Bottle necking

[BreezePark]

i have just updated my gpu from a r7 260x to a Radeon 7970 to make bf4 nice and pretty. so after the gpu upgrade i went to bf4 and turned it up to ultra.(which is easy for the card) but my amd athlon 760k is bottle necking. so i want to upgrade my cpu to amd fx 6300 6x core and upgrade my motherboard to msi 970. is this a good upgrade and will it fix the bottle necking on my cpu??

[kkn]

if you want to upgrade? how much do you want to spend on it?

[BreezePark]

$200-$250

[kkn]

when you say the bottleneck is the cpu, why do you think so?
and what frame rates do you get in game?
i play in custom high and i have around 100+ish fps in sli on 2 cards.
what sort of cooling do you have?

if you want to upgrade i would go higher then the FX6300 to be honest.
and to compare the 2 cpu's there is close to non advantage between them exept the fx6300 is a pinch bether.
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-6300-vs-AMD-Athlon-X4-760K

[Ahtlon]

You could go with a i5/i7 core and az87-z97 mainboard if you don't need all the extra options on a mainboard, it's a little more money. For amd I would say go for the FX-8370 cpu,
it's one of AMD best cpu's, this with a 990FX mainboard.So save a little more , so you have more choice for upgrading.

[elesde]

Just for BF4 I would go with an FX 6350 minimum, better yet an FX 8350 to be a little more future proof with that extra module. If you plan on doing some overclocking the lower end 6300/8320 will do as well.

Funny how cpuboss does its "real world" benchmarks using a bunch of synthetic tests... the 6300 is clearly faster than the 760k at least in multi-threaded scenarios (which most of the new games thankfully are).

All that does not really change the fact that the AMD AM3+ platform is getting quite old and is not really power efficient by todays standards.
If you are budget limited and like to tinker with hardware it might also be worth looking into second hand deals of FX 8350 + mainboard combos or even a nice quadcore Sandy Bridge system for overclocking.

[Korth]

AMD's FX-8xxx/9xxx CPUs are still pretty mighty, though. Stock speeds faster than any Intel counterpart, enough cores and cache and stuff to do serious gaming or crunching. True, they aren't as power efficient - but they aren't a lot different from Intel procs overclocked up to similar speeds.

I think AMD's recent procs are actually pretty phenomenal - the problem is that the long-in-the-tooth chipsets they run on. AM3+/RD990FX/SB950 is the best available - roughly comparable to Intel's old 2013 offerings (Lynx Point, etc), but it falls short compared to anything newer. And not the best choice for running multi-GPUs with NVidia cards.

But an AMD proc is a whole lot cheaper than any Intel equivalent. There's not a huge array of 990FX mobos to choose from (and there's no reason to choose a lesser AMD chipset), but most of these also cost a lot less than the competition. AMD GPUs also cost less than the competition. If you want big bang for the buck then AMD is still a good way to go.

[elesde]

Korth wrote:
snip

Far be it from me to say AMD CPUs are not cost effective, just saying that serving the high end desktop market with a 3 year old CPU+Chipset combo is a huge letdown.

Personally I even went for a 970 board since I did not want to pay the SLI certification tax 😄