How much does 1440p really rely on CPU or GPU

[ApexSutton31]

Hello all,

             Backstory info: I built my x299 PC in 2017 with a 7800x and a 1080ti. I was dumb and uninformed in thinking that you needed the expensive enthusiast platform from Intel at the time for gaming and streaming. I now know you don't, nor do I stream anymore. But now I have the equipment and I'm in the platform, so I'm thinking of sticking to the platform and just upgrading from there. 

 

Question: How much do higher resolutions actually rely on CPU usage compared to GPU usage? In my case, dual 1440p monitors. I'm thinking of moving up to the 10900x from Intel, since I'm already with the x299 platform. But I only got my 7800x up to 4.5GHz OC, because I don't feel comfortable deliding it to get better temps and higher clocks. So I'd rather update my BIOS, upgrade the CPU, and then sell the 7800x on eBay or FB Marketplace to recoup some money back for the upgrade. Would this upgrade even be worth it? I know the 10th gen base and boost clocks are higher and with better temps with soldered TIMs, I assume I'd be able to OC it fairly well with my Noctua NH-D15, possibly a 280 AIO in the future right? Thank you in advance!

[ApexSutton31]

Sorry, forgot to add in the question section. Would the CPU upgrade be worth it, or should I just wait and upgrade the GPU to the new 3000 series when they come out or if they don't announce anything Q3 or Q4 this year, upgrade to 2080ti?

[boggy77]

what games do you play? take the most played games and monitor cpu and gpu utilisations. use msi afterburner screen overlay for this.

if in most games you are 100% on gpu and 40-50% on cpu, wait for 3000 series and get a better gpu.

if your cpu is pinned at 100% (or 50% if the game can't take advantage of hyperthreading), and gpu doesn't go above 70%, upgrade that cpu.

so it's mostly up to the games you play, the quality you play them at the and fps you expect.

[Mister Woof]

Low resolutions require both a fast CPU and a fast GPU to give you high framerate

 

Higher resolutions require a fast GPU, and a fast enough CPU to send draw calls to the GPU, and a fast enough CPU to process the physics, network thread, etc.

 

The standard logic of, "is your CPU maxed out?" or, "is your GPU maxed out?" lack the minutiae of the dynamic nature of gaming. Which means sometimes even if on average, a slower CPU can power a fast GPU at higher resolution, it doesn't mean your frametimes and 0.1% lows aren't going to suck.

 

Basically IMO, in every scenario, you should buy the best CPU and GPU you can afford. Within reason, of course, with the knowledge that some performance doesn't scale perfectly and you hit diminishing returns at some point.

[ApexSutton31]

15 minutes ago, boggy77 said:

what games do you play? take the most played games and monitor cpu and gpu utilisations. use msi afterburner screen overlay for this.

if in most games you are 100% on gpu and 40-50% on cpu, wait for 3000 series and get a better gpu.

if your cpu is pinned at 100% (or 50% if the game can't take advantage of hyperthreading), and gpu doesn't go above 70%, upgrade that cpu.

so it's mostly up to the games you play, the quality you play them at the and fps you expect.

Yeah, I guess I always forget to ask that question first. Cuz I play mainly FPS games like CS and now Valorant, sometimes OW. So those can run on a potato. Lol. But I do play racing games like Dirt Rally, Forza 7, and occasionally single player games like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Witcher 3, stuff like that.

 

Yeah, I never do monitor my stuff unless I'm messing with clocks. So I guess you're right in that that's where I need to start first. Thanks for the reply brother!   

[ApexSutton31]

11 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Low resolutions require both a fast CPU and a fast GPU to give you high framerate

 

Higher resolutions require a fast GPU, and a fast enough CPU to send draw calls to the GPU, and a fast enough CPU to process the physics, network thread, etc.

 

The standard logic of, "is your CPU maxed out?" or, "is your GPU maxed out?" lack the minutiae of the dynamic nature of gaming. Which means sometimes even if on average, a slower CPU can power a fast GPU at higher resolution, it doesn't mean your frametimes and 0.1% lows aren't going to suck.

 

Basically IMO, in every scenario, you should buy the best CPU and GPU you can afford.

Yeah, I get that. That's what I thought was just matching you GPU performance to your CPU performance when it comes to gaming. And I guess in my case, the GPU and CPU are basically equal for the time they were produced. And the clock on my CPU is probably good enough for my Founder's Edition 1080ti, which I can't up the clocks anyway, cuz it'll probably roast itself to a crisp with its trash blower fan. Lol

 

Yeah, that's what I always thought, just buy what you can afford. But I have decent disposable income atm, so that's why I didn't really mention any sort of budget, honestly. Not flexing, cuz I'm not about to spend $1000 USD on a CPU I don't need, that's just dumb. Lol. I'm just saying how I was thinking about upgrading.

[Mister Woof]

5 minutes ago, ApexSutton31 said:

Yeah, I get that. That's what I thought was just matching you GPU performance to your CPU performance when it comes to gaming. And I guess in my case, the GPU and CPU are basically equal for the time they were produced. And the clock on my CPU is probably good enough for my Founder's Edition 1080ti, which I can't up the clocks anyway, cuz it'll probably roast itself to a crisp with its trash blower fan. Lol

 

Yeah, that's what I always thought, just buy what you can afford. But I have decent disposable income atm, so that's why I didn't really mention any sort of budget, honestly. Not flexing, cuz I'm not about to spend $1000 USD on a CPU I don't need, that's just dumb. Lol. I'm just saying how I was thinking about upgrading.

Personally, I feel buying a fast CPU is more important than a fast GPU. Everything you do runs through your CPU, not just gaming, and it is also the most involved component to replace since it usually involves not only replacing the CPU, but motherboard, memory, OS keys, and software installations.

 

In addition, if you buy a powerful CPU, you are most likely able to expect it to be able to power a few generations of GPU, whereas GPUs are really disposable and the first thing you upgrade in your system.

 

For example, back in 2017, i ALMOST got a Ryzen 7 1700 instead of my 8700k. It was slightly cheaper, would at that time have run any game at 1440p with a GTX 1080 class GPU, but I decided to get the 8700k. People laughed at me and said I was wasting my money and should just get a 1600.

 

Who's laughing now, 3 years later and the 8700k still matches or beats the Ryzen 9 3900x at gaming, let alone the old 1700? The extra $200 up front not only gave me years of better performance, but allowed me to skip an entire generation of upgrades.

 

Obviously there's no guarantee to longevity, but at the very least you have the data at that time to go off of.

[ApexSutton31]

56 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Personally, I feel buying a fast CPU is more important than a fast GPU. Everything you do runs through your CPU, not just gaming, and it is also the most involved component to replace since it usually involves not only replacing the CPU, but motherboard, memory, OS keys, and software installations.

 

In addition, if you buy a powerful CPU, you are most likely able to expect it to be able to power a few generations of GPU, whereas GPUs are really disposable and the first thing you upgrade in your system.

 

For example, back in 2017, i ALMOST got a Ryzen 7 1700 instead of my 8700k. It was slightly cheaper, would at that time have run any game at 1440p with a GTX 1080 class GPU, but I decided to get the 8700k. People laughed at me and said I was wasting my money and should just get a 1600.

 

Who's laughing now, 3 years later and the 8700k still matches or beats the Ryzen 9 3900x at gaming, let alone the old 1700? The extra $200 up front not only gave me years of better performance, but allowed me to skip an entire generation of upgrades.

 

Obviously there's no guarantee to longevity, but at the very least you have the data at that time to go off of.

Yeah, that's true. But thankfully, if I do upgrade, Intel was nice enough to FINALLY continue a platform with x299, instead of making you buy all new everything for a CPU 6 months newer. Lol. Most likely only cuz of the tension from AMD though, if we're honest. So I would just have to update BIOS and buy the new CPU personally, which is why I'm kind of happy to be with the x299 platform right now. But yeah, you're right about the CPU being the most vital to your system and the GPU is most quickly and easily upgraded every one to two years. If you're one of those early adopters that is. Lol

 

But yeah, you're right on that. Really like what AMD is showing with Ryzen and what they're doing to shake up the consumer market and even the enterprise space of recent. But yeah, you made the right call on the 8700k, especially for gaming, since it's mainly based on speed and single or two core performance. But yeah, I'll be doing some more personal research and thinking before I make my decision. 

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, ApexSutton31 said:

Yeah, that's true. But thankfully, if I do upgrade, Intel was nice enough to FINALLY continue a platform with x299, instead of making you buy all new everything for a CPU 6 months newer. Lol. Most likely only cuz of the tension from AMD though, if we're honest. So I would just have to update BIOS and buy the new CPU personally, which is why I'm kind of happy to be with the x299 platform right now. But yeah, you're right about the CPU being the most vital to your system and the GPU is most quickly and easily upgraded every one to two years. If you're one of those early adopters that is. Lol

 

But yeah, you're right on that. Really like what AMD is showing with Ryzen and what they're doing to shake up the consumer market and even the enterprise space of recent. But yeah, you made the right call on the 8700k, especially for gaming, since it's mainly based on speed and single or two core performance. But yeah, I'll be doing some more personal research and thinking before I make my decision. 

I wouldn't buy anything right now, though. We're at the EOL for Intel 14nm essentially, and Ryzen's 7nm 3000 isn't really better than Intel in practice outside of price/performance and efficiency.

 

Ryzen 4000 will likely be the next big thing, and once its performance has been verified, I would buy the best Ryzen 4000 I could afford when it first comes out and ride it out for as long as possible.

[ApexSutton31]

12 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

I wouldn't buy anything right now, though. We're at the EOL for Intel 14nm essentially, and Ryzen's 7nm 3000 isn't really better than Intel in practice outside of price/performance and efficiency.

 

Ryzen 4000 will likely be the next big thing, and once its performance has been verified, I would buy the best Ryzen 4000 I could afford when it first comes out and ride it out for as long as possible.

Yeah, that's the other factor I was considering. Intel's finally being pushed hard by AMD, so we should see some good come from them here soon. I think I'm just getting the ich for something new. Cuz the 1080ti does well enough for 1440p, but I would like better. But knowing that Nvidia's 3000 series are most likely going to be at the very least announced the end of this year, I can't bring myself to go for the 2080ti as the logical upgrade for the right now. So I'll just have to be smart and wait. Lol

 

Yeah, I'm really wanting to see how their 4000 Ryzens turn out. Then I can give myself a stupid excuse to sell off my x299 or give it to my mother for her stuff and build myself a new system, cuz like cars, I'm dumb and always want to do something new and fresh. Lol

[fishingbrick]

You would need quite a fast cpu to not bottleneck a gpu with the required amount of power to run 1440p. Faster cpu would be more important, but dont skimp out on your gpu as well.