980 Intel i5-4590 bottlenecking MSI GTX 980Ti

[daniellearmouth]

1 minute ago, Monarch said:

I'm not even gonna bother. I'll get attacked by a bunch of fanboys and smartasses who are going to say my sources suck, I take things out of context, etc. and I'm sick of dealing with them. I'm just saying OP should do a thorough research and not trust anyone here. 99% of advice here is bullshit.

Or, y'know, you could at least try.

 

Not providing the sources to back up whatever points you are trying to make (whichever they may be) isn't helpful to anyone.

[don_svetlio]

So i5s are now bad advice? What next? Titan X for 1080p? People keep getting crazier and crazier....

[Kobathor]

6 minutes ago, Monarch said:

I'm not even gonna bother. I'll get attacked by a bunch of fanboys and smartasses who are going to say my sources suck, I take things out of context, etc. and I'm sick of dealing with them. I'm just saying OP should do a thorough research and not trust anyone here. 99% of advice here is bullshit.

"Your advice is crap! You take things out of context! Dumb fanboys!" - paraphrasing oops

*provides no sources, proof, or anything to push his point other than his word*

 

oh, okay. Well, my advice sucks, I take things out of context, and I'm a smartass fanboy! This whole site is insanity.

Maybe you could provide some examples of our horrible advice? You're really making this hard for me.

 

Oh wait.. 

Quote

I'm not even gonna bother.

I guess that means you're correct.

[App4that]

This forum has fallen to the fans. That saddens me. This forum used to be a great place to get advice and then a few people went out of their way to push an agenda based off their opinion and no evidence.

 

The OP will have a bottleneck, not the end of the world but it's there. The same people flaming in this topic saying the i5 is fine would lose their minds if it was a AMD CPU. That's bull shit, and it needs to stop.

 

If you don't know, ask. Don't tell. 

 

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

This forum has fallen to the fans. That saddens me. This forum used to be a great place to get advice and then a few people went out of their way to push an agenda based off their opinion and no evidence.

 

The OP will have a bottleneck, not the end of the world but it's there. The same people flaming in this topic saying the i5 is fine would lose their minds if it was a AMD CPU. That's bull shit, and it needs to stop.

 

If you don't know, ask. Don't tell. 

 

You're the one arguing for the sake of arguing so that means this part refers to you, right?

[SteveGrabowski0]

16 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

And even then, games don't often use more than two threads, and very VERY few use as many as four threads.

Then why does my 4.4 GHz Pentium run like shit with most games?

[daniellearmouth]

4 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Then why does my 4.4 GHz Pentium run like shit with most games?

Define "most games". Because that is not very descriptive.

[Kobathor]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

This forum has fallen to the fans. That saddens me. This forum used to be a great place to get advice and then a few people went out of their way to push an agenda based off their opinion and no evidence.

 

The OP will have a bottleneck, not the end of the world but it's there. The same people flaming in this topic saying the i5 is fine would lose their minds if it was a AMD CPU. That's bull shit, and it needs to stop.

 

If you don't know, ask. Don't tell. 

 

Technically, there will be a bottleneck. There always is. You can have a 5960x and still have bottlenecks, since a computer simply is not perfect.

 

But, the fact of the matter is, he won't have any kind of crazy bottleneck where he will be losing 15+ FPS compared to an i7. In most games, the i5 vs an i7 are at most <5 FPS apart, I don't think that's a bottleneck that he would care about. Go watch some videos on YouTube comparing them. It's not a Pentium vs a 5960x. (oops, already used 5960x)

 

You seem to go on topics and say things like this all the time now. Show up, complain. You're really good at that. How about, if you hate LTT forums so much, you just stick to Reddit or Overclockers where nobody is opinionated or biased in any way?

[Monarch]

22 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

Or, y'know, you could at least try.

 

Not providing the sources to back up whatever points you are trying to make (whichever they may be) isn't helpful to anyone.

I did try. Multiple times. Got a bunch of fanboys and trolls attacking me and disregarded all my evidence because it's against popular belief and they didn't like it. Besides, the OP seems to have already decided to listen to you guys and get an i5. Hopefully he won't be playing games like Crysis 3, TW3, RoTR, Fallout 4, The Division, GTA V, Ashes of the Singularity, basically every open world game that has complex physics, AI and lots of objects. And if he will, then hopefully he's okay with stuttering.

 

24 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

And even then, games don't often use more than two threads, and very VERY few use as many as four threads.

You must be an unemployed developer. It's 2016 and games can and will use 8 logical processors. Sure, not all, but there are quite a few CPU heavy games.

[SteveGrabowski0]

3 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

Define "most games". Because that is not very descriptive.

There is a night and day difference in my games running my Xeon E3-1231v3 instead of my G3258 with my GTX 970 in the following games: Tomb Raider 2013, Skyrim, Far Cry 4, and Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor. The only modern game that played similarly for me was Bioshock Infinite, that game ran amazing on two cores even at the stock 3.2 GHz. GTA V also played like comeplete shit when I disabled two cores and disabled hyperthreading on my E3-1231v3 to simulate a Pentium, though it ran very well with two cores disabled and HT on to simulate an i3.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

You're the one arguing for the sake of arguing so that means this part refers to you, right?

What? How am I doing that. You're saying there isn't a bottleneck, when there clearly is and I posted proof of said bottleneck. You're lying to the OP for the sake of arguing. Worse, you'll turn around and freak out if someone says to get a 960 over a smaller fps difference than a 4790k combined with that 980 verses their i5. 

 

If the OP gets the 4790k first, by the time they save up for a new card we should know more about Polaris and Pascal. If they get the 980 first, by the time they save up for a 4790k they may have to get used, or the price may be higher from demand verses supply.

 

 

[don_svetlio]

Just now, App4that said:

What? How am I doing that. You're saying there isn't a bottleneck, when there clearly is and I posted proof of said bottleneck. You're lying to the OP for the sake of arguing. Worse, you'll turn around and freak out if someone says to get a 960 over a smaller fps difference than a 4790k combined with that 980 verses their i5. 

 

If the OP gets the 4790k first, by the time they save up for a new card we should know more about Polaris and Pascal. If they get the 980 first, by the time they save up for a 4790k they may have to get used, or the price may be higher from demand verses supply.

 

 

Do yourself and re-read the discussion. Then delete this part.

[SteveGrabowski0]

7 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

Define "most games". Because that is not very descriptive.

Here is a video @i_build_nanosuits made by disabling two cores on his 4770k with a GTX 780. It fits right in line with my experience running an actual 4.4 GHz G3258 with a GTX 970.

 

 

 

[daniellearmouth]

2 minutes ago, Monarch said:

I did try. Multiple times. Got a bunch of fanboys and trolls attacking me and disregarded all my evidence because it's against popular belief and they didn't like it. Besides, the OP seems to have already decided to listen to you guys and get an i5. Hopefully he won't be playing games like Crysis 3, TW3, RoTR, Fallout 4, The Division, GTA V, Ashes of the Singularity, basically every game that has complex physics, AI and lots of objects. And if he will, then hopefully he's console-gamer-like stutter resistant.

I wish to point out that a friend of mine runs an FX-4170 with a 970 and plays GTA V just fine on it at 1080p at reasonable settings. I don't see how an i5 would be any worse.

Nor, for that matter, do I see how the Witcher 3 would be bad, or Crysis 3, Fallout 4...

 

You're bigging those games up as though they are powerhouses that practically require i7s to run and the simple fact of the matter is they don't.

 

Just now, Monarch said:

You must be an unemployed developer. It's 2016 games can and will use 8 logical processors.

I don't see how employment comes into it at all...

 

Also, not every game will use eight threads. If the engine allows it, then it usually will, but some games, like I stated, will work just fine on Pentiums and i3s.

[App4that]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Do yourself and re-read the discussion. Then delete this part.

I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt that you know there's always a bottleneck, I'm referring to one that impacts performance. 

[daniellearmouth]

5 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

There is a night and day difference in my games running my Xeon E3-1231v3 instead of my G3258 with my GTX 970 in the following games: Tomb Raider 2013, Skyrim, Far Cry 4, and Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor. The only modern game that played similarly for me was Bioshock Infinite, that game ran amazing on two cores even at the stock 3.2 GHz. GTA V also played like comeplete shit when I disabled two cores and disabled hyperthreading on my E3-1231v3 to simulate a Pentium, though it ran very well with two cores disabled and HT on to simulate an i3.

It running like shit and it running playably are not one in the same.

 

What numbers are you getting? Are they above 60FPS in both cases? If yes, then I don't see what the problem is.

 

Or rather...what is the disparity between the two? What numbers?

[don_svetlio]

Just now, App4that said:

I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt that you know there's always a bottleneck, I'm referring to one that impacts performance. 

 

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Do yourself and re-read the discussion. Then delete this part.

 

[App4that]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

So i5s are now bad advice? What next? Titan X for 1080p? People keep getting crazier and crazier....

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, daniellearmouth said:

It running like shit and it running playably are not one in the same.

 

What numbers are you getting? Are they above 60FPS in both cases? If yes, then I don't see what the problem is.

By running like shit I mean my framerate kept oscillating between 30 and 100 constantly as my Pentium couldn't keep up with my GPU. You're also moving the goalposts, this is a discussion about how many threads a game will use, not whether you think the game would be playable on a Pentium (which many people might have found it would have been with a 30 fps frame limiter turned on through say half refresh adaptive vsync).

[Monarch]

Just now, daniellearmouth said:

I wish to point out that a friend of mine runs an FX-4170 with a 970 and plays GTA V just fine on it at 1080p at reasonable settings. I don't see how an i5 would be any worse.

Nor, for that matter, do I see how the Witcher 3 would be bad, or Crysis 3, Fallout 4...

 

You're bigging those games up as though they are powerhouses that practically require i7s to run and the simple fact of the matter is they don't.

 

I don't see how employment comes into it at all...

 

Also, not every game will use eight threads. If the engine allows it, then it usually will, but some games, like I stated, will work just fine on Pentiums and i3s.

"Just fine" means different things to different people. Let's stick to facts. An i5 will not be able to maintain 60 fps in CPU-bound games. Note that not all levels/maps are equally CPU intensive. Good luck getting getting anything close to 60 fps with an i5 in Crysis 3, Welcome to the Jungle mission. The grass physics will destroy it.

 

[Conan1600]

46 minutes ago, Monarch said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's so much bad advice on LTT it's unreal. People are told to buy i5's and then when they have stuttering and fps drops in CPU-bound scenarios they blame developers for "not optimizing" the game.

if you find a game that stutters based on a i5 ivy bridge or latter cpu i wanna know about it bub. so i can laugh at the moron that made it, in general you are talking 2 - 10 fps from i5 to i7 from equal generations in gaming

[Godlygamer23]

Let's keep it calm people. This is a discussion.

[daniellearmouth]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

By running like shit I mean my framerate kept oscillating between 30 and 100 constantly as my Pentium couldn't keep up with my GPU. You're also moving the goalposts, this is a discussion about how many threads a game will use, not whether you think the game would be playable on a Pentium (which many people might have found it would have been with a 30 fps frame limiter turned on through say half refresh adaptive vsync).

I'm not moving any goal posts here. I'm just making a point of how not every game is going to need or even use more than two logical processors in a game, and even fewer use four or more. It's hard to argue against that because multithreading in games is a relatively new thing, and only a relative handful of games do it.

4 minutes ago, Monarch said:

"Just fine" means different things to different people. Let's stick to facts. An i5 will not be able to maintain 60 fps in CPU-bound games. Note that not all levels/maps are equally CPU intensive. Good luck getting getting anything close to 60 fps with an i5 in Crysis 3, Welcome to the Jungle mission. The grass physics will destroy it.

Riiiiiiiight? Somehow I have my doubts regarding those words, so if you have a video showcasing this, then I might actually take your word for it.

I know you have an i5, so there is reason for me to take your word, but if you have a video that I can watch to see this, that'd be great.

[SteveGrabowski0]

7 minutes ago, daniellearmouth said:

I'm not moving any goal posts here. I'm just making a point of how not every game is going to need or even use more than two logical processors in a game, and even fewer use four or more. It's hard to argue against that because multithreading in games is a relatively new thing, and only a relative handful of games do it.

Riiiiiiiight? Somehow I have my doubts regarding those words, so if you have a video showcasing this, then I might actually take your word for it.

I know you have an i5, so there is reason for me to take your word, but if you have a video that I can watch to see this, that'd be great.

You are moving the goalposts again. First it was most games don't make use of more than two threads. I just gave you a list of the AAA games I played and only one of them was capable of 60 fps on two cores (Bioshock Infinite). If by most games you're including everything written 2011 and before then yeah, I guess most games don't use more than two threads. I'm sure the op got a GTX 980 to play COD 4.

[daniellearmouth]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

You are moving the goalposts again. First it was most games don't make use of more than two threads. I just gave you a list of the AAA games I played and only one of them was capable of 60 fps on two cores (Bioshock Infinite). If by most games you're including everything written 2011 and before then yeah, I guess most games don't use more than two threads.

...Dude, I'm moving only my fingers and my eyelids right now. No goalposts have been moved in the making of any of these comments.

 

Multithreading is a new thing in games. Your average game made in Unity isn't going to care whether it runs on a Pentium or an i7 unless you coded it in such a way that it utilised more than two threads, like with Cities: Skylines. And unless they are made in such a way that makes them impossible to play on no fewer than four threads, it still won't care what it's running on.

 

And besides, that's only including AAA. Unless you exclusively play AAA games, it's unfair as far as I'm concerned to discount many indie titles given how they are very seldom technical showcases.

 

And before you tell me that I'm moving the goalposts again, allow me to demonstrate the fact that I'm not here.

 

There are several indie games that are tech showcases in some instances.

No Man's Sky. Star Citizen. The Talos Principle.

These are all indie games. And yet, they are all tech showcases in different ways, be they in terms of graphical fidelity or just sheer scale. No doubt those games use plenty of threads to do things. Especially given how one of the three currently supports Vulkan.