What is best GPU to pair up with i5 6600k before bottleneck?

[kalniel]

OP, when you say 'G-sync', do you mean exactly G-sync and not 'G-sync compatible'? This determines whether you are locked in to Nvidia cards or not.

Microstutter, or very bad occasional frame delays seem to be as much driver related as hardware. Encountering it is a pain, and you can brute force your way past it with more/different GPU power/ram and a fast CPU/more system RAM - depending on what the root cause is. But it's often on a game by game basis. Minimum framerate, excluding these stutters, is also a determinate in how smooth a game feels and it's here that a VRR really earns its keep.

In my case I'm 'only' gaming on a 1060, but at 1440p and usually max quality settings. And on a VRR monitor it feels a lot smoother than my previous fixed RR 1080p, despite the fps being down in the high 40s/ low 50s. FPS variability is almost undetectable if I'm not looking at a counter, so if a lesser CPU results in a more variable minimum framerate then a VRR user is well shielded from it.

On CPU bottlenecks - basically the less time it takes to render a frame the higher the load on the CPU because the CPU is being asked for the render information more often in a given time period. Resolution itself doesn't have much bearing on CPU load save only that it causes a greater or lesser amount of time to render a frame. 'Bottleneck' is itself a bit of a misnomer - the process is largely sequential so CPU prepping and GPU render times are additive. We tend to use it as an indication of where you could find a bigger gain if you improved it, or to say that a particular framerate target would be possible if only the 'bottlenecking' component was improved. In reality to improve performance you need both a fast enough CPU and GPU.

And that target is precisely what the argument is above. If the OP can specify exact parameters such as game selection, quality settings, and target framerate (range) alongside already provided info such as resolution, then we can look up the charts and see what GPUs are best to pair with before (and if) there's a bottleneck to obtaining that target.

If the minimum frate rate is say the lower bounds of a g-sync window then that's something we can take into account. If the target specifies 'no microstutter' then we'd have to investigate the game in question and recommend GPUs partly based on how they and their drivers do in that particular game.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Kalniel,you have a 8C/16T Core i9 9900K though?? You are hardly going to be CPU limited in most cases. They have stated they want to run the games at 144FPS,and think for some reason 1080p/60 is less CPU limited than 1440p/144. They want to know if they are going to be CPU limited and by extension probably what GPU they should buy.

The problem is that people who really want 144HZ do so mostly for online FPS games,and low FPS is still low FPS however its presented.A problem is with most reviews,they tend to test empty parts of maps,since its easier to get consistent numbers,instead of more hectic areas where its harder to compare Apples to Apples(they are too transient),so you can end up with over optimistic numbers at times.

You still have that see-sawing effect and even people I know who have "Sync" monitors aim for consistent FPS in those kinds of situations even if they need to drop settings.

The thing is you can easily get around a lack of GPU power by using lower graphics settings and resolution scaling,but not a lack of enough CPU grunt. Also remember people are suggesting anything from an RTX2060/RX5700 to a RTX3060,which is significantly more powerful than a GTX1060 on a much slower CPU than what you have.

Its literally like telling someone to buy a Ryzen 3 3200G/Core i3 9100F/Core i3 8300 and to pair it with a RTX2060/RX5700/GTX1080/RTX3060. My mates Core i7 6700K with SMT off could exhibit nasty framedrops in games,even if average FPS looked high. That was with SMT enabled.

I just feel its better for the OP to save up a bit more,re-use their DDR4 RAM and get a better CPU and a GPU togther.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was looking at how much the CPU and motherboard would go for:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_f...&LH_Complete=1
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_f...mplete=1&rt=nc

The motherboard still goes for £70~£110. The Core i5 6600K still goes for between £70~£120. The MSI GTX970 4GB cards go for between £80~£100 still:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_f...mplete=1&rt=nc

The parts still have some value,but as time progresses they will probably be worth less and less. IMHO its no point hanging onto old parts if they still have value and you can something better for a few quid more! Plus you have a warranty on them for a few years.

So even if you take costs into account,the OP should be able to get around £200~£250 for those parts. If they re-use their DDR4,they can probably get a Core i5 10400F or Ryzen 5 3600,plus a Z490 or B550 motherboard for around £260. Both modern 6C/12T CPUs,and should have less problems with a RTX2060/RX5600XT/RX5700.

If they get a good deal on a new GPU(£200~£250 RTX2060/RX5700 during BF),then it might all come in at £300 in total!

[kalniel]

Oh yeah, I'm not CPU 'limited' any time soon, but I was talking about the experience of fps variability which I do get due to GPU load. The VRR monitor doesn't care if that variability is caused by GPU delay or CPU delay, it's all time that gets added up to frame render time and sent to the monitor.

Good point on the request to run at 144hz. That's what, 7ms per frame? So the OP simply needs to make sure that the combination of CPU and GPU can render a representative frame in less than 7ms. The faster the GPU, the more time is available to the CPU so you can get away with a slower CPU. That seems counter intuitive, but only if you're looking at it in a 'how many frames can I run in x time frame' which is common, but the wrong target if you have a framerate to aim at.

Now the crucial question is usually 'what is the most cost effective way to get to a 7ms render time?' And this is where a balance of CPU and GPU is often cheaper than pairing a slow CPU with a fast GPU or vice versa.. but not always, especially given the cost of GPUs these days. And of course, existing equipment should be factored in as an asset/value.

So from a value from money point of view, the first thing is obviously to wait for the new releases, then look at the second hand market and see what the best bang they can get for their budget is.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

If it was 60HZ 1440p it might be OK,but wanting to run games at 144HZ/144FPS is the issue here.

Anyway after seeing how much the Core i5 6600K and Z170 motherboard is still worth,I think if I were the OP I would sell it TBF! Then add a bit more money and get a newer CPU and motherboard. Also another problem is the OP has a Skylake CPU,and unlike Kabylake they didn't overclock that well and also all those security mitigations don't help:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_6600k/

If the Core i5 was overclocked you wouldn't lose much if any single core performance moving to a stock Core i5 10400F or Ryzen 5 3600 in this case,IMHO OFC,but you gain 3 times the amount of usable threads,better I/O,etc.

[kalniel]

If it was 60HZ 1440p it might be OK,but wanting to run games at 144HZ/144FPS is the issue here.

True, so let's see if we can work backwards.

Are there any games that can be run at an average over 144fps at 1440p (to allow for some variability) on whatever hardware?

Nothing Hexus tests really does, even on their top end CPU and GPUs. I think we have to drop down to something like Fortnite (without RTX) to see that target is at all obtainable. Techspot reckon a 2080ti and 3080 can do it.. and that's about it.

Toms does some older analysis of Fortnite: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/revi...arks,5541.html

They find the game mostly just uses two cores, but at 240fps other cores are beginning to be used, albeit only a bit.



It's not perfect to extrapolate performance, but it looks like for fortnite at least, OP would probably be better served putting all the cash into a GPU.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

True, so let's see if we can work backwards.

Are there any games that can be run at an average over 144fps at 1440p (to allow for some variability) on whatever hardware?

Nothing Hexus tests really does, even on their top end CPU and GPUs. I think we have to drop down to something like Fortnite (without RTX) to see that target is at all obtainable. Techspot reckon a 2080ti and 3080 can do it.. and that's about it.

Toms does some older analysis of Fortnite: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/revi...arks,5541.html

They find the game mostly just uses two cores, but at 240fps other cores are beginning to be used, albeit only a bit.



It's not perfect to extrapolate performance, but it looks like for fortnite at least, OP would probably be better served putting all the cash into a GPU.

Fortnite being an online game has gotten many updates,including some which were for Ryzen(it used to not do so well on AMD) and things such as RTX. Also again the other problem,is where they are testing - empty areas,or areas which tons of people??
This is the big problem with a lot of testing,they need reproducibility so review sites tend to use less contested areas,to take out variability.

But the issue is what happens if any gets a big engine change,which makes multi-threading better,and changes other aspects?

I give you an example of a game I do play - Planetside2. This was released in 2012. At the start it basically only used 2 to 3 threads at most. But in the last few years it got a DX11 update and engine changes,which means it will now even load all 12 logical cores on my Ryzen 5 and performance is far more consistent now. But then again performance varies a lot - if you walk around biolab with only a few people around the FPS is pretty high and the game will indicate a GPU bottleneck. But when you enter battles with a few 100 people,then you see the game indicating your CPU limited,and FPS does decrease still,but it is so much better than before.

Plus the thing is if that Core i5 6600K and Z170 motherboard can get close to £200 secondhand(maybe more),what is the point of hanging onto it,for the value to collapse next year?? That alone will pay for a Core i5/Ryzen 5 and part of a motherboard.

You can get an RTX2060 or RX5600XT for £250~£270 now and during BF there might be deals too. They have a £300 budget,so if they sell the Core i5,Z170 motherboard and the GTX970,they can get a Ryzen 5/Core i5 and a RTX2060/RX5600XT for the £300 they put aside. Its no point hanging onto computer parts for too long if they still have value.

ATM,Skylake parts still have some value,but prices are now starting to ebb downwards. Its the best time to sell them and upgrade. We all see how Zen3 parts have gone up in price - the Zen2 based parts(and Cometlake S) are decent value,so the timing is good right now IMHO OFC.

[kalniel]

I agree with much of what you're posting, but to be honest they're not going to get 144hz at 1440p with a RX5600XT and a ryzen 5/core i5. Nor is there any route to it for £300.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree with much of what you're posting, but to be honest they're not going to get 144hz at 1440p with a RX5600XT and a ryzen 5/core i5. Nor is there any route to it for £300.

People are looking way too much about the graphics side - things like lower settings and resolution scaling can make up for a lack of apparent GPU horsepower. The same goes with DLSS/Radeon RIS+CAS which are forms of upscaling. Plus even in scenarios where you can't target 144HZ/FPS a modern 6C/12T CPU will run circles around a Core i5 6600K,in terms of 1% lows and general FPS stability. The consoles are now 8C/16T so things are going to get worse for 4C CPUs,hence why they are under £90 now.

But you can't make up for a lack of CPU horsepower,and it will be even worse if the OP waits and gets something like an RTX3060. So for me they seriously need to consider the CPU part as well,which is what they are asking here. Personally I wouldn't pair a modern £300 GPU with a 4C/4T CPU.

Also,sticking with an outdated Core i5 6600K when people are paying top £ for it still?? It makes no sense really to cling onto it. Once it dawns on enough people,paying £100 or more for a Core i5 6600K is a bad idea,the value with collapse. Any CPU upgrade the OP does,will cost them more money,and that is assuming the exchange rates next year are still OK.

I am also going the budget option - a Core i5 10600K or Ryzen 7 3700X/Ryzen 5 5600/5600X would be even better,but they are well over £200 just for the CPU. Maybe the OP needs to save up for a bigger overhaul??

[DanceswithUnix]

If it was 60HZ 1440p it might be OK,but wanting to run games at 144HZ/144FPS is the issue here.

Once again, I can only re-iterate: 60Hz is harder to drive than 144Hz VFR because you lose the range and at extremes the low frame rate compensation. My gaming monitor here can smoothly drop to 35fps before the LFRC even kicks in.

You've said in post #23 that they can get an RTX 2060 and a CPU upgrade in their budget. On the 2060 we are in agreement; a card that supports Gsync, should have decent driver support for some years and even has a bit of tensor ability thrown in. The 3060 on the horizon is the only thing that queers that deal.

The OP doesn't have to do all that in one go though. They could get the 2060 first, see how that goes, and do the faff of ebaying CPU & mobo if they need it later.

I suspect the OP wanted a simple graphics card swap. I hope they haven't been put off