Should i buy XFX radeon rx 580 8gb with my CPU amd FX 6300?

[Devil_Fox13]

Processor: AMD FX 6300
GPU: Sapphire Radeon r7 370 Vapor-x (4 gb)
RAM: 16 gb
Motherboard: MSI 970a gaming pro carbon (ms-7992)
Should i stay with what i have or not?
Help

[r.linder]

Don’t waste money on FX, save it up for something modern, period

[Karumati]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Don’t waste money on FX, save it up for something modern, period

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by A&A:

The FX8350 and i5 4690 cannot meet the minimum requirements.

I don't even look at either of those CPUs as ideal for Minecraft, which tells you a lot. Of course they can play it, but you'll be reducing settings (low render distance) and/or dealing with stuttering (low 1%s) during chunk generation/loading, which.... happens whenever you move around. Haswell is literally the minimum requirements and honestly those are understated because the game has gotten more demanding since then. If you rely on performance modifications (Fabric/Sodium/etc.), that gives better results on newer CPUs and GPUs too.

DDR3 platforms are long past worth investing in anymore. OP is better off saving money, or buying the RX 580 for a year (or two or three) and changing the platform in between. A CPU upgrade, no matter how cheap, would be a waste in my eyes.

Originally posted by Devil_Fox13:

If i use the cpu and gpu you recommended, it will bottleneck

There is always a bottleneck on every system. You can not avoid it. Ignore this modern narrative where concepts like "bottleneck calculators" exist. It's nonsense.

As long as you don't have a CPU so bad it's always limiting you from a massive portion of the GPU in everything, then you're fine. As bad as that CPU is, the RX 580 isn't quite at that point, but yes the CPU needs an uplift. So does your GPU though.

So you're better off saving all your money and not putting it into that platform at all, or doing the RX 580 upgrade now because it's cheap and won't be limited to being used in that platform, and then saving for a new platform first, and then new GPU after.

[A&A]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by A&A:

The FX8350 and i5 4690 cannot meet the minimum requirements.

I don't even look at either of those CPUs as ideal for Minecraft, which tells you a lot. Of course they can play it, but you'll be reducing settings (low render distance) and/or dealing with stuttering (low 1%s) during chunk generation/loading, which.... happens whenever you move around. Haswell is literally the minimum requirements and honestly those are understated because the game has gotten more demanding since then. If you rely on performance modifications (Fabric/Sodium/etc.), that gives better results on newer CPUs and GPUs too.

Minecraft is interesting, even an i9 13900K can struggle. It's a very fast CPU, so you can expect it to do 32 chunks render distance just fine, but the newer versions and their new mechanics allow you to travel faster with elytra, trident, and rainy weather with speed about 8-9 chunks per second and that's a lot of new chunks to generate.

Otherwise, with the computer that I have to use, it does not use an architecture that is applied to the Intel Core series, and this is true with the stutters, unless someone else is the server and then the PC can achive like 80FPS with render distance 14.

[Introverted Gamer]

Perfect combo keeping warm during winter.

[Talby]

If you're psu is up to chops, sure and you can reuse either in the future for whatever.

If not I would repurpose as a media pc as mentioned (albeit be a bit loud, I use an i3-2120 with a huge tower hsf to keep quiet cool) or a linux server with a bunch of spinning rust for backups and would work for some light duty docker images for whatever apps you want to run.

[Tonepoet]

Originally posted by A&A:

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

Who's talking about Cyberpunk? All I mentioned is new games. Cyberpunk is known to be especially demanding. That's what makes it a good benchmarking game. However, that also makes it an outlier...

New games. Well demanding ones.
Cyberpunk 2077
Helldivers 2
Mount and blade bannerlord
City Skylines 2
Starfield
Payday 3

The FX8350 and i5 4690 cannot meet the minimum requirements.
RX580 kidna do (1080p)
I mean the system is not really balanced.

Also, the FX8350 requires an aftermarket cooler. We don't know what the OP has.

If it's $34 for the CPU and $70 for the GPU, it's actually pretty close to a B450 motherboard with a cheap 16GB of RAM and a used Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 3. The current GPU might be junk by today's standards, but it can probably at least run these games at 900p or 720p. There is no point looking for new GPUs at this price.

Pallworld seems to be able to use a maximum of 6 CPU cores, which means it shouldn't be able to use all 8, but since they have one FPU shared between 2, I don't know how that will work, but there is certainly performance left on the table?

Well, I mean, you're not wrong about those games, needing a stronger C.P.U., but almost all of them list a stronger G.P.U. too. Only Bannerlords II doesn't list a stronger G.P.U., but it also runs on integrated graphics so it's basically a non-factor in determining what an adequate discrete G.P.U. is like if you need one. Maybe you can get by by toning down the res., but I really wouldn't count on it.

As for recent games where a 4690 would meet spec:

• Baldur's Gate 3,
  
• Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown[store.epicgames.com],
  
• Ghostrunner 2
  
• Star Wars Outlaws[www.chillblast.com]
  
• Diablo 4
  
• Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth
  
• The Crew Motorfest[store.epicgames.com]
  
• Tempest Rising

Yeah, we don't know what cooler is being used. Worst case scenario is he needs have to buy one. I am thinking you probably buy either the Iceberg Thermal Icesleet Silent G4[www.amazon.com]. It's compatible with AM3+, AM4, AM5 and there's a free mounting kit offer for LGA 1700 (which should bought as a separate item on the same order) which should make it compatible with LGA 1851 too. Since you can bring it forward, it's not an entirely sunken cost into the existing system. With a 170 watt T.D.P., it's adequate to meet the 120 watt spec. for a 7800x3D which lacks a stock cooler, and it's probably still better than whatever stock cooler Intel would throw your way if you end up going with team blue.

Same goes with the RX 580, which really does seem as if it's necessary if we want to run most of these games, aside from Diablo 4 and Bannerlords II. The only sunken cost is the FX 8320, and I'm seeing $34 as a minor investment in a short term.

If we invest in a low dead-end AM4 system. I'm thinking we invest at least $68 in a 4100[www.amazon.com], with $32 in R.A.M.[www.amazon.com] and $60 in the cheapest available B450 motherboard[www.amazon.com] listed on P.C. part picker. So we're looking at sinking $150 into AM4 and maybe not having a system that's relevant for very long anyway. A 4100 isn't a great processor, but it should match an i5 8600 (which is probably the next important threshold after 6th gen).

So in total I'm seeing it as $34 C.P.U. upgrade + $70 G.P.U. upgrade = $105 ($125 with cooler) or $150 (minimum) for a Motherboard Platform Upgrade + 70 G.P.U. = $220 depending on which target spec. $150 is four times the investment to make on an upgrade that still might not last you very long.

I suppose either way is fine, but if it were me, I'd rather keep the $95-$115 in my pocket and wait out the market just a bit longer, under the assumption that existing parts will depreciate faster than the $34 investment I sunk into the system. We're also potentially looking at the imminent launch of new C.P.Us.[www.tweaktown.com] anyway.

Of course, one has got to give credit where it is due. I must therefore admit although diffrences in how games are optimized might make it so that a 4690 and a 8320 are technically comparable, differences in optimization may render the 8320 inadequate. The only real consideration I gave to cores is the assumption that games have gotten somewhat better with multi-core performance over the years, which would make it so that the theoretical diffrences between older A.M.D. and Intel chips have diminished. Still though, if games aren't using the 8320 to its fullest potential, then it'll be inadequate despite its comparability.

Why'd I say $40 for the motherboard before? Well, I was kind of giving a low estimate based on a flash sale I saw on Woot, in consideration of the fact that we were talking about used components.[computers.woot.com] I don't think it's realistically attainable new, and that's an a320 chipset.

One last thing is that we're potentially looking at the imminent launch of new C.P.Us.[www.tweaktown.com]

Originally posted by Talby:

If you're psu is up to chops, sure and you can reuse either in the future for whatever.

Yeah, that's a good point. We don't really know what P.S.U. we're working with here either. Or the R.A.M. speed.