I3 3220 with a GTX 660ti. Bottleneck?

[PaintedKrow]

Alright well I was doing a budget build for a friend and I managed to fit a 660ti Into his budget, The thing is, hes using an i3 3220. At first I didnt think it would be a big deal, but then I saw someone talking about how BF3 bottlenecks their system (which is a similar build). Now I figured that BF3 kinda kills alot of peoples systems on multiplayer, so it's kinda expected on a GPU and CPU like this for that game, But It sparked the realization that it may bottleneck performance on most games.

Is this true, or should it not be that big of a deal.

(I posted this question on a different forum and no one actually answered me, they just started telling me that the 660ti is garbage and that I should go with a 670. Im not looking for answers like that!)

Thanks in advance!

 

[koreanzombie]

If im not mistaken the i3 is a dual core...so you would see small bottleneck.

If you overclock your processor, it'll bottleneck less, but in all i think the processor can handle that card on stock for the most part.

regarding BF3 mp, more cores the better. You'll get better peformance with a quad and up over a dual core, overclocked or not as BF utilizes more cores.

 

[mactronix]

In general its not an issue, more expensive CPU's with more cores etx will have higher FPS and certain games that can use the extra cores will of course be restricted in terms of maximum frame rate.

Mactronix

 

[payturr]

You won't see any bottleneck - just cause it's a dual core doesn't mean anything. I could run a Pentium with a 7870 and I'd be fine, don't worry about a bottleneck, you're system is MORE than fine. Besides, your Core i3 acts like a quad core because of hyper threading, so pay no mind to the koreanzombie.

 

[EzioAs]

^ he's not entirely wrong. It'll bottleneck the 660ti though it won't be by much that it's not playable

Like mactronix said though, in general its not an issue.

 

[WretchedSoul44]

Mostly budget builds like the one you built for your friend won't have the best hardware, meaning that your not going to be able to set it to a High Graphics level but maybe mid Medium with several CPU taxing things taken off. Eventually, even as we see now your going to run into better enhancements from Nvidia especially since your using the i3 ivy bridge version, hopefully your motherboard is able to work with PCI-e 3.0 which some people say allows for double what PCI-e 2.0 has to offer. (I don't know if its a CPU thing like the i5 or i7, only can use PCI-e 3.0, which I don't see why it would be that way since they are essentially the very same chips, but only the i5 and i7 are less restricted and have access to all 4 cores)

But since your asking specifically about the 3220 your going to be limited by your CPU more than the 660ti with graphics at a decent level. Some small things that could help limit a bottleneck is using an SSD for gaming, a little more RAM, turning your advanced system settings to all low quality so the CPU's resources are used more on gaming not on Windows while your playing, turning the power settings to high(most people same its minimal to also having no benifit since windows is pretty good regulating and telling 0s and 1s where to go but I've always felt a little lag when i keep in on balanced while playing than when I put it on High Performance and lastly, Overclocking your CPU if its possible.

As gaming advances most games will probably be able to use four to six cores or more and eventually use hyper threading. By then my CPU will bottleneck too, but for right now w/ a budget I think you'll be alright.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

can you ditch the i3, get an i5 and just get the standard gtx660, instead of the ti? a standard 660 can max BF3, but the i3 may slow it down particularly on multiplayer.

 

[payturr]

I would agree with that - trading in the Core i3 for the i5 would be better for Battlefield 3 but realistically guys there is really no bottleneck with the 660ti, how can there be any? It's a modern CPU - just because it has 2 cores less than most doesn't mean anything.

 

[lostgamer_03]

In games where quad-core CPUs are supported you will possibly see a bottleneck. Battlefield 3 could be a good example, Battlefield 3 actually supports hexa-core CPUs. You'll still get great performance, i3-3220 is still a decent gaming CPU. Though it gets thrashed by the newer AMD piledriver CPUs.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

In games where quad-core CPUs are supported you will possibly see a bottleneck. Battlefield 3 could be a good example, Battlefield 3 actually supports hexa-core CPUs. You'll still get great performance, i3-3220 is still a decent gaming CPU. Though it gets thrashed by the newer AMD piledriver CPUs.

it will get beaten by the 8 core piledrivers, 60 core would put it pretty close, 4 core piledrivers dont stand a chance until you OC them to 4.5ghz +

 

[payturr]

Core i3 though still has the better single thread performance, which helps it a lot in gaming because most games aren't optimized for multiple threads.

 

[lostgamer_03]

it will get beaten by the 8 core piledrivers, 60 core would put it pretty close, 4 core piledrivers dont stand a chance until you OC them to 4.5ghz +

How can you be an addict, yet know so Little?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Even FX 4300 beats the i3-3220.

 

[lostgamer_03]

Core i3 though still has the better single thread performance, which helps it a lot in gaming because most games aren't optimized for multiple threads.

Most games can't even run on a single core, if they don't got hyperthread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4PDoy-mi0A

 

[payturr]

Most of those games again are better optimized for multithread performance. If you have a game like, lets say Half Life 2, or Crysis 2, the processors balance out really. And, on top of that, if they can't run on a single core they're optimized, so you can't compare.
And please, do not insult my intelligence sir. I do not sit here and insult yours - I know the processors' performance.

 

[lostgamer_03]

Most of those games again are better optimized for multithread performance. If you have a game like, lets say Half Life 2, or Crysis 2, the processors balance out really. And, on top of that, if they can't run on a single core they're optimized, so you can't compare.
And please, do not insult my intelligence sir. I do not sit here and insult yours - I know the processors' performance.

That made no sense at all.

I'm not trying to insult you, I just try to clarify the situation for the OP.

 

[payturr]

What I'm trying to say is, while an FX 4300 outperforms the Core i3 in multithreaded applications, like some modern games, the Core i3 would perform better because it has better single thread performance. I don't mean every game, I mean games not well optimized for multicore processors and focus more on 1 thread than multiple, like older games, and ports. That's what I'm saying friend, so while the FX 4300 can outperform the i3 in a game like Battlefield 3, the Core i3 can outperform it in other games like the original Crysis.

 

[lostgamer_03]

What I'm trying to say is, while an FX 4300 outperforms the Core i3 in multithreaded applications, like some modern games, the Core i3 would perform better because it has better single thread performance. I don't mean every game, I mean games not well optimized for multicore processors and focus more on 1 thread than multiple, like older games, and ports. That's what I'm saying friend, so while the FX 4300 can outperform the i3 in a game like Battlefield 3, the Core i3 can outperform it in other games like the original Crysis.

Then my question for you is: Why not look forward? When games are using more cores and gets better performance by doing so, then why would you buy a weaker CPU for the job? I don't know about you, but I don't build a new badass gaming rig only to play older games.

If you look the review through I send about the piledriver CPUs then you will see, that single-thread goes to Intel as you also state. But not many newer games only take advantage of 2 cores.

 

[payturr]

Because this young man may wanna play some older games - and the Core i3 isn't necessarily weaker, sure it can't push out the same amount of frames, but it does hold it's own ground. Personally, I'd opt for the Core i3 namely because I don't like what AMD has become, focusing more on cores than architecture & efficiency. I know not many, but older games & poor ports do still just use 2 cores. But then again, if I'm building a gaming machine I'd probably aim higher for a Core i5, but remember you're talking to the guy who aims to build a gaming machine with a Pentium.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

How can you be an addict, yet know so Little?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

Even FX 4300 beats the i3-3220.

It would be nice if you read something other than anandtech bench's.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review-12.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_6.html#sect0
They are closer in performance than i remember though.