I have:
- ASUS P6X58D mobo (old mobo, but support xeon cpus)
- CPU Xeon 5670 @ 4.0 Ghz
- 2x8 Gb Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz
- MSI GTX 1070
So... do you think this rig is more or less balanced? (specially for 3D gaming). I obtain 13.500 points in Firestrike score. I do not overclock the graphic card. I know firestrike is only another test, but it is an aproximation. I have not tried to run Firestrike in 3D (if that is possible).
I know my mobo is only PCIe 2.0 (apparently not a big problem) and my RAM run only at 1600 Mhz, but not sure if that is really important in most games. My Xeon 5670 is not the bets cpu, but maybe for 3D gaming @1080p the bottleneck is more often produced in the GTX 1070. Maybe my mobo is creating the bottleneck becuase is so old, I have no idea.
- ASUS P6X58D mobo (old mobo, but support xeon cpus)
- CPU Xeon 5670 @ 4.0 Ghz
- 2x8 Gb Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz
- MSI GTX 1070
So... do you think this rig is more or less balanced? (specially for 3D gaming). I obtain 13.500 points in Firestrike score. I do not overclock the graphic card. I know firestrike is only another test, but it is an aproximation. I have not tried to run Firestrike in 3D (if that is possible).
I know my mobo is only PCIe 2.0 (apparently not a big problem) and my RAM run only at 1600 Mhz, but not sure if that is really important in most games. My Xeon 5670 is not the bets cpu, but maybe for 3D gaming @1080p the bottleneck is more often produced in the GTX 1070. Maybe my mobo is creating the bottleneck becuase is so old, I have no idea.
[quote="b4thman"]I have:
- ASUS P6X58D mobo (old mobo, but support xeon cpus)
- CPU Xeon 5670 @ 4.0 Ghz
- 2x8 Gb Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz
- MSI GTX 1070
So... do you think this rig is more or less balanced? (specially for 3D gaming). I obtain 13.500 points in Firestrike score. I do not overclock the graphic card. I know firestrike is only another test, but it is an aproximation. I have not tried to run Firestrike in 3D (if that is possible).
I know my mobo is only PCIe 2.0 (apparently not a big problem) and my RAM run only at 1600 Mhz, but not sure if that is really important in most games. My Xeon 5670 is not the bets cpu, but maybe for 3D gaming @1080p the bottleneck is more often produced in the GTX 1070. Maybe my mobo is creating the bottleneck becuase is so old, I have no idea.
[/quote] Actually it's the other way around...
At lower resolutions such as 1080p the 1070 would be considered overkill as the game load tends to tilt towards the CPU (and thus RAM). At 1440p the load should be about even (depending on the game). Keep in mind the 1000 series were designed for 4k use; so the higher the game's resolution the more load will be placed onto the GPU and removed from the CPU (which besides your HDD's/SSD's is the weakest point of your system)
Whether or not a bottleneck is apparent depends greatly on the game/application and resolution in which it is being ran.
You should be fine @ 1080p. Just when you run into a performance issue with "X" game title do not think that reducing the game's graphics settings or resolution is a "fix". Raise the resolution via DSR first.
- ASUS P6X58D mobo (old mobo, but support xeon cpus)
- CPU Xeon 5670 @ 4.0 Ghz
- 2x8 Gb Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz
- MSI GTX 1070
So... do you think this rig is more or less balanced? (specially for 3D gaming). I obtain 13.500 points in Firestrike score. I do not overclock the graphic card. I know firestrike is only another test, but it is an aproximation. I have not tried to run Firestrike in 3D (if that is possible).
I know my mobo is only PCIe 2.0 (apparently not a big problem) and my RAM run only at 1600 Mhz, but not sure if that is really important in most games. My Xeon 5670 is not the bets cpu, but maybe for 3D gaming @1080p the bottleneck is more often produced in the GTX 1070. Maybe my mobo is creating the bottleneck becuase is so old, I have no idea.
Actually it's the other way around...
At lower resolutions such as 1080p the 1070 would be considered overkill as the game load tends to tilt towards the CPU (and thus RAM). At 1440p the load should be about even (depending on the game). Keep in mind the 1000 series were designed for 4k use; so the higher the game's resolution the more load will be placed onto the GPU and removed from the CPU (which besides your HDD's/SSD's is the weakest point of your system)
Whether or not a bottleneck is apparent depends greatly on the game/application and resolution in which it is being ran.
You should be fine @ 1080p. Just when you run into a performance issue with "X" game title do not think that reducing the game's graphics settings or resolution is a "fix". Raise the resolution via DSR first.
Well, my monitor is Dell S2716DG (similar to Asus SWIFT). Is 2K native, but for 3D gaming I almost always play using 1080p (this monitor scales down perfectly). Playing 2K + 3D seems to be too much for this MSI GTX 1070 + Xeon 5670, and I prefer smooth rather than more pixels. I use 2K only for 2D games and for normal desktop use.
Well, my monitor is Dell S2716DG (similar to Asus SWIFT). Is 2K native, but for 3D gaming I almost always play using 1080p (this monitor scales down perfectly). Playing 2K + 3D seems to be too much for this MSI GTX 1070 + Xeon 5670, and I prefer smooth rather than more pixels. I use 2K only for 2D games and for normal desktop use.
The K value is utterly useless as different games perform differently at different resolutions. It's just marketing spin to entice unknowledgeable people towards buying a certain card or the other.
Also, different games have different bottlenecks i.e. CPU (ARMA, FO4) or GPU, so there is not a blanket statement.
One thing though: 3D Vision will reduce your FPS by ~50 percent, so you will need double the pixel processing power on your card to play in 3D.
Pearl of wisdom, I have a 6 core X5660 @ 4.4. This is equivelent to power of a 4 core 4.4GHz 6700K, but because most games barely use more than 1 or 2 cores still, all that power is wasted.
You are better going for a processor with lower cores but higher Instructions per Clock. In this example, in CPU limited games, even though both processors mentioned above are equally as powerful, the 6700K is 40% faster than an X5660 clock per clock, as the vast majority of games today will only use a couple of cores.
For the record, I am running the X5660 with SLi GTX 1080, and still get GPU limited <60fps in 3D at places in a lot of games @ 2560x1600.
the good news is that the new generation of DX 12 and Vulcan (OpenGL) games will make much better use of more cores, so your system should be OK for a while yet - but you may want to go SLi 1070 as SLi + 3D Vision go amazingly well together...
The K value is utterly useless as different games perform differently at different resolutions. It's just marketing spin to entice unknowledgeable people towards buying a certain card or the other.
Also, different games have different bottlenecks i.e. CPU (ARMA, FO4) or GPU, so there is not a blanket statement.
One thing though: 3D Vision will reduce your FPS by ~50 percent, so you will need double the pixel processing power on your card to play in 3D.
Pearl of wisdom, I have a 6 core X5660 @ 4.4. This is equivelent to power of a 4 core 4.4GHz 6700K, but because most games barely use more than 1 or 2 cores still, all that power is wasted.
You are better going for a processor with lower cores but higher Instructions per Clock. In this example, in CPU limited games, even though both processors mentioned above are equally as powerful, the 6700K is 40% faster than an X5660 clock per clock, as the vast majority of games today will only use a couple of cores.
For the record, I am running the X5660 with SLi GTX 1080, and still get GPU limited <60fps in 3D at places in a lot of games @ 2560x1600.
the good news is that the new generation of DX 12 and Vulcan (OpenGL) games will make much better use of more cores, so your system should be OK for a while yet - but you may want to go SLi 1070 as SLi + 3D Vision go amazingly well together...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Well, good to know that my cpu+mobo is still enough. I have tried GTA V using 2560x1440 and seems to be playable with every detail max (even though for me it is enough to play at 1080p). Another 1070 is not an option, at least now..., this graphic cards are very expensive.
Well, good to know that my cpu+mobo is still enough. I have tried GTA V using 2560x1440 and seems to be playable with every detail max (even though for me it is enough to play at 1080p). Another 1070 is not an option, at least now..., this graphic cards are very expensive.
[quote="b4thman"]Well, good to know that my cpu+mobo is still enough. I have tried GTA V using 2560x1440 and seems to be playable with every detail max (even though for me it is enough to play at 1080p). Another 1070 is not an option, at least now..., this graphic cards are very expensive.[/quote]
Was GTA V playable with max details in 3D?
b4thman said:Well, good to know that my cpu+mobo is still enough. I have tried GTA V using 2560x1440 and seems to be playable with every detail max (even though for me it is enough to play at 1080p). Another 1070 is not an option, at least now..., this graphic cards are very expensive.
Point of note: GTA5 is a very rare game that actually maxes 4+ cores. A 6 core CPU would be a huge benefit here, as with BF4.
Unfortunately, the rest of the games will still only use ~2 cores and you will see a 40% decrease in performance compared to a Skylake in CPU bottlenecked areas.
Point of note: GTA5 is a very rare game that actually maxes 4+ cores. A 6 core CPU would be a huge benefit here, as with BF4.
Unfortunately, the rest of the games will still only use ~2 cores and you will see a 40% decrease in performance compared to a Skylake in CPU bottlenecked areas.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
- ASUS P6X58D mobo (old mobo, but support xeon cpus)
- CPU Xeon 5670 @ 4.0 Ghz
- 2x8 Gb Ram DDR3 1600 Mhz
- MSI GTX 1070
So... do you think this rig is more or less balanced? (specially for 3D gaming). I obtain 13.500 points in Firestrike score. I do not overclock the graphic card. I know firestrike is only another test, but it is an aproximation. I have not tried to run Firestrike in 3D (if that is possible).
I know my mobo is only PCIe 2.0 (apparently not a big problem) and my RAM run only at 1600 Mhz, but not sure if that is really important in most games. My Xeon 5670 is not the bets cpu, but maybe for 3D gaming @1080p the bottleneck is more often produced in the GTX 1070. Maybe my mobo is creating the bottleneck becuase is so old, I have no idea.
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
At lower resolutions such as 1080p the 1070 would be considered overkill as the game load tends to tilt towards the CPU (and thus RAM). At 1440p the load should be about even (depending on the game). Keep in mind the 1000 series were designed for 4k use; so the higher the game's resolution the more load will be placed onto the GPU and removed from the CPU (which besides your HDD's/SSD's is the weakest point of your system)
Whether or not a bottleneck is apparent depends greatly on the game/application and resolution in which it is being ran.
You should be fine @ 1080p. Just when you run into a performance issue with "X" game title do not think that reducing the game's graphics settings or resolution is a "fix". Raise the resolution via DSR first.
MrInfinit3's Conan Exiles Public Server information
Help fight Cancer, Diabetes, Neuro-degenerative, and other disease's while you sleep!
MS-Physics (Thermal Dynamics)/BA-IT/BS-Electronic Engineering
Asus and MSI mobile service centerRETIREDMy main rig:
100% Hard-line Custom tri-pump (pmp-500) liquid Cooled
OS- Win10 Pro v1803
CPU- i7-4790k @ 4.8Ghz 1.289v (Turbo OFF) Liquid Cooled
RAM-16GB TEAM Xtreme DDR3 @ 2400Mhz (9-12-11-30)1.625v
Motherboard- Gigabyte Z97X Gamer GT (vF6)
Main Graphics- 2-way SLI PNY XLR8 OC GTX1070 (v388.13)
OS SSD: 3x 240Gb Kingston HyperX 3K RAID 0 = 720Gb
Game SSDs- 3x 240Gb Mushkin Reactors (D,E,F drives)
Backup HDD- 3Tb Seagate Cuda (ST3000DM001)
Power Supply- Corsair RM-1000i (~3yrs old)
3x Surround Samsung 27" via DP (7680 x 1440p)
1x MVR 1440px2 @ 90hz headset
HWbot Overclocking results
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
Also, different games have different bottlenecks i.e. CPU (ARMA, FO4) or GPU, so there is not a blanket statement.
One thing though: 3D Vision will reduce your FPS by ~50 percent, so you will need double the pixel processing power on your card to play in 3D.
Pearl of wisdom, I have a 6 core X5660 @ 4.4. This is equivelent to power of a 4 core 4.4GHz 6700K, but because most games barely use more than 1 or 2 cores still, all that power is wasted.
You are better going for a processor with lower cores but higher Instructions per Clock. In this example, in CPU limited games, even though both processors mentioned above are equally as powerful, the 6700K is 40% faster than an X5660 clock per clock, as the vast majority of games today will only use a couple of cores.
For the record, I am running the X5660 with SLi GTX 1080, and still get GPU limited <60fps in 3D at places in a lot of games @ 2560x1600.
the good news is that the new generation of DX 12 and Vulcan (OpenGL) games will make much better use of more cores, so your system should be OK for a while yet - but you may want to go SLi 1070 as SLi + 3D Vision go amazingly well together...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
Was GTA V playable with max details in 3D?
GTX 1080, i7 7700k, 16GB RAM @3200MHz, Win7
3DTVPlay @ ACER Predator Z650
- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)
Unfortunately, the rest of the games will still only use ~2 cores and you will see a 40% decrease in performance compared to a Skylake in CPU bottlenecked areas.
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.