i am planning on getting a gtx 1080ti to play PU Battlegrounds

>>59394170
Dude shat the fuck? A 1080ti and a first gen i7? Hell yes that's going to bottleneck you... wasted money if you keep using the i7.

>>59394198
Holy fuck you type like a nigger. Wash your mouth and go back to school.

>>59394170

You'd need at least an Ivy Bridge i7 to stave off the bottleneck. Even a Skylake or Kaby Lake i5 wouldn't be bad, considering.

>>59394215
will i still be bottlenecked if i use a xeon x5670

>>59394170
lmao just get that card you will run the game fine

>>59394279

Absolutely. The problem with the old school Xeons is that they aren't optimized very well. Even so, there's a good chance you'd need a different motherboard, as well.

You need to upgrade to a new platform. The 1080Ti is a fucking beast of a card.

>>59394170
yes

>>59394365
>>59394330

do you guys know the best processor/mobo combo i could buy to ensure i can run max ultra for PU Battlegrounds at 1440p ultra with 144 hz

>>59394384

Honestly, I haven't played the game myself, so I don't know what kind of optimization/performance it has. However, you could get away with a Kaby Lake i5 and a z270 board for relatively inexpensive.

>>59394384
7700k/high end suitable mobo.
That's the best bet for maximising your FPS.

If you have money coming out of your ass you could go for a 1800X build.

>>59394170
What monitor do you have?

>>59394466

7700k works if you have the extra money.

I don't usually recommend it right off the bat, mostly because not all games can take advantage of Hyperthreading. Same goes for the 1700/1700x. Just because they're good doesn't mean they're good for everyone.

>>59394170
Not OP, but I'm also planning on gaming with a 1080ti at 1440p 144. How would my i7 4790k fair?

>>59394466
>reccomensd something expensive
>compares it to something that is in the exact same price segment, but then calls it cheaper
why do intelfags do this? dot ehy actually think shilling on /g will get them sheekels?

>>59394498
He bought a 1080Ti, dude.
Not going for the high-end counterpart seems like a waste of effort.

>>59394509

Fair enough. I can't argue with that.