Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Worth upgrading? (FX 8370)

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2014 6:50:59 PM

I'm getting the GTX 970 when it gets back in stock and am planning on upgrading my CPU also. I'm currently using the FX 6300 OC to 4.5GHZ and wanted to know if upgrading to the FX 8370 is worth it or i should just go all out and switched to intel?

More about : worth upgrading 8370

a b à CPUs
September 23, 2014 6:56:25 PM

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
m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 23, 2014 6:57:39 PM

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.)
Share
Related resources
September 23, 2014 6:58:18 PM

i have the same cpu and im planning to run my games on it until mid 2016 probably, save money for a good intel cpu and a motherboard that lets you do a stable overclock meanwhile
m
0
l
September 23, 2014 8:41:34 PM

Im running 2 780 with no performance loss on an overclocked 8320 @ 4.7 no need to switch to intel not a fanboy by any means just dont waste your money yoir chip is fine
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 1:09:55 AM

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 pointkless
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:14:59 AM

my cpu usage never goes over 60% and my card are at 98% so where do these extra frams come from if the cards and vram are used to their max
m
0
l
September 24, 2014 8:15:41 AM

I mean that as a serious question as i have only been into this for a few months
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 1:06:10 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 7:56:53 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 7:59:56 PM

no the FX 6300 at that Ghz will be better than the 8370 and the 6300 OC's more (less cores to power/modules). Like already mentioned most games wont use more than 6 cores anyways, and that leaves headroom for running background apps and the OS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:06:05 PM

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 pointkless


Getting 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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:12:43 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:35:12 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:41:25 PM

wss_003 said:
my cpu usage never goes over 60% and my card are at 98% so where do these extra frams come from if the cards and vram are used to their max


What games are you playing when monitoring your CPU usage?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 1:02:49 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 1:05:13 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 1:07:18 PM

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 pointkless


Getting 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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 2:42:14 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 4:41:17 PM

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 pointkless


Getting 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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 4:45:14 PM

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 pointkless


Getting 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
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2014 5:20:54 PM

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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2014 6:49:56 AM

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!
m
0
l
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
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2014 8:38:20 PM

GPU will help more
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2014 9:04:43 PM

I just got my i5 4690K and it improved my frame rates a lot
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2014 9:29:54 PM

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.
m
1
l
!