Bottleneck Calculators and CPU-Bottlenecking a Titan RTX

[GuruMeditationError]

I'm finalising a build that - for aesthetic reasons - showcases a Titan RTX as its centrepiece (and so the Titan RTX is not going to be upgraded at any point) and I could use some CPU recommendations.

I want to pair the Titan RTX with a processor that will give it all of the overhead it can possibly use, so that the Titan RTX is basically the bottleneck in the system.

Currently it's paired with an i5-10600K and https://pc-builds.com's Bottleneck Calculator is telling me that the CPU is bottlenecked by the GPU by the following percentages at the following resolutions:

 

1080p            0.7% GPU Bottleneck

1440p            2.54% GPU Bottleneck

2160p (4k)     4.33% GPU Bottleneck 


Are bottleneck calculators really completely and totally useless...?...or is the above a reasonable guideline of how much the CPU is bottlenecked?

If I can't trust the calculators, which CPU should I opt for?

It's a Z490 intel platform (Gigabyte Z490 AORUS Elite AC) that gives the following CPU upgrade options:

Rocket Lake
Core i9-11900K
Core i7-11700K
Core i5-11600K

Comet Lake
Core i9-10900K 
Core i9-10850K 
Core i7-10700K 

PCIe 4.0 Support isn't a requirement & the system has 32GB of DDR4 RAM

Do I need to upgrade the i5-10600K to give the Titan RTX clear overhead and if so, which of the above should I upgrade to...?...or would it require an even more powerful CPU? (I'm not looking to change platforms at this point but if that's necessary I'd probably do so).

[Fasauceome]

21 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

Are bottleneck calculators really completely and totally useless...?.

Correct.

 

For example, what do any of those percentages even represent in the real world? What are the implications if I'm playing Rainbow 6 Siege at medium graphics at 4K? It's a meaningless number.

 

If you're going to be predominantly gaming, I don't recommend an i9 for your current Z490 motherboard. An i7 will be suitable, paired with some reasonably fast memory (yes, memory speed, yet another thing the bottleneck calculator does not take into account)

[Chris Pratt]

Bottleneck calculators are garbage. There's far too many variables to just plug in two things and say one bottlenecks the other. However, FWIW, it's telling you in all cases that the *GPU* is the bottleneck, not the CPU. The best indicator there is that the percentage increases with resolution, as that shifts it more to being GPU bound.

 

Regardless, no CPU made in the last couple of years is going to be a bottleneck for a Titan RTX. 

[8-Bit Ninja]

Bottlenecking is a term a lot of people don't properly understand. Games differ massively on CPU vs GPU load, meaning you might max your GPU out in one game with CPU usage at 50% and vice versa in another game. 

 

It boils down to a simple question, are you archiving the desired resolution, FPS and graphical settings in your games, if the answer is yes then there's no point upgrading, even if your CPU is bottlenecking, if the answer is no and you can see through monitoring usage that your CPU is holding you back then I'd go with one of the I7's

 

[Lemtea]

Bottleneck calculator, just no. Single thread performance is king for gaming as titles slowly begin to use more than four threads. Keep in mind cpu bottlenecks only really happen in high fps scenarios so in most cases it isn't noticable.

[GuruMeditationError]

15 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

If you're going to be predominantly gaming, I don't recommend an i9 for your current Z490 motherboard. An i7 will be suitable, paired with some reasonably fast memory (yes, memory speed, yet another thing the bottleneck calculator does not take into account)

How so? I thought it might be due to them having faster cores but the architecture also counts? Is it just a cost to performance thing or something else?

Also, yeah, my RAM runs at 4000Mhz
 

11 minutes ago, 8-Bit Ninja said:

...if [...] you can see through monitoring usage that your CPU is holding you back then I'd go with one of the I7's

 

Why an i7 rather than an i9? I'm not clear on why an i7 would be better. Is it just a value for money thing or are they actually faster for gaming?

[8-Bit Ninja]

58 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

How so? I thought it might be due to them having faster cores but the architecture also counts? Is it just a cost to performance thing or something else?

Also, yeah, my RAM runs at 4000Mhz
 

Why an i7 rather than an i9? I'm not clear on why an i7 would be better. Is it just a value for money thing or are they actually faster for gaming?

Mainly cost, but fewer cores and a lower TDP means they should boost higher. An 8 core for gaming currently is already overkill, clock speed matters more once you're past 6 cores 

[GuruMeditationError]

12 minutes ago, 8-Bit Ninja said:

Mainly cost, but fewer cores and a lower TDP means they should boost higher. An 8 core for gaming currently is already overkill, clock speed matters more once you're past 6 cores 

Thanks, I just can't help looking at the gaming benchmarks for Rocket Lake and thinking I could get a 20 to 30 fps boost. 

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, GuruMeditationError said:

I thought it might be due to them having faster cores but the architecture also counts?

it's just more cores that you don't need (or in the case of the 11900K, slightly faster clock speeds that don't really impact the gaming experience)

 

so it's not that the i7 is better performance, but much better value, if that's something that concerns you

[GuruMeditationError]

Just now, Fasauceome said:

it's just more cores that you don't need (or in the case of the 11900K, slightly faster clock speeds that don't really impact the gaming experience)

 

so it's not that the i7 is better performance, but much better value, if that's something that concerns you

More concerned about performance but I typically buy on the second hand market once everyone migrates, so the cost should be mitigated.

The thing is I can't help looking at the gaming benchmarks in the reviews and thinking 11900k might be a worthwhile proposition to delay the inevitable motherboard, RAM, CPU upgrade. I've read that Alder Lake-S may be here as soon as the end of this year and may support DDR5...I've only just upgraded to DDR4. 

[Fasauceome]

16 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

The thing is I can't help looking at the gaming benchmarks in the reviews and thinking 11900k might be a worthwhile proposition to delay the inevitable motherboard, RAM, CPU upgrade.

When it comes to a generation becoming obsolete and in need of upgrade, you rarely get one CPU with slightly faster clocks still relevant while the slightly slower variant is not. The difference with the 10900K, on the other hand, is 2 extra cores so you might consider that instead.

[GuruMeditationError]

2 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

When it comes to a generation becoming obsolete and in need of upgrade, you rarely get one CPU with slightly faster clocks still relevant while the slightly slower variant is not. The difference with the 10900K, on the other hand, is 2 extra cores so you might consider that instead.

I guess so...I hadn't looked at it that way. Thanks.

Although, all I'm using the PC for is gaming so more cores isn't really going to benefit me too much? 

[xg32]

17 minutes ago, GuruMeditationError said:

.

bottleneck calculators are indeed useless

 

one way to look at it is %bottleneck when compared to the fastest cpus, thankfully there are enough benchmarks on youtube to get a feel for that, mainly from hardware unboxed and gamers nexus. there were also a buncha cpu benchmarks with the 3080 and 3090 from last year.

 

whether u need more cores is dependent on the game, in general for a new build i'd no longer recommend a 6 core  though it's still sufficient for most games.

 

For example the 10600k is a minor bottleneck for cyberpunk but is not a problem at all for the other 95% of the games. Some other games that tend to use more than 6 cores is any ubisoft titles, hitman and MSFS, just on top of my head, and it really isn't something i'd worry about outside of minmaxing. Even if you get a 5900x it's at most a 10-15% improveemnt in 1% lows and only in certain games and resolution.

 

I have a 4.3 profile and a 5.2 profile for gaming depending on the game, and 90% of the time im on the 4.3

 

This is a pretty good guesstimate of current cpu bottlenecks assuming you have a 3090, but again, it depends on individual games

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html

[GuruMeditationError]

Also, just been watching the Gamers Nexus review of the i9-11900k and it turns all of the the other benchmarks I've been seeing in other reviews pretty much on their heads.

Unless you absolutely do not want to upgrade until you absolutely have to, and you love Hitman 3 and are falling behind 60fps by anything up to ten fps (the i9-11900k gives you an extra 10fps in Hitman 3 specifically) then the i9-11900k probably isn't that good a buy...?...depending on which reviews you trust.

If Gamers Nexus' benchmarks are indeed to be trusted, then the 11900k packaging should probably have had Hitman 3 branding.  
 

 

[Fasauceome]

1 hour ago, GuruMeditationError said:

Although, all I'm using the PC for is gaming so more cores isn't really going to benefit me too much? 

Typically that's the case. For modern games, an 8 core 16 thread CPU is in the realm of best performance.