Same benchmark under higher load?
Same benchmark under higher load?
You're asking a good question about what makes a CPU perform differently between a desktop and a laptop. It sounds like you're curious about factors beyond just the numbers on the spec sheet. Things like cooling, power delivery, thermal management, and even how the system is built can affect real-world performance. Also, the way the CPU is used—like background processes or workload type—might play a role. Benchmarks are useful, but they don't always capture every nuance of real usage. Let me know if you want more details!
It's because your GPU is a lot faster. Before, since the GT745 is a very low end GPU, especially by modern standards, your GPU was the limiting factor and your CPU was waiting for it before doing anything. Now, since your GPU is decent, your CPU has to actually work to keep up with it, and since flight sim games are usually CPU bound, it's pegging the CPU. Temps are higher because it's a laptop. They are designed to run hot, so it probably won't slow it down.
Another thought I had is finding out which CPU pairs well with the GTX 1650 while maintaining the same performance balance as the GTX 745 with the i7 6700. Should it be a 6-core or an 8-core processor instead of just a quad-core one?
For pairing with a 1650, consider an i5 11400 or Ryzen 3600. That setup won’t match the performance you get with the 6700 compared to the GT745. A 5800X would be a better fit given its power. I’m not suggesting overspending on the CPU, but you’d likely need something more capable. Switching to a 6 or 8 core processor gives more options and isn’t significantly pricier than quad-core chips, unless you’re building on the very lowest budget level.
You're asking about how CPU performance scales and what factors influence usage. It seems you're comparing different configurations and wondering if adding more cores or using higher-end GPUs changes the overall efficiency. The discussion highlights that benchmark results can vary, and real-world performance often depends on both core count and effective speed rather than just raw numbers.
Userbenchmark is just a joke. It’s not worth taking seriously—except for laughs when they review the 11900k. The 5800x actually runs faster than the 11400 in most cases. They tend to favor Intel CPUs, which means they claim a 11400 is quicker than a 5600X, even though other sites say the 5600X is decently faster. If you’re curious about how bad it is, check out this video—it varies by game. Some titles scale well with multiple cores, while others don’t. I’m not familiar with Prepar3D, but usually Flight Sims are more multi-threaded, so they’d likely use more cores. In the worst case, if all four cores are at full speed and nothing else is used, you might get around 70-80% utilization. It really depends on the situation.
You're welcome on the topic. It's interesting to consider whether a high-end GPU would truly improve performance when paired with a mid-range CPU, especially if the game supports multi-core usage. Your thought about future upgrades suggests you're thinking ahead about balancing CPU and GPU strengths. The idea that more cores boost efficiency is solid—especially with games that leverage multiple threads. It sounds like you're aiming for a system where both components complement each other rather than being bottlenecked by one alone. Let me know if you'd like to dive deeper into specific scenarios!
The reason I mentioned such a high-end CPU was because it matched the performance gap you had before—essentially a top-tier gaming CPU paired with a budget GPU. For most games other than Prepar3D, spending a lot on CPU wouldn't boost performance much. Most games rely more on GPU power rather than CPU strength, so upgrading the GPU would be more beneficial. That wasn’t my exact point. Overall CPU demand would decrease, but per-core usage would remain similar, keeping game speed consistent. If the game is heavily multi-threaded, performance could improve. It’s better to aim for a balanced setup where both CPU and GPU are working efficiently. Ideally, they’d run near full capacity together. In practice, you'd target 97-98% GPU usage with CPU above 70%. Keep an eye on GPU usage and choose a CPU that fits the situation.
I grasp the situation more clearly now. On the old PC, everything felt balanced. The CPU ran around 70% to 100%, while the GPU was often at full capacity. With the new laptop, the CPU stays near 100% and the GPU drops to about 30%. After enabling some demanding GPU features (shadows, reflections), it climbed to 97-98, giving me a bit more FPS. It seems low GPU usage before that might point to the CPU being slower. In any case, I’ll likely adjust settings now to make the CPU work better, but I’m collecting insights for future upgrades. For example, what GPU would be sufficient before CPU becomes the limiting factor? A 1080 Ti is probably fine even with CPU constraints.