Question Will 1700 bottleneck a RTX 2080?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I get 300fps solid at Ultra settings in CS:GO with a i7-3770k @ 4.6GHz and a gtx970 @ 124%OC. So what. I've got 60Hz monitors, so guess what I see, 60fps. Wouldn't make a bat's genitals difference if it was 500fps with a 9900k OC to 5.2GHz or 100fps from a FX8320 at stock speeds. All I'm going to get is 60. The picture will be the same, motion the same, everything but the stupid Afterburner fps counter will be the same.

As long as the cpu is capable of sustained minimum framerates above monitor refresh, it does not matter what the maximum is.

Benchmark maximums only show what's capable in comparison to other cpus, doesn't make Intel better because it has 6% higher IPC and 5 more fps. Just means either is OK for that purpose or not.

95% of ppl cannot physically differentiate between 100fps and 144fps. Those speeds are too fast for the human eye to register such a small difference. 30fps to 60fps is easy, but beyond 100fps it all blends together. Many ppl even have a hard time differentiating between 75 and 100. The only uber high fps makes a difference to is a benchmark. Reality is quite different to what benchmarks insist upon.
Last edited:
Some monitors yes, some still no. And it's not so much that nvidia supports freesync as in that nvidia can enable its inherent adaptive vsync in the freesync monitor which uses its own adaptive vsync in conjunction with a freesync viable card. Whereas before, the 2 adaptive vsync were not compatible so nvidia was stuck with using plain vsync on a freesync monitor
Right, I'm just making the point, gsync is fine and good, but the op may have a similar experience going with the freesync monitor, since those are usually at least about 100 dollars less. However, if you want to be sure, then yes, go gsync, but it will cost more. I will say I have an AMD Vega 56 card, and my freesync monitor had issues (I think due to the fact partially that it was HDMI/VGA only). When I returned it and got one that has DP as an option, then things have worked great ever since. Just like other things, read reviews and do your research before you buy.

As far as Intel, I would say yes, they are ahead now. But that may not be the case when Zen 2 launches out this summer.

In the case of the opening question, the 1700 is decent, but is basically last year's model. To get the performance from it, you will want to overclock. However, AMD should give a better upgrade path, especially with Zen 2 coming this summer if all rumors are accurate.

If you want the performance right now, buy the Intel system and be happy. It will perform great. Understand however, upgrading will probably mean a new cpu, as well as new board as they tend to change sockets frequently. Plus you'll pay more up front.

Really, neither answer is right or wrong here. You just need to be aware of them.