High-end CPU doesn't matter when GPU-bound

Sawtaytoes · January 3, 2019

tl;dr Does the choice in a high-end AMD or Intel processor really matter when you're GPU-bound?

I've been wanting to upgrade my Intel Core i7 4770K system for some time now, and feel like I'm finally ready to make the plunge. While I wanna wait till CES 2019 to make a final decision, I've been wasting my time looking at AMD vs Intel benchmarks and looking to get the best CPU. Overall, AMD has the edge over Intel in literally everything except gaming. Sadly, gaming performance is probably the biggest reason I'd want to upgrade, but is it really true that Intel's going to be better for gaming? I don't think so; not after some research tonight.

When comparing CPUs, I found one which benchmarked a wide array of games at a relatively high res of 2560x1440:

- https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

- tl;dr graphs only: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/8vznc8/ryzen_7_2700x_vs_core_i7_8700k_35_game_benchmark/e1rmi8f

While not as high as my current 3440x1440@100Hz monitor, those results should be close enough to realize my choice in CPU doesn't matter. With the exception of Starcraft II, none of the games show any difference in speed between an Intel Core i7 8700K and an AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. I'm not counting any differences over 200fps like Counter Strike since my monitor can only do 100fps max anyway.

Personally, I only care about The Witcher 3 in that games list. Instead of spending more on the CPU, I'd be better off grabbing another GTX 1080 Ti and making sure to get an SLI motherboard. I'm actually planning on getting a 4K TV so I'm more interested if any couch games are CPU-bound trying to run 4K@60fps. Pretty sure everything's going to be GPU-bound at that res.

But let's say CES rolls around and monitor manufacturers decide to start making 5120x1440 monitors that can do more than 60Hz. All of a sudden, I'm even more GPU-bound than before! Looking into CPUs is pretty useless that this point since Intel's gaming lead no longer exists at that resolution. I'd be better off with a future-proof AM4 system. Not to mention, AMDs offerings are a heckuva lot cheaper than Intel's.

If Ryzen 3000 really does release in March, it might be worth the wait since it's obviously going to be faster than the 2000 series, will probably release at similar price points as the current-gen processors, and should be enough to push AMD above Intel even in gaming performance.

So after all this, I'm pretty sure the choice in CPU doesn't matter. There's probably a CPU performance bottleneck somewhere, but it's not at the high-end. Makes me wonder if my 4770K can pull me through another few years of games.

Richard Webster · January 3, 2019

If you want 4K get the 1080 Ti. With your current chip you should be fine for a while yet. At 4K you will need more CPU power to run single threaded games (Far Cry 4), but AFAIK your chip should do for now.

Ignore above, missed the part where you said you already have a 1080 Ti.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Richard Webster

Crunchy Dragon · January 3, 2019

There definitely isn't a CPU bottleneck, even a 3770K will still run a GTX 1080 SLI.

My problem with your idea of getting another 1080Ti is that SLI in gaming is pretty dead at this point, so there is usually little to no point in getting SLI.

If you have a 4770K, and a Z87 or Z97 motherboard, your system will support SLI as long as your GPU does.

Why would monitor manufacturers make 5210x1440 displays? Where is the demand for that resolution?

Likely not happening.

At the high end, it doesn't really matter what CPU you get in the end. The 8700K doesn't have as much of a lead over the 2700X as people would have us believe, unless you overclock to 5Ghz or so.

Origami Cactus · January 3, 2019

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Why would monitor manufacturers make 5210x1440 displays? Where is the demand for that resolution?

Likely not happening.

Samsung already has 3840x1080p monitors, so 5210x1440 would be just a 1440p ultraultrawide, i would say that it is very probably that LG or Samsung will make a monitor with similar res sometime.

Spoiler

Sawtaytoes · January 3, 2019

I'd thought Linus did a video on this already, but then I realized it was only the Samsung.

Dell 49" U4919DW:

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-ultrasharp-49-curved-monitor-u4919dw/apd/210-arnw/monitors-monitor-accessories

If it went even to 90Hz, I would've bought it already. It'd allow me to get rid of the extra vertical 1080x1920 monitors dangling off the sides of my ultrawide. With screen partitioning, one large screen is easier to use than many smaller ones; although, there is a definite limitation with fullscreen games, G-Sync, etc if you like to have email and IM up on other monitors.

grss1982 · January 3, 2019

9 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

There definitely isn't a CPU bottleneck, even a 3770K will still run a GTX 1080 SLI.

My problem with your idea of getting another 1080Ti is that SLI in gaming is pretty dead at this point, so there is usually little to no point in getting SLI.

If you have a 4770K, and a Z87 or Z97 motherboard, your system will support SLI as long as your GPU does.

Why would monitor manufacturers make 5210x1440 displays? Where is the demand for that resolution?

Likely not happening.

At the high end, it doesn't really matter what CPU you get in the end. The 8700K doesn't have as much of a lead over the 2700X as people would have us believe, unless you overclock to 5Ghz or so.

Didn't the Hardware Canucks video prove that a i7-2600K did indeed bottleneck a 1080 Ti? Or is there really that much of a different between a 3rd gen and 2nd gen i7?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dHCQOt5Nns

Crunchy Dragon · January 3, 2019

1 minute ago, grss1982 said:

Didn't the Hardware Canucks video prove that a i7-2600K did indeed bottleneck a 1080 Ti? Or is there really that much of a different between a 3rd gen and 2nd gen i7?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dHCQOt5Nns

HWC did state that they had a bottleneck with the 2600K, that is correct.

Here's what UserBenchmark says: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-3770K/621vs1317

In HWC's video, they had a GPU bottleneck, and not a CPU bottleneck.

This is why there was more realistic performance difference between the 8700K and 2600K with a high end GPU such as a 1080Ti.

Long Live Sandy Bridge.