Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The FX 6300 is a six year old CPU. Shuffling around six year old CPU's unless you're getting it for free has very debatable value.
Are you familiar with the concept of "sunk costs"?
I highly recommend against doing this. It's not going to make your games run much better.
If so, thats money you could spent on newer hardware.
You alrdy did a mistake by buying a 7yrs old machine/hardware, dont do it again.
Deal with the current mistake/situation and save the money for new current hardware.
Ryzen 3 + asus b450 mobo + 8gb ram
~ £230
Minus the ~ 60 bucks u would waste on the 6300 are 170 bucks left.
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/760gm-p23-fx.html
No idea if those are the same or just about the same.
No idea if you can use the same BIOS: https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/760GM-P23-FX
CPU support: https://storage-asset.msi.com/file/test_report/TR19_24433.pdf
FX 8300, 8300, 8310, 8320E, 8370E is mentioned there. All at 95 watt power. 8350 BE is 125 watt so I assume it doesn't support that one then because it's not mentioned. Also maybe it need a BIOS update to support some of them.
"AMD® 760G and SB710 Chipset"
"Supports two unbuffered DIMM of 1.5 Volt DDR3 800/1066/1333 DRAM, 16GB Max"
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=164599.0
MSI dropped support for the 125 watt FX-8350: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-1845379/msi-pulled-8350-support-p23.html
So.. even if it's not that board I assume it's similar and doesn't have the hardware to support an FX-8350 well. I don't know how the 95 watt parts work but at-least better. Then again maybe you need a BIOS update to whatever version to have support for them.
As for the CPU AMD FX chips had some parts of the cores more separated than they are in the Intel CPUs. As such for an FX-4300 the four separate threads it can run do have their own ALUs and AGUs and none of them can use the resources of another one. Compared to the Intel i3s with just two cores by hyper-threading their cores have more ALUs and AGUs and then can share those for two threads. The result of that is that if one (or two) threads are doing most of the work on the Intel chip since they run at a wider core which is capable of doing more things happen faster whereas on the FX chip they are ran at two more narrow cores moving at a slower face and then there's two other cores/hardware threads which can also do things but not the same thing.
Compare it to kitchens and chefs.
Say the AMD solution would be like having four smaller kitchens with one chef where you for whatever reason can't prepare the same dish in different kitchens (it's just a hardware design limit / just how cores happen to work atm), as such if you get a large order of something only this one kitchen can prepare it and it doesn't matter that you have three other kitchens also ready. They could prepare other dishes but not the same one.
In the Intel i3 case with hyper-threading it would be like having just two twice as large kitchens with two chefs in each. They still don't allow cocking the same food in both kitchens (maybe poor analogy*) but they are fine to share the same kitchen to either prepare this one dish or to split it up to prepare two different ones. In that case if you get a large order of something the larger kitchen can be used to just prepare that order and things happen faster. If you get orders for four different dishes though resources has to be shared and then it's no longer faster.
(Poor because that's not how kitchens work! I kinda wish I had something else to compare with. The reason I use kitchens from the beginning is that ALU and AGU is short for Arithmetic Logic Unit and Address Generation Unit, the later do RAM stuff in whatever way whereas the former do things like addition and subtraction. And in many of the Intel chips you have four of those per core so say like having four places in the kitchen where you can prepare food. In the AMD case though each core have just two units of each so just like having two stations in each kitchen but there's twice as many kitchens. But as a single threads list of commands can't be executed onto multiple cores / say an order not be prepared by multiple kitchens) you end up in a situation where the Intel style kitchen work better for single heavy loads because while each core CAN run two threads it doesn't HAVE too whereas in the AMD case the two cores are ALWAYS separated (not totally true because they actually do share the FPU - Floating Point Unit which do floating point related work so there they are similar but the idea isn't really to be accurate as much as just explaining that each core of the FX processors do less but they have more cores and what the consequences of that are. Ryzen is more similar to Intel. It's even been said that the "back end" of the Ryzen (what it actually could do if it had instructions and data available?) actually should be able to do more per clock but sadly the front-end (actually feeding those parts with instructions and data) isn't keeping up holding it back. Supposedly "Zen2" which will be used for the Ryzen 3000 series parts have improvements in the front-end but now Intel has gone out and said they will release a series of upgraded cores in 2019, 2020 and 2021 which will improve various things in their core design more and more and even more as well so that mean that AMD Ryzen doesn't necessary will outperform Intel these years because Intel will also improve on their design.)
Each thread / list of program instructions can only be executed on one core. In the Intel case the two cores is capable to execute two such lists each but they doesn't have to whereas in the AMD case each one can only do one but instead there's four of them. But the problem is that the heavier thread / program list can't be run on "two cores"!
Now some pretty short time ago / in recent time the claim was that games didn't utilize many threads very well and as such we both had these heavier threads and less usage of any additional cores / hardware threads.
As such it could be expected that having an FX-8320 for instance didn't necessary run a game much faster than an FX-4300 (since it did have 8 cores but that didn't really help all that much unless the game also used them..)
But nowadays games use more threads better so maybe now the FX-8320 do provide more of a performance gain in more modern titles. But on the other hand each core is still slower than in the Intel processors and that will also hold performance back regardless.
So I don't know how much better say a FX-8320E would run. And it seem like it would have to be an E. Which I assume may clock lower than a non-E, or the 8310 or 8300 or the FX-6300 which maybe clock higher but just with 6 cores?
I've seen the Ryzen 3 1400 sell cheap now which I think have 4 cores and 8 threads but it wouldn't work on your motherboard and you'd also need DDR4 to run it so that's not all that optimal.
Used Intel boards and processors exist which would let you keep on using the DDR3 but they may all be a bit insecure now due to Spectre and Meltdown.
I don't know how much you can from an FX-6300 or FX-8320E but those may work. The FX-8320, 8350 and 8370 would likely not even run longer and with an older BIOS maybe they'd run but poorly.
A more modern platform would be better of course but cost more money so there's that. But yeah, at-least don't but a CPU which won't even work on the board. But maybe don't buy one at all.
Also Intel consistently sell the most of their unlocked i7 part (now they have an i9 so maybe that one now), which may be weird considering how many say the i5 part is fine and that may be true for the games out then but clearly it's been the case that games has become more multi-threaded and the i7s had lasted longer there, plus they easier handle running more things at the same time such as OBS for streaming.
Pro players suggest to play 1024x768p at low settings, with these settings you'll be fine and improve your skill.
I hope it helps.
))
If the problem was the graphics card then playing at low settings and resolution would help.
But now it's the CPU he's asking about and playing at lower settings and resolution likely won't do all that much difference there / maybe he feel it doesn't perform good enough.
Also he may want to play other games but be stuck with what he can play now.
This is true. I had an FX-4300 and GTX 960 only like 8 months ago and the FX-4300 had gotten so bad that no matter the resolution change in CSGO, my frames were constantly below 90
If he doesn't have a monitor with an higher refresh rate than 60 any frame over 60 would be useless.
The reason i want yo upgrade my cpu to the 6300 is because the 1050 ti works well with the 6300. So if i hvae a normal 1050 then i shouldnt be bottlenecked and i will be able to play games i currently play like cs go and tf2 but when i want to dip into games like dying light (which ive had to refund because stutters were horrendous) it should run how well the card can acctually take it. Plus, this upgrade will only cost me £30!
Did you try 1024x768p low settings for CS:GO?
You should be able to play always 60+ fps.
Also the frame render time isn't the same all the time. I played CS:GO on the AMD Phenom X4 9850 which is slower than his processor and I had 60-120 fps in CS:GO but the thing was that sometimes when people came out of some place and started shooting or throwing grenades a single frame could take over 0.5 seconds for my machine to process! So the game locked up for 1/3 to 1/2 of a second, so on a 60 Hz screen for 20 to over 30 frames in a row!
Of course if it could deliver all frames below 1/60 of a second then being able to do so in 1/120 of a second wouldn't improve things all that much but he still could get a bit more up to date frames and have a bit less lag between what he do and what he sees on the screen because regardless of seeing the same number of frames they would still be more up to date since the older ones would just be discarded without being shown.
But back in reality he won't have all frames rendered in below 1/60 of a second and that's likely most of what he dislike. That he get noticeable stutter. Average frame rate is of less interest than the worst frame render times but also to a degree how similar the frame time is / how stable the frame rate is. To not have a jerky experience and be able to predict what may happen a bit in the future.
FX-4300 vs FX-6300:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbsoWcWQwSs
Sadly just about zero difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAYMQoBhHsk
GTA V and Battlefield 3 show difference. GTA V quite a large one.
FX-4300, FX-6300, FX-8320, FX-9590:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXKmVhDFoQk
Not games so ..
Ryzen 5 1400 vs FX-6300:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJLtNtdWjsM
Ryzen 5 quite a bit faster.
For £30 it's not the end of the world but you could just save the money and for instance AMD may sell an APU with VEGA graphics capable to keep up with your GT 1050 and then if you wanted you could buy that, a new motherboard and DDR4 RAM once available and sell the FX-4300 and GT 1050 and DDR3 you have now.
Alternatively which will give more CPU power for the money don't buy an APU with build in graphics but just a CPU and use the GT 1050 until you upgrade that and sell that then.
There's still a ton of games which would run on an FX-4300 but of course it will be harder with the very latest ones.