Would an i5-6400 bottleneck a gtx 1060?

[DarqFX]

Currently using the i5-6400 with a gtx 960 and it does not bottleneck, but i want to upgrade to a 1060 but am just worried the cpu may bottleneck it defeating the purpose of upgrading. Thanks.

 

[geofelt]

There is no such thing as "bottlenecking"
If, by that, you mean that upgrading a cpu or graphics card can
somehow lower your performance or FPS.
A better term might be limiting factor.
That is where adding more cpu or gpu becomes increasingly
less effective.

Try a simple test:
Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

Perhaps a bigger issue is that a GTX1060 is only two tiers higher than a GTX960 on tom's gpu hierarchy chart.
You may be disappointed if you do not see big results.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

 

[Matthew Renna]

You're not going to be cpu limited except in rare circumstances. I use an i5 4440 with an RX 580 8gb and my cpu manages to get 60 fps in most games. Your cpu is about the same as mine, and the 1060 is a tiny bit weaker than the 580, so I would say go for it.

 

[photonboy]

Hi,
YES and NO.

You WILL get CPU bottlenecking in some games and in other games you will not. You will TOGGLE between the CPU and GPU (and SSD/HDD during loading times) in some games too.

But...
Overall your experience by upgrading to a GTX1060 6GB will be better. It varies too much to give specific numbers too as again some games won't have any and some may have significant bottlenecking so I can only talk on AVERAGE.

In some games where there is a CPU bottleneck you may already get 60FPS+ so you may not care or you may have NO HARDWARE bottleneck by using VSYNC... so if you could get say 70FPS+ in a game but limit to 60FPS via VSYNC (on 60Hz monitor) then it doesn't matter.

SUMMARY
Sorry to confuse, but long story short is that your EXPERIENCE WILL IMPROVE.

So don't worry too much and just concentrate on tweaking the game settings to optimize your experience.

 

[photonboy]

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/26.html

Roughly speaking you can expect about 2x the FPS at same settings, or some combo of FPS improvement and visuals.

 

[photonboy]

https://www.hardwaresecrets.com/core-i5-6400-cpu-review/7/

Just a quick example with no better CPU's than the i5-6400 but you can see that for example in Tomb Raider there's minimal to no CPU bottlenecking with the same hardware/settings but in Dirt Rally the CPU is very important.

But then in Dirt Rally we also see 182FPS at the same hardware/settings. Just wanted to point out that even if the i5-6400 turned out to be the bottleneck there too it's already a high FPS.

I could dig up some benchmarks showing an i7-8700K getting 60% higher FPS with a GTX1060 in some situations too so as you can see it's all over the map, but in general the GTX1060 should mostly be the bottleneck point.

Specific SHOOTERS especially at 1080p resolution tend to be very demanding on CPU performance.

*If you want to ESTIMATE for a particular game then use a tool to show BOTH of:
1) GPU frequency, and
2) GPU Usage

If your frequency max is roughly 1930MHz and you get about that and the usage is say 95% then there's minimal to no CPU bottleneck. However let's say it's 1200MHz and 70% usage... well that's a big CPU bottleneck.

You can't use the CPU as a guide since not all of its cores can be utilized usually in a game so we look a the GPU (with VSYNC OFF) since it should be almost fully utilized if no other hardware or software choke point exists.

 

[DarqFX]

There is no such thing as "bottlenecking"
If, by that, you mean that upgrading a cpu or graphics card can
somehow lower your performance or FPS.
A better term might be limiting factor.
That is where adding more cpu or gpu becomes increasingly
less effective.

Try a simple test:
Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

Perhaps a bigger issue is that a GTX1060 is only two tiers higher than a GTX960 on tom's gpu hierarchy chart.
You may be disappointed if you do not see big results.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

Thanks for the advice, I gave it a go and my fps does dramatically increase. I will say though, from what ive seen, the performance on a 1060 is close to double of a 960 in some games which is good enough for me.

 

[DarqFX]

Hi,
YES and NO.

You WILL get CPU bottlenecking in some games and in other games you will not. You will TOGGLE between the CPU and GPU (and SSD/HDD during loading times) in some games too.

But...
Overall your experience by upgrading to a GTX1060 6GB will be better. It varies too much to give specific numbers too as again some games won't have any and some may have significant bottlenecking so I can only talk on AVERAGE.

In some games where there is a CPU bottleneck you may already get 60FPS+ so you may not care or you may have NO HARDWARE bottleneck by using VSYNC... so if you could get say 70FPS+ in a game but limit to 60FPS via VSYNC (on 60Hz monitor) then it doesn't matter.

SUMMARY
Sorry to confuse, but long story short is that your EXPERIENCE WILL IMPROVE.

So don't worry too much and just concentrate on tweaking the game settings to optimize your experience.

Thanks a lot, combination between your comment and other video research ive done has made me conclude that its worth the upgrade and that itll be fine

 

[photonboy]

Not just the FPS average but also many games are above 2GB VRAM usage even at GTX960 level of game settings.

Shadows of Mordor is probably a good example but if not there are others.

 

[DarqFX]

Not just the FPS average but also many games are above 2GB VRAM usage even at GTX960 level of game settings.

Shadows of Mordor is probably a good example but if not there are others.

I did my own research on that, basically stress testing my 960 to see how my vram games use, and found even Ark at MAX settings still couldnt use above 3gb, hence why i bought the much cheaper 3gb version of the 1060. Most games i play barely even reached 2gb, so it just suited me to get a 3gb, if i really need to ill turn down a few AA settings to keep below 3gb vram then thats fine.

 

[photonboy]

Not just the FPS average but also many games are above 2GB VRAM usage even at GTX960 level of game settings.

Shadows of Mordor is probably a good example but if not there are others.

I did my own research on that, basically stress testing my 960 to see how my vram games use, and found even Ark at MAX settings still couldnt use above 3gb, hence why i bought the much cheaper 3gb version of the 1060. Most games i play barely even reached 2gb, so it just suited me to get a 3gb, if i really need to ill turn down a few AA settings to keep below 3gb vram then thats fine.

Sure, if you don't see any obvious stutters you don't need to investigate if it's a VRAM issue. Just FYI:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2604-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-6gb-benchmark-review/page-5

"When the GTX 1060 3GB's frames dip, they dip hard. That can be the difference of adding noticeable chop to 1440p gameplay with the wrong settings combination, and is particularly noticeable with VRAM intensive applications. MEC requires a settings reduction, as the major example, and Shadow of Mordor is edging on one. But outside of these poor performances, the 3GB card does reasonably well in most other aspects of gaming..."

 

[DarqFX]

Not just the FPS average but also many games are above 2GB VRAM usage even at GTX960 level of game settings.

Shadows of Mordor is probably a good example but if not there are others.

I did my own research on that, basically stress testing my 960 to see how my vram games use, and found even Ark at MAX settings still couldnt use above 3gb, hence why i bought the much cheaper 3gb version of the 1060. Most games i play barely even reached 2gb, so it just suited me to get a 3gb, if i really need to ill turn down a few AA settings to keep below 3gb vram then thats fine.

Sure, if you don't see any obvious stutters you don't need to investigate if it's a VRAM issue. Just FYI:
https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2604-gtx-1060-3gb-vs-6gb-benchmark-review/page-5

"When the GTX 1060 3GB's frames dip, they dip hard. That can be the difference of adding noticeable chop to 1440p gameplay with the wrong settings combination, and is particularly noticeable with VRAM intensive applications. MEC requires a settings reduction, as the major example, and Shadow of Mordor is edging on one. But outside of these poor performances, the 3GB card does reasonably well in most other aspects of gaming..."

Yeah, i can totally understand why someone with a 1440p monitor would buy the 6gb, in my circumstance however, im using a regular 1080p. and from what ive seen, games in 1080p will be fine on the 3gb. Not only that but the games they talk about in that post are a lot more intensive than literally anything i intend to play. for example overwatch, csgo, rocket league, gta v, etc.