Fastest graphics card for i7-6700

[The red spirit]

If it has problems with CP2077 it will have problems with other cpu heavy games as well, no need to proof it multiple times. Basic logic.

I'm asking for it, because Cyberpunk performance in that video is again bit sus. Here's another PC and it performs better:

So ???

 

[Toothless]

The same guy who said that a ancient Sandy Bridge Xeon with 6 cores and low clocks (mid 3000MHz), is enough for gaming, completely ignoring min fps/1% low etc. Yea, suffice to say I don’t agree. He’s a tech romantic, but the facts are different, a bit more rough and less romantic.

And you don’t have to resort to personal attacks just because I don’t like the video of your favorite YouTuber.

To be fair, a lot of x5685/x5680/x5690 overclock well. I'd be more than happy to slap my test bench back up and test some games.

 

[The red spirit]

To be fair, a lot of x5685/x5680/x5690 overclock well. I'd be more than happy to slap my test bench back up and test some games.

5960X is pretty nice too:

 

[eazen]

To be fair, a lot of x5685/x5680/x5690 overclock well. I'd be more than happy to slap my test bench back up and test some games.

They have closed multipliers. That’s also even worse than I thought, it’s not even SB, it’s 1st gen Core, don’t waste your time, they are terrible.

I'm asking for it, because Cyberpunk performance in that video is again bit sus. Here's another PC and it performs better:

So ???

And again it’s just a 1660 S, you’re just proving my point. That CPU is far too weak for a strong GPU. And CP2077 isn’t the most CPU heavy game either, BF are heavy (2042, 5), CoD Warzone, one or more “Total War” games, just a few examples out of my head. Nobody should pair a low end cpu with a high end card. That was my whole point. No expert or reviewer will agree with you.

I’m done with this, have a nice day.

PS. No “elitist ideals” either, topic was still old/low end CPU combined with current high end GPU. Those Xeons are terrible and can’t drive them properly. End of story. Good enough for some things maybe and then also terribly inefficient with those high clocks. Multiple downsides. Again, hardware romance isn’t fact. Those CPUs are extremely outdated, even their bus is, PCIE 2.0, lol. Yea, no, won’t happen.

 

[Toothless]

They have closed multipliers. That’s also even worse than I thought, it’s not even SB, it’s 1st gen Core, don’t waste your time, they are terrible.

And again it’s just a 1660 S, you’re just proving my point. That CPU is far too weak for a strong GPU. And CP2077 isn’t the most CPU heavy game either, BF are heavy (2042, 5), CoD Warzone, one or more “Total War” games, just a few examples out of my head. Nobody should pair a low end cpu with a high end card. That was my whole point. No expert or reviewer will agree with you.

I’m done with this, have a nice day.

I got them to clock in at 4.5ghz typically. Got one run at 4.8 and one at 5.1 with hyperthread off. If the chip still does it's job at reasonable expectations, then it's fine.

Like, the elitist ideals for old chips isn't exactly looked highly upon. They're not terrible in general, just terrible to you.

 

[DoLlyBirD]

$300 budget, 6700 CPU, 1440 panel, let's keep things in perspective

 

[lexluthermiester]

The same guy who said that a ancient Sandy Bridge Xeon with 6 cores and low clocks (mid 3000MHz), is enough for gaming, completely ignoring min fps/1% low etc.

Once again, context is important and you are missing it.

Yea, suffice to say I don’t agree.

Then just say that and quit arguing.

And you don’t have to resort to personal attacks

What personal attack? You are failing at context. I'm pointing that out. How is that an attack?

$300 budget, 6700 CPU, 1440 panel, let's keep things in perspective

Ah, missed the post where the OP stated this. In that case:

@chctulc
My advice in the current GPU market, GTX 1070 or 1080. Enjoy!

 

[The red spirit]

And again it’s just a 1660 S, you’re just proving my point. That CPU is far too weak for a strong GPU. And CP2077 isn’t the most CPU heavy game either, BF are heavy (2042, 5), CoD Warzone, one or more “Total War” games, just a few examples out of my head. Nobody should pair a low end cpu with a high end card. That was my whole point. No expert or reviewer will agree with you.

Nice ad hominem right there. So easy for you to say this without ever testing it out yourself or actually knowing results. You are still ignorant that most games can't utilize more than 8 threads, but yeah now magically i3 must suck, because i3. Because unutilized cores makes games perform better.

PS. No “elitist ideals” either, topic was still old/low end CPU combined with current high end GPU. Those Xeons are terrible and can’t drive them properly. End of story. Good enough for some things maybe and then also terribly inefficient with those high clocks. Multiple downsides. Again, hardware romance isn’t fact. Those CPUs are extremely outdated, even their bus is, PCIE 2.0, lol. Yea, no, won’t happen.

Sure they have downsides, but performance is still decent. Obviously you should just get 12100 instead, but if you can't or don't want to, then it's surprisingly fine. Not sure why you are poopooing PCIe 2. It' snot the latest, but for graphics cards it should still be okay. GOG tested it with same card and it was just pure CPU difference. BTW this is definitely not an advice to buy them, but since you have been listing some random decent Xeons, I feel that 5960X was supposed to be there too, even if it's technically not a Xeon, but repurposed Xeon as HEDT chip.

 

[Dr. Dro]

IF that's your take-away from the video, you've missed the context and purpose of the point. I'm not suggesting the OP of this thread buy a 3090 for their 6700. The point was to show that their CPU can still handle, within respectable and reasonable margins, a modern GPU. An RTX 2070, 2080, 3060 or 3070 would work well. Likewise in the AMD camp an RX 5700, 6700 or 6800 would do well also. And the benefit of going with a good GPU is that when it's time for a newer CPU, they will be ready with a GPU that can take their experience up a notch. This is called forward thinking and planning for the future.

Oh no, that wasn't it, but the topic's already been covered.

This is a side rig for OP, they already have a faster machine for daily use. They're trying to build something simple with a hand-me-down, and already thanked us for the help. It's been mostly a debate on low end CPU x high end GPU since

 

[qubit]

Really? I don’t think it does. I had a 3960X which is far better than a 2700K and it throttled a 1080 Ti hard, which on itself is also slower than a 2080 Super, by about 10%. This happened in Battlefield 5, as soon as you start a game which needs cpu and gpu performance it will choke hard. A few years ago 2700K would’ve been mostly fine but not today, many games will choke hard with this ancient cpu.

Of course it does, I've had it for two years and used it quite a lot so I should know.

And yes, it depends on the game, so very new and very demanding titles are gonna choke, of course. However, it works very well with CoD:MW, for example. The CPU can typically run that game at 80-110fps so this card is great for 4K gameplay, especially. Couldn't do that with a weaker card.

There's a general notion in enthusiast circles like this one, that a powerful card can't be paired with a weaker CPU and get good performance, but that's nonsense. Just choose your games carefully and you'll be alright. They're especially important for 4K gameplay, too.

And for what it's worth, I hope to finally upgrade my CPU this year. Hopefully, I'll be able to afford Raptor Lake this year or early next if the tanking British economy hasn't made me broke by then.

 

[Vario]

They have closed multipliers. That’s also even worse than I thought, it’s not even SB, it’s 1st gen Core, don’t waste your time, they are terrible.

And again it’s just a 1660 S, you’re just proving my point. That CPU is far too weak for a strong GPU. And CP2077 isn’t the most CPU heavy game either, BF are heavy (2042, 5), CoD Warzone, one or more “Total War” games, just a few examples out of my head. Nobody should pair a low end cpu with a high end card. That was my whole point. No expert or reviewer will agree with you.

I’m done with this, have a nice day.

PS. No “elitist ideals” either, topic was still old/low end CPU combined with current high end GPU. Those Xeons are terrible and can’t drive them properly. End of story. Good enough for some things maybe and then also terribly inefficient with those high clocks. Multiple downsides. Again, hardware romance isn’t fact. Those CPUs are extremely outdated, even their bus is, PCIE 2.0, lol. Yea, no, won’t happen.

Since we digressed from the original talking point, I'd like to chime in on the 1366 platform.

First, they do have unlocked multipliers if you buy the W series rather than the X series. The W3680 I have is identical to a i7 980X. The W series is rarely discussed for some reason.
Second, they are not first gen core, they are Westmere EP 32nm, not Nahelem 45nm. The performance is close to Sandy Bridge.

I own one of those Xeons, a W3680, paired with a Asus P6X58D-E, Samsung 950 Pro 512 GB on PCI-E adapter, and Samsung 3x4GB DDR3 "green" YK0. Its a dated system but its more than adequate fine for an office computer. I don't game on it, probably could though. I run it at 4.3GHz, it felt like the sweet spot, it clocks much higher, but 4.3 keeps temperatures and voltages low. Its definitely an older architecture.


I am not even sure why people are arguing about it, it is totally unrelated to the OP.

It doesn't matter if the OP has a 6700K and said, "what graphics card should I buy for $300?" or if the OP had a 12700K and said "what graphics card should I buy for $300?". The answer is still the same, 2060 Super, RX6600, or RTX 3050.

Also, as a closer analogy to a 6700 and RTX 2060 Super pairing, my 8600K and 3060 rig is fine for games. 8600k and 6700 are very similar in performance.

 

[ratirt]

Also, as a closer analogy to a 6700 and RTX 2060 Super pairing, my 8600K and 3060 rig is fine for games. 8600k and 6700 are very similar in performance.

I think 8700K is noticeably faster. Considering it is clocked 700Mhz higher and has 2 additional cores and more cache. In a lot of games you will see the difference.

 

[80251]

I think 8700K is noticeably faster. Considering it is clocked 700Mhz higher and has 2 additional cores and more cache. In a lot of games you will see the difference.

In one of the articles listed the 8700k is still quite competitive as a gaming CPU.

 

[The red spirit]

In one of the articles listed the 8700k is still quite competitive as a gaming CPU.

Wouldn't expect any less, because it's basically 10600K, but older. Something would be really weird if 3 year old high end chip would struggle in games.

 

[P4-630]

I think 8700K is noticeably faster. Considering it is clocked 700Mhz higher and has 2 additional cores and more cache. In a lot of games you will see the difference.

In one of the articles listed the 8700k is still quite competitive as a gaming CPU.

That doesn't matter, OP has said he has a i7 6700.

 

[ratirt]

In one of the articles listed the 8700k is still quite competitive as a gaming CPU.

I did not say it isn't

That doesn't matter, OP has said he has a i7 6700.

Yes he did and 8700K is noticeably faster than a 6700 non-k. Which may show up in games requiring more cores and higher performance

 

[ModEl4]

Don't bother with a CPU upgrade if your budget is up to $300, i7 6700K is just 3% slower than 7700K for games and if in your set-up 6700 is hitting regularly close to turbo the performance difference with a i7 7700K should be minimal too (-5% , -7%), this means around -5% from an i3 10100, and that is for FHD, in QHD the difference is smaller.
When GTX 1080Ti launched the fastest CPU for gaming was a i7 7700K.
So essentially you can go up to RTX 2070 super or RX 6650XT and being a little CPU limited.
But RTX 2070s doesn't have warranty and RX 6650XT doesn't have a good price.
So for me (if you don't want to wait a little bit more in order for the current gen prices to come down even more) it's RX 6600, you should find it with a little search at good street price i hope.

 

[ratirt]

Don't bother with a CPU upgrade if your budget is up to $300, i7 6700K is just 3% slower than 7700K for games and if in your set-up 6700 is hitting regularly close to turbo the performance difference with a i7 7700K should be minimal too (-5% , -7%), this means around -5% from an i3 10100, and that is for FHD, in QHD the difference is smaller.
When GTX 1080Ti launched the fastest CPU for gaming was a i7 7700K.
So essentially you can go up to RTX 2070 super or RX 6650XT and being a little CPU limited.
But RTX 2070s doesn't have warranty and RX 6650XT doesn't have a good price.
So for me (if you don't want to wait a little bit more in order for the current gen prices to come down even more) it's RX 6600, you should find it with a little search at good street price i hope.

OP can go even with 3080 with his CPU and it will still work but there will be plenty of performance on the table. I really wouldn't be so sure about this 6700K.
Here

You have a 8700k vs 6700K and in some cases, the performance for the 6700K dips not to mention the lows are much lower vs 8700K. Obviously, it is with some games not all but it is, in my opinion, worth mentioning. Especially if you consider that games become more demanding. Also, these benchmarks were conducted with a GTX 1080 which isn't overwhelmingly fast but still.
OP has a 6700 non-k which is even slower than a 6700K.

It will work fine though regardless of the GPU but I think 2060 is the limit here unless CPU upgrade soon.

 

[ModEl4]

OP can go even with 3080 with his CPU and it will still work but there will be plenty of performance on the table. I really wouldn't be so sure about this 6700K.
Here

You have a 8700k vs 6700K and in some cases, the performance for the 6700K dips not to mention the lows are much lower vs 8700K. Obviously, it is with some games not all but it is, in my opinion, worth mentioning. Especially if you consider that games become more demanding. Also, these benchmarks were conducted with a GTX 1080 which isn't overwhelmingly fast but still.
OP has a 6700 non-k which is even slower than a 6700K.

It will work fine though regardless of the GPU but I think 2060 is the limit here unless CPU upgrade soon.

Maybe you're right, but RTX 2060 is just 9% slower than RX6600 in QHD according to TPU latest testing and RX6600 has 8GB & warranty which for me is very important.
So unless RTX 2060 has half price I'm not willing to consider to take the risk at all.

 

[ratirt]

Maybe you're right, but RTX 2060 is just 9% slower than RX6600 in QHD according to TPU latest testing and RX6600 has 8GB & warranty which for me is very important.
So unless RTX 2060 has half price I'm not willing to consider to take the risk at all.

I totally agree with you. OP should choose the best option with the GPU. I'm talking 2060 level of performance more less not that it must be 2060. In terms of price I think RX6600 would have been a better option since it is either cheaper or same price at least in Norway. Also, RX6600 uses less power and since OP has a 500W PSU, it makes perfect sense to get RX6600.

 

[anfazi54]

for sweet spot, go for nvidia 10 series or rx 500 series

 

[eidairaman1]

for sweet spot, go for nvidia 10 series or rx 500 series

I wouldn't get a used card from 3-6 years ago.

 

[gasolina]

now i'm using a 4770k @ 4,6ghz + 2400mhz ram it run fine with a 6700xt at 1440p 80hz the fps around 8x-9x fps which is great for my case ....as much as cinebench single score from haswell to comet lake the score when overclock around 12xx so ima say they're around same level. for 1080p 144hz gaming i think the 4c/8t is kinda not enough i would recommend smth like 12600k ......

 

[JrRacinFan]

I say a 1660 Ti 6600XT or a 2060 Super. Those 3 would play titles still respectfully well. If you can find a cheap 2nd hand 1070 tho ....

 

[80251]

I wouldn't think it's a good idea to consider 'upgrading' to anything in the Pascal series in 2022 -- even the Titan xp.