R7 1700 GTX 1660 TI

[SolusX12]

I own the R7 1700 already, and I was wondering if the GTX 1660TI would be bottlenecked by it?

[Slottr]

Depends on what you're doing

I have a 1700 and a 1080, some games I find a slight bottleneck, workstation stuff I'm perfect in

[SolusX12]

2 minutes ago, Slottr said:

Depends on what you're doing

I have a 1700 and a 1080, some games I find a slight bottleneck, workstation stuff I'm perfect in

Mostly gaming, maybe streaming later on

[FadedCrown]

I think we worry too much about bottlenecking, you have a 1700 which is an 8-core overclockable possessor that runs at 3.00 GHz stock and you are worried about a mid-high tier graphics card bottlenecking it?

 

Short answer is no it will not.

[Tristerin]

You *might* *might* (honestly I personally will say no, it wont bottleneck) see a single core bottleneck with that chip (I have two) depending on the title etc.  Just the nature of the frequency/IPS for frame time building.

[Slottr]

3 minutes ago, SolusX12 said:

Mostly gaming, maybe streaming later on

You'll be fine

[SolusX12]

2 minutes ago, FadedCrown said:

I think we worry too much about bottlenecking, you have a 1700 which is an 8-core overclockable possessor that runs at 3.00 GHz stock and you are worried about a mid-high tier graphics card bottlenecking it?

 

Short answer is no it will not.

Well the single-threaded performance of the 1700 isn't as great as some of the intel i5's and I7's this card is usually paired with, so the performance delta could exist, and I was just wondering if anyone had experienced that. 

[Tristerin]

My bottlenecks on my 2 R7 1700 rigs?  The R9 Fury's in each.  My CPU's run around 30% average during all triple A gaming at Ultra in 1600x900 and like 20% average usage in 1440p.  The next upgrade will be a GPU in my Ryzen rig 1 so I can crossfire the furies for fun.

[flibberdipper]

17 minutes ago, FadedCrown said:

I think we worry too much about bottlenecking, you have a 1700 which is an 8-core overclockable possessor that runs at 3.00 GHz stock and you are worried about a mid-high tier graphics card bottlenecking it?

 

Short answer is no it will not.

Have you watched a single video/read a single article comparing Ryzen chips to Intel? This guy has a 1060 and compared a 1700 to an 8600K (both seemingly at stock) and while it's not necessarily bottlenecking there's still a difference in literally every single game. Now whether or not you deem it worth caring about is obviously up to you, but it's still there.

[FadedCrown]

5 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Have you watched a single video/read a single article comparing Ryzen chips to Intel? This guy has a 1060 and compared a 1700 to an 8600K (both seemingly at stock) and while it's not necessarily bottlenecking there's still a difference in literally every single game. Now whether or not you deem it worth caring about is obviously up to you, but it's still there.

Except the 8600K costs $100 more dollars than the 1700.

[flibberdipper]

7 minutes ago, FadedCrown said:

Except the 8600K costs $100 more dollars than the 1700.

Irrelevant for what you said but at least you tried.

[FadedCrown]

2 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Irrelevant for what you said but at least you tried.

Not really, the 8600K is better because it costs $100 more than the one you are comparing it to.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, FadedCrown said:

I think we worry too much about bottlenecking, you have a 1700 which is an 8-core overclockable possessor that runs at 3.00 GHz stock and you are worried about a mid-high tier graphics card bottlenecking it?

 

Short answer is no it will not.

Unless you're playing WoW, in which case it most certainly will.

[flibberdipper]

43 minutes ago, FadedCrown said:

Not really, the 8600K is better because it costs $100 more than the one you are comparing it to.

Once again, price is completely irrelevant for what you said initially. Just going "hurr durr price more higher so obviously more gooder" is a pretty bad counter argument. Counter with obvious facts that Ryzen is better for gaming and performs better in it or just stop lmao

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Once again, price is completely irrelevant for what you said initially. Just going "hurr durr price more higher so obviously more gooder" is a pretty bad counter argument. Counter with obvious facts that Ryzen is better for gaming and performs better in it or just stop lmao

Changing your argument after you were wrong is how you win on the internet.

[flibberdipper]

3 minutes ago, Den-Fi.com said:

Changing your argument after you were wrong is how you win on the internet.

shit u rite I'd better start doing that

[Zando_]

59 minutes ago, FadedCrown said:

Not really, the 8600K is better because it costs $100 more than the one you are comparing it to.

 

11 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Once again, price is completely irrelevant for what you said initially. Just going "hurr durr price more higher so obviously more gooder" is a pretty bad counter argument. Counter with obvious facts that Ryzen is better for gaming and performs better in it or just stop lmao

^^^ As he said, price higher =/= better. I paid $330 for my 2700X, and the 8600K is a $260 chip (I got mine in a rig so IDK what exactly I paid for it). It's cheaper, but absolutely and utterly kicks the 2700Xs ass in every game I've tried and any I've seen benchmarks for. I think it might get caught up in Ashes of The Singularity, that's the only game I know of that actually scales to multiple cores properly, everything else doesn't get a noticeable improvement past 6. 

 

Also the 2700X was running at stock XFR boost (takes a couple cores to 4.35Ghz or higher, a manual OC will only push them to 4.2-4.25 without unsafe voltages, and like I said games don't use all the cores), with 3200Mhz CL16 RAM, on an ASUS Crosshair VII Hero Wi-Fi, so it was at no disadvantage. 8600K was running 3000Mhz CL16 RAM on an ASUS Prime Z370-A (the good one), OCed to 5Ghz all core (most 8600Ks hit that easily). 

 

As far as a measurable bottleneck goes, it's only really there for high refresh rate gaming. If you're shooting for 60fps, or even 75, Ryzen is usually fine. Once you go past 100 it starts to struggle, and even the "mere" 6 core Intel chips crush it easily. I think my 5820K at 4.4Ghz can technically beat it too, but I get similar fps numbers. Don't remember what I got on the 6c/12t 1600 I had for a bit so I can't compare there. Ryzen will win in any workloads that take advantage of all the cores and threads though, but normal gaming does not. 

 

[suchamoneypit]

You will not bottleneck the 1700.