Question Bottleneck calculator: i7-7700 vs i5-9600k

[Zackyy]

It's actually weird that the first result for googling "bottleneck calculator" compares these two in a weird way.
After using cpu vs cpu comparison, I found out that 9600k is actually more powerful than 7700, but bottleneck calculator says I only get 10% bottleneck on 9600k and 90(!!)% on 7700 cpu.

The question is, if 9600k is more powerful and bottleneck calculator says bottleneck is less, then... why? What's the logic behind this? And shouldn't i7 with the second number being bigger be the more powerful one?

I'm using Palit GTX 1060 6GB btw.

 

[CountMike]

Because bottleneck calculator is a piece of...... this is family site so I can't write anything else to adequately describe it.

 

[Captaingadget]

I wouldn't rely on a bottleneck calculator, they frequently a load of rubbish. Personally I don't think you're going to see much of an improvement going from a 7700 to a 9600k. But we need a bit more info really, what are you using it for (gaming, workstation?)
The i7-7700 would only be slightly faster than an i5-7600k which is effectively the next model down in Intel 7th gen CPUs, but the i5-9600k is 9th gen, so two generations newer, but the improvement from 7th to 8th gen and then 8th to 9th gen is only maybe 5-10% each time. If you're gaming I would suggest a new GPU would be a better investment at this stage.

 

[Zackyy]

I wouldn't rely on a bottleneck calculator, they frequently a load of rubbish. Personally I don't think you're going to see much of an improvement going from a 7700 to a 9600k. But we need a bit more info really, what are you using it for (gaming, workstation?)
The i7-7700 would only be slightly faster than an i5-7600k which is effectively the next model down in Intel 7th gen CPUs, but the i5-9600k is 9th gen, so two generations newer, but the improvement from 7th to 8th gen and then 8th to 9th gen is only maybe 5-10% each time. If you're gaming I would suggest a new GPU would be a better investment at this stage.

I'm not updating FROM 7700, I'm thinking to update to one of those. Currently using i5-7500 for VR gaming, which is kinda not enough for smooth experience. I'll also be getting a new GPU, but in the distant future. 1060 seems to be enough for pretty much everything.
It's also weird that 9600k is cheaper than 7700

 

[j3ster]

well 7700 is 2yrs old so its expected that its gonna be expensive to get a hold of a new one from the likes of newegg or amazon its kinda like they know you dont have a choice but to pay a "premium" to get an upgrade or just change your whole setup completely (new mobo for your 9th gen intel) , but if you happen to find one at a reasonable price the i7 7700 is really good.

also to point out the gtx 1660 ti (comparable to the gtx 1070 in most cases) costs less than a "brand new" gtx 1060 so id suggest you get the 1660 ti instead.

 

[sizzling]

The i5’s made a substantial leap between 7th and 8th generation by adding 2 cores (50% increase) which allowed the i5 range to outperform prior generations i7’s.

That bottleneck calculator as already stated is garbage, it’s actually worse as it is inaccurate and misleading.

The issue you have with the 9600k is you need a 300 series motherboard. Any motherboard that supports a 7500 (100 or 200 series) will not support an 8th or 9th generation cpu. If you add in the cost of a new motherboard the 9600k is not worth the cost over a 7700(k).

 

[King_V]

It's actually weird that the first result for googling "bottleneck calculator" compares these two in a weird way.

Your biggest mistake was googling "bottleneck calculator"

Term bottleneck is grotesquely misused with regard to PCs, and bottleneck calculators are worse than useless.

If you want to see if there's any sort of weak-point in your system, run HWInfo and let it graph your CPU, GPU, and RAM usage over time while you're playing a game.

If anything pegs at 100% a lot of the time, then that's your weak point.

Note that the results will quite possibly be significantly different for different games.


If any website says "bottleneck calculator" you can be sure it's crap. If anyone starts casually throwing around phrases like "your cpu is bottlenecking your GPU" or "your GPU is bottlenecking your CPU" or hints that upgrading to a faster component will somehow decrease overall performance from what it is currently because of "bottleneck" then I would recommend punching them first, then calling them a moron.

 

[Karadjgne]

I hate the term bottleneck. It's so convoluted, misused, misinterpreted and mistaken and taken for gospel, it's honestly pathetic.

There's realistically no such thing as a bottleneck. It's a conception used to describe something that slows the imagined results. Cpus always work at full speed. Just because you only get 100fps and upgrade the gpu doesn't mean you'll get higher fps, you'll still only get 100fps. The cpu isn't a bottleneck, you just own a gpu that can't live upto its potential in that particular game under those details and resolution.

9th gen has higher IPC than 7th gen. That means clock for clock, you get more instructions per second. That equates to higher potential fps per core. A 9600k at 4.0GHz running a game has higher potential fps than a 7600k at 4.0GHz running the same game as long as the game uses 4 threads or less. Try that with an fx6300 at 40% lower IPC doesn't make the fx a bigger bottleneck, it simply means you aren't going to get high fps, your gpu is now grossly overpowered and you are expecting results you'll never see.

7700k isn't a step up from a 7600k, it's the exact same cpu. The only difference is that the hyperthreading instruction is enabled and a few internal voltages are changed to support it. Using 4 threads or less gets the same results, you basically test a cpu against another copy of itself.