Upgrade or new build?

Sesshoumaru

Hi, I was hoping someone here could help me out with this. I want to upgrade an old PC. I built it a couple of years ago. But I'm not sure if it would be better for me if I started from scratch? Here is what I've got right now:

Motherboard:
Asus M5A97 Pro
CPU:
FX-6100
GPU:
Asus Radeon 6870
RAM:
2 X 4GB DDR3 1600Mhz
Case:
Standard ATX (Gigabyte Chassis)
PSU:
Corsair CX600
Hard Drive:
Toshiba HDWM110EZSTA H200 1 TB Hybrid

What I was hoping I could do is upgrade CPU, RAM & GPU. I was thinking-

CPU:
AMD FX 6350
RAM:
Add 2 X 4GB 1600Mhz dimms to give me 16GB total
GPU:
MSI R9 390

Is there anything here that could be a bottleneck and therefore make it not worthwhile? The motherboard has PCIe 2.0 x16 port, is this up to running a modern graphics card? Thanks for any help!

Digital Solitude

Not worthwhile upping to a 6350 I'd say, go 8350 or go Intel, Intel would be preferable but more expensive as you'll need a new motherboard too

If you stick with AMD then the PCIe slot won't hold back the 390

Not really worth adding more RAM IMO, unless you're stuck for it, what kind of games do you play that you'll need it

TerrorFirmer

Any FX cpu is a big bottleneck really at this point in many games - you would get hugely increased performance if you started again with an i5 based build (doesn't have to be Skylake, Haswell is fine).

Just get a new board, cpu and card. Case/PSU/ram will be fine. Doesn't have to be expensive - basic no frills H81 board, i5-4460 will cost about €220. Your old board and FX6100 should get you back about €100.

More ram isn't needed.

Eoinmc97

http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/
Take a look to see if any of these are games you would play. The FX 8350 is still fine for gaming, and your cheapest option too, allowing you to reuse your motherboard and ram. You just have to overclock it for the best results.
The R9 390 is agreat GPU and will not be bottlenecked by the 8350.
You can go the Intel route if you have the money, but the gains aren't as big as people believe.
If you play the Division, it actually manages to utilise the full CPU to outpace the i7 2600K (by a frame or two, so it goes to show how the CPU is not the most important factor in gaming)
http://pic.yupoo.com/ztwss/Fi4HrjXk/1592TV.jpg

Digital Solitude

Eoinmc97 wrote: »

If you play the Division, it actually manages to utilise the full CPU to outpace the i7 2600K (by a frame or two, so it goes to show how the CPU is not the most important factor in gaming)
http://pic.yupoo.com/ztwss/Fi4HrjXk/1592TV.jpg

It's 12 months younger and clocked faster, with twice as many physical cores in fairness...

TerrorFirmer

You can't cherry pick games to show that the 8350 is on-par with Intel though. Yes, in some heavily GPU bound games it's fine. But in games that do require major CPU grunt, it's noticably slower than an i5, often as slow an an i3, sometimes worse.

You can go the Intel route if you have the money, but the gains aren't as big as people believe.

You said this before in other threads and I posted links to show this is not the case, but you never responded.

FX-8350 gets whalloped by Haswell i3 in Fallout 4 for example. It's over 40% slower than i5-4690 at stock speed in that game.

No-one ever claimed that you couldn't play games on FX processors. But it would be madness to chose AMD over Intel at this stage in the game. Why take that risk? An 8350 is the same price as an i5-4460 and the i5 is way more reliable. All he has to do is spend €45 on a board. Surely you wouldn't claim that €45 isn't worth it?

People are also obsessed with average framerates, when minimum framerate is as important - a lot of reviews are guilty of excluding this. And Intel whallops AMD in the minimum framerates - Fallout 4 and GTA V are two obvious ones but there are of course loads.

Madness to 'upgrade' to any FX series at this point unless you got one really cheap second hand. There's a guy on boards who went against the grain and got himself an FX9590 and came to horribly regret the decision, he thought there was something actually wrong with his PC the minimum frames in FO4 were so poor (he also bought an R9 390).

Eoinmc97

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

You can't cherry pick games to show that the 8350 is on-par with Intel though. Yes, in some heavily GPU bound games it's fine. But in games that do require major CPU grunt, it's noticably slower than an i5, often as slow an an i3, sometimes worse.



You said this before in other threads and I posted links to show this is not the case, but you never responded.

FX-8350 gets whalloped by Haswell i3 in Fallout 4 for example. It's over 40% slower than i5-4690 at stock speed in that game.

You make valid points Terror! If the OP does play CPU untensive games (FO4 is just awful at GPU utilisation between ALL CPUs, it's not CPU heavy in regards to Cities:Skylines) he could hop upto the i5 and if not, OP, you could probably get by waiting until Zen and Kaby Lake launch in November, which would give you time to save for a new CPU and Board.