Will my CPU bottleneck this GPU upgrade ?

Pixelbastardo

Do you guys know if a RTX 2080 Super would be bottlenecked by an i5-6600k ?

I know the i5 can be overclocked, its currently at 4.0. Im just after realizing my 500W EVGA Bronze 80 PLUS psu will have to be switched out for something higher to accommodate the gpu upgrade, but im hoping the cpu is good.. but if not what would you guys recommend ?

Edit, im shooting for a 60fps/4K setup.

Yakult

Short Answer, yes, massively.

https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Core_i5-6600K/GeForce_RTX_2080_SUPER/0Fs14vpm/

Pixelbastardo

Well son of a beach..

dreamers75

ffs i get this

Your graphic card is too weak for this processor.

Homelander

At 4K/60 it wouldn't be as bad with a good overclock on the processor.

Still a bottleneck though, just not as bad if you had been aiming at 144hz.

Depends on the games, but in general it needs upgrading.

Ryzen 3600, B450M, 16GB DDR4 and a GTX2070 Super wouldn't be too much more than the cost of a 2080 Super. The 2080 Super is a waste of cash in my opinion, not that much faster than the 2070 Super and costs hundreds more.

KilOit

Might not even be a need for 2080 super if dlss2.0 is what it claims from recent videos.
I'd go with new cpu and 2070 super like someone said

2ndcoming

Yakult wrote: »

Short Answer, yes, massively.

https://pc-builds.com/calculator/Core_i5-6600K/GeForce_RTX_2080_SUPER/0Fs14vpm/

I wouldn't be too sure on that calculator. Apparently the highest FPS possible with my 7600k in GTA5 is 55 on medium.... I get 111 on high, with a reference RX480.

It also reckons it's too weak for a 1070 even though this would have been considered the perfect pairing (second to the 7700k) when the 1070 launched... and says it's roughly the same as an FX-8320. Right. I'm calling shenanigans.

Homelander

Those calculators and generic benchmark sites should never be taken as gospel. They're OK as a general indication sometimes, but a lot of the information in them is extremely misleading or extremely wrong. I hate them, never link them, and never even look at them.

It's often based on user uploaded information, so for example if only one person with a 7600K and say, a GTX1050Ti uploads info, the system has the best possible result with GTAV at 1080p Y setting is whatever they were getting.

If I am not mistaken you were using an identical site the other day to show the GTX1080 as being significantly faster than the 5600XT even though it was similarly flawed - benchmarks from games that are 8 years old, and comparing a ton of paper specs that have no impact on real world performance, etc. Whereas in the latest games they are neck-and-neck for the most part, yet that site was making out that the 1080 was like 33% faster.

Even when the sites are somewhat accurate, they can be very misleading. Take the 7600K v FX-8320 point. Now, firstly, the 7600K is light years better inherently anyway, but what a lot of those sites also don't delve into is minimum framerates, 0.1% lows, 1% lows, etc.

EG 60fps average, 1% low of 25fps and 0.1% low of 15fps is completely different to 60fps average, 1% low of 50fps and 0.1% low of 45fps.....but some sits focus only on average frames which could make out, that two totally different performances, are actually tied.