i5 2500K bottleneck?

[Skott]

I'm considering replacing my 6950 card between now and Xmas so I'm wondering what to get. An amd 280x or a gtx 780 would be real nice. I run a 2500k cpu stock for the most part. (yeah I know I should overclock it) So my question is with the new amd cards included would my 2500k get bottlenecked? I'm guessing not but I wanted to check with my more learned pc brothers here if there will be a problem.

 

[Stuka87]

All depends on the game. If you want to play BF4, you need to OC. If you just play run of the mill games, it should be ok. Overclocking your CPU is really quite easy. Buy a decent tower cooler, and clock it up to 4.3-4.5 and call it a day.

There is a huge price difference between a 280X and a 780. If you are thinking 780, then a 290 or 290X would be more in line with it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I use my 2500 at stock with a GTX 680 ( = 770 ) at 1900x1200 and have not had any problems with 2013 games. Windows 7 64-bit, 8 GB RAM, SSDs for boot and steam drives.

 

[lehtv]

Wait until the 290 is out and reviewed. I'd probably shoot for that for $500 (?) or a 280X for $300. Buy a third party version like MSI Gaming (the cooler is super quiet and efficient)

Definitely overclock your 2500K to about 4.5GHz just to minimize bottle necking. To what extend you would get bottle necking of course depends on what games you play

 

[toyota]

I use my 2500 at stock with a GTX 680 ( = 770 ) at 1900x1200 and have not had any problems with 2013 games. Windows 7 64-bit, 8 GB RAM, SSDs for boot and steam drives.

problems and bottleneck are 2 different things. a game can run fine but that does not mean its running at the full potential of the graphics card the whole time. a stock 2500k will actually limit even my gtx660ti in a few games or at least spots. heck I had to oc my cpu just to try and stay above 50 fps in Fallout New Vegas. and those with 120/144 screens are dreaming if they think they can maintain 120/144 fps by simply throwing tons of gpu power at it.

 

[djnsmith7]

I run a 2500K @ 4.5 & didn't hit a bottleneck until I added a 3rd 7970. No bottleneck was present when I ran 2 7970's.

 

[toyota]

I run a 2500K @ 4.5 & didn't hit a bottleneck until I added a 3rd 7970. No bottleneck was present when I ran 2 7970's.

what kind of silly claim is that? I guess you checked every game and it ran at 99% gpu usage the whole time? that 100% is horse crap unless you are running triple screens with max AA.

 

[desprado]

I run a 2500K @ 4.5 & didn't hit a bottleneck until I added a 3rd 7970. No bottleneck was present when I ran 2 7970's.

I was also crazy like u and added 3 gtx 780s but now i got my mind set though i sold 1 and now i have 2 gtx 780 which is also an over kill for upcoming games.But i did not had any bottleneck

 

[desprado]

edited...........

 

[toyota]

you guys claiming no bottleneck with multiple high end cards are clueless. I think what you mean to say is that you did not "notice" the bottleneck in games you played.

 

[desprado]

you guys claiming no bottleneck with multiple high end cards are clueless. I think what you mean to say is that you did not "notice" the bottleneck in games you played.

Crysis 3 MSAA 8x and max out on gtx 780(3) average FPS 65
TR 2013 MAX out,SMAA 4x,TreeFX on average FPS 82
Metro LL Everything max out average fps 78

 

[toyota]

Crysis 3 MSAA 8x and max out on gtx 780(3) average FPS 65
TR 2013 MAX out,SMAA 4x,TreeFX on average FPS 82
Metro LL Everything max out average fps 78

and? do you not understand that certain games or certain parts of games can actually be held back? most people want to stay above 60 fps the whole time. that is not possible in some cases with a stock or even slightly oced 2500k. I could not even stay above 50 fps in Fallout New Vegas without ocing my cpu.

some people want to stay above 100 or even 120 fps or 144 fps. that is not possible in many cases even with an oced 2500k.

so again to say you did not ever have a cpu bottleneck with multiple gpus is silly.

 

[bystander36]

Crysis 3 MSAA 8x and max out on gtx 780(3) average FPS 65
TR 2013 MAX out,SMAA 4x,TreeFX on average FPS 82
Metro LL Everything max out average fps 78

What you forget is the minimum FPS which are usually a result of the CPU limitations.

Sure, Crysis 3 can average 65 FPS, but you likely have FPS as low as 45 from time to time, and most likely it is not because of your GPU, but your CPU instead.

TR is certainly bottlenecked from time to time. There are places that drop you to sub 50 no matter your GPU setup. The game has a few spots that are heavily CPU bound.

This is the reality of a lot of games, perhaps most games released in the last few years.

 

[djnsmith7]

what kind of silly claim is that? I guess you checked every game and it ran at 99% gpu usage the whole time? that 100% is horse crap unless you are running triple screens with max AA.

Not sure if you know what a bottleneck is. When I ran a TriFire setup, none of the cards were at 99% (hence a CPU BN). The % per card ranged from 50 - 75% usage. When I ran 2 cards, they were at 99% (no BN).

Read through this thread. What's described in that thread as a CPU BN is spot-on with my experience. That's what a CPU BN is.

 

[toyota]

Not sure if you know what a bottleneck is. When I ran a TriFire setup, none of the cards were at 99% (hence a CPU BN). The % per card ranged from 50 - 75% usage. When I ran 2 cards, they were at 99% (no BN).

Read through this thread. What's described in that thread as a CPU BN is spot-on with my experience. That's what a CPU BN is.

lol yes please educate me as I have no idea....

again you were limited in some cases so please dont act like you were always at 99% gpu usage in all games with a 7970 crossfire setup as that is bs. basically the post you just quoted still applies.

 

[ruhtraeel]

You won't notice a bottleneck, and it would definitely be playable.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every generation after the 2500k has had marginal improvements at best.

The 920 to 2600/2700k gen was a huge jump in performance, but a 3570k/Ivy Bridge was only slightly better and overclocked worse due to Intel being cheap and using crappy thermal paste.

The Haswell generation i5's were also marginally better than the last but even hotter due to them STILL using crappy TIM and having the voltage regulator on the chip itself, so it overclocks even less.

After Sandy Bridge, it has been marginal improvements + hotter/less OC room.



People tend to overestimate the effect that the CPU has on framerate. Yes, it's definitely there, but if you pack a high end GPU with even an FX 6100 bulldozer versus an i5 2500k, you'd only get like 10 less FPS even though most games would be running at like 80 FPS anyways.

 

[FalseChristian]

The Sandy Bridge i5/i7 CPUs were such an improvement over Nahalem that it boggles the mind. As a result an i5 2500K at 4.5GHz is more than a match even for the Titan and the R9 280X.

I'm keeping mine for another 3 or 4 years and I am just going to upgrade the GPU once in awhile.

 

[toyota]

The Sandy Bridge i5/i7 CPUs were such an improvement over Nahalem that it boggles the mind. As a result an i5 2500K at 4.5GHz is more than a match even for the Titan and the R9 280X.

I'm keeping mine for another 3 or 4 years and I am just going to upgrade the GPU once in awhile.

good luck with that. our cpus cannot even stay above 60 fps in every single game now or coming up within a few months nevermind 3 or 4 years. if maintaining 60 fps in every case is not your goal then you will fine of course.

 

[djnsmith7]

lol yes please educate me as I have no idea....

again you were limited in some cases so please dont act like you were always at 99% gpu usage in all games with a 7970 crossfire setup as that is bs. basically the post you just quoted still applies.

I'm pointing out that an OC'd 2500k is bottlenecked with 3 7970's. My comments aren't related to anything else.

Let me be more specific. When I was evaluating the usage of 2 cards vs 3 cards in BF3, my results (and many others) were as stated above. I did not intend to imply that both cards in CF were at a constant usage of 99%.

You seem to think an OC'd 2500k can push 3 7970's @ 99% usage per card. I'd like to see that. Otherwise, we're done here.

 

[bystander36]

I'm pointing out that an OC'd 2500k is bottlenecked with 3 7970's. My comments aren't related to anything else.

Let me be more specific. When I was evaluating the usage of 2 cards vs 3 cards in BF3, my results (and many others) were as stated above. I did not intend to imply that both cards in CF were at a constant usage of 99%.

You seem to think an OC'd 2500k can push 3 7970's @ 99% usage per card. I'd like to see that. Otherwise, we're done here.

He was saying the opposite. He's saying that even a single 7970 will not maintain 99% usage per card all the time due to CPU bottlenecking occasionally (assuming settings where you can get 60 FPS). With CF it happens more.

 

[toyota]

I'm pointing out that an OC'd 2500k is bottlenecked with 3 7970's. My comments aren't related to anything else.

Let me be more specific. When I was evaluating the usage of 2 cards vs 3 cards in BF3, my results (and many others) were as stated above. I did not intend to imply that both cards in CF were at a constant usage of 99%.

You seem to think an OC'd 2500k can push 3 7970's @ 99% usage per card. I'd like to see that. Otherwise, we're done here.

so do you just like being vague and dragging it out before finally saying you are only talking about one game?you popped in this thread and said you had no bottleneck until you added a third card. no game or settings or anything else. in fact I even qualified my comment about maybe using multiple screen and still you basically say nothing more than you were at 99% for 2 cards. good grief

 

[ruhtraeel]

He was saying the opposite. He's saying that even a single 7970 will not maintain 99% usage per card all the time due to CPU bottlenecking occasionally (assuming settings where you can get 60 FPS). With CF it happens more.

That's the difference.
Yes, the CPU might occasionally bottleneck the card so it doesn't run at 99% all the time. Or, the game just might not be demanding enough to make the 7970 run at 99%. However, being noticeable is a completely different thing.

I have personally not seen my CPU bottleneck my 7970 to the point where it has ever went lower than 60 FPS in any game (that is reasonably optimized).

It won't change with BF4 because the engine is pretty much exactly the same as BF3, and I don't expect it to happen for at least another year. Even 3-4 years down the line, I don't see my processor making a game unplayable (depends on what game it is though).

I wouldn't pay another 300 dollars to get 55-60 FPS over 50 FPS in the future. With that 300 dollars, you could Crossfire a 280x and get almost double the FPS rather than getting like 10% more if you upgraded your processor.

 

[MrK6]

If your 2500K is getting bottlenecked, so would anything else out there (except in heavily multi-threaded apps where a hex core would be beneficial, but I digress). The benefit of Sandy Bridge chips is they do clock very nicely, which can actually put them on par with Ivy Bridge and Haswell in most situations.

 

[bystander36]

That's the difference.
Yes, the CPU might occasionally bottleneck the card so it doesn't run at 99% all the time. Or, the game just might not be demanding enough to make the 7970 run at 99%. However, being noticeable is a completely different thing.

I have personally not seen my CPU bottleneck my 7970 to the point where it has ever went lower than 60 FPS in any game (that is reasonably optimized).

It won't change with BF4 because the engine is pretty much exactly the same as BF3, and I don't expect it to happen for at least another year. Even 3-4 years down the line, I don't see my processor making a game unplayable (depends on what game it is though).

I wouldn't pay another 300 dollars to get 55-60 FPS over 50 FPS in the future. With that 300 dollars, you could Crossfire a 280x and get almost double the FPS rather than getting like 10% more if you upgraded your processor.

Looking at BF4 beta, the minimums are way below 60 on even 780 SLI at 1080p, so no, BF4 will not always stay above 60.

Crysis 3 will not, Tomb Raider will not, the same for a lot of games actually.

That said, there is pretty much no CPU that can achieve this at the moment.

The point wasn't that a 2500k isn't good enough, the point is, all CPU's bottleneck games from time to time. Some games more than others.

 

[djnsmith7]

so do you just like being vague and dragging it out before finally saying you are only talking about one game?you popped in this thread and said you had no bottleneck until you added a third card. no game or settings or anything else. in fact I even qualified my comment about maybe using multiple screen and still you basically say nothing more than you were at 99% for 2 cards. good grief

I wasn't being vague, my comments were specific. Point is, if you run 3x 7970's with a 2500k, you'll run into a bottleneck. That doesn't mean a 2500k is insufficient.