Is it necessary to overclock to address a bottleneck?
Is it necessary to overclock to address a bottleneck?
I own a GTX 1080 Ti but my CPU limits performance significantly. After using a Ryzen 5 2600 for six months with a GTX 1070, I recently purchased a GTX 1080 Ti for $370. I'm considering upgrading to a Ryzen 7 or increasing the overclock of my Ryzen 5 2600. Since my motherboard doesn't support Ryzen 7, should I invest $60 in water cooling instead?
I'm sorry. I'm just going to have to laugh at that. There's absolutely no such thing as a cpu being 15% too little for a gpu. You got that from a bottleneck calculator? Have a little advertisement for a 3800x from Amazon or Newegg on the bottom?
A cpu pre-renders every frame according to the game code. It'll do so at 100% of its ability (usage is entirely different). It takes time to place every object, associate every touchable object, give everything shape, form, shadow etc. The amount of times it can fully complete that task in 1 second is your fps cap.
That info gets sent to the gpu, which finish renders the info, giving color, dimension, texture, shading etc and paints that picture onscreen. It'll do so to 100% of its ability...
On a Ryzen 5 2600, it feels somewhat lacking compared to a GTX 1080 Ti. Roughly a 15% drop in performance is observed.
I'm sorry. I'm just going to have to laugh at that. There's absolutely no such thing as a cpu being 15% too little for a gpu. You got that from a bottleneck calculator? Have a little advertisement for a 3800x from Amazon or Newegg on the bottom?
A cpu pre-renders every frame according to the game code. It'll do so at 100% of its ability (usage is entirely different). It takes time to place every object, associate every touchable object, give everything shape, form, shadow etc. The amount of times it can fully complete that task in 1 second is your fps cap.
That info gets sent to the gpu, which finish renders the info, giving color, dimension, texture, shading etc and paints that picture onscreen. It'll do so to 100% of its ability (again, usage is different) and does so according to detail settings, resolution, post processing affects. The amount of painted pictures it can complete in one second is the fps you see on a counter.
Cpu doesn't affect how a gpu works, gpu doest affect how a cpu works, they are intirely independent of each other.
So let's say a pretty complex and detailed game code like gta5 allows for 100fps on your cpu. It sends 100 pre-rendered frames to the gpu every second. The gpu then tries to paint all 100 frames on screen every second. Your resolution is 1080p and details are low, so a 1080ti will have absolutely no issues painting all 100 and has room left for more. Bump that to ultra, add hairworks and now the 1080ti gets 90fps output. Drop the hairworks, back to 100. Regardless of whether the gpu was capable of 150fps or not. You are cpu capped at 100.
Change resolution to 1440p, throw out the above, the cap is now on the gpu, struggling to get 60fps at ultra, lowering detail levels to medium would get 120fps, but still capped at 100fps because resolution doesn't affect the cpu. That's a gpu aspect.
Change games, different stories, different fps cap, different fps onscreen, different affects from post processing.
With a 1080ti, you have the full ability to run any graphics settings you wish, any post processing from physX to hairworks and STILL get maximum fps, especially at 1080p and most games at 1440p. Most cannot.
The cpu doesn't affect the gpu or vice-versa, so how a cpu calculator can tell beyond a doubt that a cpu is 15% too small is beyond my comprehension because there's simply far too many variables, changes, differences, OC, gpu OC, ram speeds, settings, preferences, affects, GAMES to make a definitive interpretation.
That's like a salesman telling you that you must buy a new higher performance car because even though the speed limit is 70mph on the highway, you take 9 seconds at full gas to get there and his new car only takes 7 seconds and has a top speed of 130mph.
So what?
View: https://youtu.be/3BqKkoFAdoA
All graphics settings the same, ignore the benchmark fps numbers, see if you can physically see ANY difference in picture quality or ability.
Calling it "a joke" would be too much.
It's completely pointless. It has nothing to do with anything real.
Just ignore it entirely.
Haha, that's interesting....
I got an i7-3770k and paired it with a gtx970. By chance, I looked up a calculator and it praised me, said there was no bottleneck, everything was fine. The only thing I’d have liked was a gtx980 back then.
A few days after the i7-4790k came out, I checked again just out of curiosity. It was 20% bottleneck! My CPU was really lagging, I’d need to upgrade to at least an i5-4690k or else I’d face serious slowdowns and wouldn’t be able to play games at their full potential. I even offered prices for the i5, i7, and a 980ti with a discount coupon for a bundle.
Really?
I’m so glad the calculator knows exactly what games I play, the settings, resolution, RAM, storage, multiplayer or single player—just so it can tell me I need to upgrade and even point me to sponsors who’d be happy to pay me for the 3-5fps improvements.
Wait! Did I mention at 4.9GHz on the CPU and 128% overclock on that 970 I could reach 300fps in CSGO? OMG, I’m missing out on 15% performance!
Oh. 60Hz monitors...
The games run smoothly at the graphics settings I set. That calculator deserves nothing but my middle finger.
Accurately expressed by Karadjgne, every bottleneck calculator or CPU benchmark consistently yields poor results, often reaching 100% or more in bottleneck status.
I’m functioning normally despite using first-generation i7 processors paired with whatever I prefer—970, 980, or 980Ti. I achieve 200-300 fps in CSGO and 240fps in Fortnite at 1080p.
In fact, I’m pushing my GPU to its limits even at 1980x1080 resolution using an example of 980. With a CPU overclock of 4.0 to 4.4ghz, it feels incredible. That’s a massive jump; I’d likely need around 1.6vcore for that, which would easily surpass many 4th-5th generation CPUs.