Since you brought up the subject of CPU upgrades, I hope you don't mind if I ask another question related to the subject. On the manufacturer's website, it says that my motherboard would support an upgrade to an i7-2600. I took a look at the comparison on Intel's Ark and it looks like it would be a flat out upgrade without any downsides (aside from cost, obviously). While I won't have the money for a CPU upgrade any time soon, given the limitations of my current one, it might be something worth considering.

That said, I am interested and would kindly ask for your opinion on this matter. Would an upgrade to an i7-2600 be worth it? Or would that still be so marginal as to make a later system overhaul a better investment than prolonging the life of the current system?

Even an "old" i7 CPU is still awesome today, so... If you want to upgrade -> do it. Intel didn't do anything "spectacular" during the last couple of years. Their CPUs are smaller and need less power now, but compared to a new i7 an old i7 isn't that far behind. And the i7 2600 still wipes the floor with anything that AMD has to offer (that's probably why Intel didn't improve a lot over the last years).

I still use an I7 870 ... of course the computer underwent 2 major upgrades over time (GPU, RAM, SSD ) and some minor ones (CPU cooler replacement and HDD upgrade ), but this 7 years old rig still performs like a good medium range PC.

An i7 2600 has only 30% less computing power than its current equivalent. Actually, the component that improved the most is the integrated graphics. Meaning that if you use a correct discrete card, replacing your CPU alone could be very good manue for money. Do yourself a favour : buy a new cooler, and a good thermal paste, as this is quite cheap and an effective way not to drag an issue ( clogged dust or whatever ) that could be easily avoided

Thank you both for your advice, I really appreciate it. =) I will definitely consider a CPU upgrade at a future point, especially if I end up opting for the RX 480 so as to resolve the bottlenecking issue. And yes, if I do a CPU upgrade, I'll certainly invest in a good thermal paste and cooler as well; seems like no-brainer if one is considering such a major upgrade to begin with.

Oh, darn. A reply in a language I am not familiar with. :-)
I'm just a guy who likes his low-noise, low consumption machine, and still uses his built-in Radeon HD 4200, by far the most powerful graphics card I ever owned!
I can't say I am entirely happy with it, but I manage to live with it...

Maybe late next year or so I'll change my machine. I am curious about the Polaris 11 (RX 460?) and the new Zen processor; possibly I'll look at their APU. I wonder if they'll cooperate with a discrete graphics card (crossfire?).

So, my question is thus, would a Polaris CPU run, say, the likes of The Witcher 2 comfortably with nice settings? Or Morrowind? How about current APUs?

In theory, yes, you can get an APU to co-operate with a discrete card, that's the so called radeon dual graphics. In practice, the solution , inasmuch as it was broadly advertised in the early APUs, ins't marketed much nowadays. The A10-7xxx include R7 cores, that can be combined with the likes of R7 250 GPUs. Even when associated, this remains an inferior solution to discrete mid-range GPUs ( like R7-370 )

conclusion ; APUs are best used when you don't want a discrete graphics card. On a system powered by an A10- 78xxK, you can indeed play games acceptably, but that won't be any war machine either.

Note : AMD also sells an Athlon X4, that basically is an APU without graphic cores. If you team an Athlon X4 880K with a competent mid-range GPU like a R7-370 , you will get some more ( well sometimes twice more) gaming performance than if you go for the APU solution. 880K + R7 370 is also less expensive than APU + compaible dual grahics R7

Both the APU and the Athlon would run Morrowind comfortably. The Witcher 2, I don't know, but I would says yes

Low noise/power consumption? Sounds like you want to wait for the RX 460. It'll need less than 75W (no one knows how much exactly, but it won't need any power connectors, so it's definitely less than 75W). And AMD will only stick a tiny fan on it, which means we'll certainly see low profile cards with passive cooling solutions (no fans, only pipes). It'll be a HUGE upgrade to your HD 4200.

Zen... AMD thinks Zen will be great. But currently their CPUs are a horrible mess, so I'm a bit sceptical about Zen. But their APUs are okay if you don't have to high expectations. My mother isn't a gamer, but she likes to play some adventure games every once in a while. Mainly Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie (or similar stuff), because she's reading the books, too. When she needed a new PC this year, I told her to get one with an A10 7870k. She's very happy with this one, because all her games run super smooth.

A Polaris GPU? Sure! APU? Well... I think so. Morrowind worked fine on my i5 2500k with integrated Intel HD 3000. And AMD's APUs are better than that, from a graphics point of view ;)

I noticed that they removed this bit from the advertisements. As far as I could tell, it only provided a minimal increment in performance. And making the drivers work (on GNU/Linux) may not be possible or worth the effort.

Great! Maybe an APU could keep me going for a couple of years, and then maybe shell out for a cheap Vega GPU down the line. I do wonder if, for a given amount of money, I could get significantly more CPU horsepower if I opt for a traditional CPU rather than an APU. (From what I could find, you can get more CPU cores for the GPU cores).

It would!? Darn. But those big and hungry cards look so noisy. I would love reducing the form factor of my machine. It is not like I'm making much use of my 5.25" bays anymore... and perhaps I could even do without the 3.5" ones.
Well, in a year a lot could happen in the PC world.


Great! I was afraid that that card would come out for laptops only. I would love a passive cooling graphics card.
Wait. HUGE? Not just huge? Won't the 460 be something of a modest card? Or... you mean I'm that much behind the times?!
Can you play Mount & Blade or Morrowind at 1920x1080 with all settings on maximum and get 30 or more FPS? (Yes, those are some of my "demanding" games.) That is all it takes to make me happy.

I can understand if AMD's recent offerings are not stellar or competing with Intel on pure performance. But if they are a mess, I did not notice. But I think this may be their last chance to get back into the CPU ring.

What do you base this assumption on? In one sense I agree that Zen could change the CPU landscape, but just based on the past, I don't see it becoming a serious limitation. And even so, what you say implies that for a player who sticks to AAA action titles the FX-6350 will not be a serious limitation.

Based on the past, the FX-6300 was a bottleneck in some games even at release. At that time the high end GeForce was the 680. Later it was still a bottleneck and the high end GeForce was the 780 Ti. Now it's still a bottleneck, and the 680 is about as powerful as the 960 and the 780 Ti is about as powerful as the 970, which you said is a good match for the CPU. A GeForce 980 will likely be a bottleneck for the FX-6350 in two years time.

Sure, I agree, at some point buying a new CPU will be worth it, because it will be too slow. Until then not being cheap on GPU's is the way to go, because they will always grow to be a bottleneck.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with whether you buy a GPU at $150 or $200. Unless you're trying to claim that one additional month in 2 years is really significant.

An A10 APU is between 110 and 170€, and an R7 250 is around 100€, so the combo is 210 to 270€

An Athlon X4 is 60 to 90€, and R7 360 is 110 € and a R7 370 is 140€ , so you build a combo that is 170 to 230€

If you think the 370 is too hungry, the 360 is still a good choice. But the performance of a 370 is nearly the double of that of a 250, whereas the 360 is 33%-50% above it Anyone building a config based on a AThlon X4 should not go below that ( otherwise the APU is better) or above ( the CPU would bottleneck any card above the 370 )

You also want to note that the newer APU series, Bristol Ridge, will soon hit the market. With a new socket, and a blend of 12 compute cores (4 CPU cores + 8 GPU cores) , the forthcoming A12-9800 could be interesting for you.

But if you want a low form factor, the go for the best APU you can afford, without GPU, and with a good amount of RAM. APU's like RAM apparently

I can't understand what is an APU without GPU, if not a CPU.

Nice. Thank you.

An APU without a dedicated graphic card if you want .

The fact that it already is limiting heavily in CPU intensive games!? Just have a look at some of them (average fps)...
Total War Rome II (37 fps with GTX Titan)
Skyrim (~30 fps with GTX 580)
StarCraft 2 (45 fps - 1024 x 768 - Medium Graphics, Ultra CPU Settings)
Project Cars (46 fps with GTX Titan X)

Strategy games, open world games and other games with lots of AI activity, don't like the FX 6350. Skyrim and StarCraft 2 are almost antique by now and they were already dangerously close to the 30 fps mark back then. And Total War Rome 2 isn't that new either. It doesn't take a lot to see that a FX 6350 won't handle new CPU heavy games in two years anymore. It alwayys was a slow CPU. It won't get faster in the future.

Uhm... Of course it won't limit a game that doesn't ask a lot from the CPU until it's unplayable (<- that's what "won't be able to run" means). The new Doom gets 98 fps out of a FX 6350 when paired with a 980 Ti. That's a huge bottleneck for the 980 Ti (142 fps with i7 6700), but still comfortably playable. Compare this to the 46 FPS in Project Cars (a four years old i7 CPU doesn't limit this game at all).

We have an entirely different understanding of the word "bottleneck". The 980 will NEVER be a bottlneck for a FX 6350. It'll become a bottleneck in certain games, yes, of course. But it'll always be the FX 6350 that bottlenecks the 980. The 970 is a good match if you take the average of many games. It'll become bottlenecked by the CPU in strategy games and it'll run at 100% load in Doom or Call of Duty. But on average, it's a good match.

I still heavily disagree with that. It's stupid to get a new GTX 1080 to reach 60 fps with a weak CPU in a game, when you could take these $700 (or whatever it is) to get an i7 (doesn't matter which one) and a RX 480 for less money and still get the same 60 fps - in basically every current game! Sure, you can beat your CPU to death with a huge sack of money. But this'll only work in games that don't ask a lot from the CPU (no six years old Starcraft 2 for you :P) and make your new GPU die of boredom (25-30% GPU workload).

Seriously, kids... Don't spent hundreds of Dollar on a GPU if you have an old, slow AMD CPU.

If you want to spend an additional $50 on a theoretically (fictional numbers) 15% faster card that in reality will only be 8% faster because of your limiting CPU -> Go for it and be happy. All I say is that I wouldn't do it and that I'd put the $50 aside for a new PC. Do $50 make a difference over 24 months? Maybe, for some. If they don't: Take these $50 to get your new PC one month earlier ;P The FX 63xx CPUs weren't that great when they were released. They didn't become better over the years. They're limiting heavily in some games already, so burying your CPU problem under a pile of GPU money will only help you with games that are easy on the CPU. But as soon as you play a CPU heavy game, you'll regret it.

We do agree that a GPU is more important for gaming than a CPU. And everyone who has at least a 3rd generation i7 CPU (i7 3xxx) won't have to think about CPU bottlenecks (i5 users start to note the missing hyperthreading). But the AMD CPUs we're talking about here, are crap. They were never good and they didn't age very well. You can't overcome their flaws with more powerful GPUs, except you want to spent $700+ (Titan X, GTX 1080) and never play anything else than Doom or Call of Duty.

Oh, OK, that makes sense now. Thank you.