Bought a new GTX 1070, need new CPU/Mobo

[Oohnashville]

Hello! I recently bought a GTX 1070 FTW edition, and I have unfortunately realised that it is being bottlenecked by my CPU (i5 2500k, OC'd to 4.5GHz). My PC build is about 2-3 years old, so I think it would be fair to say I'm in need of a pretty good upgrade.

 

I was trying to figure out what CPU / Mobo to buy, and I would love to have your suggestions to have a system able to feed my brand new GTX 1070.

 

I will be shopping in Canada, Quebec, and would love to receive the parts asap (So I will probably be buying my stuff from Canada Computers)

I would love to have any suggestions, and also, this is what I currently thought of getting at first:

i5-6600K : http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=4_1210_65&item_id=086201

ASUS H170 Pro Gaming 3 : http://www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=26_1207_1206_1460&item_id=089606

These are my current specs:

CPU: i5 2500k @ 4.5GHz
GPU: GTX 1070 FTW
MOBO: Z68 Extreme3 Gen3
RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz (Should I also upgrade my memory?)

Thanks a lot for your suggestions / help! 

[Herbz]

i5 6600k is good but go for z170 not h170 as z170 has better features and overclocking abilities. 

[forthe48]

3 minutes ago, Herbz said:

i5 6600k is good but go for z170 not h170 as z170 has better features and overclocking abilities. 

^This. If you're going to get a 6600K, get a Z170 motherboard so that you can properly overclock it. Also, if you don't have one already, take note that Unlocked Skylake CPUs ("K" series) do not come with CPU coolers, so you'll need to order one.

 

Also, I think 8GB of RAM is fine for now unless you're heavily multitasking. Maybe check out task manager or resource monitor while your PC is under typical load and see how much memory is being used.

[HKZeroFive]

If you're upgrading to Skylake, you'll need to upgrade your RAM to DDR4.

 

On top of that, you can't overclock with a H170 motherboard, you'll need a Z170 to do so.

[iLoiter]

Are you sure you want to upgrade? You will only get about around 20 percent in terms with single and multi threaded performance with 450$ down the drain.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500K/3503vs619

[Oohnashville]

1 hour ago, forthe48 said:

^This. If you're going to get a 6600K, get a Z170 motherboard so that you can properly overclock it. Also, if you don't have one already, take note that Unlocked Skylake CPUs ("K" series) do not come with CPU coolers, so you'll need to order one.

 

Also, I think 8GB of RAM is fine for now unless you're heavily multitasking. Maybe check out task manager or resource monitor while your PC is under typical load and see how much memory is being used.

I don't do that much multitasking, but my RAM can get very high (80-90%), I'll probably see if it's worthwhile to get more when I upgrade to DDR4!
Thank you for the suggestion, I will definitely keep that in mind!

 

 

57 minutes ago, iLoiter said:

Are you sure you want to upgrade? You will only get about around 20 percent in terms with single and multi threaded performance with 450$ down the drain.

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500K/3503vs619

I would love to keep my i5-2500k, but I believe this is the problem that is causing my GTX 1070 to slow down. I have compared to other builds also running a GTX 1070 non-overclocked running a better CPU, and for example, in Rise of the Tomb Raider, they can get up to 110-120 FPS while I only get around 45 FPS, and can't even reach 60 FPS on the lowest settings. (My CPU goes up to 70-80% while playing ROTR, without running anything else)

[typographie]

1 hour ago, Oohnashville said:

I would love to keep my i5-2500k, but I believe this is the problem that is causing my GTX 1070 to slow down. I have compared to other builds also running a GTX 1070 non-overclocked running a better CPU, and for example, in Rise of the Tomb Raider, they can get up to 110-120 FPS while I only get around 45 FPS, and can't even reach 60 FPS on the lowest settings. (My CPU goes up to 70-80% while playing ROTR, without running anything else)

I actually own an i5-6600K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 1070. If you want to, run the in-game benchmark (using the highest settings preset with vsync off) and post the results. I'll try to remember to do the same when I get home (I'm at work). I'm curious to see how far behind you are, and if the difference is what I'd expect from a 2500K to a 6600K… you make it sound like it's way, way worse than that.

[Oohnashville]

1 hour ago, typographie said:

I actually own an i5-6600K @ 4.5 GHz and a GTX 1070. If you want to, run the in-game benchmark (using the highest settings preset with vsync off) and post the results. I'll try to remember to do the same when I get home (I'm at work). I'm curious to see how far behind you are, and if the difference is what I'd expect from a 2500K to a 6600K… you make it sound like it's way, way worse than that.

Sure thing! Here are the results:

I put everything to very high, even PureHair, Shadows and Sun Soft Shadows.
I also included a picture of my CPU's peak usage during the benchmark, which occurred during the second part of the benchmark. (Syria) ROTR used a whopping 86% of my CPU. (I know I should've closed Chrome and everything, but I thought it wouldn't truly affect performance)

 

Also, during the third phase of the benchmark, textures had a lot of trouble loading, a lot of them popped up during the benchmark itself.

[Oohnashville]

I also played through the first 15 minutes of the Syria part of the game, all at highest settings.

I averaged 40-55 FPS, and here is an example of my GPU load / CPU usage during those 15 minutes.

[typographie]

5 hours ago, Oohnashville said:

snip

Texture/model pop-in is normal in that benchmark, I think. It is a bit worrying to see, but it happens when I run it, and I've seen it happen on Youtube tech channels as well. Running the benchmark multiple times seems to lessen it some.

 

--

 

I wasn't sure what settings you used on the "display" tab. You said max everything, so I used DirectX 12 mode with 4x SSAA in addition to the settings you showed above. I kept it in borderless windowed mode so I could take screenshots with the PrtScn key, since the Steam overlay doesn't work in DX12 mode and therefore F12 does nothing.

 

My Strix GTX 1070 at stock normally sits around 1800 MHz during gameplay, so I bumped it up a bit to more closely match your more godly EVGA FTW version.

 

 

 

Annnnd.. our results are probably within the margin of error of each other. Assuming we used the same settings, including that devastating SSAA 4x setting, I think your results are normal and to be expected. This game is not particularly CPU-intensive. As you can see above, my CPU spiked to only 79% usage during the benchmark and that was only while loading new scenes. During the scene my CPU languished around 20-25%. My GPU was at 100% the entire run, and I bet yours was too.

 

My advice for actual gameplay is to turn off SSAA and play with SMAA instead. Most of the benchmarks you've seen are probably run using SMAA. SSAA is a vanity feature; it is a brute force method of anti-aliasing where the game is rendered at a much higher resolution and then downsampled to your native res. You shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to play with that on. With only SMAA, my averages are suddenly 90-130 FPS.

[Djxinator]

3 hours ago, Oohnashville said:

I also played through the first 15 minutes of the Syria part of the game, all at highest settings.

I averaged 40-55 FPS, and here is an example of my GPU load / CPU usage during those 15 minutes.

Heh, I was running a 2500K @ 4.6 with my 980ti for about a year before upgrading my CPU. 

IMO, its only worth upgrading from a 2500K to a 6700K, especially if you have it at 4.5Ghz. I used to close all my Chrome tabs when playing games on my i5, crank up the AA and AF to max and I'm running at 1440p. The only difference I've seriously found since moving to an i7 is I can now leave my chrome tabs open and stuff running on my second screen without the fear of running out of CPU cycles, and its easier to run less GPU heavy games at my native refresh rate of 144hz.

If you simply switched to a new i5 you would still be limited in your CPU resources and heavy multitasking would remain very similar.

[Oohnashville]

6 hours ago, typographie said:

Texture/model pop-in is normal in that benchmark, I think. It is a bit worrying to see, but it happens when I run it, and I've seen it happen on Youtube tech channels as well. Running the benchmark multiple times seems to lessen it some.

 

--

 

I wasn't sure what settings you used on the "display" tab. You said max everything, so I used DirectX 12 mode with 4x SSAA in addition to the settings you showed above. I kept it in borderless windowed mode so I could take screenshots with the PrtScn key, since the Steam overlay doesn't work in DX12 mode and therefore F12 does nothing.

 

My Strix GTX 1070 at stock normally sits around 1800 MHz during gameplay, so I bumped it up a bit to more closely match your more godly EVGA FTW version.

 

 

 

Annnnd.. our results are probably within the margin of error of each other. Assuming we used the same settings, including that devastating SSAA 4x setting, I think your results are normal and to be expected. This game is not particularly CPU-intensive. As you can see above, my CPU spiked to only 79% usage during the benchmark and that was only while loading new scenes. During the scene my CPU languished around 20-25%. My GPU was at 100% the entire run, and I bet yours was too.

 

My advice for actual gameplay is to turn off SSAA and play with SMAA instead. Most of the benchmarks you've seen are probably run using SMAA. SSAA is a vanity feature; it is a brute force method of anti-aliasing where the game is rendered at a much higher resolution and then downsampled to your native res. You shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to play with that on. With only SMAA, my averages are suddenly 90-130 FPS.

I launched the game when I saw your message to disable SSAA, and boy did that make a difference. At the place where I was getting 45 fps, I was suddenly boosted to 85-90 FPS. I also tested out Witcher 3 fully maxed, hairworks and all the jazz, and I was running it at around 65-85 FPS, depending on the location. My CPU is still going to 80-100% on most games, but I'm happy to see that I am getting better results than yesterday!

Thank you very much for taking the time to do the benchmark and for all the help and suggestions, I really appreciate it!

[typographie]

8 minutes ago, Oohnashville said:

I launched the game when I saw your message to disable SSAA, and boy did that make a difference. At the place where I was getting 45 fps, I was suddenly boosted to 85-90 FPS. I also tested out Witcher 3 fully maxed, hairworks and all the jazz, and I was running it at around 65-85 FPS, depending on the location. My CPU is still going to 80-100% on most games, but I'm happy to see that I am getting better results than yesterday!

Thank you very much for taking the time to do the benchmark and for all the help and suggestions, I really appreciate it!

No problem, and for what it's worth I see very similar performance in The Witcher 3. That was one of the first things I tried when I got my 1070.

 

Don't worry about seeing your CPU hit high load percentages, especially in a demanding game like The Witcher 3. If you're hitting 99-100% CPU load at the same time that that you have a poor framerate and your GPU can't seem to make it past 70% or so, then you might benefit from a new CPU. 80%+ in games while you have good performance just means your hardware is getting used to it's potential.