i5 2500k Bottleneck Point?

L

Lights Out

n00b
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
52
i5 2500k @ 4.5 GHz

Thinking about picking up an r9 290 now that prices have dropped, however, I definitely wouldn't mind waiting on those 20nm pirate island cards.

My question is, have GPUs (specifically r9-290) now reached a point where they're bottlenecked by an i5 2500k or are at least evenly capable? Obviously there will always be a bottleneck but are they evenly matched? There has to be a prime point where a CPU and GPU are "meant for each other" so to say.

If the i5-2500k still has room, I'd just wait on the pirate island cards. If not and my i5 is becoming the bottleneck, I'll just jump on the 290 now. Thanks for any help.
 
No single card will be bottlenecked by a 2500k, especially with an overclock.
 
I think it be rare to bottleneck a cpu from the 1366 generation for that matter
 
Here's a i5-2500k vs i7-4770K review, with results for both a single AMD 7950 or two in Crossfire. For the single-card tests, even the most CPU-bound game they tested only got 11% more performance, and most of the rest were at 3% or less.
 
I had a i7 920 OC'd to 3.8GHZ, and that was not limiting my 280x at 1440p gaming. That said, multi-gpu or certain RTS games may tell a different story. I'd keep the 2500k for now, esp with that OC.
 
Yea regardless I won't be upgrading my CPU for at least another 2 years. I was trying to see how close a 290 was to being bottlenecked by the 2500k so I know whether or not the pirate island GPUs are worth the wait. I wouldn't want to wait on a GPU that would be held back by my CPU anyway.

Seems as so that is not the case so the wait begins for the 20nm GPUs lol thanks for the help guys, appreciate it
 
Ironically Intel may be a victim of its own success. I am sporting a almost two year old 2600K processor and see absolutely no reason to upgrade for another few years. It runs great at a 4.4 OC and nothing slows me down other than my video card which is being replaced next week.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Ironically Intel may be a victim of its own success. I am sporting a almost two year old 2600K processor and see absolutely no reason to upgrade for another few years. It runs great at a 4.4 OC and nothing slows me down other than my video card which is being replaced next week.
Click to expand...

Yep, I've only recently started hearing that games are trying to take advantage of more than 4 cores. I'm currently only being held back by my 6950
 
HeavensCloud said:
No single card will be bottlenecked by a 2500k, especially with an overclock.
Click to expand...

Shhh. Do not say that.. Here in the forum are a certain guy (something K6) that say his i5 2500K@ 5.0ghz bottleneck his 7970 in BF4 @2560x1600 hahahaha. :cool:
 
No GPU set-up of any kind will be bottlenecked by a 2500k at the moment. The CPU may hold back performance in multi-gpu setups but won't be a bottleneck.
 
HeavensCloud said:
No single card will be bottlenecked by a 2500k, especially with an overclock.
Click to expand...


That is not always true and I had a 2500k at 4.4 with a 770 and 780. It will really hold back Crysis 3 by quite a bit in many spots. It also held back Hitman Absolution in some spots but the newest drivers seem to have given a nice cpu limited boost in that game. There are probably some other cases too especially in multi player or RTS games. I know even in games where my frame rate was above 60 I was still nearly tapping out the 2500k in parts of games. If someone had a 120/144 hz screen it would be a more noticeable bottleneck. If you play without vsync you are unlikely to ever notice any limitation from a 2500k though.

Spazturtle said:
No GPU set-up of any kind will be bottlenecked by a 2500k at the moment. The CPU may hold back performance in multi-gpu setups but won't be a bottleneck.
Click to expand...

See above and that does not make a lot of sense. Some of you have your own definition of a bottleneck but if a cpu is limiting performance then a bottleneck is exactly what it is.
 
Last edited:
misterbobby said:
See above and that does not make a lot of sense. Some of you have your own definition of a bottleneck but if a cpu is limiting performance then a bottleneck is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean, however thats not totally correct applied to bottleneck, a CPU bottleneck its when you hurt your system performance for example, when you aren't able to peg your GPU at 99% with vsync off.. Thats a truly bottleneck.. When you have a hit in performance for not being able to fully utilize your GPU.. What are you talking really its really about game optimization.. Some games as you mentioned may hurt your performance, or you will see lower performance with your 2500K vs your 4770K, however that does not mean you are bottlenecking your GPU, Because the GPU its still being fully used, taking that into consideration a 2500K will not never bottleneck a single GPU actually in the market... I for example can mount a E8400 with a 770 and you will not be able to maximize that GPU and you will rarely see it at 99%, thats a truly bottleneck.. A stronger CPU show more performance? Of course, but thats not a bottleneck..
 
Again some people just have their own definition. To me it simply means if you are limiting the full performance of something. A 2500k is a bottleneck for a very high end card in some cases. Its very much a playable and noticeable bottleneck if using vsync in the 2 single player games I mentioned. Well after the driver update its probably only Crysis 3. Again though without vsync on then it would not be very noticeable to drop into the 40s at times. I dont play multi player or rts games which would likely demand a little more cpu power though.
 
Lights Out said:
Obviously there will always be a bottleneck but are they evenly matched?
Click to expand...

If there is always a bottleneck how could they be evenly matched? :p


evilsofa said:
Here's a i5-2500k vs i7-4770K review, with results for both a single AMD 7950 or two in Crossfire. For the single-card tests, even the most CPU-bound game they tested only got 11% more performance, and most of the rest were at 3% or less.
Click to expand...

THIS is a good answer. It seems like any time there is a question about bottlenecks on this forum that you get about 8 or 9 retarded answers for every good answer
 
I have to wonder if any of you actually test anything yourselves? I tested the heck out of Crysis 3 and actually looked at the framerates and recorded benchmarks. Stock 2500k was hitting mid 30s, oced 2500k hitting high 30s to low 40s, stock 4770k hitting low 50s, oced 4770k hitting just under 60 fps. Those are for lows but they happen quite a bit depending on where you are testing. That was all with a 780 on the exact same settings of very high with shadows on medium and using SMAA. Those were all done in the same Post Human level with real world testing that I always use.

Since people like to link to stuff, here goes. Here he is getting 30% difference with HT on versus off on a 2700k running very high settings and thats not even as cpu intense of an area I was testing in. http://maldotex.blogspot.com/2013/02/hyperthreading-and-real-custom-graphics.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah unless you want to play Crysis 3 with vsync on then its really not necessary to upgrade from a 2500k with any single gpu. Now if running high end sli then I would not want a 2500k and would personally consider the 2600k as the minimum cpu for that due to the additional cpu overhead.
 
the only game i've found where my 2500k is a noticeable bottleneck is league of legends. my framerate will dip into the 60s in extremely chaotic teamfights if i leave effects on very high, and into the 70s-80s if i set effects to medium. meanwhile my 770 is sitting at <30% usage. quite the joke.
 
misterbobby said:
See above and that does not make a lot of sense. Some of you have your own definition of a bottleneck but if a cpu is limiting performance then a bottleneck is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm using the correct version of what a bottleneck is. Think of a actual bottle, no matter how big the main section is the neck will limit how much liquid can get though. You could make the main section bugger but the flow rate wouldn't change at all.


If a 2500k was a bottleneck of say a single 7970 then a single 7970 and quad xfire 7970s would have exactly the same performance.
 
Spazturtle said:
I'm using the correct version of what a bottleneck is. Think of a actual bottle, no matter how big the main section is the neck will limit how much liquid can get though. You could make the main section bugger but the flow rate wouldn't change at all.


If a 2500k was a bottleneck of say a single 7970 then a single 7970 and quad xfire 7970s would have exactly the same performance.
Click to expand...
The "correct" version? So according to you then anything faster than a very low end Core 2 duo from 2006 will not be a "bottleneck"? Again we all have our own interpretations but to me what you are describing is a 100% limitation. To me bottleneck simply does mean a limitation but the actual amount can vary.
 
That 3% performance difference has more to do with it being pcie 2 instead of pcie 3. This is still a processor issue, but it is good to know.
 
Taking the figurative meaning of a bottleneck, I would agree that any time a component is limited, there's a bottleneck present (severity will vary).

However there's an exception. Although technically a bottleneck, I wouldn't fault the CPU because of poor code optimization or lack of multi-core support within a game. If it efficiently took advantage of the extra cores, it wouldn't be a problem but sometimes it relies solely on high IPC and clock on 2 cores or less. In this case I don't consider the CPU to be a bottleneck but a victim of the program's code.
 
evilsofa said:
Here's a i5-2500k vs i7-4770K review, with results for both a single AMD 7950 or two in Crossfire. For the single-card tests, even the most CPU-bound game they tested only got 11% more performance, and most of the rest were at 3% or less.
Click to expand...

interesting article, but wish it did 4670k also as my feeling is hyperthreading is a waste of cash unless you doing something specific which benefits from it like encoding.
 
chrcoluk said:
interesting article, but wish it did 4670k also as my feeling is hyperthreading is a waste of cash unless you doing something specific which benefits from it like encoding.
Click to expand...
Its pretty much a waste in any single player gaming except for Crysis 3. Some games are starting to really push 4 cores though so its nice not to have my cpu basically pegged out like the 2500k was at times. I really wish that Haswell would have gotten a meaningful IPC bump over Ivy and Sandy Bridge as that would help justify an upgrade.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top