Will my i7 2600 bottleneck this thing?
Most likely not.
>>341196346
Depends on what resolution you'll be playing
>>341197180
1920x1080?
>>341197597
60hz? Probably fine, but if 120 or 144 bottleneck for sure
But you don't even need a 1070 for 1080p 60hz anyway, it's overkill
>>341197597
Nope, but if you ever get a 4k monitor then yeah, change that shit as well.
>>341197957
>>341198014
Cool, thanks guys.
no but well-coded games like GTA 5 have a ~20FPS difference at high res ultra settings between i7-2600k and i7-4790k or 6700k (all else being equal obviously)
this FPS difference will only grow and spread to more games as studios adopt programming best practices.
Also, sandy bridge architecture does not have support for AVX2 instruction set which can allow faster processing but is not widely used for games. I've seen AVX2 used in VR and emulators. So a 4GHz 6700k can beat a 4.5GHz 2600k in some applications (not most games yet though) purely because of the gains from vectorized code at the compiler level enabled by the new architecture.
>>341198014
This is factually wrong.
you will get cpu bound the LESS resolution.
as in, when you play in 1280x768 at 200fps on a i7 2600, you could be playing at 300fps on a i7 6700k.
The higher the resolution the LESS cpu bottleneck. Check CPU gaming out benchmarks if you want to know more (from reputable sites such as anandtech, [H], G3D, etc.
>>341198478
This
That's because higher resolutions put more load in your GPU, imagine your CPU can only get 100 fps in a certain game, if you play that game at 4k that will not matter because your GPU will struggle to keep such a high framerate, so a weak CPU is fine, but if you lower the resolution or graphics settings to get more fps, you may hit your CPU "cap" and if you want more you have to upgrade your CPU
>>341197180
>>341197597
>>341197957
>>341198014
The higher the resolution, the more gpu bound you become, not cpu
Also it mostly depends on the game, but a Sandybridge cpu is still pretty good
