Would an i3 REALLY bottleneck a GTX770? What about a 290?

[Z17]

STOP!

 

READ. THE. POST.

 

"NO YOU IDIOT, GET AN I5 AND A 760"

AGAIN. READ. THE. POST.

Ok now that I have you attention let me begin. That title was somewhat of a rhetorical question, I'll give you some numbers and let you decide. So, I made this post because there seems to be a slight misconception about bottlenecking.

Reason I say this is because as of writing this on PCPartPicker there are 367 builds with a haswell i5 and a gtx 760: http://pcpartpicker.com/builds/?sort=recent#qq=1&c=98,134,193,96,131,195,194,69,5,133,171,207&page=1&g=93

and the amount of builds with a haswell i3 and gtx 770 is like... 2: http://pcpartpicker.com/builds/?sort=recent#qq=1&c=46,165,191,21,71,201,196&g=89

so this MUST mean that an i5 with a 760 is a better choice right? weeeeelll lets make the numbers talk:

 

For CPU comparison we'll use Austin Evan's comparison of the 4130 and 4670k using a 780 to show a (near) worst case bottleneck scenario to see the performance increase of going from an i3 to an i5

http://youtu.be/aXPK9doyMLg?t=3m

Battlefield 3 - Ultra 1080p: 

82 to 88 fps (7.3% improvement)

 

Crysis 3 - Very High 1080p:

50 to 53 fps (6% improvement)

 

Bioshock Infinite - Ultra 1080p:

97 to 105 fps (8.2% improvement)

 

Metro Last Light - Very High 1080p:

64 to 83 fps (29.7% improvement)

 

For GPU comparison we'll use Anandtech's GPU14 to compare the performance improvement of going from a 760 to a 770:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1037?vs=1038

 

Battlefield 3 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA:

70.3 to 84.4 fps (20.1% improvement) 

 

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA: (GPU14 has High settings while Austin uses Very High but gets it  the point across)

58.9 to 71.2 fps (20.9% improvement)

 

Bioshock Infinite - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality:

82.3 to 102.7 fps (24.8% improvement)

 

Metro: Last Light - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality:

42.6 to 52 fps (22.1% improvement)

 

So as you can tell, with the exception of Metro Last Light, there was a MUCH bigger jump in performance of going from a 760 to a 770 than from an i3 to i5.

Yes there ARE cpu intensive games out there and Metro: Last Light is proof of that 
but GENERALLY most intensive triple A titles are gpu intensive nowadays so for an all around average gamer this option might be better

 

Yes the i5 in Austin's video was probably not overclocked
but overclocking probably wont be the difference in outperforming this option, and overclocking would require a Z97 mobo and a cooler so It is much more expensive

 

Yes games might start using more cores

but the i3 has hyperthreading and we've been hearing that for quite some time now and is it really gunna happen soon enough within THIS build's generation that its worth it for "future proofing"?

So, with most the common arguments out of the way what do you guys think?  

BONUS ROUND:

Ok so now I'll really be stretching it here buuuut would an i3 bottleneck a 290? (I"ll probably go with yes but I'd be curious for actual benchmarks to confirm)
the argument of a 780 in Austin's video being enough to "flex that bottleneck" wont really work here but I was curious to see the difference of going from a 770 to a 290 and here are the results:
 

 

Battlefield 3 - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA:

84.4 vs 87.9 (4.1% improvement)

 

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA: (GPU14 has High settings while Austin uses Very High but gets it  the point across)

71.2 vs 77.4 (8.7% improvement)

 

Bioshock Infinite - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality:

102.7 vs 122.9 fps (19.7% improvement)

 

Metro: Last Light - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality:

52 vs 68.8 fps (32.3% improvement)


Very Interesting results we have here. So basically besides battlefield 3 which is an nvidia game, a 290 with an i3 is better than a 770 and an i5 EVEN IN METRO LAST LIGHT. I'm not sure how to feel right now. We need actual scientific benchmarks comparing these similarly priced. Actually an i5 is $100 more than an i3, and a 290 is around $60 more than an 770 so its even CHEAPER to get an i3 + 290

Edit: Just wanted to add in that this is purely for those making gaming PCs and not for those who might value having more cores or better cpu horsepower.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Z17

[Jade]

All I know is I didn't read the post beyond the first 4 lines because that was annoying as hell.

[Clyne]

You can oc the i3 to minimize the bottlenecking. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Already knew this, just wanted more evidence.

[Excon]

This is very useful for future reference.

[seiny]

But an i3 (depends which one) wouldn't bottle neck a high end gpu generally, people opt for the i5 because of quad core, better multi-threaded performance and a little more future proof than an i3.

[Z17]

But an i3 (depends which one) wouldn't bottle neck a high end gpu generally, people opt for the i5 because of quad core, better multi-threaded performance and a little more future proof than an i3.

Sorry I forgot to mention that this is purely for people making builds for gaming. Yes there are people who need more cores but I don't think the ratio of those people to gamers is 367 to 2. I just made this to help clear some misconceptions

[seiny]

Sorry I forgot to mention that this is purely for people making builds for gaming. Yes there are people who need more cores but I don't think the ratio of those people to gamers is 367 to 2. I just made this to help clear some misconceptions

Some games work better with quad cores

[Coombzy]

You can oc the i3 to minimize the bottlenecking. 

What? the i3 has a locked multiplier

[Clyne]

What? the i3 has a locked multiplier

or just get a g3258 and oc that.

[seiny]

What? the i3 has a locked multiplier

It is still possible to get a light OC out of it, I wouldn't do it though

[Capitalist Jesus]

No, no it won't. Just ask @TheSLSAMG