Why do you say that? The 4300 is clocked at 60Mhz less, but the 9X multi means you won't need a skyhigh FSB to get a decent overclock out of it, unlike the 6300 which has a 7x. (IIRC, it could be 8x). I know there's a lot more to it than just that, but chances are you'd get a better OC out of a 4300.Bertster7 wrote:
CPU bottlenecks aren't the end of the world. You can always put AA and AF upto full for "free" and little things like that make stuff look nice without any extra CPU strain.SargeV1.4 wrote:
doesnt mean a lot? I have an AMD 3000+ together with an x1950pro and it's bottleneck-o-rama: on high settings, I normally get 50-60, with frequent drops into 40, on medium its 40-50 and on low as well. While with my old x1600, I got the same FPS on high settings, but 70-80 on medium or low with it never really dropping below 60 (that goes for BF2 and CSS, at least)Mad Ad wrote:
bottleneck, seems to be this years stupid buzzword
but like many buzzwords it doesnt really mean a lot, buy what you can afford - theres always going to be a bottleneck somewere, even if you had the cash to buy the best of the best you will still be limited by platform bottlenecks.
Bottlenecks suck. Don't buy an overpowered videocard unless if you're going to upgrade your processors soon as well. I'm actually planning on selling off my x1950 and buying a more average system (nvidia 8600, intel 4300 (wtf doubles))
I wouldn't advise the 4300, the 6300 is soooo worth the extra couple of quid.
Depends. Increasing the FSB has a greater effect than increasing the multiplier. The 4300 doesn't get such good FSBs, the 6300 is probably the best of the bunch for the Conroes on FSB OCabilty which is why it's performance can be increased by such an incredible amount. The big problem with that is you need a pretty good MB (and/or good RAM) to get the best performance from the 6300 but the 4300 you can get good speeds from on less fancy MBs.ghettoperson wrote:
Why do you say that? The 4300 is clocked at 60Mhz less, but the 9X multi means you won't need a skyhigh FSB to get a decent overclock out of it, unlike the 6300 which has a 7x. (IIRC, it could be 8x). I know there's a lot more to it than just that, but chances are you'd get a better OC out of a 4300.Bertster7 wrote:
CPU bottlenecks aren't the end of the world. You can always put AA and AF upto full for "free" and little things like that make stuff look nice without any extra CPU strain.SargeV1.4 wrote:
doesnt mean a lot? I have an AMD 3000+ together with an x1950pro and it's bottleneck-o-rama: on high settings, I normally get 50-60, with frequent drops into 40, on medium its 40-50 and on low as well. While with my old x1600, I got the same FPS on high settings, but 70-80 on medium or low with it never really dropping below 60 (that goes for BF2 and CSS, at least)
Bottlenecks suck. Don't buy an overpowered videocard unless if you're going to upgrade your processors soon as well. I'm actually planning on selling off my x1950 and buying a more average system (nvidia 8600, intel 4300 (wtf doubles))
I wouldn't advise the 4300, the 6300 is soooo worth the extra couple of quid.
For a budget solution the 4300 is better. If you're getting nice other components then the 6300 is better.