Max graphics card for Intel Core i5-3570K ?

[Ocelote.12]

What card from GeForce RTX 40xx family should I buy that will not be bottlenecked by this CPU? Or maybe some Radeon?

OS is Windows 11 (using unofficial patch for older CPUs without TPM 2.0), RAM is 16 Gb. Current graphics card is GeForce GTX 1060 3Gb.

Please don't advise me to upgrade the CPU+Mobo+RAM -- I'll do it probably in the first half of 2025.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by Snow:

This is false information. AMD never lost the case, AMD settled, because it was easier, faster, and cheaper to just pay, than to educate countless people on how CPUs work. The number or even the presence of FPUs doesn't define a CPU core, because there is no single definition of a CPU core, and can't be due to how different they are on different architectures. Back in the day CPUs didn't have FPUs at all, yet no one called them "coreless". If AMD wants to call FX-8350 an octa-core based on number of integer clusters, they have all the right to do so; yours, mine, or Intel's definition of a core doesn't mean anything in this case, so we are free to agree or disagree, but only AMD has the right to define FX-8350 as an octa-core (like they still do on their website), and respectable sources will follow that definition (like TechPowerUp does).

Fair enough that perhaps I could have worded it better than "lost the case". The point I was getting at wasn't the result of the case itself; it was that those modules themselves, while they have less resources than what is commonly considered a core (which has no strict standard or definition), they certainly had as much or more resources than a single core with SMT (Hyper-threading) does, and even those didn't boost performance two times, so no way does Hyper-threading boost performance as much as two additional real cores (not on average, at least).

Yeah, SMT is mostly designed to deal with pipeline stalls, so to double the performance, it would require an extreme situation. Perfectly made to be such, even.

Still big love for FX even in spite of all the the flaws. This many years later, with how modern APIs can spread the workload across an octa-core CPU, a Piledriver octa with a bit of CPU-NB and RAM OC is quite close performance-wise to a stock Sandy i7 (granted on AMD side you don't need to pay extra for K CPU and Z board to OC, thus comparing OC to stock is somewhat justified). Which, considering the price, difference, is unthinkable. But then neither can provide decent performance in modern titles, so what's even the point in comparing. Truly, too ahead of its time, something like CMT would raise way less questions these days.

[Andrius227]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Quadcore with hyperthreading is basically an octacore

It is not "basically an octo core". AMD had "modules" that were closer to extra real cores than SMT/Hyper-threading are, and they still lost the case on those being real cores because they lacked too many execution resources to consider them as such.

What SMT methods (which is what Hyper-threading is) do is split execution resources of a physical processor core between multiple logical processors. To my understanding, a single thread exclusively running on a core can result in a lot of "idle" time in the pipeline, which represents extra potential performance, and so the purpose of SMT methods is to try and take advantage of that, but you're still not gaining additional full core resources, so the gain is nowhere near as many cores as there are threads.

A 4/8 CPU can be slower than a 6/6 CPU, so saying it's "basically an octo core" is being generous. Especially when you realize the vast majority of modern octo cores will also have SMT methods.

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Pretty sure there are games that work just fine on quadcores with hyperthreading, but dont even boot on quadcores without hyperthreading.

That sounds like you're not familiar with any? I'm not familiar with any games refusing to start if there's a lack of cores/threads either. This isn't to say there are none, but it would be extremely uncommon (especially outside intentionally trying to run a game on something well below minimum requirements). What I am familiar with is games that have less performance if cores/threads are in short supply though, and that is the more likely result when trying that.

4 cores/8 threads is below desirable if you want to ensure you'll have the fewest scenarios where you have to worry about core/thread resources. If not for that alone, then also for the fact that many of those quad cores are also slow in per core performance too, so both factors are limiting them in the heavier titles. They're fine on older games, or lighter newer games, but they're no longer what is desirable. The "minimum ideal" is basically recent-ish hex cores now (I'd personally put this around Zen 2 or Comet Lake, or newer), and octo cores are the sweet spot but often unecessary. Quad cores still actually work a lot of the time (with or without Hyper-threading), though with reduced results in many newer, heavier games.

A quad core with hyperthreading has 8 logical processors and it allows it to run games and programs that require 8 cores reasonably well. Not as well as a real 8 core cpu but miles better than a quadcore without hyperthreading.

Look up 8-core benchmarks and compare quad core i5 vs quadcore i7. I7 is ~%50 faster there.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

It is not "basically an octo core". AMD had "modules" that were closer to extra real cores than SMT/Hyper-threading are, and they still lost the case on those being real cores because they lacked too many execution resources to consider them as such.

What SMT methods (which is what Hyper-threading is) do is split execution resources of a physical processor core between multiple logical processors. To my understanding, a single thread exclusively running on a core can result in a lot of "idle" time in the pipeline, which represents extra potential performance, and so the purpose of SMT methods is to try and take advantage of that, but you're still not gaining additional full core resources, so the gain is nowhere near as many cores as there are threads.

A 4/8 CPU can be slower than a 6/6 CPU, so saying it's "basically an octo core" is being generous. Especially when you realize the vast majority of modern octo cores will also have SMT methods.

That sounds like you're not familiar with any? I'm not familiar with any games refusing to start if there's a lack of cores/threads either. This isn't to say there are none, but it would be extremely uncommon (especially outside intentionally trying to run a game on something well below minimum requirements). What I am familiar with is games that have less performance if cores/threads are in short supply though, and that is the more likely result when trying that.

4 cores/8 threads is below desirable if you want to ensure you'll have the fewest scenarios where you have to worry about core/thread resources. If not for that alone, then also for the fact that many of those quad cores are also slow in per core performance too, so both factors are limiting them in the heavier titles. They're fine on older games, or lighter newer games, but they're no longer what is desirable. The "minimum ideal" is basically recent-ish hex cores now (I'd personally put this around Zen 2 or Comet Lake, or newer), and octo cores are the sweet spot but often unecessary. Quad cores still actually work a lot of the time (with or without Hyper-threading), though with reduced results in many newer, heavier games.

A quad core with hyperthreading has 8 logical processors and it allows it to run games and programs that require 8 cores reasonably well. Not as well as a real 8 core cpu but miles better than a quadcore without hyperthreading.

Look up 8-core benchmarks and compare quad core i5 vs quadcore i7. I7 is ~%50 faster there.

You said, and I quote, "Quadcore with hyperthreading is basically an octacore". That specific statement was the problem, and Illusion was right in correcting you.

[Andrius227]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by Andrius227:

A quad core with hyperthreading has 8 logical processors and it allows it to run games and programs that require 8 cores reasonably well. Not as well as a real 8 core cpu but miles better than a quadcore without hyperthreading.

Look up 8-core benchmarks and compare quad core i5 vs quadcore i7. I7 is ~%50 faster there.

You said, and I quote, "Quadcore with hyperthreading is basically an octacore". That specific statement was the problem, and Illusion was right in correcting you.

Sorry, English is not my native language. I meant to say 'quadcore with hyperthreading is FUNCTIONALLY an octacore'.

Anyway, the point of all of my posts on this thread (i think, i have already forgotten most of them and i am too lazy to look them up) was to say that upgrading from an old i5, to an old, used i7, solely to gain hyperthreading, is a worthwhile upgrade. Certainly cheaper than buying a new computer like most people are suggesting here. Which might be 2x faster (if that), but easily cost 10x more and require weeks, or even months of saving money.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Originally posted by Snow:

You said, and I quote, "Quadcore with hyperthreading is basically an octacore". That specific statement was the problem, and Illusion was right in correcting you.

Sorry, English is not my native language. I meant to say 'quadcore with hyperthreading is FUNCTIONALLY an octacore'.

Anyway, the point of all of my posts on this thread (i think, i have already forgotten most of them and i am too lazy to look them up) was to say that upgrading from an old i5, to an old, used i7, solely to gain hyperthreading, is a worthwhile upgrade. Certainly cheaper than buying a new computer like most people are suggesting here. Which might be 2x faster (if that), but easily cost 10x more and require weeks, or even months of saving money.

It's not functionally an octa-core either, threads are different from physical cores. It definitely matches up with FX-8, but that's only because cores share FPUs. AMD was taken to court over it for essentially lying about FX core count and they settled out of court, FX buyers were entitled to a small payout.

Compare a quad-core i7 with a Ryzen 7 and that falls flat on its butt.

[Snow]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by Andrius227:

Sorry, English is not my native language. I meant to say 'quadcore with hyperthreading is FUNCTIONALLY an octacore'.

Anyway, the point of all of my posts on this thread (i think, i have already forgotten most of them and i am too lazy to look them up) was to say that upgrading from an old i5, to an old, used i7, solely to gain hyperthreading, is a worthwhile upgrade. Certainly cheaper than buying a new computer like most people are suggesting here. Which might be 2x faster (if that), but easily cost 10x more and require weeks, or even months of saving money.

It's not functionally an octa-core either, threads are different from physical cores. It definitely matches up with FX-8, but that's only because cores share FPUs. AMD was taken to court over it for essentially lying about FX core count and they settled out of court, FX buyers were entitled to a small payout.

Compare a quad-core i7 with a Ryzen 7 and that falls flat on its butt.

No, they were taken to court because people assumed they were lying. There are indeed 8 cores.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by r.linder:

It's not functionally an octa-core either, threads are different from physical cores. It definitely matches up with FX-8, but that's only because cores share FPUs. AMD was taken to court over it for essentially lying about FX core count and they settled out of court, FX buyers were entitled to a small payout.

Compare a quad-core i7 with a Ryzen 7 and that falls flat on its butt.

No, they were taken to court because people assumed they were lying. There are indeed 8 cores.

They were lying.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fx-bulldozer-false-advertising-class-action-lawsuit-eight-cores-settlement,40256.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/nxqdbs/just_received_my_amd_fx_processor_lawsuit/

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by r.linder:

It's not functionally an octa-core either, threads are different from physical cores. It definitely matches up with FX-8, but that's only because cores share FPUs. AMD was taken to court over it for essentially lying about FX core count and they settled out of court, FX buyers were entitled to a small payout.

Compare a quad-core i7 with a Ryzen 7 and that falls flat on its butt.

No, they were taken to court because people assumed they were lying. There are indeed 8 cores.

On paper, yes, but functionally, not really. Realistically performed like Intel's older quad core i7s because cores shared FPUs, didn't perform like a proper octa-core chip. AMD didn't even bother fighting it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by Snow:

No, they were taken to court because people assumed they were lying. There are indeed 8 cores.

On paper, yes, but functionally, not really. Realistically performed like Intel's older quad core i7s because cores shared FPUs, didn't perform like a proper octa-core chip. AMD didn't even bother fighting it.

AMD didn't bother fighting because it would take much more time and money to educate everyone. To define a "proper octa-core chip", we have to define core. There is, however, no universal definition of a core, and can't be due to how different they can be in different CPU architectures. And establishing that a CPU core must have at least one FPU, will also make countless CPUs be defined as having 0 cores thus not even CPUs. This just won't work. We can say that FX octa-core didn't perform like Zen octa-core, but we can't say that FX wasn't an octa-core. That's up to AMD to define what is a core in their CPU.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by r.linder:

On paper, yes, but functionally, not really. Realistically performed like Intel's older quad core i7s because cores shared FPUs, didn't perform like a proper octa-core chip. AMD didn't even bother fighting it.

AMD didn't bother fighting because it would take much more time and money to educate everyone. To define a "proper octa-core chip", we have to define core. There is, however, no universal definition of a core, and can't be due to how different they can be in different CPU architectures. And establishing that a CPU core must have at least one FPU, will also make countless CPUs be defined as having 0 cores thus not even CPUs. This just won't work. We can say that FX octa-core didn't perform like Zen octa-core, but we can't say that FX wasn't an octa-core. That's up to AMD to define what is a core in their CPU.

AMD FX were trash regardless.

AMD are now on top so who cares?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Capt Spack Jarrow:

trash

Excuse me, you made a few mistakes in "with slight CPU-NB and RAM OC that unlike Intel wasn't paywalled, in heavily multi-threaded tasks performed close to i7 with pricing close to i3" word.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by Capt Spack Jarrow:

trash

Excuse me, you made a few mistakes in "with slight CPU-NB and RAM OC that unlike Intel wasn't paywalled, in heavily multi-threaded tasks performed close to i7 with pricing close to i3" word.

It was trash, barely faster then Phenom II in games.

Nobody cares, it is still trash today and does not beat Sandy still, even when stated they would be so much better in the future, it was BS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Gcg-tFfu0


I had the 2500K at 4.5ghz and 2700k at 4.7 ghz, both destroyed this chip, I used to bench on Tom's hardware with a GTX 480 at 900mhz and had massive fanboy fights with a dude called Ilysaml, this was up until 2013.

I have owned the Ryzen 2600X, 5600X, 5800X and 5800X3D, Ryzen was a far better buy at the time for me, great CPU's.

Now with a 14600K since I sold my X3D machine off which had a 20GB 7900 XT.

Don't need it's performance, plus I improved overall power consumption.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Capt Spack Jarrow:

Originally posted by Snow:

Excuse me, you made a few mistakes in "with slight CPU-NB and RAM OC that unlike Intel wasn't paywalled, in heavily multi-threaded tasks performed close to i7 with pricing close to i3" word.

It was trash, barely faster then Phenom II in games.

Nobody cares, it is still trash today and does not beat Sandy still, even when stated they would be so much better in the future, it was BS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Gcg-tFfu0


I had the 2500K at 4.5ghz and 2700k at 4.7 ghz, both destroyed this chip, I used to bench on Tom's hardware with a GTX 480 at 900mhz and had massive fanboy fights with a dude called Ilysaml, this was up until 2013.

I have owned the Ryzen 2600X, 5600X, 5800X and 5800X3D, Ryzen was a far better buy at the time for me, great CPU's.

Now with a 14600K since I sold my older machine off which had a 20GB 7900 XT.

It's weird how you ignored every single thing in my previous message, and threw in tons of completely unrelated stuff. Well, have a good day regardless!

[Skkooomer Lord]

Originally posted by Snow:

Originally posted by Capt Spack Jarrow:

It was trash, barely faster then Phenom II in games.

Nobody cares, it is still trash today and does not beat Sandy still, even when stated they would be so much better in the future, it was BS...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Gcg-tFfu0


I had the 2500K at 4.5ghz and 2700k at 4.7 ghz, both destroyed this chip, I used to bench on Tom's hardware with a GTX 480 at 900mhz and had massive fanboy fights with a dude called Ilysaml, this was up until 2013.

I have owned the Ryzen 2600X, 5600X, 5800X and 5800X3D, Ryzen was a far better buy at the time for me, great CPU's.

Now with a 14600K since I sold my older machine off which had a 20GB 7900 XT.

It's weird how you ignored every single thing in my previous message, and threw in tons of completely unrelated stuff. Well, have a good day regardless!

It's disregarded because gaming is all people do on Steam.

Now go hug your FX.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Capt Spack Jarrow:

Originally posted by Snow:

It's weird how you ignored every single thing in my previous message, and threw in tons of completely unrelated stuff. Well, have a good day regardless!

It's disregarded because gaming is all people do on Steam.

Now go hug your FX.

I wish! I don't have any! Sad.