Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Will an overclocked AMD A10-6800k bottleneck a GeForce GTX 670/680?

Tags:
  • Geforce
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Motherboards
  • Bottleneck
  • Graphics Cards
  • Intel
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 16, 2013 8:38:29 PM

So back when i started looking for a dedicated GPU, i was told that a better gpu like a 670 or Radeon HD 79** gpu would bottleneck with my 6800k cpu. So i was thinking if i upgrade from my current GTX 660 SC to like a 670 or 680 or even an HD 79**, will an overclocked A10-6800k cpu bottleneck with such a gpu? Right now its running at stock clock, 4.1 Ghz 4.4 Ghz turbo. What overclock speed would i need so that it wont bottleneck with a better gpu listed above (GTX 670/680, HD 79**)? Would it be worth the risk to overclock or would it be better just to get a better, new cpu? I want to stick with AMD cpu's right now because i have an MSI board and dont want to upgrade that or get a new one, but if i have to i can go for an Intel board. Any help and feedback is greatly appreciated!

More about : overclocked amd a10 6800k bottleneck geforce gtx 670 680

a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2013 8:43:32 PM

Just stick with your GPU its about the best your CPU can handle even with an overclock
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2013 8:46:39 PM

Yep. You'd be better off upgrading to a 6300 + 970 mobo and saving for a new GPU later.
m
0
l
Related resources
August 16, 2013 9:03:28 PM

Thanatos Telos said:
Yep. You'd be better off upgrading to a 6300 + 970 mobo and saving for a new GPU later.


What about an FX 8320 instead with an ASRock 990FX Extreme3 board? I read that the 970 board wont work with a 6300 here, but that the 990FX will work. So is that accurate?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 84 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2013 9:05:16 PM

It won't bottleneck a 680 significantly if at all. Look at the chart, and remember a stock 6800k is faster than a stock 5800k.



They were using an nVidia 680 as the GPU.

This is from: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...
Share
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2013 9:05:25 PM

Any AM3+ board will work. Older, first gen models need updates for Piledrivers, but most of them have been phased out. Also, if you get the 6300, then you could put the extra cash towards the GPU in the future, which is more important.
m
0
l
August 16, 2013 9:19:08 PM

Thanatos Telos said:
Any AM3+ board will work. Older, first gen models need updates for Piledrivers, but most of them have been phased out. Also, if you get the 6300, then you could put the extra cash towards the GPU in the future, which is more important.


guess youre right, but the 8320 is only like $40 more, so idk. After looking at Swordkd's chart, im thinking of moving over to intel also, and ive been thinking of doing so once i get some more money. Intel usually seems to be better for gaming as they usually have better single core performance which is best for gaming right? Anyone who sees this give some feedback. I want to get something future proof and powerful enough to run most if not all modern 3d games ultra and future games ultra at 1080p. Im not in a rush, but im confused and just want to get some insight
m
0
l
a c 84 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2013 9:32:03 PM

The best budget Intel Cpu for gaming right now(at least 4 cores) is an Ivy Bridge 3350p or 3470 depending on sales. Pair it with a cheaper h77 motherboard and you can get both for about 260-270 dollars. My wife is using a 3350p with AsRock H77-M motherboard, and it's been rock solid.

Oddly, one thing I like about Intel chipset motherboards is the variety of matx options. I'd like to make a build with an matx tower and that's impossible with a 970/990fx AMD chipset motherboard.
m
0
l
August 17, 2013 7:23:30 PM

hafijur said:
Your a10-6800k is already gigantically bottlenecking your gtx 660 SC. You will notice more fps gain upgrading your cpu then your graphics card. The a10-6800k is an entry level cpu. I would get an i5 4670k in your position.


What makes you say or know that its bottlenecking? Everybody else seems to think the opposite. Who am i supposed to believe then? Btw, what would be an AMD equivalent of the i5-4670k in your opinion?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2013 7:27:22 PM

AMD's equivalent would barely be the 8350. It's still weaker than it by 10%, though. (It's pretty close to the 3570k, though)
m
0
l
August 17, 2013 7:45:00 PM

Just to clear some things up really quick, would i bottleneck with my current GTX 660 SC gpu if i upgrade to an FX 6300 or 8320? Because chances are i will be going with either of those and with an ASRock 990FX Extreme4 motherboard. With that pair, would i bottleneck with like lets say a single GTX 670 or 680 or even 660 SC in sli configuration, if i upgrade my gpu to one of those options in the future?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2013 8:04:10 PM

DarkDubzs said:
Just to clear some things up really quick, would i bottleneck with my current GTX 660 SC gpu if i upgrade to an FX 6300 or 8320? Because chances are i will be going with either of those and with an ASRock 990FX Extreme4 motherboard. With that pair, would i bottleneck with like lets say a single GTX 670 or 680 or even 660 SC in sli configuration, if i upgrade my gpu to one of those options in the future?


The 8300 series can go up to two Titans in SLI without a bottleneck. The 6300 series can go up to two 770s in SLI.
m
0
l
August 17, 2013 8:12:51 PM

Thanatos Telos said:
DarkDubzs said:
Just to clear some things up really quick, would i bottleneck with my current GTX 660 SC gpu if i upgrade to an FX 6300 or 8320? Because chances are i will be going with either of those and with an ASRock 990FX Extreme4 motherboard. With that pair, would i bottleneck with like lets say a single GTX 670 or 680 or even 660 SC in sli configuration, if i upgrade my gpu to one of those options in the future?


The 8300 series can go up to two Titans in SLI without a bottleneck. The 6300 series can go up to two 770s in SLI.


The 8320 seems great for the price then, so does the 6300. One question though, how are both as far as overclocking goes? Which would be easier to OC, even though i probably wont be OCing, just something good to know
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2013 8:47:35 PM

My 8320 OCs to 4GHz on stock voltages easily, but I'm not sure about the 6300.
m
0
l
November 9, 2013 7:59:48 PM

Swordkd said:
It won't bottleneck a 680 significantly if at all. Look at the chart, and remember a stock 6800k is faster than a stock 5800k.



They were using an nVidia 680 as the GPU.

This is from: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...


I was just looking back on this post, and i just realized something while looking at this chart: my cpu is bottlenecking my potential FPS isnt it? Because obviously all cpu's above it have higher FPS, so technically my cpu is holding back the possible higher fps i could be getting right? I've been planning on upgrading my mobo and getting an FX 8350, would that get me a significant FPS gain like shown in the chart?
m
0
l
a c 84 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2013 9:18:42 PM

Depends on the game. While you can get better performance with a faster Cpu, it's not necessarily right to call it a bottle neck. If that were the case, then every Cpu down from the highest top-end would be considered a bottleneck. However, yes you would get better performance with the 8350 than a 6800k. I think it would be a good investment.
m
0
l
November 9, 2013 9:58:19 PM

Swordkd said:
Depends on the game. While you can get better performance with a faster Cpu, it's not necessarily right to call it a bottle neck. If that were the case, then every Cpu down from the highest top-end would be considered a bottleneck. However, yes you would get better performance with the 8350 than a 6800k. I think it would be a good investment.


I agree. Well really, anything above the 6800k would be much better. Im mostly planning on getting the fx 8350, but for $20 more i can get an i5 3570k so i dont know which to get.
On one hand, the FX8350 has 8 cores which is future proof for when games will eventually use more threads and cores and it will make multitasking and editing, rendering more efficient, has more cache, and has a higher clock speed. On the other hand, i believe the i5 3570k seems to use less power, and according to cpuboss has a better single core performance, thats all i really see is better though for the Intel in this competition.
Seems the AMD side is better on paper, but what would you say is better for gaming?
m
0
l
a c 84 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b V Motherboard
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2013 8:38:23 AM

Right now the I5's are better for gaming than their AMD counterparts. However with the release of the new consoles this could change(could) since they both run AMD cpu's with 8 threads available to them. Console to Pc ports could run better on the Amd cpu's. Of course, this is all hypothetical, so for right now I'd just get an I5 since you know it's better for gaming.

The 3570k overclocks really well, and a 4.4 - 4.5 ghz overclock isn't unreasonable with decent cooling(Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo) which is a great selling point.
m
0
l
!