bottleneck calculator

[HardStroke]

is the bottleneck calculator thats on https://pc-builds.com/calculator/ is really that trash?

i know that bottleneck calculators are not really a thing since every game/workload has its own cpu and gpu priorities but this site is really strange.

before the site got updated to its new look and intel's 10th gen desktop cpus i checked for the bottleneck percentage of my i5 3550 and rtx 2080 and while the cpu is overclocked to the max (without overclocking the socket, just the cpu) i got around 46% bottleneck.

also i see now that it says that with a 3700x at stock ill get a 0.001% average bottleneck while before it was like 70% or something like that

and that site suggested me a 960 for my i5 3550 with a 1% or 2% bottleneck and now it says that the best card for my cpu is a 750 ti and that the 960 is too strong for it with a 19% bottleneck...

now after i checked the site it shows me that theres a 100% percent bottleneck and it shows me the average fps and settings which is SO NOT TRUE (all games are on 1080p until i get a new cpu,mb,ram and monitor :))

for example, it says that on gta v i would get 53 fps on medium settings and in reality, i get 70-85 fps on max settings.

also on apex legends it says that ill get 49 average fps on high and i actually get 80+

and above all that, it says the a 10700k (planned cpu) will work better with a 2070 then with a 2080.    WHAT????

BRUH

is this site that bad?????

does anyone know if they actually test the hardware or do they just randomly put numbers out there.

 

[svmlegacy]

4 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

<snip>

It doesn't even ask for the refresh rate you expect. How can one number express all use cases?

[GDRRiley]

they all suck and is just BS

[Eighjan]

5 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

is the bottleneck calculator thats on https://pc-builds.com/calculator/ is really that trash?

i know that bottleneck calculators are not really a thing since every game/workload has its own cpu and gpu priorities but this site is really strange.

before the site got updated to its new look and intel's 10th gen desktop cpus i checked for the bottleneck percentage of my i5 3550 and rtx 2080 and while the cpu is overclocked to the max (without overclocking the socket, just the cpu) i got around 46% bottleneck.

also i see now that it says that with a 3700x at stock ill get a 0.001% average bottleneck while before it was like 70% or something like that

and that site suggested me a 960 for my i5 3550 with a 1% or 2% bottleneck and now it says that the best card for my cpu is a 750 ti and that the 960 is too strong for it with a 19% bottleneck...

now after i checked the site it shows me that theres a 100% percent bottleneck and it shows me the average fps and settings which is SO NOT TRUE (all games are on 1080p until i get a new cpu,mb,ram and monitor :))

for example, it says that on gta v i would get 53 fps on medium settings and in reality, i get 70-85 fps on max settings.

also on apex legends it says that ill get 49 average fps on high and i actually get 80+

and above all that, it says the a 10700k (planned cpu) will work better with a 2070 then with a 2080.    WHAT????

BRUH

is this site that bad?????

does anyone know if they actually test the hardware or do they just randomly put numbers out there.

 

Simpler way to work out if you even HAVE a bottleneck is to load the system up & look at something like HWiNFO64... the harder working component - out of CPU & graphics - is the most likely to be a bottleneck.

[dizmo]

So you start your post off with saying you know it's BS, and then ask questions about it?
You basically already answered any question you had. They're useless.

[LIGISTX]

6 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

is the bottleneck calculator thats on https://pc-builds.com/calculator/ is really that trash?

i know that bottleneck calculators are not really a thing since every game/workload has its own cpu and gpu priorities but this site is really strange.

before the site got updated to its new look and intel's 10th gen desktop cpus i checked for the bottleneck percentage of my i5 3550 and rtx 2080 and while the cpu is overclocked to the max (without overclocking the socket, just the cpu) i got around 46% bottleneck.

also i see now that it says that with a 3700x at stock ill get a 0.001% average bottleneck while before it was like 70% or something like that

and that site suggested me a 960 for my i5 3550 with a 1% or 2% bottleneck and now it says that the best card for my cpu is a 750 ti and that the 960 is too strong for it with a 19% bottleneck...

now after i checked the site it shows me that theres a 100% percent bottleneck and it shows me the average fps and settings which is SO NOT TRUE (all games are on 1080p until i get a new cpu,mb,ram and monitor :))

for example, it says that on gta v i would get 53 fps on medium settings and in reality, i get 70-85 fps on max settings.

also on apex legends it says that ill get 49 average fps on high and i actually get 80+

and above all that, it says the a 10700k (planned cpu) will work better with a 2070 then with a 2080.    WHAT????

BRUH

is this site that bad?????

does anyone know if they actually test the hardware or do they just randomly put numbers out there.

 

Yes, that site sucks. But also... you have a 3550 and a RTX 2080. That is a massive bottleneck............ thats an extremely unbalanced system.

 

But yea, its garbage. Bottlenecks are "difficult to explain and difficult to convey". Every CPU will bottleneck a system to some degree, thats just how it works... Here is a bit of an extremely example to put it into perspective.

 

Say you get a RTX 2060 super, and a, well, i5 3550. You will have a pretty serious bottlebeck. If you pair that GPU with say a AMD 3600, you will gain A LOT of FPS, but, that 3600 is still a bottle neck... You WILL get more FPS with a 10900k @ all core 5.3 GHz. Thus, you can argue, the Ryzen 3600 is a bottle neck. The question is, is it an acceptable bottleneck. Will spending 400 dollars more on the CPU and better mobo with the 10900k result in more FPS, yes it will, at 1080p, maybe 10-15% more, but it doens't make a lot of sense to pair those together. You could get a RTX 2070 super for less money than that CPU/mobo upgrade, and get more than 10-15% performance bump vs the 2060 super.

 

So, yes, bottle necks exist. But you have to figure out what is "acceptable". In your case, I assume your getting half, at most, of what a RTX 2080 can provide, especially at 1080p. Higher resolution would help you some, since it would move the load off the CPU and onto the GPU (CPU works less hard when your FPS drops due to resolution, it has to worry about pumping out less draw calls etc).

 

Anyways, hope this explanation helps some.

[xg32]

i boil it down to "the maximum fps X cpu can output in Y game, if your target fps>X then there's a cpu bottleneck"

 

The calculator doesn't ask the target fps nor game....

 

I don't consider the gpu at first as it simplifies the problem.

 

For example for a fast moving zoomed in scene in detroit, i actually got 50fps and 100% cpu usage in 4k, clearly a cpu bottleneck, i lowered it down to 1440p and it still did 50fps with lower gpu usage and 100% cpu usage, still a cpu bottleneck.

 

My settings with a 9900k also caps out at below 144fps 1% lows in division 2 and ACO, with 100% cpu usage, no matter the resolution.

 

So the question usually becomes, "is there a cpu bottleneck on apex legend at 240hz?" yes.

 

There are also cpu bottlenecks from just having a slower cpu, which i sorta accept before buying the cpu

 

 

[HardStroke]

23 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Yes, that site sucks. But also... you have a 3550 and a RTX 2080. That is a massive bottleneck............ thats an extremely unbalanced system.

 

But yea, its garbage. Bottlenecks are "difficult to explain and difficult to convey". Every CPU will bottleneck a system to some degree, thats just how it works... Here is a bit of an extremely example to put it into perspective.

 

Say you get a RTX 2060 super, and a, well, i5 3550. You will have a pretty serious bottlebeck. If you pair that GPU with say a AMD 3600, you will gain A LOT of FPS, but, that 3600 is still a bottle neck... You WILL get more FPS with a 10900k @ all core 5.3 GHz. Thus, you can argue, the Ryzen 3600 is a bottle neck. The question is, is it an acceptable bottleneck. Will spending 400 dollars more on the CPU and better mobo with the 10900k result in more FPS, yes it will, at 1080p, maybe 10-15% more, but it doens't make a lot of sense to pair those together. You could get a RTX 2070 super for less money than that CPU/mobo upgrade, and get more than 10-15% performance bump vs the 2060 super.

 

So, yes, bottle necks exist. But you have to figure out what is "acceptable". In your case, I assume your getting half, at most, of what a RTX 2080 can provide, especially at 1080p. Higher resolution would help you some, since it would move the load off the CPU and onto the GPU (CPU works less hard when your FPS drops due to resolution, it has to worry about pumping out less draw calls etc).

 

Anyways, hope this explanation helps some.

i know that this combo is pretty bad but for now it actually shreds pretty much every game at the max quality possible with above 80-90 fps for heavy titles and 150+ of basic title

my old gpu was a gtx 650 and it was bottlenecking my i5 3550 really bad.

i got 60 average fps on csgo and now i get 250+ and it it a cpu intensive game

before i got my 2080 i thought about getting a 1660 super which will also be bottlenecked by my cpu but then i realized that i wouldn't want to pair a 10700k/ high end cpu with a budget card like a 1660 super.

i got a 2080 aorus for a really good price so i thought why not go for it if ill be buying a 10700k in one month

it was either getting a 10700k with a z490 vision g and a freaking gtx 650 (or game on intel's hd graphics which is kinda ok for csgo but not for other games) or get a 2080 aorus for a really good price and pair it my i5 3550 clocked at 3.9ghz-4ghz all cores (yes) z77x d3h combo. i overclocked both the cpu and the ram. im sure i can get a stable 4ghz+ overclock just to help the i5 keep with the 2080 since its pretty much the best thing i can do without upgrading since it has 4c/4t but its really pointless.

if my upgrade plan wont go as planned ill probably be using this combo for the next 3 years or so.

while i play warzone on ultra-high settings (even with ray tracing) the cpu is at a constant 100% usage and the 2080 is at 10%-15%. when i plug it to a 4k tv its at 30%-40% usage.

 

[HardStroke]

41 minutes ago, dizmo said:

So you start your post off with saying you know it's BS, and then ask questions about it?
You basically already answered any question you had. They're useless.

i said i know that they cant really be a thing but i want to know is they are really THAT trash since they do exist

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

i said i know that they cant really be a thing but i want to know is they are really THAT trash since they do exist

Just because something exists doesn't mean it's worth anything.

[LIGISTX]

32 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

i know that this combo is pretty bad but for now it actually shreds pretty much every game at the max quality possible with above 80-90 fps for heavy titles and 150+ of basic title

my old gpu was a gtx 650 and it was bottlenecking my i5 3550 really bad.

i got 60 average fps on csgo and now i get 250+ and it it a cpu intensive game

before i got my 2080 i thought about getting a 1660 super which will also be bottlenecked by my cpu but then i realized that i wouldn't want to pair a 10700k/ high end cpu with a budget card like a 1660 super.

i got a 2080 aorus for a really good price so i thought why not go for it if ill be buying a 10700k in one month

it was either getting a 10700k with a z490 vision g and a freaking gtx 650 (or game on intel's hd graphics which is kinda ok for csgo but not for other games) or get a 2080 aorus for a really good price and pair it my i5 3550 clocked at 3.9ghz-4ghz all cores (yes) z77x d3h combo. i overclocked both the cpu and the ram. im sure i can get a stable 4ghz+ overclock just to help the i5 keep with the 2080 since its pretty much the best thing i can do without upgrading since it has 4c/4t but its really pointless.

if my upgrade plan wont go as planned ill probably be using this combo for the next 3 years or so.

while i play warzone on ultra-high settings (even with ray tracing) the cpu is at a constant 100% usage and the 2080 is at 10%-15%. when i plug it to a 4k tv its at 30%-40% usage.

 

I think your using the word bottleneck in a bit of a wrong way. A 1660 super wouldn't "bottleneck" your CPU. That CPU will "bottleneck" a 1660 super.... But a 1660 isn't a very high end card, so I don't disagree with your option on buying a nice card, but that said.... you are leaving a lot of performance on the table, and I am sure your frame times are not good, even if your FPS is decent.

 

TLDR; I would seriously look at a new CPU. Or, if you can find a 2070 for a good price, sell your 2080 and your mobo/ram/CPU, and get the 2070 and a newer CPU, even a 6700k with a ~4.6 GHz OC would be a fantastic option to go with a 2070. Should be able to find a 6700k for a great price on the used market. Or, if you can find a 8700k, thats even better. A 5 GHz 8700k is still one of the best gaming CPU's out there. 

[HardStroke]

37 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

A 1660 super wouldn't "bottleneck" your CPU. That CPU will "bottleneck" a 1660 super....

a 10700k wont bottleneck a 1660 super...

read what i wrote

i was looking for a good gpu for my next cpu upgrade, thats in the meantime, will be paired wth my i5 3550.

37 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

TLDR; I would seriously look at a new CPU. Or, if you can find a 2070 for a good price, sell your 2080 and your mobo/ram/CPU, and get the 2070 and a newer CPU, even a 6700k with a ~4.6 GHz OC would be a fantastic option to go with a 2070. Should be able to find a 6700k for a great price on the used market. Or, if you can find a 8700k, thats even better. A 5 GHz 8700k is still one of the best gaming CPU's out there. 

again, read what i wrote dude

im not selling a month old 2080 aorus that i got for a super good price for any 2070 and a new trio set.

getting a 5 year old 6700k with 4c/8t????

im also editing on my pc so that would be probably the worst thing i could buy. rather just buy a ryzen 5 3600 and b550/x570 mb.

oh yeah, i live in israel, small country, not really the place to look for second hand parts.

the second hand market here is really really weak and almost non existent (in terms of pc parts)

best second hand cpu that saw was a 4790 in a full system, not by itself

i looked for a couple of 1080 ti models before i got my 2080 and i was disappointed with the prices that people sell them at.

i will be selling my entire pc (excluding the new psu, gpu, storage and cooling)  so i will put back the stock intel cooler, the gtx 650, and the old cm gx 550w bronze

im actually looking at prices right now and im probably going with this setup:

i7 10700kf

gigabyte vision g 

vengeance 16gb (2x8gb) 3600mhz cl18

of course, using my 2080 in this build with the new antec hcg gold 850w psu that i bought with it.

and my 2 hdds and ssd

 

i will be running the 10700kf at a 5ghz+ overclock

[xg32]

18 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

 

i7 10700kf

gigabyte vision g 

vengeance 16gb (2x8gb) 3600mhz cl18

of course, using my 2080 in this build with the new antec hcg gold 850w psu that i bought with it.

and my 2 hdds and ssd

 

i will be running the 10700kf at a 5ghz+ overclock

i'd go with trident z neo, they are almost always faster than corsair's stuff, unless you are going for a certain look, motherboard quality has improve tremendously since z390/x470 and memory with super tight tunes do offer more performance than anything ur cpu can do once you push it to 5ghz (i'd aim higher anyway since all 10th gen can hit 5ghz)

[LIGISTX]

26 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

a 10700k wont bottleneck a 1660 super...

read what i wrote

I read what you wrote, and I responded with a 1660 will be bottleneck by a 3550 "A 1660 super wouldn't "bottleneck" your CPU. That CPU will "bottleneck" a 1660 super...." What I am saying here is your CPU is very, very under powered. And a 1660 super wouldn't "bottleneck" it, the 3350 will bottle the 1660 super....

 

26 minutes ago, HardStroke said:

again, read what i wrote dude

im not selling a month old 2080 aorus that i got for a super good price for any 2070 and a new trio set.

getting a 5 year old 6700k with 4c/8t????

I did read what you wrote, and you said if your upgrade doesn't go as planned you will keep this for 3 years. You will be MUCH better off selling your 2080, mobo, CPU, and RAM, for a 2070, and a used CPU/mobo/RAM setup. Yes, you will have a 2070 instead of a 2080, but you will get MUCH more FPS, and your rendering times will go down in a huge way. So I am responding to "if I don't upgrade, I will stick with this for 3 years" with, "sell the 2080 while you can get good money for it, get a 2070, and then upgrade the other parts to be modern as well"

 

A 6700k @ 4.6 GHz would be a massive upgrade for gaming, AND rending for you, and you can likely find them for decently cheap. Israel is certainly small, but that also means you can drive across the entire country looking for parts..... my point is, your CPU is a massive hinderance to everything. If selling the 2080 gives you enough money to upgrade the CPU to a used Intel part 6700k or newer, or a new Ryzen CPU 3600 or better, do that. 

 

Yes, a 6700k is older, thus the looking on the used market... Look at ebay, im sure there are plenty for good prices.

 

Don't assume I am not reading your posts because I am giving you advice you don't agree with, its just an opinion, and I am giving you suggestions that will lead to more FPS in games, and more general performance, including rendering :).

 

Yes, if you can get the 10700, thats a fantastic option. I was simply responding to the "if I can't upgrade I am going to use this for 3 years" bit.

[HardStroke]

5 hours ago, xg32 said:

i'd go with trident z neo, they are almost always faster than corsair's stuff, unless you are going for a certain look, motherboard quality has improve tremendously since z390/x470 and memory with super tight tunes do offer more performance than anything ur cpu can do once you push it to 5ghz (i'd aim higher anyway since all 10th gen can hit 5ghz)

pretty much, trident z is really expensive in israel and the there are not a lot of options

the cheapest is 200 dollars and thats a 16gb 3200mhz cl16 and too expensive and not really worth it.

i rather just buy a good quality corsair 3200mhz cl16 since corsair is kind of the go to ram company.

i really dont care about looks.

yes, i would cable manage the new build like mad but i dont really care about the colors.

if colors were my main concern i wouldn't go with a white mb and while the rest of the build is black

[Nena Trinity]

Honestly they should be sued... OwO 

[xg32]

4 hours ago, HardStroke said:

 

if colors were my main concern i wouldn't go with a white mb and while the rest of the build is black

msi had a white mobo once, i think it was the b350 tomahawk? always sold out, wonder if it's a pain in the ass to make them a certain color. 

[HardStroke]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

msi had a white mobo once, i think it was the b350 tomahawk? always sold out, wonder if it's a pain in the ass to make them a certain color. 

manufacturers really need to make more white mbs and more white gpu shrouds.

if the 2080 aorus had a white edition it could of been amazing and i would buy it but they dont have one  

[LOST TALE]

The way it should work is use cpu usage on each game * passmark cpu score, to know max fps with the CPU. and then tell you that, the rest is up to you, just lower fps for res or details to match if needed.