Question Is my i5 3570K too weak for 1660 ti?

[Jophen]

As per title.
Also I currently own a 1060 3gb and am looking to upgrade. Would the 1660 ti be worth upgrading to? I am also looking into the RTX 2070 but that is expensive! Is it better to just save up for the RTX 2070?

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

I would start looking to move to a new platform. 3570k is showing it's age.

 

[Achaios]

1. 1660ti is too close in terms of performance with 1060 3GB therefore it is not a valid upgrade.

2. Your 3570k can OC to 4.4 or 4.5 GHz which means it is fine for now and it will be fine too for the next 3-4 years at least.

3. Yes, you should save and upgrade to an RTX 2070.

 

[cryoburner]

1660ti is too close in terms of performance with 1060 3GB therefore it is not a valid upgrade.

I wouldn't say it's "not a valid upgrade". On average, a 1660 Ti performs on par with a 1070, or potentially a bit over 50% faster than a 1060 3GB when it's not being limited by CPU performance. Another card to consider would be the RTX 2060 though, which performs similar to a 1070 Ti, or roughly in between a 1660 Ti and a 2070. It also supports hardware raytraced lighting effects like the 2070, even if those have been shown to cause a big performance hit when enabled in the couple games that support them so far.

As for the 3570K, it's still about on par with the current quad-core i3 and Ryzen 3 processors, though they are admittedly lower-end parts at this point. It should be capable of handling these graphics cards just fine though. I wouldn't go as far as saying it would be good to run the latest games for "3-4 years" though, as already there are some games that perform best on a processor with more threads, and that's only going to become more common as people move to higher core-count processors for gaming. We may also see games become somewhat more demanding once the next generation of consoles launch, which will probably be next year. It will likely run the latest games for at least a few years, but there will probably be significant performance issues in some. For now, it will likely be fine to stick with the 3570K though, and I probably wouldn't bother upgrading that at least until after AMD and Intel launch their 7/10nm CPUs.

 

[Achaios]

I wouldn't say it's "not a valid upgrade". On average, a 1660 Ti performs on par with a 1070, or potentially a bit over 50% faster than a 1060 3GB when it's not being limited by CPU performance. Another card to consider would be the RTX 2060 though, which performs similar to a 1070 Ti, or roughly in between a 1660 Ti and a 2070. It also supports hardware raytraced lighting effects like the 2070, even if those have been shown to cause a big performance hit when enabled in the couple games that support them so far.

As for the 3570K, it's still about on par with the current quad-core i3 and Ryzen 3 processors, though they are admittedly lower-end parts at this point. It should be capable of handling these graphics cards just fine though. I wouldn't go as far as saying it would be good to run the latest games for "3-4 years" though, as already there are some games that perform best on a processor with more threads, and that's only going to become more common as people move to higher core-count processors for gaming. We may also see games become somewhat more demanding once the next generation of consoles launch, which will probably be next year. It will likely run the latest games for at least a few years, but there will probably be significant performance issues in some. For now, it will likely be fine to stick with the 3570K though, and I probably wouldn't bother upgrading that at least until after AMD and Intel launch their 7/10nm CPUs.

1. No, it does NOT perform on par with a 1070. It is CLEARLY SLOWER THAN A 1070:

Proof:

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx_1660_ti_review,8.html

2. A 3570k is NOT on par with a Ryzen 3.

In fact, a 3570k overclocked to 4.4 GHz is SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER IN SINGLE THREADED PERFORMANCE THAN A RYZEN 5 2700X:

It is in FACT SO MUCH FASTER, than comparing them is NOT EVEN FUNNY.

A 3570k@4.5 GHz does around 2600 CPU marks at Passmark Single Threaded whereas a Ryzen 5 2700X @4.3 GHz does 2194 CPU marks.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

A Ryzen 3 is SO MUCH SLOWER than an OC'd 3570k that comparing them is a WASTE OF TIME.

3. The games that benefit from more than 4 Cores are SO FREAKIN FEW that I haven't even used the Hyperthreading function on my 4770k for the PAST SIX YEARS (I have it switched OFF) and there is no chance that I am going to use it either for the next couple of years either.

 

[Viking2121]

That i5 is a bit too slow I'd say for most newer triple A games, my single GTX 1070 on my i7 3770s system at 4.2ghz was held back in GTA5, Battlefield 1, Cod WW2, and a few other single threaded games.

I'd invest in an AM4 platform if you want to save money, a 6 core 12 thread chip like the R7 2600 is a real good performer and should last just as long as your 3570K did.

I'd stick with the 1060 3gb for now if you play on a 1080p panel, only thing really hurting that card is the 3GB buffer. Tho you can get the 1660 or a used 1070, they are pretty much neck and neck trading blows in games and pair it with your i5 and it will do good, but wont perform as well or any differently in some games that are CPU heavy.

 

[mdd1963]

As per title.
Also I currently own a 1060 3gb and am looking to upgrade. Would the 1660 ti be worth upgrading to? I am also looking into the RTX 2070 but that is expensive! Is it better to just save up for the RTX 2070?

The 2060 is a 'very good deal' ($360-ish), in Nvidia terms, relative to prices on the 2070 and above...(I"d not worry about the 2070 unless planning on a lifteime of 1440P on 144 Hz monitors with the mandatory new CPU and MB that will be required to drive them to those frame rates..)

The 1060 (3 GB) was weaker as far as 1060's go...(the 6 GB variant is still a nice card, and still plenty fine at 1080P/Ultra/100 Hz and below)....

 

[cryoburner]

1. No, it does NOT perform on par with a 1070. It is CLEARLY SLOWER THAN A 1070:
Proof:
https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx_1660_ti_review,8.html

Firestrike is a benchmark, not an actual game, and it is only one example of performance. Due to architectural changes, the 1660 Ti will perform faster than a 1070 in some games, and slower in others, but overall their performance will be very similar. Even that very review you linked to shows that to be the case when you look at the actual game results...

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/zotac_gtx_1660_ti_review,17.html

In fact, going by their results, the 1660 Ti was actually the faster card in most of the games they tested, though six games is arguably not an adequate sample size to precisely judge overall performance by. How about the average performance across 21 games as tested by TechPowerUp then...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1660_Ti_XC_Black/28.html

Or the 33 games tested by Techspot...

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mega Benchmark

We're following up to our GeForce GTX 1660 Ti review with an even more ample 33 game benchmark test. The day-one review looked at more recent games...

www.techspot.com

Pretty much every single review I've seen has shown the 1660 Ti to perform at roughly the same level as a 1070 across today's games. And if anything, the 1660 Ti's updated architecture seems to handle newer games better, which could potentially help it pull ahead a bit in the future, though the additional VRAM of the 1070 may help counter that in some games.

2. A 3570k is NOT on par with a Ryzen 3.

In fact, a 3570k overclocked to 4.4 GHz is SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER IN SINGLE THREADED PERFORMANCE THAN A RYZEN 5 2700X:

It is in FACT SO MUCH FASTER, than comparing them is NOT EVEN FUNNY.

A 3570k@4.5 GHz does around 2600 CPU marks at Passmark Single Threaded whereas a Ryzen 5 2700X @4.3 GHz does 2194 CPU marks.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

A Ryzen 3 is SO MUCH SLOWER than an OC'd 3570k that comparing them is a WASTE OF TIME.

Again, you're comparing a synthetic benchmark, and modern games are not single-threaded. Ultimately, there's not going to be a particularly large difference in performance between these processors. When it comes to more heavily-threaded games, things like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman 2 or Battlefield V, the higher clocks of an overclocked 3570K might help a bit, but the core deficiency compared to a 6+ thread processor is going to cause some performance drops, and this is likely to become more common down the line as games make heavier use of additional threads. And since you like synthetic benchmarks, let's see how a 2200G compares to a 3570k in systems tested on UserBench...

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-2200G/1316vsm441832

It looks like virtually identical performance at stock clocks, and the i5 can be around 7% faster with both processors overclocked. How can we even compare such massive performance differences? : P My point stands that these processors are in a similar performance range. The 3570K might be a little faster with an overclock, but not by enough for there to be a visibly noticeable difference in gaming performance.

3. The games that benefit from more than 4 Cores are SO FREAKIN FEW that I haven't even used the Hyperthreading function on my 4770k for the PAST SIX YEARS (I have it switched OFF) and there is no chance that I am going to use it either for the next couple of years either.

I agree that most games don't yet see much of a performance difference from moving to more than four cores (assuming other applications are not running in the background while gaming), but if you have had hyperthreading disabled for the past 6 years, then how would you know if it has an impact on performance in recent games? And why pay more for an i7 if you are effectively turning it into an i5 by disabling its biggest feature? I suspect that enabling hyperthreading would be better for minimum frame rates in many recent AAA titles than keeping it turned off to maybe get a slightly higher overclock.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

I'd definitely save for a cheap 1600/1700 ryzen (if you're dead set on new platform, otherwise see my 1155 i7 suggestion below) which have been great prices lately or 2nd gen if you want a tiny bit better core speed and IPC increase. 3000 series is supposed to launch in the coming months too. I found the 3570k to be woefully inadequate years ago starting with it getting eaten alive in big BF1 multiplayer matches.

For purely gaming with nothing else running, once OC'd highly, you can get by with a 4c/4t cpu like the i5, butttttt you better not be doing anything else on that pc these days like multitasking or streaming. BF1 large MP matches were a stuttering mess years ago. As an experiment, as it was STILL cheaper at that time than going for an i7, I nabbed a cheap 8320E that I oc'd to 4ghz, and a MSI Gaming 970 mobo, and it was instantly smooth in BF1 multiplayer. Some games starting years ago with the BF1 title, and definitely more now and definitely more in the future will need more cores/threads. There's a reason 4c/4t has been demoted to the i3 line now.

If you could possibly nab a 2600k or 3770k and OC them, I'd pair that with the 1660 ti no prob. Due to a very sucky old z68 mobo I no longer have the 2600k as a daily driver, but once OC'd it was a very stout cpu, and was great for 99% of stuff on stock tbh. Depending on your mobo, you could possibly grab a xeon 1230 or 1230v2 or 1270v2 cpu and certain motherboards iirc had a thing called multi core enhancement I read about which would run all cores at the turbo speed

 

[Karadjgne]

I own both a 3570k and a 3770k. So I'm going to say this, since both are networked and both contain most of my games equally.
I7: Skyrim 138 mods, still over 60fps.
I5: Skyrim 77 mods, bounces between 50-60fps
Huge difference in cpu capabilities with scripted mods which are all cpu bound. Skyrim vanilla only uses 2 threads, so anything Sandy-Bridge and up has no issues. Add mods, and the quad cores bog down. The i7 is pushing 6 threads. When I had enb enabled, it was 7 threads.

GuildWars 2. Another old game. Runs noticeably different on the 2 pc's, simply due to the amount of threads used by heavy server drops.

Metal Gear Solid V. Another old game. 30-40fps on the i5, over 60 on the i7. Multi-player online is unplayable on the i5, server drops kill fps into the teens.

Shall I go on? Few games? No, sorry, there's many games, starting back before Battlefield IV that use multi-core optimization, and not necessarily AAA titles either. Even some single player like Witcher 3, GTA:V are brutal on quad thread cpus. And any open world game like WoW seriously benefits from high thread cpus, jumping into a 64man drop is just a nasty experience on less than 8 threads in anything pre-coffeelake.

Even some of the mods my 14yr old daughter uses in minecraft can reduce the i5 to less than 60fps. Really, it's minecraft...

After seeing what's been happening to games for the last few years, and the requirements necessary for decent enjoyment, I'd not recommend any pre-coffeelake i5 as any kind of upgrade and definitely not for a new build. Go i7 or go home and save up til you can.

 

[sk8ernut.dw]

I recommend upgrading your rig to 8th generation or 9th you'll thank yourself. I had a processor like yours but third generation is at end of life. Time to upgrade if you wanna use the full power of 1660ti. After all the ivy bride processor only has 4 cores and it lacks hyper threading

 

[Rodrigodrt]

Better to get the 2070, its better for the 1080p 144hz gaming. You cpu is old, but it wont keep you from enjoying things at that resolution, of course a better one is... better, but of course as well there is a cost.

now, there will be games nowadays that your cpu will be listen as min or actually not recommended, specially because its a 4 core 4t, those as struggling and even more so in the near future, so a cpu upgrade will be needed as well.

its up to you to decide where to start, right now a 2070 would give more performance than a cpu upgrade would....

 

[King_V]

As per title.

No, it is not too weak. It depends more on the games you play and the monitor you use.

1. 1660ti is too close in terms of performance with 1060 3GB therefore it is not a valid upgrade.

I disagree. The 1660Ti is in the 1070/1070Ti/Vega56 range of performance, notably better than the 1060 3GB. It's a decent upgrade.

Also, if you do want to upgrade the rest of your platform (MB/CPU/RAM), you can carry the 1660Ti over with you to the new machine.