Will my i5-4670K build bottleneck a GTX 1080?

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

One of the users two days ago posted a DSR'd 1440p The Witcher 3 in which an i5-4690k @ 4,5gHz is capped at 100% across all cores and is bottlenecking his OC'd GTX 1070.

I do not believe that. Tell said user to post a video along with his settings please and we'll continue this discussion then, sorry but you've got no credibility with me.

[App4that]

Sometimes you (and I swear I mean no disrespect) to just use common sense to see a bottleneck. If you're playing a game and you see you're not getting the fps your system should be getting. Start tracking down why. Could be the GPU, CPU, or RAM in my experience. But having a strong modern i7 offers a much better level of insurance from experiencing issues.

[Dresta]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I do not believe that. Tell said user to post a video along with his settings please and we'll continue this discussion then, sorry but you've got no credibility with me.

If a newer i5's OCed to @ 4.5Ghz bottleneck a OCed a 1070 why do we even recommend them then? why not just give everyone an i7

[Misanthrope]

Just now, App4that said:

Sometimes you (and I swear I mean no disrespect) to just use common sense to see a bottleneck. If you're playing a game and you see you're not getting the fps your system should be getting. Start tracking down why. Could be the GPU, CPU, or RAM in my experience. But having a strong modern i7 offers a much better level of insurance from experiencing issues.

Use common sense?

 

Umm no offense to you, but no: We can measure this and test it objectively without room for discussion. This isn't some sort of religious or metaphysical debate and "feelings" are completely irrelevant to computing performance.

[App4that]

Just now, Dresta said:

If a newer i5's OCed to @ 4.5Ghz bottleneck a OCed a 1070 why do we even recommend them then? why not just give everyone an i7

Why not? Do we need RGB motherboards? Take all the crap that does nothing for performance and put it into better hardware and you have that i7. 

[ARikozuM]

I still don't understand how you're having issues with Witcher 3. I'm playing it triple 1080@60 with no drops in frames.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Dresta said:

If a newer i5's OCed to @ 4.5Ghz bottleneck a OCed a 1070 why do we even recommend them then? why not just give everyone an i7

Because it costs more for maybe a 5% difference on a very specific scenario and because 99% of gamers, even hardcore gamers, will notice no noticeable performance increase at all?

 

Look I am the first one to recommend and i7 for people streaming, for people wanting to try out virtualization, for people wanting to work with video, etc. I just do not agree with misrepresenting a very limited case scenario and giving people bad advise about a problem they will  never experience.

[Morgan MLGman]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I do not believe that. Tell said user to post a video along with his settings please and we'll continue this discussion then, sorry but you've got no credibility with me.

I'll post a screenshot below. The user is @legacy99.

You can believe it or not, I don't really care, though what would be the point of me lying to you? It's not like I'm an Intel employee trying to sell more i7s.

Just now, ARikozuM said:

I still don't understand how you're having issues with Witcher 3. I'm playing it triple 1080@60 with no drops in frames.

[Dresta]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Why not? Do we need RGB motherboards? Take all the crap that does nothing for performance and put it into better hardware and you have that i7. 

Why not? because of cost,Why do we need RGB Keyboards when we can buy a $2 keyboard instead of paying $170?,Why do we need big monitors?,because of the experience they provide maybe somebody really wants RGB because he likes color over performance

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

I'll post a screenshot

I said video.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

I said video.

Dude, I don't own a 1070. He posted a screenshot in a thread two days ago talking about i5's and said that it limits his GTX 1070 in some games even when DSR'd to 1440p so that's why I'm posting this.

[Dresta]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Because it costs more for maybe a 5% difference on a very specific scenario and because 99% of gamers, even hardcore gamers, will notice no noticeable performance increase at all?

 

Look I am the first one to recommend and i7 for people streaming, for people wanting to try out virtualization, for people wanting to work with video, etc. I just do not agree with misrepresenting a very limited case scenario and giving people bad advise about a problem they will  never experience.

Ik that mean,you misunderstood me i meant if i5's bottleneck why do 95% of users say save money and get a i5,why are they there in that case even? i5's are i7's without HT and are a bit less powerfull

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Dude, I don't own a 1070. 

That's too bad. Means you have to rely on others for your information. I suggest being more diligent and not accepting a single screenshot as conclusive evidence but you're free to do what you want of course.

[App4that]

Gawd, if you just want to argue say so. An i7 makes a huge difference in minimum frame rates. Those are easy to spot as not only does the game look worse but it causes stuttering. As I've used the exact same setup using both an overclocked 4690k and 4790k (4.6 on both) I can tell you the difference is striking. And if you experienced it you wouldn't be arguing.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

That's too bad. Means you have to rely on others for your information. I suggest being more diligent and not accepting a single screenshot as conclusive evidence but you're free to do what you want of course.

Well, look at all the proof that you've given on the other hand. All you did was to contradict what I said and gave nothing to back that up trying to debunk what I bring to the table.

 

Newsflash: 4690K in some locations in The Witcher 3 can limit even an OC'd GTX 970 @ 1080p. I've had my old FX-8350 @4,5gHz max out at 100% on all threads in TW3 with a GTX 970 and the 290X @1200p. (FX-8350 is more powerful across all threads than an i5-4690k).

 

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Gawd, if you just want to argue say so. An i7 makes a huge difference in minimum frame rates. Those are easy to spot as not only does the game look worse but it causes stuttering. As I've used the exact same setup using both an overclocked 4690k and 4790k (4.6 on both) I can tell you the difference is striking. And if you experienced it you wouldn't be arguing.

@Misanthrope see what I mean? He's got first-hand experience with both chips and you're still arguing. I don't get it sometimes, I always value first-hand experience above videos or benchmarks.

[Dresta]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's too bad. Means you have to rely on others for your information. I suggest being more diligent and not accepting a single screenshot as conclusive evidence but you're free to do what you want of course.

 

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

Gawd, if you just want to argue say so. An i7 makes a huge difference in minimum frame rates. Those are easy to spot as not only does the game look worse but it causes stuttering. As I've used the exact same setup using both an overclocked 4690k and 4790k (4.6 on both) I can tell you the difference is striking. And if you experienced it you wouldn't be arguing.

 

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, look at all the proof that you've given on the other hand. All you did was to contradict what I said and gave nothing to back that up trying to debunk what I bring to the table.

 

Newsflash: 4690K in some locations in The Witcher 3 can limit even an OC'd GTX 970 @ 1080p. I've had my old FX-8350 @4,5gHz max out at 100% on all threads in TW3 with a GTX 970 and the 290X @1200p. (FX-8350 is more powerful across all threads than an i5-4690k).

 

@Misanthrope see what I mean? He's got first-hand experience with both chips and you're still arguing. I don't get it sometimes, I always value first-hand experience above videos or benchmarks.

How about we make a conclusion for the OP to consider instead of putting a flame internet war out there?

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Well, look at all the proof that you've given on the other hand. All you did was to contradict what I said and gave nothing to back that up trying to debunk what I bring to the table.

 

Newsflash: 4690K in some locations in The Witcher 3 can limit even an OC'd GTX 970 @ 1080p. I've had my old FX-8350 @4,5gHz max out at 100% on all threads in TW3 with a GTX 970 and the 290X @1200p. (FX-8350 is more powerful across all threads than an i5-4690k).

 

@Misanthrope see what I mean? He's got first-hand experience with both chips and you're still arguing. I don't get it sometimes, I always value first-hand experience above videos or benchmarks.

Do with this what you'd like.

[App4that]

For those wondering why everyone doesn't jump on a i7, because they are told it isn't important by those who have never used both back to back. Why wouldn't you save the money then? Get that one step up in the tier graphics card, right? And watch your performance suffer. But you might not understand it's not supposed to have the issues you accept, how many console players know? You need a frame of reference, which requires having both. 

[ARikozuM]

Just now, App4that said:

For those wondering why everyone doesn't jump on a i7, because they are told it isn't important by those who have never used both back to back. Why wouldn't you save the money then? Get that one step up in the tier graphics card, right? And watch your performance suffer. But you might not understand it's not supposed to have the issues you accept, how many console players know? You need a frame of reference, which requires having both. 

I have many CPU's and GPU's including the latest 1070 and 1080. I've seen very few issues with any of them.

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Do with this what you'd like.

0:40, right screen. CPU pegged at 100% across all 4 threads, GPU fluctuating at 80-90% load. That is exactly what bottleneck is. Not to mention almost 15FPS difference in favor of the i7***. Thank you for that source, although it's not a reputable, trustworthy one.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

I have many CPU's and GPU's including the latest 1070 and 1080. I've seen very few issues with any of them.

You quoted me but didn't read what I said. Were you just looking at your peak fps? Average? Or the minimum fps I'm talking about. 

[Dresta]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

For those wondering why everyone doesn't jump on a i7, because they are told it isn't important by those who have never used both back to back. Why wouldn't you save the money then? Get that one step up in the tier graphics card, right? And watch your performance suffer. But you might not understand it's not supposed to have the issues you accept, how many console players know? You need a frame of reference, which requires having both. 

So your saying i5's suck at gaming and are worthless and that people should cut corners in other parts and grab themselves an i7? if not please explain what you mean

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

0:40, right screen. CPU pegged at 100% across all 4 threads, GPU fluctuating at 80-90% load. That is exactly what bottleneck is. Not to mention almost 15FPS difference in favor of the i5. Thank you for that source, although it's not a reputable, trustworthy one.

It's CPU intensive sections (AI) and the game doesn't even go below acceptable framerate.

 

And as far as trustworthy, it fits everything that makes a benchmark a "benchmark". Repeatable results.

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

You quoted me but didn't read what I said. Were you just looking at your peak fps? Average? Or the minimum fps I'm talking about. 

Minimum. I play triple 1080@60. I need to have above 60fps for smooth gameplay.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Dresta said:

So your saying i5's suck at gaming and are worthless and that people should cut corners in other parts and grab themselves an i7? if not please explain what you mean

No where did I say that, I'm saying a i7 is worth the investment.

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

It's CPU intensive sections (AI) and the game doesn't even go below acceptable framerate.

 

And as far as trustworthy, it fits everything that makes a benchmark a "benchmark". Repeatable results.

Minimum. I play triple 1080@60. I need to have above 60fps for smooth gameplay.

But that's the trick, isn't it? What's acceptable is subjective. I want the smoothest experience possible and a i7 delivers.

[Morgan MLGman]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

It's CPU intensive sections (AI) and the game doesn't even go below acceptable framerate.

JESUS GODDAMN CHRIST...

 

So what? I'm not saying that a 1080 will not work at all when paired with an i5, only that you will be limiting the GPU performance. And that is precisely true, as you have proven in the video that you linked.