Bottleneck!? seems like everyone misunderstood its meaning?

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

Dont know why bottlenecking has become sooo common these 2 years, and everyone seems to be afraid of it.

"does my xxx bottleneck yyy?" "always yes/ depend..." sounds scary huh,

 

actually it is not a bad thing!

lets take a extreme example upgrade a potato pc, eg core 2 duo & gt9800 (old enough?) to a RTX2080ti first.

sure there is heavy bottle neck, but it also means theres so much headroom for more gpu intensive tasks.

in some extend it means futureproof to me

 

the great thing in building PC is you can choose when and what to upgrade your PC and get "greatest" bottleneck you can afford.

 

sure if you are planning to build a new pc from scratch, you dont want any serious bottlenecks to begin with. but why not get some overpowered CPU/gpu first ?

 

 

[.Apex.]

10 minutes ago, PacketMan said:

Anyway, you'll have always a bottleneck because the system works as fast as the slowest component, it's like a road with just 1 lane, you'll go as fast as the slowest of the cars in front of you

great analogy

[FloRolf]

Imho a GPU is only "Future proof" in terms of bottlenecking when even the highest end CPU still can't kelp up with It. Meaning that unless there are new CPUs, a new GPU brings no benefit. A 2080Ti together with a Core 2 Duo doesn't spark future proof to me. It just sparks stupid. 

[Ansuex]

But are there no games that can play on the most crappy cpu but need a very powerfull graphics card?

[thinwalrus]

4 minutes ago, Ansuex said:

But are there no games that can play on the most crappy cpu but need a very powerfull graphics card?

Well just wait for 8K tv:s

 

2080ti sli with ryzen 3 1200 and no cpu bottleneck.

[Ansuex]

Oke lets assume the guy likes to play World of Warcraft on a Core 2Quad, that 2080ti is probably still going to make a difference over a GTX280 for example..

[191x7]

People just get the whole idea wrong.

 

Bottlenecking occurs when a PC part has to wait for the other part so the data transfer or data processing gets stalled/waited for.

 

If a CPU can prepare 60 frames per second but the GPU can render 100 in the second, the GPU does those 60 and sits idle some 40% of the time.

Most game engines have uncapped frame rates meaning the CPU does not have to wait for something (it can work as hard as it can).

Some applications allow the GPU to sync to the CPU too, so the CPU should wait for something from the GPU, and in those rare cases, there might be a GPU to CPU bottleneck.

In most gamer cases the CPU is the bottleneck to the GPU since we want the best GPU we can have and want it to be properly utilized.

 

A 100% percent strong card utilized at 30% is roughly the same as a 30% strong card utilized 100%.

That's why an FX 8350 at 4GHz paired with a GTX 1050 Ti has the same performance when paired with a GTX 1080 in CPU-heavy games like Battlefield V MP.

[jones177]

Hi

 

My take on bottlenecking.

 

Bottlenecking has only become a thing since high refresh rate monitors have become popular.

 

When 60hz monitors were king, all you had to do was to put a rig together that could main 60fps in your game and you won. Anything over 60fps you could convert into higher settings.

 

Now if you look at the Displays forum, most people are trying to decide what high refresh rate monitor to get and 99.9% of them don't have the hardware to support one. The most popular is 1440p 144hz. I have one and I know that even my RTX 2080 ti with my i7 8086k are not capable of running one in all the games I play. I always see a GPU bottleneck.

 

 That is why playing at 4k 60hz is more satisfying to me since it is obtainable with hardware that exists today. 1440p 144hz is not. 

 

If we were all playing at 60hz all the CPU we would ever need is a R5 1600x. The R5 1600x gets a single core Cinebench score of 151. Any CPU that has that score or better that has 6 cores is a winner at 60hz. But we are playing at 144hz. For that we need higher IPC to feed the beast. Now we are looking at Intel 6 core chips that can run at 5ghz and they are barely adequate for the job. My i7 8086k and a i9 9900k have a single core Cinebench score of 220. I know that I need at least a score of 250 to win at 144hz. There are no CPUs on the market today that come close to doing that.

 

So with a 144hz 1440p monitor bottlenecking is not going away for a very long time.   

 

Games will never use all your CPU. The only application that I use that uses 100% of the CPU is 3D Max when doing a CPU render using the Nvidia Mental Ray renderer. When it is rendering the computer is not usable. The only way to use the computer is to stop the rendering. Even accessing its drives over a network takes minutes, not seconds.

Games use a certain amount of a CPU. On an old game like Skyrim it uses one core. On a R5 1600x that is about 17% CPU usage. Going over 17% and you lose frame rate just like you lose frame rate at 100% GPU. Modern games use more CPU but high usage still = lower frame rate. 

 

A GPU at 100% has no resources if an event happens in a game and games are all about events. This was not an issue with a desant rig and a 60hz monitor. Now we are going for the unobtainable 144hz. Our GPUs are screaming at 100% and we are getting stutter because our GPUs have no place to go but down when events occur. They way around it is to clamp frame rate so we have some overhead to manage events but how many of us do that?