i7 2600k to bottleneck 2 way gtx770 sli

[ziobully]

Hi all,

I'm one of the many still happy with the old 2600k paired with a p8p67 deluxe. I've searched on the web but I couldn't find any clear answer: is it bottlenecking the 2 gtx 770 sli (gigabyte windforce) or not??

Thanks!

[TheSLSAMG]

No, it will be fine.

[Jodomcfrodo]

It won't. But if you don't already have a 770, get a 780ti instead . But if you already have a 770, get another.

[Guest Kloaked]

I have a 2500k with two 770's and there's no bottlenecking. The 2500k is a good CPU for gaming.

[flibberdipper]

It's fine.

[fryman]

only if targeting 100fps+ in bf4. youll see about 40% usage on your 770s in bf4. 

 

same goes for anygame that is cpu > gpu intenstive

[jmaster299]

only if targeting 100fps+ in bf4. youll see about 40% usage on your 770s in bf4. 

 

same goes for anygame that is cpu > gpu intenstive

Not true for BF4. A CPU bottleneck means that the processing demand on your GPU(s) exceeds what your CPU can provide. As BF4 only uses 4 threads, that leaves any unused percentage of those 4 threads, plus the 4 extra HT threads to handle all the network traffic for multiplayer. As network traffic is a Windows controlled function, it can use every core/thread you have.

The difference between a 4960X and any 4 thread CPU is only 1-4 FPS. So there will never be a time with two 770's where a 2600K would be holding them back. Just because you are not getting 100% GPU usage does not mean you have a bottle neck. Not all games require 100% of your GPU(s) processing power.

http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13581-LeatrixLatencyFix.html

[D2ultima]

Not true for BF4. A CPU bottleneck means that the processing demand on your GPU(s) exceeds what your CPU can provide. As BF4 only uses 4 threads, that leaves any unused percentage of those 4 threads, plus the 4 extra HT threads to handle all the network traffic for multiplayer. As network traffic is a Windows controlled function, it can use every core/thread you have.

The difference between a 4960X and any 4 thread CPU is only 1-4 FPS. So there will never be a time with two 770's where a 2600K would be holding them back. Just because you are not getting 100% GPU usage does not mean you have a bottle neck. Not all games require 100% of your GPU(s) processing power.

http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13581-LeatrixLatencyFix.html

Since when did BF4 only use 4 threads? I was fairly certain I saw a lot of benchmarks where hexacore i7s brought FAR more performance with the same GPU setups. Also that 2133MHz RAM helped BF4 quite a bit too. Do I need to go re-learn about BF4 due to recent patches or something?

[Faceman]

Since when did BF4 only use 4 threads? I was fairly certain I saw a lot of benchmarks where hexacore i7s brought FAR more performance with the same GPU setups. Also that 2133MHz RAM helped BF4 quite a bit too. Do I need to go re-learn about BF4 due to recent patches or something?

Those benchmarks about 2133Mhz RAM came from Corsair, so you have to throw that out the window because they are biased and are pushing higher frequency RAM on us.  I personally went from 1600Mhz CL10 RAM to 2400Mhz CL10 RAM, and there was no discernible difference.

BF4 will play just as well on a Pentium, look at the Devil's Canyon G3258 + i7-4790k Video from Linus.  Once the Pentium was overclocked to the same Mhz as the i7, they got almost the same FPS, i7 winning by 3fps.  They don't use BF4 directly, but they use Star Citizen, and Star Citizen is another game supposedly multi-thread optimized, spoiler: zero fps difference.

Games are designed to be run on 2 cores, just because you have more cores, doesn't translate into better linear performance.

[D2ultima]

Those benchmarks about 2133Mhz RAM came from Corsair, so you have to throw that out the window because they are biased and are pushing higher frequency RAM on us.  I personally went from 1600Mhz CL10 RAM to 2400Mhz CL10 RAM, and there was no discernible difference.

BF4 will play just as well on a Pentium, look at the Devil's Canyon G3258 + i7-4790k Video from Linus.  Once the Pentium was overclocked to the same frequency as the i7, they got the exact same FPS.

Games are designed to be run on 2 cores, just because you have more cores, doesn't translate into better linear performance.

Huh. I checked out the other places, but i couldn't find the info anymore. I had distinctly remembered seeing some benchmarks shortly after the game came out. But oh well. I'll need to change what I tell people from now on, is all.

 

The RAM thing I actually saw some people commenting in forums that they saw a 5+ fps difference; but I never looked super deeply into it.

[Faceman]

Huh. I checked out the other places, but i couldn't find the info anymore. I had distinctly remembered seeing some benchmarks shortly after the game came out. But oh well. I'll need to change what I tell people from now on, is all.

 

The RAM thing I actually saw some people commenting in forums that they saw a 5+ fps difference; but I never looked super deeply into it.

Bookmark everything you find, because I have my sources.  Just type Pentium BF4 into Youtube and you see plenty of people comfortably playing online with Pentium chips OC'd to 4.2Ghz+

 

If you want a really in depth overview:

 

This is the Tech Talk with the Intel Engineer, with a question specifically from me on June 20th of this year:

 

Start listening at minute 24:30

 

--"Game developers have been telling us for years that Hyperthreading and more cores will have a more linear effect on performance, and for years this has remain untrue.  Do you think Hyperthreading will soon show more profound performance gains when it comes to gaming in the near future?  If so, how long?  It seems like it has been 3 or more years that recommended specs have been telling us to buy i7s, yet the performance difference is negligible when comparing an i5 and i7.  Does it make sense to try and "future proof" by going with an i7 over an i5."

 

--"Realistically what game developers do is develop to the lowest common denominator, which is still 2 cores."

 

Another soundbite at Minute 33:30:

 

"Why would we release a consumer grade chip with 6 cores when software is not taking advantage of it?"

 

He says that rhetorically.

 

"Dual core is the bottom of the stack....We are moving forward as the software calls for it, but until we see demand for 6/8/10/12 cores in the mainstream world, what advantage would Intel have at releasing these parts, that can't really be utilized, it is really a niche place for 8 threads to be utilized."

 

The most telling moment of the stream starts at minute 60, there is too much to list word for word so I will summarize:

 

Intel wants more thread utilization, they want to push us up the stack because technology is there.  They are frustrated that software hasn't caught up, but when you look on Steam, and you see what kind of systems people have, the vast majority is dual core.  So if I'm a game developer I am designing the game for dual core because that is where the money is.

 

Listen to the stream starting from minute 60, and you will understand that games are not being made for more than 4 threads.

[fryman]

all bf games benefit HUGELY from 6core intels. i7 and i5 arent enough for decent sli cards. they bottleneck quickly. 

[fryman]

all bf games benefit HUGELY from 6core intels. i7 and i5 arent enough for decent sli cards. they bottleneck quickly. in bf games at least. 

[ziobully]

Thanks for all the opinions, and to be clear I already own the two 770 and my 2600k is at 4.7ghz. I started this thread because I'm considering upgrading cpu-mobo-ram in order to have at least a 2 x pciex 3.0 at 8x configuration while now i have half the bandwidth.

[ziobully]

Hi found a deal and I ordered an asus p8z77 ws for 200$ so i'll have dual 16x sli configuration

[harrynowl]

Hi found a deal and I ordered an asus p8z77 ws for 200$ so i'll have dual 16x sli configuration

did you not have x8 x8 on your other board? if so that was a $200 waste

[FellTheSky]

nope

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

These questions make me question people. Yes, your i7 will work well with dual 770s. It's a fucking i7! You see people everywhere with older CPUs and new GPUs and yet they are just fine! Ugh whatever..

[ziobully]

Nobody ever said that the processor itself was not capable of handling them, the problem was the bandwidth, on the p8p67 deluxe i had 8x 8x @ 2.0, of course 2.0 is due to the 2600k being 2nd generation but now i can have 16x 16x with the p8z77 ws (thanks to the PLX Gen 3 chip), so I made my system kind of futureproof for one or two more years that's all.

[Faa]

so I made my system kind of futureproof for one or two more years that's all.

O really?

[Vrbas]

Nobody ever said that the processor itself was not capable of handling them, the problem was the bandwidth, on the p8p67 deluxe i had 8x 8x @ 2.0, of course 2.0 is due to the 2600k being 2nd generation but now i can have 16x 16x with the p8z77 ws (thanks to the PLX Gen 3 chip), so I made my system kind of futureproof for one or two more years that's all.

be sure to let us know your results.

[felixthemaster1]

No, in one of my builds I have a 2500K oc`ed at 4.8 with two gtx 770 and I don`t see any bottlenecking.

I have the i5. Do you think it would bottleneck 2 290xs in stock GHz?

[felixthemaster1]

Maybe not if you overclock it, I don`t know for sure because I don`t have any amd cards.

Because you aren't cool enough

[felixthemaster1]

Yeah, that must be the reason    *Sarcasm on

You turn on the sarcasm after the comment. you mean "/s"

[ziobully]

So strange, with the p8z77 ws i get both card running in sli at 16x  @3.0 with GPU-Z , only downside is that has problems accepting any 2x8gb ram kit.