GTX 1080 ti on PCI-e 2.0 System???

TahoeDust

TahoeDust

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
502
Will the PCI-E 2.0 be the bottleneck on this system? If so, how bad will it be?

i7 2700k @ 4.9 ghz
ASUS P8Z68 Deluxe MOBO
16gb DDR3 PC-1866
EVGA 1080 TI SC2 BE

Edit:
I left out an important factor. This will be on a system using a 3440x1440 100hz ultrawide. The move to the 1080ti was an effort to get as close to 100fps as possible.
 
Last edited:
The CPU will probably be a bigger bottleneck than the PCI-E bus. I would just go ahead and upgrade to a 7700K.
 
Rizen said:
The CPU will probably be a bigger bottleneck than the PCI-E bus. I would just go ahead and upgrade to a 7700K.
Click to expand...
Really? Most of what I read made me think that from a 5.0ghz 2700k to a 7700k was not really worth it yet. If so, I am excited. I have been waiting for a worthwhile upgrade for a long time.
 
Well I can tell you that I went from a i7 920 @ 4.4GHz to a 4770K @ 4.4GHz and it made a substantial difference in minimum frame rates and frame times. And the 7700K is three generations ahead of that. So yes, I think it would absolutely be worth it.
 
TahoeDust said:
Really? Most of what I read made me think that from a 5.0ghz 2700k to a 7700k was not really worth it yet.
Click to expand...

Well, are you currently CPU or GPU limited in your current favorite games? Should not be too difficult to find out.

If you determine that you are GPU limited, I wouldn't worry too much about PCIe 2.0. Keep in mind that 16x PCIe 2.0 is equivalent to 8x PCIe 3.0. 8x PCIe 3.0 is what each card usually gets when there are two cards in SLI, and you don't generally see any issues in that regard.
 
GotNoRice said:
Well, are you currently CPU or GPU limited in your current favorite games? Should not be too difficult to find out.

If you determine that you are GPU limited, I wouldn't worry too much about PCIe 2.0. Keep in mind that 16x PCIe 2.0 is equivalent to 8x PCIe 3.0. 8x PCIe 3.0 is what each card usually gets when there are two cards in SLI, and you don't generally see any issues in that regard.
Click to expand...

I left out an important fact in the OP. The 1080 ti upgrade was spurred by the purchase of a 3440x1440 100hz monitor. The 1080 ti move is an effort to get as close to 100fps as possible.
 
My 2 780ti's in surround (3420x 1920) caused my pcie 2.0 bus to hit 100%

Was using a 2600k @ 4.6

Caused stutter and hitching. Prompted me to upgrade.
 
Aaron_ATX said:
My 2 780ti's in surround (3420x 1920) caused my pcie 2.0 bus to hit 100%

Was using a 2600k @ 4.6

Caused stutter and hitching. Prompted me to upgrade.
Click to expand...

But running two cards, you were splitting that PCIe 2.0 bandwidth, and each card would have got 8x PCIe 2.0, or the equivalent of 4x PCIe 3.0. OP has only one card, so that one card would get the full 16x PCIe 2.0, or the equivalent of 8x PCIe 3.0. Twice the bandwidth that each of your cards got. It should not limit anything.
 
I bet it will be close :)

Easy enough for op to monitor and upgrade if needed. Definately interested in the results.

If you have the disposable cash to go ahead and upgrade, do it.
 
I'll log some hours later this week and post what I find as far as CPU vs GPU limitation is concerned. I will probably make the move to the 7700k soonish, need to let the debit card rest. The monitor and 1080 ti in the last two days have it running pretty warm.
 
TahoeDust said:
I'll log some hours later this week and post what I find as far as CPU vs GPU limitation is concerned. I will probably make the move to the 7700k soonish, need to let the debit card rest. The monitor and 1080 ti in the last two days have it running pretty warm.
Click to expand...
Pcie 2.0x16 is 99 percent of the performance you'd get if you had Pcie 3.0.

If you can wait more than a month, the CPU space could become more interesting in the next 12 months. 100fps minimum is certainly also dependent on the CPU and settings. The 7700k is a beast, but who knows what beasts lie ahead, possible with greater than quad core

Here are some benchmarks supporting this, although they were not done at your resolution
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/pci-express-3-0-vs-2-0-gaming-performance-gain/4/

Edit: here's a better review which covers your resolution range 1440p to 4K
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/24.html
perfrel_3840_2160.png
 
Last edited:
PCI-E 2.0 x16 is fine, but I'd seriously consider upgrading your whole PC at some point in the near future. You don't want to be one of those guys on Steam who bitches that new games don't work on their AMD Phenom II.
 
Get the 1080ti now and then upgrade your CPU sometime soon. And please don't go with another 4 core/8 thread CPU when you do upgrade later since you like keeping your CPUs for a while. Maybe look at least getting the 6 core/12 thread Coffee Lake.
 
I don't "like" keeping a CPU a long time. I just have never been CPU limited. I have a nice 7700k setup saved in my cart if the 1080ti makes that the case. We shall see.

Screenshot_2017-05-05-15-32-58.png
 
read the 2600k vs 7700k 4.5ghz comparison on the intel section here. its a 20% difference in general computing, and for games only noticeable in 640x480.

throwing away a 4.9ghz 2700k would be dumb, and as shown above PCIE doesnt do shit when 1.1 2.0 and 3.0 x16 all do the same. Save your money
 
The ease at which my 2600K cruises at 5.0 giggles is why I've been comfortable keeping it for so long. I suspect most of us with Sandy's clocked at 4.7+ feel similarly. A 4.0+ GHz 6c/12t Coffee Lake would finally be that substantial enough upgrade (IPC improvements plus the extra cores/threads) to be step up for me. We really don't sacrifice more than a few frames at PCIe 2.0 for that to be any kind of concern.
 
I think a lot of people see older hardware and their immediate reaction is to suggest an upgrade.

A 2700k at 4.9GHz is hardly a bottleneck. PCIe 2.0 x16 is hardly a bottleneck for a single card.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_PCI_Express_Scaling/

Test example there is a 1080 and there's about a 1 fps difference in most of the games. I didn't read through the entire article, just the first few games, but it seemed pretty consistent.

Edit: I see someone has already beaten me to the punch with the TPU link.
 
Last edited:
It'd be nice to see some FCAT results in those scaling tests. It's always average fps from what I've seen.

I don't think you can really put the discussion to bed until then.

I'd say go for that CPU upgrade, since you're targeting 100Hz.
 
With my 980Ti and 1440p, and game that can't get to 100fps is because I don't have the GPU grunt to do it. With a 1080Ti, a 2700k @ 4.9GHz and 3440x1440 resolution, that CPU upgrade won't do much for that 100hz target.
 
Looks like your bottleneck is about 1% for pci-e 2.0 with a single card vs pci-e 3.0 with a single card. Relative to the 1080. With 1080ti maybe it's a bit more.

Not worth worrying about.

Just wait. We are on the cusp of some very much more powerful CPUs coming out that'll make your upgrade last longer.

Ryzen 9 and Intel I9 chips is what you should hold out for IMO. More cores than 4 as that's the future path.
 
misterbobby said:
I think it would be silly to go with another 8 thread cpu on a very high end gaming pc at this point.
Click to expand...

If your purpose is high-end gaming, it's either the i7, or wait.


[if there are other purposes and/or absolutely top-end gaming isn't necessary, then yeah, grab that R7 and tighten the screws]
 
Nexus6 said:
You won't be bottlenecked with that setup.

I should know.
Click to expand...
Yes, you will. I upgraded from a 920 @ 4.4 to a 4770K @ 4.4 and there was a noticeable difference with my minimum frame rates and my frame-times in game. And that was with a 290X CrossFire setup, 3 years ago.

Will using a highly overclocked 2600k/2700k prevent you from playing games or from getting "good" performance? No.

Will there be an appreciable difference upgrading to a modern Intel CPU? Yes.
 
Rizen said:
Yes, you will. I upgraded from a 920 @ 4.4 to a 4770K @ 4.4 and there was a noticeable difference with my minimum frame rates and my frame-times in game. And that was with a 290X CrossFire setup, 3 years ago.

Will using a highly overclocked 2600k/2700k prevent you from playing games or from getting "good" performance? No.

Will there be an appreciable difference upgrading to a modern Intel CPU? Yes.
Click to expand...

A 920 @ 4.4 isn't a 2600k @ 4.9
 
I went from a i7-920 overclocked to 4.0Ghz with 12 GB of tri channel RAM to a i7 4770k overclocked to 4.2Ghz with 16GB of dual channel RAM, nearly four years ago --- keeping the same video card (iirc it was a gtx560ti) I couldn't tell the difference at the time in hardly anything besides benchmarks. I felt it was pretty much a lateral. I had an ssd in the x58 box (which makes a world of difference)

Next upgrade for me will be to six or preferably eight or more cores. I'm not in a rush either. The overclocked 4770k is now at 4.5ghz and from what I've read I'm not missing much of anything now either.
 
At the resolution you are at, I would not worry about upgrading to a new platform, unless you are looking at stuff like m.2 etc. I went from a 4.6-4.8Ghz clocked i7 2700k to a 4.6Ghz 6700k, predominately for the I/O upgrades. When it comes to processor speed there is some benefit, but not much, so don't do it for that reason alone. The higher resolution takes some of the bottleneck off the CPU anyways. I'm only @ 2k on mine.
 
RamonGTP said:
A 920 @ 4.4 isn't a 2600k @ 4.9
Click to expand...
Literally true, but

1) Sandy Bridge is a small increase over Nehalem at best
2) My comparison was apples to apples as both processors were at 4.4GHz
3) The current Core i7 7700K is faster than the 4770K I was comparing against
4) Most 7700Ks will easily get between 4.7 - 4.9GHz

You are definitely going to see improvements in minimum fps. We're talking about a processor that is 6 generations newer. This isn't even an argument lol. And I was testing at 2560x1440, so it wasn't a case of being purely CPU bottlenecked.
 
Rizen said:
Literally true, but

1) Sandy Bridge is a small increase over Nehalem at best
2) My comparison was apples to apples as both processors were at 4.4GHz
3) The current Core i7 7700K is faster than the 4770K I was comparing against
4) Most 7700Ks will easily get between 4.7 - 4.9GHz

You are definitely going to see improvements in minimum fps. We're talking about a processor that is 6 generations newer. This isn't even an argument lol. And I was testing at 2560x1440, so it wasn't a case of being purely CPU bottlenecked.
Click to expand...

not going to super nit pick here...

https://us.hardware.info/reviews/62...l-ivy-bridge-sandy-bridge-and-nehalem-results

Sandybridge was a pretty huge upgrade over Nehalem. from 9% to 18% depending on benchmarks and what not. That said, I think the point that I did a very similar upgrade to him, 4600Mhz i7 2700k to 4600Mhz i7 6700k (which is 1.5-2% at best slower clock for clock than a 7700k), and saw very little other than IO stuff. Minimums in games did go up slightly, maybe 5-10 tops, but I'm also at a lower resolution than him, so his differences might be even less.

And to piggy pack, only reason I was able to do so was that I upgrade for very little coin. I think the total platform upgrade costed me roughly 200$ after selling my old stuff, as I sold it before it lost much of its value.
 
Rizen said:
Literally true, but

1) Sandy Bridge is a small increase over Nehalem at best
2) My comparison was apples to apples as both processors were at 4.4GHz
3) The current Core i7 7700K is faster than the 4770K I was comparing against
4) Most 7700Ks will easily get between 4.7 - 4.9GHz

You are definitely going to see improvements in minimum fps. We're talking about a processor that is 6 generations newer. This isn't even an argument lol. And I was testing at 2560x1440, so it wasn't a case of being purely CPU bottlenecked.
Click to expand...

It clearly is an argument.

1) Compared to the generational improvements that came after it, Nahalem > SB was pretty large
2) A 7700k will not "easily" get 4.7-4.9
3) His CPU is already running happily along at 4.9GHz

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968...-review-the-new-stock-performance-champion/11

At 4.8Ghz it was on the verge of thermal throttling in that AT review, and that's on water.

His current OC of 4.9GHz, is a SIGNIFICANT performance boost over a 4.4Ghz 920. So while your comparison to yourself may be apples to apples, applying that to OP isn't. Whatever performance improvements you experienced will not necessarily be applicable here.

Will there be some improvements in certain areas? Perhaps. Will those improvements justify a new CPU, board and RAM? Absolutely not. At least not if he's looking for a bump in gaming performance. To use your own words, it would be a small increase at best.

OP's reason for not having upgraded yet is that he hasn't been CPU limited. That, in overwhelmingly large part, remains true today.

Besides that, right now is a horrible time to get into a "new" platform. AMD and Intel look poised to get into a "moar cores" battle and it would be wise to see how that all plays out first. If we start seeing > 8 thread CPU's becoming mainstream then maybe there will be reason enough to upgrade in the next couple years as developers take advantage of them.
 
Ok well while Rizen continues to speculates how a 1080ti does on a 2700k at 4.8+ GHz, I actually have one so

It's fine.

Seriously.
 
A 2700k at 4.8 will probably give you no worse than 90% of what a 1080 Ti is capable of and in most cases 95% or more. You might encounter a few random corner cases where there is a bigger difference if you are playing below 1080p...
 
What you'll see is more framerate dips/more long frametimes. Many times an increase in performance isn't an increase in maximum or much of a measurable increase in average, but an increase in minimum framerates, where the bump is most easily 'felt' but also hardest to measure.
 
I went from a 2500k @ 4.5GHz to a 6600k @ 4.6GHz running 2 gtx980s in SLI and the minimum frame rate increase was significant to me. The maximum didn't go up a whole lot, but it sure was nice to get rid of those dips in performance. I was playing a lot of Diablo 3 back then... not exactly a CPU killer, and I saw my minimum frames @ 4k resolution go from 45fps to 60fps. So I basically went from it getting choppy during intense battles to staying silky smooth. Sure was worth it to me. I had a similar experience playing World of Warcraft... big minimum frames increase.
 
Astral Abyss said:
I went from a 2500k @ 4.5GHz to a 6600k @ 4.6GHz running 2 gtx980s in SLI and the minimum frame rate increase was significant to me. The maximum didn't go up a whole lot, but it sure was nice to get rid of those dips in performance. I was playing a lot of Diablo 3 back then... not exactly a CPU killer, and I saw my minimum frames @ 4k resolution go from 45fps to 60fps. So I basically went from it getting choppy during intense battles to staying silky smooth. Sure was worth it to me. I had a similar experience playing World of Warcraft... big minimum frames increase.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been trying to say. Perhaps I was wrong about how big of a difference there was generationally between Sandy Bridge and Nehalem - fine. But I did back to back testing with a high end GPU setup @ 2560 and there was definitely a significant improvement between the two CPUs in terms of smoothness (frame times and minimums). Again, I'm not saying that you won't get good performance with a 1080Ti using an earlier generation i7. But at 1080Ti levels of performance, improving your minimum frame rate 5-10fps is going to have a significant impact on just how fluid the game feels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top