disscussion Settle an argument for me; I5 & 1080 or i7 & 1070?

[jninja119]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

BENCHMARKKKKS. This is Unigine Superposition at 1080p (take a look at the FPS )

 

Anyone own an i5+ 1080 combo or an i7 1070 combo? I'd love to see the result!

 

[jninja119]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

What the hell are you talking about? What the fuck is a benchmark for opinions?

 

I said buying a GTX 1080 to play at 1080p is a bad purchase. What is there to benchmark?

There's no need for any benchmark to know that a GTX 1080 will perform better than a 1070. No benchmark will tell you how much to pay for the extra performance.

So, again, what are you talking about?

Also I want to say that this was my original argument, but the difference is that I didn't think the i5 would have any adverse effects. Personally I feel you are still accurate.

[Sanctorum]

50 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i7 and a 1070, an i5 will bottleneck anything above a gtx 1060/ rx580.  

Nope. It will not. You can't just say "oap, it's gonna be a bottleneck". That's false. Go look at a GPU demanding title and you'll notice barely any difference between an i5 and i7 with the same GPU, whether it's an RX 460 or a GTX 1080Ti. Whether or not something is a bottleneck varies from game to game and task to task.

43 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Dude, it does show that the i5 is bottlenecking the 1070....

No, it doesn't. It shows the i7 performing better than the i5, that does not mean the i5 is a bottleneck. It means the i7 is better, which everyone knows. See how the i5 and i7 perform the exact same with the GTX 1060, that's because the GPU is bottlenecking the CPU(s). Once you get up to a high end enough GPU, it lets the i7 pull away from the i5 because the CPU is actually being utilised, this does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking. 

[The Sloth]

8 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Nope. It will not. You can't just say "oap, it's gonna be a bottleneck". That's false. Go look at a GPU demanding title and you'll notice barely any difference between an i5 and i7 with the same GPU, whether it's an RX 460 or a GTX 1080Ti. Whether or not something is a bottleneck varies from game to game and task to task.

No, it doesn't. It shows the i7 performing better than the i5, that does not mean the i5 is a bottleneck. It means the i7 is better, which everyone knows. See how the i5 and i7 perform the exact same with the GTX 1060, that's because the GPU is bottlenecking the CPU(s). Once you get up to a high end enough GPU, it lets the i7 pull away from the i5 because the CPU is actually being utilised, this does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking. 

your last statement is just wrong 

[Sanctorum]

7 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

your last statement is just wrong 

No, it is not. Your retort is horrific. 

 

Saying an i5 is a bottleneck because an i7 performs better is like saying a GTX 1070 bottlenecks an i5 because a GTX 1080 would perform better. That's just ridiculous nonsensical rambling. In fact, if you look at the 16 game average, you'll see that the i7-6700k is about 10% faster overall than a 6600k. Keep in mind that's 3.5GHz vs 4GHz as well, so running the 6600k and 6700k at the same speed would close that gap. <10% difference is NOT a bottleneck.

[The Sloth]

7 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

No, it is not. Your retort is horrific. 

 

1

that's nice to hear 

 

7 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Saying an i5 is a bottleneck because an i7 performs better is like saying a GTX 1070 bottlenecks an i5 because a GTX 1080 would perform better. That's just ridiculous nonsensical rambling. In fact, if you look at the 16 game average, you'll see that the i7-6700k is about 10% faster overall than a 6600k. Keep in mind that's 3.5GHz vs 4GHz as well, so running the 6600k and 6700k at the same speed would close that gap. <10% difference is NOT a bottleneck.

i am just saying a crappy overpriced 4c/4t CPU will get bottlenecked by anything better than a rx480/580/1060, its a fact that an i5 can't keep up with modern powerful GPUs, as games become more multithreaded your argument becomes very dumb. 

 

7 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

6600k and 6700k at the same speed would close that gap. <10% difference is NOT a bottleneck.

much more than that, getting an i5 is not worth it anymore( if you need IGPU get an i3) especially with better value options around. 

 

[Sanctorum]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

i am just saying a crappy overpriced 4c/4t CPU will get bottlenecked by anything better than a rx480/580/1060, its a fact that an i5 can't keep up with modern powerful GPUs, as games become more multithreaded. your argument is very dumb. 

It doesn't really matter what you're "just saying", because you're wrong. "a crappy 4c/4t CPU" will not be bottlenecked by anything more powerful than a mid ranged GPU. Just a year or so ago, people were saying that i5s would bottleneck GTX 970s, now all of a sudden they're fine with GPUs more powerful than a 970? Pull the other one lmfao. It's not a "fact" and just you stating that, means literally nothing. Games haven't become more "multithreaded" though, and you can't tell the future. Don't act like you can. My argument is not "very dumb" and just saying that is entirely pointless. It's a useless ad hominem attack that just further proves your 'argument' has no logic.

3 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

much more than that, getting an i5 is not worth it anymore( if you need IGPU get an i3) especially with better value option. 

No one asked for a straw man, buddy. I never said i5s were worth getting. I said a modern i5 will not bottleneck a GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 just because an i7 performs better.

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

 

 

This video is useless. We're not comparing an i5 and R5, we're comparing i5 vs i7. 

 

Here you go;

Absolutely zero CPU bottlenecking with the GTX 1070. This is an i5-7600k being used FYI. See how the CPU hits 99-100% once or twice, but the GTX 1070 is pretty much always pinned at 99%? That shows the i5 can easily run a more powerful GPU without bottlenecking since if anything, the GTX 1070 is the bottleneck here.

[The Sloth]

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

GTX 1070 is pretty much always pinned at 99%? That shows the i5 can easily run a more powerful GPU without bottlenecking since if anything, the GTX 1070 is the bottleneck here.

yup that 80% usage looks nice on that 1070, 

 

i5 is not the " best cpu for gaming" anymore, there is a clear difference between them, especially in minimums. 

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

This video is useless. We're not comparing an i5 and R5, we're comparing i5 vs i7. 

 

showing that you can get a better cpu rather than a overpriced one.

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

It doesn't really matter what you're "just saying", because you're wrong.

solid argument unless you use logic.

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

a crappy 4c/4t CPU" will not be bottlenecked by anything more powerful than a mid ranged GPU. Just a year or so ago, people were saying that i5s would bottleneck GTX 970s, now all of a sudden they're fine with GPUs more powerful than a 970? Pull the other one lmfao.

 a gpu such as gtx 1070 with a game like BF1, GTA 5, tomb raider, witcher 3  shows a clear difference between a 7700k/6700k and 6600k/7600k, i would much rather get a locked i7( 6700/7700) rather than an unlocked i5. 

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Games haven't become more "multithreaded" though, and you can't tell the future.

yup, more games showing an advantage of non-multithreaded CPU such as ryzen 1600, 7700k, 5960x( multicore CPUs), all the consoles use non-multicore 8 core cpus( sarcasm). 

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

My argument is not "very dumb"

that's an argument hard to beat

 

15 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

It's a useless ad hominem attack that just further proves your 'argument' has no logic.

you are using the word logic without understanding it funny. 

[PCGuy_5960]

57 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

if you look at the 16 game average, you'll see that the i7-6700k is about 10% faster overall than a 6600k. Keep in mind that's 3.5GHz vs 4GHz as well, so running the 6600k and 6700k at the same speed would close that gap. <10% difference is NOT a bottleneck.

And how to you explain that the 3.0GHz 5960X was able to match the 3.5GHz 6600K? (With way better minimums)

[Sanctorum]

14 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

yup that 80% usage looks nice on that 1070

What 80% usage? You mean the very short part in the city of GTA V, the ONLY time the GTX 1070 is not pinned at 99%? Weird that the i5 also is not pinned at 99% in the city of GTA V though, proving it's not a bottleneck, and this is in GTA V, a game that's notoriously demanding on both CPU and GPU. 

15 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

 

i5 is not the " best cpu for gaming" anymore, there is a clear difference between them, especially in minimums. 

You realise this video doesn't back up your claim, right? You also realise I never once said that an i5 is "the best cpu for gaming". Learn how to quote, bud. Minimum FPS is entirely irrelevant. Stop trying to straw man just because you know you're wrong now lmfao. I literally said the i7 is going to perform better, obviously, that doesn't however mean an i5 is a bottleneck. You blatantly don't understand what a bottleneck is. 

17 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

showing that you can get a better cpu rather than a overpriced one.

Wot. That's not what we're talking about though. Like I said, this is another shitty straw man. We're not comparing i5 vs R5. You said that the i5 would bottleneck. It does not.

19 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

solid argument unless you use logic.

What an intelligent, well thought out retort. Amazing.

19 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

 a gpu such as gtx 1070 with a game like BF1, GTA 5, tomb raider, witcher 3  shows a clear difference between a 7700k/6700k and 6600k/7600k, i would much rather get a locked i7( 6700/7700) rather than an unlocked i5. 

A "clear difference" is not the same as bottlenecking though. Again, you blatantly don't understand what a bottleneck is. Also, if you'd rather get a locked i7 rather than an unlocked i5, you're an idiot. An i5-6600k at 4.5GHz will shit all over a locked i7 at 3.4GHz. An unlocked i7 would be better, whether overclocked or not. I never once disputed the fact that an i7 is better than an i5, however. So, this argument is entirely pointless. In fact, time and time again, I've said an i7 will obviously be better than an i5. Again though, that does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking. 

 

However, you're still wrong here. You, yourself have shown proof that with a GTX 1070, there is not a huge difference between the 6700k and 6600k in Tomb Raider, GTA V or Witcher 3.

25 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

yup, more games showing an advantage of non-multithreaded CPU such as ryzen 1600, 7700k, 5960x( multicore CPUs), all the consoles use non-multicore 8 core cpus( sarcasm). 

Lmfao, what gibberish are you talking. You realise 4 cores is "multicore" as well, right? What an absolute nonce. You can't just make this claim and not show proof btw. Again, like I've said, of course the 6700k/7700k perform better than a 6600k/7600k. They're better, higher end CPUs. That doesn't prove that games are going to start requiring more than 4 cores/threads. Just look at R5 vs R7, the R5 has 4 less threads and performs almost identically in games. Again though, you're trying to stick with these straw mans because you know you're wrong on your original point; that an i5 is a bottleneck.

28 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

that's an argument hard to beat

You mean like using ad hominem attacks in the first place? Don't be a hypocrite, buddy.

29 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

you are using the word logic without understanding it funny. 

No, I understand the word logic perfectly well. It's you who has a severe misunderstanding of words here, specifically, "bottleneck".

[PCGuy_5960]

1 hour ago, Sanctorum said:

Once you get up to a high end enough GPU, it lets the i7 pull away from the i5 because the CPU is actually being utilised, this does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking. 

Cool, using the same logic, just get a G4560. It doesn't bottleneck a 1080, it's just that the i7 pulls ahead because it is actually being utilized

[Sanctorum]

7 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

And how to you explain that the 3.0GHz 5960X was able to match the 3.5GHz 6600K? (With way better minimums)

because it's a better CPU? lmfao. I'm not quite sure why you think 6600k vs 5960x is relevant here? Again, we're not comparing Ryzen CPUs, or HEDT, we're comparing 6600k/7600k vs 6700k/7700k. The fact that an 8 core, 16 thread CPU at the same clock speeds(nope, 3GHz vs 3.5, oops. I thought 5960x was 3.5GHz stock for a minute, my bad. But still, the 5960x has 4x as many threads and is performing exactly the same) as a 4 thread CPU is performing EXACTLY the same just further proves my point that the i5 is NOT a bottleneck.

[Sanctorum]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Cool, using the same logic, just get a G4560. It doesn't bottleneck a 1080, it's just that the i7 pulls ahead because it is actually being utilized

That's not the same logic though, like at all. Again, like I said. Going by your logic, a GTX 1070 is a bottleneck because a GTX 1080Ti would perform better.

[The Sloth]

Just now, Sanctorum said:

What 80% usage? You mean the very short part in the city of GTA V, the ONLY time the GTX 1070 is not pinned at 99%? Weird that the i5 also is not pinned at 99% in the city of GTA V though, proving it's not a bottleneck, and this is in GTA V, a game that's notoriously demanding on both CPU and GPU. 

30 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

yup when a cpu is at 95% to 100% usage while gpu is under 90% it would be called a bottleneck

 

2 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Minimum FPS is entirely irrelevant

yup, i love it when my games can drop 60 fps randomly. 

 

3 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

A "clear difference" is not the same as bottlenecking though. Again, you blatantly don't understand what a bottleneck is. Also, if you'd rather get a locked i7 rather than an unlocked i5, you're an idiot. An i5-6600k at 4.5GHz will shit all over a locked i7 at 3.4GHz. An unlocked i7 would be better, whether overclocked or not. I never once disputed the fact that an i7 is better than an i5, however. So, this argument is entirely pointless. In fact, time and time again, I've said an i7 will obviously be better than an i5. Again though, that does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking. 

 

However, you're still wrong here. You, yourself have shown proof that with a GTX 1070, there is not a huge difference between the 6700k and 6600k in Tomb Raider, GTA V or Witcher 3.

look up what a bottleneck is 

 

5 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Lmfao, what gibberish are you talking. You realise 4 cores is "multicore" as well, right? What an absolute nonce. You can't just make this claim and not show proof btw. Again, like I've said, of course the 6700k/7700k perform better than a 6600k/7600k. They're better, higher end CPUs. That doesn't prove that games are going to start requiring more than 4 cores/threads. Just look at R5 vs R7, the R5 has 4 less threads and performs almost identically in games. Again though, you're trying to stick with these straw mans because you know you're wrong on your original point; that an i5 is a bottleneck.

i was talking about CPUs that are more than 4c/4t 

 

5 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

You mean like using ad hominem attacks in the first place? Don't be a hypocrite, buddy.

35 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

the irony is strong with this one 

 

5 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

No, I understand the word logic perfectly well. It's you who has a severe misunderstanding of words here, specifically, "bottleneck".

look it up, it might help 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Sanctorum said:

Again, we're not comparing Ryzen CPUs, or HEDT, we're comparing 6600k/7600k vs 6700k/7700k.

You said that the 6700K performs better because it is clocked higher though, which is simply not true. Because if that was the case, the 5960X would be slower than the 6600K (which has higher IPC and it's clocked higher)

3 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

The fact that an 8 core, 16 thread CPU at the same clock speeds as a 4 thread CPU is performing EXACTLY the same just further proves my point that the i5 is NOT a bottleneck.

Wat?  It's clocked at 3GHz and the 6600K is clocked at 3.5.....

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

nope, 3GHz vs 3.5, oops. I thought 5960x was 3.5GHz stock for a minute, my bad. But still, the 5960x has 4x as many threads and is performing exactly the same

No it's not, take a look at the minimums. They are 10% higher, which means that gameplay is a lot smoother....

[Sanctorum]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

yup when a cpu is at 95% to 100% usage while gpu is under 90% it would be called a bottleneck

I know, and in the video I provided, the GTX 1070 is pinned at 99% the entire time, apart from the city of GTA V. Even then, the CPU is not at 95-100% so the CPU clearly is not a bottleneck.

1 minute ago, nerdslayer1 said:

yup, i love it when my games can drop 60 fps randomly. 

Again, straw man. Stop resorting to this shit since you can;t actually back up your initial claim. If you want to prove an i5 bottlenecks a GTX 1070, show me a video of a GTX 1070 running <80% and the i5 pinned at 100%. Obviously in a single CPU heavy game/task does NOT count. 

2 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

look up what a bottleneck is 

This is the most stupid thing I've ever read. I know exactly what a bottleneck is, hence why I've proven you wrong on your claim that an i5 would bottleneck a GTX 1070. Also, telling me to "look up" something is a terrible argument lmfao. How about instead, you try to provide proof for your baseless claims? That tends to be how 'arguments' work, not you throwing out straw man after straw man with a bunch of ad hominem attacks thrown in.

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i was talking about CPUs that are more than 4c/4t 

Doesn't matter what you were talking about, 4 core CPUs are still "multicore" lmfao. You're ridiculous sarcasm made no sense.

4 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

the irony is strong with this one 

Calling you a "hypocrite" is an ad hominem attack? I don't think you know what irony means.

5 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

look it up, it might help 

No need. Like I said, I understand it perfectly well. Again, like the last thing you told me to "look up", that's just not how an 'argument' works, good try though lmfao.

[2bitmarksman]

I would say it highly depends on the game. The i7 and 1070 has a lower potential max and average FPS but should have better minimum 1% and .1% averages while the i5 and 1080 will perform better with lower CPU demanding games and higher average fps. Personally I'd take the i7 build over the i5 build.

 

 

EDIT: The reason I'd take the i7 build over the i5 is because I notice frame drops far more often than getting 90 fps over 80 fps.

[The Sloth]

6 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

 

 

not even going to try, irony is something you don't get, I really don't care anymore. 

4 minutes ago, 2bitmarksman said:

I would say it highly depends on the game. The i7 and 1070 has a lower potential max and average FPS but should have better minimum 1% and .1% averages while the i5 and 1080 will perform better with lower CPU demanding games and higher average fps. Personally I'd take the i7 build over the i5 build.

not just you, every reasonable person will, especially with fewer drops in performance.  

[Sanctorum]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You said that the 6700K performs better because it is clocked higher though, which is simply not true.

Of course it's true. The same as a 6600k at 4GHz will perform better than a 6600k at 3.5GHz. I never said clock speed alone was the only reason the i7 performed better. In fact, I've stated multiple times that of course the i7 will perform better. That does not mean the i5 is bottlenecking.

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Because if that was the case, the 5960X would be slower than the 6600K (which has higher IPC and it's clocked higher)

Nope, that's not how it works. You can't compare a 5960s to a 6600k the same way you cancompare a 6700k to the 6600k since 6600k and 6700k are Skylake architecture, whereas the 5960x is Haswell. There are architectural differences. Again, just because the 8 core, 16 thread CPU is performing on par with the 4 thread chip doesn't make the i5 a bottleneck. By that logic, the 5960x is a bottleneck.

9 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Wat?  It's clocked at 3GHz and the 6600K is clocked at 3.5.....

Already corrected that.

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No it's not, take a look at the minimums. They are 10% higher, which means that gameplay is a lot smoother....

Yes, 4 threads are pretty shitty for minimum FPS. I meant the avg FPS with the 5960x was the exact same as the 6600k. Which just means the 6600ks max FPS was higher than the 5960x. I concur that 6 or more threads are better for min FPS though, and will have less stuttering assuming the threads are fast enough. Again though, for the umpteenth time, this does not make the i5 a bottleneck. Whether the i5 is a good option or not is irrelevant.

[Sanctorum]

2 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

not even going to try, irony is something you don't get, I really don't care anymore. 

What an incredibly intelligent retort. Totally on topic and relevant to the discussion. Again, telling me I don't understand words means literally nothing. I'm perfectly capable of understanding the English language, I studied it for many boring years. Words aren't as hard to understand as you seem to think. If you're going to claim I'm being ironic, the least you could do is prove it, like any of your other claims. Just a shame you've yet to show ANY proof for ANY of your claims.

[PCGuy_5960]

3 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

Nope, that's not how it works. You can't compare a 5960s to a 6600k the same way you cancompare a 6700k to the 6600k since 6600k and 6700k are Skylake architecture, whereas the 5960x is Haswell. There are architectural differences. Again, just because the 8 core, 16 thread CPU is performing on par with the 4 thread chip doesn't make the i5 a bottleneck. By that logic, the 5960x is a bottleneck.

At 3GHz, the 5960X is a big bottleneck 

BTW:

"A bottleneck occurs when there is some restrictive element holding back the performance that could otherwise be achieved"

Is the i5 holding back the performance that the same GPU can achieve with an i7? Yes. This is why an i5 is a bottleneck. If you use a different definition, the i5 isn't a bottleneck, but this is the one I use and this is why I think the i5 is bottlenecking a 1080/1070

[Sanctorum]

2 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

At 3GHz, the 5960X is a big bottleneck 

I'm not talking at about 3GHz. 5960x overclocked to 4.5GHz or so will still perform worse than a 6700k/7700k at the same or higher clock speeds. That would mean, by your logic, that the 5960x is a bottleneck, even at 4.5GHz. Which, of course is not true.

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

"A bottleneck occurs when there is some restrictive element holding back the performance that could otherwise be achieved"

Is the i5 holding back the performance that the same GPU can achieve with an i7? Yes. This is why an i5 is a bottleneck. If you use a different definition, the i5 isn't a bottleneck, but this is the one I use and this is why I think the i5 is bottlenecking a 1080/1070

Yes, I know what a bottleneck is. Though, as I've shown, the i5-6600k/7600k does not hold back a GTX 1070. Hence the i5 will not bottleneck a GTX 1070. If the i5 was a bottleneck, you'd see little to no increase in performance from a GTX 1070 to a GTX 1080, or even 1080Ti if you were using an i5. This, is not the case, since a 1080Ti will still perform significantly better than a 1070 if you have an i5. Know why? It's because the i5 is not a bottleneck. Again, I really don't know how to make this clearer, just because an i7 performs better than i5, does not mean the i5 is holding anything back. In the same way that an i7-6700k paired with a GTX 1080 is going to perform better than an i7-6700k with a GTX 1070. This does not mean the GTX 1070 is holding the i7 back, it means the GTX 1080 is a better GPU. Pair a dual core Haswell Pentium with a GTX 1070/1080 and the GTX 1070/1080 will perform significantly worse, as in you'd see literally no improvement with a 1070 over a 1060 because the Pentium is bottlenecking.

 

 

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

If the i5 was a bottleneck, you'd see little to no increase in performance from a GTX 1070 to a GTX 1080, or even 1080Ti if you were using an i5.

23 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

"A bottleneck occurs when there is some restrictive element holding back the performance that could otherwise be achieved"

Is the i5 holding back the performance that the same GPU can achieve with an i7? Yes. This is why an i5 is a bottleneck. If you use a different definition, the i5 isn't a bottleneck, but this is the one I use and this is why I think the i5 is bottlenecking a 1080/1070

It's all a matter of definition then 

6 minutes ago, Sanctorum said:

If the i5 was a bottleneck, you'd see little to no increase in performance from a GTX 1070 to a GTX 1080, or even 1080Ti if you were using an i5.

That's an extreme CPU bottleneck IMO. As I said this is the definition I use:

23 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

"A bottleneck occurs when there is some restrictive element holding back the performance that could otherwise be achieved"

And the i5 is slightly holding back the performance you can achieve, so according to my definition, it is a bottleneck. According to yours it isn't