i5 2500 (non K) with GTX 1060--would it bottleneck?

[KikBak]

Right now my rig has an i5 2500 SB (non-K) and a GTX 650 ti video card. Thinking about upgrading card to GX 1060 6 GB. Would that created a bottleneck (too much graphic card for cpu)? Would I be better off with a GTX 1050ti? And mobo is a Gigabyte B75 chipset. Would that board support at 1060 or 1050ti?

 

[mopardude87]

Would be fine with the 1060. Having had a 970 and both the 1050ti at different times with a i5 4460 its gonna be 1070 class gpu that will bottleneck and yeah i tested with a friends i7 3770 system during the BF4 days with his 1070. Resolution does play a big part but for 1080p a 1070 will be bottlenecked. If your playing BF1/BF5 its very likely the 1060 could or could not be bottlenecked too. Depends on how much ram you have and how much you can tolerate stutter and fps drops. The 1060 is closer to the 970 then anything else performance wise i believe. Someone correct me if i am wrong

I had to do a overhaul of my system going from a H81/8gb and a i5 4460 cause just my 1070ti was bottlenecked in pretty much all my games at 1080p and some even at 1440p like BF1. Some of course enjoyably playable while others well it was overdue like BF1.

 

[Midwayman]

Easy way to tell. Set your resolution to like 720p and low settings and play whatever games you like and see what frames you're getting. Compare that to the average fps at the resolution you'll be playing at in reviews.

Though to be honest that CPU might be a problem depending on what you're playing. Non-HT SB took a much bigger hit and no OC really hurts too. I had a 2600k with a similar power GPU. I was frequently running into cpu bottlenecks. Do you have a higher refresh monitor, or just 60hz?

 

[Face2Face]

For most games you'll be fine. ACO and The Division 2 might be problematic, but overall it's a good pairing for 1080p.

 

[AtenRa]

Right now my rig has an i5 2500 SB (non-K) and a GTX 650 ti video card. Thinking about upgrading card to GX 1060 6 GB. Would that created a bottleneck (too much graphic card for cpu)? Would I be better off with a GTX 1050ti? And mobo is a Gigabyte B75 chipset. Would that board support at 1060 or 1050ti?

I would go for the RX 580 8GB. Cheaper than the GTX1060, faster in latest games and better with slower CPUs in DX-12 games.

Also consider the GTX 1660 and you should also remember that AMD NAVI will be announced in June.

All of those cards will be fine with the i5 2500 for single player games.

 

[AtenRa]

For most games you'll be fine. ACO and The Division 2 might be problematic, but overall it's a good pairing for 1080p.

Why Division 2 should be problematic ??? As far as i can see its working fine with the Core i5 2500.

 

[Face2Face]

Why Division 2 should be problematic ??? As far as i can see its working fine with the Core i5 2500.

I said "Might". Nice to see it's handling it well.

 

[ZGR]

It will be a bottleneck in many games, but at 60hz it should be OK.

 

[AtenRa]

I said "Might". Nice to see it's handling it well.

Noted

 

[psolord]

Easy way to tell. Set your resolution to like 720p and low settings and play whatever games you like and see what frames you're getting. Compare that to the average fps at the resolution you'll be playing at in reviews.

Though to be honest that CPU might be a problem depending on what you're playing. Non-HT SB took a much bigger hit and no OC really hurts too. I had a 2600k with a similar power GPU. I was frequently running into cpu bottlenecks. Do you have a higher refresh monitor, or just 60hz?

720P and Low settings, is not the correct way to see potential cpu bottlenecks.

The reason being that Low presets, tend to also lower settings that can greatly affect CPU calculations i.e. distance settings. All in all, low settings means also lower load for the cpu for many cases.

You actually need ultra settings at 720p, to see what the cpu can do. Now it is possible, that a card like a 650ti will have a hard time with Ultra settings even at 720p. In such case, the extraction of a safe conclusion, is not possible. Or in order to be possible, it will require a lot of fine tuning from the user, in order to really lower only the settings that affect only the gpu.

There is however a very simple way to see what you will get. Go to youtube, type the cpu you want, the gpu you want and the game you want. profit!

 

[Midwayman]

720P and Low settings, is not the correct way to see potential cpu bottlenecks.

The reason being that Low presets, tend to also lower settings that can greatly affect CPU calculations i.e. distance settings. All in all, low settings means also lower load for the cpu for many cases.

You actually need ultra settings at 720p, to see what the cpu can do. Now it is possible, that a card like a 650ti will have a hard time with Ultra settings even at 720p. In such case, the extraction of a safe conclusion, is not possible. Or in order to be possible, it will require a lot of fine tuning from the user, in order to really lower only the settings that affect only the gpu.

There is however a very simple way to see what you will get. Go to youtube, type the cpu you want, the gpu you want and the game you want. profit!

Fair enough. Though high is probably a better option than ultra as its unlikely that setup will be great at ultra anyways. Just set resolution as far down as it will go. I don't know about youtube however. You never know what you'll get in terms of game settings, overclocks, etc.

 

[mopardude87]

Sadly op never mentioned which games he plays though,if its BF1/BF5 or something heavily multi threaded then that i5 2500 is gonna hold back quite a good bit even worst if its matched with 8gb which is usually the norm for those older i5 set ups. Op should have mentioned the games he intends on playing.going from a 650 ti to a 1060 is a HUGE upgrade and may indicate he is playing a whole other caliber of games then what he was originally playing with on a 650 ti to begin with.

 

[ondma]

FPS may be OK, but I think gameplay will not be smooth in a lot of cases. I bought a 1060 6gb to pair with an i5 2320. Witcher 3 and COD WW2 both had severe stuttering. Granted your cpu is a bit faster, but still the same number of threads and not overclockable. Upgraded the cpu later, and gameplay is smooth a silk.

 

[Midwayman]

FPS may be OK, but I think gameplay will not be smooth in a lot of cases. I bought a 1060 6gb to pair with an i5 2320. Witcher 3 and COD WW2 both had severe stuttering. Granted your cpu is a bit faster, but still the same number of threads and not overclockable. Upgraded the cpu later, and gameplay is smooth a silk.

And given the age of the setup its likely on a straight 60hz monitor. A variable refresh monitor would do wonders for a system in this performance category.

 

[tigersty1e]

What website is this?

Why Division 2 should be problematic ??? As far as i can see its working fine with the Core i5 2500.

What website is this?

 

[AtenRa]

What website is this?

https://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/the-division-2-test-gpu-cpu

 

[ZGR]

Even an overclocked i5-6600k will be a bottleneck in Division 2. 4c4t is not aging well. I have a 4c8t i7 and I am also CPU bottlenecked in most games even at 4k.

But then again I have not tried playing D2 at 60hz. I only tried it at 1440p144 and saw the CPU being hammered.

 

[Face2Face]

Even an overclocked i5-6600k will be a bottleneck in Division 2. 4c4t is not aging well. I have a 4c8t i7 and I am also CPU bottlenecked in most games even at 4k.

But then again I have not tried playing D2 at 60hz. I only tried it at 1440p144 and saw the CPU being hammered.

I've just tested The Division 2 with a i5 3570K and FX 8350. Both at stock and overclocked settings. It was done with 16GB of DDR3 and a RTX 2060. At 1080p Ultra settings, the FX 8350 came out on top for both stock and OC results. It's not by a huge margin, but it's definitely a win. That being said, the game still ran pretty good with the 3570K. I'll post my results in another thread in the future. Still compiling all of the results.

 

[ozzy702]

Sadly op never mentioned which games he plays though,if its BF1/BF5 or something heavily multi threaded then that i5 2500 is gonna hold back quite a good bit even worst if its matched with 8gb which is usually the norm for those older i5 set ups. Op should have mentioned the games he intends on playing.going from a 650 ti to a 1060 is a HUGE upgrade and may indicate he is playing a whole other caliber of games then what he was originally playing with on a 650 ti to begin with.

Yep. A 1060 is very serviceable at 1080p for BFV with reduced settings, but it's literally unplayable on a 2500k. A 6600k bottlenecks it heavily and can't come close to sustained 60fps. Interestingly enough, an i7-6700 (non-K) plays the game fairly decently. The extra cache and hyperthreading make a massive difference.

 

[Wuzup101]

Yep. A 1060 is very serviceable at 1080p for BFV with reduced settings, but it's literally unplayable on a 2500k. A 6600k bottlenecks it heavily and can't come close to sustained 60fps. Interestingly enough, an i7-6700 (non-K) plays the game fairly decently. The extra cache and hyperthreading make a massive difference.

Damn now I want to buy BFV to see how playable it is on a 2500k

 

[Face2Face]

I just got done testing my 3570K at 1080p Ultra settings with an RTX 2060. There are some stutters here and there, but performance is quite good, well over 60 FPS.

 

[ozzy702]

I just got done testing my 3570K at 1080p Ultra settings with an RTX 2060. There are some stutters here and there, but performance is quite good, well over 60 FPS.

Playable is subjective and I admit I'm biased as a somewhat competitive player. In my book if it can't sustain 60fps+, I wouldn't call it playable for a FPS. Yes, adaptive sync can help smooth things out but the 1% lows are horrendous on a 6600k, let alone lesser CPUs. I was testing with a 6600k @4ghz (clean windows install, newest drivers) and a GTX 1070 and it was bad. I popped a 7700k in and it was great, with 1% lows in the 70s.

Were you running in DX11 or DX12? Future frame rendering on or off (on has much higher input latency but higher FPS).

 

[Face2Face]

Playable is subjective and I admit I'm biased as a somewhat competitive player. In my book if it can't sustain 60fps+, I wouldn't call it playable for a FPS. Yes, adaptive sync can help smooth things out but the 1% lows are horrendous on a 6600k, let alone lesser CPUs. I was testing with a 6600k @4ghz (clean windows install, newest drivers) and a GTX 1070 and it was bad. I popped a 7700k in and it was great, with 1% lows in the 70s.

Were you running in DX11 or DX12? Future frame rendering on or off (on has much higher input latency but higher FPS).

Yes, FFR was enabled and this was in DX12. I don't have an issue using FFR, but I'm not a competitive player. Performance varies depending on the map. Sometimes I would see GPU usage in the 60% range, while other times it was in the high 90's. Either way, it was in the 60 FPS range or 90-100 FPS range depending on the map. Some stutter is prevalent, but not immersion breaking by any means.

 

[ozzy702]

Yes, FFR was enabled and this was in DX12. I don't have an issue using FFR, but I'm not a competitive player. Performance varies depending on the map. Sometimes I would see GPU usage in the 60% range, while other times it was in the high 90's. Either way, it was in the 60 FPS range or 90-100 FPS range depending on the map. Some stutter is prevalent, but not immersion breaking by any means.

Gotcha, that makes sense. FFR and DX12 make a big difference in FPS but yeah, bump up latency a bunch. I'm admittedly very picky in regards to how smooth the game play is with multiplayer FPS.