Bottleneck

[xnoobftw]

Read what I wrote, do not skim over a post and start hammering away at the keyboard. I said "i know it's 1080p" but the OP has 2x290x, so eventhough the resolution is 77% higher he is running crossfire. So that makes it ok again. If he was running 1440p on a single card, that would've made my benchmarks moot.

But im hitting 100% GPU usage under MSI afterburner while gaming....

 

sounds like a plan if you don't mind lower framerates then it's fine...290X is still a good card for 1440p...just not optimal IMHO.

GTX980 wouldnt be that much better so...yeah...and at 1440p the 290X is slightly better than the 970 so it's a good choice.

Alright thanks!  

[i_build_nanosuits]

Read what I wrote, do not skim over a post and start hammering away at the keyboard. I said "i know it's 1080p" but the OP has 2x290x, so eventhough the resolution is 77% higher he is running crossfire. So that makes it ok again. If he was running 1440p on a single card, that would've made my benchmarks moot.

so honestly you think an i5-4440 would limit the performance of a single R9 290X GPU at 1080p...in most games?! to the point where you could say: man that CPU is under-performing for that GPU to the point where it's not worth it? IMHO that GPU is the limiting factor in 90%+ of the games out there except MMO'S and RTS and poorly optimised old engine built piece of shit that won't run much better on an i7-4790K...the i5-4440 is overall a better performing part than the r9 290x gpu is when it comes to gaming.

[i_build_nanosuits]

But im hitting 100% GPU usage under MSI afterburner while gaming....

 

don't mind him he broke a nut this morning

[xnoobftw]

don't mind him he broke a nut this morning

Hmmm the statistics he had shown is relatively inaccurate... I am getting an avg of 90+FPS with my 4440 and 290x in BF4 Ultra settings.... (sometimes even reaching 150 when i am looking at the sky ETC but never dips below 60)

[i_build_nanosuits]

Hmmm the statistics he had shown is relatively inaccurate... I am getting an avg of 90+FPS with my 4440 and 290x in BF4 Ultra settings.... (sometimes even reaching 150 when i am looking at the sky ETC but never dips below 60)

highly questionable cherry picked benchmarks linked indeed my friend...indeed.

Ran many test with my i7 including running it at 3.0ghz without hyperthreading and i was still maxing out my GTX780 at 1080p in EVERY games that i've tested and i own a bunch...

performance difference is minimal at best between an overclocked hasell part and a stock one, overclocking is way overrated when it come's to cpu and my guess is those benchmarks

have been filled in Excel by eyeball guessing and nothing else.

[Majestic]

 

But im hitting 100% GPU usage under MSI afterburner while gaming....

 

Read up on how drawcalls work. Hitting 99% does not imply having a faster CPU does not give you more fps. A serious misconception that is almost as hard to eradicate as FX CPU recommendations or the "i7 is useless for gaming"-doctrine.

I also had 99% GPU load mostly on my i5-760 (4ghz) with the GTX670, but had a massive jump in fps when moving to the 4670K

 

 

Hmmm the statistics he had shown is relatively inaccurate... I am getting an avg of 90+FPS with my 4440 and 290x in BF4 Ultra settings.... (sometimes even reaching 150 when i am looking at the sky ETC but never dips below 60)

 

It's multiplayer, and probably the heaviest server they could find. It's not about absolute statistics, it's about relative statistics. They did the same test for all CPU's, and it shows a significant difference. I could throw some statistical formula's at you proving it does, but I really don't feel like doing that. The fact that you produce higher fps numbers means only that you have 2 cards and were in a different scenario. It does not negate their relative results.

 

don't mind him he broke a nut this morning

 

No, I did not. You're just plain wrong. Why do you even ask me if a 290X is getting bottlenecked by a i5-4440 at 1080p.. I just showed you a few examples in which it does. Probably in all those results, the GPU load (except for the FX processors) was 99%. Does not imply that a faster CPU creates more drawcalls for a given GPU. In this case, quite significantly. >20%. 

 

Yes, I AM saying that 2x290X gets bottlenecked by a i5-4440, even on 1440p. To quite some degree, in current games. Maybe with better API's it won't. You might see mostly 99% GPU load, and it will mostly be a better experience than 1 card, but I want to bet you 100 bucks that a 4.5ghz 4690K or 4790K squeezes out significantly (>10%) more fps.

[i_build_nanosuits]

 

No, I did not. You're just plain wrong. Why do you even ask me if a 290X is getting bottlenecked by a i5-4440 at 1080p.. I just showed you a few examples in which it does. Probably in all those results, the GPU load (except for the FX processors) was 99%. Does not imply that a faster CPU creates more drawcalls for a given GPU. In this case, quite significantly. >20%. 

 

Yes, I AM saying that 2x290X gets bottlenecked by a i5-4440, even on 1440p. To quite some degree, in current games. Maybe with better API's it won't. You might see mostly 99% GPU load, and it will mostly be a better experience than 1 card, but I want to bet you 100 bucks that a 4.5ghz 4690K or 4790K squeezes out significantly (>10%) more fps.

 

According to your benchmarks, only an overclocked i7-4770K would be able to properly feed a GTX970 or R9 290X GPU at 1080p...that makes a lot of sense mate

Keep digging.

 

Your BF4 link WOULD BE a multiplayer benchmark...this can't even be done...how do you benchmark CPU's against one another when running multiplayer maps? you can't even do that...

[Majestic]

According to your benchmarks, only the i7-4770K would be able to properly feed a GTX970 or R9 290X GPU at 1080p...that makes a lot of sense mate

Keep digging.

 

Your BF4 link WOULD BE a multiplayer benchmark...this can't even be done...how do you benchmark CPU's against one another when running multiplayer maps? you can't even do that...

 

No i'm saying that by increasing CPU speed, you will always create more drawcalls. Yes, you hit diminishing returns at some point, but it never stops being benificial. And in this scenario, it's still in the "significant difference" range.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend this, but don't discard my statements just because you won't accept or understand it.

 

It's called repitition. Results become equally likely.

[i_build_nanosuits]

No i'm saying that by increasing CPU speed, you will always create more drawcalls. Yes, you hit diminishing returns at some point, but it never stops being benificial. And in this scenario, it's still in the "significant difference" range.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend this, but don't discard my statements just because you won't accept or understand it.

i did ran many test with my i7 including running it at 3.0ghz without hyperthreading and i was still maxing out my GTX780 at 1080p in EVERY games that i've tested and i own a bunch...

performance difference is minimal at best between an overclocked hasell part and a stock one, overclocking is way overrated when it come's to cpu and my guess is those benchmarks

have been filled in Excel by eyeball guessing and nothing else.

[Majestic]

i did ran many test with my i7 including running it at 3.0ghz without hyperthreading and i was still maxing out my GTX780 at 1080p in EVERY games that i've tested and i own a bunch...

performance difference is minimal at best between an overclocked hasell part and a stock one, overclocking is way overrated when it come's to cpu and my guess is those benchmarks

have been filled in Excel by eyeball guessing and nothing else.

Citation/proof needed, and if you start producing numbers with this attitude i'm not sure I can trust your results. You've got some serious conformation bias issues.

 

Seriously don't understand why you are so riled up. Just because I don't agree with you? 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Citation needed. 

 

Also, can you please not create so much dissonance? It's really annoying.

what in the world means dissonance? i'm sorry to annoy you...

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlIiB49Q3Tk

 

This is battelfield 4 multiplayer on a full server in one of the most demanding maps (paracell storm) with a core i3 WHILE RECORDING GAMEPLAY:

As you can see even a low-end core i3 feed that 780 almost all it can handle in one of the most demanding situation...let alone a i5-4440.

These are all from my personal video archive btw.

[xnoobftw]

I'm confused as fuck LOL 

[Majestic]

@i_build_nanosuits , You're not listening to me, I'm perfectly aware that hitting 99% GPU with a i5-4440 is possible. However, you have more performance with a faster CPU given the same GPU. This has always been the case...As is demonstrated by the benchmarks I provided.

 

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

 

I'm confused as fuck LOL 

 

I can understand. And i'm not saying you should throw your machine in the toilet. It'll have great performance. All i'm saying is that the statement you made needed some nuance. 

[xnoobftw]

@i_build_nanosuits , You're not listening to me, I'm perfectly aware that hitting 99% GPU with a i5-4440 is possible. However, you have more performance with a faster CPU given the same GPU. This has always been the case...As is demonstrated by the benchmarks I provided.

 

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

 

 

 

I can understand. And i'm not saying you should throw your machine in the toilet. It'll have great performance. All i'm saying is that the statement you made needed some nuance. 

Less with the fancy words (Chinese here LOL)...

Hmm so it is worth investing in a ultra powerful CPU? (in your opinion) 

[i_build_nanosuits]

@i_build_nanosuits , You're not listening to me, I'm perfectly aware that hitting 99% GPU with a i5-4440 is possible. However, you have more performance with a faster CPU given the same GPU. This has always been the case...As is demonstrated by the benchmarks I provided.

***CITATIONS NEEDED***...a flooded GPU can't process a single more frame therefore throwing more CPU horsepower at it won't increase performance a single notch...unless you could prove me wrong i belive you cracked a nut.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Hmm so it is worth investing in a ultra powerful CPU? (in your opinion) 

NO IT'S NOT, ignore.

[xnoobftw]

NO IT'S NOT, ignore.

I'm REALLY CONFUSED D: 

[i_build_nanosuits]

I'm REALLY CONFUSED D: 

You shouldnt be your CPU is perfectly fine for gaming even with the highest-end graphics cards, and dual 290X at 1440p on this would give you AMAZING results...that's all you have to know.

[xnoobftw]

@i_build_nanosuits , You're not listening to me, I'm perfectly aware that hitting 99% GPU with a i5-4440 is possible. However, you have more performance with a faster CPU given the same GPU. This has always been the case...As is demonstrated by the benchmarks I provided.

 

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

 

 

 

I can understand. And i'm not saying you should throw your machine in the toilet. It'll have great performance. All i'm saying is that the statement you made needed some nuance. 

 

Well in @i_build_nanosuits 's defense here is a tech video about the CPU and GPU relationship from a reputable youtuber (jayztwocents)

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well in @i_build_nanosuits 's defense here is a tech video about the CPU and GPU relationship from a reputable youtuber (jayztwocents)

i wouldn't really consider mr ''2 cents'' an expert on the subject of CPU and gaming though.

He's fairly solid in PC watercooling and graphics cards overclocking...but that's about it!

[Majestic]

Less with the fancy words (Chinese here LOL)...

Hmm so it is worth investing in a ultra powerful CPU? (in your opinion) 

Sorry, but he needed to hear it.

 

And yes, if you're going to run 2x290X I would start saving for a faster platform to run it on. At the very least, consider this when you eventually run into FPS issues in some game. The benchmark you posted btw is a GPU benchmark. It has little complexity for the CPU.

 

JayTwoCentz is good at opening a box and saying what is on the box. But he really sucks at technical stuff. Just like TekSyndicate and Austin.

 

***CITATIONS NEEDED***...a flooded GPU can't process a single more frame therefore throwing more CPU horsepower at it won't increase performance a single notch...unless you could prove me wrong i belive you cracked a nut.

 

I already posted those results, it's the ones you discarded for being 1080p. And yes it can. But I have no hope of convincing you, I just hope I created enough doubt so you investigate it further and find out you're wrong eventually on your own. Just like you did with the 8350. Grab an old graphics card like a 9600GT, and run the games they used to run. Guaranteed you get way more fps on your 4770K than you would on those CPU's back in the day (eventhough they also hit 99%).

 

I never said the i5-4440 is terrible for 2x290x. It'll still be miles ahead of a 8350. But it does NOT negate the fact that a 4.5ghz 4770K or 4690K won't have a much better framerate with those cards. 

[Najuno]

Well,

I tested one of my GTX980s, the card is a golden sample in terms of OCing, in my highend machine (in my sig) and in my HTPC, where an Intel i5 4430 works with a H81 Asus mainboard.

 

I overclocked the GPU in both machines to its absolute maximum, that I have the same reference GPU wise and ran games and benchmarks of it. The result in synthetic benchmarking was as expected very different with my i7 5930K and the GTX980 in FireStrike I could hit as much as 14.000+ points, but the more cores and and HTT do the magic here. With the i5 I could achieve around 11.200 points, which is, when you look in the LTT 3D Mark thread a respectable result.

 

Now in games the whole scenario changed a bit. I just tested 1080p and 1440p, because 4K is nonsense with a single card. But the results in games like DeadSpace3, Boderlands II and StarCitizen the machines weren't that far apart from each other. In average my i7 5930K had around 7-15FPS more. It changed when I ran games like Arma III and Dragon Age: Inqusition significantly because these games live of the CPU and my i7 5930K ran with all cores on 4.7GHz compared to the 3.1GHz of the i5 4430. My i7 obliterated the i5 totally.

One highend card weather it is a R9 290X or a GTX980 will not be sufficient for 1440p un ULTRA. The GTX980 OCed will allow you to run 1440p in AAA with okay FPS in high settings but that's about it. For more you need SLI or CF systems.

For gaming an i5 with a bit more juice than a 4430 (just because there are games that live of the CPU a bit more) like an i5 4690K is no bottlenecking GPU wise as long as you can provide PCIe 3.0 8x. The i7 (not necessarily X99 just Z97) is becoming the better choice for me personally these days, because we will see more games that will support more than 4 cores. And with DirectX 12 more cores/threads will be provide more power.

 

I hope that helps understanding a bit the whole issue here a bit.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Now in games the whole scenario changed a bit. I just tested 1080p and 1440p, because 4K is nonsense with a single card. But the results in games like DeadSpace3, Boderlands II and StarCitizen the machines weren't that far apart from each other. In average my i7 5930K had around 7-15FPS more. It changed when I ran games like Arma III and Dragon Age: Inqusition significantly because these games live of the CPU and my i7 5930K ran with all cores on 4.7GHz compared to the 3.1GHz of the i5 4430. My i7 obliterated the i5 totally.

 

For gaming an i5 with a bit more juice than a 4430 (just because there are games that live of the CPU a bit more) like an i5 4690K is no bottlenecking GPU wise as long as you can provide PCIe 3.0 8x. The i7 (not necessarily X99 just Z97) is becoming the better choice for me personally these days, because we will see more games that will support more than 4 cores. And with DirectX 12 more cores/threads will be provide more power.

 

I hope that helps understanding a bit the whole issue here a bit.

it does, of course in CPU bound titles a faster CPU will yield significantly more performance, but not that many modern AAA games are CPU bound among the litteraly dozens of titles that i've personaly tested throughout the last year.

i also personaly play my games on an overclocked i7 CPU and i feel it's really optimal, games does seem to run smoother with hyper-threading enabled for the most part.

 

I just hope I created enough doubt so you investigate it further and find out you're wrong eventually on your own.

You did, i will indeed make some more research and start monitoring FPS with fraps to get an idea on low, medium and high FPS as well as average and see hot that goes.

 

One thing that would be worth mentionning though, if you look at my videos on those little i5 and i3 CPU's is that they certainly are begging for lower CPU loads already...some cores often hit 100% for prolonged period of times and quite often 2 or 3 cores are maxed out...this is saying that those CPU's can't really handle much more when it comes to gaming and they are doomed to become a bottleneck to most high-end gpu's in many games soon or later as games will keep evolving...that's a given.

But to say that they limit the high-end card performance by any noticeable amount at 1080p is IMHO plain wrong...at least not in the current modern demandind games that i've tested.

[Majestic]

But to say that they limit the high-end card performance by any noticeable amount at 1080p is IMHO plain wrong...at least not in the current modern demandind games that i've tested.

 

Well it's good that you started looking things up before blatantly ignoring what I said. Now we can have a discussion atleast. However, looking at these numbers;

 

 

 

You can't just flatout deny the benefit of overclocking or a faster CPU (i7 vs. i5) when combined with a highend GPU. Yes it's 1080p, but OP is talking about 2x290X. It is relevant data.

i5-4440 vs 4770K [OC] is quite drastic...

[i_build_nanosuits]

Well it's good that you started looking things up before blatantly ignoring what I said. Now we can have a discussion atleast. However, looking at these numbers;

 

 

 

You can't just flatout deny the benefit of overclocking or a faster CPU (i7 vs. i5) when combined with a highend GPU. Yes it's 1080p, but OP is talking about 2x290X. It is relevant data.

i5-4440 vs 4770K [OC] is quite drastic...

honestly i'd love if you could stop linking pclab results as i won't trust them one cent...so far they are pretty much the only one testing games in GPU bound scenarios in which a said CPU provides better result than another...good reviewers test CPU's with DUAL GTX980 overclocked OR they test games at 720p resolution.

Those PClab benches won't mean jack to me...

I'll do the investigation my way like i always do, using my hardware to make first hand experience testing, i can provide results tomorrow if you want, right now i'm at work but i totaly know what i'm gonna do tonight

on that, have a good day!