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

[ASOT]

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

The cutdown shaders rx 470 not mention ..2048

 

[dirtyferret]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

 

[Keullo-e]

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]

//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]

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]

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]

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]

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