i5 2500k bottleneck a gtx 690?

[gothuevos]

In the process of upgrading my displays, will be either going with two Samsung 27" 120hz screens, but I also have access to a Catleap 27" 1440P monitor that will do 100hz+.

I have an 2500k at 4.6ghz....will that in any way be a bottle neck in the above situations (1090p x 1, x 2 or 1440p)? And if so, what an ivy with slightly better ipc and the slight benefit of PCIE 3.0 be enough to reach its full potential? thanks.

 

[toyota]

if you think a 2500k at 4.6 will be a bottleneck for a gtx690 then what cpu would you suggest? Ivy is basically no better and may not even oc as high.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

No GPU takes full advantage of PCI 3.0 yet (or so I believe)

 

[FalseChristian]

OP. Yer kidding, right? If anything your GTX 690 is bottlenecking yer GTX 690 but you knew that, didn't you with your silly post.

 

[j03h4gLund]

Wow FalseChristian, you mad? Lol... sheesh

 

[djnsmith7]

I would have to say no, and I'll tell you why. If we were talking about a TriFire setup, I'd say yes & I have the numbers to prove it. For dual cards (or a 690), no.

With dual 7970's, I can run BF3 on Ultra settings @ 1080p & have both cards pinned @ 99% usage. In TriFire, each card only reaches about 60% usage, hence a CPU bottleneck.

What I'm curious to know is, how much of an increase would I see with a 3770K @ ~4.5+ Ghz. I'll have to find that out later.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Depends entirely on the game, almost all games will still be GPU limited at this point, with some minor exceptions, some large scale MMOs for example can be very CPU heavy, WoW, Rift, I hear GW2 is very CPU dependent and the king of CPU rape right now is Plantside 2 which takes my 2600k @ 4.7Ghz for a ride

You'd be hard pressed to replace that CPU with anything significantly better anyway, certainly not worth the extra cost right now.

 

[jacktesterson]

very unlikely. Even SB-E offers little to no benefit over a highly O/C'd 2500k in majority of games, especially at 1440p

 

[moonbogg]

Not at the resolutions you are suggesting. You might run into a little here and there but nothing major. It really depends on the game as well, but again at res above 1080p I think thats a good place to benefit from the 690. Just watch out for Vram limits.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Depends entirely on the game, almost all games will still be GPU limited at this point, with some minor exceptions, some large scale MMOs for example can be very CPU heavy, WoW, Rift, I hear GW2 is very CPU dependent and the king of CPU rape right now is Plantside 2 which takes my 2600k @ 4.7Ghz for a ride

This.

A 3770k or 3930k will be noticeably better, depending on the game, ESP for likes of BF3, Starcraft, perhaps GW2 etc.

But for 95% of games you should do okay whether or not the best, but adequate I guess. And in terms of fps more often than not you are very close to the top ring except in some exceptions.

 

[toyota]

This.

A 3770k or 3930k will be noticeably better, depending on the game, ESP for likes of BF3, Starcraft, perhaps GW2 etc.

But for 95% of games you should do okay whether or not the best, but adequate I guess. And in terms of fps more often than not you are very close to the top ring except in some exceptions.

got anything to back that up

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I very much doubt that 3770k or 3930k are worth it over a 2500k @ 4.6Ghz, that's a respectable overclock, you'd be paying a premium for something out the box that is slower that what he has now. Maybe OC vs OC they'd win, but generally speaking it's a lot of cash for a fairly minor "upgrade"

 

[aaksheytalwar]

In BF3 and other games like Starcraft they are noticeably better, clock for clock. Has been proven a number of times that a few games like BF3 etc use HT and performance diff could be as high as 20%+.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

This.

A 3770k or 3930k will be noticeably better, depending on the game, ESP for likes of BF3, Starcraft, perhaps GW2 etc.

But for 95% of games you should do okay whether or not the best, but adequate I guess. And in terms of fps more often than not you are very close to the top ring except in some exceptions.

Um...no. having an i7 will not do anything.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

if you think a 2500k at 4.6 will be a bottleneck for a gtx690 then what cpu would you suggest? Ivy is basically no better and may not even oc as high.

This.

It will bottneck in some games no question, but what are you going to do about it exactly? Even the fastest six core $1000 platforms only offer a small % reprieve in only a few of the bottlenecking situations.

It can, it does, it will, there is nothing you can really do about it.

 

[moonbogg]

got anything to back that up

Read this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2249262

Tons of data and testing by different members that confirm at least BF3 benefits decently from as many as 8 threads and will allow dual high end cards to perform better at 1080p. High resolutions make the CPU less important of course. 4 threads loses to 8 threads by a reasonably notable margin at the same clock speed.
This is for multiplayer only. Single player will run on an ipad no problem.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Read this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2249262

Tons of data and testing by different members that confirm at least BF3 benefits decently from as many as 8 threads and will allow dual high end cards to perform better at 1080p. High resolutions make the CPU less important of course. 4 threads loses to 8 threads by a reasonably notable margin at the same clock speed.
This is for multiplayer only. Single player will run on an ipad no problem.

That's just one game. -__-

 

[moonbogg]

That's just one game. -__-

I provided data to support my point that an i7 has benefits for gaming. Where is your data that suggests the i7 "will not do anything" for gaming? You can't just say it. You gotta show it.

 

[jacktesterson]

I provided data to support my point that an i7 has benefits for gaming. Where is your data that suggests the i7 "will not do anything" for gaming? You can't just say it. You gotta show it.

Common Sense dude.

Suggesting an upgrade for more than $100 or more (After selling his current CPU) for slight increase in one game right now? Comon.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I provided data to support my point that an i7 has benefits for gaming. Where is your data that suggests the i7 "will not do anything" for gaming? You can't just say it. You gotta show it.

The problem is that the scope is fairly limited, for example if you don't play BF3 then it might be of zero benefit, until >4 core adoption is better it will be hard to justify the upgrade.

One thing to keep in mind is that he's already running a very high overclock on the 2500k so really for a decent comparison we need OC vs OC results because dropping a stock i7 in place of his current chip will be slower. And OC vs OC when it comes to SB/IB isn't so clear cut, from memory the IB are slightly better clock for clock but often struggle to reach the same OC potential as SB.

If there is a benefit there it's extremely small and limited, and you'll be paying a premium for the upgrade, that's very hard to justify IMO.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

And IMO if I can get 10% more performance in a game like BF3 then IMO that is stellar value for money for me. My annual PC upgrade budget is 2-3 grands plus what I get from selling my old parts so effectively 2-4k a year on pc parts. So this $100 increase is the cheapest and best thing I can do for my pc. Even my keyboard is nearly $200 and just my mouse and mouse pad together make a $100. My HDDs alone are worth nearly $1500. So it all depends on the individual.

If somebody just buys a $1500 pc and keeps it for 2+ years then for him $100 is a big amount for a small upgrade. But for most of us because we usually spend at least $1500-3000 a year on computer parts, it is essentially the best $100 we can spend I am talking of many of us enthusiasts over here not everybody.

 

[moonbogg]

And IMO if I can get 10% more performance in a game like BF3 then IMO that is stellar value for money for me. My annual PC upgrade budget is 2-3 grands plus what I get from selling my old parts so effectively 2-4k a year on pc parts. So this $100 increase is the cheapest and best thing I can do for my pc. Even my keyboard is nearly $200 and just my mouse and mouse pad together make a $100. My HDDs alone are worth nearly $1500. So it all depends on the individual.

If somebody just buys a $1500 pc and keeps it for 2+ years then for him $100 is a big amount for a small upgrade. But for most of us because we usually spend at least $1500-3000 a year on computer parts, it is essentially the best $100 we can spend I am talking of many of us enthusiasts over here not everybody.

Exactly. We are talking about someone with a GTX690. If spending that much on a GPU, not having a CPU to provide maximum benefit makes no sense at all.

Would you buy an expensive sports car only to skimp on the tires to save a buck?

 

[Midwayman]

Would you buy an expensive sports car only to skimp on the tires to save a buck?

I would, and have. Unless you're competing, I generally consider getting 99% of the performance for 60% of the cost a good thing.

 

[tweakboy]

The 2500k will not botteneck a 690 card. You will get the most FPS you can get. What will bottleneck is the HD. soo make shure to grab a SSD. gl

 

[RussianSensation]

The system will be primarily GPU limited at 2x 1080P or 1x 1440P monitor. What CPU bottleneck? Would you say a 2500K @ 4.6ghz bottlenecks a single GTX680 at 1080P? No really.

Sure there will be some CPU limitations in certain games since some games are always going to be CPU limited (SC2, WOW, etc.). However in BF3 and other GPU demanding games, GTX690 across 2 x 1080P monitors is similar to running 2x (1 GTX680 @ 1080P). A single GTX680 can't max out BF3 at 1080P in multiplayer, so GTX690 can't do it on 2 such screens either.

There is no CPU worth upgrading to for this setup imo. The best bet is to wait until Haswell. Spending $ on a Core i7 3930K $500 is a total waste right now since I bet a $300 Core i7 Haswell will outperform that without problems.