Bottleneck

[PcBeExpensive]

Would there be any bottlnecking with a ryzen 7 5800x and a 3090 ti at 4K?

[Brooksie359]

Yes the gpu would be the bottleneck but then again that is ideal. 

[cmndr]

1. At any femto second of time one thing will hold up others, so there is ALWAYS a bottleneck
2. you're going to be fine in most use cases


You really should be asking "is this a reasonable use of resource to hit certain performance targets?"... which is a way more nuanced question. 
An argument could be made for a cheaper CPU, motherboard and RAM, AM5 as a whole is an expensive platform vs say 13600, 32GB DDR4 and a budget board. This would allow you to upgrade those parts twice as often. 

What use cases do you have? What are the associated performance targets (e.g. I want to do video rendering and want X score on Blender or I play games and want 99% of the time over 100FPS in X title)


At this point asking about bottlenecking might as well be a meme. Just make sure you aren't using a $30 CPU with a $1600 video card or vice versa. 

[tkitch]

jesus christ we need to ban the word bottleneck.  It really is a meaningless term anymore, and NOBODY asking about it uses it right.

[NF-A12x25]

10 minutes ago, tkitch said:

jesus christ we need to ban the word bottleneck.  It really is a meaningless term anymore, and NOBODY asking about it uses it right.

fr bruh

[thrasher_565]

is this tight pants bottle necking? me?

[PcBeExpensive]

 

On 11/15/2022 at 3:15 PM, tkitch said:

jesus christ we need to ban the word bottleneck.  It really is a meaningless term anymore, and NOBODY asking about it uses it right.

I dont understand how its a meaningless term. Bottlenecking makes u lose performance. 

[PcBeExpensive]

On 11/15/2022 at 1:57 PM, cmndr said:

1. At any femto second of time one thing will hold up others, so there is ALWAYS a bottleneck
2. you're going to be fine in most use cases


You really should be asking "is this a reasonable use of resource to hit certain performance targets?"... which is a way more nuanced question. 
An argument could be made for a cheaper CPU, motherboard and RAM, AM5 as a whole is an expensive platform vs say 13600, 32GB DDR4 and a budget board. This would allow you to upgrade those parts twice as often. 

What use cases do you have? What are the associated performance targets (e.g. I want to do video rendering and want X score on Blender or I play games and want 99% of the time over 100FPS in X title)


At this point asking about bottlenecking might as well be a meme. Just make sure you aren't using a $30 CPU with a $1600 video card or vice versa. 

I'm askign the question for my friend and he said he wants to play games like COD

[tkitch]

4 hours ago, PcBeExpensive said:

 

I dont understand how its a meaningless term. Bottlenecking makes u lose performance. 

no, no it doesn't.  And it's meaningless, because there is no such thing as a computer that is NOT bottlenecked somewhere.

 

The main reason it's meaningless?  Because there is no one answer.

 

A Bottleneck in CSGO competative is going to be very VERY different than when someone's running Cyberpunk at 4K.  Even on the same computer.

 

The only way someone is going to bottleneck any current hardware is if they pair it with something so heinously old it's clearly a troll build.

An i7 13700K + a GT 560?  Yeah, there's a bottleneck.  but it's also obviously a troll build (Since the iGPU in the 13700K is better than a 560)

 

Is there a bottleneck on a 13700K and a RX 6600 XT?  Maybe, maybe not.  Depends on what the computer is doing.

 

So, yes, the question is fucking useless.  

[Just that Mario]

@tkitch your explanation still doesn't explain how bottleneck is used incorrectly, lol. In OP's context it is used entirely correctly. Doesn't matter if the bottleneck is huge or tiny, it is still technically correct.

[cmndr]

5 hours ago, PcBeExpensive said:

I dont understand how its a meaningless term. Bottlenecking makes u lose performance. 

 

Because people aren't using the term in its proper technical sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottleneck_(engineering)

 

It's literally as bad as people using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively".

[tkitch]

51 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

@tkitch your explanation still doesn't explain how bottleneck is used incorrectly, lol. In OP's context it is used entirely correctly. Doesn't matter if the bottleneck is huge or tiny, it is still technically correct.

because unless you're building the PC for one, and only one purpose?  Building it to have no bottleneck is impossible.  Very literally.

 

So what people need to think about and/or ask is "Is this hardware a decent match / fit?"

[Sarra]

46 minutes ago, cmndr said:

It's literally as bad as people using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively".

I literally agree, but only in a figurative sense.

[Just that Mario]

51 minutes ago, tkitch said:

because unless you're building the PC for one, and only one purpose?  Building it to have no bottleneck is impossible.  Very literally.

 

So what people need to think about and/or ask is "Is this hardware a decent match / fit?"

Which still doesn't change that a bottleneck is a bottleneck no matter what size it is. Terms meaning doesn't change depending on its "value" size. What you can say is that the bottleneck is so small that it shouldn't be worried about, but you cannot say "yep, now bottleneck means a completely different thing".

[tkitch]

16 minutes ago, Just that Mario said:

Which still doesn't change that a bottleneck is a bottleneck no matter what size it is. Terms meaning doesn't change depending on its "value" size. What you can say is that the bottleneck is so small that it shouldn't be worried about, but you cannot say "yep, now bottleneck means a completely different thing".

So, everything is a bottleneck, making the term absolutely useless.  

 

Perfect.  Just what we need.  

[dogwitch]

On 11/14/2022 at 11:15 PM, tkitch said:

jesus christ we need to ban the word bottleneck.  It really is a meaningless term anymore, and NOBODY asking about it uses it right.

oh yes!!!!

[cmndr]

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

So, everything is a bottleneck, making the term absolutely useless.  

 

Perfect.  Just what we need.  

Everything can be a bottleneck at different moments in time.
And the proportion of time varies. 

Also the cost of components varies. 

Also performance vs benefits are non-linear. A 3 FPS drop at 30FPS is way more impactful than a 3FPS drop at 300FPS. Similar story if it's in percent. 
 

 

You can end up with a case where the GPU is the primary bottleneck for most use cases BUT going from a $100ish r5 3600 to a $130ish $5 5600g (and selling the 3600) for a net cost of $30 gives you a bigger uplift/$ than jumping to a 4090 at an additional $1000.

What's GENERALLY desired is something more along the lines of "have I done a good job of optimizing performance/$ overall" or "have I done a good job of optimizing performance/$ for X use case"

I use optimize in the sense of an economist or an industrial engineer.

[Sarra]

11 minutes ago, cmndr said:

Everything can be a bottleneck at different moments in time.
And the proportion of time varies.

You very much just said 'it doesn't matter'.

[cmndr]

10 minutes ago, Sarra said:

You very much just said 'it doesn't matter'.

 

More that the question being asked "do I have a bottleneck?" is often meaningless without more context and if taken literally. A large chunk of computer nerds also have a hard on for being pedantic. 

It's like asking "what's the best T-shirt overall?" when the question should be "what T-shirt should I buy at X budget and Y body type?". 
The first might get someone buying a $1000 designer shirt in a size that doesn't fit them. 

The RIGHT question to ask is "At X budget and Y use case what should be changed?"

[Sarra]

8 minutes ago, cmndr said:

 

More that the question being asked "do I have a bottleneck?" is often meaningless without more context and if taken literally. A large chunk of computer nerds also have a hard on for being pedantic. 

It's like asking "what's the best T-shirt overall?" when the question should be "what T-shirt should I buy at X budget and Y body type?". 
The first might get someone buying a $1000 designer shirt in a size that doesn't fit them. 

The RIGHT question to ask is "At X budget and Y use case what should be changed?"

You're missing the entire point.

 

The use of the word Bottleneck should be banned. It is nonsensical in the way 90% of people use it, including 95% of the posts on here about it.

[cmndr]

1 minute ago, Sarra said:

You're missing the entire point.

 

The use of the word Bottleneck should be banned. It is nonsensical in the way 90% of people use it, including 95% of the posts on here about it.

I agree that it's egregiously misused. You can find other posts I've made about how it's basically a meme at this point. It's often colloquially used to mean "is there anything that could be faster" which is... moronic. 

[Sarra]

1 minute ago, cmndr said:

I agree that it's egregiously misused. You can find other posts I've made about how it's basically a meme at this point. It's often colloquially used to mean "is there anything that could be faster" which is... moronic. 

Exactly.

 

It's all about balance.

[cmndr]

 

Quote

The RIGHT question to ask is "At X budget and Y use case what should be changed?"

aka "how can I get a better balance of components?"

 

16 minutes ago, Sarra said:

You're missing the entire point.

 

The use of the word Bottleneck should be banned. It is nonsensical in the way 90% of people use it, including 95% of the posts on here about it.

 

12 minutes ago, Sarra said:

Exactly.

 

It's all about balance.

Which is what I said... right before you said I was missing the point... 





This is probably a concept that should be pushed more - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/isoquantcurve.asp
ISOQUANTS

One axis is GPU spend, the other is CPU spend. You want to get on the furthest curve for your use case that your budget would allow. 

[PcBeExpensive]

why yall arguing on the internet?

[NF-A12x25]

9 minutes ago, PcBeExpensive said:

why yall arguing on the internet?

that’s what they made the internet for i think