Crusader93

The i5 6600K will bottleneck the 1080 more than the i7 6700K. 
I would go with the 6700K in 10 out of 10 cases because of that fact.
 
It seems the difference between i5 and i7 for gaming has increased quite alot the past years.

Screen Tearing has nothing to do with frames. They occur when the GPU and the Monitor are out of sync. 
 
If screen tearing had anything to do with frames, g-sync would serve 0 purpose in any high end builds, because high end builds have high framerates. 
 
On a 144hz monitor, screen tearing is alot Harder to see, because the image refreshes so fast. On 60hz, without v/g-sync, it tears like a nightmare.
 
Screen tearing happens when the GPU or the monitor does not communicate good enough, resulting in a teared image. This happens because the monitor is showing a new picture before the last one was completely drawn. Therefore you will get half the new one, and half the old one on the screen at the same time. 
 
This happens so fast on a 144hz monitor, that i dont even care or notice it.
Therefore i have always said that G-sync is overpriced. G-Sync almost only really benefits 60hz users. 
Its cool to have in either case, but still overpriced.

Screen Tearing has nothing to do with frames. They occur when the GPU and the Monitor are out of sync. 
 
If screen tearing had anything to do with frames, g-sync would serve 0 purpose in any high end builds, because high end builds have high framerates. 
 
On a 144hz monitor, screen tearing is alot Harder to see, because the image refreshes so fast. On 60hz, without v/g-sync, it tears like a nightmare.
 
Screen tearing happens when the GPU or the monitor does not communicate good enough, resulting in a teared image. This happens because the monitor is showing a new picture before the last one was completely drawn. Therefore you will get half the new one, and half the old one on the screen at the same time. 
 
This happens so fast on a 144hz monitor, that i dont even care or notice it.
Therefore i have always said that G-sync is overpriced. G-Sync almost only really benefits 60hz users. 
Its cool to have in either case, but still overpriced.

On a 100hz monitor, you will notice some tearing without g-sync, which i would annoying. On a 144hz monitor, if you maintain 100fps ingame, g-sync is hardly noticable. G-sync is also still quite overpriced, and is definetly not worth paying that much more for.
 
I wouldnt play on anything less than 120hz, because it would feel laggy compared to 120/144hz. If you buy something like a benQ xl2411Z, you will have no need for g-sync.
To answer your question, on anything less than a 120hz monitor, you need g-sync to not get annoyed by screen tearing. FPS games will still not go as smooth as it does on a 144hz monitor, but i guess it works if you dont care.
On 120/144hz monitors, you have no need for g-sync if you maintain high fps(like 100). Its hardly noticable. Thats my opinion.

Actually, that is true. A i7 6700K will get bottlenecked by a gtx 1060 for example. The CPU have the power to send more frames, like a 1080 would need. But the 1060 are already working its ass off producing all the frames it can.
Since the CPU has more power to give, it gets "bottlenecked" by the GPU. But not in the same way! A GPU working at 99% is a good thing, because you get all the frames it can produce, while the CPU only works as much as it has to power the GPU.
 
Point being, GPU bottlenecking a CPU is only positive, because you get all the frames the GPU can produce. A CPU bottlenecking a GPU, results in much lower frames, which is bad.

Yes, it will bottleneck a 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Dont spread false information!
 
If you are going to buy a 1060, you have absolutely nothing to be afraid of with a 6600K. If you havent bought this CPU yet, buy the i7 6700K instead. If you have bought the 6600K, you are totally fine in every aspect with a 1060

Yes, it will bottleneck a 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Dont spread false information!
 
If you are going to buy a 1060, you have absolutely nothing to be afraid of with a 6600K. If you havent bought this CPU yet, buy the i7 6700K instead. If you have bought the 6600K, you are totally fine in every aspect with a 1060

A bottleneck is simply one component holding another component back, because it lacks the power or speed to keep up.
 
A GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times to pump out all the frames it possibly can(without some exceptions, as csgo and league of legends type of games that is not very demanding. With high end graphics cards, you will usually see around 30% performance, when you have 300-500fps :P)
 
In graphic heavy games, such as Witcher 3, the GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times. If it doesnt, there is something holding it back, witch(you see what i did there?) in 99% of the cases is the CPU.
The CPU is like: "Hey, there is a wild pikachu here, i gotta catch it before it runs away".
GPU: "Let the fckin Pikachu go, i need your help up here!"
CPU: "Fck you man, ima gonna catch this pikachu!"
GPU: "SEND ME THE FCKIN FRAMES!"
CPU: "I will be a pokemon master!"
GPU: ".............."
 
The GPU then needs to wait for the CPU to catch up, redusing the frames its able to give, because the CPU does not render them fast enough and sending them to the GPU. This is usually shown with the GPU's performance % going down, along with the CPU's Performance % going up.
The most alarming is when you see your CPU at 100% load, while the GPU is below 90%. Then you have a serious pokemon trainer CPU that wants to catch pokemon instead of giving your GPU frames fast enough. This results in reduced frames per second, and in some cases the CPU will introduce stutter when pushed to its limits, because it needs more power, but doesnt have any left.
 
Todays CPU's are running short on many newer titles, because more and more games now rely much on the CPU aswell as the GPU.
Every CPU below the Skylake line(i5 6600K, i7 6700K and so on are skylake CPU's) will bottleneck a 1070 and above in 1080P@144hz. When moving up in resolution, the GPU must work alot harder, redusing bottlenecking caused by the CPU(because of the harder load on the GPU). Since it is alot harder for the GPU, it also means your maximum framerates will be heavily redused compared to 1080P. That is why most people(including myself) still play in 1080P. You get alot more frames, but you need a CPU to power it. 
All AMD CPU's bottleneck modern graphics cards, and gets rekt by intel in single core performance. This means the intel CPU's(even if they too bottlenecks) give higher, more stable and higher minimum fps than any AMD CPU to date. 
 
Do not, i repeat, do not believe the myth that old CPU's like a i7 2600k, 3770k or 4770k doesnt bottleneck the 1070 and the 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Simply because, they do. Even the i7 6700K is starting to struggle in that resolution in CPU heavy games. And, the i5 6600K will also bottleneck more than its big brother i7 6700K. So dont believe the myth that the i5 is just as good as the i7 right now either
 
Last, dont think that a slight bottleneck means horrible performance. In many cases, a slight bottleneck only means 10-20 frames lost. And if you dont experience stutter, thats no reason for an emergency CPU upgrade.
If you are sitting on anything less than the skylake CPU's, you will get some bottlenecking with a 1070/1080. But a 1060 will work fine with a 4770K, for example.

A bottleneck is simply one component holding another component back, because it lacks the power or speed to keep up.
 
A GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times to pump out all the frames it possibly can(without some exceptions, as csgo and league of legends type of games that is not very demanding. With high end graphics cards, you will usually see around 30% performance, when you have 300-500fps :P)
 
In graphic heavy games, such as Witcher 3, the GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times. If it doesnt, there is something holding it back, witch(you see what i did there?) in 99% of the cases is the CPU.
The CPU is like: "Hey, there is a wild pikachu here, i gotta catch it before it runs away".
GPU: "Let the fckin Pikachu go, i need your help up here!"
CPU: "Fck you man, ima gonna catch this pikachu!"
GPU: "SEND ME THE FCKIN FRAMES!"
CPU: "I will be a pokemon master!"
GPU: ".............."
 
The GPU then needs to wait for the CPU to catch up, redusing the frames its able to give, because the CPU does not render them fast enough and sending them to the GPU. This is usually shown with the GPU's performance % going down, along with the CPU's Performance % going up.
The most alarming is when you see your CPU at 100% load, while the GPU is below 90%. Then you have a serious pokemon trainer CPU that wants to catch pokemon instead of giving your GPU frames fast enough. This results in reduced frames per second, and in some cases the CPU will introduce stutter when pushed to its limits, because it needs more power, but doesnt have any left.
 
Todays CPU's are running short on many newer titles, because more and more games now rely much on the CPU aswell as the GPU.
Every CPU below the Skylake line(i5 6600K, i7 6700K and so on are skylake CPU's) will bottleneck a 1070 and above in 1080P@144hz. When moving up in resolution, the GPU must work alot harder, redusing bottlenecking caused by the CPU(because of the harder load on the GPU). Since it is alot harder for the GPU, it also means your maximum framerates will be heavily redused compared to 1080P. That is why most people(including myself) still play in 1080P. You get alot more frames, but you need a CPU to power it. 
All AMD CPU's bottleneck modern graphics cards, and gets rekt by intel in single core performance. This means the intel CPU's(even if they too bottlenecks) give higher, more stable and higher minimum fps than any AMD CPU to date. 
 
Do not, i repeat, do not believe the myth that old CPU's like a i7 2600k, 3770k or 4770k doesnt bottleneck the 1070 and the 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Simply because, they do. Even the i7 6700K is starting to struggle in that resolution in CPU heavy games. And, the i5 6600K will also bottleneck more than its big brother i7 6700K. So dont believe the myth that the i5 is just as good as the i7 right now either
 
Last, dont think that a slight bottleneck means horrible performance. In many cases, a slight bottleneck only means 10-20 frames lost. And if you dont experience stutter, thats no reason for an emergency CPU upgrade.
If you are sitting on anything less than the skylake CPU's, you will get some bottlenecking with a 1070/1080. But a 1060 will work fine with a 4770K, for example.

A bottleneck is simply one component holding another component back, because it lacks the power or speed to keep up.
 
A GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times to pump out all the frames it possibly can(without some exceptions, as csgo and league of legends type of games that is not very demanding. With high end graphics cards, you will usually see around 30% performance, when you have 300-500fps :P)
 
In graphic heavy games, such as Witcher 3, the GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times. If it doesnt, there is something holding it back, witch(you see what i did there?) in 99% of the cases is the CPU.
The CPU is like: "Hey, there is a wild pikachu here, i gotta catch it before it runs away".
GPU: "Let the fckin Pikachu go, i need your help up here!"
CPU: "Fck you man, ima gonna catch this pikachu!"
GPU: "SEND ME THE FCKIN FRAMES!"
CPU: "I will be a pokemon master!"
GPU: ".............."
 
The GPU then needs to wait for the CPU to catch up, redusing the frames its able to give, because the CPU does not render them fast enough and sending them to the GPU. This is usually shown with the GPU's performance % going down, along with the CPU's Performance % going up.
The most alarming is when you see your CPU at 100% load, while the GPU is below 90%. Then you have a serious pokemon trainer CPU that wants to catch pokemon instead of giving your GPU frames fast enough. This results in reduced frames per second, and in some cases the CPU will introduce stutter when pushed to its limits, because it needs more power, but doesnt have any left.
 
Todays CPU's are running short on many newer titles, because more and more games now rely much on the CPU aswell as the GPU.
Every CPU below the Skylake line(i5 6600K, i7 6700K and so on are skylake CPU's) will bottleneck a 1070 and above in 1080P@144hz. When moving up in resolution, the GPU must work alot harder, redusing bottlenecking caused by the CPU(because of the harder load on the GPU). Since it is alot harder for the GPU, it also means your maximum framerates will be heavily redused compared to 1080P. That is why most people(including myself) still play in 1080P. You get alot more frames, but you need a CPU to power it. 
All AMD CPU's bottleneck modern graphics cards, and gets rekt by intel in single core performance. This means the intel CPU's(even if they too bottlenecks) give higher, more stable and higher minimum fps than any AMD CPU to date. 
 
Do not, i repeat, do not believe the myth that old CPU's like a i7 2600k, 3770k or 4770k doesnt bottleneck the 1070 and the 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Simply because, they do. Even the i7 6700K is starting to struggle in that resolution in CPU heavy games. And, the i5 6600K will also bottleneck more than its big brother i7 6700K. So dont believe the myth that the i5 is just as good as the i7 right now either
 
Last, dont think that a slight bottleneck means horrible performance. In many cases, a slight bottleneck only means 10-20 frames lost. And if you dont experience stutter, thats no reason for an emergency CPU upgrade.
If you are sitting on anything less than the skylake CPU's, you will get some bottlenecking with a 1070/1080. But a 1060 will work fine with a 4770K, for example.

Thanks!
I have had almopst all the G-sync 1440P monitors on the market, and i have to say that 1440P on a 27inch monitor is not that much greater than 1080P on a 24inch monitor. It takes alot less power(meaning you can power it much longer before having to change GPU). therefore im sticking to 1080P alot longer

A bottleneck is simply one component holding another component back, because it lacks the power or speed to keep up.
 
A GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times to pump out all the frames it possibly can(without some exceptions, as csgo and league of legends type of games that is not very demanding. With high end graphics cards, you will usually see around 30% performance, when you have 300-500fps :P)
 
In graphic heavy games, such as Witcher 3, the GPU is supposed to work at 99% at all times. If it doesnt, there is something holding it back, witch(you see what i did there?) in 99% of the cases is the CPU.
The CPU is like: "Hey, there is a wild pikachu here, i gotta catch it before it runs away".
GPU: "Let the fckin Pikachu go, i need your help up here!"
CPU: "Fck you man, ima gonna catch this pikachu!"
GPU: "SEND ME THE FCKIN FRAMES!"
CPU: "I will be a pokemon master!"
GPU: ".............."
 
The GPU then needs to wait for the CPU to catch up, redusing the frames its able to give, because the CPU does not render them fast enough and sending them to the GPU. This is usually shown with the GPU's performance % going down, along with the CPU's Performance % going up.
The most alarming is when you see your CPU at 100% load, while the GPU is below 90%. Then you have a serious pokemon trainer CPU that wants to catch pokemon instead of giving your GPU frames fast enough. This results in reduced frames per second, and in some cases the CPU will introduce stutter when pushed to its limits, because it needs more power, but doesnt have any left.
 
Todays CPU's are running short on many newer titles, because more and more games now rely much on the CPU aswell as the GPU.
Every CPU below the Skylake line(i5 6600K, i7 6700K and so on are skylake CPU's) will bottleneck a 1070 and above in 1080P@144hz. When moving up in resolution, the GPU must work alot harder, redusing bottlenecking caused by the CPU(because of the harder load on the GPU). Since it is alot harder for the GPU, it also means your maximum framerates will be heavily redused compared to 1080P. That is why most people(including myself) still play in 1080P. You get alot more frames, but you need a CPU to power it. 
All AMD CPU's bottleneck modern graphics cards, and gets rekt by intel in single core performance. This means the intel CPU's(even if they too bottlenecks) give higher, more stable and higher minimum fps than any AMD CPU to date. 
 
Do not, i repeat, do not believe the myth that old CPU's like a i7 2600k, 3770k or 4770k doesnt bottleneck the 1070 and the 1080 in 1080P@144hz. Simply because, they do. Even the i7 6700K is starting to struggle in that resolution in CPU heavy games. And, the i5 6600K will also bottleneck more than its big brother i7 6700K. So dont believe the myth that the i5 is just as good as the i7 right now either
 
Last, dont think that a slight bottleneck means horrible performance. In many cases, a slight bottleneck only means 10-20 frames lost. And if you dont experience stutter, thats no reason for an emergency CPU upgrade.
If you are sitting on anything less than the skylake CPU's, you will get some bottlenecking with a 1070/1080. But a 1060 will work fine with a 4770K, for example.

Thanks!
I have had almopst all the G-sync 1440P monitors on the market, and i have to say that 1440P on a 27inch monitor is not that much greater than 1080P on a 24inch monitor. It takes alot less power(meaning you can power it much longer before having to change GPU). therefore im sticking to 1080P alot longer

I wont recommend 1440P on a 24inch monitor. It will be hard to tell the difference between it and 1080P. But the GPU usage level will be heavily increased because of a difference you hardly notice. Not worth in my opinion

Yeah I feel the same... Will require 6900k to run without bottlenecks lol. Guess that's why NVIDIA's stock is going up and Intel's is going down .

Smart choice ;P
I have noticed that even the 6700K can run 100% load with a 1080 in some(very few) areas in certain games with everything cranked up. That makes me a little nervous that maybe intel soon will have problems producing cpu's that does not bottleneck when we get 1080Ti cards and so on

A 980Ti can be OC'ed to match a 1080FE, because the FE will trottle and downclock itself to keep cold temps. An aftermarket version of 1080 will beat a 980Ti by 20-25%.
 
G-sync are overhyped, and the most overpriced bullshit i have seen. Yes its nice to have, but not at the cost of the monitors that have it. The cheapest gsync monitor that actually gives you an ok image aswell, is the Dell s2716dg, which is just as good as rog swift pg278Q and the 279Q. But it costs so damn much.
If you maintain 100fps+++ you wont notice g-sync, and the BenQ xl2411Z has just as good(if not better) image quality than all the gaming monitors on the market today. And yes, i have tried them all!
Buy the BenQ xl2411Z if you dont have a 144hz monitor already. 1080P on a 24inch looks almost identical to 1440P on a 27inch. But it taxes almost double horsepower of the gpu. In my opinion, 24inch 1080P gives stunning graphics, and takes very much less gpu power, and until 4K gaming becomes more standard, 1080P is still the way to go. That also means you dont have to buy expensive graphics cards often to maintain 144fps on your monitor. 
 
I would buy 1070 or 1080. I bought 1080, but 1070 gives good value. Stick with 1080P for some more years, and buy a 1070/1080 now. The 1070 can be overclocked and beat the 980Ti, as long as you stay away from the FE editions. It is newer, has more Vram and less energy consumption. Buying the 980Ti for nearly the same price as 1070 is pure nonsense.
 
Vanilla 144hz is still the way to go, and a 1070/1080 is the choice if you want stunning graphics in 1080P.

There is no doubt in my pure heart that any amd processor will bottleneck a 1070/1080. The only way you will get the most juice out of a 1070/1080 is by getting an Intel processor. Which nowadays means a i5 6600K or a i7 6700K/6800K/6850K.
 
Amd never was any good for gaming after Intel came out with Sandy Bridge(like the i7 2600/2700K). Intel was and still is far superior in the processor market. The only thing that may turn this is the AMD Zen, which we still dont know anything about. When/if the Zen are able to match Intel, amd may yet again be an optional choice for a gaming pc. As it is today, buying a amd processor for a gaming pc, is pure nonsense, and has been the last 5 years.

The only real upgrade is to go for an intel processor. The i5 6600K and the i7 6700K are the best picks. AMD processors suck for gaming purposes(lower framerates, lower minimum framerates, and most amd processors will bottleneck a high end graphics card) if compared to Intel.
Buying a new amd processor, i see absolutely no point in doing. Save up, and buy a i5 6600K or a i7 6700K, although i recommend the i7 over the i5. But both of them will be very much better than any amd processor out to date.
Intel processors have much better single core performance, resulting in more stable and higher fps overall. They also have enough juice to power a gtx 1080. A gtx 1080 would be bottlenecked by a amd processor.

Mine is running at 1976 core boost, 5500 memory boost.

Nvidia are a bunch of liars. They have lied several times since AMD got beaten by them. And i feel very dirty for having bought a gtx 1080.

Nvidia are a bunch of liars. They have lied several times since AMD got beaten by them. And i feel very dirty for having bought a gtx 1080.

Nvidia are a bunch of liars. They have lied several times since AMD got beaten by them. And i feel very dirty for having bought a gtx 1080.

Nvidia are a bunch of liars. They have lied several times since AMD got beaten by them. And i feel very dirty for having bought a gtx 1080.