Installed a GTX 1060 6gb yesterday after upgrading from a GTX 950 and tried some games to see if the fps increased. It didn't at all. The only thing I can think of that's holding it back is my CPU, which is an A8 6600k. I'm upgrading later on but would my CPU bottleneck my GPU this much? Also when playing games my CPU usage is very low.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Just got a new GPU but the performance isn't any better.
- Thread starter Sebjay
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,329
- Location
- Rollergirl
Do you have any benchmark results to compare? Surely the 1060 is destroying the 950?
Yep, CPU is stil very important especially for 1080P.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 18,512
Sample render it higher through nvidia control or geforce experience . should take some pressure off the CPU
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,419
Are you running performance power settings in power options ?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
No offence mate but we all told you this in your other thread, it was literally spelt out for you that going from a GTX950 to a GTX1060 on A8-6600K platform is like flushing money down the toilet.
The GTX950 would even have been bottlenecked hard on a lot of games, let alone the GTX1060, which is a horrible mismatch.
Maybe some posters here saw the 6600K and thought it was Skylake, but it's an FM2 A8-6600K, these are terrible for modern AAA gaming and not really designed for it either.
You need to upgrade the whole PC, the GTX1060 is a waste of money, you should have kept the GTX950 and got an i5 and board (and re-used your ram), your FPS would have doubled compared to that garbage 6600K even with the GTX950 in most titles.
Again, don't really have much sympathy, you were advised against it in the other thread you made but you obviously ignored the advice.
The GTX950 would even have been bottlenecked hard on a lot of games, let alone the GTX1060, which is a horrible mismatch.
Maybe some posters here saw the 6600K and thought it was Skylake, but it's an FM2 A8-6600K, these are terrible for modern AAA gaming and not really designed for it either.
You need to upgrade the whole PC, the GTX1060 is a waste of money, you should have kept the GTX950 and got an i5 and board (and re-used your ram), your FPS would have doubled compared to that garbage 6600K even with the GTX950 in most titles.
Again, don't really have much sympathy, you were advised against it in the other thread you made but you obviously ignored the advice.
Last edited:
Good summary.
AMDs APUs are weak for discrete GPU gaming at the best of times, and the A8-6600k is only a middle of the road one.
The GTX 1060 is a high-end card for up to 1920x1080 gaming. That CPU you have is VERY much a low-end CPU, and not a suitable paring at all.
Yep. I had to sell my old GPU to be able to start making money for the new CPU.To look on the brightside, once you do get that new CPU you'll be flying
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,212
- Location
- Solihull
I'd expect a good increase in fps in a lot of games even with that cpu.
do you have before and after fps figures for some of the games?
could you monitor the cpu utilisation of each core and also the gpu utilisation % using msi afterburner with an overlay set up?
do you have before and after fps figures for some of the games?
could you monitor the cpu utilisation of each core and also the gpu utilisation % using msi afterburner with an overlay set up?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 99
Hopefully everything will be good when you get the new cpu and monk combo 
never good when you shell out money for no performance increase.
never good when you shell out money for no performance increase.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- Ireland
I think you're dramatically over-estimating the capabilities of this CPU.
In BF1 it struggles to maintain an average 30fps and drops to sub 20fps in maps like St. Quentin Scar in some spots.
Meanwhile a GTX950 is capable of running the game at 1080p medium at a solid 60fps.
He made the mistake of assuming his GPU was the problem when it was pointed out in another thread that in fact the A8-6600K was bottlenecking the GTX950 hard, let alone a GTX1060, but he went ahead and bought it anyway.
A GTX1060 will run the game at 1080p ultra 60fps but it needs to be fed by a strong CPU, an FX8320 and above or Ivybridge/Haswell i5 and above ideally to get full or close to full utilisation in many titles.
You're wasting your time advising him to monitor GPU usage, core usage, etc. This isn't a technical problem, it's an issue of pairing an ultra low end CPU with a high-end GPU.
The only way to alleviate pressure on the CPU is to run at ultra settings 1440p, or 1080p ultra with supersampling applied, but as the poster correctly pointed out above, that does not solve the problem of very low framerates, only allows you to run at better image quality settings while still having a crappy framerate overall.
If he upgrades to Skylake i3 or i5, the problem will resolve itself, though obviously better on the i5.
It's a very straight forward situation, there is no 'issue' or technical problem.
You can get entire A8 and A10 based machines on Ebay for £80, they are not, and never were, designed to be paired with high end GPU's - they're built to run games like World of Warcraft, CS: Go, MMO's, etc.