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

[porina]

55 minutes 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.

CPU usage in windows is measured as thread time, not work done. 25% usage just meant you had equivalent to 4 threads continuously active. In such a scenario a 4c4t Intel would likely have blown it away. Having more cores doesn't help if the software is not using those cores. Modern games that could use more threads might do relatively better with it now than when it was current.

 

55 minutes ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

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

Did you overclock it a bit too much? My sample of 1700 didn't OC well at all. I barely got it to 4.0 GHz Cinebench stable but only by pushing 1.45v (180W) though it. 

[An0maly_76]

6 hours ago, porina said:

CPU usage in windows is measured as thread time, not work done. 25% usage just meant you had equivalent to 4 threads continuously active. In such a scenario a 4c4t Intel would likely have blown it away. Having more cores doesn't help if the software is not using those cores. Modern games that could use more threads might do relatively better with it now than when it was current.

 

Did you overclock it a bit too much? My sample of 1700 didn't OC well at all. I barely got it to 4.0 GHz Cinebench stable but only by pushing 1.45v (180W) though it. 

No OC on my part.

[486DX Win3.1]

12 hours ago, porina said:

CPU usage in windows is measured as thread time, not work done. 25% usage just meant you had equivalent to 4 threads continuously active. In such a scenario a 4c4t Intel would likely have blown it away. Having more cores doesn't help if the software is not using those cores. Modern games that could use more threads might do relatively better with it now than when it was current.

 

Did you overclock it a bit too much? My sample of 1700 didn't OC well at all. I barely got it to 4.0 GHz Cinebench stable but only by pushing 1.45v (180W) though it. 

I overclocked it too much. The Ryzens cant handle the overclock like I find the intel’s can (I mean 1st and 2nd gen ryzen) I never tried a newer ryzen. 
 All I did was try to push it to about 3.8/3.9 and I guess it had a blowout. 

[486DX Win3.1]

13 hours 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.

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.

 

I disagree! I have  1650 OC AND and 1660 Super laying around. I tested them last week! 
 They are “NOT THAT” strong. I mean, they are good machines. But not as strong as a 1070.  They are between what I was getting on my 1050ti builds and 1060ti builds. 
They are totally NOT TOO strong for a 7600K

[486DX Win3.1]

Well. Right now at home I have: 

 

a pair of old 7600Ks 

a 1070 ROG strix

a 1650 Super

a 1660 

a aorus 1080 ti 

 

I should be getting the 7700k next week. 
 

I will finally bench them on an asrock Z270 MB that I keep as a spare. 
 

 I’ll let you guys know what I find. 
 

 It’s kinda dumb cause 7600Ks are like $60 but 7700ks are like $130+ !!!!!!! 

[486DX Win3.1]

6 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

No OC on my part.

Bro the last 2 cores of those 8 core ryzens will do basically nothing for in game performance

[porina]

9 hours ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

 It’s kinda dumb cause 7600Ks are like $60 but 7700ks are like $130+ !!!!!!! 

The top end CPUs of a generation tend to be worth more. Say you own a 100 or 200 chipset mobo with an i3 or i5 on it, the end upgrade path is to the i7. And it is an easy upgrade. Just swap the CPU and instant performance uplift with everything else generally unchanged. None of the pain you get from buying a new mobo and new OS install and reinstall all your software and customise it... at that point, it is a new system. Which will be a bigger upgrade, but isn't always needed.

 

At the end you have a bunch of the lower CPUs spare and people are much less likely to "upgrade" to them, or build a new system around them. Look at the 5820k for example. As higher X99 CPUs became attainable, the price on the lowest CPU crashed.

 

9 hours ago, 486DX Win3.1 said:

Bro the last 2 cores of those 8 core ryzens will do basically nothing for in game performance

It does depend on the game. If memory is right, I think it was Battelfield V that was used by AMD fanboys as that particular game was CPU heavy and gave early Ryzen an advantage. Most other games of the time, less bothered. I wouldn't rule out having 8 cores for gaming today, since it now matches current gen consoles and game devs may expect that for best performance. Today 6 is still ok for sure, for those more budget limited builders out there. It's going beyond 8 cores for a pure gaming system that is questionable.