Question Would a Ryzen 7 2700x bottleneck a Asus Radeon 580 RX Gaming 8GB?

[Printer Paper]

The question is in the title. I know that it's pretty obvious but I'm still somewhat of a noob to PC building and would like some help on this since it isn't the thing I know the most about. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Gam3r01]

No, the 2700x can support much more powerful cards.

 

[boju]

No bottleneck, 2700x can easily supply the fps demanded from more powerful graphics cards right upto 2080Ti.

 

[mdd1963]

In pure gaming scenarios, the stock 2700X often lags even the 26 month old 4c/8t spec stock 7700K (barely, by 1-2 fps) when both are given a 2080Ti GPU, and, both are some 35% down in average frames/sec compared to a 9900K...; more of an issue to consider when folks are choosing a CPU and GPU for 144 Hz refresh monitors, it would seem. NOTE: IN pure gaming...once streaming is thrown into the mix, Ryzen 2700X leaps ahead of any 4c cpu, and, only falls victim to 8600K and above...)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rOVfeujof4


(Granted, there would much less of a frame rate disparity given GPUs in the GTX1060/RX580 class, of course, where it was shown that even the i5-7400 would 99% saturate a GTX1060 in reviews 25 months ago.....)

NOTE: NOT advocating selecting a 7700K, but, this video shows the gaming performance of a huge variety of CPUs when using a great GPU, so I use this link once or twice a day lately when discussing gaming performance, and, often when folks say Ryzen eqauls Intel at 1440p; it does not.

 

[boju]

I get what you're saying mdd1963 but if someone couldn't afford a 9900k or at least 8700k/9700k then they'd probably go 8600k/9600k instead. It depends on games played and condition of operating system and background running apps. I bet most tech sites like Nexus when doing tests they have a pretty lean OS. The reason im saying that is those tests don't necessarily reflect real word differences like running Discord for example and other crap most people run in the background however small can vary cpu usages and results.

I agree, Intel has dominantly been the go to cpu for fps. Depending on games, how it's played and what level of fps, cpu's like the similar 8600k/9600k might not be suited.

Top of the line Ryzen models might not reach the level of fps 8600k/9600k can but also having more threads can result in a less stutter experience to a certain point. Open world games from Ubi soft and Dice are increasingly getting bigger and more cpu involved and with that plus Windows background apps (if any, however small) adding to cpu usage and on top of that is pre-rendering frames. 8600k/9600k are similar performers and they can produce the frames but god there are so many complaints by people of 100% cpu usage. More fps there is adds to the strain and it's not pleasant when there's stutters and what makes it worse is finding out searching forums, the money spent on cpu, it isn't coping. Should have just spent a little extra on Intel or gone with Ryzen.

7700k is a bull and i believe HT helps compared to cpus that don't have it. Lot of people say true cores beat threads, i mean the cores on HT cpu's are still real cores just have two shared threads. The way i understand it is game's still rely on the primary core and the primary core has to deal with Windows, game and fps. Having two threads helping the primary core would benefit the cpu's overall usage as rest of the cores aren't starved. Many factors involved of course but that's my line of thinking.