# low gaming performance  FX6300



## Mohammed (Nov 28, 2014)

Hi TPU-M

Today I have build a new system, but i got some issue with performance
when i play games I got low FPS ! O_O , even my old system was much better

I have installed all driver from CD and graphic card by AMD auto detect card

new system
CPU: FX6300
MB: ASUS M5A78L-M LX3
GPU: HD4870
RAM: 8GB 1333
PSU: CM-650watt

old system
CPU: E8400
MB: gigabyte p43-es3g
GPU: GTX260
RAM: 8GB 1333
PSU:  HEC 550watt



This is the comparison between my new and old system:

BF3 ( Ultra setting 1080p -- No AA )
new system: max =38 Avg=24 Min=18
old  system: max =50  Avg=26  Min= 23

skyrim legendary edition  ( Ultra setting 1080p )
new system: max =55  Avg=28  Min=17 
old  system: max =60+  Avg=46  Min= 35








What's going on?  I feel something wrong here!

Thanks you very much.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

well you pretty much side graded as far as I'm concerned.

And the Intel chip is better than AMD in Skyrim. That has always been the case. Even if its a Core 2 duo, it has better single thread performance then the and chip, and Skyrim is a single threaded came. Prefers high speed(ghz) rather then cores, among other stuff.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 28, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> Hi TPU-M
> 
> Today I have build a new system, but i got some issue with performance
> when i play games I got low FPS ! O_O , even my old system was much better
> ...


You probably need the last driver version (Catalyst 13.9) to get the better performance in those games as the HD 4870 is pretty old and the CD driver is probably pretty dated.

Also some of those numbers are hard to believe you were getting as I gamed on a GTX 460 SE overclocked in BF3 and I could not deliver that type of performance on Ultra.  Are you sure those number are what you got on the GTX 260 machine?


----------



## Batou1986 (Nov 28, 2014)

Those video cards are basically the same performance wise and will bottleneck the FX in everything


----------



## Mohammed (Nov 28, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> well you pretty much side graded as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> And the Intel chip is better than AMD in Skyrim. That has always been the case. Even if its a Core 2 duo, it has better single thread performance then the and chip, and Skyrim is a single threaded came. Prefers high speed(ghz) rather then cores, among other stuff.



but i am talking about FX6300 , I mean come on! 6 core 




GhostRyder said:


> You probably need the last driver version (Catalyst 13.9) to get the better performance in those games as the HD 4870 is pretty old and the CD driver is probably pretty dated.
> 
> Also some of those numbers are hard to believe you were getting as I gamed on a GTX 460 SE overclocked in BF3 and I could not deliver that type of performance on Ultra.  Are you sure those number are what you got on the GTX 260 machine?



yep, AMD auto detect card download Catalyst 13.9, I have also tried old driver but i got no big difference


My core2 E8400 was supper great in gaming check this video:  BF3 Ultra >> E8400 + GTX260 
skyrim legendary edition Ultra
as i know HD4870 little bit better than GTX260. At first time I was thought  I will get more FPS with 6core. shame i cant even upload video to show some benchmark.



Batou1986 said:


> Those video cards are basically the same performance wise and will bottleneck the FX in everything


I know there will be such limitation but with E8400 i got moreFPS as well as my E7600
anyway i will try another GPU to see how much FPS  can get ( R9 280 )

BTW do you think motherboard can make some limitation since it is M-ATX ?


----------



## Toothless (Nov 28, 2014)

Uh.. @MxPhenom 216 said that Skyrim is a single-threaded game which means it won't get anything extra from having 6 cores over two cores. Clockspeed might be higher but power-per-core is a lot lower.

Also your GPUs are kinda weak and old. Getting a newer GPU will help quite a bit.

Also size of motherboard makes no difference.


----------



## Lionheart (Nov 28, 2014)

Overclock that CPU & get a better GPU 

Those GPU's are ancient


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> but i am talking about FX6300 , I mean come on! 6 core



Not going to matter in the slightest with games that are not optimized for multiple threads, LIKE Skyrim like I already said. AMD chips are not what you want if you play those types of games.


----------



## GhostRyder (Nov 28, 2014)

Heres somewhat of a decent performance comparison between the two chips that I found.  Seemed decent enough to give an idea at least of what to expect.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/699?vs=56

I don't really think the CPU is the problem here but it maybe the drivers are dated for that video card as its been on legacy at this point and may not have proper optimizations.  You may just want to spend like 100-150 bucks and get something like an R9 270 or GTX 750ti (Something in that range of cards) as that would probably bring your gaming experience way up.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

Id be interested to see if he kept the e8400 in the system and 4870 what kind of performance he gets. Because if its more then with the FX6300, then I think we know the culprit, or part of it. I dont think there are very many new AMD drivers that play nicely with the old cards, but Im not sure on that one. 

Id definitely recommend using all NEW drivers, not the ones off the disk. Also make sure you have the patch for Windows that boosts FX chip performance. Id try overclocking the FX chip too, that'll help.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 28, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> You probably need the last driver version (Catalyst 13.9) to get the better performance in those games as the HD 4870 is pretty old and the CD driver is probably pretty dated.
> 
> Also some of those numbers are hard to believe you were getting as I gamed on a GTX 460 SE overclocked in BF3 and I could not deliver that type of performance on Ultra.  Are you sure those number are what you got on the GTX 260 machine?




the rest of the specs isnt a side grade, however that GPU is considered a dinosaur


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

Actually, it just dawned on me, the board you are using only has a 4 pin for CPU power, so chances of getting any sort of stable overclock out of it is not very likely with that chip that consumes a lot of power already.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 28, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Actually, it just dawned on me, the board you are using only has a 4 pin for CPU power, so chances of getting any sort of stable overclock out of it is not very likely with that chip that consumes a lot of power already.



a board with 4 phases can oc a 8350, just not as far as an 8-12 Phase board


----------



## Mohammed (Nov 28, 2014)

yeah I am still have E8400 and i got good performance 
also with AMD phenom 9750 I have no problem, 

my last bench 

Crysis2 (Harcore Setting 1080p )
FX6300 + HD4870 : max=45 Avg=22 Min=14
phenom 9750 + GTX275 : max=60 Avg=32 Min=26

Anyway I will take off that GPU and i will test R9 280
I will check them right now.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 28, 2014)

Get the latest drivers for that motherboard.


----------



## Mohammed (Nov 28, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Actually, it just dawned on me, the board you are using only has a 4 pin for CPU power, so chances of getting any sort of stable overclock out of it is not very likely with that chip that consumes a lot of power already.



when CPU was arrived it was run at 4.2 ( unlocked ) so I locked to 3.5GHz because temp was rise too much


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> when CPU was arrived it was run at 4.2 ( unlocked ) so I locked to 3.5GHz because temp was rise too much



Well the chip turbos/boosts to 4.1ghz, which is normal. you effectively disabled the boost.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 28, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> Hi TPU-M
> 
> Today I have build a new system, but i got some issue with performance
> when i play games I got low FPS ! O_O , even my old system was much better
> ...




The 4870 is a very old video card and isn't powerful enough for today's games and doesn't complement a FX6300 well.

Now saying that your rate shouldn't have decreased. Did you reinstall the operating system after the upgrade?  Also the drivers on the disc are old, you need to go on AMD's website for the latest drivers.




MxPhenom 216 said:


> well you pretty much side graded as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> And the Intel chip is better than AMD in Skyrim. That has always been the case. Even if its a Core 2 duo, it has better single thread performance then the and chip, and Skyrim is a single threaded came. Prefers high speed(ghz) rather then cores, among other stuff.



It wasn't a side grade. This computer is acting faulty. He shouldn't be getting half the frame rate after the upgrade. Core 2 Duo Wolfdale's single threaded performance was about the same as the Phenom II. The Piledrivers FX single threaded performance would be faster than both. In worst case scenario it should perform marginally the same.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 28, 2014)

ok the CPU factory runs at 3500 and turbo cores up to 4100, with proper cooling you should be able to run that CPU at 4100 across all 6 cores, I have all 8 of mine clocked to 4200.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-6300.html



Dent1 said:


> The culprit is the GPU. The 4870 is a very old video card and isn't powerful enough for today's games and doesn't complement a FX6300 well.
> 
> Now saying that your rate shouldn't have decreased. Did you reinstall the operating system after the upgrade?  Also the drivers on the disc are old, you need to go on AMD's website for the latest drivers.



He disabled turbocore altogether because he says it gets too hot, which actually the factory cooler can handle it, just all be it too noisy.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> The 4870 is a very old video card and isn't powerful enough for today's games and doesn't complement a FX6300 well.
> 
> Now saying that your rate shouldn't have decreased. Did you reinstall the operating system after the upgrade?  Also the drivers on the disc are old, you need to go on AMD's website for the latest drivers.
> 
> ...



In single threaded apps, E8400 is still better no matter how you look at it. the 260 to a 4870 is a sidegrade if I have ever seen one. Especially if its a Core 216 GTX260.

But yes id agree something is wrong, and its likely more on the software side of things.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> In single threaded apps, E8400 is still better no matter how you look at it. the 260 to a 4870 is a sidegrade if I have ever seen one. Especially if its a Core 216 GTX260.
> 
> But yes id agree something is wrong, and its likely more on the software side of things.



Not convinced of that. The Phenom II X2 could easily keep up with the 84xxx, likewise the Phenom II X4 could keep up with the Q9xxx. I find it hard to believe a second generation FX couldn't.

The Bulldozer FX was only marginally slower than the Phenom II in single threaded performance, the Piledriver FX with added 15-25% increase in performance would leap frog both the Phenom II and Core 2 series.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 29, 2014)

a little bit of a testament

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1732072/6300-asus-m5a78l-lx3-760g-chipset.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2109839/asus-m5a78l-6300-overclocking.html

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/...sus-M5A78L-M-LX-and-FX-6300-Overclocking-Help


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> yeah I am still have E8400 and i got good performance
> *also with AMD phenom 9750 I have no problem, *
> 
> my last bench
> ...



Wait wait, the GTX275 is a much faster card than the ATI 4870.  They shouldn't be compared.

The GTX 275 is faster than a ATI 4870 X2. Put the GTX in your FX 6300 rig.

Also there is no way a AMD phenom* I* 9750 Agena could outperform a Piledriver FX without there being something seriously wrong.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 29, 2014)

the fx6300 is not a true 6 core CPU just wanna dispell that real quick.

also did you reformat?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 29, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> Not convinced of that. The Phenom II X2 could easily keep up with the 84xxx, likewise the Phenom II X4 could keep up with the Q9xxx. I find it hard to believe a second generation FX couldn't.
> 
> The Bulldozer FX was only marginally slower than the Phenom II in single threaded performance, the Piledriver FX with added 15-25% increase in performance would leap frog both the Phenom II and Core 2 series.



Phenom II could barely match Q9xxx (maybe your are thinking of the Q6xxx). And Bulldozer FX chips were barely faster then Phenom II, and slower in a lot of single threaded apps.

Not to mention the power consumption to performance ratio on Bulldozer and even Piledriver is pretty bad. Not that many people seem to care about that, but..


----------



## Mohammed (Nov 29, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok the CPU factory runs at 3500 and turbo cores up to 4100, with proper cooling you should be able to run that CPU at 4100 across all 6 cores, I have all 8 of mine clocked to 4200.
> 
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-6300.html
> 
> He disabled turbocore altogether because he says it gets too hot, which actually the factory cooler can handle it, just all be it too noisy.



You right! looks there was mustang inside PC, I hear my PC from down stairs, but I have  change the fan. turbo enabled  idl=19c  max=48c

with or without Turbo same



Dent1 said:


> Wait wait, the GTX275 is a much faster card than the ATI 4870.  They shouldn't be compared.
> The GTX 275 is faster than a ATI 4870 X2. Put the GTX in your FX 6300 rig.
> Also there is no way a AMD phenom* I* 9750 Agena could outperform a Piledriver FX without there being something seriously wrong.



I have tried  HD4890 and GTX275 both of them make no sense. I  am really surprised that E8400 beat FX6300 on skyrim and BF3




Solaris17 said:


> the fx6300 is not a true 6 core CPU just wanna dispell that real quick.
> 
> also did you reformat?


yes,  fresh windows 7 64bit




I have change GPU to R9 280 and i get good FPS, but really i am very disappoint FX63= 125$ vs E84= 18$

Thanks all.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 29, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> You right! looks there was mustang inside PC, I hear my PC from down stairs, but I have  change the fan. turbo enabled  idl=19c  max=48c
> 
> with or without Turbo same
> 
> ...



It makes sense for Skyrim that the E8400 would be faster then the FX6300. But for BF3 not really, you should be getting better performance in that title. Whether its better then the 8400 im not sure, but it should be atleast the same.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Nov 29, 2014)

the HD4870 is run out even if you upgrade to an i7. On the sidenote, to say that the FX-6300 is a sidegrade to the E8400 is just ridiculous. The FX-6300 may not be as fast compared to recent intel cpus in cpu intensive but common, sidegrade to an E8400?


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Phenom II could barely match Q9xxx (maybe your are thinking of the Q6xxx). And Bulldozer FX chips were barely faster then Phenom II, and slower in a lot of single threaded apps.



That's not correct. Towards the end of the Phenom II lifecycle the Denebs and Callisto with the C3 stepping caught up with the Core 2 series. They were pretty much on par. The downside was the Intel fanboys had already moved onto the first generation core i7s so nobody cared.

This might refresh your memory. The Q9550 is performing virtually the same as the Phenom II in games (single threaded). Even in the other tasks the performance was virtually the same part from 1 or 2 abnormalities. Some tasks the AMD is beating the Q9550 out. At this point AMD could be considered on par or at least very competitive.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/AMD-P...-performance-results-page-4#tr-review-summary
http://www.trustedreviews.com/AMD-P...-performance-results-page-5#tr-review-summary

---


Solaris17 said:


> the fx6300 is not a true 6 core CPU just



It is a true 6 cores, because it literally has 6 cores.

You mean the architecture isn't traditional.




Solaris17 said:


> also did you reformat?



This is a very good idea. In the past I've had poor performance when switching GPUs and CPUs and no amount of re-installing drivers would work. I literally had to format and reinstall windows.

Mohammud, I want you to install 3D Mark Vantage. It will give us an idea if you an idea if your PC is underperforming.
http://www.futuremark.com/support/downloads


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 29, 2014)

Am I the only person who thinks that the 1333Mhz memory in his rig might be partially to blame? If this were a modern Intel machine, 1333Mhz memory would result in a significant performance hit where anything over 1600 doesn't really yield anything too tangible. The same may be true of the OP's machine.

If it starts fast and gets slow shortly after it could be temperatures.


MxPhenom 216 said:


> It makes sense for Skyrim that the E8400 would be faster then the FX6300. But for BF3 not really, you should be getting better performance in that title. Whether its better then the 8400 im not sure, but it should be atleast the same.


That's insane. No CPU where the IMC is not on the CPU will keep up with a modern AMD CPU. It's really that simple. Something else is going on here and I don't think the CPU is to blame.

I would start by setting the BIOS to stock and re-installing Windows.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 29, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> That's not correct. Towards the end of the Phenom II lifecycle the Denebs and Callisto with the C3 stepping caught up with the Core 2 series. They were pretty much on par. The downside was the Intel fanboys had already moved onto the first generation core i7s so nobody cared.
> 
> This might refresh your memory. The Q9550 is performing virtually the same as the Phenom II in games (single threaded). Even in the other tasks the performance was virtually the same part from 1 or 2 abnormalities. Some tasks the AMD is beating the Q9550 out. At this point AMD could be considered on par or at least very competitive.
> 
> ...



No I mean it isnt a 6 core. It has 6 cores and shares 3 FPU units and cache. Saying it is a true 6 core is like saying intels with hyper threading are true 8 cores. you are effectively neutering the CPU when you tear out the FPU. I would be more then willing to explain to you architecture differences in PM though if you would like.


----------



## Frick (Nov 29, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> No I mean it isnt a 6 core. It has 6 cores and shares 3 FPU units and cache. Saying it is a true 6 core is like saying intels with hyper threading are true 8 cores. you are effectively neutering the CPU when you tear out the FPU. I would be more then willing to explain to you architecture differences in PM though if you would like.



Aww god we're still on this stupid argument? It is six cores. And no, it's not like HT, and it's stupid to say it's a tri-core and confusing as well. And no, it doesn't matter if sharing FPU and cahce neuters it even if it's true. The only reason anyone can have for saying it's not a sixcore is the argument itself. It's arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 29, 2014)

Frick said:


> Aww god we're still on this stupid argument? It is six cores. And no, it's not like HT, and it's stupid to say it's a tri-core and confusing as well. And no, it doesn't matter if sharing FPU and cahce neuters it even if it's true. The only reason anyone can have for saying it's not a sixcore is the argument itself. It's arguing for the sake of arguing.



Windows doesnt even seem as confused as some of you people.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> No I mean it isnt a 6 core. It has 6 cores and *shares 3 FPU units and cache*. Saying it is a true 6 core is like saying intels with hyper threading are true 8 cores. you are effectively neutering the CPU when you tear out the FPU. I would be more then willing to explain to you architecture differences in PM though if you would like.



You do realise that each core has its own independent L1 cache?

AMD's Bulldozer/Piledriver micro architecture has physical cores.  If you were to open up an FX processor you can visually see and touch all 6 or 8 cores.  How can something that you can see and touch be fake?

Intel CPUs with hyper threading don't have the luxury of 8 physical cores when you remove the hood. It's logical.

How resources are allocated and shared as far as the  FPU and cache is to do with the unconventional CPU design. Has nothing to do with the definition of a physical core.


----------



## RCoon (Nov 29, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> No I mean it isnt a 6 core. It has 6 cores and shares 3 FPU units and cache. Saying it is a true 6 core is like saying intels with hyper threading are true 8 cores. you are effectively neutering the CPU when you tear out the FPU. I would be more then willing to explain to you architecture differences in PM though if you would like.



Cores are irrelevant, floating point units are the key for games, and the FX series only has 1 FPU per 2 cores. It has 6 true modules, but only 3 FPUs, so it performs similarly to a tri-core in games.

On topic, battlefield shouldn't be running that badly even on an FX cpu. Something is causing problems with that machine, and the CPU isn't entirely to blame. That being said, not sure I agree on OPs choice of upgrade path.



Aquinus said:


> Am I the only person who thinks that the 1333Mhz memory in his rig might be partially to blame?



I think he has bigger bottlenecks to deal with  1333 isn't that bad for games.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 29, 2014)

I'm a bit too late to the party but I had that ASUS M5A78L-M LX3 board and it was worthless.   Even though it boasts 95w CPU support it throttled back my Phenom II 1065t on stock speeds as soon as the VRMs hit 50C which was too often; I got a Gigabyte 880GM-USB3 and never looked back (can you say 1065t @ 3.6Ghz?).

I would get a monitoring app and see if that's your case. You could mitigate the throttling by installing some heatsinks on the MOSFETs. I recommend the Enzotech CMOS1 cooper heatsinks since their size is optimal for those D-PAK MOSFETs. Also get an Antec Spotcool fan and point it towards the VRMs. Any other fan will work but the Spotcool is easier to use for that kind of application.


I also have an FX6300 on a secondary gaming rig I have setup for racing games and for when my brother comes over and it's no slouch. Can't say anything about Skyrim though (I saw someone mention Skyrim) but on BF3 it performs flawlessly paired to a 7850.


----------



## mroofie (Nov 29, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> Hi TPU-M
> 
> Today I have build a new system, but i got some issue with performance
> when i play games I got low FPS ! O_O , even my old system was much better
> ...


Jump ship now !!
Intel is the way to go trust me 
As a fellow Amd cpu user


----------



## Frick (Nov 29, 2014)

Solaris17 said:


> Windows doesnt even seem as confused as some of you people.



But it's just semantics. AMD calls them cores, they are marketed as cores, lets call them cores because that is essentially what they are. No, they're not the same as Intel cores, but that doesn't really matter either because you either have to explain to people that they are different OR you have to call them modules and then explain what that is, or you call them "tricores except when they aren't". It's anal semantics and it's a stupid argument to even have.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 29, 2014)

If you can set two of them next to each other, and each can process  a thread at the exact same time, then each one is a core.  It doesn't matter if they share resources to do it, sharing resources between cores has been around since at least the Core 2 days.  An Intel core with hyperthreading are not considered 2 cores because it can not actually process two threads at the exact same time.  It switches between threads extremely quickly.  If we want to keep arguing about it we should probably move it to another thread.

Onto the OP's problem.  First, the FX6300 is definitely faster than an E8400, even in single threaded apps assuming the E8400 is stock and the FX6300 has turbo enabled.  Yes, if the clock speeds were the same, the E8400 would likely be faster in single threaded apps, but the FX6300 has an over 1GHz clock speed advantage that more than makes up for the single threaded performance disadvantage of AMD's architecture.  Furthermore, I've played Skyrim with modern AMD processor, both an FX6350 and my A8/A10 apus.  It played just fine even though it is heavily single threaded.

I think there are two issues here, the first is most obvious, the GPU is crap by today's standards.  Drop a 660 or 750Ti in the machine and you'll see a nice performance increase.  The second problem isn't as obvious, and that is the motherboard.  While it technically supports the FX6300, IMO, the motherboard isn't good for anything beyond 4 cores. The VRM is too weak, and without a heatsink on the VRM, the motherboard will likely throttle the CPU or almost guaranteed not allow it to turbo boost like it should.  Meaning the CPU will be held back from its full potential.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> If you can set two of them next to each other, and each can process  a thread at the exact same time, then each one is a core.  It doesn't matter if they share resources to do it, sharing resources between cores has been around since at least the Core 2 days.  An Intel core with hyperthreading are not considered 2 cores because it can not actually process two threads at the exact same time.  It switches between threads extremely quickly.  If we want to keep arguing about it we should probably move it to another thread.
> 
> Onto the OP's problem.  First, the FX6300 is definitely faster than an E8400, even in single threaded apps assuming the E8400 is stock and the FX6300 has turbo enabled.  Yes, if the clock speeds were the same, the E8400 would likely be faster in single threaded apps, but the FX6300 has an over 1GHz clock speed advantage that more than makes up for the single threaded performance disadvantage of AMD's architecture.  Furthermore, I've played Skyrim with modern AMD processor, both an FX6350 and my A8/A10 apus.  It played just fine even though it is heavily single threaded.
> 
> I think there are two issues here, the first is most obvious, the GPU is crap by today's standards.  Drop a 660 or 750Ti in the machine and you'll see a nice performance increase.  The second problem isn't as obvious, and that is the motherboard.  While it technically supports the FX6300, IMO, the motherboard isn't good for anything beyond 4 cores. The VRM is too weak, and without a heatsink on the VRM, the motherboard will likely throttle the CPU or almost guaranteed not allow it to turbo boost like it should.  Meaning the CPU will be held back from its full potential.



I agree with 99% of what you said. CPUs have been sharing resources from day 1.




newtekie1 said:


> Yes, if the clock speeds were the same, the E8400 would likely be faster in single threaded apps



This part is incorrect

If you look at the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 and Phenom II 940 (both 3GHz). You'll see the Phenom II X4 absolutely destroys it in pretty much everything task. It isn't even fair to compare the two.  Then you look at the games specifically they score exactly the same.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/56?vs=80

So if the Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 and Phenom II 940 score the same in games at the same clock, it would be logical to assume the FX 6300 would absolutely obliterate the E8400 in games even if the clock speed was the same, as the Piledriver its up to 25% faster in single threaded tasks than Phenom II.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 29, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> The downside was the Intel fanboys had already moved onto the first generation core i7s so nobody cared.



So we are fanboys because we moved onto already better performing CPUs? I sure some of your AMD friends moved on with us, so what does that say about them? Seems you just have an irresistible love for AMD. Its okay...


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 29, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> So we are fanboys because we moved onto already better performing CPUs? I sure some of your AMD friends moved on with us, so what does that say about them? Seems you just have an irresistible love for AMD. Its okay...



Since you didn't dispute any one of my links it means you agree with me.

You conveniently don't mention of the The Q9550/E8400 vs Phenom II  X4 performing exactly the same in single threaded games (linked in post #34 and #40, AnandTech, Trusted Reviews)

No it doesn't mean you're are Intel fan boy's but its strange that AMD's success is always hazy when recalled a few years later.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 29, 2014)

so basically the op replaced a terrible computer with a equally terrible computer and is wondering why its still terrible

the 4870 is a ancient card
and the op doesn't seem to understand that it doesn't matter how many cores a cpu has if the architecture is lacking
that's what I am getting from this thread
replace the GPU with something thats not EOL and then we will talk
until  then I think we can lock this thread


----------



## HammerON (Nov 29, 2014)

Mohammed said:


> You right! looks there was mustang inside PC, I hear my PC from down stairs, but I have  change the fan. turbo enabled  idl=19c  max=48c
> 
> with or without Turbo same
> 
> ...


OP upgraded GPU.
Thread cleansed of arguing nonsense.
Thread closed.


----------

