GTX 1070

[browsetheweb]

Would a 6500 bottle neck a 1070 on a 1080p 144-180Hz monitor on LoL and other various FPS like H1Z1 or The Division?

[Franpadi]

no as long as you have a quad core with 3,2 ghz you will not bottleneck a thing

[carsonwen]

At that resolution, it definitely can become a bottleneck depending on the game. Remember that you will always have cpu bottlenecks on games that are poorly optimized for multi thread utilisation. For example Guild wars 2, you will have less than 20 FPS in hugely populated areas even with a 6700k clocked to 4.8 GHz. Poor multithread utilisation.

 

But yes it definitely can bottleneck, but not in a noticeable way. whether it is relevant though is another matter. For example does it really matter if you have 170 FPS instead of 180 due to CPU bottleneck? will you see or notice it?

[Franpadi]

also if the guys at pc part picker made it you know its ok

https://pcpartpicker.com/guide/d3BD4D/great-gaming-build

[Franpadi]

Just now, carsonwen said:

At that resolution, it definitely can become a bottleneck depending on the game. Remember that you will always have cpu bottlenecks on games that are poorly optimized for multi thread utilisation. For example Guild wars 2, you will have less than 20 FPS in hugely populated areas even with a 6700k clocked to 4.8 GHz. Poor multithread utilisation.

 

But yes it definitely can bottleneck, but not in a noticeable way. whether it is relevant though is another matter. For example does it really matter if you have 170 FPS instead of 180 due to CPU bottleneck? will you see or notice it?

99,9 percent of games will never use more than 4 or 8 threads

[ace_cheaply]

31 minutes ago, Franpadi said:

no as long as you have a quad core with 3,2 ghz you will not bottleneck a thing

You are wrong here for 144hz.  For 60 hz this is largely true, but at 120+ you will start getting very annoying drops in frametimes that translate as stutters. 

[browsetheweb]

14 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

You are wrong here for 144hz.  For 60 hz this is largely true, but at 120+ you will start getting very annoying drops in frametimes that translate as stutters. 

So then I should stick with a 6600k?

[carsonwen]

I thought you said 6500. A 6600k is fine and is pretty much as good as it gets for gaming.

[browsetheweb]

Just now, carsonwen said:

I thought you said 6500. A 6600k is fine and is pretty much as good as it gets for gaming.

Yes I did say 6500. But was just checking if 6600k would be a better fit.

[carsonwen]

For gaming the 6600k overclocked is as good as it gets really, assuming you don't need the cores on the 6700k for other work. If you still get bottleneck (is still possible at low resolutions), it doesn't really matter since theres nothing that will change that.

[ace_cheaply]

6 minutes ago, browsetheweb said:

So then I should stick with a 6600k?

6600k does have the same issue, albeit much less frequently.  You can see what I mean here:

 

 

If you take a look at the frame time graph on the lower righthand corner you can see the large dips much more frequently than with the i7 at high frame rates.  Although once overclocked the frame rates are closer, you still get the most out of the titan x (1070) with the 6700K with a higher average, and much less frame time drops.  Every time you see the graph drop under 20ms it is a noticeable stutter in gameplay.  The 6700k isn't perfect, but it is better for high frame rates.  That said, a higher overclock might help, and you might be able to live with the stutter for the $100 in you pocket.