rx 460 & rx 470

[OVD1234]

I now know that the RX470 will bottleneck my i7 920 but what performance will the rx 470 be like (which card) and the rx 460 will that bottleneck my cpu

if im f*cked

[don_svetlio]

460 will be fine. It's around a 950 (depending on the game, it's either the same or slightly better)

[xAcid9]

5 minutes ago, OVD1234 said:

I now know that the RX470 will bottleneck my i7 920 but what performance will the rx 470 be like (which card) and the rx 460 will that bottleneck my cpu

if im f*cked

RX-470 is still miles better than RX-460. Get that instead.

[OVD1234]

the rx 470 will bottleneck

[GirlFromYonder]

12 minutes ago, OVD1234 said:

the rx 470 will bottleneck

overclock your i7 and that bottleneck is not a big problem. Just means you are ready for a cpu upgrade. But if you are not upgrade then yessss you will waste money 

[Flavlus]

bottle neck a quad core ... in games ?? not really .. a few frames at most. Most games dont need more than 4 decent cores which you have. You will be fine even with a 1080 in there. not that much bottle neck.

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Flavlus said:

bottle neck a quad core ... in games ?? not really .. a few frames at most. Most games dont need more than 4 decent cores which you have. You will be fine even with a 1080 in there. not that much bottle neck.

you do realize that the cores of Nahalem are weaker than Vishera cores? FX4300 has better IPC than his CPU

[Flavlus]

 

4 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

you do realize that the cores of Nahalem are weaker than Vishera cores? FX4300 has better IPC than his CPU

with most games i reckon is cpu usage will be around 70%  compared to like a skylake which will be like 30% wtill way under 100% which is when you bottle neck

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Flavlus said:

 

with most games i reckon is cpu usage will be around 70%  compared to like a skylake which will be like 30% wtill way under 100% which is when you bottle neck

On my desktop with a 280, CPU usage is around 70% on modern games, friends with Nahalem are seeing constant 100% usage. Nahalam is MUCH older than AMD's FX CPUs - it's also quite a bit slower.

[typographie]

44 minutes ago, OVD1234 said:

I now know that the RX470 will bottleneck my i7 920 but what performance will the rx 470 be like (which card) and the rx 460 will that bottleneck my cpu

if im f*cked

I used an i5-750 at 3.2 GHz for a while with a GTX 770. I won't say my CPU was never the bottleneck, but I rarely had any issue reaching about 60 FPS in games from 2014–15 and earlier. The worst was The Witcher 3, which is fairly demanding of the CPU, but I actually think my 770 was more often the problem in that game.

 

Edit to add: I personally wouldn't shy away from an RX 470 just because of the CPU, especially if you're going to keep the GPU for a system upgrade later on. Even if you're CPU bottlenecked, a faster card can still turn up details higher than a slower card without losing further performance.

[Flavlus]

what , how ?? im seeing like 50% on my 2500k ? Old as hell i5. In fact not even my q6600 maxes out on a lot of games !

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Flavlus said:

what , how ?? im seeing like 50% on my 2500k ? Old as hell i5. In fact not even my q6600 maxes out on a lot of games !

Try a strategy game or a modern AAA game like RotTR or Witcher 3. You'll see your 2500K at 80% or more

[GiSWiG]

43 minutes ago, OVD1234 said:

I now know that the RX470 will bottleneck my i7 920 but what performance will the rx 470 be like (which card) and the rx 460 will that bottleneck my cpu

if im f*cked

What games do you want to play and what is your monitor resolution?

[Flavlus]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Try a strategy game or a modern AAA game like RotTR or Witcher 3. You'll see your 2500K at 80% or more

Yes i have. If i remember correctly Witcher 3 did give me about 80% usage At 4k near max settings but yeah ...80% still means its 20% of starting to bottle neck ??

 

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Flavlus said:

Yes i have. If i remember correctly Witcher 3 did give me about 80% usage At 4k near max settings but yeah ...80% still means its 20% of starting to bottle neck ??

 

Keep in mind, at 4K your CPU usage is MUCH lower than it would be at 1080p - at 1080p, you'd be looking at major bottlenecking issues.

Also remember that Sandy is a 25% improvement over Nahalem and yours is also likely overclocked

[xAcid9]

19 minutes ago, OVD1234 said:

the rx 470 will bottleneck

You can overclock that CPU if you have good mobo and adequate PSU. Also check this review.

 

He used an i3-6100T which clock at 3.2Ghz compare to normal i3-6100@3.7Ghz, your CPU pretty much will perform slower or faster on some games depend on how well the game utilize that extra cores/threads.

 

Check R7-370/GTX950 scores since that is RX-460 performance bracket, the 470 almost double their performance even with this low end i3.

[Flavlus]

2 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Keep in mind, at 4K your CPU usage is MUCH lower than it would be at 1080p - at 1080p, you'd be looking at major bottlenecking issues.

Also remember that Sandy is a 25% improvement over Nahalem and yours is also likely overclocked

but im talking about maybe slightly comeing close to bottlenecking a 980ti .. a 470 and 460 isnt anywhere close to that

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Flavlus said:

but im talking about maybe slightly comeing close to bottlenecking a 980ti .. a 470 and 460 isnt anywhere close to that

2500K bottlenecks the 980 Ti at 1080p by a LOT. At 4K, it's fine, but at 1080p and even 1440p you will see a bottleneck.

You see, Intel CPUs are not magic - the older they get, the shittier they are.

[Flavlus]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

2500K bottlenecks the 980 Ti at 1080p by a LOT. At 4K, it's fine, but at 1080p and even 1440p you will see a bottleneck.

You see, Intel CPUs are not magic - the older they get, the shittier they are.

i guess ill have to test that , i gues i just havent been playing 1080p much sooo...

 

[don_svetlio]

Just now, Flavlus said:

i guess ill have to test that , i gues i just havent been playing 1080p much sooo...

 

[Flavlus]

So apart from witcher no difference 

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, Flavlus said:

So apart from witcher no difference 

Don't you see the bottlenecking taking place between i5s and i7s?

[Flavlus]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Don't you see the bottlenecking taking place between i5s and i7s?

wair i missread the table

[GiSWiG]

The guy is asking about getting a low-end card that will get med-high quality at 1080p on an old CPU and you guys are talking about high end modern CPUs at 4k?

 

My advice:

If you plan on upgrading the CPU/mobo in the near future, 470. If not, 460.

If your monitor is 1080p, 470, 460 if lower.

Can you overclock? maybe 470.

What is the highest CPU you can upgrade to? You might be able to get a bit more out of your mobo with a higher CPU for a cheap price on ebay. ($50-$60 for i7 950 or i7 960) If so, 470 maybe.

 

In any of these situations I'd still verify if you will bottleneck.

[typographie]

12 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Don't you see the bottlenecking taking place between i5s and i7s?

Maybe I'm missing something, but on that chart I see the i5's usually within 5 FPS of similarly-clocked i7's, and just as often equal. The Witcher 3 is the worst-case scenario up there for the i5, and it's 10 FPS slower at 4.5 GHz than a 4.6 GHz i7, once already above 80 FPS, and neither CPU allows anywhere near 120 or 144 FPS. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there—just that there's some detectable difference in performance between $250 and $350 CPUs?