What's your view distances? You conveniently left that bit out. Regardless, you have a lot of settings turned down a lot or off altogether.
Last edited:
Ironically the only games I have installed right now is Fallout 4 and FIFA 16 because I just done a fresh reset of Windows, BUT here's a couple of 1440p Fallout 4 images with the frame rates (hopefully you can see them if they're not too small)
I'm uploading the actual link so you can zoom or whatever if Afterburner is a little small:
http://tinypic.com/r/v3zyq1/9
http://tinypic.com/r/j8eh6d/9
Settings:
http://tinypic.com/r/21c9rts/9
http://tinypic.com/r/2ljsy6a/9
Give me a few minutes and I'll just do FIFA if this isn't enough for you to take my word on it.
What's your view distances? You conveniently left that bit out. Regardless, you have a lot of settings turned down a lot or off altogether.
I was seriously tempted to get an i3 mainly due to the upgrade options on the same motherboard, but was put off because I read that most modern games, especially AAA titles need to utilize the higher core count.
Vossy, if you have Skyrim and could test for stuttering with your FX6300 and R9 380 that would be great.
I do. Are there any particular mods you want me to install or would you prefer me to test a clean copy?
Edit: Oh I missed your first post. I'll get that downloaded now. You want me to record or just report the results?
For the record, how does your i3 perform gaming wise? I was seriously tempted to get an i3 mainly due to the upgrade options on the same motherboard, but was put off because I read that most modern games, especially AAA titles need to utilize the higher core count.
Quite obviously a troll attempt, since an FX 6300 can't even keep up with a GTX 970 @ 1080P low in GTA V. And as you can clearly see here, the FX 6350 can't even pull off 40 FPS in GTA V, with SLI'd GTX 980s:
That ain't 1440p. AMD CPUs suck for gaming as they simply cannot keep up minimum frames. You might have gotten used to the dips but Intel is consistent. AMD isn't. Intel will push 60FPS, AMD will drop to sub 40s in jarring dips you will feel. The chipset is also ancient. AMD needs a new design and a modern 2016 socket. If Zen won't do all that its over. If you want to post proof post a video.
As such, it's generally a bad idea to build a system around an AMD FX CPU today, unless you have very specific need, and/or the downsides don't mean much to you.
The chipset is also ancient. AMD needs a new design and a modern 2016 socket. If Zen won't do all that its over. If you want to post proof post a video.
They also live on ancient platforms - 760G is from 2009, for instance. Intel motherboards have native solutions for things like USB 3.1, M.2, SATA III, and PCIe 3.0. AMD motherboards are available that have (most of) these things, but tend to cost more than their feature-equivalent Intel boards because they rely on a lot of added 3rd party controllers which are usually inferior (slower transfer speeds), and add to the cost of the boards, making them more expensive than an equal Intel board.
The main problem is that AMD hasn't released a new 8-core design since 2012, whereas Intel has had 4 generations of CPUs since then. AMD competes by slashing prices, but using video cards an an analogy, there are plenty of cases where today's mid-range cards are greatly preferable to last gen's high-end, even if they aren't necessarily faster at the same price points.
In general, AMD CPUs give you more and slower cores. In situations that can utilize all of those cores, AMD CPUs can outperform similarly-priced Intel CPUs - after all, you can often get an 8-core FX for close to the price of a dual-core i3, but in situations that can't fully utilize all of those cores, Intel CPUs outperform AMD CPUs, sometimes quite significantly, and so you often see Intel's i3's outperforming 8-core FX CPUs.
FX CPUs are still "fast enough" most of the time, which would make their performance deficiencies a moot point. If this were all that they had going against them, they'd still be fairly competitive. Unfortunately, AMD CPUs also consume much more power doing the same work, and put out more heat, which means you'll need to buy a larger power supply and more expensive CPU cooler (or deal with more noise), and if you live in a warm climate, you'll pay the the extra electricity they use twice because of air conditioning.
Edited out;
As such, it's generally a bad idea to build a system around an AMD FX CPU today, unless you have very specific need, and/or the downsides don't mean much to you.
Only Intel fanboys play/care about low detail settings......
I see the ADF post about how good AMD is at 720p, low or medium all the time.
At lower settings, AMD usually loses more often.I see the ADF post about how good AMD is at 720p, low or medium all the time.
Vossy, if you have Skyrim and could test for stuttering with your FX6300 and R9 380 that would be great.
So you are now dragging onboard graphics into the conversation regarding an entirely different platform (FM2+)? .....When the current discussion was about FX chips with discrete graphics cards. Way to completely move the goalposts, dude. The OP was about an FX-6300 -- that's not an APU.
Only Intel fanboys play/care about low detail settings......
AMD chips are not competitive these days. That doesn't mean you can't run an AMD processor and have a perfectly capable machine. By all means, you can build an AMD box that will work well and get the job done plus play games well, too. But for not much more money you can have something that just blows the doors off of it. That's where we are now.
Looking forward to Zen.
At lower settings, AMD usually loses more often.
Now you can see clearly that it's quite stuttery and jumpy at times, but blame that on recording. Recording at full quality at 1440p was an absolute killer, so much so that I was monitoring usage on my second monitor and before I'd even got into the game, recording just the menus, and the CPU usage was at 39%.
Only Intel fanboys play/care about low detail settings......