2600k still viable?

EdGey · 9 Jan 2019 at 20:39

I'm currently running a 2600k, 16GB DDR3 and a GTX1070

I want to play on 2560x1440 at a confident frame rate to make use of a high Hz monitor. My friends are encouraging me to upgrade my CPU, Motherboard, RAM to the latest and greatest. Is that really necessary at this point?

My own feelings are that the 2600K still has a bit of punch in it and that investing a hefty amount on a new GPU alone should do the trick. Am I stubborn or is there some truth in what they say? Last thing I want is a huge bottleneck.

Many thanks!

wedrum · 9 Jan 2019 at 20:40

Overclock the 2600k and your golden at 1440

andy_mk3 · 9 Jan 2019 at 20:41

Mine oc'd to 4.6ghz with a GTX1080 is still hanging in there at 1440p. Pretty much any new game has all threads pegged at 100%,so an upgrade would increase performance a lot. But the 2600k still gives perfectly playable performance.

Heisenberg · 9 Jan 2019 at 20:43

Are you getting good performance in the games you play? If not, upgrade. If you are, wait until you are not.

EdGey · 9 Jan 2019 at 20:56

Heisenberg said:
Are you getting good performance in the games you play? If not, upgrade. If you are, wait until you are not.

I'm not currently as I'm using a GTX1070. Essentially my question boils down to - will my 2600K bottleneck a new graphics card.

I should have mentioned - my 2600k is currently at 4.3GHz

steve45 · 9 Jan 2019 at 21:14

Well when you consider that I had no glaring issues running 1440 on a 2500k @ 4.4Ghz, albeit with a 1080. Yeah CPU was starting to show its age, a few games had it running flat out, but FPS was still comfortable for me. I think you will be more than fine for for a while.

I'd still be running the 2500k had my USB ports on the mobo not crapped out on me.

EdGey · 9 Jan 2019 at 21:49

Thanks, that's what I thought - I'll give it a miss then chaps. New GPU incoming!

azazl187 · 9 Jan 2019 at 21:59

Yea I think it wise to go for a gpu, that will give you best performance for the cash spend.

Its slightly different but my 2600k OCed to 4.6 still bosses games with a 1080ti at 4k

233 · 9 Jan 2019 at 22:02

And you'll find your 2600k still had a bit to give I'd imagine

They clock like demons

orbitalwalsh · 10 Jan 2019 at 08:39

either jump to 9600/9700k and push nice 5ghz overclock or wait till computex for X570 & Ryzen 3600X

all depends on what games you play. jump into BFV online with 63 other players and netcode/pathways will slam your CPU regardless on resolution

EdGey · 10 Jan 2019 at 09:43

All I really seem to play these days is World of Warships and whilst it doesn't look amazing, it does hog resources!

I've not heard of the X570 before. I'll have to look into that.

tamzzy · 10 Jan 2019 at 10:33

overclocked 2600k is fine for GPU such as the 1070 (unless the game is highly multithreaded)
https://www.techspot.com/review/1546-intel-2nd-gen-core-i7-vs-8th-gen/page5.html

What does this mean for you if you're a Core i7-2600K owner? Currently, probably not a lot. If you're running a graphics card that's equal to or slower than the GTX 1070, you don't really need to do anything for now assuming you've overclocked that sucker to at least 4.5GHz.

At its stock clock speeds, the 2600K will often limit performance of a GTX 1070 or Vega 56 graphics card, so be aware of that. With a GTX 1060 or RX 580 though you’ll have no such problem.
Overclocked, the 2600K averaged 140fps in Battlefield 1 and a GTX 1070 is good for around 115fps with the 8700K, so for the most part you should be okay. In Call of Duty WWII, the GTX 1070 offers 133fps on average with an 8700K while the overclocked 2600K managed 134fps with the 1080 Ti, so you're certainly on the edge with the 2600K and GTX 1070 combo.

If you're playing the latest and greatest titles on an overclocked 2600K with a GTX 1080 or better, then you're without question restricting the GPU's performance. Of course, the 2600K is now a seven year old CPU so the fact that it's slowing up high-end GPUs probably should be that surprising.