Heavy Bottlleneck Amd fx6300 with gtx 1060 6gb

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

mistic_bro

Prominent
Feb 27, 2017
7
0
510
Hey guys, need some help so anything is appreciated.

Specs:
AMD FX 6300 6 core 3.5 ghz
Cooler Master Masterair Pro 3 cooler
Msi 970 gaming mobo
8gb g skill ram
gtx 1060 6gb gpu
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB HDD
seasonic 520 bronze
Corsair SPEC-01 Red ATX Mid Tower Case

I am experiencing heavy bottle-necking on games such as GTA V the Ghost Recon Wildlands Beta and other graphic heavy games. CPU usage is high 90,s to 100% in task manager, changing graphic setting does little to no difference and I am stuck on what to do because long story short I'm broke. I tried Overclocking and i got it to 4.3 ghz but temps were quite high (60-75 not under load) and I am new to Overclocking so i was doing it with reading forums and using an MSI bios system which is kind of confusing and i didn't see a lot of changes and i got sketched by the temps and reset setting to normal. Any suggestions on better Overclock or if i were to get some money in the future would it be worth to upgrade to an 8350. Chip socket on my mobo kind of limits me (AM3 +) and i will probably need to upgrade mobo as well. And before anyone says is your monitor plugged into your gpu, yes it is lol. (Also as a gift my mom ordered me a 2nd stick of ram so in a few days time i will have 16gb not sure if that helps my situation but)
 
Solution
Ecky
Vishera was the last core design AMD released for AM3+. There have been a few refreshes since then, but they're all the same chip, just with different clockspeeds and TDPs. You're not going to get any significant improvement out of AM3+. By comparison, Intel's 7xxx CPUs are often close to twice as fast at this point.

An upgrade will definitely require a new motherboard and RAM too, since DDR3 was last used by Intel's 5th generation, in 2015. Since then, all new chips released have used DDR4.
Sort by date Sort by votes
M

mistic_bro

Prominent
Feb 27, 2017
7
0
510


whats wrong with it? saw it was popular when i first bought it
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

ddog

Reputable
Oct 11, 2014
44
0
4,540
What resolution and FPS are you looking to achieve or what are the specs of your monitor?

One way of checking whether you are really "bottlenecking" is to use MSI afterburner and compare the GPU usage to the CPU usage. If the CPU usage is higher or maxed out then you might really be looking at a bottleneck. You can save the MSI results to a log for later viewing if you don't have a dual monitor setup to look at it simultaneously with the game.

I can tell you from my personal experience that I have a FX8350/ R9 390 pairing and run on a 1080p/ 60Hz monitor. Never experienced "bottleneck" yet.

Just to give an example of a couple of my MSI afterburner logs, Shadow of Mordor max settings yields the highest CPU usage of 37% with the GPU almost at max most of the time. While running a much lower spec game at max settings like Resident evil revelations 2 yields the highest CPU usage as 65% with the GPU fluctuating all over the place.

I guess what i am trying to say is that it depends on the resolution and FPS you are looking to achieve and also the game being not optimized properly or just a bad port will be another factor. My advice is use the MSI afterburner or whatever program you prefer to compare the CPU and GPU usage and make sure you really have a bottleneck before looking to upgrade. I personally think the FX line is good for 1080P/ 60FPS and maybe even >60FPS but at 1440p and above you may want to start looking at more powerful processors.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
M

mistic_bro

Prominent
Feb 27, 2017
7
0
510


thanks for the reply bro!
I've been using task manager to view cpu usage on games like gta and cpu is at 100% all most always and fps is consistently in the 28-35 range, I currently have a 1080p 60hz monitor and im looking to use my 1060 to its potential, i spent 450$ cdn on it so id like to see at least 60fps. I will use the Afterburner to see what the usages are at to confrim the usage but on games such as BO3 i get the 60 frames because the game renders in and there is only real "bottleneck" at the start, maybe my extra ram coming in will help on graphic heavy games but im kind of new to all of this stuff so im still learning and figuring all this crap out. Also what do you mean by a 'bad port' ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
D

ddog

Reputable
Oct 11, 2014
44
0
4,540
CPU usage is definitely higher than the GPU but it's not maxing out at 100 or staying constantly high. I am not sure if that would qualify as a definite bottleneck but on average the CPU usage does seems to be staying above the 70% usage while the GPU usage is lower. I am no expert on this but judging from the gameplay you showed on the side, the gameplay looked pretty smooth to me with no stutters at least on video. I would say once the gameplay is smooth don't worry about.

I don't have GTAV installed so I wasn't able to check the 8350 usage on that as a comparison for you but I did check some other demanding games. Witcher 3, Ultra preset, CPU usage does not pass 60% while the GPU is maxed, however the Division was a different story. This was my first time logging the Division on Ultra presets and to my surprise I did encounter spike to 100% usage and a few times during these spikes the GPU usage was lower, much lower. CPU spikes from around 50 to 80 on average with occasional 100% spikes. Even with all these spikes the gameplay was smooth (average 55-60fps, Vsync) and acceptable to me. Also just to note the fluctuations and spiking I encountered was much worst than what you showed in the video and it was still smooth.

As for upgrading to the 8350, I personally don't think it's worth it at least price wise currently. Maybe if you got it for pretty cheap.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
D

ddog

Reputable
Oct 11, 2014
44
0
4,540
Just wanted to add one more thing to note, on my 8350/390 setup I recall getting almost the same fps as you averaging in the 30s on ultra presets. It is a pretty demanding game and the only one in my library to run so low in fps on ultra.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
M

mistic_bro

Prominent
Feb 27, 2017
7
0
510


thanks for all the info man, i was just under the impression that with my 1060, 8gb ram, i would get 60 frames easily on pretty high settings, ill keep dicking around with the settings and see what i can do
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
Your CPU determines your max framerate. If your CPU can only deliver, say, 30fps, it doesn't matter if you have a GTX 1050 or GTX 1080 Ti, you'll never get more than 30fps. You'll just be able to turn up your graphical settings without seeing any framerate drops... because your GPU is mostly sitting idle, waiting for the CPU. There are, unfortunately, few to no in-game settings that affect how much CPU a game needs, and the FX CPUs were not very well regarded even when they were new in 2012 - and they're more than 5 years old now.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested

Some snippets from the Anandtech review back in 2012:

Last year's launch of AMD's FX processors was honestly disappointing. The Bulldozer CPU cores that were bundled into each Zambezi chip were hardly power efficient and in many areas couldn't significantly outperform AMD's previous generation platform. Look beyond the direct AMD comparison and the situation looked even worse...

...The story hasn't really changed in that regard. For AMD to become competitive across the board it needs significant changes to the underlying architecture, some of which I don't know that we'll see until the 2013 - 2014 timeframe. Even then, Intel's progress isn't showing any signs of slowing.

Power consumption is also a big negative for Vishera. The CPU draws considerably more power under load compared to Ivy Bridge, or even Sandy Bridge for that matter.
Click to expand...

In short: your CPU was relatively weak even by the standards of 2012, and the only way you're going to see significant improvements is by replacing it with either one of AMD's just-released Ryzen CPUs (which are a lot better, but still fall behind Intel's latest in gaming), or with one of Intel's offerings.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
M

mistic_bro

Prominent
Feb 27, 2017
7
0
510




Thanks dude, is the fx 8350 and 6300 the top AM3+ sockets? Im assuming im going to have to upgrade mobo in order to get a cpu that will be up to par with 60+ frames
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
Vishera was the last core design AMD released for AM3+. There have been a few refreshes since then, but they're all the same chip, just with different clockspeeds and TDPs. You're not going to get any significant improvement out of AM3+. By comparison, Intel's 7xxx CPUs are often close to twice as fast at this point.

An upgrade will definitely require a new motherboard and RAM too, since DDR3 was last used by Intel's 5th generation, in 2015. Since then, all new chips released have used DDR4.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom