Will upgrading my fx 6300 to a fx 8350 enhance my gaming performance, include an EVGA 970 FTW?
Will upgrading my fx 6300 to a fx 8350 enhance my gaming performance, include an EVGA 970 FTW?
My current configuration uses a Gigabyte UD3 with an FX 6300 @ 4.6ghz (watercooled via Thermaltake Water 2.0) and an EVGA GTX 970 FTW that supports 300mhz clock and 400mhz memory OC. I’m running it with the 750watt EVGA SUpernova as the power source.
I’m considering upgrading to an FX 8350 and overclocking it. Will this improve performance? Right now, I can play games such as The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 (heavily modded with texture packs and ENBs) at nearly all ultra settings on this rig. I’m currently gaming at 60hz in 1080p.
I’m not aiming for Intel upgrades or pushing beyond 60hz or 1080p. I’d also like to know the realistic overclock potential for an FX 8350 with watercooling.
[Apologies if this isn’t the right thread—I’m new to posting here.]
If you are gaming at 60hz already, then there is no need to get a faster cpu. If it boosts to you 100fps, you don't care, you only need 60fps for your monitor anyways.
If you read the link I posted, you'll see most games scale on the AMD chips from the 6300 3.5ghz, 8350 4ghz, 9370, 4.4ghz and 9590 4.7ghz fairly evenly and the extra 2 cores don't make a big difference, so running at 4.6ghz, you are already probably at 8350 performance for the majority of games. None of them max all 6 cores on the 6300, so therefore the extra 2 are wasted.;
If you scroll down, you'll see the 6300 and the 8350, and I believe the main difference lies in clockspeed. As you move to the 9370 and beyond, it performs better in terms of FPS because it's faster, so the CPU should be achieving at least that same FPS as the 9590, almost. Check out that site for more benchmarks—they're really good and one of the few that tests multiple CPUs as well. Most benchmarks focus on a single base CPU with various GPUs.
With the 3DMark benchmark on the free trial version, my FX8350 running at stock speeds with a GTX480 will score 4600 on Fire Strike.
My 1100T using the same GTX480 will achieve a 3000 on Fire Strike.
I think your system is likely stuck somewhere in between, so I’ll share some practical gaming performance changes for you.
The FPS drop at 60Hz 1080p would be minimal—around 30 FPS maximum—and in games like Witcher 3 you might notice a slight boost of about 10 FPS.
The main limitation is the CPU, but if you’re focusing on the FX8350, I’d recommend checking out the FX9590; it could offer better performance gains.
He would require a high-end motherboard for the FX 9590 since the VRMs in lower-end boards aren't sufficient for its power needs (like the Asus Crosshair V Formula), and a powerful cooler is necessary. Considering the overall expense, it would be more economical to switch to a 4690k and Z97 board instead of installing a 9590 setup. Even if upgrading to a 9590 was feasible, it would be easier to obtain an alternative like the 8350 and overclock it to achieve 9590 performance at a lower cost.
I own a gigabyte UD7 AM3+ 990FX board that supports the FX8350, and if I had the FX9590 it would also work well. The FX9590 isn't marked as compatible because the board was released before it was made. I also have an Asus sabertooth 990FX board that can handle the FX8350, but I'm unsure if it supports the FX9590 since they share similar specifications. Is the motherboard you're using a UD3 model with the 990FX chipset?
I own a gigabyte UD7 AM3+ 990FX motherboard which supports the FX8350 well. If I had the FX9590, I’d be sure it would work too. The FX9590 isn’t marked as compatible because the board was released before it was available. I also have an Asus sabertooth 990FX board that can manage the FX8350. I’m unsure if its specs are sufficient for the FX9590, since they seem to need similar capabilities. Is this a UD3 board with the 990FX chipset? The FX9590 is essentially an overclocked version of the 8350, and the main factor affecting compatibility is the motherboard’s VRMs. Lower-end boards often don’t list it due to long-term power demands, not because they came before the CPU was launched. Generally, AM3+ boards can handle up to an 8370, but the 9590 demands top-tier VRM quality.
It would be easier to exclude the 9590, choose an 8350 and boost it to 9590 performance at a lower expense. The same applies if you try to push the FX8350 to 4.7Ghz compared to the FX9590—would the motherboard require similar strong components?
Yes, it would, but you'd save around $50 on the CPU by purchasing 8350 and overclocking. This approach is likely feasible with most high-end AM3+ boards, though only those that officially support the 9590 can be trusted for long-term reliability.