Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
CrAzY156

Is my GPU being bottlenecked?

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Hi. i bought a gtx 1050ti today. but my pc wasnt exactly built with gaming in mind. there was no other upgrades other than just shoving a gpu in it.

Specs: AMD A6 5400K (overclocked to 4.20GHz)
            10 Gbs Ram
             Gigabyte f2a68hm-s1 Motherboard

There is also another case here. My monitor is VGA so i am using an adapter from vga to hdmi to get a picture on the monitor.
With this configuration the Fps in games is stable but fairly low. im speaking COD4 barely getting much fps. 200max for low graphics.
Im not sure which one of these factors are the cause but i really want to pray i didnt waste my money.


ps. i get more fps on the APU than the gpu right now. and i only see fps differences in favor of the gpu on direct x games.
           

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a Bulldozer APU, its CPU core is roughly half as powerful as a Ryzen core at the same clock speed.  4 core 4 thread Ryzen can do ~70% more work at the same clock as a 4 core 4 thread bulldozer.

 

Your CPU sucks is what I am saying.

 

The only way a GPU will help your FPS is if you are pushing 1080p or so with medium/high settings.  If you are trying to do the CS:GO thing, and run lowest settings to get 200+FPS, the GPU will not help at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, to a certain extent your GPU will generally be bottle-necked in modern games, but likely not that much.


In search of the future, new tech, and exploring the universe! All under the cover of anonymity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Yes, to a certain extent your GPU will generally be bottle-necked in modern games, but likely not that much.

It will be limited by a ton if the OP is using minimum details.  An FX-8350 limits performance of an RX 560 in most games (medium/1080p) and that is a less powerful GPU.

 

If you want above 60 FPS, that CPU is garbage.  If you want ~60 FPS with lots of eye candy, it is serviceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

It will be limited by a ton if the OP is using minimum details.  An FX-8350 limits performance of an RX 560 in most games (medium/1080p) and that is a less powerful GPU.

 

If you want above 60 FPS, that CPU is garbage.  If you want ~60 FPS with lots of eye candy, it is serviceable.

I actually have found that my FX-6350 is more than plenty capable of pushing my GTX 760, with plenty of headroom to spare in most games, enough that I could stick a GTX 1060 in my build before I would have to start worrying about bottlenecking.


In search of the future, new tech, and exploring the universe! All under the cover of anonymity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

I actually have found that my FX-6350 is more than plenty capable of pushing my GTX 760, with plenty of headroom to spare in most games, enough that I could stick a GTX 1060 in my build before I would have to start worrying about bottlenecking.

LOL, no.

 

FX-8350 @ 4.8ghz

 

FO4 (1080p/medium settings)

RX 560 1024sp/2gb, ~80% usage, 30-70 FPS, avg ~40.

GTX 670 4gb, ~60% usage, 30-90 FPS, avg ~45.

 

Borderlands 2 (1080p/high settings)

RX 560 1024sp/2gb, ~90% usage, 30-80 FPS, avg ~45.

GTX 670 4gb, ~75% usage, 30-100 FPS, avg ~50.

 

You may say "that doesnt seem too bad", but the FPS swings wildly depending on what you are looking at.  It makes it nearly impossible to track enemies.  The problem just gets worse as you add higher end GPUs.  The lows stay the same but FPS shoots way up when you are not looking toward more complex areas of the map.

 

Same GPU/settings on an i7-2600k @ 4.2ghz result in nearly double the minimum FPS.

 

With CPU intensive games, even some relatively simple games with lots of stuff going on, FX is horrid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CrAzY156 said:

Hi. i bought a gtx 1050ti today. but my pc wasnt exactly built with gaming in mind. there was no other upgrades other than just shoving a gpu in it.

Specs: AMD A6 5400K (overclocked to 4.20GHz)
            10 Gbs Ram
             Gigabyte f2a68hm-s1 Motherboard

There is also another case here. My monitor is VGA so i am using an adapter from vga to hdmi to get a picture on the monitor.
With this configuration the Fps in games is stable but fairly low. im speaking COD4 barely getting much fps. 200max for low graphics.
Im not sure which one of these factors are the cause but i really want to pray i didnt waste my money.


ps. i get more fps on the APU than the gpu right now. and i only see fps differences in favor of the gpu on direct x games.
           

 

The answer is yes.

 

If you see in games and via your monitoring software that if your CPU usage is higher than your GPU Usage and your FPS is fluctuating, it means that something is slowing down your card from sending enough information to the computer, hence making it behave like you fear it does.

 

Sorry, even tho the GTX 1050 Ti isn't the strongest card, it is still a card that requires a nice CPU next to it.


NETWORK IT

Link to post
Share on other sites

who buys 1050ti anyway, u could get rx 580/4gb version for the same price(depends which country u live in) and more performance. I have 1050ti and waiting for navi and rtx super to drop prices so i can upgrade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

LOL, no.

 

FX-8350 @ 4.8ghz

 

FO4 (1080p/medium settings)

RX 560 1024sp/2gb, ~80% usage, 30-70 FPS, avg ~40.

GTX 670 4gb, ~60% usage, 30-90 FPS, avg ~45.

 

Borderlands 2 (1080p/high settings)

RX 560 1024sp/2gb, ~90% usage, 30-80 FPS, avg ~45.

GTX 670 4gb, ~75% usage, 30-100 FPS, avg ~50.

 

You may say "that doesnt seem too bad", but the FPS swings wildly depending on what you are looking at.  It makes it nearly impossible to track enemies.  The problem just gets worse as you add higher end GPUs.  The lows stay the same but FPS shoots way up when you are not looking toward more complex areas of the map.

 

Same GPU/settings on an i7-2600k @ 4.2ghz result in nearly double the minimum FPS.

 

With CPU intensive games, even some relatively simple games with lots of stuff going on, FX is horrid.

Well I don't know what's going over there, but my build with the FX6350 has remained quite stable, I don't have all the FPS figures on hand at the moment but in World of Tanks, at high settings (well max except I use FXAA rather than SMAA) (at 1600x900) I get about 55% on the CPU, with sustained FPS of 70 to 90, an average of about 85 FPS and 100% GPU utilization, on average about 5 to 8 FPS lower at the same setting on World of Warships, and while I do not have figures on these other games, I have consistent performance of above 60 FPS on high (or max with FXAA where possible) settings with max GPU usage in all these games: Dreadnought, Apex Legends, Warthunder, Fortnite, Guns of Icarus, CS:GO, Robocraft, Crossout, and etc.


In search of the future, new tech, and exploring the universe! All under the cover of anonymity!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Well I don't know what's going over there, but my build with the FX6350 has remained quite stable, I don't have all the FPS figures on hand at the moment but in World of Tanks, at high settings (well max except I use FXAA rather than SMAA) (at 1600x900) I get about 55% on the CPU, with sustained FPS of 70 to 90, an average of about 85 FPS and 100% GPU utilization, on average about 5 to 8 FPS lower at the same setting on World of Warships, and while I do not have figures on these other games, I have consistent performance of above 60 FPS on high (or max with FXAA where possible) settings with max GPU usage in all these games: Dreadnought, Apex Legends, Warthunder, Fortnite, Guns of Icarus, CS:GO, Robocraft, Crossout, and etc.

Yeah, going to call BS on those WoT numbers.  GTX 670 4gb cant run on max with consistent 60+ FPS after the graphics update due to the terrain geometry shaders, and its a faster card than the 760.  WoWS @ max ocean detail/view distance also beats the hell out of the CPU and GPU.  Ive profiled both games across a wide range of hardware, pretty much everything from Core 2 up to Ryzen and GTX 400 series up to GTX 10 series.  You are running on the legacy rendering engine, not recording your min/max/avg FPS, or are not being truthful about your settings.

 

I would believe ~60 when you have time to sit and look at the FPS counter, maybe, but not in battle.

 

For reference, the GTX 670 is roughly equivalent to a 1050 Ti that has a mild overclock.  And here are some numbers for the GTX 1050 Ti...
https://www.fpsbenchmark.com/world-of-tanks/gtx-1050-ti

https://www.fpsbenchmark.com/apexlegends/gtx-1050-ti

 

Even Ryzen takes a hefty performance hit compared to Intel CPUs in WoT/WoWS at sub 60 FPS levels...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×