# Does a Intel Core i3-7100 bottleneck a Zotac Geforce GTX 1060 mini 3GB videocard?



## Jeeseongee (May 22, 2017)

Is the cpu too weak for the card? If so, is there any other cheap card that can run it?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 22, 2017)

you'll be fine, top tier i3's make great budget gaming CPUs


----------



## jboydgolfer (May 22, 2017)

Not in the least, as far as your computer is concerned it's a quad core and it's running at a respectable frequency. I've been using Hyperthreaded i3's for my kids computers for quite some time &  they kick a$$


----------



## Komshija (May 22, 2017)

It will be fine. If you didn't bought GTX 1060 already, I would advise you Sapphire/XFX RX 470 4GB which are on discounts in some stores (they are also cheaper than GTX 1060).


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 22, 2017)

Komshija said:


> It will be fine. If you didn't bought GTX 1060 already, I would advise you Sapphire/XFX RX 470 4GB which are on discounts in some stores (they are also cheaper than GTX 1060).



Why?? 470s are slower then 1060s


----------



## r9 (May 22, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Why?? 470s are slower then 1060s


+1
RX480 had an awesome price week or two before the RX580 came out.
You could get one after rebate for $150 on newegg.
That was an awesome deal.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 22, 2017)

What they ^ said, doubled down. Could an i5 or i7 utilize the GPU more? Sure they would, but i3's are surprisingly good in gaming.  One of my systems has an i3 and a 480.  The most CPU-intensive game on that PC is GTA V. The CPU is frequently at 80-90% utilization and still consistently run above 45 fps, and mostly just under 60.


----------



## Outback Bronze (May 22, 2017)

It doesn't bottleneck a GTX 1080 https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1600/ So I cant see it bottlenecking a 1060...

EDIT: Check out the Pentium G4560, that's real Kick A$$ value!


----------



## craigo (May 22, 2017)

i3`s are golden.
I was watching a comparison video between the gtx1060 and the RX570 and there was not a difference of $80 between the two.
Careful what you pay for a gtx1060 before you consider the AMD card


----------



## P4-630 (May 22, 2017)

It's a fast little CPU, which should be good enough paired with a 1060 3GB.

Also use a minimum of 8GB system ram, preferably 16GB.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 22, 2017)

Also with 3gb on the 1060.stick with 1080p when gaming unless running a game that's not so demanding like an old game


----------



## alucasa (May 22, 2017)

I doubt i3 would hold back 1080, either.

This bottleneck thing is getting out of hand. Darn Youtubers.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 22, 2017)

alucasa said:


> I doubt i3 would hold back 1080, either.
> 
> This bottleneck thing is getting out of hand. Darn Youtubers.


It is! That's why I phrased my answer on a higher level CPU would more fully utilize the GPU.  It has a better sound than "bottleneck."  

However, for most GPU's an i3 is perfectly adequate.


----------



## Cvrk (May 22, 2017)

no

and this is smart. i like this a lot


rtwjunkie said:


> a higher level CPU would more fully utilize the GPU.


----------



## dirtyferret (May 22, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Why?? 470s are slower then 1060s



agreed, people see the 4GB of RAM but they also fail to understand the chip is too slow for 4GB of RAM



rtwjunkie said:


> It is! That's why I phrased my answer on a higher level CPU would more fully utilize the GPU.  It has a better sound than "bottleneck."
> 
> However, for most GPU's an i3 is perfectly adequate.



I "future proof" all my "bottlenecks" by taking a sharpie marker to my PC hardware and changing their model numbers.  I then post videos of the improved FPS on youtube to show everyone how much faster the hardware is.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 22, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> I "future proof" all my "bottlenecks" by taking a sharpie marker to my PC hardware and changing their model numbers. I then post videos of the improved FPS on youtube to show everyone how much faster the hardware is.


LMAO!


----------



## Komshija (May 23, 2017)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Why?? 470s are slower then 1060s


 Not by much. They are slightly slower - this will be unnoticeable at 1080p resolution. For 1440p monitors, I wouldn't even remotely consider anything below RX 580 or GTX 1070.



dirtyferret said:


> agreed, people see the 4GB of RAM but they also fail to understand the chip is too slow for 4GB of RAM


 Where did you pull that info from? RX 470 has more than enough power for its 4 GB VRAM, while 8 GB is another story. For any kind of serious gaming 3GB VRAM isn't enough and definitely isn't future proof.
I tested Asus Strix RX 470 4 GB with Far Cry Primal (Ultra settings) at 1080p and it performed excellent providing almost 60 FPS (If I remember correctly, it was 57-58 FPS). GTX 1060 could approximately provide 60-65 FPS with the same hardware and same in-game settings, therefore some 5-6 FPS difference is totally & completely irrelevant.


----------



## Countryside (May 23, 2017)

Welcome to Techpowerup.

Answer to your question is that you will be totally fine. 



alucasa said:


> I doubt i3 would hold back 1080, either.
> 
> This bottleneck thing is getting out of hand. Darn Youtubers.



Indeed they spread this word like a disease even not knowing what it means. The medical diagnose would be bottleneck phobia.


----------



## trog100 (May 23, 2017)

the term bottleneck is connected to the balanced system theory which often comes up when a system build is being discussed.. 

it all gets a bit contradictory.. on the one hand an I3 wont bottleneck a 1060 or maybe even a 1080 but on the other hand it would not be a well balanced system.. 

trog


----------



## damric (May 23, 2017)

i3s are great for pure gaming. Streaming/recording game play makes them choke but for that you really need something with as many logical cores as possible.


----------



## Mussels (May 23, 2017)

as someone with a metric crap ton of (older) i3's and i5's around the house, as long as the clock speeds are up there (i'll say 3GHz+) even going all the way back to a second gen i3 can genuinely feed a modern gaming system just fine.

Their weakness is the lack of extra cores - multi tasking in the background becomes impossible without issues (things like AV scans, browsers, windows udpates etc need to be disabled/manually controlled)


----------



## Vayra86 (May 23, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> It is! That's why I phrased my answer on a higher level CPU would more fully utilize the GPU.  It has a better sound than "bottleneck."
> 
> However, for most GPU's an i3 is perfectly adequate.



Its still super vague.

Look at minimum FPS differences between the i3's, the Ryzens and a full fat quad i5 or i7 and we could be looking at anything from a 0% to a 60% FPS loss depending on the game. Even without taking OC capability into the mix, which will make the gap even larger.

Every system is about balance, and while i3 + 1060 is good balance, an i3 + 1080 certainly is not. In the end money is best spent on a very well balanced system, because then you'll actually notice where you put that money.

However I would also focus more on an RX480 than a 1060 right now. The 1060 is too expensive, or performs worse if you get the cheapo one.


----------



## P4-630 (May 23, 2017)

Vayra86 said:


> In the end money is best spent on a very well balanced system



Since I play on 1440p now, my i5 6500 can just do it, when I play GTA V and lots of explosions going on (using mods), CPU usage can go up in the 90+ % peak loads...
If I had to start over again I would have bought a i7 6700K but I can't complain much since it's just working well overall without issues, paired with my 1070.
You could say "Well balanced" since it runs well overall.


----------



## dirtyferret (May 23, 2017)

Komshija said:


> Where did you pull that info from? RX 470 has more than enough power for its 4 GB VRAM, while 8 GB is another story. For any kind of serious gaming 3GB VRAM isn't enough and definitely isn't future proof.
> I tested Asus Strix RX 470 4 GB with Far Cry Primal (Ultra settings) at 1080p and it performed excellent providing almost 60 FPS (If I remember correctly, it was 57-58 FPS). GTX 1060 could approximately provide 60-65 FPS with the same hardware and same in-game settings, therefore some 5-6 FPS difference is totally & completely irrelevant.



Lol, future proof lol, lol contradicts himself in the same post, lol serious gaming...oh man thanks for the laughs fan boy that was good but seriously your all wrong


----------



## Komshija (May 23, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> Lol, future proof lol, lol contradicts himself in the same post, lol serious gaming...oh man thanks for the laughs fan boy that was good but seriously your all wrong


 I always like to read highly intelligent "lol" answers.

Some recent games already utilize up to 4 GB VRAM when you max-out details, so, logically, we can expect future games to utilize more than 4 GB, just as it was the case with 2 GB VRAM three or four years ago and 1 GB five or six years ago. For instance, back in time 2GB VRAM was plenty, but today some games need more than 2 GB VRAM for smooth gaming with high in-game details.

RX 470 is cheaper than GTX 1060 and just slightly slower, therefore I see no reasons for picking NVidia card. If the trend from previous years continues, and I'm very sure it will, extra 1 GB VRAM will be much more useful in the future than ~8% faster chip.

AMD offers better bang-for-buck and this is very important for many individuals who are on the budget and who buy components by themselves (without mommy and daddy factor).


----------



## ASOT (May 23, 2017)

GTX 1060 3 Gb is even better then RX 480 4 Gb Komshija 

The cutdown shaders rx 470 not mention ..2048


----------



## dirtyferret (May 23, 2017)

Komshija said:


> I always like to read highly intelligent "lol" answers.
> 
> Some recent games already utilize up to 4 GB VRAM when you max-out details, so, logically, we can expect future games to utilize more than 4 GB, just as it was the case with 2 GB VRAM three or four years ago and 1 GB five or six years ago. For instance, back in time 2GB VRAM was plenty, but today some games need more than 2 GB VRAM for smooth gaming with high in-game details.
> 
> ...



Allow me to "future proof" your post so you won't embarrass yourself any further.  Go into the future and pick up a game (fallout5, GTA VII, Far Cry 6, etc., etc.,), make sure it is "serious" no non-serious games please, and see how much that extra 1GB of RAM helps you on a slower chip.

History, something you obviously fail at, tells us cards of similar performance (according to your post above some 10%) will both offer similar performance in the "future" and become out dated at the same time.  regardless of an extra 3 to 4 GB ratio of RAM.

You now have my permission to continue your childish rant below and continue to embarrass yourself or you can "future proof" your "serious" post and actually educate yourself (ask mommy and daddy to pay for it).


----------



## alucasa (May 23, 2017)

I donno. I consider myself a hardcore gamer but I don't meddle myself with AAA tiles because they are quite frankly milking their userbase. Probably not true, but that's my take on it.

Instead, I lurk at Kickstarter and invest in Indie games. I play a fair amount of indie games most of which can be played fine on even Intel HD. 
I also have almost all consoles. Why? Cuz I am a gamer? A gamer plays games after all. The medium matters not.

When you take a step back from AAA tiles, you realize that even 1060 is overpowered for majority of games out there. 

In the end, all this talk about requiring 8gb vRAM and whatnot seems crazy to me.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 23, 2017)

ASOT said:


> GTX 1060 3 Gb is even better then RX 480 4 Gb Komshija


Actually, versus the 480 you are not correct.  A totally hopped up and overclocked 1060 3GB only trades blows (alternating wins) with a reference 480 per W1zzard's own review, with the performance summary listing them even at 1080p and 1440p.

Imagine if it had been an AIB partner 480...that 3GB 1060 would have been beaten in everything.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/26.html

@alucasa there are quite a few indie games that also are very graphically-intensive as well.  Just without even looking I can name The Solus Project, Obduction, and Through the Woods.


----------



## Komshija (May 23, 2017)

ASOT said:


> GTX 1060 3 Gb is even better then RX 480 4 Gb Komshija


 Oh no, it isn't. Reference GTX 1060 3 GB is a bit slower than refrence RX 480 4GB.

For someone with fixed or limited budget, an RX 470 4GB or RX 570 4GB is offers the best value because it's not much slower than GTX 1060 3GB (we are talking about some 8% difference) while at the same time it's about 5% cheaper. Plus, more VRAM will be handy in the future and RX 470 (4GB) has enough power to utilize it.



dirtyferret said:


> Allow me to "future proof" your post so you won't embarrass yourself any further.  Go into the future and pick up a game (fallout5, GTA VII, Far Cry 6, etc., etc.,), make sure it is "serious" no non-serious games please, and see how much that extra 1GB of RAM helps you on a slower chip.
> 
> History, something you obviously fail at, tells us cards of similar performance (according to your post above some 10%) will both offer similar performance in the "future" and become out dated at the same time.  regardless of an extra 3 to 4 GB ratio of RAM.
> 
> You now have my permission to continue your childish rant below and continue to embarrass yourself or you can "future proof" your "serious" post and actually educate yourself (ask mommy and daddy to pay for it).


 There's no need for such absurdity. Seems that I hit you in the center and now you are trying to procect your ego writing nonsense. 
Not enough VRAM can cause huge slowdowns in some games to the point that they become frustrating or even unplayable, so in certain scenarios that extra 1 GB VRAM will be useful.
Have a nice day!


----------



## Kursah (May 23, 2017)

Why don't ya both give it a rest, k? Thanks. 

My boys' PC's both run i3 4160's in them, and I gotta say I'm continually impressed at how well they both run for what they are... dual core 3.60GHz CPU's with HT. Specs in my sig. Even being Haswell generation, they run great...plenty of performance, cool running, low power consumption, and quite affordable.

One has a GTX1050 2GB (not a Ti), the other has a GTX770 2GB. Both systems perform very much the same and are used primarily for gaming. Minecraft w/mods, Ashes of the Singularity, SupCom FA, PA, Burnout Paradise, Fallout 4, Fallout 3 w/mods, TF2, etc. Both do great and really aren't even that shabby on power consumption...though it is impressive how much less power the 1050 consumed compared to the 770. Wish I would've written down the load results from my UPS when I benched them...but regardless I digress.

i3's are solid gaming CPU's for budget systems...and also a good way to get into a platform on a budget with the plans of going to an i7 later on when more threads/performance might be needed. Sure they'll get bogged down faster if you're doing too many processor intensive tasks, but that should be expected. And a user coming from an older PC might still see a performance increase over what they had anyways...at least in some cases.

I have nothing against the 1060 or 470, both are solid options IMHO. Heck anymore I buy myself used cards...been very happy with this 980Ti I got for a sweet price. Maybe research which performs better in games you play, but beyond that...having some experience with both cards I can't quite say I'd pick one over the other at this point.  Get what fits the needs and budget and enjoy!


----------



## Kissamies (May 24, 2017)

I'm gaming with Pentium G4560 (2c/4t like i3) with 16GB RAM and GTX970 @ 1500MHz, no problems here. Everything feels to be in perfect balance on my rig.


----------



## kalambaxa (May 24, 2017)

//hwbot.org/signature/u209268.png

hope I answer a question! ) but I have Asus 3GB OC 3g and it's better then Zotac (sry for bad English)


----------



## chr0nos (May 24, 2017)

too long didnt read

i3 will bottleneck a 1060/rx480 in some games, I could not hit 60 fps at 1080p on medium settings (Forza Horizon 3/Just cause 3/Homefront Revolution/Overwatch)

i got an i7 all the above 60fps Ultra settings

Edit (i have a RX480 1415mhz gpu / 2050mhz mem)

Edit 2: ignore the troll below


----------



## kalambaxa (May 24, 2017)

chr0nos said:


> too long didnt read
> 
> i3 will bottleneck a 1060/rx480 in some games, I could not hit 60 fps at 1080p on medium settings (Forza Horizon 3/Just cause 3/Homefront Revolution/Overwatch)
> 
> i got an i7 all the above 60fps Ultra settings




lol i have all game 60fps with my i3


----------



## trog100 (May 24, 2017)

people really do need to make up their minds about what the term bottleneck means.. it dosnt mean slow down slightly it means slow down to the point of being unreasonable.. 

as for this "balanced" system stuff.. it all comes down to priorities.. there aint many systems that wont game better with a better graphics no matter what cpu they have in them.. 

trog


----------



## Mussels (May 24, 2017)

it also wildly depends on in-game settings, an i3 can easily get 60FPS with a GTX1080 in every game on low - and it could also easily run every game on ultra at 1FPS

running a GTX1060 3GB on an intel atom, now THATS a bottleneck


----------

