QX6700 bottleneck a 580 GTX?

D

Dopefabulous

n00b
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
33
Hi:

Thinking of upgrading my 275 GTX SLI for a single 580 GTX and would like to know if I might have major bottleneck issues if I do get the 580 GTX given my older hardware. Playing on 27inch with 1920 x 1080 native resolution.

Specs:

Core 2 Extreme QX 6700 3.0 ghz OC'd 3.2 ghz
275 GTX SLI 896 mb <------upgrade to 580 gtx?
8 gig Patriot Ram G-Series DDR2
Geforece 680i motherboard
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Couple of questions:

1) Would my CPU bottleneck the 580 gtx?

2) Can I expect an performance increase that would warrant a $499 price tag

3) Do you have any suggestions on other gpus? Maybe SLI two 570s?

I guess the goal is to extend the life of my computer without spending money on brand new system and to max BF3 of course:)
 
I wouldn't guess it would bottleneck it TOO bad, but maybe to some extent.

SLI 570s would definitely be a lot faster than a 580, but then again you're paying $500-600 depending on rebates for two of those. Plus increased heat/power consumption/etc.

You currently have GTX 275 SLI? You'll see a performance increase but it's not going to be like 50%+ or anything. Maybe like 25-30%? Not sure exactly.

If you're looking to "max out" BF3 then you're probably looking at 570 SLI rather than a single 580. A single 580 should just cut it at 1920x1080 but you might get some occasional slowdown.
 
The CPU would bottleneck the 580 a bit, yea. You would definitely see a performance increase if you upgraded to Sandy bridge, but everyone's idea of how much it's worth is different. Personally, I'd say it is but you have to decide for yourself. You will probably be happy with BF3 on 1 580, no need for SLI.
 
Can you overclock that CPU any more? At around 3.6 Ghz or more it stops the cpu from becoming too much of a burden.
 
going from SLI gtx275 to a gtx580 is not much of an upgrade at all. it will certainly be a more consistent and smoother experience though. and yes your cpu will be a slight bottleneck. it should be even less of a bottleneck with a gtx580 though than with SLI gtx275 because you will have no more cpu overhead from SLI .
 
I'm not an expert of overclocking or anything just a hardcore gamer and admittely ( a graphics nut). Given my limited experience, I've read that I can overclock the QX 6700 to 3.4 - 3.6 given that its an extreme edition cpu. By the way, my cpu has liquid cooling and small fan sitting on top of it. Any though on whether I should pull the trigger, overclock the cpu and go for the 580?
 
might as well. and your cpu should be simple to oc since it has unlocked multi. just google a good guide on ocing the core 2 quads.
 
I say no, but I guess youll have to define "bottleneck".

A GTX580 is capable of about 40 fps in Metro at 1920x1200 with a capable CPU. To me, a "bottlenecking CPU" would drag you down to like 20 fps. I think your Q6700 would get you in the neighborhood of 35 (total guess outta my ass here) and I wouldnt consider that to be a bottleneck. Youre Q6700 wouldnt be capable of feeding your GTX580 fast enough to let it stretch its legs to its full potential but you could still get some very good performance out of it.

As stated though, you overclock that Q up a little and itll help big time. 4 cores of Core 2 architecture running at a respectable speed is still a very capable thing.
 
MacLeod said:
I say no, but I guess youll have to define "bottleneck".

A GTX580 is capable of about 40 fps in Metro at 1920x1200 with a capable CPU. To me, a "bottlenecking CPU" would drag you down to like 20 fps. I think your Q6700 would get you in the neighborhood of 35 (total guess outta my ass here) and I wouldnt consider that to be a bottleneck. Youre Q6700 wouldnt be capable of feeding your GTX580 fast enough to let it stretch its legs to its full potential but you could still get some very good performance out of it.

As stated though, you overclock that Q up a little and itll help big time. 4 cores of Core 2 architecture running at a respectable speed is still a very capable thing.
Click to expand...
lol, so to you its a not a bottleneck until half the performance is gone and the game is unplayable? that's a bit silly as the point is to try and get the most out of an expensive gpu or you might as well buy a cheaper one. in the OPs case, he is pretty much fine though and a modest oc will have him getting pretty close to 100% of what a gtx580 can do in nearly every case.
 
Right. Losing out on a couple frames aint a bottleneck. Having half the frame rate choked off by an anemic processor, is. I dont think you should label any CPU that doesnt let a GPU run at 100% of its potential a bottleneck. Hell an i7-2600 will give you a couple frame more than a i5-2500 but I wouldnt call the i5 a bottleneck. Just like I wouldnt call my X6 a bottleneck for my 5870 even though an i5 would likely give me a couple more frames in most games.
 
MacLeod said:
Right. Losing out on a couple frames aint a bottleneck. Having half the frame rate choked off by an anemic processor, is. I dont think you should label any CPU that doesnt let a GPU run at 100% of its potential a bottleneck. Hell an i7-2600 will give you a couple frame more than a i5-2500 but I wouldnt call the i5 a bottleneck. Just like I wouldnt call my X6 a bottleneck for my 5870 even though an i5 would likely give me a couple more frames in most games.
Click to expand...
lol, okay. but you do realize there is sometimes only like 10-15% difference between each gpu a person is looking at. it would be silly to pay top dollar for a gpu if your cpu was a 10-15% bottleneck in the games you were going to play. you might as well buy the cheaper gpu and get the same playable performance.

really you just have to look at it on case by case basis as there is no way to just make an overall proclamation of which cpu is a bottleneck and which is not. your comment was a bit silly though as no one with any sense would be looking at a high end gpu if their cpu could not even maintain playable framerates or would be wasting half the new gpus potential.
 
I heard that Nvidia's Kepler cards is going to be a big jump in performance compared to incremental improvements witnessed over prior generation cards. Thinking of saving up some cash and revamping my whole system with the 6 xxx series. Perhaps the dx11 features would also be more fleshed out with future games. On the other hand, with the 6 xxx series coming out in 2012, hopefully we can get a price drop on the 580, 570, etc. I dunno...decisions..decisions. Love computer gaming, but its an expensive hobby =(
 
Dopefabulous said:
I heard that Nvidia's Kepler cards is going to be a big jump in performance compared to incremental improvements witnessed over prior generation cards. Thinking of saving up some cash and revamping my whole system with the 6 xxx series. Perhaps the dx11 features would also be more fleshed out with future games. On the other hand, with the 6 xxx series coming out in 2012, hopefully we can get a price drop on the 580, 570, etc. I dunno...decisions..decisions. Love computer gaming, but its an expensive hobby =(
Click to expand...
we always "hear" silly rumors months before a card comes out. anybody that actually knows anything cannot tell you unless you just happen to have a friend giving you info.
 
cannondale06 said:
lol, okay. but you do realize there is sometimes only like 10-15% difference between each gpu a person is looking at. it would be silly to pay top dollar for a gpu if your cpu was a 10-15% bottleneck in the games you were going to play. you might as well buy the cheaper gpu and get the same playable performance.

really you just have to look at it on case by case basis as there is no way to just make an overall proclamation of which cpu is a bottleneck and which is not. your comment was a bit silly though as no one with any sense would be looking at a high end gpu if their cpu could not even maintain playable framerates or would be wasting half the new gpus potential.
Click to expand...

I see what you're driving at. I wasn't saying I don't consider a proc a bottleneck until it hits the -50% line. I was using those numbers as examples and even said something like I was pulling them out of my ass. I was trying to say that I don't consider one to be a bottleneck until it takes a significant chunk of fps out. Like I said, everything under a i7-2600 will give up a few frames yet I don't consider an i3-2100 to be a bottleneck for a 580 but I would consider an Athlon X2 to be one . And you're right, it's case by case. 15% off of 30 fps would be a big deal but losing 15% off of 120 might not be.
 
I'm not an overclocker but I'm wondering if my Q9450 will be holding back the new 6950 I'm getting @ 1920x1200?

I though once you hit this res and above the CPU hardly comes into play but I could be wrong, I read that somewhere..
 
Dunan said:
I'm not an overclocker but I'm wondering if my Q9450 will be holding back the new 6950 I'm getting @ 1920x1200?

I though once you hit this res and above the CPU hardly comes into play but I could be wrong, I read that somewhere..
Click to expand...


there are different kinds of cpu bottlenecks. the cpu can always be a factor no matter what resolution. by that I mean if you have a really slow cpu then running a higher resolution will just mean the same crappy performance at the higher res as you were getting at the lower res. so if your cpu is really slow there is not much you can do except oc it or get a new one. if just your gpu is too slow but your cpu is decent then you can simply lower the resolution and or graphical settings.

now if your cpu is good enough to give you the playable performance that you want then it usually does not matter if it cant fully push your gpu in every case. as for your Q9450, yes it will hold back a 6950 in some games but your playable performance will not be a really be an issue. there will always be some spots in almost every game that are not optimized very well that will make you wish for a faster cpu and gpu.

for example there are a few very cpu intensive spots in dull looking Fallout NV where my system will dip into the 50s and even into 40s. and no, I am not talking about the new areas being loaded. now if I oc my cpu by 20%, I get almost 20% more performance in those spots and that is at 1920x1080 too. another guy checked out those same spots with a Q9450 and got just over 30 fps at the exact spot I was getting over 60 with my 2500 oced to 4.2. again those type of spots are rare but it does almost justify at least overclocking your cpu if you cant buy a new one.
 
console ports will give a big time bottleneck but for bf3 you should be fine.
 
If this is anything to go by, then you will be fine:

cpu%20scaling.png
 
Toms Hardware is a joke. Don't believe that graph. An I3 better then an I7 or I5 :rolleyes:
 
Vengance_01 said:
Toms Hardware is a joke. Don't believe that graph. An I3 better then an I7 or I5 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The point is that they are all within margin of error and that the game is not very reliant on CPU cycles. Basically any quad core will do. Read the BF3 article there for more details if you're interested.

So for a game that is more CPU-intensive than BF3 the CPU can be the limiting factor but for BF3 it's not. This is why it pays to consider what game(s) you play and care most about in terms of performance when deciding what hardware to buy.
 
cannondale06 said:
there are different kinds of cpu bottlenecks. the cpu can always be a factor no matter what resolution. by that I mean if you have a really slow cpu then running a higher resolution will just mean the same crappy performance at the higher res as you were getting at the lower res. so if your cpu is really slow there is not much you can do except oc it or get a new one. if just your gpu is too slow but your cpu is decent then you can simply lower the resolution and or graphical settings.

now if your cpu is good enough to give you the playable performance that you want then it usually does not matter if it cant fully push your gpu in every case. as for your Q9450, yes it will hold back a 6950 in some games but your playable performance will not be a really be an issue. there will always be some spots in almost every game that are not optimized very well that will make you wish for a faster cpu and gpu.

for example there are a few very cpu intensive spots in dull looking Fallout NV where my system will dip into the 50s and even into 40s. and no, I am not talking about the new areas being loaded. now if I oc my cpu by 20%, I get almost 20% more performance in those spots and that is at 1920x1080 too. another guy checked out those same spots with a Q9450 and got just over 30 fps at the exact spot I was getting over 60 with my 2500 oced to 4.2. again those type of spots are rare but it does almost justify at least overclocking your cpu if you cant buy a new one.
Click to expand...


I usually would not OC, but in this case I just may try it for the heck of it, to see where it goes.

Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea about OC'ing my stuff. If anyone has any suggestions or a good link somewhere, please let me know.

Gigabyte X48DQ6 mobo
Q9450 CPU
4GB OCZ reaper ram
 
Dunan said:
I usually would not OC, but in this case I just may try it for the heck of it, to see where it goes.

Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea about OC'ing my stuff. If anyone has any suggestions or a good link somewhere, please let me know.

Gigabyte X48DQ6 mobo
Q9450 CPU
4GB OCZ reaper ram
Click to expand...

Overclocking the cpu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESkLQJvTIIM

Overclocking on your motherboard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxObePeVHmo

From the cpu video you'll get a good idea about the multiplier and the voltage needed for your desired overclock, from the motherboard video you'll see the interface used in the bios and where to change the multiplier, voltages etc...

Good luck.
 
at high res it just fine. and i doubt ur going to buy a gtx580 and play at 12*10res lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top