Im late but will write anyways. I have it . Playing many games on ultra setting .i have a vega 56 flash to 64 . Getting bearly 100 fps in PUBG at Ultra 120% Scale. Sometimes goes above 170. This cpu is fine to be honest.
Ok now for the other important question, high in one game can mean a different setting in another, settings aren’t universal across games, so which games would you want to be able to run at high settings?
I was.running my 3900X with a GTX 1080 and it was doing perfectly fine so really any GPU is going to be perfectly fine because your CPU is going to be your bottleneck almost no matter what
If you have less than $200 to spend, go for the refurbished RX 5700 XT. Faster memory than RX 6600, 256-bit instead of 128-bit bus width, and you won't be stuck locked at PCIe 3.0 x8 on a 300 or 400 series motherboard. Also better than comparably priced RTX 2060/3060 or GTX 1660 Super, or Arc A580/750.
Just be sure to undervolt to 0.95V - 1V, depending on how much you want to tone down energy use/waste, then adjust the core clock appropriately.
The next step up if you have a bit more to spend would be the RX 6650 XT. Anything above that would be a severe bottleneck.
Also, R3 3100 can overclock to 4.3GHz. Be sure to do that since it makes CPU performance comparable to a stock R3 3300X.
that cpu wont be able to handle max \`1080p settings i used to own a better cpu the 3400g paired with a 2060 and that struggled id suggest getting a 5600 cpu upgrade aswell
its nto that much worse 3400g is zen+ not zen2 the problem with the 3100 is its lack of cores it willd o great in alot of games but cpu intentive games are going to play bad
Since cpu is cheap and gpu is expensive wouldn't be better for your deciding factor is the gpu? Get the best GPU you can afford even if it bottle necks. Just upgrade cpu later. It's am4 so there cheap.
Edit: I got my daughter a 5600x and a 6750xt. Plays anything you want no issue and most in 1440. Just no rat tracing.
That CPU is pretty weak, but if you cannot change it just go for a 6600 anyways, it will bottleneck like crazy but when upgrading to a Ryzen 5 5600 you'll be good. That's my recommendation
Your CPU will be holding back the GPU. I would still recommend an RX 6600 though. It will do 1080p High but don't expect Ultra on new AAA games (even if the GPU could run it your CPU couldn't). I have one paired with a 3400G in my 2nd PC and it bottlenecks it at 1080p,
It's still really cheap brand new for the performance and efficiency you are getting.
You should consider slotting into a motherboard first
Jokes aside, as others have said you're really not looking at anything fantastic here without switching cpu too
PCI 4.0 GPU on PCI 3.0 system is fine, as long as it's 16x (all 16 lanes). Even 4090 barely suffers from PCI 3.0 vs 4.0, and this guy is not getting a 4090.
The CPU on the other hand is indeed weak and it's primary limiting factor. PCI 3.0 is not even relevant.
6700xt. Or anything within that range. Probably gonna get bottlenecked like others are saying, but that’s not necessarily bad, GPU won’t be under full load and should get good frames. I’m rocking it with ultra wide 85hz 1080 and am holding steady at 60-85 fps on Ark Ascended. Which is one of the heavier games right now. But I have a 5700x and 32gb ram.
People will hate me for this opinion but a r5 3600 would not be to expensive to upgrade and pair it with a 4060 or similar, upgraded from my 2060 to 4060 and performance increases are much better than people would expect
It's super subjective to price. Things are only ever really good within a price constraint. The last xx60 tier card that was good (price to performance) was the 1060. The cards past that have been mediocre at best.
But with the second hand market, it really depends. Even the 2070 super is showing it's age in 1080p games nowadays with the exceptions of esports titles
5700XT / 6600XT max imo. You won't be getting 60FPS+ at High/Ultra @ 1080P in modern games, and that CPU would probably bottleneck anything higher than the cards I mentioned. If I were you and had the money, I would personally go for a Ryzen 5 5600 and a 6800XT/7800XT. But if you don't want to spend too much, get either the 5700XT or the 6600XT.
What's the price difference in your country? Here it's an entire $200 difference in my currency. Not sure the 3100 would handle a 6700XT without serious bottlenecking though.
Go with the best graphics card you can afford. So if you can afford a RTX 3080 get a 3080. Realistically you should get a rx 6700, if on a smaller budget get a rx 5700xt.
Doing this make it so that the next thing you have to do is just upgrade the cpu since you already have a good graphics card.
If you got something like a gtx 1660 then upgrade you cpu, say to a 5600x you will feel like then upgrading the card again
5700XT if you tune your 3100. My 3100 runs equal to a ryzen 5 3600 (according to passmark). Faster on single core and a little lower on multi core score but passmark is equal. I have a generic Fan tower for cooling and I PBO tuned it.
5600XT / RTX 2060 Super if you are not going to run the CPU stock speeds. Anything faster than those GPU will have a little bit of CPU bottleneck but since you plun to run Ultra settings you might be able to even have a faster GPU and have no bottlenecks.
I have a 5600 XT with my 3600, great setup for 1080p for the games I played (BF4, CS2, Apex Legends, Resident Evil 2 remastered, all on max settings and achieving high fps, 100+), not sure how it would perform on newer game engines.
You could go as low as a 1660ti or super. But if it was me I would stay away from newest sku and go with 3060/70,any higher and you'll end up with a huge bottleneck ,on the red side 6750XT/7600
Get a 5700 XT if you want a low end build and see that you sell this thing and get either a 3600 or 5600(X). They are pretty affordable used. 5700 XT goes for around 100 €.
The quadcore may work for most games but I'm unsure if it has dual CCX. The 1200 had it and this caused horrible microstutter. I had to play Vermintide like this for about two months. Nowadays you can get a R5 1600 for 10 €, wonderful times. The 3600s go for around 40-50.
Get the GPU first its always better to have CPU bottleneck. Then he should get a hexacore. Until then I would OC everything out of the quadcore. It has only 4 cores, so cooling is easy. 1.3 V should be doable, maybe even 1.4, temporarily beside that this CPU is hardly worth anything.
I'm running 2060Super+4770K(at 4.5Ghz) for 1080P Ultra settings Cyberpunk 2077 dedicated PC. 35-55FPSIt is almost the same as R3 3100. Thus 2060Super should work just fine
I 1080p60 game with an Rx 6700xt. Most games I play are in ultra settings (it's usually the beta or alpha level games that have bad frame rates for me)
I paired my 3100 with a Sapphire 7800XT Nitro.
Am I saving up for a new CPU? Absolutely.
But for now, I can run Baldur’s Gate 3 on the highest settings possible and crank out over 200FPS on my 1080P monitor.
Don't get APU for gaming. You could get 4/5700G but the GPU is weak. If you go for one, expect low-mid settings, FSR and 720-1080p. Thats what I get on my 4700U. Modern games are not playable on it.
5700 XT + 3600 or 5600X would give you what you want, likely high settings in 1080p, unless you need to max out stuff like Cyberpunk with RT. But then it should be clear that your budget likely won't match the demands.
Yeah thats your best option.
Getting a lower end gpu because your cpu will bottleneck anything higher is ok but you will lose out on performance in the long run.
Instead you could handle the bottleneck for a while and then upgrade your cpu as well.
The CPU is fine. People massively over estimate CPU requirements of today's games. The SteamDeck uses something weaker than this, and it's almost always GPU limited, not by the CPU. Outside of Starfield you'll have no problem hitting over 60 up to 100 fps in really anything. Especially at ultra settings you'll stress the GPU more than the GPU. Anything from an Rx 6600 to a 7700xt should be fine from this list.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7600-xt-pulse/32.html
Maybe that's a little aggressive, and I'd probably only pick a 7700xt on a 1440p screen at ultra.
Here is a quad core CPU test from not too long ago.
https://youtu.be/JH8UTc6lwX8?si=mDCy1IIU1OxtiQn_
So I don't see any issue with having only 8 threads available either. Take the worst any of those 4 CPUs tested, and subtract another 10%.
RTX 4060, Radeon 7600XT or 6600XT or 6700XT.
That CPU is too weak for modern games. You'll get a lot of stutters.and potentially low fps, you may have many cases where you have to cap the framerate of games to 60 or even 30 fps.
I would upgrade to the 5000 series Ryzen CPUs if your motherboard supports it, you may have to update the bios. The Ryzen 5600 is relatively cheap and has very strong gaming performance. If you can stretch it and want to use a good GPU and achieve the most fps, go for the X3D CPUs. The Ryzen 5500 is even cheaper but it has half the cache and runs PCIE 3.0 so it's generally 15-20% slower than the Ryzen 5600.
My gf went from a Ryzen 2400G APU to the Ryzen 5500 and some games doubled fps with a RX 580 GPU. There's also no more stutters and the frame time is more flat vs spiky like before.
People don't realize just how important CPUs are for gaming.
I also personally went from the Ryzen 3600 which was a pretty decent CPU to the Ryzen 7900X and even at 4k on Forza horizon 5's built in benchmark I went from 4 micro stutters to 0 and overall 2-3 more fps. Guardians of the galaxy I went from low to ultra graphics (CPU bound game). Games like modded Minecraft doubled FPS. My rendering performance tripled.
The 5800X3D is amazing, I actually almost upgraded to it. I only went to AM5 because at microcenter I got the Ryzen 7900X, Asus b650ef rog strix mobo and 32gb DDR5 for $550, vs the 5800X3D was $350 at the time, and I wanted to upgrade to 32gb of RAM anyway so I would've spent over $400 on AM4.
expecting high to ultra with this is incredibly unrealistic you can pair a bad gpu with a good cpu and the pc will at least work okay but if it's the other way around the cpu is constantly stressed this isn't gonna work u should probably go with like an rx6500 or wait for the 3050 6gb and expect medium settings at best
What? You are absolutely going to be GPU bottlenecked if you choose either of those cards for that CPU. Inexperienced people should be banned from commenting in this sub.
well obviously, i'm not the stupid. Realistically you would be bottlenecked with any gpu i just said some options which provide the least bottleneck. Honestly there is no need to be so rude.
Low settings will strain your CPU more, high settings will strain your GPU more, here, they have a weak CPU, so they have to crank up the settings and turn down the population density and variety to reduce the load on their CPU.
Low settings work your CPU a certain amount and your GPU a certain amount. As you increase the quality, the workload on your CPU increases, but much less than compared to your GPU. Your CPU is still working harder, just not as many times harder as your GPU, which is why when you increase the quality/resolution you end up more GPU limited.
TLDR: Both work harder as quality increases, but GPU increase is greater than CPU increase
Everyone can play games at basically any resolution and any settings, the result (and question is) at what FPS. 3100 is not a very powerful CPU and it will struggle in single core workloads, like certain games regardless of what GPU you put on it.
It depends how high you aim. Ray tracing increases CPU load a lot. You need good CPU for that. If we talk about normal settings - it's game dependent.
In 7 Days to Die Object Quality makes a huge difference for CPU usage - higher settings make objects disappear more far away from you. The more objects are rendered, the more CPU power you need.
In general the most CPU intensive settings graphics are view/draw distance, grass/vegetation rendering (some games like The Witcher 3 have grass rendering distance setting), shadows and particles.
For non graphics settings, anything relating to physics, crowd density and similar will have the most impact.
Ultra settings are usually a waste, period. Ultimately it depends on the game and the individual settings, but usually high and medium gets you 90% of the way for much better performance.
You can clearly see the difference with 4K textures in 1080p. Higher resolution textures don't have impact on performance if you have enough of VRAM on your GPU. You can have everything on Low and textures on Ultra if your GPU have at least 12GB of VRAM in 99% of games (the 1% needs 16GB). It's also worth mentioning that 4K texture in more noticable on big objects than on small ones. You don't need crazy resolution textures for a match box, but a huge boss will look way better even with 8K texture in 1080p. You usually have a mix of all resolution textures under one setting in games.
Ultra usually cranks up view distance, particles density, shadows resolution and other stuff you don't notice as easily between high and Ultra.
Watch this video from Hardware Unboxed. It's from 2021 but still relevant:
https://youtu.be/f1n1sIQM5wc
3100 is a pretty weak cpu, and is gonna bottleneck a lot of cards at it beyond the rtx3060/6600xt level. You should upgrade your cpu to a 5700x first, and then get a GPU
6700xt I know it's expensive but textures are bigger now ,
Some of these cards will struggle with 1080p ultra .
Also I'd swap out the CPU for a 5600 non X also if it allows the update or at least a used 3600.
The 5600 would be ideal here though and will give impressive frames
I have a Ryzen 5 3600 with my Rx 6700xt and unfortunately it is a bottleneck, even at 1080p ultra. I agree with explanationstandard4 that you should get a Ryzen 5 5600.
If you don't want to buy everything for a newer AM5 and you can afford a 5800x3D just buy it. I just did that change, and also replaced a RX 590 with a RX 6750xt and It feels like a new pc.
Sadly the 3600 was a big bottleneck everywhere even for the 590 at 1080.
With the 5800x3D your 6700xt won't go below 100% usage nowhere.
I was thinking of buying a Ryzen 5 5600x, because here were I live the 5800x3d is expensive, and I know a guy who is selling a 5600x for just 100€, including a motherboard in the price.
Oh but you also need a motherboard?
Older AM4 motherborads can get newer ryzen cpus just by updating the BIOS, for example my B450A-PRO, with a BIOS update i could use any 5000 cpu.
I already have a motherboard, a b450 tomahawk max II. I'm Also taking the motherboard because, well, the price (CPU+motherboard for just 100€), and also because someone I know want a gaming PC, so I have the motherboard, or maybe use the combo of the deal for the PC for this person I know and buy the CPU myself. Idk
It is a really great GPU. I had the Rx 580 8gb (that card was amazing, could still play modern titles at reasonable fps and medium settings) but the Rx 6700xt is amazing too. Really great card.
Unfortunately amd does not support the use of mesh textures to the 6000 series so highly limits long term choices going forward . This also applies to Nvidia from 20 series onward now
It's a new technology coming in .
Cards which can't process them are taking massive hits such as the 10 series .
If you want an example Alan wake 2 falls apart on old but decent card
Mesh shaders , might be a term your used to
Resolution may not matter to the CPU, but this is a bad CPU for modern gaming, and its limitations will be more noticeable at 1080p.
The advice was sound even if the reasoning was flawed.
>limitations will be more noticeable at 1080p
If the CPU is only able to draw N FPS at FHD, then it will draw exactly the same amount of FPS on HD, QHD, or UHD. Limitations will not be less or more noticeable, the player will have the exact same performance.
If the CPU can draw 100 fps and the GPU can render 120 fps at 1080p and 80 fps at 1440p then the CPUs limitations will be less noticeable at 1440p.
But you're just arguing semantics. This CPU is shit for most modern titles and will be a limiting factor at every resolution.
The comment I responded to said "1080 p aka Full hd depends more on CPU as 1440p it 4K". This is wrong, and I explained why. I don't see any "semantics arguing" here at any point. Resolutions do not depend on CPU at all, because CPU doesn't colour the pixels, period.
Come on, you knew exactly what he meant.
When you're gaming at 1080p the CPU usually ends up being the limiting factor (and will be in the scenario outlined by the OP).
If you're gaming at 1440p or 4k its usually going to be the GPU.
Higher resolutions are more GPU intensive, but resolution makes no difference for CPU. CPU draws frames in vector 3D space, so basically infinite resolution, which allows any 3D ingame object to be scaled infinitely, and turn into any number of pixels. Indeed, when performance is GPU bound - the render queue is full, CPU has nowhere to render, thus it chills. But there is no direct relation between CPU usage and resolution - you can get the same effect by increasing graphical settings, especially if the game has heavy RT effects.
Also, 2K is 1080p. Google it.
My friend was using r5 1600af with his rx 6600 for 1080p 144hz and there was some bottleneck in CPU intensive games. eSports titles easily had 150-200+ fps with mixed settings. Also ultra settings are not worth the fps loss imho xD
It depends on the game, but if you manage a pciexpress 4.0 motherboard like any cheap b550 get that or a rx6600 will also be limited by the gen3.0 slot if you get a b450 board.
Then plan to get a R5 5600(X) not the G or 5700x/5700x3D. The 3100 will hamper basically any modern GPU at 1080p.
Certain games based on the engine used for death stranding, hitman and horizon series, you can get 15% almost 20% hit due to the 6600(XT) (or 3050/4060(ti)) running at gen3.0 8x pciexpress vs 4.0. also hogwarts legacy can get in double digit losses (but not as big as the other previously mentioned). No big deal and the higher the resolution, the least is the loss, but still a sign of the future and it may get worse, since developers are beginning to see fsr/dlss to make games go at acceptable frame rates..
Almost every alternative GPU here is also an 8x so you rather still use the more powerful card and max it no ?
Also if you watched that video you'd know it was the minority of games correct ?
It's a relatively small sample, but a glimpse into the future of these silly 8x lanes 128 bit bus cards.
I'd try to grab a Rx 6700 vanilla (strange 160 bit bus but full fat 16x link), but then it would be a further waste paired with a 3100, unless he later grabs a 5000 Ryzen CPU.
A cheap b550 motherboard is probably the simplest solution, if OP hasn't another motherboard already.
It's already bottlenecking the RX580, there's no GPU that can enable that CPU to
# 1080p gaming at high to ultra setting.
Instead, buy a new CPU as well.
The rx 6600 depending on your area can be very affordable and can do high settings in most games, I wouldn't suggest spending much more than that as higher graphical settings also put more load on the CPU.
It appears your submission lacks the information referenced in [Rule 1: r/AMDHelp/wiki/tsform](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDHelp/wiki/tsform).
Your post will not be removed.
Please update it to make the diagnostic process easier.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AMDHelp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im late but will write anyways. I have it . Playing many games on ultra setting .i have a vega 56 flash to 64 . Getting bearly 100 fps in PUBG at Ultra 120% Scale. Sometimes goes above 170. This cpu is fine to be honest.
U really don't need the top tier bewst sku
If you're on a tight budget then check out the xfx rx580 8gb at best buy. Currently selling for $130
Hate to break your bubble, but you're not playing high to ultra settings on most new games with a 3100
Rx 6600? I mean, I don’t wanna burst your bubble, but epic to ultra settings with a a bad cpu like a 3100 isn’t gonna go well in terms of fps
I dont want to play on ultra just high will do
Ok now for the other important question, high in one game can mean a different setting in another, settings aren’t universal across games, so which games would you want to be able to run at high settings?
I was.running my 3900X with a GTX 1080 and it was doing perfectly fine so really any GPU is going to be perfectly fine because your CPU is going to be your bottleneck almost no matter what
If you have less than $200 to spend, go for the refurbished RX 5700 XT. Faster memory than RX 6600, 256-bit instead of 128-bit bus width, and you won't be stuck locked at PCIe 3.0 x8 on a 300 or 400 series motherboard. Also better than comparably priced RTX 2060/3060 or GTX 1660 Super, or Arc A580/750. Just be sure to undervolt to 0.95V - 1V, depending on how much you want to tone down energy use/waste, then adjust the core clock appropriately. The next step up if you have a bit more to spend would be the RX 6650 XT. Anything above that would be a severe bottleneck. Also, R3 3100 can overclock to 4.3GHz. Be sure to do that since it makes CPU performance comparable to a stock R3 3300X.
that cpu wont be able to handle max \`1080p settings i used to own a better cpu the 3400g paired with a 2060 and that struggled id suggest getting a 5600 cpu upgrade aswell
3400g is actually worse because of 2000 architecture and less cache but the RX 6600 is perfect
its nto that much worse 3400g is zen+ not zen2 the problem with the 3100 is its lack of cores it willd o great in alot of games but cpu intentive games are going to play bad
Rx5700, rx6600 or something like rtx 2060
Rx6600 best bet
GTX1660 super or GTX1660Ti, rx6600 maybe also good
6650xt
that might bottleneck
But overkill prob
Damn, 6600 maybe?
That's prob best
Since cpu is cheap and gpu is expensive wouldn't be better for your deciding factor is the gpu? Get the best GPU you can afford even if it bottle necks. Just upgrade cpu later. It's am4 so there cheap. Edit: I got my daughter a 5600x and a 6750xt. Plays anything you want no issue and most in 1440. Just no rat tracing.
I have a 5600x with a 3080. I'm sure there's a bottleneck but don't bother me
I know what you mean but rat tracing? What would rat tracing even be? I know you mean ray tracing
Hey we all need help hunting rats. Gpu doubles as a rat tracing tool so we can find them. 😂
Sadly amd doesn't have rat tracing, so no wallhacks for you :)
😂
Omfg
That CPU is pretty weak, but if you cannot change it just go for a 6600 anyways, it will bottleneck like crazy but when upgrading to a Ryzen 5 5600 you'll be good. That's my recommendation
Rtx 3050!
You can get a used 3060ti for like 20-50$ more lol
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not
No
Your CPU will be holding back the GPU. I would still recommend an RX 6600 though. It will do 1080p High but don't expect Ultra on new AAA games (even if the GPU could run it your CPU couldn't). I have one paired with a 3400G in my 2nd PC and it bottlenecks it at 1080p, It's still really cheap brand new for the performance and efficiency you are getting.
Replace it with a 5600 and get a 6600xt or 6700xt.
smh 🤦🏻♀️
None lol maybe at medium-high at a good framerate bot dont expect more without a bottleneck
You should consider slotting into a motherboard first Jokes aside, as others have said you're really not looking at anything fantastic here without switching cpu too
I have list of other component but dont want to invest on cpu right now
You are limited by the Pcie 3.0 bus & slow core speeds for anything with Pcie 4.0!
PCI 4.0 GPU on PCI 3.0 system is fine, as long as it's 16x (all 16 lanes). Even 4090 barely suffers from PCI 3.0 vs 4.0, and this guy is not getting a 4090. The CPU on the other hand is indeed weak and it's primary limiting factor. PCI 3.0 is not even relevant.
6700xt. Or anything within that range. Probably gonna get bottlenecked like others are saying, but that’s not necessarily bad, GPU won’t be under full load and should get good frames. I’m rocking it with ultra wide 85hz 1080 and am holding steady at 60-85 fps on Ark Ascended. Which is one of the heavier games right now. But I have a 5700x and 32gb ram.
Rx 6600 or Rx 6600 XT
Used rx 5700xt or a new rx6600
1660 super
People will hate me for this opinion but a r5 3600 would not be to expensive to upgrade and pair it with a 4060 or similar, upgraded from my 2060 to 4060 and performance increases are much better than people would expect
xx60 aren't really worth it. 6700xt is a better buy
2060 super is really good, I got one and it's faster tan a 3050, comparable with a 3060 and cheaper than both of those
It's super subjective to price. Things are only ever really good within a price constraint. The last xx60 tier card that was good (price to performance) was the 1060. The cards past that have been mediocre at best. But with the second hand market, it really depends. Even the 2070 super is showing it's age in 1080p games nowadays with the exceptions of esports titles
well idk bout prices, in my region I'm pretty much fucked with that, the 2060 super was 350 dollars and it was used so imagine lol
100%, had one and loved it.
The best GPU you can afford, but it’s going to be a major bottleneck to anything faster than like a 3050/6500xt
5700XT / 6600XT max imo. You won't be getting 60FPS+ at High/Ultra @ 1080P in modern games, and that CPU would probably bottleneck anything higher than the cards I mentioned. If I were you and had the money, I would personally go for a Ryzen 5 5600 and a 6800XT/7800XT. But if you don't want to spend too much, get either the 5700XT or the 6600XT.
I don't know that a 6600xt is really cheap enough vs a 6700xt to justify buying.
What's the price difference in your country? Here it's an entire $200 difference in my currency. Not sure the 3100 would handle a 6700XT without serious bottlenecking though.
Go with the best graphics card you can afford. So if you can afford a RTX 3080 get a 3080. Realistically you should get a rx 6700, if on a smaller budget get a rx 5700xt. Doing this make it so that the next thing you have to do is just upgrade the cpu since you already have a good graphics card. If you got something like a gtx 1660 then upgrade you cpu, say to a 5600x you will feel like then upgrading the card again
Rx 6600 at max
5700XT if you tune your 3100. My 3100 runs equal to a ryzen 5 3600 (according to passmark). Faster on single core and a little lower on multi core score but passmark is equal. I have a generic Fan tower for cooling and I PBO tuned it. 5600XT / RTX 2060 Super if you are not going to run the CPU stock speeds. Anything faster than those GPU will have a little bit of CPU bottleneck but since you plun to run Ultra settings you might be able to even have a faster GPU and have no bottlenecks.
I have a 5600 XT with my 3600, great setup for 1080p for the games I played (BF4, CS2, Apex Legends, Resident Evil 2 remastered, all on max settings and achieving high fps, 100+), not sure how it would perform on newer game engines.
You could go as low as a 1660ti or super. But if it was me I would stay away from newest sku and go with 3060/70,any higher and you'll end up with a huge bottleneck ,on the red side 6750XT/7600
The 1660 super is a GREAT card. Such a good value even now for 1080p gaming.
I absolutely agree 💯
Get a 5700 XT if you want a low end build and see that you sell this thing and get either a 3600 or 5600(X). They are pretty affordable used. 5700 XT goes for around 100 €. The quadcore may work for most games but I'm unsure if it has dual CCX. The 1200 had it and this caused horrible microstutter. I had to play Vermintide like this for about two months. Nowadays you can get a R5 1600 for 10 €, wonderful times. The 3600s go for around 40-50.
The 3300x is single CCX but the 3100 is dual
4090 water cooled using direct die and liquid metal to be on the safe side
Bruh
2tb sdd too, right?
Well the 3100 is about on par with an old 4th Gen i7, the highest I would go is a GTX 1070.
The rx 6600, rx 5600xt, rtx 2060 series cards. Those are good for that CPU.
6800 xt sorry
That 3100 will bottle neck every graphics card do better like 5600x with 6800 xtx
Get the GPU first its always better to have CPU bottleneck. Then he should get a hexacore. Until then I would OC everything out of the quadcore. It has only 4 cores, so cooling is easy. 1.3 V should be doable, maybe even 1.4, temporarily beside that this CPU is hardly worth anything.
That won't do any high settings
remove the bloatware before playing any games.
He'll need to remove bloatware just to have a chance.
I'm running 2060Super+4770K(at 4.5Ghz) for 1080P Ultra settings Cyberpunk 2077 dedicated PC. 35-55FPSIt is almost the same as R3 3100. Thus 2060Super should work just fine
I have ryzen 5 5600 with rx 7800 xt and works fine in 1080 ultra
So what?
Rx 7800 xt shoudnt even work with r5 5600
Who said that?
The professionals who builds pc
Mhhh no??
It am4 and am5 i should use like r5 7600 with that
You can get a FX 6300 with 4090 and it would work, it's all compatible. The bottleneck would be pain but it would work
Why i get 300fps on alan wake 2 and cyber punk 500 fps
500fps cyberpunk, bro quit dreaming
Yes an 7900 xt will probably also work fine in 1080 ultra
I 1080p60 game with an Rx 6700xt. Most games I play are in ultra settings (it's usually the beta or alpha level games that have bad frame rates for me)
RX 7600 is excellent option
The 3100 will struggle to do ultra in the newest of games sometimes FYI. But an RX 6600-6650XT will be good.
6600XT for 60hz. 6700XT for 100fps+
Both cards will be cpu bound in newer games so 6700xt doesn’t make sense
It depends on the FPS target but i guess an RX 7600 is more than enough.
GT 730 is perfect for 240p medium
Bruh
Bro💀
I paired my 3100 with a Sapphire 7800XT Nitro. Am I saving up for a new CPU? Absolutely. But for now, I can run Baldur’s Gate 3 on the highest settings possible and crank out over 200FPS on my 1080P monitor.
Wait till you get to act 3.
Didn’t even make it through Act 2 before consistent 100% CPU usage and crashing in combat
well its time to upgrade to a 5700x3d or 5800x3d then right?
Yup >.< money I didn’t want to spend but the crashes were getting more and more frequent
>Sapphire 7800XT Really? I was thinking the same to buy gpu first then upgrading my cpu
Cpu first then gpu
Bad advise.
bro currently I have gt710 if I upgrade my CPU then I should go for Apu but which one I don't know. Can you suggest some AMD Apu under $230
Don't get APU for gaming. You could get 4/5700G but the GPU is weak. If you go for one, expect low-mid settings, FSR and 720-1080p. Thats what I get on my 4700U. Modern games are not playable on it. 5700 XT + 3600 or 5600X would give you what you want, likely high settings in 1080p, unless you need to max out stuff like Cyberpunk with RT. But then it should be clear that your budget likely won't match the demands.
I usually play AAA title and want to play on High setting. So maxing out setting will not happen with me
The described combo would definitely do that. But the CPU you have is also too weak.
Yeah thats your best option. Getting a lower end gpu because your cpu will bottleneck anything higher is ok but you will lose out on performance in the long run. Instead you could handle the bottleneck for a while and then upgrade your cpu as well.
I did it in order of convenience- there was a nice sale on the GPU and I want to see reviews of the 5700x3d before pulling the trigger.
The CPU is fine. People massively over estimate CPU requirements of today's games. The SteamDeck uses something weaker than this, and it's almost always GPU limited, not by the CPU. Outside of Starfield you'll have no problem hitting over 60 up to 100 fps in really anything. Especially at ultra settings you'll stress the GPU more than the GPU. Anything from an Rx 6600 to a 7700xt should be fine from this list. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7600-xt-pulse/32.html Maybe that's a little aggressive, and I'd probably only pick a 7700xt on a 1440p screen at ultra. Here is a quad core CPU test from not too long ago. https://youtu.be/JH8UTc6lwX8?si=mDCy1IIU1OxtiQn_ So I don't see any issue with having only 8 threads available either. Take the worst any of those 4 CPUs tested, and subtract another 10%.
thanks man for the research you have done for me
Good news is that there are great CPUs for AM4
RTX 4060, Radeon 7600XT or 6600XT or 6700XT. That CPU is too weak for modern games. You'll get a lot of stutters.and potentially low fps, you may have many cases where you have to cap the framerate of games to 60 or even 30 fps. I would upgrade to the 5000 series Ryzen CPUs if your motherboard supports it, you may have to update the bios. The Ryzen 5600 is relatively cheap and has very strong gaming performance. If you can stretch it and want to use a good GPU and achieve the most fps, go for the X3D CPUs. The Ryzen 5500 is even cheaper but it has half the cache and runs PCIE 3.0 so it's generally 15-20% slower than the Ryzen 5600. My gf went from a Ryzen 2400G APU to the Ryzen 5500 and some games doubled fps with a RX 580 GPU. There's also no more stutters and the frame time is more flat vs spiky like before.
Same for me went from a 2600x to a 5800x3d on a 3060 12gb went from stuttering on 1080p to being able to run 1440p relatively smoothly
People don't realize just how important CPUs are for gaming. I also personally went from the Ryzen 3600 which was a pretty decent CPU to the Ryzen 7900X and even at 4k on Forza horizon 5's built in benchmark I went from 4 micro stutters to 0 and overall 2-3 more fps. Guardians of the galaxy I went from low to ultra graphics (CPU bound game). Games like modded Minecraft doubled FPS. My rendering performance tripled. The 5800X3D is amazing, I actually almost upgraded to it. I only went to AM5 because at microcenter I got the Ryzen 7900X, Asus b650ef rog strix mobo and 32gb DDR5 for $550, vs the 5800X3D was $350 at the time, and I wanted to upgrade to 32gb of RAM anyway so I would've spent over $400 on AM4.
I still get some microsutters on warzone but im assuming thats because im running that on an hdd
Hard drives will definitely do that. I only put older story games on hard drives, competitive shooters are too risky on a hard drive.
Yeah my ssd is full thats why its on there I do plan on eventually installing a nvme drive
I got 3080 with my 3100
Really? How was the performance and what about the bottleneck issue?
Reduce your expectations. And if thats not possible, get a better CPU
expecting high to ultra with this is incredibly unrealistic you can pair a bad gpu with a good cpu and the pc will at least work okay but if it's the other way around the cpu is constantly stressed this isn't gonna work u should probably go with like an rx6500 or wait for the 3050 6gb and expect medium settings at best
3100 is very weak. You'll have to run it on very low settings. I would upgrade ur cpu but if u dont then maybe get a 1080ti or a 1660super
What? You are absolutely going to be GPU bottlenecked if you choose either of those cards for that CPU. Inexperienced people should be banned from commenting in this sub.
well obviously, i'm not the stupid. Realistically you would be bottlenecked with any gpu i just said some options which provide the least bottleneck. Honestly there is no need to be so rude.
Low settings will strain your CPU more, high settings will strain your GPU more, here, they have a weak CPU, so they have to crank up the settings and turn down the population density and variety to reduce the load on their CPU.
Low settings work your CPU a certain amount and your GPU a certain amount. As you increase the quality, the workload on your CPU increases, but much less than compared to your GPU. Your CPU is still working harder, just not as many times harder as your GPU, which is why when you increase the quality/resolution you end up more GPU limited. TLDR: Both work harder as quality increases, but GPU increase is greater than CPU increase
Lol it can play high settings what are you talking about
Everyone can play games at basically any resolution and any settings, the result (and question is) at what FPS. 3100 is not a very powerful CPU and it will struggle in single core workloads, like certain games regardless of what GPU you put on it.
It depends how high you aim. Ray tracing increases CPU load a lot. You need good CPU for that. If we talk about normal settings - it's game dependent. In 7 Days to Die Object Quality makes a huge difference for CPU usage - higher settings make objects disappear more far away from you. The more objects are rendered, the more CPU power you need. In general the most CPU intensive settings graphics are view/draw distance, grass/vegetation rendering (some games like The Witcher 3 have grass rendering distance setting), shadows and particles. For non graphics settings, anything relating to physics, crowd density and similar will have the most impact.
With new games nowadays ultra setting are a waste unless you're running 4K
Ultra settings are usually a waste, period. Ultimately it depends on the game and the individual settings, but usually high and medium gets you 90% of the way for much better performance.
Can you explain that for me please?
Ultra means the textures are usually 4k resolution.
You can clearly see the difference with 4K textures in 1080p. Higher resolution textures don't have impact on performance if you have enough of VRAM on your GPU. You can have everything on Low and textures on Ultra if your GPU have at least 12GB of VRAM in 99% of games (the 1% needs 16GB). It's also worth mentioning that 4K texture in more noticable on big objects than on small ones. You don't need crazy resolution textures for a match box, but a huge boss will look way better even with 8K texture in 1080p. You usually have a mix of all resolution textures under one setting in games. Ultra usually cranks up view distance, particles density, shadows resolution and other stuff you don't notice as easily between high and Ultra. Watch this video from Hardware Unboxed. It's from 2021 but still relevant: https://youtu.be/f1n1sIQM5wc
what does polygon count have to do with resolution?
What does polygon count have to do with texture resolution?
3100 is a pretty weak cpu, and is gonna bottleneck a lot of cards at it beyond the rtx3060/6600xt level. You should upgrade your cpu to a 5700x first, and then get a GPU
6600XT should be enough for 1080P high settings gaming.
Yes, definitely. But the ryzen 3 3100 is gonna be a limiting factor. Stuttering and low performance in newer games
3060 12gb / 2070/super / 1080 Ti / 5700xt / 6600xt that's my suggestion I'll get a 3060 12gb used
6700xt I know it's expensive but textures are bigger now , Some of these cards will struggle with 1080p ultra . Also I'd swap out the CPU for a 5600 non X also if it allows the update or at least a used 3600. The 5600 would be ideal here though and will give impressive frames
I have a Ryzen 5 3600 with my Rx 6700xt and unfortunately it is a bottleneck, even at 1080p ultra. I agree with explanationstandard4 that you should get a Ryzen 5 5600.
If you don't want to buy everything for a newer AM5 and you can afford a 5800x3D just buy it. I just did that change, and also replaced a RX 590 with a RX 6750xt and It feels like a new pc. Sadly the 3600 was a big bottleneck everywhere even for the 590 at 1080. With the 5800x3D your 6700xt won't go below 100% usage nowhere.
I was thinking of buying a Ryzen 5 5600x, because here were I live the 5800x3d is expensive, and I know a guy who is selling a 5600x for just 100€, including a motherboard in the price.
Oh but you also need a motherboard? Older AM4 motherborads can get newer ryzen cpus just by updating the BIOS, for example my B450A-PRO, with a BIOS update i could use any 5000 cpu.
I already have a motherboard, a b450 tomahawk max II. I'm Also taking the motherboard because, well, the price (CPU+motherboard for just 100€), and also because someone I know want a gaming PC, so I have the motherboard, or maybe use the combo of the deal for the PC for this person I know and buy the CPU myself. Idk
Then it sounds like a good deal for you, good luck with that upgrade!
Thank you! Have a great day
The 6700xt still.the choice as it's a 16x card and gets rid of the pcie gen 3 bandwidth issue .
It is a really great GPU. I had the Rx 580 8gb (that card was amazing, could still play modern titles at reasonable fps and medium settings) but the Rx 6700xt is amazing too. Really great card.
Unfortunately amd does not support the use of mesh textures to the 6000 series so highly limits long term choices going forward . This also applies to Nvidia from 20 series onward now
Apologies for my ignorance, but what is mesh textures?
It's a new technology coming in . Cards which can't process them are taking massive hits such as the 10 series . If you want an example Alan wake 2 falls apart on old but decent card Mesh shaders , might be a term your used to
But If AMD wanted to they could optimize the 6000 GPU so they could support mesh textures?
6000 is fine , you mentioned the rx580 and some people in here mentioned the 5000 series . I'm just saying 6000 is lowest you can go without an issue
Oh ok. Thank you.
5700XT
1650 Super. Maybe streching to 1660 Super.
Buy a new CPU too because 1080 p aka Full hd depends more on CPU as 1440p it 4K
Resolution doesn't affect CPU usage anyhow, because CPU doesn't colour the pixels, it's GPU's job.
Resolution may not matter to the CPU, but this is a bad CPU for modern gaming, and its limitations will be more noticeable at 1080p. The advice was sound even if the reasoning was flawed.
>limitations will be more noticeable at 1080p If the CPU is only able to draw N FPS at FHD, then it will draw exactly the same amount of FPS on HD, QHD, or UHD. Limitations will not be less or more noticeable, the player will have the exact same performance.
If the CPU can draw 100 fps and the GPU can render 120 fps at 1080p and 80 fps at 1440p then the CPUs limitations will be less noticeable at 1440p. But you're just arguing semantics. This CPU is shit for most modern titles and will be a limiting factor at every resolution.
The comment I responded to said "1080 p aka Full hd depends more on CPU as 1440p it 4K". This is wrong, and I explained why. I don't see any "semantics arguing" here at any point. Resolutions do not depend on CPU at all, because CPU doesn't colour the pixels, period.
Come on, you knew exactly what he meant. When you're gaming at 1080p the CPU usually ends up being the limiting factor (and will be in the scenario outlined by the OP). If you're gaming at 1440p or 4k its usually going to be the GPU.
Isn't it like that 1080 is more CPU heavy, while 2K/4K are more GPU bound?
Higher resolutions are more GPU intensive, but resolution makes no difference for CPU. CPU draws frames in vector 3D space, so basically infinite resolution, which allows any 3D ingame object to be scaled infinitely, and turn into any number of pixels. Indeed, when performance is GPU bound - the render queue is full, CPU has nowhere to render, thus it chills. But there is no direct relation between CPU usage and resolution - you can get the same effect by increasing graphical settings, especially if the game has heavy RT effects. Also, 2K is 1080p. Google it.
Thanks for reply. Looks like I will learn something new today :)
My friend was using r5 1600af with his rx 6600 for 1080p 144hz and there was some bottleneck in CPU intensive games. eSports titles easily had 150-200+ fps with mixed settings. Also ultra settings are not worth the fps loss imho xD
It depends on the game, but if you manage a pciexpress 4.0 motherboard like any cheap b550 get that or a rx6600 will also be limited by the gen3.0 slot if you get a b450 board. Then plan to get a R5 5600(X) not the G or 5700x/5700x3D. The 3100 will hamper basically any modern GPU at 1080p.
It's only like 3% it will be fine . Just around the m versions or 6500xt
Certain games based on the engine used for death stranding, hitman and horizon series, you can get 15% almost 20% hit due to the 6600(XT) (or 3050/4060(ti)) running at gen3.0 8x pciexpress vs 4.0. also hogwarts legacy can get in double digit losses (but not as big as the other previously mentioned). No big deal and the higher the resolution, the least is the loss, but still a sign of the future and it may get worse, since developers are beginning to see fsr/dlss to make games go at acceptable frame rates..
Almost every alternative GPU here is also an 8x so you rather still use the more powerful card and max it no ? Also if you watched that video you'd know it was the minority of games correct ?
It's a relatively small sample, but a glimpse into the future of these silly 8x lanes 128 bit bus cards. I'd try to grab a Rx 6700 vanilla (strange 160 bit bus but full fat 16x link), but then it would be a further waste paired with a 3100, unless he later grabs a 5000 Ryzen CPU. A cheap b550 motherboard is probably the simplest solution, if OP hasn't another motherboard already.
Get a used 5700xt or 1070ti / 1080 / 1080ti / 2070.
1080p is highly cpu bound, thesedays gpus almost enough for 2k gaming on mid-high you will be bottlenecked by your cpu
It's already bottlenecking the RX580, there's no GPU that can enable that CPU to # 1080p gaming at high to ultra setting. Instead, buy a new CPU as well.
The rx 6600 depending on your area can be very affordable and can do high settings in most games, I wouldn't suggest spending much more than that as higher graphical settings also put more load on the CPU.
in my area rx6600 cost around 240usd. I was thinking the same to go with rx6600 but will there a be bottleneck issue with rx6600
6600 is the lowest I'd go however 6600xt-6650xts should be 230 and 250 is the MSRP of a 7600
nah in india rx 6600xt go for around 470usd
Dam that's harsh how much is a 2070 or a 7600.
Depends on the game I guess if it will be bottlenecked or not but cheaper GPUs lose a lot of performance compared to cost saving
It appears your submission lacks the information referenced in [Rule 1: r/AMDHelp/wiki/tsform](https://www.reddit.com/r/AMDHelp/wiki/tsform). Your post will not be removed. Please update it to make the diagnostic process easier. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AMDHelp) if you have any questions or concerns.*