And yet the framerate is almost the same as if you used a GTX 760? http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-fx-8370e-cpu,review-3... There's definitely a bottleneck there.
-
Reply to Alpha3031
m
0
l
I'm switching to Intel guys. just ordered this bungle from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS--ATX-Motherboard-Intel-4690K...
Since i'll be getting the GTX 970's when they are back in stock, My FX 6300 will be limiting the card performance and money isn't a issue for me right now. Been saving up for this a while now!
http://www.amazon.com/ASUS--ATX-Motherboard-Intel-4690K...
Since i'll be getting the GTX 970's when they are back in stock, My FX 6300 will be limiting the card performance and money isn't a issue for me right now. Been saving up for this a while now!
-
Reply to ifreestylin
m
0
l
wss_003
October 1, 2014 8:23:24 PM
I really only play battle field 4 and titan fall and like i said I have yet to see my cpu even come close to 100% im not trying to argue as i have been considering switching things around as i enjoy build and overclocking far more than playing games but i do play a lot when i get time so i am curious to know where exactly why i would yield such an increase in frames by switching cpus when i havent hit the limit of what i have currently
-
Reply to wss_003
m
0
l
Alpha you are extremely incorrect. A bottleneck means that the GPU can't reach 100% load and I have even ran tests myself with the 8320 and 8350 and they do not bottleneck. A bottleneck doesn't mean getting a slightly lower fps on one cpu vs another, it means that your GPU has the slow down because the cpu isn't fast enough. When you get 20 more fps in a game like battlefield 4 on an i7 than an i5; that is not due to a bottleneck, but rather the game requiring the cpu to do work as well. The CPU does a lot of work in games such as battlefield, and the better the cpu, the better the fps (just like with the GPU). It's not your fault for misunderstanding a bottleneck as lots of people can feed your false information regarding what exactly a bottleneck is and what cpu's are good and bad with select GPU's.
-
Reply to TheMagicalWallaby
m
1
l
Related resources
- Solvedi5 4590 vs fx 8350 (or 4460 vs 8370) Forum
- Solvedi5-4460 vs i5-3470 vs fx-8370 Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i5 4690K or AMD FX-8370E 8 Core Black Edition Processor Forum
- SolvedHeat sink for fx-8370 Forum
- SolvedWill the AMD FX-8370 or 8370E work on My MSI 970 Gaming AM3+ Forum
- AMD FX 8370 Price Forum
- FX 9370 vs FX 8370 Forum
- FX-8370 w/ r7-250 vs A10-7850k w/r7-250 in Crossfire Forum
- Freeze up fx-8370 Forum
- Solvedupgrading fx 6300 to 8320, is it worth it? Forum
- SolvedIs FX-9370 worth upgrading Phenom II x4 955? Forum
- SolvedWorth upgrading FX8350 from 955BE? Forum
- SolvedIs upgrading from a FX4170 to a FX6300 worth it for gaming? Forum
- SolvedIs it worth upgrading from an FX 8150 to an fx 9370? Forum
- SolvedUpgrading to the FX-9370 worth it? Forum
- More resources
!