Sometimes I wish there was a dislike button.

Terrible? still pretty competitive in it's price range

Any advice on upgrade from 1100t x6 please?

You're going for a Intel GPU, good luck with that

I don't think you understand the basic premise here. We use this information to help buy computer parts. Not everyone has an MSI 290, especially if you are looking at an AMD-FX 6300. That's a budget CPU. So, to make informed decisions about budget hardware, you absolutely must compare it to other budget hardware.

You came in and told us your 8320 + MS 290 + 8 GB of RAM gives 55-75 FPS. Great, but what if I have an AMD 270 and I'm considering the Intel I3 or the AMD 6300 above? I think it'd be amazing to know that the AMD 6300 struggles in GPU situations. I could spend the same money on an Intel equiv.

Heck, what if I wanted to compare the 8320 versus the cost equiv Intel CPU? Say, an i5 4460? Nearly same cost, but what's better for gaming? Hint, the I5 mops the floor... I want the best performance, and give me more than just 55-75 fps today, because in the future, it will be slower against new games.

The I5 is better. We can find that out by comparing. It is important. It is easy.

Settings are autoset to Ultra (maybe one or two things don't go to absolute max but those have little impact) resolution is 1080. I'm sharing my experience of what is a solid setup for single gpu in recent games with eye candy but without paying anymore than needed. If you want to eek out the highest performance because you want 144Hz, or multiple screens or whatever other reason, then go ahead and analyse benchmarks and choose the highest performing hardware but it'll cost significantly more to get an incremental increase in performance once you're past the price/performance sweet spot. Personally I'd rather spend that time playing BF4 Obliteration instead.

All GPU's are both Intel and AMD compatible and vice versa. You can use an AMD GPU with an Intel CPU if you like. You shouldn't obviously because AMD GPU's are garbage but you can.

I obviously meant an Intel compatible GPU with an Intel CPU rather than an AMD combination, which from my experience was very buggy.

Thanks for this I have gone for it. This price with a 2 year warranty seems like a great deal and after 2 years I will deff need to upgrade anyway :smiley:

That wouldn't help you with GPU drivers.

That's fine, but you aren't actually comparing anything.

Stating what you have is fine, but in the end, if all you do is say a few numbers, and you don't tell us anything about the graphical settings, they are meaningless. Of course you should aim for 60 FPS in the games you play, I bump my settings to adjust to the FPS I want.

AMD graphics drivers! What a pain in the ass! Next time I'm going for Intel.

Maybe so, but it still makes no sense, as most of the time the unlocked processors would be overclocked, so the results benefit the locked processors.

Yeah I've read that Arma 3 doesn't really make full use of CPU resources available so runs significantly better on Intel cpus. As for early access games, they're a mixed bag at best performance wise. Your 7-10 fps increase with your I7 would probably be much greater if you ran SLI/crossfire gpus. Although as you advise, for the budget conscious it's best to put as much money into the gpu

I went from a 8320 to a i7 4970K earlier this year. Kept the same GPU and RAM. Most games I tried with both the i7 and 8320. Pretty much all got better FPS with the i7. But most of them where only by 7-10 FPS.

However games like DayZ and Ark and Arma 3 performed so much better on the i7 than the 8320. The 6300 is a decent CPU. If you are on a budget then go with the 6300 and go with the best GPU you can budget for.

I'm going off my own experience with an 8320 at 3.9GHz (odd speed I know, but it's because I can keep the voltage low and running at higher speeds doesn't really make any noticeable gameplay difference), a stock clocked MSI 290 and 8GB. I'm using a 75Hz freesync monitor and I get frame rates of about 55-75 in those games 99% of the time.

AMD saves you a few bucks, but then you got to buy a cooler.

Why dislike? It's absolutely true. AMD's last generation of cards on DX11 are very CPU intensive.

£50 used at Cex (+2.50 delivery if you're not local) with 2Yr warranty if you don't need the SSD. Good chip, but had to trade mine up to an i5-4690 non-K for FSX purposes. Went from 11FPS to 36FPS with the same old 8800GT.

Sometimes I wish there was a dislike button.

Paid about £75 when I got my 6300 a few years ago. TBH, it was a terrible chip, I don't understand why the price has risen.

In my humble opinion, that shows an I3 with 2 cores beating an 8 core.

Let's be clear, this shows that Overwatch is not 'optimized' to the point of not being a bottleneck for 8 cores.

Unless you honestly believe the I3 is over 4x stronger per core than the AMD 6300.

Also, that i3 has been cheaper than this deal.

http://uk.camelcamelcamel.com/Intel-i3-4330-Dual-Core-Haswell-3-50GHz/product/B00EF1G9ZU?context=browse

I just can't suggest AMD, not if you are asking about games/game performance.

Just use an AMD card with DX11. It does a great job of bottle necking the GPU.

OK that does make sense actually, fair enough.

We are talking about CPUs, so by over doing the GPU you can see where it (the cpu) bottlenecks.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/page5.html here's another review using a gtx 1080.

Honestly, who SLI's 980Ti's and then runs them at 1080p? Benchmarks like that just make no sense.

good find op, heat added

It just about keeps up.

Any evidence to back that up? I still see dual and quad cores stomping all over AMD in BF4 especially.

Had the same ssd, lasted 4 months before it just died one morning.

Novatech have a similar deal on now although I have no idea what ADATA SSD's are like - http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/components/processors/amdpiledriverfxam3plus/fd6300wmhkboxplusssd.html

Very good point, but I thought it might be worth posting considering the semi-decent SSD thrown in :smiley: But I entirely agree, the more physical cores, the hotter these tend to get. Especially with this ridiculous weather we're having recently! :wink:

I've got the FX-8320 bought it ages ago, has served me well, but I have to say it's becoming a pain in the butt. As there are still too many games that are too reliant on single core performance and in summer these CPUs generate too much heat. I'm hoping the Zen when it's out will bring back some competition.
At the moment if you're on a budget the i3 6100 can be had at a few pounds more and will give people the option of future upgradable system. Just my 2 cents.

Heat for the deal. Newer games like Overwatch, The Division and Battlefield 4 have been well optimised for multiple threads so 6 and 8 core AMD cpus have been perfectly fine performers for systems with single graphics cards. Even so, I'd hold off buying one at this point as the new ones are nearly here.

I think AMD chips tend to, considering they rarely release any of the FX-series. I run an old FX-4100, and not had any issues with it to date!

Yeah it's a decent chip tbh but I'm swapping mine in a few weeks

Paid 80 3 years ago, still seems to hold value really well,

Terrible? still pretty competitive in it's price range

Good price. I think I paid £84 for my AMD 6300 on its own.