Will my gtx1070 bottleneck the i5-6600K?

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

But you have an i7 and no bottlenecks. Imagine if your CPU was 30% slower and occasionally you dipped to 70fps?

Hmmm, good point. Moving forward there seems to be less emphasis on the CPU in games but yeah right now it could be an issue. Sell the 6500, buy a 980ti on sale and a better CPU? Would have to be a screaming deal on both but could work. 

[ace_cheaply]

11 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

But you have an i7 and no bottlenecks. Imagine if your CPU was 30% slower and occasionally you dipped to 70fps?

6600k maintains higher averages than stock 4790K, but no OC comparison for 4790k.  Also,  they mention noticeable stutter with the 6600K that isn't there with the 4790K, even though the haswell i7 has lower averages.  So yeah, there will be some noticeable stutter. Whether it's worth it to return and pay more is really up to you to decide, op.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

6600k maintains higher averages than stock 4790K, but no OC comparison for 4790k.  Also,  they mention noticeable stutter with the 6600K that isn't there with the 4790K, even though the haswell i7 has lower averages.

Averages do not tell the whole story. Minimums are the most important.

[xLee]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

Hmmm, good point. Moving forward there seems to be less emphasis on the CPU in games but yeah right now it could be an issue. Sell the 6500, buy a 980ti on sale and a better CPU? Would have to be a screaming deal on both but could work. 

Sell the 6500? What are you talking about?

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

6600k maintains higher averages than stock 4790K, but no OC comparison for 4790k.  Also,  they mention noticeable stutter with the 6600K that isn't there with the 4790K, even though the haswell i7 has lower averages.

That's all RAM speed not the CPU. I know because I can drop my RAM speed and get the same results.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, xLee said:

Sell the 6500? What are you talking about?

I sold my 4690k and just about got my money back. Not Ideal, but if your concern is getting fps you do what you must or make sacrifices in areas outside the money spent. That means setting lowered and fps dips endured. My advice would be to save up and get a 6700k so you're set, but I might have different priorities.

[ace_cheaply]

7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Averages do not tell the whole story. Minimums are the most important.

Which is why I said: 

Also,  they mention noticeable stutter with the 6600K that isn't there with the 4790K, even though the haswell i7 has lower averages.  

And then added: So yeah, there will be some noticeable stutter. Whether it's worth it to return and pay more is really up to you to decide, op.

 

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

That's all RAM speed not the CPU. I know because I can drop my RAM speed and get the same results.

Well, I've seen similar results with the 6600K and 6700K using ddr3l as well. 

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

I sold my 4690k and just about got my money back. Not Ideal, but if your concern is getting fps you do what you must or make sacrifices in areas outside the money spent. That means setting lowered and fps dips endured. My advice would be to save up and get a 6700k so you're set, but I might have different priorities.

I think he's confused because you put 6500, and he has a 6600K.  But, he just ordered it, it hasn't arrived, and he can still return it for a full refund to put to the 6700K.  I would probably do it, OP, but it depends on how much more expensive the 6700K, if you're willing to wait, and if the price is worth getting rid of the occasional stutter. 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

Which is why I said: 

Also,  they mention noticeable stutter with the 6600K that isn't there with the 4790K, even though the haswell i7 has lower averages.  

And then added: So yeah, there will be some noticeable stutter. Whether it's worth it to return and pay more is really up to you to decide, op.

 

Well, I've seen similar results with the 6600K and 6700K using ddr3l as well. 

This is a good comparison that is apples to apples.

 

 

[xLee]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

I sold my 4690k and just about got my money back. Not Ideal, but if your concern is getting fps you do what you must or make sacrifices in areas outside the money spent. That means setting lowered and fps dips endured. My advice would be to save up and get a 6700k so you're set, but I might have different priorities.

Only thing I really want is to have a smooth gaming experience with the cpu and gpu I bought, on a 1080p 144hz monitor, that's about all. No stuttering and no tearing like you guys mention.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, xLee said:

Only thing I really want is to have a smooth gaming experience with the cpu and gpu I bought, on a 1080p 144hz monitor, that's about all. No stuttering and no tearing like you guys mention.

Then you either need a serious OC on the 6600K or an i7

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, xLee said:

Only thing I really want is to have a smooth gaming experience with the cpu and gpu I bought, on a 1080p 144hz monitor, that's about all. No stuttering and no tearing like you guys mention.

Then this

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Then you either need a serious OC on the 6600K or an i7

 

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

This is a good comparison that is apples to apples.

 

 

I don't understand the rationalization that a GTX 970 would paint a more complete picture for cpu bottleneck than a 980ti.  It seems obvious to me that the games are gpu bound, which would make sense that three latest I7's would score the same since they're all pushing the 970 as fast as it can go. You need a top tier card to see cpu bottlenecks, imo. 

[xLee]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

Then this

 

But I'm actually really confused why the i5 is such a problem in this case. From what everyone always said to me is that, you only need an i7 if you're going to do video editing, rendering, and all that stuff. + For gaming, you mostly don't need the 8 threads that are in an i7. 

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

I don't understand the rationalization that a GTX 970 would paint a more complete picture for cpu bottleneck than a 980ti.  It seems obvious to me that the games are gpu bound, which would make sense that three latest I7's would score the same since they're all pushing the 970 as fast as it can go. You need a top tier card to see cpu bottlenecks, imo. 

He uses both, read the description.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

He uses both, read the description.

I see that now.  That is interesting.  

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, xLee said:

But I'm actually really confused why the i5 is such a problem in this case. From what everyone always said to me is that, you only need an i7 if you're going to do video editing, rendering, and all that stuff. + For gaming, you mostly don't need the 8 threads that are in an i7. 

The problem is a lot of people only look at average fps, which is a mistake. You want to also inspect minimum fps and frame times. The move to an i7 will help you with both of those, your average fps may stay the same. I've used both an i5 and i7 and the difference is striking.

[ace_cheaply]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

The problem is a lot of people only look at average fps, which is a mistake. You want to also inspect minimum fps and frame times. The move to an i7 will help you with both of those, your average fps may stay the same. I've used both an i5 and i7 and the difference is striking.

 

7 minutes ago, xLee said:

But I'm actually really confused why the i5 is such a problem in this case. From what everyone always said to me is that, you only need an i7 if you're going to do video editing, rendering, and all that stuff. + For gaming, you mostly don't need the 8 threads that are in an i7. 

This.  An i5 is great for average, but an average isn't at average rates all the time.  The i7 maintains a higher minimum, while the 6600K will get the occasional dip 30% or greater, which causes a slight stutter in the game.  It's not all the time, it's usually only in cpu intensive games, and it's not for very long, but if you want a perfect, buttery smooth gaming experience in EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES, then the i7 is the way to go. 

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

 

This.  An i5 is great for average, but an average isn't at average rates all the time.  The i7 maintains a higher minimum, while the 6600K will get the occasional dip 30% or greater, which causes a slight stutter in the game.  It's not all the time, it's usually only in cpu intensive games, and it's not for very long, but if you want a perfect, buttery smooth gaming experience in EVERYTHING at ALL TIMES, then the i7 is the way to go. 

My little 4690k was a great CPU, fantastic for the money. If the person isn't a perfectionist the i5 is fine. I'm a perfectionist, that stutter breaks the immersion and my mood. Like a girl brining up her boyfriend in bed.

[don_svetlio]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

The problem is a lot of people only look at average fps, which is a mistake. You want to also inspect minimum fps and frame times. The move to an i7 will help you with both of those, your average fps may stay the same. I've used both an i5 and i7 and the difference is striking.

I also want to point out something about that specific YT channel - his results (specifically about lower end hardware like Pentiums) contradict DF and others - according to a vid I saw there - G3258 was getting the same minimums as i5s and that's a lot of BS

[App4that]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

I also want to point out something about that specific YT channel - his results (specifically about lower end hardware like Pentiums) contradict DF and others - according to a vid I saw there - G3258 was getting the same minimums as i5s and that's a lot of BS

I actually trust Hardware unboxed over everyone, him and Duderandom are small enough they seem to offer better real world results. Not perfect, but more accurate to what we as users will see. DF and a lot of other channels have gone a little to commercial for my taste. I still reference them though as data is data.

[xLee]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

My little 4690k was a great CPU, fantastic for the money. If the person isn't a perfectionist the i5 is fine. I'm a perfectionist, that stutter breaks the immersion and my mood. Like a girl brining up her boyfriend in bed.

So how often wil this stutter occur then? I mean, if it's every time in let's say 30sec, then I should probably go and switch my i5 for an i7...

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, xLee said:

So how often wil this stutter occur then? I mean, if it's every time in let's say 30sec, then I should probably go and switch my i5 for an i7...

It depends on the game - but the higher the settings the more often it will happen.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, xLee said:

So how often wil this stutter accur than? I mean, if it's every time in let's say 30sec, then I should probably go and switch my i5 for an i7...

Depends on the game. In the early build of Fallout 4 is was almost constantly. 90% of games are much, much less of an issue though. What you will find is the stronger your CPU the less it has to work and the lower your temps. The i7 being worth the investment is 100% subjective.

[ace_cheaply]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

I also want to point out something about that specific YT channel - his results (specifically about lower end hardware like Pentiums) contradict DF and others - according to a vid I saw there - G3258 was getting the same minimums as i5s and that's a lot of BS

Maybe in Tomb Raider.  Yeah, I love my little G3258 chip.  It hit 4.5ghz @ 1.19Vcore and didn't get above 70C with the stock intel cooler.  But even at 4.8 it had crazy stuttering in some games.