CPU and GPU performance in World of Warcraft question

what gpu, ram, mobo do you have?

the cpu is your bottleneck, as far as fx cpus are considered the fx 6300 wasn't great but also legion is very reliant on single core performance. a ryzen or coffee lake intel would do very well but you would need new ram which isn't cheap right now. if just wanting to upgrade for WoW gaming id suggest find a cheap used i5 sky/kaby with mobo or if you have the cash upgrade to i3-8100 or ryzen 5 with ddr4 ram

it will be a beast for that game

The CPU is always a bottleneck for WoW. As far as the Ryzen 1600 goes it will help but you'll still see drops to about 30fps in raids and that's with a 4.0GHz overclock on it.

If you're not experienced with overclocking an 8400 will be better, and the 8350k will also be good with a high overclock (the usually sit around 4.8GHz.
If you multitask while raiding the 8600k is the next step after that. Will also OC around 4.8GHz but has 2 more cores.

None of that is really necessary but if you REALLY want that fps in raids you will have to pay for it, or put up with fps drops to the 30s. The 1600 will keep fps mostly above 60 though. Just not in raids at all times.

Your GPU should be perfectly fine for WoW.

lol ive never seen that poor of a performance from any modern chip in wow. in raids if you turn view distance down and shadows even a ryzen 3 1200 will perform well. the ryzen 1600 is amazing for legion.

look for videos there is some of raids with similar specs getting 60+ fps in raids with a stock speed ryzen 5 1600 and it performs fine

I've seen videos. 1600 with an overclock, getting 30fps or lower in raids. I guess if youre running 10m vs 20 or more yeah the fps is going to be way higher. But no way a 3.6GHz CPU is going to beat out higher chips. I can't even hold 60fps in raids. I've had both a 6700k @4.7GHz and the 8700k at stock (4.3GHz) the 8700k is actually a tad slower too, because the clock speed is lower. No way in hell a 1600 outperforms either of those in ANY game. And like I said EVEN I don't hold 60fps all the time in raids.

And just so we're clear I also have a 1080 Ti and not even running at preset 10.

lol lol lol lol lol im at setting 7 with a gtx 1060 6gb and a8-9600 and still hit 40-50 in raids with what has been called one of the worst cpu's in current use my old i5 2300 with 2gb gtx 1050 held 60+ in raids at 7-8 preset if view distance set to 4-5 but go ahead and tell him that WoW on an ancient engine needs a $1200 pc to play when my $450 pc does it just fine

You know how I know you're full of it?

Because I literally run raids at preset 7 (view distance at 7) and my fps WILL drop to about 45 in certain fights. 1-2 notches in view distance is not going to account for the fact that you are claiming a CPU that tops out at 3.1GHz is going to match that performance. That's a blatant lie. Most of the time sure that's probably likely.. but not always.

Again mine was with a 4.7GHz OC on a 6700k. How are you going to tell me your 1.6GHz SLOWER processor is able to match that?

Simply put.. impossible.

BTW view distance actually won't change much in a raid.. I know, I've tried.

Here's one video of a 1700 @3.8GHz (granted it is at 10) However Dragons is not a hard fight to run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIxDjlhJk-U

Another video with max settings, no counter but he says there are drops to 30fps on a stock 1700. And for WoW the 1600 and 1700 are basically the same thing when OC'd, the 1600 being slightly faster at stock. Also, dragons is not that bad of a fight as far as fps goes. I think my fps usually was about 65-70 in that fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJfAMdaxQcw

This guy said in the desc. hit fps went down to 30

And no, the whole KJ encounter is so small as it is view distance is not going to increase fps by 20.

I totally AGREE the 1600 is enough for WoW for probably 99% of the time.

I simply put forth the statement that if he wants to run always 50-60fps he will need, YES NEED, a faster CPU as even overclocked to its limits the 1600 will not always be able to do that. Some people, including me, think that way.

Totally not necessary though, but again that depends on your definition of necessary.

The majority of the time fps will be 60+ easily. Not always... I was simply pointing that out.. It's up to HIM to decide if he wants to drop below 60 and if he feels its worth paying a premium for that luxury.

I did mislead though for that I apologize. I forgot the video in question was of a stock 1700, which is actually slightly slower than the 1600.

But the point still stands.

And in any case the 8400 is the same price as the 1600, and comes with a stock speed of 4.0GHz it will be faster than the 1600 and will cost about the same even given that Z370 boards are slightly more expensive than B350 boards are.

The 8400 and Z370 board would be about $40 more than a 1600 and B350 board, and it will be faster at stock than a 1600 OC, so faster and no OC required for that extra performance.

Yes, huge difference. FX sucks. Ryzen is a contender for sure, and hands down the best at full multi-core performance.

However, Intel still dominates in gaming. If you are planning on doing some kind of video editing or something, then AMD is a clear winner.

Especially for WoW though, Intel is very generally better. The 1200 wins in the $100 category but that is really it.

The highest you could go with the current boards is 8700k for Z370 and 1800x for B350. However, the 8700k still wins in gaming, for the vast majority of games, and because they are almost as good as the 1800x for editing the 1800x was reduced in price from about $550 to $380. That should go to show Intel still knows what's up.


But if you really want that option there is no better chip for your price other than the 1600. However, the 1600 and up will all perform pretty much the same for WoW. Whereas with Intel you could get an 8400 now and upgrade to an 8600k or 8700k and there will be plenty of gains.