Bottlenecking GTX760

[Guest]

Yes. The bullshit is strong in this one.

He has truly entered the bullshit side. There is no coming back to reason for this child.

[Ober1kenobi]

Also he said plays on a 64man server not hosting it........ Blasted

On the whole you sound like a pretentious idiot

"Also, good luck running Battlefield 4 64 player servers well on that dual core buddy."

One could take quite a few meanings from that sentence

It handles 64 player maps just fine, still 50-100fps,

[Guest]

On the whole you sound like a pretentious idiot

"Also, good luck running Battlefield 4 64 player servers well on that dual core buddy."

One could take quite a few meanings from that sentence

It handles 64 player maps just fine, still 50-100fps,

My god your a fanboy  

[Ober1kenobi]

My god your a fanboy

Yeh okay.

I'm just stating my personal experience with this i3, for gaming it works quite well,

not to mention Intel's better IPC, Better Clock for Clock performance and that this is a 54watt processor, it does fairly well

As I said, go watch Austin Evan's video on this processor vs a 4670k (stock) and the i3 really only starts to get beaten when using a 780,

[totjup5]

On the whole you sound like a pretentious idiot

"Also, good luck running Battlefield 4 64 player servers well on that dual core buddy."

One could take quite a few meanings from that sentence

It handles 64 player maps just fine, still 50-100fps,

1. There's no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an i3.

2. theres no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an r9 270 unless your settings are quite low.

 

Thus I call bullshit on you for the second time today my friend.

[piggykid1]

It might bottleneck it a little I would recommend a amd 6300 or an Intel i5

good luck

[Demonking]

Get the I3 or I5 i would choose the I5 the 6300 is nice but when it comes to gaming it doesn't beat the I3 or I5 superior IPC

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

[Ober1kenobi]

1. There's no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an i3.

2. theres no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an r9 270 unless your settings are quite low.

 

Thus I call bullshit on you for the second time today my friend.

Well, Yes I am, Ultra Settings (4xAA, SSAO) 1080p, i3 R9 270.. this is in Multiplayer, In Single player 55-60Avg

Call bull all you want, I know it's not, I'm the one getting pretty descent frame rates for not much money,

[totjup5]

Well, Yes I am, Ultra Settings (4xAA, SSAO) 1080p, i3 R9 270.. this is in Multiplayer, In Single player 55-60Avg

Call bull all you want, I know it's not, I'm the one getting pretty descent frame rates for not much money,

First of all it's decent, not descent. There's no way that you are getting those frame rates on that card. An overclocked r9 270 gets about 45-50 fps average at 1080p. I doubt you've ever seen over 75 on that card on ultra. If you're going to lie about what frame rates you get in games go do it in Youtube comments where people might believe you.

Edited April 25, 2014 by airdeano
Language

[Ober1kenobi]

With those setting the highest I've seen is 110, the lowest I have seen is 32, yeh it gets dips and often when there's heaps of explosions, etc but normal gun fights etc 55-60fps easy, with 70-80fps showing up quite frequently, I am not bullshitting, 

[Guest]

Hey guys, I'm building my first pc and I was concerned whether or not a i3-4130 would bottleneck a gtx760. I plan to get an i5-4430 if the i3 does bottleneck the gpu performance.

Most certainly. A 4430 will still bottleneck in this next-gen wave of titles, but a TON less than any i3.

[Faa]

1. There's no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an i3.

You're clearly a troll. I've showed a video a i3 running 2 780's at 120 fps. With 50/50% max on each gpu would equal a single780@99% so no bottleneck there. A 780 is just twice as fast as a r9 270: http://be.hardware.info/reviews/4974/8/amd-radeon-r9-270-review-beste-kaart-op-e-160-battlefield-3---1920x1080-+-frametimes

Posted in this video earlier with a single 780 complety max'ed out pushing 120-150fps. Now since thats proved, lets move on:

 

 

2. theres no way you are getting 50-100 fps on an r9 270 unless your settings are quite low.

Also there's no way youre getting 99% on each of your gpu or just in other words consistently 80 fps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fydJJ4vSffU

Would love to see your loads though, I bet you wouldn't even get close to 50/50% making your 2nd 660ti a complete waste. Noticing from this post (http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/143488-660ti-vs-760/?view=findpost&p=1921557) that you're only getting 60 fps with 2 660ti's in SLI at 1440p, well that makes pretty much sense if I get with a single 780 even much more frames. Want me to make record some 1440p gameplay to prove you this? You complety have no ideas when you're cpu or gpu limited and that you added a 2nd 660ti with as good as no performance gain makes pretty much sense you clearly have no ideas when youre cpu/gpu limited. Your cpu is just a first class bottleneck and you're barely aware of it, and you're claiming i3's cant get 50-100 fps in BF4.

 

 

Thus I call bullshit on you for the second time today my friend.

Would love to hear you saying a 780 is better than 2 660ti's@1300MHz in SLI.

If he would be responding, it's just something childish like "you're wrong or youre retarded etc" but he's never close to prove me a tiny bit wrong even.

 

 

My god your a fanboy 

Usually people who call people a fanboy are just die-hard AMD fanboys. He's not being a fanboy, in my perspective you're a complete fanboy trying to make lies like a i3 struggling playing a video or being misinformative like saying a 6300 is better in any case than a i3 makes it just perfect for me to call you a real fanboy. In games where the 6300 does better its not a powerhog, in games i3's do better it's noticeably better. Give me atleast 10 different games the 6300 doing atleast by 20-30% better, no russian gamegpu benchmarks or teksyndicate crap. 

Back in the days, you were called a fanboy if you'd recommend Intel and now it's complety the other way around; you're a fanboy if you recommend AMD.

[Guest]

 

 

snip-

bf4,crysis 3, tomb raider, Off the top of my head, I think most would agree getting a fx 6300 is a better choice than a little i3. Plus just overall multi tasking 

[Xquisite]

The i3-4130 is a tough processor and will NOT bottleneck a measly 760. It will a 780(Ti). 

[Guest]

The i3-4130 is a tough processor and will NOT bottleneck a measly 760. It will a 780(Ti).

That's not the issue the question is the i3 or a fx 6300

[Faa]

I think most would agree getting a fx 6300 is a better choice than a little i3. Plus just overall multi tasking 

You gave me 3, that's not much and the difference is extremely minor and I've seen plenty of benchmarks i3's doing better than 8350's in BF4. They can be multithreaded as much as you want but the performance scaling of extra cores is a total different story. BF4's game engine isnt even intensive, it's mainly the physics engine they use which is called havok that's extremely intensive on cpu's thats far from being properly threaded. i3's are like 20% faster multithreaded wise than Q9550's and Q9550's are still a powerhog for it. Multitasking people do is nothing, run a game and play a video and talk on skype that's not intensive at all and a Q9550 is never going to limit you here.

Only amd fanboys would agree the 6300 being a better choice for gaming, overclocking option is useless for that extra money you spent you were better off getting a better cpu, if we would consider the majority of games aren't taking advantage past 2 cores that just makes the i3 a better choice overal for gaming. In a 25m raid or 40vs40 battleground or in a world event you'd be looking at 30-35 fps on a 4670k@5GHz and this benchmark pretty much illustrates why you wouldn't go with AMD in scenario's like that. That you can play a video in the background doesnt matter if your game runs crap.

 

 

The i3-4130 is a tough processor and will NOT bottleneck a measly 760. It will a 780(Ti). 

Games where i3's will bottleneck, i5's will do too. You just cant generalize it will bottleneck this card and not this card, this isn't a yes or no question.

[Guest]

You gave me 3, that's not much and the difference is extremely minor and I've seen plenty of benchmarks i3's doing better than 8350's in BF4. They can be multithreaded as much as you want but the performance scaling of extra cores is a total different story. BF4's game engine isnt even intensive, it's mainly the physics engine they use which is called havok that's extremely intensive on cpu's thats far from being properly threaded. i3's are like 20% faster multithreaded wise than Q9550's and Q9550's are still a powerhog for it. Multitasking people do is nothing, run a game and play a video and talk on skype that's not intensive at all and a Q9550 is never going to limit you here.

Only amd fanboys would agree the 6300 being a better choice for gaming, overclocking option is useless for that extra money you spent you were better off getting a better cpu, if we would consider the majority of games aren't taking advantage past 2 cores that just makes the i3 a better choice overal for gaming. In a 25m raid or 40vs40 battleground or in a world event you'd be looking at 30-35 fps on a 4670k@5GHz and this benchmark pretty much illustrates why you wouldn't go with AMD in scenario's like that. That you can play a video in the background doesnt matter if your game runs crap.

 

 

Games where i3's will bottleneck, i5's will do too. You just cant generalize it will bottleneck this card and not this card, this isn't a yes or no question.

Start a poll then completely unbiased, i3 vs 6300 and we will see

[Faa]

Start a poll then completely unbiased, i3 vs 6300 and we will see

Which is complety subjective and doesnt change the fact that i3's are the better choice for gaming. Twist it as much as you want, you'd remain wrong. Most AMD fanboys ive seen here couldn't make a single valid point, just like you but you had to lie a bit to try making one.

[MbV93]

It won't.