Question 2060 Super > I7 7700k bottleneck?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 26, 2019
104
12
95
2
I bought a 2060 SUPER a month back. It was an emegency change if Im being honest. I picked a card I thought would be ok, it honestly blew my expectations out of the water. I generally have gone with 70 series on the Nvidia. But this latest card had played everything I wanted better then I expected. Currently looking for games to wow me visually.

On another note, Im wondering if my old 60 HZ monitor is hurting my setup
 
Reactions: DiabolusVolente
Sep 9, 2019
19
1
15
0
I bought a 2060 SUPER a month back. It was an emegency change if Im being honest. I picked a card I thought would be ok, it honestly blew my expectations out of the water. I generally have gone with 70 series on the Nvidia. But this latest card had played everything I wanted better then I expected. Currently looking for games to wow me visually.

On another note, Im wondering if my old 60 HZ monitor is hurting my setup
So you really like the 2060 Super? And ye I guess I’m on a old 60hz Samsung monitor too.
 
So you really like the 2060 Super? And ye I guess I’m on a old 60hz Samsung monitor too.
If you are stuck on a 60Hz 1080p monitor, then there is no point in spending money on an RTX 2060.

What is your current video card?

If you're going to keep your existing monitor for a while, AND your current card is not up to the task of gaming at 1920x1080@60fps, then I'd suggest, in order of performance lower-to-higher (prices indicate US prices):
  • RX 570 (mid-to-high details, avg around 60fps, starts around $120 for the 4GB model, $10-$20 more for the 8GB model)
  • RX 580 (high-to-max details avg around 60fps, starts around $160 for the 8GB model)
  • GTX 1660 (high-to-max details, more solidly 60fps, starts around $200)
  • GTX 1660Ti (starts around $250)
I skipped the RX 590 because it performs slightly less than the 1660, but consumes a lot more power, and generally isn't cheaper than the 1660, though there are occasional sales.

Here's a set of performance graphs showing the RX 590, 1660, and 1660Ti (among other cards) in terms of performance. The RX 580 is slightly slower than the RX 590, and the RX 570 slightly slower than the RX 580.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-turing-tu116,6027-3.html
 
Jul 26, 2019
104
12
95
2
If you are stuck on a 60Hz 1080p monitor, then there is no point in spending money on an RTX 2060.

What is your current video card?

If you're going to keep your existing monitor for a while, AND your current card is not up to the task of gaming at 1920x1080@60fps, then I'd suggest, in order of performance lower-to-higher (prices indicate US prices):
  • RX 570 (mid-to-high details, avg around 60fps, starts around $120 for the 4GB model, $10-$20 more for the 8GB model)
  • RX 580 (high-to-max details avg around 60fps, starts around $160 for the 8GB model)
  • GTX 1660 (high-to-max details, more solidly 60fps, starts around $200)
  • GTX 1660Ti (starts around $250)
I skipped the RX 590 because it performs slightly less than the 1660, but consumes a lot more power, and generally isn't cheaper than the 1660, though there are occasional sales.

Here's a set of performance graphs showing the RX 590, 1660, and 1660Ti (among other cards) in terms of performance. The RX 580 is slightly slower than the RX 590, and the RX 570 slightly slower than the RX 580.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-turing-tu116,6027-3.html
Im confused why is there no point to getting the better card? I care about getting higher frame rates in games. Worse thing your going to see if torn frames. Refresh rate has nothing to do with Frame rate. My card shouldnt perform any worse on a lower HZ monitor. Will it look as pretty? no. But thats something I've been ok with.
 

febisfebi

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2009
85
3
18,535
0
Yes, that's your PSU, but it's a very poor quality power unit. Looks like some Generic or low-end budget Model to me. Inter-Tech CombatPower CPM-750W. This is not a well known and popular PSU brand.

https://m.computeruniverse.net/en/inter-tech-combatpower-cpm-750w

I won't recommend this PSU to power up any Gaming PC. Just stay away from this unit. Get yourself a high quality PSU from reputed Brands like SEASONIC, BE quiet, EVGA, Corsair, ANTEC, and other similar brands/OEMs.

PSU is the last component you might want to cheap out on, or skimp.

Try to get some other high quality PSU, IF possible. Power supplies are an imperative part of your system that should not be taken lightly. Throwing in a budget PSU could result in poor power efficiency or even a wrecked system. Don't SKIMP on the PSU, since this is the MOST important PC component. I can't stress this enough.
I have a Corsair CX500 and absolutely love it, couldn't reccomend it enough. But with GPU and eventually cpu upgrades coming it looks like I will be needing more than 500w at my disposal. I have many psu's sitting around, but the only one over 500w is an OCZ SXS700. Does OCZ make the kind of quality PSU you are suggesting? It would be really nice to not have to add the cost of a PSU to my already costly upgrades.
 
Sep 9, 2019
10
4
15
0
Evening gents, I’m looking to upgrade my GPU atm. After couple of days doing research I think I’ll go for the 2060 Super 8GB from gigabyte. The only thing stopping me from placing my order right now is bottleneck. I’m not sure if there will be any horrible bottleneck or if it’s still decent. I can’t find the card on bottleneck checker so I’m looking for people to explain if there is any. Running an i7 7700k with nzxt x62 liquid cooling Z270F mobo and 16GB ram.

Thank you to everyone who takes the time to read/respond appreciate the help!
I find it funny that you said 8gb from gigabyte
 
Im confused why is there no point to getting the better card? I care about getting higher frame rates in games. Worse thing your going to see if torn frames. Refresh rate has nothing to do with Frame rate. My card shouldnt perform any worse on a lower HZ monitor. Will it look as pretty? no. But thats something I've been ok with.
Which defeats the purpose of higher frames.

Or, say for example, the card can pump out a steady, exact 120fps. What's the point of that on a 60Hz monitor? You'll only see every other frame, and it will look no different than it would with 60 fps.

But, even without that exact doubling, what benefit is there to seeing partial frames above and below the tear line? You're not getting any benefit from that at all, other than being able to post a higher FPS number, and running your video card harder. Do you really game better when the upper part of the screen is showing one frame, and the lower part is showing the next frame?
 
Reactions: DiabolusVolente
Sep 9, 2019
19
1
15
0
Which defeats the purpose of higher frames.

Or, say for example, the card can pump out a steady, exact 120fps. What's the point of that on a 60Hz monitor? You'll only see every other frame, and it will look no different than it would with 60 fps.

But, even without that exact doubling, what benefit is there to seeing partial frames above and below the tear line? You're not getting any benefit from that at all, other than being able to post a higher FPS number, and running your video card harder. Do you really game better when the upper part of the screen is showing one frame, and the lower part is showing the next frame?

This is the monitor i got atm:
https://ibb.co/4dFHzvZ
Model: s24c350h monitor
 
Last edited:
Sep 9, 2019
19
1
15
0
The only reasons to get an RTX 2060, @1080p/60hz, is if you really want to take advantage of the RTX features, in upcoming games, or you want it to last a really long time. A bit of overkill, now, is not a bad thing, if there is going to be a wide gap, before your next upgrade.
I’m planning on keepin it for a long time. At least 3-5 years.
 
It’s a super old 770 2GB, I might buy the 2060 Super and in about 2 weeks buy a 144hz monitor. Or Is a 75hz fine as well?
If you really want to get 100+ frames/second usably, then go for the higher refresh monitor. I would say not to pay a whole lot extra for the higher-speed monitor. The most common max refresh rates seem to be 60, 75, 120, 144, 165, and 240. I get the impression these days that 60, 75, and 144 are the most common. Also, it seems like pricing has come down, so sometimes 144Hz monitors aren't much more than their slower counterparts, in which case, go ahead and get the 144.

If you don't care about ultra-fast fps speeds, then get a 60, 75, 120, or 144, whatever is cheaper and has good image quality, set the refresh rate to a max of 60 or 75, and enjoy the steady frame rates, as the RTX 2060 Super can easily keep up with that speed, and then some. Or even higher, depending on what resolution your new monitor is.

I'd personally recommend an ultra-wide (2560x1080), but I admit that I'm probably a little too enthusiastic about my embrace of ultra-wide.
 
Last edited:
Sep 9, 2019
19
1
15
0
Thank you for the information, I’ll be ordering the GPU and PSU tomorrow. I’ll be driving to the store next week to buy a new monitor. I’ll consider the ultra wide one since I like “wide” myself haha! I appreciate the fast response.
 

WildCard999

Titan
Herald
Thank you for the information, I’ll be ordering the GPU and PSU tomorrow. I’ll be driving to the store next week to buy a new monitor. I’ll consider the ultra wide one since I like “wide” myself haha! I appreciate the fast response.
It's hard to go back to 16:9 once you play on 21:9. The wider view makes it a bit more immersive. If your games don't natively support 21:9 then check out WSGF or Flawlesswidescreen.
 
Jul 26, 2019
104
12
95
2
I highly disagree with in being pointless or useless. I had a 1070 for years I was told was great for higher HZ and higher resolution. The game still struggled to hold 60 FPS in some titles.

Regardless of monitor, more powerful cards are better at holding more consistent frame rates at higher graphical settings. If I want to enjoy my games settings at MAX. 2060 Super will be better at holding 60 FPS consistently especialy with newer more graphically intensive titles then a 1660 TI would.
 
Reactions: DiabolusVolente
I highly disagree with in being pointless or useless. I had a 1070 for years I was told was great for higher HZ and higher resolution. The game still struggled to hold 60 FPS in some titles.
At 1080p and 60fps? It struggled? Then there was some other issue going on.


Regardless of monitor, more powerful cards are better at holding more consistent frame rates at higher graphical settings. If I want to enjoy my games settings at MAX. 2060 Super will be better at holding 60 FPS consistently especialy with newer more graphically intensive titles then a 1660 TI would.
Agreed that more powerful cards are better at holding more consistent frame rates - to a point. Once you get to a card that can manage a 60fps minimum on a game at the given resolution, then going for a faster card is a waste of money.

At 2560x1080, the 1660Ti is more than sufficient. Except, Ashes of the Singularity. But that seems to be brutal on just about ANY card.
 
Sep 9, 2019
10
4
15
0
I bought a 2060 SUPER a month back. It was an emegency change if Im being honest. I picked a card I thought would be ok, it honestly blew my expectations out of the water. I generally have gone with 70 series on the Nvidia. But this latest card had played everything I wanted better then I expected. Currently looking for games to wow me visually.

On another note, Im wondering if my old 60 HZ monitor is hurting my setup
i think you should upgrade to a 144hz 1080p monitor
techsource has a good video on ones under $200
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS