Search the Community

Hello everyone. I've been scouring the forums and haven't found exact same issue I'm having so hoping someone can help me out. I have a new PC (first time building myself) with the Ryzen 9 5900x and the MSI Gaming X Trio 4080, Asus Tuf Gaming x570 Plus WiFi Mobo, 32gb of 3200 CL16 RAM and thermal take 850w 80+ gold PSU. Over the past week I've noticed some performance issues in various games so I've ran some Furmark tests, 3D Mark Time Spy and a few others. Across the board I'm getting several thousand points lower than similar systems, including about 5000 less on time spy at 2560x1440. I've also noticed my CPU isn't going to full boost of 4.8 and is sitting at approximately 4.0-4.2 during these tests. On games such as Warzone 2, Battlefield 2042 I'm sitting at low 80s to low 100s at 1440p at all settings from low to ultra/extreme. The only thing that impacts it is going to 4k or turning on ray tracing. Even DLSS makes almost no difference. At most 5fps increase. I've gone through the DDU process, set D.O.C.P and tried every other setting suggested through various YT channels and Google searches. Lastly most of the time my GPU utilization sits around 75-80 with jumps to 95 and back down. I feel like something is wrong and my specs should be performing better. TL;DR Ryzen 9 5900x MSI 4080 running far below average, performance stays the same at all graphical settings minus change from 1440 to 4k. Thanks in advance for any tips or help.

A couple of years ago there was this scandal when it came to light that Apple was purposely slowing down older iPhone models without acknowledging it. There was a WAN Show segment about this. Tim Cook even apologized in multiple interviews, stating that Apple did this to increase battery longevity of older models, but acknowledged that he understood why people were upset and promised that they would put in a switch in the iOS Settings-app where the user could choose between keeping higher performance or keeping longer battery life for older devices. Now, many years later, in 2023, where is this switch?

Recently I upgraded from GTX 1070 to an Gigabyte RTX 3060 Ti Gaming Oc. I started noticing that in most games my GPU usage with 1070 was around 100%, while with 3060 Ti it hovers around 60%. It results in a very similiar performance between these two cards. In the games I tested - Armored Core 6 and Remnant From the Ashes, the FPS were practically the same. In Cyberpunk 2077 and Deadlink, there is some improvement noticeable, however it is not as big as shown online. Additionaly, while performing benchmarks, I noticed that my results were sometimes as bad as 50% of the scores posted online. I tried DDU and clearing the BIOS, however nothing helped. What's more, the first time is switched the GPUs, my PC got stuck after the BIOS screen. I had to reset the BIOS to get it running. In superposition 1080p extreme, most users got around 7000, while my result is 3921. In Furmark 1080p benchamark most 3060 Tis score around 10k - 11k, while mine scored 6k. My PC: i5 8600k @4.5GHz 16GB ram 3200MHz 700W Silverstone PSU 2 x HDD 1 TB 2 x NVME 500GB

Hello, I need suggestions for laptops for a senior software engineer. Requirements: 1. 700-900 $ USD 2. A Long battery life 3. High Performance. 4. He does not play videogames so not very particular about a GPU 5. A big screen (15'?) 6. Light-weight 7. Durable please help. Thank you for suggestions in advance

Hi there. I just built my brand new computer, with the exact following specs: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/SyndicateBear/saved/#view=XLWdqs Here are the issues I’m facing: 1. Sometimes the computer doesn’t “post” for ages - as in it doesn’t get to the windows log in screen for ages and just stays with the screen black but the fans on full blast. Also at this time, there are some status LED lights which I think are the 2 bottom LEDs, but can’t be sure they are exactly these ones as this specific boot issue happens almost once every 5 or so boot attempts. 2. Sometimes when I press the case power button, the PC doesn’t take as long as when it does what I’ve described in the first issue, however when turning it on - the MOBO status LEDs flicker and all change very fast. Two videos to demonstrate this and the pegged at 100% fans https://streamable.com/exyvug https://streamable.com/5hake4 3. The performance compared to other benchmarks is very lacklustre for my specifications, and I ran the benchmarks at 1080p!! (I plan to use 1440p…) If anyone could help at all in any way, I’d be very grateful! Thanks.

Hi all, looking for a RTX 3060 TI in the near future. I know there is a lot to choosing components, but I was just wanting a basic answer. What brand makes the best one in terms of build quality, cost-to-performance ratio, longevity, and power consumption? I will be using this in my PC which has a i7-12700 CPU, 32 GB RAM, GIGABYTE B660 GAMING X AX DDR4 motherboard, and a 750W PSU, all in an ATX case. If they aren't too too big, I might throw another in my build to replace my current RX 6600 XT GPU. Thanks in advance guys... WeTuLo707

i just got a 4090 and its amazing, all my games that are on steam run insanely. however games that arent on steam, like minecraft or valorant are running at lower frames than they should be running with a 4090. for example, my mc without shaders runs at around 600 fps which is fine as my monitor is only 165 hz but with shaders runs below 165hz most of the time and goes slighty above at others which shouldnt be the case as i did my research and im supposed to be getting above 200fps. valorant runs around 300fps and thats odd to me too because its roughly the same fps as the 3080 i just upgraded from. im more keen to fix the mc issue so if anyone could help me find out why games outside of steam are running terribly please help me out!

Hi everyone! I've just finished building my first ever PC, and it runs very poorly and i encounter stutters and FPS drops in every game i play. Part list: GPU: Asus GeForce DUAL-RTX3060-O12G-V2 CPU: Intel Core i5-12400 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3600MHz 32GB (2 x 16GB) PSU: Asus ROG-STRIX-750G, 80 PLUS Gold - ATX power supply, 750 W Storage: Samsung SSD 980 PRO with Heatsink 1TB MB: Gigabyte B660 DS3H AX DDR4 LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard When I run 3DMARK timespy without overclocking I get a score of 7561, and with overclocking I get 8113 score This is the result WITHOUT OVERCLOCKING (7561 score) : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i5-12400 Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B660 DS3H AX DDR4 (3dmark.com) This is the result with WITH OVERCLOCKING (8113 score) : NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i5-12400 Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. B660 DS3H AX DDR4 (3dmark.com) This are my overclocking settings I've tried: Updating all drivers for GPU and CPU Reinstalling all drivers for GPU and CPU Reinstalled the GPU in the case Reinstalled my computer I'm not a really techy person, and this is my first build ever, Is there anything anyone can think of which would make my PC perform this bad? My CPU usually sits at around 50-70% and GPU is always at 95-99% in games

Hi All. I need your help in taking a decision to upgrade my PC. The current config is ASUS ROG Strix b350-f, Ryzen 1600, R7 260 2GB Graphic card, Crucial 8gb(2400) x 1 DDR4 Ram, Cooler Master 500 Watts. I'm looking to upgrade my processor and graphic card to Ryzen 5 5600G and Radeon RX 6400. Will my motherboard support this new processor? Will there be any performance/compatibility issue? I have checked the Asus site as well and mentions it will support this processor (refer screenshot), but the shop person says mobo will face some performance issue. It's fine for me if the performance loss is less as I'm not going to do any heavy duty task. It's been used mostly for games but occasionally. Please share your opinion on this whether using Ryzen 5 5600G and Radeon RX 6400 in my old ASUS ROG Strix b350-f motherboard won't cause any issue? My budget is very limited not and can't increase it. Thats why I'm opting for them swap. Looking forward for your opinions. Thanks in advance.

I've been looking through some DRR5 Ram kits for Ryzen 7000 and have noticed a curious thing about the timings for the ram kits that I've found. I want to start by saying that I have no idea about the intricacies of Ram Timings and Cas Latency and how it truly works. The only I know is that Ryzen 7000 cpus have a tendency to usually favor Ram with lower latency and usually perform better because of that. So, I've mostly looked for Ram kits around the 5000mhz-6000mhz range and have been looking mostly for CL30 or CL32 kits. But when I looked at the specific timings for the kits, I noticed something odd. The CL30 kit starts off faster, but seems to increase in latency by quite a bit in its later timings as compared to the CL32 or even CL36 kits that I've seen. For Example, I've seen some DDR5 6000mhz ram kits from G.Skill with CL30, CL32 and CL36 timings. However, the later timings seem to be pretty mixed. There's [30-40-40-96], [32-38-38-96] and [36-36-36-96] timings listed in their respective specs list. Based purely on these numbers alone, the CL30 kit seems to start off faster, but afterwards the latency seems to increase by quite a bit in the middle (it jumps from 30 to 40, a +10 in latency) while the CL32 and CL36 kits seem to be relatively consistent in comparison. The CL32 kit goes from 32 to 38, which is a +6 in latency, while the CL36 kit stays at a flat 36 in its later timings (again, based purely on the timings listed in its specs). I'm not sure if this is just a little nitpick or fine detail that ultimately doesn't affect performance that much, but it's a weird thing that I just noticed and I'm curious if it has any affect at all in performance. So, does the Cas Latency Timing of DDR5 really matter for Ryzen 7000? And if so, by how much? What do you guys think?

Hey there, I'm pretty new to hardware overall, so would love some guidance on a matter: As of now my PC has 2 8GB RAM modules and I recently bought a third to one to make it to 24GB, nonetheless recently I was checking more on the matter of how RAM works and why modules are usually placed in sockets 1-3/2-4. So basically my question is, would I be negatively impacting my PC's performance when including the new RAM stick or should I just wait to buy the 4th one in order to preserve the performance it's got right now

I recently upgraded my GPU from a 1070 to a 6950xt, and I did not get the performance uplift I expected. I have been trying to find solutions for a few days with nothing I can find working. My CPU (I7 10700k) utilization ranges from around 40% to 60% at most on some cores, and my GPU utilization is usually around 60% to 80% at most. Sometimes utilization is even lower. From what I can find online, my system should be performing faster, but maybe I'm missing something. For example I run consistently below 100fps, but multiple benchmarks I find online average around or above 200fps with 1% lows in the mid 100s. Also all my temperatures are well within limits, my hottest CPU after hours of gaming is 71 degrees c, and my peak GPU temp was 75 degrees c. I have also tested with enabling and disabling resizable BAR and there was no difference. I have disabled vsync and fps limiters in all games and it consistently performs under what benchmarks I found from reputable sources such as hardware unboxed on youtube. I made sure all GPU drivers are up to date using AMD Adrenaline software, currently on Driver Version 22.40.57.05-230523a-392410C-AMD-Software-Adrenalin-Edition. Full system specs: CPU: I7 10700k @4.7Ghz, Hyper 212 evo cooler GPU: XFX 6950xt RAM: Teamgroup 32GB cl-18 3600mhz Motherboard: ASUS PRIME H570-PLUS PSU: Corsair RM1000x Storage: 2TB Crucial pcie 3.0 m.2 ssd OS: Windows 10 I'm not sure why I'm not getting as much performance as I should, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

So I've been going down the RISC rabbit hole both ARM and RISC-V and 1 thing I am confused about and getting conflicting information is the actual capabilities. My main question is, will ARM and/or RISC-V hardware out now continue to get faster (ie Linux on arm Pine64 etc) from mostly software optimization or from hardware optimization?

I have at least one game with Denuve Malware in it and the game has become unplayable because of it. Which is even more infuriating now since I used to play it with our any issues a year an a half ago. As such i really want to find away to remove it to make the game playable again. I ABSOLUTLY HATE anti-cheat and anti-piracy programs that hurt performance of games. This type of thing makes me so mad I can't see straight. It is like the developer is spitting in our face saying I care more about my IP then you enjoying our game. Its to the point where I am going to boycott any new games that have this type of software. I also read this (https://qr.ae/py2PHd) recently do you guys know of this is true?

Game Specific (Assetto Corsa):

Its time we had a discussion... So many people are buying extremely high-end components that are simply unnecessary and overkill. I figured I would create a guide to help people decide what hardware is best for their use case. How many frames per second do I need? What settings should I run, what resolution should I play at? Lets talk about all these things today... FPS: Lets start by talking about refresh rate and frames per second (FPS). Linus PROVED a while back in a video called "Does High FPS Make you a Better Gamer" that for the VAST MAJORITY of gamers, frame rates beyond 144 FPS/Hz simply make no difference whatsoever. At 144Hz, the smoothness and responsiveness is so fast that your keyboard and mouse themselves attribute the vast majority of the input lag and the human body simply cannot detect lag caused by FPS at these extremely high frame rates. Even professional E-Sports gamers stated in the video that they feel there is basically NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between 144 and 240 Frame Rates. These professional gamers tend to go for extremely high frame rates anyways to reduce latency in the game's processing, but this guide is aimed at the average gamer, not a professional. These response times on the levels of a few thousandths of a second and the average gamer will NEVER detect them. In the Linus Video, they explored the differences between 60FPS/Hz, 144 FPS/Hz, and 240 FPS/Hz. What they did NOT talk about is at what point do we hit diminishing returns? At what point before 144 FPS is that magical number that feels incredibly smooth and responsive? Allow me to explain... 60 FPS may seem smooth to watch and indeed it is, but 60 FPS isn't quite fast enough for fast-paced gaming. This is because of how much time is needed for your machine to produce the next frame. The amount of time needed to produce each frame at 60 FPS is long enough to where if you move your mouse back and forth quickly, you will notice slight lag, it just won't feel all that responsive, and this is why the ideal gaming frame rate is well above 60 FPS. So how far do we need to go? Well it is somewhat subjective but there are some general "rules of thumb" that can help you decide. Even just a bit above 60 FPS at 75 FPS, things will begin to feel fairly responsive, but if you want the best performance before diminishing returns, there are still gains to be had. At 90 FPS, things will look and feel fantastic, with incredible response. At 90 FPS you will probably be quite satisfied with your experience, but we should reach a bit higher, and here is why... When your machine experiences a huge load in a demanding area of a game, the FPS will drop for a single instant here and there, this is what we know in benchmarking as 1% lows. The problem with 90 FPS gaming is that these 1% lows can still drop you into the 60's of FPS. And when that happens, you will certainly feel it. This is why 90 FPS gaming isn't quite enough to be considered a pretty-much perfect gaming experience. What you should aim for is 100+ average FPS. Once you cross the triple-digit threshold, your gaming experience will be extremely satisfying at all times, because your 1% lows will stay at or above 75-80 FPS. These 1% lows will be so smooth that you probably won't have even noticed that they happened, and so 100+FPS is ideal target for the best value gaming. However, as newer games come out, and your hardware ages, performance will drop a bit over time. But to counter this, most reviews on PC gaming content focus on performance results at Ultra Settings. So as your PC ages, you should be able to drop your settings from Ultra to High in order to keep about the same frame rates in upcoming games for a few years. Keep this in mind for later... GAME SETTINGS: So what about settings and resolution? Lets get settings out of the way - aim for High settings. High settings are a very satisfying experience and the visuals will be stunning. Very High/Ultra settings demand a lot more power for not a whole lot more beauty and so in reality, Ultra settings are unnecessary. But if you aim too low and end up with low or medium settings, you will definitely notice the difference between these settings and High settings. RESOLUTION: Finally - resolution. Resolution is completely subjective. Some people enjoy 1080p, others enjoy 4K. But, there are diminishing returns with graphical fidelity, so lets outline those now: 1080p is great for very small monitors. It looks about as sharp as it can get on 20" and smaller screens, and still looks pretty good up to 30" gaming monitors, but most people can see the difference between 1080p and 1440p, so that choice is yours. 1440p is actually the ideal computer monitor resolution in most cases. It looks insanely sharp on pretty much any standard-sized monitor and most people cannot tell the difference between 1440p and 4K. I personally play at 1440p ultrawide for that extra side-to-side vision and its an incredible experience (3440x1440p) 4K is actually pretty useless in more situations than you might think. Research and scientific studies have shown that the human eye with perfect 20-20 vision actually CANNOT see the difference between 1440p and 4K on any screen up to 50" with your face just 18" away from the screen. Linus even did a video a while back called "4K Gaming is Dumb" that goes over why its pretty much completely unnecessary. Choosing Hardware Based on this Information: PC Hardware reviews pretty much always focus on performance delivered at Ultra gaming settings. Since Ultra settings are unnecessary, you can use the performance gap between High and Ultra settings as your performance overhead for upcoming games in the future. And so... If you want a gaming experience so good that you wouldn't be able to tell if you upgraded further, and you want to use a standard sized monitor like most PC gamers do, then you want to purchase hardware that is shown to deliver an average of at LEAST 100 FPS at Ultra Settings for your chosen resolution, and 1440p is the recommended resolution for standard-sized PC monitors. Now the hardware you choose will depend on if you want standard 2560x1440p resolution or ultra-wide 3440x1440p or whatever other form of 1440p you might want, but if you do your research and keep these rules of thumb in mind, you will end up with an incredible gaming machine without over-spending. Of course everyone will have their opinions, Im sure plenty of people will say I am wrong. But think about it before commenting. When was the last time you played a game at 90-100 FPS and you thought to yourself "This is a terrible experience, I need to upgrade my PC because this is just un-playable".

Hi there guys, I am having some problems with my little brothers computer... It was bought and built 24 months ago (ish). The specs is as following: XFX Radeon RX 6600 SWFT 210 AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Prosessor ASUS PRIME A520M-K hovedkort Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3600MHz 16GB Corsair TX550M, 550W PSU Cooler Master MasterBox NR400 Kingston A400 240GB 2.5" SSD and a 500GB version. 240mm NZXT water cooler. The problem: When i play random games like Squad, Dead by daylight 2, The forrest, Rome 2 total war etc the games crash randomly. It can take 5 minutes, it can take 2 hours. When the game crashes it just goes to windows desktop. So the whole computer does not crash. Sometimes you can feel like the game is starting to stutter, also sometimes the textures in games get "wierd" before it dies. For some time i thought that the problem was related to the GPU (1660 was the first card we used). We then got a new card, and hoped for a better experience. This has proven to be wrong. What i have tried so far: - Clean reinstall of windows - Check GPU/CPU temp, stress testing etc dosent crash the computer. - New GPU drivers - Changed the SSD that windows is installed on. - Clean PC, check for dust, etc etc (temps are fine). Some error messages we get: DXGI_ERROR_DEVICE_HUNG The video attached is 1 of many different ways the computer can crash. More often then not the computer just closes the game, so bluescreen is not super normal. 342778823_6272162952865485_8053047928713580426_n.mp4

Laptopl: Acer Nitro 5 AN515-55 SNID: 11002133634 CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10750H CPU @ 2.60GHz (4,20 GHz max) RAM: 32 GB @ 3200 MHz GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX3060 (85w) Windows 11 Home x64 BIOS version: V2.06 So like the tittle says, my CPU is underclocking when under stress, I've had this problem for quite a while but I've been able to work around it, but I'm getting tired of the random FPS drops when playing games. I've recently updated my OS to Windows 11 but I've had this problem for around 6 months or so while using Windows 10, it started with weird underclocks right from the computer start, the clock speed would lock at 1,80 GHz but after a restart it would go back to normal, and after 2 weeks or so the problem was gone, a month after, whenever I would start any resource intensive app (even games like War Thunder that only make the CPU usage go to 60~%) the speed would go from 4,20 GHz to 3,70 or so and stay there, restarting the PC wouldn't fix it anymore and it's been like that for 5 months now, updating drivers, cleaning and updating the RAM as well as changing the thermal paste didn't work, also tried to change the settings on the energy plans and no fix either, I've noticed something weird tho, the fan speed on the Nitro Sense app seems to be quite slower for he CPU, although I don't think this is the problem, the CPU used to go up to 90° when gaming when I bought it, now it rarely gets to 80° or 70°, because of this the fans rarely get to high speeds on their own too, but as shown later on this post, a single core seems to be hitting higher temperatures than the others, which isn't shown by Nitro Sense or any app that gets the temperature of the CPU as a whole. Another weird thing is that even tho the CPU reaches it's max speed of 4,20 GHz the speed seems very unstable, jumping from 3,90 to 4,45 and inbetween constantly, these screenshots were taken seconds apart from each other Now here's a screenshot of the CPU being stressed by CPU-Z. As soon as the CPU hit 100% usage the speed dropped to 3,70 and slowly kept going down to 3,60, after 1 minute went down to 3,50, but as soon as the stress test is stopped this happened: The speed picks up as if nothing happened, weird behavior was noticed in the voltage used by the CPU, and using Core Temp a single core seems to go up in temperature very quickly Running normally Not even 1 second after stress test starts If anyone knows how this problem could be fixed, please let me know

My friend comes over to my place with his laptop not running at its full performance. Usually it runs the game smoothly over 60fps and casually pulls 75 watts with 90c temp. But now it runs games really slow it literally runs at the 20% of the usual frame rate. The power draw is only 20watt flat all the time which is really sus. I tried to install a newer and older driver, still the same result. The only one that works is when i download the driver from the early 2022 that comes when he first time purchased the laptop, with a catch that every time i reboot, it will underperform again. I have seen other people having the same problem on the same laptop (Acer Nitro 5)

I've got my new PC and wanted to bench it and see how it performs since I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, I've decided to post here for some help. CPU when under load does some weird electrical/static noises GPU when under load does some noises too, but I would say they are just much much worse than the CPU here is an audio file of what I tried to record with my phone (GPU) 20230427_204651.m4a Here is a screenshot of doing cine bench: Here is the full build: Intel Core i5-13600KF MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI - Intel Z790 Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact Black TG Light Tint ASUS GeForce TUF-RTX3060-O12G-V2-GAMING, LHR, 12GB GDDR6 Kingston Fury Beast Black 32GB (2x16GB) DDR5 6000 CL40 Samsung SSD 980 PRO, M.2 - 2TB GIGABYTE UD1000GM - 1000W Noctua NH-U12A

Hey, i'm searching for some help. My girlfriend and I made the choice to buy a gaming laptop for practical reasons an ASUS ROG STRIX G713RW (2022) : - Ryzen 7 6800h with radeon graphics - RTX 3070 Ti Laptop DDR6 8GB - 16GB 4800 Mhz DDR5 - 360hz / 3ms display The laptop comes with a software (armoury crate) to adjust settings (CPU and GPU) to optimize performance (screenshot). We would like to have someone who could advise us on settings via software or other things to optimize our performance in games. Thanks in advance

Since 2016 I've been using a rig with a GTX1060, and it has been showing it's age. Yesterday was finally the day for an upgrade. I built a mini-ITX with a 4070Ti (full specs below) and was confused as hell when I booted up CSGO and got less FPS than even integrated graphics would have given me. It wasn't just specific to CSGO either. The 3DMark Timespy benchmark ran at around 2-3 fps. It was so bad too look at I aborted it. I swapped out the 4070Ti for my old GTX1060 and went from 60FPS in CSGO, to around 300. Something is definetly either wrong with my 4070Ti, or something is holding it back. I have installed the latest drivers from geforce experience. I've tried using both PSU outputs that powered the 4070 to run the 1060, to see if it might be a PSU problem. The 1060 ran fine off both PSU ports. When I use the 4070 and have MSI afterburner or HWMonitor up to try and identify issues, the clockspeed never goes above 840MHz. That's obviously an issue but could something other than the GPU being faulty be the cause of that? I'm kinda expecting that you guys will tell me to RMA my card, but I just want to hear if anyone has any ideas of the cause so I don't have to go through the RMA process and end up having the same problem with a replacement card. Specs: CPU: Intel i5-13600KF GPU: Gigabyte RTX 4070 Ti Eagle OC MOBO: ROG Strix B760-I Gaming WIFI RAM: 2x16GB Kingston FURY Beast RGB DDR5-5600 C36 DC SSD1: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB SSD2: Crucial P3 2TB PSU: Cooler Master V850 SFX

Hi. When you're working with node.js projects, you're left with a lot of little files (like under the folder node_modules). When you have to move the project to another drive, you see the transfer speed almost grind to a halt. I know, that this is largely because of filesystem overhead. Has anybody any experience with different filesystems and this issue? Are there filesystems out there that can handle this better than - say - NTFS and ext4?

Since there is a lot of misinformation about CPU and GPU bottlenecks floating around, here's a short explanation for those who are wondering about CPU and GPU related bottlenecks for games. A CPU prepares frames for the GPU to render. It does object placements, physics and general pre-render. The GPU takes what the CPU prerendered and does the frame (image) render including the details, shading, textures, particles, "triangles", ... Changing the resolution does not affect the CPU a lot. But it affects the GPU a lot since it changes the number of details. EXAMPLE: If a CPU can prepare 60 frames and the GPU can render... 1. 100 frames on 1080p, the GPU will be used 60% meaning a 40% bottleneck. A stronger CPU would be needed. Or increasing the details, resolution. 2. 60 frames on 1440p, there won't be a noticeable bottleneck and the CPU&GPU are evenly matched. A stronger GPU would be bottlenecked by the same CPU. 3. 30 frames on 4K, there won't be a bottleneck. And the CPU could power a stronger GPU. Let's take a low end CPU like the Intel i5 10400F or Ryzen 5 5500, a mid-range CPU like the Ryzen 7 5700X or Intel i5 12400f and a higher end CPU like the Ryzen 7 7700 or Intel i7 13700. And let's take a low end GPU like a Geforce RTX 3050 or Radeon RX 6500, a mid-range GPU like the RTX 3070Ti or the Radeon 6800 and a high-end like the RTX 4080 or the Radeon RX 7900XTX. The monitor resolution of 1080p is considered low end, 1440p (2K) id mid-range and 4K (2160p) is high end. Let's call the low end CPU CPU1, the mid-range CPU2 and high end CPU3. Do the same for the GPU; low end GPU1, mid-range GPU2 and high end GPU3. And the screen resolutions; RES1, RES2 and RES3. We have 27 (3x3x3) possible combinations. The low end GPU won't be bottlenecked by any of the CPU-s on any of the resolutions. That removes 9 options. (CPU,GPU,RES) - what usually happens (1,1,1) - no botttleneck (1,1,2) - no botttleneck (1,1,3) - no botttleneck (1,2,1) - slight CPU bottleneck (1,2,2) - no botttleneck (1,2,3) - no botttleneck (1,3,1) - huge CPU bottleneck (1,3,2) - slight CPU bottleneck (1,3,3) - slight to no CPU bottleneck (2,1,1) - no botttleneck (2,1,2) - no botttleneck (2,1,3) - no botttleneck (2,2,1) - slight to no CPU bottleneck (2,2,2) - no CPU bottleneck (2,2,3) - no CPU bottleneck (2,3,1) - huge CPU bottleneck (2,3,2) - slight to no CPU bottleneck (2,3,3) - no CPU bottleneck (3,1,1) - no CPU bottleneck (3,1,2) - no CPU bottleneck (3,1,3) - no CPU bottleneck (3,2,1) - no CPU bottleneck (3,2,2) - no CPU bottleneck (3,2,3) - no CPU bottleneck (3,3,1) - huge CPU bottleneck (3,3,2) - slight to no CPU bottleneck (3,3,3) - no CPU bottleneck A huge CPU bottleneck means a terrible time gaming (the GPU might enter low power states, having frametime spikes, ...) and a CPU upgrade is needed. A slight CPU bottleneck means a CPU upgrade would be preferable. Or a monitor upgrade (higher resolution increases the GPU load). And no, in 99.9% of the games a GPU does not do stuff that the CPU has to wait on. So, NO, in gaming a GPU CAN NOT BOTTLENECK A CPU. PSA: Online bottleneck calculators are usually made by people who do not understand how bottlenecks work. Made purely to get money from advertisements and people who browse the page. Clickbait. Worse than useless because it's better not having information than working with false information.

Does fan Positioning and rotation actually matter? On an ASUS GPU such as the RTX 4090 ASUS ROG STRIX graphics card, one of the fans is inverted to help with 'airflow turbulence'. 1. Is this actually effective, or just a marketing trick? 2. If it is effective, how much better is it over standard GPU fan positions? 3. Can a standard GPU be fitted to change the direction of the fan like in the STRIX should you replace the fan? When it comes to performance, every little bit counts. So is it even possible or worthwhile? An Asus ROG STRIX RTX 4090 . Notice the middle fan is opposing the direction of the other fans. An RTX 4080 Gaming X trio with the standard positioning for graphics card fans. Thanks!