Will it bottlneck?

[charbel1011]

Will i7 8700k bottleneck rtx 2080 ti. at 3440x1440 resolution 100hz.

[Husky]

No, definitely not.

[PopsicleHustler]

No, it should be fine.

[Firewrath9]

no, not even really at 1080p, if you have max settings.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Maybe past 150-200FPS at 1080p it may see the CPU put up more of a fight to do more..
But that GPU is for 1440p High refresh (120-165hz) or better yet 4K 60-100fps,.... being more demanding to make use of it...without the CPU asking to waste cycles on 200+ FPS like 1080p would.

If your playing on 1080p panels, use RTX if available, or Nvidia DSR 4K to inject more details on screen making more use of the GPU.

You CPU is great "up to a point" but even saying that,... the 8700K is no slouch for Gaming,.. expect 150FPS+ at 1080p always or better in most games but the ever so broken "not meant for above 60" type games.

[Fasauceome]

Current gen high end components, not to mention expensive. Really should be a no brainier.

[bowrilla]

You can not not have a bottleneck. No matter what components you have, something will always (!) be maxed out earlier. When do people finally start to understand what the heck they're talking about. A 2080Ti at 1080p will always be bottlenecked, even by a 9900k or *insert next gen behemoth here*, at 1440p there will still be some bottleneck but a smaller one, at 4k the CPU will be bottlenecked because the GPU is limiting fps. Beyond those general things the specific load is very important. This is like asking "Will those tires bottleneck the performance of my car?" Well, if you have a 400bhp engine then 195 wide tires rated for a max speed of 180kph will probably limit the performance, yes. If you're in the US and are using the car for driving to the shops, then it won't matter.

 

It's really not rocket science. Just apply some common sense when choosing your hardware. If you want more details just look for comparisons and benchmarks by reputable tech bloggers and youtubers. 

 

There should be a drinking game: whenever "bottleneck" gets mentioned you take a shot.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

the CPU will be bottlenecked because the GPU is limiting fps.

CPUs don't get bottlenecked by the GPU because the CPU is not reliant on the GPU to do any work.

[Fasauceome]

3 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

CPUs don't get bottlenecked by the GPU because the CPU is not reliant on the GPU to do any work.

What is it called when you have unused CPU potential then? Obviously when a GPU is at less than 100% it's a bottleneck because the CPU can't keep up, but if the CPU is at less than 100% and the GPU can't keep up then how is that classified?

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

What is it called when you have unused CPU potential then? Obviously when a GPU is at less than 100% it's a bottleneck because the CPU can't keep up, but if the CPU is at less than 100% and the GPU can't keep up then how is that classified?

If you want to label something as a bottleneck, then it's software unable to give the CPU enough work in a slice of time.

 

But if you're paranoid that your hardware is not running at 100% for most use cases because you think having both run as close to 100% as possible is ideal, then I suggest running lower-end hardware.

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

If you want to label something as a bottleneck, then it's software unable to give the CPU enough work in a slice of time.

 

But if you're paranoid that your hardware is not running at 100% for most use cases because you think having both run as close to 100% as possible is ideal, then I suggest running lower-end hardware.

I mean, I've heard that 100% GPU usage is best, as well as low CPU usage (or just under a hundred), but while that's true as a super general rule, it leaves out important details like what the CPU and GPU are. For example, a GT 730 and an i9 9900k, there's an issue there in gaming. The GPU will be at 100%, not bottlenecking the CPU but bottlenecking the experience, trashing gaming performance. The user is the one waiting one the GPU to do its job, as opposed to the components.

 

Also running closer to 100% usage in a sense is a good idea honestly, an i7 8700k would be nice to have sometimes but if your library won't be needing all that CPU power then an 8400 would be great, save some money and get the same performance.

 

Ultimately I don't think it's inappropriate to classify bad GPU performance as a bottleneck, because it can't handle the tasks assigned to it fast enough to make the experience good.

[bowrilla]

13 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

But if you're paranoid that your hardware is not running at 100% for most use cases because you think having both run as close to 100% as possible is ideal, then I suggest running lower-end hardware.

That's basically the exact opposite of what I was saying ...

[Mira Yurizaki]

31 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

For example, a GT 730 and an i9 9900k, there's an issue there in gaming. The GPU will be at 100%, not bottlenecking the CPU but bottlenecking the experience, trashing gaming performance. The user is the one waiting one the GPU to do its job, as opposed to the components.

That's the most ideal situation to have here when it comes to resolving performance issues because the GPU is last in line to push frames out (I guess technically the monitor is, but let's leave that out for the sake of argument)

 

Quote

Also running closer to 100% usage in a sense is a good idea honestly, an i7 8700k would be nice to have sometimes but if your library won't be needing all that CPU power then an 8400 would be great, save some money and get the same performance.

This doesn't leave you with extra headroom in the future when a game that does use more CPU power during action packed scenes, causing it to slow down the overall experience.

 

Quote

Ultimately I don't think it's inappropriate to classify bad GPU performance as a bottleneck, because it can't handle the tasks assigned to it fast enough to make the experience good.

I'm not saying it's inappropriate to classify a bad GPU as a bottleneck. It is a bottleneck. What I'm saying is it's inappropriate to say the CPU is bottlenecked by the GPU. The GPU can't do anything until the CPU has done its work. But if the CPU is done with its work before the GPU is done, then the CPU will either spin or go off and do something else before it needs to run the game logic again. If GPU performance really did determine CPU performance, then something like run times of 3D Mark will vary based on GPU performance. Except 3DMark is a fixed-time benchmark.

 

23 minutes ago, bowrilla said:

That's basically the exact opposite of what I was saying ...

That statement was not meant to be taken seriously, but to point out the absurdity of the argument.

 

 

Anyway, bottlnecking is not a problem. It's a symptom of a problem. The root problem is "does the system provide the performance that the user wants?" If the answer is "yes", then we can go about our merry way. All finding a balance is doing is min-maxing the value proposition. I mean, if that's what the user wants too, then by all means, go for it. I don't expect nuggets to figure this out, especially with popular TechTubers not even explaining the thing very well, but the question that should really be asked here is something like "I have an i9-9900K with an RTX 2070, will I be able to get ## FPS at #### resolution in most games?"

[charbel1011]

1 minute ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

That's the most ideal situation to have here when it comes to resolving performance issues because the GPU is last in line to push frames out (I guess technically the monitor is, but let's leave that out for the sake of argument)

 

This doesn't leave you with extra headroom in the future when a game that does use more CPU power during action packed scenes, causing it to slow down the overall experience.

 

I'm not saying it's inappropriate to classify a bad GPU as a bottleneck. It is. What I'm saying is it's inappropriate to say the CPU is bottlenecked by the GPU. The GPU can't do anything until the CPU has done its work. But if the CPU is done with its work before the GPU is done, then the CPU will either spin or go off and do something else before it needs to run the game logic again. If GPU performance really did determine CPU performance, then something like run times of 3D Mark will vary based on GPU performance. Except 3DMark is a fixed-time benchmark.

 

That statement was not meant to be taken seriously, but to point out the absurdity of the argument.

 

 

Anyway, bottlnecking is not a problem. It's a symptom of a problem. The root problem is "does the system provide the performance that the user wants?" If the answer is "yes", then we can go about our merry way. All finding a balance is doing is min-maxing the value proposition. I mean, if that's what the user wants too, then by all means, go for it. I don't expect nuggets to figure this out, especially with popular TechTubers not even explaining the thing very well, but the question that should really be asked here is something like "I have an i9-9900K with an RTX 2070, will I be able to get ## FPS at #### resolution in most games?"

Sorry for asking a stupid question like that. I see a lot threads everyday about

people asking the same question to a level where it got me worried. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, charbel1011 said:

Sorry for asking a stupid question like that. I see a lot threads everyday about

people asking the same question to a level where it got me worried. 

There's no such thing as a stupid question if you aren't intimately familiar with the topic.

[bowrilla]

6 minutes ago, charbel1011 said:

Sorry for asking a stupid question like that. I see a lot threads everyday about

people asking the same question to a level where it got me worried. 

My statement wasn't against you, it was about the exact thing you already noticed: people asking the same question over and over and over again. 

[Mick Naughty]

At that res you would be good. Anything lower, cpu could struggle on some games. 

[charbel1011]

5 hours ago, bowrilla said:

My statement wasn't against you, it was about the exact thing you already noticed: people asking the same question over and over and over again. 

 

1 hour ago, Mick Naughty said:

At that res you would be good. Anything lower, cpu could struggle on some games. 

Yeah i understand now. Like getting a powerful gpu to play on 24 inch monitor 1080p of course there's gonna be some bottleneck. Because that gpu is made for higher and extreme resolutions? Am i getting the right picture in here?

[Mick Naughty]

2 minutes ago, charbel1011 said:

 

Yeah i understand now. Like getting a powerful gpu to play on 24 inch monitor 1080p of course there's gonna be some bottleneck. Because that gpu is made for higher and extreme resolutions? Am i getting the right picture in here?

Wouldn't say cards are made for certain resolutions, just scenarios. Like what card you think can push enough frames to use 240hz 1080p monitor properly?

Like my 8700k hitting low to mid 90% usage playing games on 1080p, if I had a stronger card than a gtx 1080 I could get some issues stutter wise.

But in your scenario, the parts should compliment themselves nicely.   

[charbel1011]

5 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

Wouldn't say cards are made for certain resolutions, just scenarios. Like what card you think can push enough frames to use 240hz 1080p monitor properly?

Like my 8700k hitting low to mid 90% usage playing games on 1080p, if I had a stronger card than a gtx 1080 I could get some issues stutter wise.

But in your scenario, the parts should compliment themselves nicely.   

Like as long as im not hitting the maximum frames i wont get a bottleneck?

[xg32]

8 hours ago, charbel1011 said:

.

at 100hz there's no cpu bottleneck in 99% of games on the 8700k

[Mick Naughty]

22 minutes ago, charbel1011 said:

Like as long as im not hitting the maximum frames i wont get a bottleneck?

As in if the cpu can keep up with the frames the card can produce. Wouldn't say theres a max.