Would a Core i5 4690k bottleneck two Sapphire NITRO+ RX 480s 8gb in Crossfire?

[FATALITYSN1P3R]

I will be gaming at 1080p and the factory clock on the CPU is 3.5Ghz. I am planning on overclocking and the rest of my question is in the title. Thanks!

 

[okcnaline]

No, because most games only utilize 4 cores. But your PSU may.
Not to mention pointless since you could get a 1080 at that price.

 

[FATALITYSN1P3R]

No, because most games only utilize 4 cores. But your PSU may.
Not to mention pointless since you could get a 1080 at that price.

I wanted to future proof with good DX 12 support. Which would be more powerful at that point, these two or the single 1080?

 

[atomicWAR]

a single GTX 1080 would be your best bet.

 

[okcnaline]

No, because most games only utilize 4 cores. But your PSU may.
Not to mention pointless since you could get a 1080 at that price.

I wanted to future proof with good DX 12 support. Which would be more powerful at that point, these two or the single 1080?

1080. Don't deal with worse power efficiency.
If you want future proof, why not wait for Vega?

 

[SgtScream]

Don't purchase a gtx 1080 if you plan to run 1080p. That resolution is far to low for a gtx 1080. This will cause excessive frame rates which will cause additional cpu overhead. In short, your i5 cpu will bottleneck like crazy. I see people post on Tom's Hardware regarding this issue daily. Just go with a gtx 1070, as it will be an excellent pairing with your i5 4690k and your 1080p monitor.

 

[atomicWAR]

Don't purchase a gtx 1080 if you plan to run 1080p. That resolution is far to low for a gtx 1080. This will cause excessive frame rates which will cause additional cpu overhead. In short, your i5 cpu will bottleneck like crazy. I see people post on Tom's Hardware regarding this issue daily. Just go with a gtx 1070, as it will be an excellent pairing with your i5 4690k and your 1080p monitor.

There is some truth in this but there are reasons to run a GTX 1080 at 1080P. If you game with max in-game settings AND max filtering/AA say 16x by 8x, you will still tax a GTX 1080 in many newer titles even at 1080P especially if your playing at greater then 60hz. Even at 60hz though some games would need a gtx 1080 to be run at those settings. The thing is most reviews and posts about how powerful a GPU is only use in-game settings with minimal to no AA which makes the rendering a breeze for the GPU thus creating an CPU bottleneck. You kick up the rendering though with heavy filtering and AA on top of max detail settings then the, "GTX 1060 is plenty for any game at 1080P" argument is no longer true. So ask yourself how do you you use your graphics settings. You stick to in-game only with low to no AA then yeah a GTX 1080 is overkill. If like me you max out everything, including the filtering and AA then the GTX 1080 starts to look attractive.

 

[SgtScream]

I still think that gtx 1080 is going to crush his cpu at 1080p resolution. If you want to purchase a 1080, get a 1440p monitor to go along with it.

 

[atomicWAR]

I still think that gtx 1080 is going to crush his cpu at 1080p resolution. If you want to purchase a 1080, get a 1440p monitor to go along with it.

I run several machines including an i5 4670K build which I have run 2 GTX 1080s in @1080P just to see what would happen (put them back in my 4K build obviously). If he does as I stated it will not crush his CPU, save a few titles like BF1, ghost recon wildlands and a few others but those titles would have crushed his CPU regardless. The harder you tax your GPU the less CPU you need to keep up. Again though he would need to be running max in-game settings and max filtering/AA...otherwise you are very much correct.

 

[FATALITYSN1P3R]

I still think that gtx 1080 is going to crush his cpu at 1080p resolution. If you want to purchase a 1080, get a 1440p monitor to go along with it.

I run several machines including an i5 4670K build which I have run 2 GTX 1080s in @1080P just to see what would happen (put them back in my 4K build obviously). If he does as I stated it will not crush his CPU, save a few titles like BF1, ghost recon wildlands and a few others but those titles would have crushed his CPU regardless. The harder you tax your GPU the less CPU you need to keep up. Again though he would need to be running max in-game settings and max filtering/AA...otherwise you are very much correct.

So if I were to run BF1 on the highest settings possible with a 1080, would my CPU be able to keep up or would it create a bottleneck? Mind you I would be running at 1080p

 

[atomicWAR]

BF1 is one of those titles having only 4 threads will matter, especially in multiplayer. I have answered a ton of posts of i5s (even i7s in 64 player games) being bottlenecked in BF1 with <insert gpu here>. BF1 can take every thread you throw at it as can watch dogs 2 and ghost recon wildlands. Some games an i5 is simply enter level. These games you will face a bottleneck at 1080P and even if your were at 4K you still would. Some complaints i have seen is i5s getting maxed out 100% while only hitting 50FPS or so regardless of the settings. If you have any question about a game CPU bottlenecking do the following. Set your in-game settings as low as they go and set your resolution as low as it will go. What ever frame rate you get is likely (or close to) the absolute fastest your CPU can render said game. you can turn up the resolution and eye candy all you want but you will never beat the frame rate no matter what GPU you run.

 

[FATALITYSN1P3R]

BF1 is one of those titles having only 4 threads will matter, especially in multiplayer. I have answered a ton of posts of i5s (even i7s in 64 player games) being bottlenecked in BF1 with <insert gpu here>. BF1 can take every thread you throw at it as can watch dogs 2 and ghost recon wildlands. Some games an i5 is simply enter level. These games you will face a bottleneck at 1080P and even if your were at 4K you still would. Some complaints i have seen is i5s getting maxed out 100% while only hitting 50FPS or so regardless of the settings. If you have any question about a game CPU bottlenecking do the following. Set your in-game settings as low as they go and set your resolution as low as it will go. What ever frame rate you get is likely (or close to) the absolute fastest your CPU can render said game. you can turn up the resolution and eye candy all you want but you will never beat the frame rate no matter what GPU you run.

So overall, my frame rate in games that used lots of threads would lack only slightly or significantly. I'm assuming a lot considering your CPU controls the data flow to the rest of your components. If so, which CPU would you recommend as an upgrade? If it could be LGA1150 compatible that would be great because I don't really want to throw the cash at a new mobo but if not that's ok too.

 

[atomicWAR]

yeah a i7 4790K/4770K. It gives you 4 more threads.

 

[IHateSmurfs]

Dude do what they say: 1080 8gb is more than future proof. If you have some extra bucks get the 1080Ti (don't know if it was released yet). 1080/1080Ti are great GPU's. Just get a good PSU otherwise the system won't handle it

 

[SgtScream]

If you play a poorly optimized game like BF1 in combination to running a gtx 1080 at 1080p resolution, you aren't going to be happy with the outcome. It's more important that you have a well balanced computer as a whole, so going with a gtx 1060 or a 1070 would be a wise decision. Going with an i7 4790k may improve cpu performance, but it's performance increase will be negligible and isn't going to justify the cost. If you upgrade your cpu to an i7 4790k, you'll see an improvement (FPS Fluctuation will decrease), but the cpu will still get crushed (resulting in a low fps) as single core performance won't drastically differ going from the 4690k to the 4790k. I'm just trying to warn you, you are going to be posting back on this thread asking why your FPS is so low, when running an i7 4790k with a gtx 1080 at 1080p resolution.

 

[Gon Freecss]

Do you have the system currently?