Originally Posted by JerDerv
Hey guys, this is my first post here, second computer ever built. I try to keep things on a budget but i tend to replace the things that are holding me back over time and i end up spending more money in the end
Anyways, i just recently completed my second tower ever and for some reason i went with a Fx-4350. I read an article about how games don't utilize multiple cores and how raw speed is better
Well i should have done more research because even at 5.1ghz my cpu seems to be bottle-necking my gigabyte r9 380 4gb.
CPU is FX-4350 @ 5ghz @ 1.416v under load. Kept cool by a corsair H110.
MoBo is gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 v.4
GPU is a Gigabyte R9 380 G1 Gaming 4gb flavor. Overclocking results in similar FPS with lower GPU usage %.
The pictures are from BF4 48 man servers. I have tried low settings and ultra settings, there is about a 5-7fps difference. Everything on ultra and mesh quality on Medium/High gives me nearly identical FPS to all medium settings. Afterburner shows the GPU dropping out worse on some maps and better on others. The CPU is almost always 98%.
(Typical FPS in BF4 conquest is 52-65fps depending on map)Getting to the point
, Is this GPU capable of way more? Would an FX-6300 @ 5ghz give it what it needs to run 100% in games or should i just say screw it and go for the FX-83XX
You clearly have came to the right conclusion. Yes, your CPU is holding your GPU back. No doubt.
First let me say something about the first thing I bolded. You are generally correct. Raw speed or "IPC" (instructions per clock) is most important for gaming. There are many games where this does not matter very much and other games where it matters a lot. The FX series of CPU's have a low IPC. In fact, everything that AMD offers have about 50-60% less IPC than current Intel offerings(if you include Skylake). AMD GHz can not be compared to Intel GHz.
As far as games utilizing more or less cores.. you are also correct. Most games run perfectly fine on a quad-core, however there are some games that can take advantage of more threads. At the same time, while they CAN use more than 4 cores usually the benefit of this is small and does not really matter. Ever since Bulldozer AMD has used what is called modules. This is a pair of two cores that shares a single FPU. A traditional CPU has a dedicated FPU for each core. The FX 4350 that you have has 2 modules with 2 FPU's just like a dual core and thus while it has 4 cores, it is sorta gimped so to speak. I mention this because it will help answer the next thing I bolded for you.
Will the 6300 help your situation? Would an 8300 help your situation?
The 6300 has 3 modules/3 FPU's and the 8300 has 4 modules/4 FPU's. There are two answers this question. Firstly, the 6300 or the 8300 will DEFINITELY help. Will they push your GPU to 100%? I couldn't tell you. They'd definitely push it farther. While an Intel six or eight core processor will do little to nothing for the majority of games, the AMD CPU's will benefit since their modules are sharing an FPU. At the same time, while either of these CPU's will help your situation neither of them will solve the other problem. Lack of IPC. Unfortunately there isn't anything else AMD offers that has significantly more IPC that you can upgrade to.
Are you on a strict budget? Then grab a 6300 or an 83xx chip for somewhat of a fix. They are pretty cheap, especially if you look used. If your only goal is to get 60 FPS then either of them should help you do that. If you are not on a strict budget then I'd suggest switching the entire platform over to Intel instead of dumping more money into a problem that is likely to come up again down the road in another game.
That is probably the most unbiased answer you are going to get.
Originally Posted by cssorkinman
What were your graphic's settings during the afterburner graphs being shown?
EDIT: That is highly debatable ( depending on the game and settings of course) . Though also not always the case - It' much closer to the truth to say that Hyperthreading isn't helpful for gaming from what I have seen.
That's a big part of why people keep pushing the idea that more cores don't improve gaming performance. This isn't a perspective that should be universally accepted , particularly by people using an FX 4xxx processor. The truth is that there are plenty of games that you could possibly see improved framerates in by going from an FX4xxxx an FX with more cores , but that will depend on the game, level of detail ,resolution and how powerful your gpu is.
An example I will give is GTAV, the benchmark scores even at settings that were as high as my GTX 780ti could handle ( hit the vram limit), going from 4 active cores to 6 garnered huge percentage increase in framerate ( i think it was close to 25 % iirc, I'll look it up when i get a chance take with a grain of salt for now) and even netted around a 5% gain going from 6 to 8 active cores. ( my youtube of the benchmark https://youtu.be/0638xSR4sMQ
).The 380 is pretty much a 7970 with more Vram isn't it?
If so I could look up some old fraps data of my 8350 pushing my 7970 in BF4 and give you an idea of what to expect.
The R9 380 is a rebranded R9 285 with twice the VRAM. The R9 285 is an updated 7950 that is codenamed Tonga.Edited by iinversion - 8/26/15 at 2:53am