PC Hardware and Gaming Info
PC Hardware and Gaming Info
I was playing Fallout 4 today, enjoying the improvement from 40-60 FPS in the Boston Common to consistently 115 at my maximum settings thanks to my hardware upgrades. While I was gaming, I started thinking about how hardware influences gaming performance. You have a motherboard, processor, GPU, but I’m curious about the real impact these components have on gameplay. Without diving into overclocking, how does a CPU like my Intel i9-9900KS affect performance in games such as Fallout 4? I have an 8-core, 16-thread, 5.0 GHz CPU, but compared to AMD’s 64-core processors, what’s the ideal combination of cores and GHz for gaming? Additionally, I consider the GPU, RAM, and storage drives as well. My system uses a 512 TB Samsung 970 Pro M.2 drive, and my Steam files and Fallout 4 are stored on a separate 1TB Samsung 970 Pro M.2 SSD. My RAM is a G.SKILL TridentZ RGB, 32GB DDR4-3200. In terms of CPU, RAM, GPU, and SSDs, what’s the optimal setup to achieve the best gaming performance?
The game engine assigns various operations to the CPU, such as spawning mobs, controlling their behavior, managing combat, processing user input, and handling content loading. Certain tasks can be distributed across multiple cores, while others cannot; therefore, using more cores improves performance until a certain limit is reached. However, the clock speed remains advantageous as long as other parts of the system are not hindering it. This is why this question isn't valid.
In gaming, the GPU takes the lead. The stronger it is, the better the results, leading to higher frame rates. This is quite obvious. A GPU's memory (or VRAM) is mainly used for keeping textures and other elements currently displayed. As long as you maintain adequate space, everything runs smoothly.
In contrast, the CPU plays a smaller role overall, though it still matters when paired with a capable GPU. A weak CPU can become a bottleneck, causing delays or slowing down the whole system. Essentially, your GPU handles frames faster than your CPU can manage, which might result in longer pause times or inconsistent performance. Still, a mid-range CPU with a high-end GPU often works well. Certain game features rely on the CPU, so weaker CPUs can impact those areas. Elements like physics calculations usually run on the CPU.
Regarding CPU choices, past assumptions favored a 4-core processor as optimal, but modern titles increasingly utilize more threads. The ideal range is now closer to 6 or 8 cores. While higher clock speeds are generally preferred, the full picture isn’t complete. AMD’s current offerings, for example, show high-end chips with lower speeds than Intel yet still perform well (or nearly so). This stems from AMD’s 7nm manufacturing, giving them a notable IPC advantage. Ultimately, there’s no single standard to compare CPUs; the best approach is to investigate and test each one in real scenarios.
For storage, only loading and startup times really matter. Unless your drive is extremely slow, it won’t significantly hinder performance. RAM is less critical than the CPU or GPU, but having sufficient capacity is essential. Running out of memory during gameplay can lead to noticeable drops in performance, as the system may attempt to use your hard drive—which isn’t ideal due to its sluggishness. Memory speed and latency also play a role in how smoothly you experience the game. Some systems, like those using Ryzen, benefit more from faster RAM, as quicker data access enhances loading times and overall responsiveness.
Well, I’d say it really depends on how you’re using it.
- Slower systems with many cores feel heavier at once, offering less lag when gaming and streaming together.
- Faster systems with fewer cores handle heavy tasks better, leaving lighter background work.
-GPU handles the most demanding tasks in games, but if your CPU can’t keep up, it won’t make much difference. That’s why a 1.1ghz X4 core isn’t greatly affected by an external GPU.
RAM with higher settings enables features like enhanced view.
- SSD or HDD reduces lag, so aside from boot time, the difference is minimal. If you’re playing at low resolution, SSD might stand out more than RAM.
Thanks for the update, guys. It really helps to have a clearer grasp of this as we think about future system improvements.
It isn't possible to give a straightforward response about gaming in general, as games rely on various and frequently changing game engines, each with unique demands. In addition, hardware specifications also play a role. From what I understand, Fallout 4 is built using the Creation engine, but other titles may utilize engines such as Unity, Source, or RAGE. This means that optimizing your system for one engine might not work well with another.
Moreover, each engine has its own optimization strategies—some depend on a single core, others spread tasks across multiple cores, some leverage GPU acceleration while others rely on the CPU. Therefore, it's not feasible to tailor your machine for every game. People often inquire about the specific titles to determine whether a system is limited by single-core performance, multi-core capabilities, or a preference for CPU or GPU.
Other factors like your monitor also matter—resolution plays a big role because GPUs handle 4K displays much more efficiently than lower resolutions. This increases the demand for GPU memory and processing time.
In summary, to handle most games you simply need strong overall performance, which can compensate for the limitations of various engines. Many users opt for high-end GPUs and CPUs to ensure sufficient speed (IPC and clock speeds), making the differences less noticeable.
An aspect that is often underestimated is the motherboard configuration—bus types and speeds, such as PCI-E 3.0 versus PCI-E 2.0, can significantly impact performance. While this becomes more complex to analyze deeply, modern systems with direct CPU connections tend to handle it better.
Your PC appears well-equipped overall, though your GPU details aren’t included. The key takeaway is that you should aim for hardware specifications that match the requirements of the games you plan to play. Trying to run a game like Fallout 4 on a machine designed for something else, such as Descent 2, would be challenging.
It’s important to remember that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution—only hardware capable of meeting the game’s needs will deliver satisfactory results. In about three to four years, older systems may become outdated.
Others might say you're fine if your setup is 1440p or lower, and you could even handle 4K for many tasks. Plan to upgrade at least a few years ahead, unless you need extra storage. Even basic performance would suffice, and you could still use your SSDs for the most frequently used files. Your current specs should cover most needs, unless you're aiming for newer tech like an RTX, in which case a GPU upgrade would be necessary.
I'm also quite committed to building, which isn't something everyone can expect. I don't have a girlfriend, wife, or kids; my life is centered around technology. I've moved states and become debt-free to focus on my projects. There are varying degrees of importance, but if I weren't where I am now, I'd have to rethink a lot.
Most titles are still crafted to rely solely on one CPU core, while certain systems include an audio thread integrated within the native audio API. This explains why it's recommended to select the single-threaded CPU with the highest performance in most scenarios. The processor handles all functions, so it truly matters the most. It isn't as if a game simply needs "1Ghz" of speed; rather, it strives for the peak available. Unless the design avoids busy-waiting loops (such as event-driven or state-changing only on input), it tends to waste idle CPU power doing nothing. That's why older games often "performed better" after a significant CPU upgrade. Modern titles built with event callbacks don't engage in busy-waiting, allowing them to release CPU resources when unnecessary—something more typical of non-gaming software. However, this comes with trade-offs, notably losing focus or context in video and/or audio, which may require reloading textures on a PC, for instance. Mobile titles also face challenges, needing to switch into the background and unload on demand, meaning they must reload from scratch while maintaining state during such transitions.
In general, additional cores are usually wasted unless the game features heavily parallelizable tasks, such as AI managing multiple enemies or physics calculations. Bethesda is famous for threading issues and GPU refresh rate problems in titles like Elder Scrolls or Fallout. While more CPU or GPU power shouldn't cause bugs, Bethesda often reduces performance to prevent unplayable states. This isn't the only engine with such problems, but it stands out most. Many other games suffer from physics issues linked to GPU frame rates—ranging from visual jitter (like bouncing objects) to gameplay glitches such as clipping or unexpected object interactions.
Prioritize maximizing the GPU first, then RAM, and finally CPU. Although the CPU often has the biggest impact on responsiveness, the GPU dictates frame rate and visual fidelity. A game with poor graphics won't be enjoyable to record or stream.
When streaming—whether through services like Stadia, nVidia's Geforce Now, or upcoming platforms—the visuals will inevitably suffer from network delays. But a game with already low graphics quality will degrade further, compressing it into poor resolution. RGB to YUV2 conversion with heavy compression strips away color and pixel data, leaving only 960x540 pixels for a 1080p title. Consequently, when uploading to platforms like YouTube, you often need to double the intended resolution because the service downscales anything below 1080p. This can make text appear blurry, as YouTube aggressively reduces quality for lower resolutions.
In most situations, the best approach is to opt for a CPU with the highest single-threaded performance under standard cooling, especially if you're not planning to stream. Benchmarks often don't reflect real-world performance and mainly show minimum frame rates under demanding conditions. Some games may still struggle to hit the benchmark's lowest frame rate, even with overclocked hardware.
If streaming isn't your goal and you're seeking the smoothest gameplay, consider a CPU with top single-threaded speed available in air cooling. Keep in mind that most benchmarks are not accurate representations of actual gameplay, serving mainly as a minimum performance indicator.
When streaming, and you're not using hardware encoding (like NVENC or QSV), more CPU cores give you greater software compression options. This can become problematic because video processing via software like OBS must happen entirely in software, even with hardware encoding. As a result, you often end up with lower quality video on systems with limited RAM and CPU cores. This trade-off means you must balance core count against speed. Adding features like animated GIFs to your stream costs similar performance as using a webcam, since both require complex video compositing that adds latency and can cause audio sync issues.
In summary, prioritize GPU performance first, then RAM, and finally CPU. While the CPU is crucial for responsiveness, the GPU controls frame rate and visuals—poor graphics will ruin the viewing experience. Streaming adds another layer of compression, making low-quality visuals even more noticeable.