Bottlenecking questions.

[App4that]

Firestrike is not A game its A stress test...

So there isn't a topic in this forum keeping track of the scores?

[Nena Trinity]

So there isn't a topic in this forum keeping track of the scores?

A game benchmark is way better yet then V-Sync is also disabled there...

[App4that]

A game benchmark is way better yet then V-Sync is also disabled there...

My point is people care about their Firestrike scores, and those scores are CPU dependent.

[Nena Trinity]

My point is people care about their Firestrike scores, and those scores are CPU dependent.

Why not use Metro LL Redux? It's much cooler!

[App4that]

Why not use Metro LL Redux? It's much cooler!

Cuz it's not free LOL. I use Valley for temp tests. I only use Firestrike to see if I can brag

[Nena Trinity]

Cuz it's not free LOL. I use Valley for temp tests. I only use Firestrike to see if I can brag

But you get it free with the coolest game ever! :3

[App4that]

But you get it free with the coolest game ever! :3

Almost got it when it was on sale, almost lol

[Nena Trinity]

Almost got it when it was on sale, almost lol

[das affe]

Piss poor excuse. "stop moving so I can hit you" Sounds shitty but games are shit, so you have to plan for shit. Fact is faster ram and a more powerful CPU or one with multiple cores run the game better. Better is better no matter how you got there. They used that Titan so as to show where the other components caused a bottleneck, a 390 suffers from a bottleneck when using ram at 1600MHz and a 4690 (even a K). A quick look at my specs will show you I'm speaking from experience as well.

I see what you want to tell me but reading your other comments I want to say some things:

1. calm down a little. you sound quite upset/agressive

2. above 1333-1600 the ram-freq does not really give you anything other than some improvements in synthetic benchmarks. (I am running 8gb cl9 2133). Capacity is way more important.

3. "Bottlenecking". this was dicussed enough in the comments. every game has it's needs and you cant spend 1000$ on a cpu just to stop it holding back the 300$ gpu. you know what I mean? you can give max load on multiple gpus with Cpu X in game Z and same Cpu X will hold back one single gpu in game Y. It's really up to the games but I dont have to tell you, i think.  

4. Benchmarks are cool and all but for the most time you should be worried about the Gpu being the Priority and the rest of the system being able to hold up with the gpu because most games are layed out to give a 100% load on the gpu all the time.

5. Fall out 4 is a whore. It needs a lot of money to make it really work and it doesnt even look that good. That is why I do not take results (bad or good) that serious. 

[App4that]

I see what you want to tell me but reading your other comments I want to say some things:

1. calm down a little. you sound quite upset/agressive

2. above 1333-1600 the ram-freq does not really give you anything other than some improvements in synthetic benchmarks. (I am running 8gb cl9 2133). Capacity is way more important.

3. "Bottlenecking". this was dicussed enough in the comments. every game has it's needs and you cant spend 1000$ on a cpu just to stop it holding back the 300$ gpu. you know what I mean? you can give max load on multiple gpus with Cpu X in game Z and same Cpu X will hold back one single gpu in game Y. It's really up to the games but I dont have to tell you, i think.  

4. Benchmarks are cool and all but for the most time you should be worried about the Gpu being the Priority and the rest of the system being able to hold up with the gpu because most games are layed out to give a 100% load on the gpu all the time.

5. Fall out 4 is a whore. It needs a lot of money to make it really work and it doesnt even look that good. That is why I do not take results (bad or good) that serious. 

You misunderstand me, I can play a little rough for some but I mean no harm and I assure you I'm not upset. My only goal is to cut through the shit and help those just entering the hobby. GPU's make people feel good, so people over spend on them. A 300 dollar GPU will only take you as far as the components you connect it to, this is hard for some to understand, especially those coming from consoles. Connect a 300 dollar GPU to a 230 dollar CPU and guess where the bottle neck is? Sucks I'm right huh? You should spend the same on your GPU as your CPU and half as much on your PSU as your GPU/CPU to have a balanced system. The water is a bit muddy when it comes to the rest.

[das affe]

You misunderstand me, I can play a little rough for some but I mean no harm and I assure you I'm not upset. My only goal is to cut through the shit and help those just entering the hobby. GPU's make people feel good, so people over spend on them. A 300 dollar GPU will only take you as far as the components you connect it to, this is hard for some to understand, especially those coming from consoles. Connect a 300 dollar GPU to a 230 dollar CPU and guess where the bottle neck is? Sucks I'm right huh? You should spend the same on your GPU as your CPU and half as much on your PSU as your GPU/CPU to have a balanced system. The water is a bit muddy when it comes to the rest.

Okay no harm done.

I partially agree with you. In my own personal opinion or from my experience, if you can call it that, i would say a 60/40 balance (minimum) in budget (gpu/cpu) is better for gaming. This Balance surely changes with the budget and the purpose of the build. For me a good Gpu was more important and as i still go to school and dont have enormous amounts of money I had to really think about the parts. 

I am using a xeon 1231v3 because it basically is an i7 4770 with slightly lower clockspeeds but for 2/3 of the price. I have it because my 4670k went into my GFs build and i wanted to see if an upgrade would give me better performance (I have not really seen big improvement (subjectively speaking - no numbers just feeling)). I am also using a gtx 980 which i bought used. 

And you are right, you dont skimp on the psu. but to spend 200€ on a psu is nothing but overkill. 

I have used the Corsair Cx500m and i think cx600m too in many builds. it goes for 50€ or less and I know what people may say but it always worked perfectly fine in following builds/configs:

4670k oc + gtx 770 massive oc / gtx 970 (decent-big oc)

xeon 1231v3 + 290/290x/gtx 970/gtx 980

never had it fail. ever. 

that calculation of yours is kinda off. (2/5th for gpu, 2/5th cpu, 1/5th psu). It is like saying a gtx 980 gives you 5fps more than a 970. way too generalised. 

ps: please don't act like you know everything "Sucks I'm right huh? ". Just because you know how to build a pc and read a lot of benchmarkresults does not mean you have to act like you're any better than a stranger on the internet you don't know.

pps: you are playing on 1080p I am wondering why you are talking about cpu bottlenecking your gpu when clearly a higher resolution would solve that "problem" 

I am playing 1440p and some games 4/5k upscaled. just fyi.

 

[App4that]

Okay no harm done.

I partially agree with you. In my own personal opinion or from my experience, if you can call it that, i would say a 60/40 balance (minimum) in budget (gpu/cpu) is better for gaming. This Balance surely changes with the budget and the purpose of the build. For me a good Gpu was more important and as i still go to school and dont have enormous amounts of money I had to really think about the parts.

I am using a xeon 1231v3 because it basically is an i7 4770 with slightly lower clockspeeds but for 2/3 of the price. I have it because my 4670k went into my GFs build and i wanted to see if an upgrade would give me better performance (I have not really seen big improvement (subjectively speaking - no numbers just feeling)). I am also using a gtx 980 which i bought used.

And you are right, you dont skimp on the psu. but to spend 200€ on a psu is nothing but overkill.

I have used the Corsair Cx500m and i think cx600m too in many builds. it goes for 50€ or less and I know what people may say but it always worked perfectly fine in following builds/configs:

4670k oc + gtx 770 massive oc / gtx 970 (decent-big oc)

xeon 1231v3 + 290/290x/gtx 970/gtx 980

never had it fail. ever.

that calculation of yours is kinda off. (2/5th for gpu, 2/5th cpu, 1/5th psu). It is like saying a gtx 980 gives you 5fps more than a 970. way too generalised.

ps: please don't act like you know everything "Sucks I'm right huh? ". Just because you know how to build a pc and read a lot of benchmarkresults does not mean you have to act like you're any better than a stranger on the internet you don't know.

pps: you are playing on 1080p I am wondering why you are talking about cpu bottlenecking your gpu when clearly a higher resolution would solve that "problem"

I am playing 1440p and some games 4/5k upscaled. just fyi.

LOL! Don't take things so personally. Nothing I say is meant to be taken so.

The 1080p point actually backs up what I'm saying. I have 630us in my GPUs, I have 230us in my CPU. My 4690k even overclocked to 4.6GHz holds me back, if I had a 4790k or even some faster ram I'd be able to use some higher settings that I'm unable to right now. If I had a 1440 monitor I might be better off, as my crossfire would have something to chew on.