Pairing A 7600K and a GTX 1070 (non ti) Bottleneck the 1070 significantly? Or not?

[486DX Win3.1]

Budget (including currency): 

Country: 

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: 

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 

 

[An0maly_76]

Depends on the resolution and detail.
At 1080p, the CPU will be slammed. Probably not so bad at 720p though.

[486DX Win3.1]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

Depends on the resolution and detail.
At 1080p, the CPU will be slammed. Probably not so bad at 720p though.

Damn... think so? Videos have it running 88% - 99% so "slammed" I suppose. But, what's wrong with that? 

[An0maly_76]

Because the cores are fully loaded at that point, with no room to do anything else. Ideally, you want your GPU at 100%, and your processor between 50-85%. That way, you have the ability to do other things in the background if need be. Let's say you wanted to stream your gameplay or do an online mutltiplayer live. You'll be lagging to kingdom come because the CPU won't be able to keep up with an 88-99% load.

Edited August 6, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[486DX Win3.1]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

Because the cores are fully loaded at that point, with no room to do anything else. Ideally, you want your GPU at 100%, and your processor between 50-85%. That way, you have the ability to do other things in the background if need be.

Well damn. I don't want to need to get a 7700K

 

 

[An0maly_76]

4 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

Well damn. I don't want to need to get a 7700K

 

 

I think the 1050 might be too much card for the 7600K to keep up with. You might want to think about a GT730 or GT1030. They're not bad-ass, but they're better than nothing, and they'll leave room for the CPU to do other things.

Edited August 6, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[486DX Win3.1]

Just now, An0maly_76 said:

I think the 1050 might be too much card for the 7600K to keep up with. You might want to think about a GT730 or GT1030. They're not bad-ass, but they're better than nothing.

It's just that I already have a few laying around. I have a 1660 Super, a 1070 (non ti), and an Extra 2060 Super

 

[An0maly_76]

4 cores and 4 threads are going to have a hard time keeping up with most any high-power GPU. Sad, simple fact. You might get decent playability at 720p or 1080p if you cut the detail to minimum.

 

Case in point, I couldn't do the detail I wanted with a GTX1650 Super even with an eight-core, sixteen-thread 1700. The RTX3060ti I have (an 8GB OC edition) is running its ass off to do full detail at 1440p, even with my 5900X feeding it.

 

Like I said, ideally, you want your CPU between 509-80%, and your GPU at 100% when gaming.

[486DX Win3.1]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

4 cores and 4 threads are going to have a hard time keeping up with most any high-power GPU. Sad, simple fact. You might get decent playability at 720p or 1080p if you cut the detail to minimum.

 

Case in point, I couldn't do the detail I wanted with a GTX1650 Super even with an eight-core, sixteen-thread 1700. The RTX3060ti I have (an 8GB OC edition) is running its ass off to do full detail at 1440p, even with my 5900X feeding it.

 

Like I said, ideally, you want your CPU between 509-80%, and your GPU at 100% when gaming.

Coffee Lake just for an old 1070 ?

 

 

[486DX Win3.1]

[porina]

I'm gonna disagree with the comments so far. While 7600k is not "ideal" it'll work fine for most games, leaning towards older games. Keep in mind the CPU and GPU were current at about the same time 6 or so years ago and both are around mid tier. Yes, 4c4t is a bit lacking in today's world and it will impact some performance. You wont make Elden Ring, but you'll still be fine for Cyberpunk 2077 for example.

 

Rather than turn down graphical settings, you should do the opposite and turn them up. Give the GPU more work to do. Do not scale down the GPU for the CPU. You scale the GPU to your target rendering settings. 1070 (which I used to own) is decent for 1080p and still good at 1440 with settings adjustments. 

 

Personally I hate the "bottlenecking" thinking. It will vary depending on settings. The better question is can you run what you want adequately? Doesn't matter which way the bottleneck is if you have a good experience. 

[An0maly_76]

24 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

Coffee Lake just for an old 1070 ?

 

 

For full detail? Probably. And I think you'd have to get an 8400 or better to make that work. Hell, you need a Comet Lake to keep up with that 1660 Super, especially if you want full detail. Low detail and 720p, you might get away with less.

ADDED:

 

@486DX Win3.1

 

One need only watch this video to see what I'm talking about. It really shows just how much finagling it took, and while they did make it work, look at how much work it took to find the right combination. I'm not saying it can't be done, but you won't have room to do anything else while gaming if necessary, and they did much more to this machine than just a graphics card.

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[486DX Win3.1]

2 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

For full detail? Probably. And I think you'd have to get an 8400 or better to make that work. Hell, you need a Comet Lake to keep up with that 1660 Super, especially if you want full detail. Low detail and 720p, you might get away with less.

poppycock

 

[486DX Win3.1]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

I'm gonna disagree with the comments so far. While 7600k is not "ideal" it'll work fine for most games, leaning towards older games. Keep in mind the CPU and GPU were current at about the same time 6 or so years ago and both are around mid tier. Yes, 4c4t is a bit lacking in today's world and it will impact some performance. You wont make Elden Ring, but you'll still be fine for Cyberpunk 2077 for example.

 

Rather than turn down graphical settings, you should do the opposite and turn them up. Give the GPU more work to do. Do not scale down the GPU for the CPU. You scale the GPU to your target rendering settings. 1070 (which I used to own) is decent for 1080p and still good at 1440 with settings adjustments. 

 

Personally I hate the "bottlenecking" thinking. It will vary depending on settings. The better question is can you run what you want adequately? Doesn't matter which way the bottleneck is if you have a good experience. 

I mean, as long as the cooling is good and the bottlenecking does not "break stuff" 

 

Coffee Lake instantly puts another $100 price on the chip.  A 7700K can be found for a really good picker for less than $100 

 

 I think that the 7600K will work "fine"  I've been doing this for a lil while now. However, I wanted to hear some opinions. It's not like a 1070 is some kind of amazing powerhouse here.  

 

 I'm willing to bet that it works pretty "darn good" at 1080p Medium/High Settings with the high maintenance setttings turned off. 

 

[An0maly_76]

9 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

poppycock

 

 

You were saying? Granted, it's with a 1050ti, but mentions stuttering at the start of the video. I didn't say it wouldn't do it, but it's not going to be as great as you might think, either. What I found with my 1700 and GTX1650 is that it took a great deal of finagling, as with the previous video referenced, to find just the right detail level and resolution to get the stuttering and lag out. And that was with eight cores and sixteen threads, not four cores and four threads.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[486DX Win3.1]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

 

You were saying? Mentions stuttering at the start of the video.

 

 

 I see that there are some imperfections. I don't see anything "wrong" with it.  Especially for someone who may or may not even be trying to achieve some sort of flawless ideal

 

[An0maly_76]

3 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

 I see that there are some imperfections. I don't see anything "wrong" with it.  Especially for someone who may or may not even be trying to achieve some sort of flawless ideal

 

As I added to my post, I never said it wouldn't do it, but it's probably not going to be as great as you might think. It took a great deal of time for me playing with settings to stop the stutter and lag with eight cores and sixteen threads with a GTX1650 Super. Four cores and four threads will eventually hit a wall. Even running in OC mode with a twelve-core, twenty-four thread driving it, my RTX3060ti occasionally lags a bit if I get too ambitious with resolution or detail.

Edited August 6, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[486DX Win3.1]

3 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

As I added to my post, I never said it wouldn't do it, but it's probably not going to be as great as you might think. It took a great deal of time for me playing with settings to stop the stutter and lag with eight cores and sixteen threads with a GTX1650 Super. Four cores and four threads will eventually hit a wall. Even running in OC mode with a twelve-core, twenty-four thread driving it, my RTX3060ti occasionally lags a bit if I get too ambitious with resolution or detail.

you pretty much said stick to 720p..... 

[An0maly_76]

Just now, 486DX Win3.1 said:

you pretty much said stick to 720p..... 

I guess I don't know what I'm talking about then, since I barely managed to get ATS to look good with no stuttering at 1440p on low to medium detail with a 5900X on PBO with an OC RTX3060ti.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

 I'm willing to bet that it works pretty "darn good" at 1080p Medium/High Settings with the high maintenance setttings turned off. 

My previous gaming laptop was a 7300HQ + 1050, so even lower perf than you're looking at. I was gaming fine on it. I wanted more GPU on it than CPU for the games I was running.

 

6 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

What I found with my 1700 and GTX1650 is that it took a great deal of finagling, as with the previous video referenced, to find just the right detail level and resolution to get the stuttering and lag out. And that was with eight cores and sixteen threads, not four cores and four threads.

At the time the 1700 was a bit of a dog for gaming. Low clock, and the architecture just didn't agree with most games. I also had a 1700 and swapped it for a 6600k which performed much better for the games of the time. Left the 1700 for compute tasks where it did better in than gaming. Maybe it'll be a bit different today. The low clock part doesn't change but for those games that can multi-thread better it could suck less.

[486DX Win3.1]

3 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

I guess I don't know what I'm talking about then, since I barely managed to get ATS to look good with no stuttering at 1440p on low to medium detail with a 5900X on PBO with an OC RTX3060ti.

maybe not

 

[486DX Win3.1]

2 minutes ago, porina said:

My previous gaming laptop was a 7300HQ + 1050, so even lower perf than you're looking at. I was gaming fine on it. I wanted more GPU on it than CPU for the games I was running.

 

At the time the 1700 was a bit of a dog for gaming. Low clock, and the architecture just didn't agree with most games. I also had a 1700 and swapped it for a 6600k which performed much better for the games of the time. Left the 1700 for compute tasks where it did better in than gaming. Maybe it'll be a bit different today. The low clock part doesn't change but for those games that can multi-thread better it could suck less.

I had a 1700X that I also kind of felt that way about.  The extra cores and threads did not do..... well, nearly anything. 

[An0maly_76]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

My previous gaming laptop was a 7300HQ + 1050, so even lower perf than you're looking at. I was gaming fine on it. I wanted more GPU on it than CPU for the games I was running.

 

At the time the 1700 was a bit of a dog for gaming. Low clock, and the architecture just didn't agree with most games. I also had a 1700 and swapped it for a 6600k which performed much better for the games of the time. Left the 1700 for compute tasks where it did better in than gaming. Maybe it'll be a bit different today. The low clock part doesn't change but for those games that can multi-thread better it could suck less.

If it was such a dog, how come I never saw over 25% CPU usage? Seems to me if it really had to work that hard just to struggle, it should have been hitting 80-100% usage.

[486DX Win3.1]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

My previous gaming laptop was a 7300HQ + 1050, so even lower perf than you're looking at. I was gaming fine on it. I wanted more GPU on it than CPU for the games I was running.

 

At the time the 1700 was a bit of a dog for gaming. Low clock, and the architecture just didn't agree with most games. I also had a 1700 and swapped it for a 6600k which performed much better for the games of the time. Left the 1700 for compute tasks where it did better in than gaming. Maybe it'll be a bit different today. The low clock part doesn't change but for those games that can multi-thread better it could suck less.

 I had to "work" with my Ryzen 1700X so much that I eventually ended up blowing it up

[486DX Win3.1]

1 minute ago, An0maly_76 said:

If it was such a dog, how come I never saw over 25% CPU usage? Seems to me if it really had to work that hard just to struggle, it should have been hitting 80-100% usage.

why do you have to hit 100% usage for it not to run all that great?