I5 6600k maybe Bottlenecking gtx 1070

[DAnewguy]

So towards the end he talks about the i5 6600k that even the 6600k can't get 100%(or like near ofc 95) so is he just talking trash or is this true??

[don_svetlio]

It's entirely true. A 6600K bottlenecks a 1070 by 15-20%

Has been posted before and we've discussed it several times in other threads

[007agentHP]

its true because of the resolution 

1080p

 

but up to 1440p or 4K, the issue evaporates as the bottleneck is removed

 

a bottleneck is the slowest part of the system 

at 1080p the 1070 doesn't have to work nearly as hard.

 

at 1440p and 4K which are far more demanding, the 1070 is pushed to its limits and the cpu can keep up

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, 007agentHP said:

its true because of the resolution 

1080p

 

but up to 1440p or 4K, the issue evaporates as the bottleneck is removed

 

a bottleneck is the slowest part of the system 

at 1080p the 1070 doesn't have to work nearly as hard.

 

at 1440p and 4K which are far more demanding, the 1070 is pushed to its limits and the cpu can keep up

He speaks of 1440p as well - it's still a minor bottleneck even then.

[007agentHP]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

He speaks of 1440p as well - it's still a minor bottleneck even then.

its unnoticeable at 1440p though

and this wouldn't happen if intel had some competition (IM LOOKING AT YOU AMD)

im hoping ZEN gives intel the kick in the pants to get up and running and to bring us some REAL performance improvements.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, 007agentHP said:

its unnoticeable at 1440p though

and this wouldn't happen if intel had some competition (IM LOOKING AT YOU AMD)

im hoping ZEN gives intel the kick in the pants to get up and running and to bring us some REAL performance improvements.

i7s are generally fine - it's an i5 limitation. At 1440p 120HZ and higher it's quite noticeable as minimums drop a lot

[Memories4K]

Really? Wow i, honestly, wouldn't have guessed it. 

 

7 minutes ago, 007agentHP said:

im hoping ZEN gives intel the kick in the pants to get up and running and to bring us some REAL performance improvements.

You hope for too much lad.

This late in the game, i'm not seeing Zen as anything more than competition for used Haswell parts.

[DAnewguy]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

i7s are generally fine - it's an i5 limitation. At 1440p 120HZ and higher it's quite noticeable as minimums drop a lot

 

6 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

It's entirely true. A 6600K bottlenecks a 1070 by 15-20%

Has been posted before and we've discussed it several times in other threads

I got a question (it seems that you know this shit) how is multiple threads better for gaming don't understand

[don_svetlio]

4 minutes ago, DAnewguy said:

 

I got a question (it seems that you know this shit) how is multiple threads better for gaming don't understand

Games are multi-threaded. Have been since late 2014/early 2015 - the people saying "games use only 2-4 cores" are living in the past.

 

4 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

You hope for too much lad.

This late in the game, i'm not seeing Zen as anything more than competition for used Haswell parts.

Eh, depends. Talk of a 8-core/16-thread CPU with Haswell IPC means it COULD rival Kaby Lake easily

[007agentHP]

Just now, Memories4K said:

You hope for too much lad.

This late in the game, i'm not seeing Zen as anything more than competition for used Haswell parts.

we need it. i have friends rocking i7 2600ks (1 i5 2500k) and i7 980s and they are still not upgrading. refusing to until something substantial comes.

[pckid]

16 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Really? Wow i, honestly, wouldn't have guessed it. 

 

You hope for too much lad.

This late in the game, i'm not seeing Zen as anything more than competition for used Haswell parts.

I heard that Zen may be more than Haswell ipc and may be Skylake performance.

[Memories4K]

25 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Games are multi-threaded. Have been since late 2014/early 2015 - the people saying "games use only 2-4 cores" are living in the past.

 

Eh, depends. Talk of a 8-core/16-thread CPU with Haswell IPC means it COULD rival Kaby Lake easily

If you can shill me a pesudo-5960x for a much better price then sure it'd be a better deal than what Intel's got going. But that's not only a big 'if', it's also a question of how AMD's other chips would compete. I don't think AMD's going to be as good as Intel's Kabylake/Cannonlake offerings, but if they can just woo the market with a much better price for slightly lower performance then i think it can work out for them.

[Memories4K]

16 minutes ago, pckid said:

I heard that Zen may be more than Haswell ipc and may be Skylake performance.

Last i heard, Zen was OPTIMISTICALLY looking to be around Haswell performance.

 

I haven't looked into Zen in a while though.

[don_svetlio]

26 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Last i heard, Zen was OPTIMISTICALLY looking to be around Haswell performance.

 

I haven't looked into Zen in a while though.

DDR4 makes a pretty significant difference (as shown by Skylake) so that does contribute to performance by quite a bit

[Darkseth]

If an i5 6600k bottlenecks a 1070, then every other CPU on the market will.

More Cores doesnt mean less bottleneck, as most Games don't run better on more than 4 Cores.

If it bottlenecks, it simply means, the IPC of an i5 6600k is not enough.

And if that happens, then you will have to wait 2-3 years for the next CPU generations. Because even Broadwell-E will NOT be better here.

 

And if it Bottlenecks, can be found out easy. Overclock it.

More fps? --> CPU Bottleneck.

Same fps? --> No CPU Bottleneck

 

Or 2nd Choice: Use Lowest settings possible + Lowest resolution possible (Low + 480p or so). That fps you will have here are the fps, the CPU can manage.

Up to these fps, the GPU limits.

If you have more than 144 fps in lowest settings, but less than 144 fps in high settings ----> GPU BOTTLENECK.

 

However, keep in Mind. You WILL have a Bottleneck in EVERY SINGLE GAME. Either it wil lbe a CPU Bottleneck, or a GPU Bottleneck. ALWAYS.

 

Ask Yourself one Question: Are the fps you have with the i5 6600k enough? If yes, everything is fine.

[don_svetlio]

23 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

If an i5 6600k bottlenecks a 1070, then every other CPU on the market will.

More Cores doesnt mean less bottleneck, as most Games don't run better on more than 4 Cores.

If it bottlenecks, it simply means, the IPC of an i5 6600k is not enough.

And if that happens, then you will have to wait 2-3 years for the next CPU generations. Because even Broadwell-E will NOT be better here.

 

And if it Bottlenecks, can be found out easy. Overclock it.

More fps? --> CPU Bottleneck.

Same fps? --> No CPU Bottleneck

 

Or 2nd Choice: Use Lowest settings possible + Lowest resolution possible (Low + 480p or so). That fps you will have here are the fps, the CPU can manage.

Up to these fps, the GPU limits.

If you have more than 144 fps in lowest settings, but less than 144 fps in high settings ----> GPU BOTTLENECK.

 

However, keep in Mind. You WILL have a Bottleneck in EVERY SINGLE GAME. Either it wil lbe a CPU Bottleneck, or a GPU Bottleneck. ALWAYS.

 

Ask Yourself one Question: Are the fps you have with the i5 6600k enough? If yes, everything is fine.

And this is precisely the reason why misinformation is being spread. Everything in this post is wrong or semi-wrong.

Games DO use more cores - all the way up to 16 actually. Feel free to check DigitalFoundry and Total Biscuit's videos. You will see how all 16 threads on a 5960X are being used (TB) or how an i7's frame time is substantially more stable and how the overall performance is higher.

It's not about IPC anymore - IPC went out the door a year ago. The thing which is important now is indeed core count - but not just any cores, strong cores and many of them.

OCing is not always going to be enough - even an OC 6600K bottlenecks the crap out of a 1080. With high end GPUs at the moment you REALLY need an i7 to get all the performance out of them.

That is not how it works - you can be at 60fps and have a substantial bottleneck on your hands (like people running a 980 with an FX 6300 - they WILL get 60fps but the GPU will be at 60% utilization or so). Please, stop spreading false outdated information. This WAS the case in 2012, but it's 2016 and things have changed.

[Darkseth]

8 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

And this is precisely the reason why misinformation is being spread. Everything in this post is wrong or semi-wrong.

Games DO use more cores - all the way up to 16 actually. Feel free to check DigitalFoundry and Total Biscuit's videos. You will see how all 16 threads on a 5960X are being used (TB) or how an i7's frame time is substantially more stable and how the overall performance is higher.

It's not about IPC anymore - IPC went out the door a year ago. The thing which is important now is indeed core count - but not just any cores, strong cores and many of them.

OCing is not always going to be enough - even an OC 6600K bottlenecks the crap out of a 1080. With high end GPUs at the moment you REALLY need an i7 to get all the performance out of them.

That is not how it works - you can be at 60fps and have a substantial bottleneck on your hands (like people running a 980 with an FX 6300 - they WILL get 60fps but the GPU will be at 60% utilization or so). Please, stop spreading false outdated information. This WAS the case in 2012, but it's 2016 and things have changed.

You mean, that's why the 4 Core i7 6700k beats the 8 Core 5960X?

They might USE them in terms of Load%, but they don't benefit from it. The 8 Core 5960X is slightly slower despite having double the Cores.

Just because its IPC is slightly lower.

That's the same with Graphic Memory. How much VRAM a Game uses, and how much it NEEDS are 2 completely different things.

 

if an OCed 6600k "bottlenecks the crap out of an 1080", then sorry, but EVERY SINGLE CPU in the next 3-4 years will too.

It's still about IPC. Every test show that.

Feel free to check Digital Foundry for that  They have "yet to discover any game, that run's bad on an i5".

 

i7 mostly have less than 10% more fps. That's it. You will NOT find ANY Game at all, that runs good on an i7, but bad on an i5. The difference is way too small. The i7 might hold the (min)fps a BIT better. But the difference isn't nowhere near how you describe it.

 

Btw back to Bottleneck: If an OC 6600k Bottlenecks the Crap out of an GTX 1080, then i demand Proof, that the GPU is unable to run at 99% usage. because that's what Bottleneck means.

Show me screenshots from latest titles on maxed out settings, Video evidence, whatever you want, that proof your claim.

 

So if my informations were wrong, then proof me otherwise. because i call BS on that. sorry.

 

95% of all Games will run Heavily GPU Bound, even on an i5 6600k without OC.

[don_svetlio]

4 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

You mean, that's why the 4 Core i7 6700k beats the 8 Core 5960X?

They might USE them in terms of Load%, but they don't benefit from it. The 8 Core 5960X is slightly slower despite having double the Cores.

Just because its IPC is slightly lower.

That's the same with Graphic Memory. How much VRAM a Game uses, and how much it NEEDS are 2 completely different things.

 

if an OCed 6600k "bottlenecks the crap out of an 1080", then sorry, but EVERY SINGLE CPU in the next 3-4 years will too.

It's still about IPC. Every test show that.

Feel free to check Digital Foundry for that  They have "yet to discover any game, that run's bad on an i5".

 

i7 mostly have less than 10% more fps. That's it. You will NOT find ANY Game at all, that runs good on an i7, but bad on an i5. The difference is way too small. The i7 might hold the (min)fps a BIT better. But the difference isn't nowhere near how you describe it.

 

Btw back to Bottleneck: If an OC 6600k Bottlenecks the Crap out of an GTX 1080, then i demand Proof, that the GPU is unable to run at 99% usage. because that's what Bottleneck means.

Show me screenshots from latest titles on maxed out settings, Video evidence, whatever you want, that proof your claim.

 

So if my informations were wrong, then proof me otherwise. because i call BS on that. sorry.

 

95% of all Games will run Heavily GPU Bound, even on an i5 6600k without OC.

 

[DAnewguy]

13 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

 

Now I'm more confused what cpus should I buy I'm playing with 1080p 

What would you recommend???btw only gaming

[don_svetlio]

19 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

You mean, that's why the 4 Core i7 6700k beats the 8 Core 5960X?

They might USE them in terms of Load%, but they don't benefit from it. The 8 Core 5960X is slightly slower despite having double the Cores.

Just because its IPC is slightly lower.

That's the same with Graphic Memory. How much VRAM a Game uses, and how much it NEEDS are 2 completely different things.

 

if an OCed 6600k "bottlenecks the crap out of an 1080", then sorry, but EVERY SINGLE CPU in the next 3-4 years will too.

It's still about IPC. Every test show that.

Feel free to check Digital Foundry for that  They have "yet to discover any game, that run's bad on an i5".

 

i7 mostly have less than 10% more fps. That's it. You will NOT find ANY Game at all, that runs good on an i7, but bad on an i5. The difference is way too small. The i7 might hold the (min)fps a BIT better. But the difference isn't nowhere near how you describe it.

 

Btw back to Bottleneck: If an OC 6600k Bottlenecks the Crap out of an GTX 1080, then i demand Proof, that the GPU is unable to run at 99% usage. because that's what Bottleneck means.

Show me screenshots from latest titles on maxed out settings, Video evidence, whatever you want, that proof your claim.

 

So if my informations were wrong, then proof me otherwise. because i call BS on that. sorry.

 

95% of all Games will run Heavily GPU Bound, even on an i5 6600k without OC.

It's mostly clockspeed and architecture related. At 4.6 the 6700K is around 5% faster than the 5820K due to architecture and RAM difference. Also note Crysis 3 where the 6-core CPU is over 20fps ahead

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, DAnewguy said:

Now I'm more confused what cpus should I buy I'm playing with 1080p 

What would you recommend???btw only gaming

If you have an i5 - RX 480 or lower
If you have an i7 - whatever you can afford

[DAnewguy]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

If you have an i5 - RX 480 or lower
If you have an i7 - whatever you can afford

No you didn't understand my question i am buying a pc with a gtx 1070 and now I'm wondering what cpus you would recommend 

*Quick edit now I see i7 but wich one would you recommend 

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, DAnewguy said:

No you didn't understand my question i am buying a pc with a gtx 1070 and now I'm wondering what cpus you would recommend 

*Quick edit now I see i7 but wich one would you recommend 

3770K at minimum - anything higher than that will be good. That includes Xeons

[Crusader93]

9 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

3770K at minimum - anything higher than that will be good. That includes Xeons

A i7 3770K bottlenecks a 1080 quite a bit in some games, and im sure that is the case with a 1070 too. As of now, its only the Skylake line i7's that are able to push all the juice out of the new high end cards. Even the i7 6700K will bottleneck a 1080 a little bit at some demanding areas in some games. (Im talking about the 1080P resolution).

This shows that we are facing a crisis in the CPU market. When 1080Ti comes, there will be bottlenecking cpu's all over the place. This really does not look good at all.

[Scitesh]

i cant find a diffrence between 120 and 144hz