Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD R9 or Nvidia Gtx. CPU Bottleneck on Core i5 750 2.66 (Lynnfield).

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Core
  • CPUs
  • Intel i5
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 16, 2014 8:59:40 AM

Hy, I know the logic here should be: new CPU/Motherboard. I live in South America and here prices are double than USA.

My system: Core i5 750 (2.66 Ghz). Asus Sabertooth 55i. 8GB Ocz 1600Mhz (at 1333Mhz). Corsair Tx 650W.

Which GPU will perform better on my system: R9 270x or GTX 760?.

I can get: Sapphire R9 270x 2GB Toxic (371usd) or Evga GTX 760 2GB SC ACX (410usd).

(I know you are thinking now: thanks God I live in America!).

I read a lot of reviews and the winner is GTX 760. But my concern is CPU bottleneck.

Last important thing: I will play exclusively Racing Simulator games like Assetto Corsa, RaceRoom, Project Cars, etc. So, I need quick GPU response and I don´t care ultra image quality.

Thanks a lot community!.
Julio.

More about : amd nvidia gtx cpu bottleneck core 750 lynnfield

a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 9:08:40 AM

The GTX 760 is slightly ahead , not by much .

However if you play racing sims then most probably the 270x will serve you just fine and save some money towards a cpu/mobo upgrade.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 9:11:17 AM

You'll be bottlenecked to some extent using either of them, though it would help if you can oc your CPU.
Most 750s with a decent cooler (old TRUE is plenty) will do 4GHz on air. The later i5 760 will do 4.4GHz.
That will help reduce the bottleneck quite a lot. Or of course you could replace the 750 with an i7 870
which will oc to around 4.2GHz on a decent mbd with a good air cooler (4GHz on average mbds), and
the HT will help with some games aswell.

Between the two, I'd recommend the 760, if only because - testing lots of cards as I do - the lower
quality of AMD's drivers is IMO still a factor, and DX9/CF is still broken.

Btw, if you have the option, consider used items (don't know your choices given your location, I know
some S.A. nations have very high import taxes), eg. a 7970 3GB or GTX 580 are both fast; the 7970
is quicker, basically the same card as the newer 280X, but I have far less driver issues with 580s. A
580 1.5GB card from eBay should be around $150 or less (bit more for a 3GB version). 7970 will be
a bit more again (I bought two 7970s for around 145 UKP each).

Various benchmark results on my site here.

Ian.

PS. Re future upgrades, a used Z68 board and used 2600K or 2700K are good choices. I built almost
all of my gaming system from used parts, massive savings vs. buying new (it's a 2700K @ 5GHz, two
GTX 580 3GB in SLI).

m
0
l
Related resources
September 16, 2014 9:25:48 AM

Your screen is gonna determine your response. The GPU just calculates and forms the frames. For high end systems where your trying to remove frame tearing and such its a screen and GPU combination issue, where certain GPU's offer bettter technologies to help the screen stay organized. Basically Whats really important is having a nice high performance screen before considering a GPU that is designed to run "smoother". A screen at 60hz with a 5-10ms response time is fairly standard and no GPU can over come the limitations of the screen. That being said, i also notice that processor. which wont be able to keep up with those gpu's. what i get when looking at your build is that you bought this system a long time ago and never really intended to get into high end gaming. So if you really cant afford a rebuild and just want to ad a card to get smooth game play, you should look at R7 series from AMD or lower. you dont need alot of power cause it will go to waste. and spending extra money on it will be a waste. ALso if you wanna buy a card now that wont be useless if you upgrade later, get a 750ti. its cheap, its a monster at 1080, it requires no extra pcie power cables, and its on a modern architecture meaning it will support future release features. that card will be bottlenecked by your cpu, but when its time to upgrade you have a card that will continue to compete into the future thanks to driver support for new architecture

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 9:36:40 AM

I've posted the same info a dozen times in the past couple of weeks. :D 

It depends on the game, resolution, detail level, etc. If he's playing games like
Call of Juarez, then the CPU will be perfectly ok, even with newer cards (CoJ
doesn't need much CPU power). Other games which behave like X3TC are
entirely dependent on CPU power. And then there are infamous titles like Crysis
which need a more balanced system, but preferably as fast as possible across
the board (Stalker behaves this way, but is less intense than Crysis). Atm I'm
not familiar with how racing games behave, not a genre I've looked into much
for my benchmarking.

A good card will not be wasted in all games, and often the bottleneck will not
be that significant, especially at higher resolution/detail levels where the GPU
becomes the more important factor.

The 750 Ti is a nice card, but remember one cannot add another for SLI, so
its future usefulness will be limited to a degree. It does however have a big
advantage in power/noise behaviour.


Jean, when you're playing those games you've listed, what is the CPU doing?
Use system monitoring tools like CoreTemp, RealTemp, or even just Windows
Tasks Manager, to see what the system is up to. Likewise, you can use GPU-Z
or other tools like MSI Afterburner, GPU Shark, etc. to monitor GPU behaviour.

If the games you like to play do not show that much CPU usage, then a GPU
upgrade will work nicely. And even if those games do show a fair amount of
CPU activity, as I say you can oc the CPU, upgrade to an oc'd 870, etc. NB: don't
upgrade to an i7 860, they're hard to oc.

Have a look at my benchmark results, and if you like I'd be happy to run an
i5-760/7970 test to show what you'd get from a 280X (and hence a ceiling for
how a 270X would behave, or I could even downclock the 7970 to match a 270X).

Oh, forgot to ask: what GPU do you have at the moment?

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 9:37:00 AM

mapesdhs said:
You'll be bottlenecked to some extent using either of them, though it would help if you can oc your CPU.
Most 750s with a decent cooler (old TRUE is plenty) will do 4GHz on air. The later i5 760 will do 4.4GHz.
That will help reduce the bottleneck quite a lot. Or of course you could replace the 750 with an i7 870
which will oc to around 4.2GHz on a decent mbd with a good air cooler (4GHz on average mbds), and
the HT will help with some games aswell.

Between the two, I'd recommend the 760, if only because - testing lots of cards as I do - the lower
quality of AMD's drivers is IMO still a factor, and DX9/CF is still broken.

Btw, if you have the option, consider used items (don't know your choices given your location, I know
some S.A. nations have very high import taxes), eg. a 7970 3GB or GTX 580 are both fast; the 7970
is quicker, basically the same card as the newer 280X, but I have far less driver issues with 580s. A
580 1.5GB card from eBay should be around $150 or less (bit more for a 3GB version). 7970 will be
a bit more again (I bought two 7970s for around 145 UKP each).

Various benchmark results on my site here.

Ian.

Ps. Re future upgrades, a used Z68 board and used 2600K or 2700K are good choices. I built almost
all of my gaming system from used parts, massive savings vs. buying new (it's a 2700K @ 5GHz, two
GTX 580 3GB in SLI).



While the GTX 760 is better yes but the drivers problem occurs to both factors , I've owned more than 5 AMD cards in the last 5 years and all is well .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 9:49:34 AM

Driver issues affect NVIDIA cards to a far lesser degree. I've benchmarked dozens of cards, not just a mere 5.
This is my custom GPU storage unit, with about 20 cards not visible as they're in systems or on about 15
open-air test boards in various configs:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/gpushelves15.jpg

I've tested 2/3-way SLI with numerous 580s, and 2-way CF with two 7970s. AMD's drivers consistently throw up a
whole range of weird oddities in behaviour that just don't happen with NVIDIA drivers, eg. GPU-Z freezing after
a settings change, very slow switch from CF to non-CF, etc. I had the same issues with the 4870, 5850, etc., though
the latest AMD drivers are easily the worst (older drivers I used with 5850s were less pernickity).

It's less of a problem when using a single card, but then for any sensible GPU investment, adding a 2nd in the
future as an intermediate speed boost is sound planning, so driver issues should be considered.

Ian.

m
0
l

Best solution

a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 10:04:23 AM

mapesdhs said:
Driver issues affect NVIDIA cards to a far lesser degree. I've benchmarked dozens of cards, not just a mere 5.
This is my custom GPU storage unit, with about 20 cards not visible as they're in systems or on about 15
open-air test boards in various configs:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/gpushelves15.jpg

I've tested 2/3-way SLI with numerous 580s, and 2-way CF with two 7970s. AMD's drivers consistently throw up a
whole range of weird oddities in behaviour that just don't happen with NVIDIA drivers, eg. GPU-Z freezing after
a settings change, very slow switch from CF to non-CF, etc. I had the same issues with the 4870, 5850, etc., though
the latest AMD drivers are easily the worst (older drivers I used with 5850s were less pernickity).

It's less of a problem when using a single card, but then for any sensible GPU investment, adding a 2nd in the
future as an intermediate speed boost is sound planning, so driver issues should be considered.

Ian.



Adding a 2nd card imo is a last resort or the card you already have is a card is the top of line. Neither of those is available here and yet again the CPU needs upgrade before anything ( adding a 2nd card ).

I am not arguing that AMD drivers are worse than Nvidia because in fact they are ( far worse but they cost far less for same performance so there's a tradeoff to be made ) , when it comes to a single card no problem is actually going to happen and the chances of occurring are fairly minimal.

Moreover , With the triple monitor gaming on the horizon The Eyefinity is a much better choice than nvidia's surround . That hasn't been mentioned by the OP but yet again to prove that actually AMD does something correctly .

Nvidia's drivers are better but is it the case here with a single card ? Nope

Is the extra $40 in the favor of the GTX 760 worthy ? Not in the least.

These benchmarks are very recent

TF :

BF4 :

Arma 3 :

Thief :

Grid Autosport ( Racing Sim , Mentioned by the OP ) :

AC Black Flag :

Watch Dogs :

FC3 :

So in most cases the 270X and GTX 760 are very similar and paying 40 bucks for the extra 1-2 FPS and losing out in racing sims seems useless .

Unless he wants the 760 for streaming using the amazing shadowplay or he prefers Nvidia otherwise 40 more bucks for something fairly minimal doesn't seem a correct choice especially when you need a full PC upgrade
Share
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 12:08:48 PM

TopLuca writes:
> Adding a 2nd card imo is a last resort or the card you already have is a card is the top of line. ..

Nonsense, going CF or SLI can give a very impressive speedup, depending on various factors.
Whether or not the OP would wish to do that is open to question, though his choice of mbd
is noteable.


> ... and yet again the CPU needs upgrade before anything ( adding a 2nd card ).

Stop posting potentially inaccurate info. The CPU only needs changing IF he sees significant
CPU loading while playing the games he likes to play. As yet he's not said whether that's the
case. And even if so, if the i5 is not oc'd then there is significant scope for easing that bottleneck.
As I said, a cheap used cooler like a TRUE will easily get the i5 750 to 4GHz.



> going to happen and the chances of occurring are fairly minimal.

I agree for 1-card it's less of a problem, but still something to bare in mind if multi-GPU is
ever going to be considered.

Can't comment on multi-screen setups, not something I've looked into much.


> Is the extra $40 in the favor of the GTX 760 worthy ? Not in the least.

Imo both prices are too high, hence my mentioning used GPU options - 7970 is much
better value, though the option may be void depending on his location.


> Unless he wants the 760 for streaming using the amazing shadowplay or he prefers Nvidia
> otherwise 40 more bucks for something fairly minimal doesn't seem a correct choice especially
> when you need a full PC upgrade

He doesn't necessarily need a full PC upgrade, that could be flat out not the case. We can't
judge until he's done a few tests. And if he's only running at stock, there's plenty of scope
for an excellent speedup.

Using your own rationale though, if he did get a 270X, then the saved $40 could be used
to fit a much better cooler with a couple of nice quiet fans, giving a major CPU boost, if
that is the i5 is currently only at stock.

Remember: P55 was a low-latency design, it was a lot more potent than X58-buyers gave
it credit for. I was able to prove over & over again from tests that P55 + Lynnfield could
beat X58 + Nehalem, for much less cost. I've proved it dozens of times. Don't write off
a P55 build just because it's "old"; indeed, an oc'd 870 gives a better 3DMark physics
score than a 3570K.

Anyway, conclusions are null until we know the CPU loading he's getting.

Ian.

m
0
l
September 16, 2014 1:19:13 PM

Thanks TopLuca, Mapesdhs and Thefluffydog.

Mapesdhs, racing simulator games generaly demand the CPU. I have a Corsair Cpu Cooler A50, I´m not an overclocker guy but I don´t have other option. I will try. Actually I have a geforce gts 450. Assetto Corsa it´s a new racing game and with v-sync off and low settings I get 80-90fps at 1920x1080. (Single player mode, multiplayer fps decreases).
I would be very grateful if you benchmark using the i5 760/7970. I search similar benchm. and they don´t use old cpu´s.

Thefluffydog, I know that about displays. I have a 23" 60hz 5ms 1920x1080. 144mhz 1ms displays are still very expensive. I think a 750Ti isn´t a good deal. If I upgrade in future my plataform I will have a low end Gpu. I prefer bottleneck and wait future LGA 1151.

TopLuca, I think you are right about getting 270x. In fact in my local store (Banifox.com) the cheapest 270x cost 297usd (Sapphiere Dual-X model). I prefer TOXIC model (371usd) because low noise/temp. and quality. Another interesting model it´s a Gigabyte with 4GB (377usd), (for single display I don´t think it´s necessary). The cheapest Gtx 760 with 2GB cost 410usd (crazy).

Thanks for now!.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 1:46:46 PM

Jean Baudrillard said:
Thanks TopLuca, Mapesdhs and Thefluffydog.

Mapesdhs, racing simulator games generaly demand the CPU. I have a Corsair Cpu Cooler A50, I´m not an overclocker guy but I don´t have other option. I will try. Actually I have a geforce gts 450. Assetto Corsa it´s a new racing game and with v-sync off and low settings I get 80-90fps at 1920x1080. (Single player mode, multiplayer fps decreases).
I would be very grateful if you benchmark using the i5 760/7970. I search similar benchm. and they don´t use old cpu´s.

Thefluffydog, I know that about displays. I have a 23" 60hz 5ms 1920x1080. 144mhz 1ms displays are still very expensive. I think a 750Ti isn´t a good deal. If I upgrade in future my plataform I will have a low end Gpu. I prefer bottleneck and wait future LGA 1151.

TopLuca, I think you are right about getting 270x. In fact in my local store (Banifox.com) the cheapest 270x cost 297usd (Sapphiere Dual-X model). I prefer TOXIC model (371usd) because low noise/temp. and quality. Another interesting model it´s a Gigabyte with 4GB (377usd), (for single display I don´t think it´s necessary). The cheapest Gtx 760 with 2GB cost 410usd (crazy).

Thanks for now!.



The Dual-X will just do fine , The Toxic is definitely better but not really worth the extra 80 bucks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 16, 2014 2:47:57 PM

Overclocking is a good idea, those Lynnfield CPUs will go to 3.4GHz without too much effort (mine did) but take your time and do your research, don't rush.
Even overclocked it may slightly restrict a R9 270X, but don't worry about it.
Don't bother about a 4Gb R9 270X, the extra memory and cost are not worth it.
m
0
l
September 17, 2014 12:07:15 PM

Mapesdhs: In Uruguay 7950´s cost 500usd. (Here prices don´t decreases when new models appear). I agree that Lynnfield and good motherboard´s are still decent plataforms. The only bad thing I see it´s Sata at 3.0 Gb/s. I don´t intend to do SLI or Crossfire. So, at 335usd vs 410usd I will go to AMD.

Thanks Mapesdhs and TopLuca. I decided what to buy by your contributions. (Both very intelligent proposals).

I´ll buy a Gigabyte R9 270x 2Gb OC Windforce (335usd).

Regards!.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2014 12:08:38 PM

Jean Baudrillard said:
Mapesdhs: In Uruguay 7950´s cost 500usd. (Here prices don´t decreases when new models appear).

Thanks Mapesdhs and TopLuca. I decided what to buy because of the contributions. (Both very intelligent proposals).

I´ll buy a Gigabyte R9 270x 2Gb OC Windforce (335usd).

Refards!.


Happy Gaming Sir , thanks for the compliment :D 

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2014 3:11:28 AM

Most welcome! 8) Not forgotten about you btw, just been loaded down with work stuff this week.
I'll be setting up the test board this afternoon, gotta vote in a referendum in the evening, so I'll
do some testing after that (first need to clone the boot SSD, change the drivers, get the 7970 up
& running). Hmm, anyone know if there's a bus width difference between the 280X and 270X?
If so, then downclocking a 7970 wouldn't fairly represent 270X performance. I'll look into it.

Note I'm ussing an 'average' mbd (Asrock P55 Extreme), so it should if anything underestimate
what you could do with your Sabertooth. And as mentioned I'll be using an old TRUE cooler with
two typical decent (but not top-end) fans, namely Gelid Wing Blue UV 120mm 3-pin. Likewise,
I'll set the RAM at medium speed even though it could go higher. One caveat: I'll leave the i5 760
at its default 2.8GHz for the stock-speed test; slightly more than the 750, but it shouldn't matter.
As for the oc, I'm aiming for between 4 and 4.4, depends what the board can handle (I know the
P55 Deluxe can run this i5 at 4.4, but the Extreme's power phases aren't as sophisticated). Oh,
the RAM is Mushkin Redline 2x4GB, capable of 2133, but it'll be set for more like 1600 or thereabouts,
which helps prevent the IMC being stressed too much, lower VTT, minimises heat, easier CPU oc,
better overall speed. The SSD is an OCZ Vertex2E 120GB, PSU is my standard testing unit, overkill
for this, but the same for most testing (Thermaltake Toughpower XT Gold 1475W), and the OS is
Win7/Pro/64.

Btw, if you know of any freely available benchmark demos of racing-type games, do let me know,
happy to try them out. None of my normal tests are racing games, but I do use a selection which
is able to show a wide variety of behaviour.

And Jean, SSDs on SATA2 platforms actually work really well. 8) I tested this, the speedups are
still very nice. Here's some SATA2/SATA3 chipset comparison data.

However, work stuff first, have to pack up a 5GHz 2700K system to send to an engineering company... :D 

Ian.

m
0
l
September 18, 2014 5:58:02 PM

You are the man!. Honestly I think you gave me the solution when you talked about 7970 or gtx580, used hardware. The thing is that I will not overclock my i5 750, (even I have a good heatsink). I don´t want to reduce my life time CPU, and as an amateur in overclocking world an articule (AnandTech), say that OC on i5 750 is good but "certainly unstable" because PCIexp voltage change. Ok, I know I´m a schizophrenic of stock mhz. I don´t change my plataform very frequent, so my system should last. I'm a casual gamer who likes "good performance".

Now, I will get some used gpu. And I´m thinking Gtx 400/500 series, 5000/6000 series. Or other you think will be fine. I hope you have something to say about it!. (I know Nvidia would be my first choice: hypothetical SLI possibility).

I hope you did not test the complicated system set!.

"...before I wanted to eat caviar on a rusty plate."



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 18, 2014 7:15:03 PM

More later (still sorting out the system), but just wanted to say, you really won't shorten the life of the CPU
at all if you limit the oc to whatever can be obtained with a low vcore of something like 1.35V. Even 1.4 to
1.45 is not that high for a Lynnfield, and many samples will happily run at 4.0 with as little as 1.3V.

I don't think I've ever seen a PCIe voltage issue, and I've meddled with a lot of P55/H55 boards (atm I have
nine of them).

Re the cards, personally I wouldn't bother with the 570 or 7950, the specs drop isn't worth it (eg. lower VRAM
with the 570). If you want to go that route, try to find either a 3GB 580 or a GHz Edition 7970. The 580 will be
cheaper, and IMO you'll have less hassle with the drivers (though as others have said it's fair to say the 7970
ought to be equally ok if used just on its own), but the 7970 is certainly faster, though I must confess I was
surprised at how big the 7970s are, actually larger than the MSI 580 3GB LX (or put another way, freakishly
huge when sat next to a Palit 460. :D  I mean if you've not seen such a card before, at first it seems
like your brain is gawping at something like this! *grin*).

The last 3GB 580s I bought cost around 100 UKP each (Palit 783MHz). The 7970s I bought (1050MHz Sapphire and
1150MHz MSI) were about 145 UKP each. I also bought some top-end 832MHz MSI 3GB 580 LX cards for my AE system
and general testing, these were somewhat more, between 135 and 175 (I obtained six of them in all; these cards are
crazy, they oc so easily, 900MHz to 1GHz no problem with most samples - I've run mine at 950 max so far).

1.5GB 580s will cost even less of course, these days around 80 UKP or less in the UK. Fine if you're
only gaming at HD or less, but I'd still recommend hunting for the 3GB type if you can.

Quick note: the standard 3GB 580s like the Palit are definitely quite loud under heavy load (the MSI LXs are
much better), but I was surprised the 7970s didn't really make that much less noise.

Sometimes unusual cards show up, eg. llike this (580 with custom cooler, so much less noise):

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=23...

Only thing I would say though is always buy from a seller which accepts returns, unless they
really do have a thoroughly glowing +ve and high feedback.

Ian.

PS. Oddly enough someone here listed two of the MSI LXs recently (231331994796 and 231331994796), though
I don't think I'd bid quite as much as that now (I obtained most of mine last year when newer cards cost a lot more);
for a single card a 7970 is better value.

m
0
l
September 27, 2014 5:58:47 PM

Mapesdhs, how are you?. I dismissed the possibility of buying used hardware. Nobody gives the possibility of return and the prices are exorbitant, gtx570 and 7850: 220usd. I know an Uruguayan hardware reviewer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LiyCS1bnqw&list=UU05Ef...) and offered me a Galaxy 750ti at 280usd. I know it´s a "good" vga but do not have sli and I can get 270x + $10. I do not trust amd!. I continued researching and I have the possibility that a friend can bring me a vga from USA.

I will overclock my i5 and get Gtx 970, I know sounds crazy but maybe next year I´ll get Z87 or 97. Someone got good score on 3dmark11 with i5 760 at 2.8! + Gtx 970. GPU scrore was identical to an X99 plataform.

3dmark11:

X99 + gtx 970 General score: 15767. Gpu score: 15273.

P55 + gtx 970 General score: 10178. Gpu score: 15267. link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8758339

Does that mean that the gpu work at 100% and the cpu suffered by working at low frequency?.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 27, 2014 6:48:41 PM

Jean Baudrillard said:
Mapesdhs, how are you?. I dismissed the possibility of buying used hardware. Nobody gives the possibility of return and the prices are exorbitant, gtx570 and 7850: 220usd. I know an Uruguayan hardware reviewer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LiyCS1bnqw&list=UU05Ef...) and offered me a Galaxy 750ti at 280usd. I know it´s a "good" vga but do not have sli and I can get 270x + $10. I do not trust amd!. I continued researching and I have the possibility that a friend can bring me a vga from USA.

I will overclock my i5 and get Gtx 970, I know sounds crazy but maybe next year I´ll get Z87 or 97. Someone got good score on 3dmark11 with i5 760 at 2.8! + Gtx 970. GPU scrore was identical to an X99 plataform.

3dmark11:

X99 + gtx 970 General score: 15767. Gpu score: 15273.

P55 + gtx 970 General score: 10178. Gpu score: 15267. link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8758339

Does that mean that the gpu work at 100% and the cpu suffered by working at low frequency?.


Let's be honest , your CPU isn't really bad at all but isn't as cutting edge as the newer generations that's the problem.

Also bare in mind 3dmark11 isn't a real-world game and in real world gaming you're more likely to see some bottlenecks however if you plan on upgrading your CPU next year then your CPU will handle the GTX 970 and you'll see massive improvements over what you have currently however I'd recommend overclocking since you're upgrading anyways and its a risk worth taking.

I know that you asked Ian and not myself but I liked to help you till he responds with a comment disagreeing with me ( JK , We don't always agree but I respect his opinions ) :D 

N.B : AMD aren't a small company and while Nvidia is currently better in the Higher end card range however that doesn't mean that AMD's mid-range cards suck too , so think twice about the available funds and enjoy your upgrades :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 28, 2014 7:02:18 PM

TopLuca makes some good points, and the 970 would certainly be a worthy upgrade; any future
build to which you might switch would cerainly be able to exploit it nicely. Personally, if I could
afford it in your position, I would indeed get a 970 (pity about the used pricing, but never mind;
at least with something new like a 970, you won't have any noise/power issues).

Apologies for not replying with an update sooner! I was really busy this past week. I have however
done the 7970 tests with a stock i5 760, which showed what I expected, namely GPU-bound tests
were almost identical compared to a 7970 running with a 5GHz 2700K (eg. Call of Juarez and Unigine),
while more CPU-dependent game tests (Far Cry 2, Stalker) were indeed slower than the 7970/2700K
combo, but not by as much as one might expect.

In general, older CPU-dependent games are so fast with newer cards like the 7970 that, at lower
resolutions, and despite quite large frame rate differences, the absolute frame rates are so high it
means one would never notice the difference in practice (you'll see what I mean when I've uploaded
the FC2/Stalker data). At higher resolutions, the differences shrink, but performance is still good overall.

Though I've not yet done the 7970 tests with an oc'd i5 760, in the morning I'll uploaded the results
obtained so far so you can see how a 7970 behaves with the i5 760 at stock speed. Many reviews of
the GTX 970 do include a 7970 or 280X (same thing) in their chart results, so the data should prove
useful. I hope to do the overclocked tests this week.

Ian.

PS. Be careful of 3DMark11. Just as with the old 3DMark06, modern CPU/gfx combos tend to produce
significantly higher overall results just via the use of a more powerful CPU, ie. it's possible to have
system A give a higher overall result than system B, even though system B shows higher frame rates
in the game tests than system A. I've seen this again & again with the testing I've been doing.

m
1
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2014 4:02:31 PM

Update! I've uploaded stock-speed i5 760 results with 7970 and 7970/CF to my site (except for 3DMark,
doing that shortly, ie. 3DMark06, Vantage, 3DMark11, Firestrike, etc.) I don't yet have pages for most of
the 3DMark data I've accumulated, but I'll include the links here when they're ready; atm my site only has
a page for the '06 results). See:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

Thus, check the data for Stalker COP, Unigine, X3TC, Call of Juarez, Far Cry 2 and PT Boats.
NB: remember the 7970 GHz Edition is basically the same as a 280X. I have two GHz Edition
7970s, one runs at 1050MHz, the other normally at 1150 but I force it to 1050 in CF so it
matches the other card.

Results are much as I expected with a 7970. At low res/detail, CPU speed does make a difference,
but the fps are so high it doesn't matter anyway. At high res/detail, the gap narrows or vanishes
completely (sans dodgy Unigine/Stalker results because of the DX9/CF issue), yet performance is
still good overall.

DX10/DX11 tests show the expected scaling, with Stalker @ 2560x1440 high-detail 7970/CF very
close to the speed of the same 7970/CF with a 5GHz 2700K. This is what I meant about the way
many games become less & less bottlenecked by CPU power as the resolution/detail/etc. increases.
The gap is a little wider for Ungine Valley @ 1920x1080 DX11, so I expect an oc'd i5 to help there
(notice how the gap shrinks when moving to 2560x1440). Some newer games can behave a bit
differently, but that's less common.

FC2 at 1920x1200 does show a gain from two 7970s even with the i5 @ stock speed, but the gap
between it and the 2700K suggests this a typical example where having the i5 oc'd would help, though
note (as above) the performance is so high one wouldn't really notice. At 2560x1440 the CF scaling gap
increases, which is good, and the divide between the i5 and 2700K sihrinks somewhat, but it's still
significant. Oc'ing the i5 would help, but again the fps is so high one would not notice in practice, except
of course for the larger degree of stutteriing which can occur with multiple GPUs for some tests (this
issue is very noticeable for the high-res Unigine Heaven/Valley tests).

Call of Juarez at low res shows a gap dependent on CPU power, but as above the absolute speed is
so high it doesn't matter. Move up to 1920x1080 though and everything changes. Now the CF scaling
is working very well; the i5 isn't far behind the 2700K, and more interestingly their results for just one
7970 are almost identical. COJ is the classic case where increasing res & detail very quickly moves the
bottleneck onto the GPU. Alas I don't know how to run this test beyond 1920x1200 (doesn't give me
the option of testing any higher), so I don't yet know how performance would scale up to 2560x1440.

PT Boats is an odd one, it seems to be CPU-limited at just about any resolution, perhaps because it
employs lots of physics calculations which normally would be accelerated via PhysX on an NVIDIA card,
but of course with a 7970 it has to be done by the main CPU.

Tropics seems to have CPU-related issues at low res or with DX9, but these factors begin to fade
at HD res and higher. Indeed, at 2560x1440 with DX10, the i5 760 beats the 2700K! :D  (TBH it's
basically exactly the same, ie. well within error margins, but the result is nonetheless amusing,
showing how the GPU-heavy nature of Unigine sometimes only reveals itself when under heavy load).

I think the Heaven results show some potential for an oc'd CPU helping out even at medium detail,
it will be interesting to see what happens with the oc'd setup.

One thing is clear though (and the 3DMark data will likely back this up when I have the numbers),
a P55 system is perfectly capable of exploiting powerful cards quite well, much more so than
most people would believe, and remember most P55 boards are only running with x8/x8 (similar
limited PCIe issue to modern Z97, though at least the newer chipsets are V3, so x8/x8 on a Z97
is akin to x16/x16 on an older board). I do have a P55 board which supports x16/x16 (and also
x8/x8/x8/x8; it's an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer, employs PCIe switches in the usual manner),
but I've not done much with it yet, and I won't use it for most results because such data wouldn't
be representative of most P55 boards.

Anyway, I'll sort out the oc later this week and update the tables with oc'd numbers. Can't do it
sooner, got to do some work stuff first.

Hope this helps!

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2014 4:45:50 PM

Hats off Ian
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 1, 2014 5:09:37 PM

I must again stress that you simply overclock your cpu. Neither of those cards would be bottlenecked in any fashion if you were to push for something moderate like 3.4Ghz.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2014 2:17:18 AM

TopLuca writes:
> Hats off Ian

Thanks! Various 3DMark results coming shortly...


spentshells writes:
> I must again stress that you simply overclock your cpu. Neither of those cards would be bottlenecked in
> any fashion if you were to push for something moderate like 3.4Ghz.

Read my earlier posts, I've covered this already in great detail. Of course I'm going to do oc'd tests aswell,
but the whole point here is to first get a baseline with the CPU at stock speed so that one can compare, see
how different games/tests vary in their response to a faster CPU. Have a look at my data, some games like
CoJ are less dependent on CPU power, others like Stalker and FC2 show mixed behaviour, with the CPU being
less relevant as the resolution/detail increases, though with games like these, even one modern card is so
fast that CPU-based differences tend to be irrelevant anyway.

Games like X3TC are rare, ie. entirely CPU dependent (single threaded I believe, SLI/CF not supported). X3TC behaves
a bit like 3DMark06 wrt to CPU speed.

Last night I did some Crysis testing. Annoyingly the benchmark tool does not offer a 2560x1440 option, so I'm looking
into alternative benchmarking methods. I had hoped to do tests that one could directly compare to existing data on
toms reviews, etc., but the old site-review tradition of using 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 may make that impossible -
back then was before the market shift to 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. I also found that changing test settings didn't
really seem to affect performance that much, so I'm not sure the benchmark tool is running the tests correctly.

I had a look for newer downloadable benchmark demos, but couldn't find any. Anyone know of something relevant?
I tried the Resident Evil 6 demo, but it's rubbish. Seems like the older tradition of releasing game demos that can be
used as benchmarks has kinda faded away.

Is there a standard Crysis2 benchmark demo? I could use that I suppose as a slightly more up to date game. I do
have the full game, so no problem there.

If anyone knows of a downloadable standalone racing game benchmark, let me know.

Ian.

m
1
l
October 4, 2014 4:18:09 PM

Sorry!, these day´s I was making a work for college.

Ian, Superb assay!. I read everything very carefully, I will continue with my p55 for two years.

Don´t worry about further benchmarks!. I can´t believe you're doing so much work.

I will post when I upgrade my gpu!.

I could write much more in my native language. Regret these short messages

We are in contact!.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2014 4:14:23 AM


Thanks! Hehe, can't stop now! :D  The data points need to be free...

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2014 1:42:25 PM

mapesdhs said:
TopLuca writes:
> Hats off Ian

Thanks! Various 3DMark results coming shortly...


spentshells writes:
> I must again stress that you simply overclock your cpu. Neither of those cards would be bottlenecked in
> any fashion if you were to push for something moderate like 3.4Ghz.

Read my earlier posts, I've covered this already in great detail. Of course I'm going to do oc'd tests aswell,
but the whole point here is to first get a baseline with the CPU at stock speed so that one can compare, see
how different games/tests vary in their response to a faster CPU. Have a look at my data, some games like
CoJ are less dependent on CPU power, others like Stalker and FC2 show mixed behaviour, with the CPU being
less relevant as the resolution/detail increases, though with games like these, even one modern card is so
fast that CPU-based differences tend to be irrelevant anyway.

Games like X3TC are rare, ie. entirely CPU dependent (single threaded I believe, SLI/CF not supported). X3TC behaves
a bit like 3DMark06 wrt to CPU speed.

Last night I did some Crysis testing. Annoyingly the benchmark tool does not offer a 2560x1440 option, so I'm looking
into alternative benchmarking methods. I had hoped to do tests that one could directly compare to existing data on
toms reviews, etc., but the old site-review tradition of using 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 may make that impossible -
back then was before the market shift to 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. I also found that changing test settings didn't
really seem to affect performance that much, so I'm not sure the benchmark tool is running the tests correctly.

I had a look for newer downloadable benchmark demos, but couldn't find any. Anyone know of something relevant?
I tried the Resident Evil 6 demo, but it's rubbish. Seems like the older tradition of releasing game demos that can be
used as benchmarks has kinda faded away.

Is there a standard Crysis2 benchmark demo? I could use that I suppose as a slightly more up to date game. I do
have the full game, so no problem there.

If anyone knows of a downloadable standalone racing game benchmark, let me know.

Ian.




Just to be clear what you are stating in response to me does not indicate bottleneck but rather what games are more gpu or cpu dependent. This line of testing will is not a way to identify bottlenecks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2014 12:22:22 AM

Er, that's the very definition of a bottleneck. :D  And btw, an oc of the kind you're referring to is still not enough
to remove such a bottleneck in many cases. Clearly you've never tested games like X3TC or pro apps like ProE.
Also, 3.4 for an i5 760 is really low compared to this CPU's typical capabilities (heck, its default max turbo is
almost that high already); most i5 760s will happily run at 4.0 with a very conservative 1.35V, unless one insists
on running the RAM at a high speed or has all slots used (ie. stressing the IMC). Usually it's the mbd that holds
this CPU back (bclk limits, etc.), which is why I'm testing with a middle of the road mbd to demonstrate typical
results most people should be able to achieve. It's only H55 boards and really entry level boards that can be
hampered somewhat, due to having far fewer power phases, a less sophisticated BIOS and often no heatsinks
on the chipset components. Even then though, one can get good results sometimes, eg. I recently built an H55
system with an i5 760 running at a fairly moderate 3.85. In this case though I'll limit the oc to whatever I can
achieve with 1.4V max vcore, with the RAM kept at or near 1600 and QPI at a lesser level. In reality many boards
can do a lot better than this (on my Deluxe I had the same CPU running fine at 4.45), but I want to keep it in the
middleground to be usefully representative, so most likely it'll end up at 4.2.

Anyway, this way of testing is exactly how to identify bottlenecks (dependency & bottleneck are basically
the same thing). If you don't agree, then do your own tests. How many GPUs/CPUs/mbds do you have?
As I've posted dozens of times elsewhere, the best test would be the very app or task the user will
be doing, but since I often don't have that particular game or whatever then what I can do instead is
demonstrate typical worst-case (X3TC) and best-case (CoJ) examples of how CPU power can hold back
a game, with other inbetween examples, and then the end user can extrapolate from their own system
results how any upgrade they're considering would help performance. I also include DX9/DX10 results
to help those playing older games, including Unigine (no review site does that, it's too time consuming),
and I have an entire page dedicated to showing how 3D results vary when exactly the same GPU is
tested with a wide variety of CPUs.

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2014 12:23:23 PM

mapesdhs said:
Er, that's the very definition of a bottleneck. :D  And btw, an oc of the kind you're referring to is still not enough to
remove such a bottleneck in many cases. Clearly you've never tested games like X3TC or pro apps like ProE...

And this way of testing is exactly how to identify bottlenecks (dependency & bottleneck are basically
the same thing). If you don't agree, then do your own tests. How many GPUs/CPUs/mbds do you have?
As I've posted dozens of times elsewhere, the best test would be the very app or task the user will
be doing, but since I often don't have that particular game or whatever then what I can do instead is
demonstrate typical worst-case (X3TC) and best-case (CoJ) examples of how CPU power can hold back
a game, with other inbetween examples, and then the end user can extrapolate from their own system
results how any upgrade they're considering would help performance. I also include DX9/DX10 results
to help those playing older games, including Unigine (no review site does that, it's too time consuming),
and I have an entire page dedicated to showing how 3D results vary when exactly the same GPU is
tested with a wide variety of CPUs.

Ian.




No friend it isn't. bottleneck is where the cpu can not deal with as many frames as the gpu can produce. What you are referring to is if the game is gpu or cpu heavy, this is not the same thing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2014 4:08:33 PM


Yes it is, and btw the word does not refer to whether it's the CPU at issue or some other aspect of the system
such as GPU, RAM, I/O, etc.

Besides, the true potential of a GPU depends entirely on the drivers, and in the consumer world that's
seriously limited by the limited amount of dev time on that arch before the dev team move on. There
hasn't been a 100% exploited GPU tech since the high-end tech from the late 1990s.

Ian.

PS. CoJ results prove your statement false. QED.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 6, 2014 4:53:49 PM

Well your wrong but i'm not going to spend any time trying to convince you. Bottleneck is where the cpu usage hits 90-100% when gaming or performing some other gpu related task while the gpu is not at full load. This is bottlenecking.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 1:30:44 AM

Not so, the word does not refer to just one specific situation of anything (check a dictionary). In computing
scenarios, it can be just as much an issue with the GPU, memory bandwidth, I/O or other factor.

Besides, rather than arguing semantics, why don't you do some tests and provide some useful data?


Jean,

CPU oc settled at 4.2 (191 x 22), 1.385 vcore, 1.399 VTT. 1.12 PLL, RAM @ 1530: http://valid.canardpc.com/pfy34a
Max load temp was 74C (ambient 22C) after 1hr Prime95, so plenty of thermal headroom, well within limits.
Gives a CB 11.529 score of 5.63 (49% speedup over stock fixed 2.8GHz).

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 4:02:13 PM

Yes it does bottleneck is a hardware issue. That's what bottleneck is. Anyway, I just replaced my q6600 with a Xeon 1230 v2 so I guess bottlenecks wont be an issue I need to continue discussing.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 8:15:40 PM


The word is not specific to computer hardware. It can refer to any process, whether computer related or not.
This can be any part of a system; in computer terms, not just the CPU.

Yes, the 1230 V2 looks decent, though I'm surprised you didn't just get a 2700K. Every 2700K I've obtained
runs at 5.0 just fine (assuming the use of a suitable board), sorted five so far.

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2014 8:27:09 PM

This is going nowhere. Enjoy 5 Ghz as there is no card that it would currently bottleneck.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 8:36:21 PM

spentshells said:
This is going nowhere. Enjoy 5 Ghz as there is no card that it would currently bottleneck.


After reading, I honestly think that you have no say in this conversation. Calling someone wrong on a thread where you are supposed to discuss to come to a resolution is pretty much frowned upon. I can say so myself when I used to be immature and got banned for 7 Days from here.

Just watch what you say.

To answer the question (which by now, being 3 weeks old, probably doesn't matter): Since the 900 series for Nvidia came out, the prices have been all over the place. I recently purchased my Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 two weeks ago for $370 ($400 since I needed it immediately for Colorado LANFest), and might I say, all the benchmarks were right.

I had some problems with CS:GO and Modded Minecraft, but as I fix settings they seem to perform better though I still don't know what the core problem is. Other than that, the upgrade from my year old GTX 770 ($330 at the time) was totally worth it. This card literally is a 780 Ti if not better and I totally recommend it to everyone, even if you are on a tighter budget.

Edit: As far as Assetto Corsa goes, with every update so far the performance has greatly been increased (especially in 0.22). For reference, I run on a 144 hz monitor so frames are key on those games that can perform that good. For Assetto Corsa I run custom settings that lay within the High-Very High range, and on my GTX 770 with the 0.22 Update, I was seeing a constant 144+ FPS in practice mode, and then anywhere from 80-144 with 12-18 AI players, and really above that, it starts to fidget between 40 FPS and 70 FPS because of the settings (keep in mind the High-Very High settings).

On a 60 hz monitor, if you didn't get them already, the GTX 970 should keep you above and beyond 60 FPS for a good deal of situations. If you would like, today and / or tomorrow I can run a couple tests to see where it's at and let you know the deal. :p 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2014 1:12:32 AM


Just curious, how do you find the noise level with the G1? I was reading a review yesterday of the 980 G1,
it was supposedly somewhat louder than the ASUS Strix, though as always kinda hard to infer in absolute terms.

Pricing is a pain. I've noticed the 980s keep climbing even though they're largely out of stock (not been watching
the 970s much).

Also, do you know of any self-contained newer game demo/benchmarks that exist? Especially anything racing-related?

I did try using the Crysis Benchmark Tool, some peculiar results, as if it wasn't forcing the desired settings (numbers
were way too high). I'd rather use something newer though if possible.


Jean, big speedups for 3DMark06 with the oc'd i5 760. 8)

Ian.

m
0
l
October 8, 2014 5:52:54 AM

I honestly find the noise to be no issue. To make a real world comparison, with its fans on 95%, it sounds similar to air blowing through a ceiling fan. If you have gaming headsets, you literally cannot hear a thing. I think the decibel rating system is overrated and it really comes down to personal preference and real world comparions. Honestly I love the sounds of fans, it makes my machine sound like it's alive, lol. Of course your can pretty much turn the fans off and it shold still stay pretty cool because of the massive heatsink. And the fan whine problem is non existent, I really don't hear what people are saying they hear.

I can probably run some tests today after I get home and I'll let you know how they come out. ^_^
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2014 7:32:54 AM


Hehe, I think if I played the games I like with a headset (eg. Stalker COP), I'd be jumping six feet in the air every 5 mins. :D 

Really though I don't use a headset because I need to be able to hear the phone ringing.

Ian.

PS. Have you ever used the Catzilla benchmark? If so, your thoughts?

m
0
l
October 8, 2014 10:13:12 AM

Lol I know what you mean. Personally, living in a house with other people, I like the headsets because not only can you have a sense of privacy with what you are hearing, it won't bother other people with noise pollution. Other than that, having the speakers right up to your ears allows you to hear different dB of sound that with normal speakers you can't hear because those sound waves aren't strong enough to reach your ears (this is on a very extreme level of course).

I have not used Catzilla, but it looks amazing, I think I'll try it out.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 8, 2014 10:28:27 AM


Hmm, good points! Especially when it's late (not the best sound proofing re shared wall with neighbours).

Catzilla is an odd benchmark. I don't like the web site much, and it's results management is pretty woeful.
It has very few customisation options either. Just not sure how representative it is wrt modern GPU effects
complexity. Either way, I've done the eight tests for the various CPU/GPU combinations at 1080 and 1440.

Running the 4.2/CF 3DMark11 tests as I type.

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2014 5:15:37 PM


I've updated my site with the main results. CF definitely doesn't work so well with DX9, though
with the tests I use the frame rates are so high it doesn't matter, except for the stuttering.

Will post later with a summary of the 3DMark & Catzilla data.

Ian.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 17, 2014 8:41:12 PM

GOM3RPLY3R said:
spentshells said:
This is going nowhere. Enjoy 5 Ghz as there is no card that it would currently bottleneck.


After reading, I honestly think that you have no say in this conversation. Calling someone wrong on a thread where you are supposed to discuss to come to a resolution is pretty much frowned upon. I can say so myself when I used to be immature and got banned for 7 Days from here.

Just watch what you say.


I already made it very clear, had you read everything I wrote, you would see that. I've been here for 8 years? I read for about 3 before that. I've worked with computer hardware for 2 before that, trust me I've said a lot of things that have gotten me a warning but never band as I am actually providing information I know for a fact I get warned for being a dick but I've been working on that ;) . What the OP is describing is finding if the game is cpu or gpu dependant for performance..... NOT bottlenecking. There is nothing to discuss, cpu bottlenecking a gpu is exactly what I described, its a shame that the fellow along with yourself do not seem to think so. I'm not here to argue about things I know factually ,that is a waste of time. I say things matter of factly because they are after all..... facts I've checked.

There are a lot of people who correct me here on the forums, I know they are right because I've seen the information they have shared over the years and I do my best to learn from them a lot of people correct me but really have no idea what it is they are talking about. I've seen a lot of the old guard go as they got tired of the playground type environment that pops up here. Everyone is right these days because they read something somewhere but most times only sighting one source, even the some sites are wrong here and there, the only way to confirm that is to read more or actually find out for yourself by checking the hardware.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 18, 2014 1:07:16 AM

I guess you still haven't checked a dictionary. :D 

Feel free to believe whatever you wish, doesn't matter to me & I really don't care now in arguing
about a word. Fact is, I'm the one doing the real-world tests and providing useful data for the OP,
and that's what matters most of all (you haven't provided a single data point for the OP, not one;
by contrast, I have a load of 3DMark data to type up which is directly relevant).

I've been benchmarking systems for more than 20 years, I know about benchmarking, it's been
my field since early uni days, originally with SGIs. I was working with 3D benchmarking before
3D on PCs even existed. :D 


To the OP, sorry for the delay on the 3DMark writeup, just doing some urgent DIY atm, and had a
couple of rush medical system orders. Will type it up over the weekend, assuming nothing else
crops up.

Ian.

m
0
l
!