Bottlenecky?

[AdvancedKittyWarfer]

Hi there! I'm still making up my mind on what I'm gonna use for my build but would a 2x970 Sli bottleneck on a i5 6500? And another question would 2x RX480's crossfire bottleneck on a i5 6500?

[Tommie55555]

I don't think either configuration would bottleneck on an i5 6500.

[Himommies]

Neither but just get 1 1070 because scaling issuses

[stealth80]

ive got 2x 970s on a 4790k with zero issues

[AdvancedKittyWarfer]

1 minute ago, Himommies said:

Neither but just get 1 1070 because scaling issuses

Problem being a 1070 costs 600$ in my country and a 970 costs nearly 220$ and a rx480 costs 280$ 8gb version and 230$ for 4gb version

[TheRandomness]

5 minutes ago, AdvancedKittyWarfer said:

Problem being a 1070 costs 600$ in my country and a 970 costs nearly 220$ and a rx480 costs 280$ 8gb version and 230$ for 4gb version

Just get a single 1060 or RX 480, do not bother with xfire/SLI. 

[Tommie55555]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Just get a single 1060 or RX 480, do not bother with xfire/SLI. 

Why not? Any game that doesn't support SLI will run fine on a single GTX 970 anyway.

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Tommie55555 said:

Why not? Any game that doesn't support SLI will run fine on a single GTX 970 anyway.

Because both the 1060 and 480 are more powerful than the 970 for a very similar price. 

[ARikozuM]

There won't be any bottlenecks. I see you've looked into 1070's but have you looked into 980Ti's?

[Tommie55555]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Because both the 1060 and 480 are more powerful than the 970 for a very similar price. 

It seems to me as if the GTX 970 and the RX 480 are very similar in performance.

If OP is planning on buying two graphics cards, then dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 is probably a better idea than dual GTX 970.

But if OP already has one GTX 970 and is planning on buying a second one (which is what I assumed was the case in my previous reply), then getting a second GTX 970 is a better idea.

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Tommie55555 said:

It seems to me as if the GTX 970 and the RX 480 are very similar in performance.

If OP is planning on buying two graphics cards, then dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 is probably a better idea than dual GTX 970.

But if OP already has one GTX 970 and is planning on buying a second one (which is what I assumed was the case in my previous reply), then getting a second GTX 970 is a better idea.

970 and 480 are at similar levels of performance now, but wait for driver improvements and widespread adoption of DX12/Vulcan (3~ months for the drivers, idk for APIs). 

[Tommie55555]

Just now, TheRandomness said:

970 and 480 are at similar levels of performance now, but wait for driver improvements and widespread adoption of DX12/Vulcan (3~ months for the drivers, idk for APIs). 

Even in Vulcan the GTX 970 and RX 480 seem similar in performance, and I don't think drivers are going to be a massive improvement. Even so, dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 will probably be a little bit better than a GTX 970. Though, as I said, if OP already has one GTX 970, it's probably better to buy a second GTX 970 than to buy two RX 480's or GTX 1060's.

[MMKing]

Bottleneck is a mismatch between CPU performance and GPU performance. Depending on which game you are playing, either component is gonna be taxed at 100%, while the other is not. Total war games for example, or hearts of iron 4 is naturally gonna be more taxing on the CPU. While The Witcher 3 and Doom is gonna be more taxing on the GPU. It all depends on which games you prefer to play.

 

Also, on the topic of Crossfire 480 vs Sli 970. Definitely the 480s, simply due to the Vram difference. But since you already got a 970, i don't suppose it's gonna be a huge issue at 1080p.

[ace_cheaply]

41 minutes ago, Tommie55555 said:

Even in Vulcan the GTX 970 and RX 480 seem similar in performance, and I don't think drivers are going to be a massive improvement. Even so, dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 will probably be a little bit better than a GTX 970. Though, as I said, if OP already has one GTX 970, it's probably better to buy a second GTX 970 than to buy two RX 480's or GTX 1060's.

You cannot run dual 1060's, nvidia removed the sli fingers.  

 

 

480 crossfiee will scale better than 970 sli.  

 

 

Also, 970 sli is about equal to a 980ti, which is bottleneckes at 1080p 144hz, but likely not 1440 or 4k, or 1080p60, but that's kind of a waste.

[ace_cheaply]

49 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

970 and 480 are at similar levels of performance now, but wait for driver improvements and widespread adoption of DX12/Vulcan (3~ months for the drivers, idk for APIs). 

By the time widespread adoption of dx12 or vulkan becomes a thing, these cards will be pretty much obsolete.  O mean the slate of dx12 games isn't exactly overwhelming, with very few being designed for it from the ground up.

[AdvancedKittyWarfer]

1 hour ago, Tommie55555 said:

It seems to me as if the GTX 970 and the RX 480 are very similar in performance.

If OP is planning on buying two graphics cards, then dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 is probably a better idea than dual GTX 970.

But if OP already has one GTX 970 and is planning on buying a second one (which is what I assumed was the case in my previous reply), then getting a second GTX 970 is a better idea.

In this case this is a new build and no componets are bought yet so I can either buy 2x rx 480's or 2x 970's because both do very well in 4K because of Sli and at the cheap price of 500$ compared to the 1070 being 600$ in my country it seems as a better choice 

[ARikozuM]

26 minutes ago, AdvancedKittyWarfer said:

In this case this is a new build and no componets are bought yet so I can either buy 2x rx 480's or 2x 970's because both do very well in 4K because of Sli and at the cheap price of 500$ compared to the 1070 being 600$ in my country it seems as a better choice 

480's. More VRAM and better performance. I would stick to one and see how it does for you at first. 

[Darkseth]

Why do you even ask?

Even getting ONE SINGLE 970 is a bad idea today, because of it's crippled 3.5gb VRam (that's BARELY enough for 1080p gaming today.)

Sli with 2 GTX 970 is even the most stupid idea you could do honestly. The Performance might be good, but the Settings, you need the double power for, will let the 3.5gb Vram bottleneck. Not usefull.

 

Even without that, Multi-GPU is a stupid idea. Too much power consumption and heat output, Driver problems, Profile problems (many games don't scale that good. Mostly its only +50% fps, or +80% fps at best. rarely more.

 

As long there is a stronger single GPU, multi GPU is NOT worth all the Problems you get with it.

 

Rather get a 1070 than 2 480.

 

Or as long you're at 1080p/60Hz, just get a RX 480 8gb, and be happy with it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

27 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

Even getting ONE SINGLE 970 is a bad idea today, because of it's crippled 3.5gb VRam (that's BARELY enough for 1080p gaming today.)

No, most games today are fine with 3GB at most for 1080p gaming. I fired up Crysis 3, GTAV, and Witcher 3 with maxed out settings on 1080p and used GPUz to monitor the VRAM usage. Only GTAV peaked to 3.8GB, but considering that 300+MB was already in use by Windows, GTAV can sit comfortably within the 3.5GB "high performance" limit of the GTX 970. And that's with all the bells and whistles. You can turn a lot of settings down a notch in GTA V, come under the 3GB limit, and still have the game look pretty. The other two games didn't even top out over 2GB.

 

So for 1080p gaming still, 2-3GB is enough. Maybe 4GB, but there's no point in going beyond 4GB.

[Darkseth]

That*s because there is no more room.
There are several games, that don't allow highest settings with not enough Vram.

 

Plus: Right now, the Driver prevents the Games from using the slow 500 mb. When the Driver support gets worse, this might be a Problem.

still: There exists literealy NO reason to get a GTX 970, when even a RX 470 4gb is a better Card.

 

But no.... 2gb is absolutely NOT enough for 1080p Gaming. Except you want to tone down Settings. 2gb could be filled 4 years ago already. 3gb is maybe the Bare low minimum in a todays  midrange class.

 

4gb is Bare minimum that one should buy this year, for anything more then pure entry level. 4gb is "okay/enough/fine" for 1080p today. Yes.

But what in 1 year? or 2? 

Like i said, 4gb already has some minor problems in a few games/settings, and it will be more in the Future.

 

And Textures cost almost NO performance, just VRam. But can give a Lot more picture quality

 

No reason to buy cheap vram cripples just to save a few bucks. You will Regret HARD buying a 970 today.

[Mira Yurizaki]

 

14 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

That*s because there is no more room.
There are several games, that don't allow highest settings with not enough Vram.

 

Plus: Right now, the Driver prevents the Games from using the slow 500 mb. When the Driver support gets worse, this might be a Problem.

still: There exists literealy NO reason to get a GTX 970, when even a RX 470 4gb is a better Card.

 

But no.... 2gb is absolutely NOT enough for 1080p Gaming. Except you want to tone down Settings. 2gb could be filled 4 years ago already. 3gb is maybe the Bare low minimum in a todays  midrange class.

 

4gb is Bare minimum that one should buy this year, for anything more then pure entry level. 4gb is "okay/enough/fine" for 1080p today. Yes.

But what in 1 year? or 2? 

Like i said, 4gb already has some minor problems in a few games/settings, and it will be more in the Future.

 

And Textures cost almost NO performance, just VRam. But can give a Lot more picture quality

 

No reason to buy cheap vram cripples just to save a few bucks. You will Regret HARD buying a 970 today.

Then explain why GPUZ was telling me that Crysis 3 and Witcher 3 weren't peaking above 2GB (and that's with the 300-400MB Windows was taking up).

Provide some actual data to back up your claims plz.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

Anyway, if OP is still following this thread, here's what I can tell you from reviewing my 3DMark runs. Yes an i5-6500 will show some bottlenecking, but it depends on the game. I compared my current system (it has a i7-6700, not the K version, so it sits at 3.4GHz) and my old system (it had a i5-4670K overclocked to 4.0GHz) on 3D Mark runs. For DX9 and DX10 runs, the score was about 2%-5% worse on my current system for the graphics. If there were physics tests involved, the overall score would improve. If there were combined tests involved, the current system did better.

 

So it really depends on the game, but my WAG is you won't experience anymore than 10% performance losses on games that aren't CPU heavy.

[Darkseth]

That's because Wither 3 is very efficient coded. That's actually one game, that looks good and run's fine with 3,5 GB Vram
Other games don't. For example Black Ops 3.

Crysis 3 probably similar efficient. Also of course, depends on your settings.

 

i Might exxaggarate a slight bit. But 3gb today is just stupid... i mean, you would buy today something, that's barely enough for today. But you don't buy a GPU, that you will replace in a half year again.

AC Unity, a 2 year old game, already consumes 3300mb Vram, just on the very light "FXAA" setting (rest maxed out) on my 1060.

Getting up to the similar looking MSAA x4, already 4200 mb~.

TXAA, and it jumps up to 4800 mb. (but fps also drop down to 40... )

 

still. Textures don't cost any performance, just Vram. It's a "free" way to improve visuals.

Check this Video: 

 

A user from a german forum im active made it.

Just focus on the Details on the castle and surroundings, and see what happens with the VRam.

 

Rise of the Tomb Raider can be easily brought up to 6gb Vram consumption, with just settings (1080p). 

 

Low settings: http://abload.de/image.php?img=rottr_2016_08_07_13_41euq5.jpg

 

Max settings: http://abload.de/image.php?img=rottr_2016_08_07_13_4xtujb.jpg

 

It's better to have Vram, than need vram

 

Edit: Of course...  Having "only" 4gb ram, or 3,5 is not really an issue at all for anyone, who knows how to use Setting sliders.

I was talking purely about the szenario, to "max" everything out as much as possible.

Anyone who doesnt Care if he has highest or 2nd highest settings, will be just fine with 4gb Ram.

 

However keep in Mind: In 2 or 3 Years, 4gb can be an issue in 1080p, just like 2gb can be a huge problem/bottleneck today.

[AdvancedKittyWarfer]

4 hours ago, Tommie55555 said:

It seems to me as if the GTX 970 and the RX 480 are very similar in performance.

If OP is planning on buying two graphics cards, then dual RX 480 or GTX 1060 is probably a better idea than dual GTX 970.

But if OP already has one GTX 970 and is planning on buying a second one (which is what I assumed was the case in my previous reply), then getting a second GTX 970 is a better idea.

In this case this is a new build and no componets are bought yet so I can either buy 2x rx 480's or 2x 970's because both do very well in 4K because of Sli and at the cheap price of 500$ compared to the 1070 being 600$ in my country it seems as a better choice 

[AdvancedKittyWarfer]

1 hour ago, Darkseth said:

Why do you even ask?

Even getting ONE SINGLE 970 is a bad idea today, because of it's crippled 3.5gb VRam (that's BARELY enough for 1080p gaming today.)

Sli with 2 GTX 970 is even the most stupid idea you could do honestly. The Performance might be good, but the Settings, you need the double power for, will let the 3.5gb Vram bottleneck. Not usefull.

 

Even without that, Multi-GPU is a stupid idea. Too much power consumption and heat output, Driver problems, Profile problems (many games don't scale that good. Mostly its only +50% fps, or +80% fps at best. rarely more.

 

As long there is a stronger single GPU, multi GPU is NOT worth all the Problems you get with it.

 

Rather get a 1070 than 2 480.

 

Or as long you're at 1080p/60Hz, just get a RX 480 8gb, and be happy with it.

Yes I know the 970 only has dat gud 3.5gb but you see here 2x 970's are 500$ and the 2x rx 480's are 550$ while the 1070 is 600$ in my country but 2x rx 480's xan out performe the 1070 by a very good gap.

[TheSuspect]

Either cpus will be fine with both mentioned rigs. But maybe look into a single card setup if I were you.