It might be a small bottle-neck, but at the very worst, it shouldn't be a big bottle-neck. However, I would suggest that you get the Radeon 7770 or Radeon 6870 instead of the GTX 560, that is unless you're a Nvidia fan.The 6870 is a slightly faster card that uses significantly less power and the 7770 is slightly slower than the 6870 while using significantly less power than the 6870, if you get a highly factory OC 7770 such as this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102968

It's cheaper than any 6870 or GTX 560 in addition to being almost exactly on-par with both cards in gaming performance while using far less power. The 7770 is also a superior overclocking card compared to the 6870 and 560.
 


I guarantee that there was a CPU bottle-neck in your system if you paired an E6600 with the 6950, unless you gave the 6600 a big overclock. If you compared stock to 4+GHz gaming benchmarks, you'd see a big difference and you should be able to see the difference even without the benchmarks.
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960

Lol, check my sig. Do you really think I was running the 6600 stock?
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960
I didn't feel it was necessary because not only did the OP mention that he was already overclocking, but my sig shows that I overclock the *** out of my processors.

Regardless of whether my old E6600 was overclocked, my comment remains true. His CPU is fine for a GTX 560 with his overclock, with rare exceptions for games that like quad cores.
 


Rare exceptions? Most modern games are quad-threaded.
 

willard

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2010
2,346
0
19,960

Are you just looking for something to tell me I'm wrong about?

I never said games that could make use of quad cores were rare. I said that his dual core would be fine except for some games, which would be the rare exception. Just because a game can make use of all four cores doesn't mean it requires a quad core to run well. A dual core in the upper 3 GHz range is sufficient for most games.

Stop splitting hairs on semantics.
 


Yes, I shouldn't have said that and I was being stupid there, so sorry about that.
 


Many games benefit from four cores. Compare any game using a stock i3 and a stock i5 (both Sandy, of course) with appropriate graphics and you'll see that. Yes, OP should be fine, but it's still wrong to say that only few games benefit significantly from four cores. Heck, i3s are Hyper-Threaded, so if just going from two physical Sandy Bridge cores with two logical threads to four physical Sandy Bridge cores in the i5 shows such large gains in many games when review sites such as Tom's review them, then games can obviously benefit greatly just by the jump in core count, even if Hyper-Threading is no longer enabled. Going beyond four cores is where you see performance gains drop, except in BF3 MP, which can utilize up to six threads. In fact, most games benefit significantly from four cores. Unlike i3s and i5s, the difference on the Core 2 platform is much more significant due to the lack of Hyper-Threading.