E8600 and GTX 570 - Bottleneck?

M

maustrap

n00b
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
3
hi, I'm wondering if someone could give me some insight on this, I currently have a GTX 280, I recently got a good deal on a new 24 inch LCD and with a few new games coming out, I am looking into upgrading to a 570 after hearing tons of positive reviews. However, I am concerned about my processor, an E8600, being a bottleneck with that setup.

There anyone currently running something similar, or could provide some details on how this would work out? Thanks in advance!
 
Well, no one else has answered so here is my take on this. A 24 inch monitor so I am assuming 1920x1080 res. Overclock your e8600 to 3.8+ and most games will not have a noticeable bottleneck with a gtx 570.
 
Yeah, overclock that sucker but be aware there are some games (mostly the console ports) that will not perform as well on a dual core as they will on the quads these days. As long as you're in the 3.6 ghz territory it should be fine. Obviously it won't be as fast as a nehalem / lynnfield or soon sandybridge setup (as you're on a family that's like 4 years old almost), but it's still fast.
 
Depends completely on the games you play. Also everyone has a different idea of what a bottleneck is, and everyone also has a different idea what a noticeable bottleneck is. Personally I notice anything under 60 fps on any first person shooter, but am happy with 30+ fps on a RTS.

Of course your processor is going to be a bottleneck, you have to decide how much of one yourself.

Look at these two charts for worst case scenarios. First one is with a ATI 5970. Second one is with a gtx 480. Both of these games are heavily CPU dependent. Most games are not.

CPU.png


CPU.png
 
Thanks for the feedback, can you clarify what you mean by noticeable? talking about strictly FPS? My E8600 right now is at 3.7OC
 
Well noticeable seems to be very different with people here. As I mentioned above I notice anything below 60fps in a first person shooter, and so will upgrade my main computer to the point where I have no drops below that point at whatever resolution I play at. If the game is new enough or badly coded enough I will drop eye candy before I will go below 60fps.

In tourney play in Black Ops everyone you play against is going to have good hand eye coordination and reaction time. So 2 or 3 tenths of a second might make a difference between killing someone and winning a match or losing.

On the other hand with most other games I'm happy as long as it stays above 30 fps. So if im playing CIV5 and i get a couple of spots of bad framing, no big deal. Yes its still a little irritating but it doesn't effect your play.

I upgraded to my current i7 system from an e8600 that I had at 4ghz. The reason I upgraded was the new FPS games. For me it was not only worth it, it was necessary.

If I wasn't playing first person shooters but was playing WOW or an mmorpg, it probably wouldn't have been worth it.
 
for me its hard to stomach the thought of a $350 video card being used with any dual core cpu. your cpu is far from slow but a gpu of that level will not come close to being fully utilized in more cpu intensive games. heck even with your current gtx280 there are some games where your cpu is already a limitation. basically you have a pretty balanced pc right now and gtx570 is not going to perform any where near its full potential in many games with your cpu.
 
so basically the answer here is don't expect much until the motherboard is upgraded with a i7 processor.
 
i had the same situation upgraded to cheap phenom x4 with a cheap mobo and it is good enough.
oc ed to 3.5 ghz cpu
 
railroadtycoon said:
i had the same situation upgraded to cheap phenom x4 with a cheap mobo and it is good enough.
oc ed to 3.5 ghz cpu
Click to expand...
if he is going to upgrade to a new platform then going Phenom 2 would be silly. for about 50-75 bucks more he could get a Sandy Bridge setup that will wipe the floor with a Phenom 2 X4. heck his E8600 already matches and sometimes beats the Phenom 2 X4 cpu in games that dont effectively use more than 2 cores.
 
He is a perfect candidate for Sandy Bridge, bye bye any chance of bottleneck
 
What a load of nonsense! Most of you are overstating the need for i5/i7 or a quad CPU
-E8600 is fine for GTX 570 - especially at 3.7 GHz :p

The only time you will have issues is in the rare game that does not run well on Dual core
- even Phenom II X2 is fine with most games as this evaluation shows. Core i7 is benched against Phenom II X4 and X2 from 2.6 to 3.6 GHz in quite a few games with GTX 480 (which is close to GTX 570 performance), HD 5870 and HD 5870 CrossFire - there is very little practical difference between the CPUs once you get to about 3.2 GHz.

Fact: Phenom II holds its own against the Penryn CPUs.
 
Last edited:
apoppin said:
What a load of nonsense! Most of you are overstating the need for i5/i7 or a quad CPU
-E8600 is fine for GTX 580 - especially at 3.7 GHz :p

The only time you will have issues is in the rare game that does not run well on Dual core
- even Phenom II is fine with most games as this evaluation shows.
Click to expand...

did you even check that link you posted? lol

quad i7 destroyed dual cores over 100% in RE5, farcry2, etc.

one more thing, most games in that link are old.

today's games benefit alot from quad cores.
 
DualOwn said:
did you even check that link you posted? lol

quad i7 destroyed dual cores over 100% in RE5, farcry2, etc.

one more thing, most games in that link are old.

today's games benefit alot from quad cores.
Click to expand...
Did i check the link? RotFL

i wrote it; did you check the author's name? ... maybe you should read the conclusions and look back at linked earlier articles that benched Phenom II against Penryn
:cool:

Look at it very carefully. Only a very few games practically benefit from Quad over Dual.
- look at the *framerates* ... the gaming experience is not generally better; the overclocked Dual does fine against the Quad
 
Nice write up. Yes there are only a few games that benefit from quad over dual but in those games, the dual cores were still able to crank out very playable frame rates. It does affect them more with the GTX480 since the Nvidia drivers are multi core (I think).

Either way, you can still get very good performance out of a dual core. I suppose the bottom line is, if youre building a rig now - get a quad core. If you currently have a GOOD dual core, dont sweat it. Upgrade when you can, no hurry.

But to the OP, Id say this: the E8600 is a screaming fast proc thatll be perfectly fine for 90% of the games out there. Get the GTX570 and enjoy. Then you can either wait for Sandy Bridge to come out and redo your platform or you can spring for a Core 2 Quad and have all your bases covered for the games out there that do utilize quad cores.
 
Yeah you guys need to realize he isn't inciting Intel vs. AMD here, but simply dual vs. quad. We know that Wofldales compete well with PhII IPC, and that's the reason he even brings up his review.
That said, the OP needs to be specific in what games he is playing since the difference can be rather significant if all he is playing are CPU-limited games.

SC2 is a rather extreme example, but that's on Blizzard for not allowing the game to properly use all 4 cores.
 
apoppin said:
Did i check the link? RotFL

i wrote it; did you check the author's name? ... maybe you should read the conclusions and look back at linked earlier articles that benched Phenom II against Penryn
:cool:

Look at it very carefully. Only a very few games practically benefit from Quad over Dual.
- look at the *framerates* ... the gaming experience is not generally better; the overclocked Dual does fine against the Quad
Click to expand...

like i said, old games are old.

go look at some BC2, BO, ME2, etc and crossfire/sli benchmarks before posting again.
 
DualOwn said:
like i said, old games are old.

go look at some BC2, BO, ME2, etc and crossfire/sli benchmarks before posting again.
Click to expand...
Old? A dozen of them are '08 or newer; more benches than most sites use in total for benching.

* Vantage
* F.E.A.R.
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
* Unreal Tournament 3
* Call of Duty 4
* X3:Terran Conflict
* World-in-Conflict
* Left4Dead
* Batman: Arkham Asylum
* Call of Juarez
* Lost Planet
* Crysis
* Far Cry 2
* Resident Evil 5
* Serious Sam, Second Encounter HD (2010)
* Just Cause 2
* H.A.W.X.
* BattleForge
* Alien vs. Predator
* Dirt 2
* STALKER, Call of Pripyat
* Heaven 2.1


i have looked; you named 3 games -- ME2 is GameBryo engine - same as old Oblivion
:p

The fact remains - a fast dual - Penryn or Phenom II - is sufficient for 99+% of games
-- and no worries, i am updating this review with more brand new games and GTX 580, GTX 570, HD 6970 and GTX 480 SLI
:)

Don't tell me when to come back and post. i have tested SLI and CrossFire and i will continue to disprove the Quad/i7/i5 myth
- the OP is not asking about multi-GPU - he is asking about GTX 570 and an overclocked e8600 at 3.7 GHz. He will be fine.
 
Last edited:
apoppin said:
Did i check the link? RotFL

i wrote it; did you check the author's name? ... maybe you should read the conclusions and look back at linked earlier articles that benched Phenom II against Penryn
Click to expand...

Haha, that had me rolling. Good comprehensive review also, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. Core i7 is generally faster in most games but not to the degree that an upgrade is absolutely necessary from previous gen CPU's, including dual cores. It all comes down to the game and the number of games that the core i7 has huge advantage over are very few. Having tested games myself with Core i7, Q9650, E8600 with GTX 460 SLI, I speak from actual experience.

It seems like certain people like to think they know something because of the information they gathered by visiting review sites. Now all of sudden they are experts. People should do their own testing with their own hardware and actually experience the gameplay themselves before they give out advice.

And to those who say, "look core i7 blew away the Phenom II in that game because the FPS was 130 compared to 95, so you must upgrade now!" - just don't get it.
 
yes an overclocked E8600 is fine for 99% of games but he already has a gtx280. spending $350 to go from a a gtx280 for a card that you cant fully utilize in all your games just seems like a bit of waste. there are several games such as GTA 4, Bad Company 2, Red Faction Guerrilla, Prototype, Ghostbusters, Dragon Age and a few others that in most cases are not going to improve any especially in min framerate. now of course in games like Just Cause 2 and Clear Sky he would certainly get a huge boost. so again its just a question of is it worth it for $350 bucks when he already has a gtx280 and in IMO its not.
 
I don't know why people keep pointing to the i7, like it's on an expensive pedestal. The reason the i5 750 and now the i5 Sandybridge chips are being discussed released is b/c they aren't on that same pedestal. And yes, the specific games you play will always be more important than what any review site or individual reviewer is saying. E.g. I don't see either DA:O or SC2 in apoppin's list of current games benched...though I imagine by 2011 they should be included.

As for the SLI/Xfire argument, I have no idea why this is even being discussed. The OP never mentions wanting to use mutli GPU configs, and yet we have a massive soap box tangent b/c of his one line about upgrading to an i7. Seriously guys - contain yourselves, lol.
 
cannondale06 said:
yes an overclocked E8600 is fine for 99% of games but he already has a gtx280. spending $350 to go from a a gtx280 for a card that you cant fully utilize in all your games just seems like a bit of waste. there are several games such as GTA 4, Bad Company 2, Red Faction Guerrilla, Prototype, Ghostbusters, Dragon Age and a few others that in most cases are not going to improve any especially in min framerate. now of course in games like Just Cause 2 and Clear Sky he would certainly get a huge boost. so again its just a question of is it worth it for $350 bucks when he already has a gtx280 and in IMO its not.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as "fully utilize"

In the rare games that are *heavily* CPU dependent, the OP will still be able to max out his detail settings and add higher levels of AA with a GTX 570 that he cannot dream of with a GTX 280. To me that is worth the upgrade (and he can use his 280 for PhysX or sell it to defray his upgrade expense)

In this review, i compared GTX 280 with GTX 570 (and 11 other GPUs including HD 6970) with even newer games and the old GTX is badly lagging.
:(
 
I would just buy the 570 and use it until you want to upgrade to a new setup and just bring the 570 into it.
 
apoppin said:
Old? A dozen of them are '08 or newer; more benches than most sites use in total for benching.

* Vantage
* F.E.A.R.
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
* Unreal Tournament 3
* Call of Duty 4
* X3:Terran Conflict
* World-in-Conflict
* Left4Dead
* Batman: Arkham Asylum
* Call of Juarez
* Lost Planet
* Crysis
* Far Cry 2
* Resident Evil 5
* Serious Sam, Second Encounter HD (2010)
* Just Cause 2
* H.A.W.X.
* BattleForge
* Alien vs. Predator
* Dirt 2
* STALKER, Call of Pripyat
* Heaven 2.1


i have looked; you named 3 games -- ME2 is GameBryo engine - same as old Oblivion
:p

The fact remains - a fast dual - Penryn or Phenom II - is sufficient for 99+% of games
-- and no worries, i am updating this review with more brand new games and GTX 580, GTX 570, HD 6970 and GTX 480 SLI
:)

Don't tell me when to come back and post. i have tested SLI and CrossFire and i will continue to disprove the Quad/i7/i5 myth
- the OP is not asking about multi-GPU - he is asking about GTX 570 and an overclocked e8600 at 3.7 GHz. He will be fine.
Click to expand...

more than dozen of those games are 08 or newer? which ones?

all i see is a picture of old games, maybe few new titles, thats about it.

you're only saying that dual cores can start a game with new video cards, but im sure everyone knows that.
 
Last edited:
Fast dual does not include Phenoms for this case. Dual cores are getting a bit long in the tooth now tbh, and a fair few games make good use of quad cores, and they need them. When I think fast dual I think Core 2 Quad or Core i3/i5, not an Athlon/Phenom.

The performance of even one 4870X2 in my system was terrible with my 3.2Ghz E4300, still to this day faster than any stock dual core AMD make. I went with a Q6600 at first to resolve this and it improved performance a fair bit [at the same clock speed], but I really felt the extra speed when I went to the Q9550 at 3.7. Further, the i5 I upgraded to this year increased performance yet further.

Dual cores are past their prime for gaming systems now. The fastest ones, such as the E8600 in this post will survive a bit longer, as raw speed is enough for them to keep up, but if you want high minimum frame rates [which let's face it, buying high-end cards like multiple GTX480s means you are] they don't cut it.
 
DualOwn said:
more than dozen of those games are 08 or newer? which ones?

all i see is a picture of old games, maybe few new titles, thats about it.

you're only saying that dual cores can start a game with new video cards, but im sure everyone knows that.
Click to expand...
* Vantage (2008)
* F.E.A.R. (2005)
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (2008)
* Unreal Tournament 3 (2008)
* Call of Duty 4 (2007)
* X3:Terran Conflict- (2008)
* World-in-Conflict: Soviet Conflict - (2009)
* Left4Dead (2008)
* Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009)
* Call of Juarez (2006)
* Lost Planet (2007)
* Crysis (2007)
* Far Cry 2 (2008)
* Resident Evil 5 (2009)
* Serious Sam, Second Encounter HD (2010)
* Just Cause 2 (2010)
* H.A.W.X. (2009)
* BattleForge (2009)
* Alien vs. Predator (2010)
* Dirt 2 (2009)
* STALKER, Call of Pripyat (2010)
* Heaven 2.1 Unigine (2010)

Most of the games are 2008 or newer - 17/22 benchmarks; 5 benches are older and of those 5,Crysis and Lost Planet are from November 2007; and PCs *still* have trouble playing them fully maxed out at high resolutions :p

i'm saying a dual core like a fast Phenom II or a Penryn like the OPs will run 99+% of new games satisfactorily with a GTX 570 class of videocard
- the graphics card makes the most difference, by far.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
well to be honest in all but 4 of those games his gtx280 can easily max them out anyway and usually with at least some AA. in the other 4, the gtx280 can still handle them with only a setting or two turned down. I know because I have played them with my gtx260.
 
Which four? and what resolution?

:rolleyes:

As stated previously, GTX 570 will allow for a lot more AA and maxed out detail at 1920x1200 or higher than the GTX 280

And there is no practical change with MOST of the newer games. i have added Lost Planet 2, HAWX 2, F1 2010, GTA-IV, Metro 2033 and Mafia II to my benching since that review came out. Yet the newer games are more graphically demanding and will definitely benefit from a video card upgrade; not necessarily so much for a CPU upgrade. ... Not to mention using the GTX 280 as a PhysX card for the games that use it.
 
apoppin said:
Which four? and what resolution?

:rolleyes:

As stated previously, GTX 570 will allow for a lot more AA and maxed out detail at 1920x1200 or higher than the GTX 280

And there is no practical change with MOST of the newer games. i have added Lost Planet 2, HAWX 2, F1 2010, GTA-IV, Metro 2033 and Mafia II to my benching since that review came out. Yet the newer games are more graphically demanding and will definitely benefit from a video card upgrade; not necessarily so much for a CPU upgrade. ... Not to mention using the GTX 280 as a PhysX card for the games that use it.
Click to expand...
what are you rolling your eyes about? he is at 1920x1080 and so am I so thats what res. Crysis in DX10 very high, AvP in DX11 with AA and ultra shadows, Call of Pripyat in DX11 with tessellation and all max and Just Cause 2 with all settings maxed. other than those 4 he can easly max the other games. and again even on those 4 he would only have to reduce a setting or 2. I can tell you that even my gtx260 I only had had to reduce a couple of settings in those 4 games.

in Just Cause 2 I keep shadows on medium, gpu water off, bokeh filer off and AA at 2x. all other settings are maxed at 1920x1080

in AvP I run all max settings in DX11 with vsync on and rarely come off 60fps at 1920x1080. of course I am not running AA , tessellation and ultra shadows since those are for DX11 cards only.

Call of Pripyat I have sun shadows and ssao on medium with all other settings maxed at 1920x1080. and again no tessellation becuase of my DX card.

in Crysis it is actually playable on DX10 very high for the most part at 1920x1080 but high is much more suitable, Warhead plays just fine on enthusiast becuase you can run it in DX9. of course that without AA.

his gtx280 could obliviously run those games a little better than me even with another setting increased. is 350 bucks worth it just to turn up a couple of settings or turn on AA?
 
Last edited:
also I wanted to add that there has never been a game that I could not run smoothly becuase of my gpu. sure that may mean turning down a couple settings but thats it. on the other hand GTA 4, Ghostbusters and Red Faction Guerrilla were quite sluggish at times becuase of my cpu even at settings my gpu could easily handle. and no I am not saying that a cpu upgrade only would be the best route for me becuase clearly a gpu upgrade would provide the most overall improvement by far. I am saying the cpu has impacted gameplay before where my gpu really doesn't becuase I can reduce a graphical setting or two.
 
Last edited:
quake wars for pc came out in 2007

few others are wrong too, you getting dates based on console versions
 
Bad Company 2 seems pretty quad core-intensive from what I've read. It's popular, it's demanding, it's very suitable for a test.
 
Crytek has stated that Crysis 2 for pc will take advantage up to six or more cores.

BF3 will also take advantage of four or more cores.
 
DualOwn said:
Crytek has stated that Crysis 2 for pc will take advantage of six or more cores.

BF3 will also take advantage of four or more cores.
Click to expand...
well they also said Crysis would take advantage of 4 cores. lol. but yeah Crysis 2 will probably utilize 4 cores or more much better than before especially since they had to get things to run on the consoles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top