Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CPU bottleneck for GTX680

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 8, 2012 10:30:18 AM

Now that the 680 has been out for a while, i think its time for me to ask this question.

More about : cpu bottleneck gtx680

June 8, 2012 10:33:35 AM

Accidentally pressed "Submit".
Anyway.
I have a Q8300 OC to 2.9Ghz origanally from 2.5Ghz. Im so wiling to go up more but my mobo is restricting me.
I also have 4GB DDR3 Corsair XMS3

Will it bottleneck on a game like BF3? Preferrably want all ultra setting @1920x1080
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:05:08 PM

Yup that's probably going to bottleneck. I had a 7970 with a 4 GHz Phenom II x6 and that bottlenecked some games (not BF3 since BF3 could use all 6 cores).
Related resources
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:13:42 PM

BF3 doesn't utilize more than 3 Cores, and the game will probably work great with the Q8300 with a minor FPS decrease, but the CPU will be a major fail in the other heavy titles. So no way, you need an upgrade.
June 8, 2012 12:18:04 PM

I have a Q9550 - There is a chance it'll be a little slower than mainstream chips. But i'm running at stock (2.83) and haven't ran into a game i cannot even play. Everything is playable on a 6870. So if that makes confidence in your decision, then do what you need to. Unless you want to play at 5600*2600 whatever it is over 2-3 monitors at max resolutions you don't need the top end "newest" ones. If you don't mind playing at 1600*900, a 7950 would be plenty fast. I suspect the Q9550 (from 2007) will be good enough for 1080p for all games on my now 6950 card until the end of next year no problem.

Question is.... What is your needs and resolution requirements to play and enjoy the game?

My thoughts are always positioned towards value.... Can you play the game at 45-60 FPS consistantly at a good resolution... If so, its worth it. Is it worth spending 2000 vs 800?
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:20:46 PM

@nao1120
Downgrading from 1080P to 900P won't look good in the monitor, i never turn resolution down, pixels will look ****, you can turn down some settings but not the resolution.

He just said, Ultra @ 1080P.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:29:48 PM

ilysaml said:
BF3 doesn't utilize more than 3 Cores, and the game will probably work great with the Q8300 with a minor FPS decrease, but the CPU will be a major fail in the other heavy titles. So no way, you need an upgrade.


That's funny, since on my 960t all 6 cores would be at 60-80% usage constantly when playing multiplayer.

Also,


Care to explain the difference between the Phenom II x4 and the Phenom II x6, since BF3 apparently "doesn't utilize more than 3 cores"? :pfff: 
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:56:14 PM

I've not looked at those benches, look at these;

Can you see the dual core i3 and the quad core i7? Is there a difference?
Also, you might wanna see this;

Is there any difference between 4/6/8 cores?
Does Hyperthreading make a difference?


The case might be different in multiplier that's why I was asking you in the other thread if your FPS are being with this rate in singleplayer and multiplayer, there are too many requests for articles showing CPU scaling in multiplier games.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 12:59:47 PM

You may notice that that is single player. Sweclockers benchmarked multiplayer. And that's where it needs the extra threads.

Single player doesn't care too much what CPU you have. I also think it's fair to assume that OP was asking about multiplayer, since he didn't specify. If OP wants to play BF3 single player, I'd say don't spend your money on this game at all.

This is a correct statement:
"BF3 doesn't utilize more than 3 Cores in single player"

This is an incorrect statement:
"BF3 doesn't utilize more than 3 Cores"
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 1:05:39 PM

I've never seen hyperthreading affecting games significantly, it depends more on the core performance, and sometimes the top end CPUs are brought to their knees in multiplayer modes specially in RPG games.

Quote:
Single player doesn't care too much what CPU you have

I'm afraid I'll disagree with you at this point, Cuz Skyrim was a CPU whore, the last check of toms benches, you couldn't exceed the 60 FPS unless you had a Core i5 2500k.
June 8, 2012 1:22:01 PM

Thank you all for your replies. And yes, I DO want to play multiplayer and was looking to see if my cpu bottlenecked the 680 IN multiplayer.
By the way, if my cpu bottlenecks the graphics card, the 680, will it just restrict the increase in fps or what?
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 1:24:36 PM

True, your GPU's full potentiality will be held back by your CPU.
June 8, 2012 2:10:51 PM

wrenaudrey said:
Now that the 680 has been out for a while, i think its time for me to ask this question.


wrenaudrey, just to bounce an idea off of you. What if you went for the GTX 670 for right now? It would be a little less CPU bottlenecked by your present rig. Save $100 over the 680 and get an i5 2500k and a LGA 1155 motherboard when you can afford it.

i5 2500k + LGA 1155 motherboard - $100 savings (from getting a 670 for now) = ~ $240 - $300 depending on the motherboard you like.

Overclock the i5 and GTX 670 as needed to keep up with future games for a few years . Eventually you will need to upgrade again but we're all on the upgrade path anyway.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 2:17:09 PM

GTX 670 is just 5% slower than GTX 680? You claim that there'll be a slight bottleneck with GTX 670 instead of GTX 680?
Simply this is flat wrong, any high end card would be bottlenecked by that CPU even if it was a GTX 560.
Q2Q is about 4 generations behind.

EDIT: But going with the idea of GTX 670 instead of GTX 680 is superb as the difference is not noticeable while saving $100.
June 8, 2012 2:32:31 PM

I said a "little less bottlenecked" not a "slight bottleneck". Of course the present rig can't fully utilize either card. I was just suggesting a possible upgrade path to a more balanced system.
June 8, 2012 4:54:33 PM

To be honest with you lot, i actually typed in the wrong card, it was meant to be a 670 but i just went along with it anyway.
I will eventually want to upgrade, its just that im lacking of that thing that keep this world going round-money.
Thank you all for your thoughts and replies. I've decided that i will be getting the 670 even though there is bottleneck, but oh well, i can always reuse that card when i get the upgrades.
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 5:10:05 PM

ilysaml said:
Quote:
Single player doesn't care too much what CPU you have

I'm afraid I'll disagree with you at this point, Cuz Skyrim was a CPU whore, the last check of toms benches, you couldn't exceed the 60 FPS unless you had a Core i5 2500k.


Last I checked, I was talking about BF3, not gaming in general, to refute your statement about BF3 not using more than 3 cores.

@OP: GTX 670 is a great choice. You can always buy a new CPU later if you don't like your performance.
June 8, 2012 5:25:25 PM

Enjoy wrenaudrey...that's a hell of a good card!
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
June 8, 2012 5:49:50 PM

ilysaml said:
GTX 670 is just 5% slower than GTX 680? You claim that there'll be a slight bottleneck with GTX 670 instead of GTX 680?
Simply this is flat wrong, any high end card would be bottlenecked by that CPU even if it was a GTX 560.
Q2Q is about 4 generations behind. DISAGREE

EDIT: But going with the idea of GTX 670 instead of GTX 680 is superb as the difference is not noticeable while saving $100.



AGREE
DISAGREE
AGREE
!