Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Will amd fx 6300 bottleneck geforce gtx 660(non ti)?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2012 5:41:36 PM

So as the title says will amd fx 6300 bottleneck geforce gtx 660(non ti)?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2012 5:54:40 PM

no
December 17, 2012 1:24:18 AM

i3 is the same if not better, and quite a bit cheeper, uses less power, and unless you want to OC then is overall a better choice. you need a LGA 1155 mobo for i3, and AM3+ for the amd cpu.
Related resources
January 9, 2013 2:41:32 AM

masterman467 said:
i3 is the same if not better, and quite a bit cheeper, uses less power, and unless you want to OC then is overall a better choice. you need a LGA 1155 mobo for i3, and AM3+ for the amd cpu.


There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.
a c 162 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 9, 2013 3:49:32 AM

bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol
January 11, 2013 5:24:08 PM

bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.
a c 162 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 11, 2013 8:28:08 PM

So anyone who has a amd cpu, and tries to give some credit to fx cpu line gets called a fanboy? I enjoy my x6, and im just hating on the i3s, if i had the money to go intel well i would but i currently dont see a need to do so.

Also ur kind of a hypocrite lol amd fanboy? i know obviously intel is better but way to be a intel fanboy.... oh burn!!! u hear that sarcasm?
January 12, 2013 9:54:24 PM

lga 1155 socket is dead unless you can wait for haswell i reccmoned you the amd 6300

I paried the 6300 with a 7970ghz No bottlenecks getting 98% gpu usage. so you will be 100% fine with the 660
January 12, 2013 10:40:40 PM

masterman467 said:
cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/G/364516/original/CPU-scaling.png
god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


So according to your chart, I should just buy an i3-2100 because it makes a ~1fps difference in gaming performance to an i5-3550? If this chart were 100% accurate then the i3-2100 would be the best value CPU of 2012. Why not save $90 and get the i3 instead of the i5, or the i7 for another $950? If this is the performance increase for a CPU worth $950 more, then Intels price to performance is terrible.

Also in this chart the fx-8350 and i5-3550 are less than 3 fps apart, which is within margin of error.

Don't you just love stomping on Intel fanboys, or what?
Go ahead and pay $950 more for a i7-3960X with 3 times the cores, using twice the power, and gain .6 FPS in games.

Oh and sorry to hijack the thread, konak26. Your answer is exactly as Brett replied. No :) 
a c 79 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 13, 2013 1:14:51 AM

it really depends on the game. Something like Skyrim would show a cpu bottleneck, as its very cpu dependant, and doesnt scale well after 4 cores. You would get more performance with a high clocked i3. I think its a well balanced setup that should give you good oveall performance. I would probably take the 6300 over an i3, but then again, i would just spend a little extra again and get an i5 3xxx.
a c 184 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 13, 2013 2:29:56 AM

stanistheman said:
lga 1155 socket is dead unless you can wait for haswell i reccmoned you the amd 6300

I paried the 6300 with a 7970ghz No bottlenecks getting 98% gpu usage. so you will be 100% fine with the 660

So is AM3+.
January 13, 2013 4:43:20 AM

another amd and intel fight :lol: 

I think the answer is no, I don't know wether the OP wants to change the processor or not eventhough if not OC, i think i3 3220 is better :D 
January 13, 2013 9:45:59 AM

actaully rumors are the next amd cpu line will be using the outdated AM3+ so techincally its not dead just as a stalemate. since a new line of AMD cpus just came out also the answer to the thread is no i'd trust a fx 6300 with up to a 7950 then i'd move up to a 8 core for a 7970 or GTX 670
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 5:09:39 PM

masterman467 said:
i3 is the same if not better, and quite a bit cheeper, uses less power, and unless you want to OC then is overall a better choice. you need a LGA 1155 mobo for i3, and AM3+ for the amd cpu.


That will be wrong, i3 3225 costs the same as a FX6300 and honestly I know which one I will prefer whether or not I prefer AMD or not.

OP if you really try super hard you will bottleneck the 660, but you have more chance melting the sun.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 6:14:16 PM

masterman467 said:
cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/9/G/364516/original/CPU-scaling.png
god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.

so you found one benchmark, good for you.





And some non-image ownage of the I3. http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3314/10/amd-fx-8350--83...

What now fanboy stomper? you showed 1 for the I3, I showed 9 where the 6300 either wins or ties. and we aren't talking about the +$90 8350, this is the lowly 6300
January 13, 2013 7:14:31 PM

what does that means? Is it means that on some games, i3 3220 is better, on other 6300 is better isn't it?
(btw, has the OP got the answer? I'd love to hear this, but I don't know, could we still discussing while the comments are no related anymore to OP?)
a c 162 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 13, 2013 7:56:38 PM

how about stop posting i think the OP has his answer lol its not like this argument isnt happening on other threads
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2013 10:55:19 PM

OP flip a coin. in the end you will be happy i can guarantee that.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2013 12:22:12 AM

this is the problem with asking a question. first this is a month old, someone decided to dig it up. 2nd he never asked anything about the I3.

Any time someone mentions AMD, automatically people come rushing in to recommend the I3, even if it wasn't a topic of discussion.
January 14, 2013 3:17:43 AM

LOL
we don't even know where the OP is.. :lol: 
January 14, 2013 3:17:53 AM

LOL
we don't even know where the OP is.. :lol: 
January 14, 2013 5:03:38 PM

xa376 said:
So according to your chart, I should just buy an i3-2100 because it makes a ~1fps difference in gaming performance to an i5-3550? If this chart were 100% accurate then the i3-2100 would be the best value CPU of 2012. Why not save $90 and get the i3 instead of the i5, or the i7 for another $950? If this is the performance increase for a CPU worth $950 more, then Intels price to performance is terrible.

Also in this chart the fx-8350 and i5-3550 are less than 3 fps apart, which is within margin of error.

Don't you just love stomping on Intel fanboys, or what?
Go ahead and pay $950 more for a i7-3960X with 3 times the cores, using twice the power, and gain .6 FPS in games.

Oh and sorry to hijack the thread, konak26. Your answer is exactly as Brett replied. No :) 



gpu bottleneck... your not the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?
January 14, 2013 11:09:24 PM

masterman467 said:
gpu bottleneck... your not the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

Not the brightest, but at least i'm lit.
a c 162 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 14, 2013 11:41:05 PM

Does anyone get that this is over a month old and the OP prob doesnt read this???????????????????
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2013 4:17:43 AM

BF3 is GPU limited, a FX8350 scores 5 FPS less than a 3960X with the same GPU and more or less what a i7/i5 scores, so what we are saying is A AMD system bottlenecks the GPU a couple frames earlier or at exactly the same limit.

There were issues on AMD's multicard performance but Vishera has remedied a lot of that, but dear lord let us not mention AMD anymore the Intel fans get butt hurt when they realize their dearly beloved is not as monsterously ahead as what they want to believe.

I really want someone to bring a i3 3225 to go against the A10 5800K, will compare what you can put in it for a set price, what features are present on both setups, run gaming synthetics on IGPU performance also overclocking various components and running DDR3 in excess of 3000mhz (okay already the i3 is beaten here but just for lulz) and then run discrete graphics performance.

I think people will be devistated when the i3 gets mauled like a 4yr old in a tiger cage.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2013 6:08:29 AM

sarinaide said:
BF3 is GPU limited, a FX8350 scores 5 FPS less than a 3960X with the same GPU and more or less what a i7/i5 scores, so what we are saying is A AMD system bottlenecks the GPU a couple frames earlier or at exactly the same limit.

There were issues on AMD's multicard performance but Vishera has remedied a lot of that, but dear lord let us not mention AMD anymore the Intel fans get butt hurt when they realize their dearly beloved is not as monsterously ahead as what they want to believe.

I really want someone to bring a i3 3225 to go against the A10 5800K, will compare what you can put in it for a set price, what features are present on both setups, run gaming synthetics on IGPU performance also overclocking various components and running DDR3 in excess of 3000mhz (okay already the i3 is beaten here but just for lulz) and then run discrete graphics performance.

I think people will be devistated when the i3 gets mauled like a 4yr old in a tiger cage.



Na it would get hurt on the GFX side but as far as CPU performance goes the i3 will win every single time. And even though AMD has gottent their memory controller om a good track it's not as speed yas Intel.

For instancea Bulldozer using DDR3 2000 will be roughly the same speed as a Sandy/Ivy running DDR3 1333.
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2013 6:32:32 AM

i3 will win in pure x86 performance but not all metrics, we have done this into the ground and yes AMD is 2 Generations behind but closing as to whether they will ever be better again I don't know but x86 alone is not always the determing factor. iGPU side its one way traffic even using DDR3 1866 vs a I3 on DDR3 3000 OC it will still beat the i3 hands down. Discrete is by and large on a par or a few instances better, some worse but both are so close we call it tie.

Bearing in mind we will need to use an enthusiast Z77 board to achieve some of the result but on a B75 or H61 vs A85 at similar cost feature wise and value wise its another issue altogether.

a b à CPUs
January 15, 2013 6:39:11 AM

But back the issue at hand, no a FX6300 will not bottleneck the 660 any more ore less than its comparible parts.
January 15, 2013 1:17:46 PM

sarinaide said:
i3 will win in pure x86 performance but not all metrics, we have done this into the ground and yes AMD is 2 Generations behind but closing as to whether they will ever be better again I don't know but x86 alone is not always the determing factor. iGPU side its one way traffic even using DDR3 1866 vs a I3 on DDR3 3000 OC it will still beat the i3 hands down. Discrete is by and large on a par or a few instances better, some worse but both are so close we call it tie.

Bearing in mind we will need to use an enthusiast Z77 board to achieve some of the result but on a B75 or H61 vs A85 at similar cost feature wise and value wise its another issue altogether.



i do, by all means, hope amd gets there ship in line and becomes competitive. im just saying that they cant do it right now.


lets end this thread...

/thread
January 22, 2013 7:57:11 AM

as almost all latest games use more cores, id go for a quad-core or more.

I have the FX6300 now. Tested it with a GTX680. Got 120 fps constant on BF3.

Nothing about fanboying, used a 3750k aswell for testing, no FPS increase at all.

If you are really going to compare, ofcourse intel wins from AMD, but you can see this back in the prices.

In my opinion A i3 is maybe faster per thread. But it ain't faster in the latest games, as the latest games all use more cores than 2.

If you compare an I5 with the FX series, the i5 series comepletely OWN FX series from AMD, but! not all i5 cores beat FX series in benchmarks again :-)

Best bang for buck: FX series.

Having enough money for intel? go with i5.

i3, is used for office computers, LOL. (its not ment for gaming)

a b à CPUs
January 22, 2013 8:01:53 AM

The 6300 is a great CPU for the price and will work great with a 660 ti or not.
June 14, 2013 1:13:25 AM

masterman467 said:
bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


June 14, 2013 1:13:25 AM

masterman467 said:
bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


June 14, 2013 1:13:25 AM

masterman467 said:
bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


June 14, 2013 1:13:26 AM

masterman467 said:
bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


June 14, 2013 1:31:14 AM

Tom's Hardware is faked, their performance test with processors is faked everytime, why to use médium settings with a R7970? I am telling to Tom's Hardware: - Please stop with bizarre tests or remake the test using 1440x900 resolution and then post to everyone the results. PS. I have both i3-2100 and FX-6300, and I know clearly that Fx-6300 working with programs and with Windows has superior performance than i3-2100 (I can't wait like 3 seconds to open a program with i3-2100, I can use my FX-6300).
I am using a FX-6300 with a gtx 660(non ti) and I got 59 frames playing GTA 4.
August 3, 2013 6:12:54 PM

masterman467 said:
bwathke said:
There is no i3 that is as good as the FX-6300. Any that come close cost MORE then a 6300. Not to mention the 6300 is six core and i3 is dual-core.


lazyboy947 said:
Straight forward a little harsh lol Id say the fx is better or on par with an i3, amd may have messed with their core design and performance but piledriver at least can compete with intel better than wat bulldozer did. I dont like an i3 as its a dual core with HT lol come on. Anywho Fx6300 since its similar performance to a i3 which wont bottleneck a 7850/7870, which is similar to a 660, you should be fine.

In terms of price fx quad and six cores are similar to most i3s, and the fx 8 cores are similar to the i5s, and the 3570k and 8350 fx are like literally the same cost lol


cough cough, cough cough. hack, cough.


god, do i love stomping on AMD fanboys, or what?
go ahead and pay 90 bucks more for a FX-8350 CPU with 4 times the cores, and uses twice the power, then gets STOMPED on by a little i3.


Answer to the konak26's question is Nope.But why not try testing it on very hight details? :ange: 
http://forums.videocardz.com/topic/266-far-cry-3-perfor... (below)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-3-PC-217540/Tests... (below)

http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performanc... (below)

The pictures just clearly shows that on the 3 benchmarks (except tom's)(the first one is fx 6100 vs i3 2100) that fx-6300 wins over i3-3220:kaola:  (even the difference is small)(used farcry 3 benchmark the same as what he used to say bad things about AMD :( )
Tom's benchmark just tested it on medium settings :pfff: (Benchmarks must be on max (even without aa)so you can really see what cpu does the work...) (or just put processors performance on low med and high settings (which will take kinda long time)
But in terms of gaming performance on farcry 3 fx 6300 really wins(with only a small lead)
even on this link:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=677 i3 just beats fx 6300 on like sysmark, single cored applications(cause intel is good at single core performance) so I really recommend fx 6300 for the price range :D 
BTW heres some gtx 660 benchmarks :D 
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-3-PC-217540/Tests...

Well, I really like intel for their procesor efficiency (like how they make the power lower with better performance)but i won't let this one pass :D 
Sorry for the flood of pictures! :D 
October 4, 2013 11:43:38 AM

I made a thread and there was alot talking about i3 and fx 6300, found out that we are coming to end of the dual core gaming and 6 cores of fx 6300 will make a huge fps increase on modern games compared to i3. Intel has nothing better at that price. The high end CPU's of intel are better.
!