Will my CPU bottleneck?

[Yoo Song Won]

I have an Intel i5-4590 that 3.3Ghz at base clock and 3.7Ghz at turbo.

 

I'm planning to get a Nvidia Geforce GTX 1070 to play at 1440p or higher at ultra settings.

 

Will my CPU bottleneck the GPU?

[TheRandomness]

A little but it really depends on the game.

[Yoo Song Won]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

A little but it really depends on the game.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA 5 and so on... AAA basically.

[HPWebcamAble]

4 minutes ago, Yoo Song Won said:

Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA 5 and so on... AAA basically.

GTA V will be the worst of them, I'd bet. But that doesn't mean you'll be puttering along, no sir.

You should see a solid 60 most of the time.

 

In any case, the 1070 is a fine choice. If your CPU IS a problem, you can upgrade that in the future.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Yoo Song Won said:

Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA 5 and so on... AAA basically.

nope

[Cripple [Crip]]

Probs not but gta will be the worst of all since it is very CPU intensive and i learned that the hard way put you will be putting 50-60 fps stable just remember to turn down grass quality since thats a pain in the ass for fps

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Cripple [Crip] said:

Probs not but gta will be the worst of all since it is very CPU intensive and i learned that the hard way put you will be putting 50-60 fps stable just remember to turn down grass quality since thats a pain in the ass for fps

Arma is entirely CPU.

If anything Arma III makes GTA look like a piece of cake 

[Thony]

1440p u gonna okay, 4K u can forget it.

[Cripple [Crip]]

i never played Arma like a barely ever saw the game since i mainly play CS:GO but i heard its very cpu intensive because of the Draw Distance also in Dying Light which sucks for budget builds since they spend more money on a GPU

[bgibbz]

13 minutes ago, Yoo Song Won said:

Mirror's Edge Catalyst, Rise of the Tomb Raider, GTA 5 and so on... AAA basically.

Gta V is very CPU intensive, but given that it's a quad core i5, it will probably be fine. 

[Spoderman!!]

22 minutes ago, Ronnie76 said:

Arma is entirely CPU.

If anything Arma III makes GTA look like a piece of cake 

Arma 3 runs bad on all machines

[ace_cheaply]

22 minutes ago, Thony said:

1440p u gonna okay, 4K u can forget it.

This is not true.  He would be better off at 4k than at 1440p, because 4k shifts the bottleneck to the GPU.  The lower the resolution, the faster the gpu can render images, and the faster the cpu has to provide it information.  At 4k, the framerates are much lower, so the cpu doesn't have to keep up nearly as much as, say, 1080p. This is why an FX 8350 doesn't bottleneck titan X SLI in 4k. 

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, ace_cheaply said:

This is not true.  He would be better off at 4k than at 1440p, because 4k shifts the bottleneck to the GPU.  The lower the resolution, the faster the gpu can render images, and the faster the cpu has to provide it information.  At 4k, the framerates are much lower, so the cpu doesn't have to keep up nearly as much as, say, 1080p. This is why an FX 8350 doesn't bottleneck titan X SLI in 4k. 

Shifting the bottleneck to the GPU doesn't remove the CPU bottleneck, especially if we consider a game like Team Fortress 2. This means that the GPU is getting stressed harder, but the CPU is still being stressed the same.

 

Granted, OP isn't playing TF2, but this is the best example I can give because it's easy as hell to use a Source engine game for an example of how a CPU bottleneck works.

[ace_cheaply]

5 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Shifting the bottleneck to the GPU doesn't remove the CPU bottleneck, especially if we consider a game like Team Fortress 2. This means that the GPU is getting stressed harder, but the CPU is still being stressed the same.

 

Granted, OP isn't playing TF2, but this is the best example I can give because it's easy as hell to use a Source engine game for an example of how a CPU bottleneck works.

It doesn't remove the cpu's bottleneck, true, but it does render it meaningless in practical (gaming) terms. If the gpus can only push 60fps then it doesn't really matter to the gamer if the cpu can push 61fps or 600fps, the experience will still be 60fps. It will always have only so much potential, but the importance of the bottleneck depends on whether it's demanding more than that potential or not. 

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, ace_cheaply said:

It doesn't remove the cpu's bottleneck, true, but it does render it meaningless in practical (gaming) terms. If the gpus can only push 60fps then it doesn't really matter to the gamer if the cpu can push 61 fps or 600fps, the experience will still be 60fps. It will always have only so much potential, but the importance of the bottleneck depends on whether it's demanding more than that potential or not. 

Yes, but if you're being bottlenecked by the CPU, the experience only gets worse when the GPU is also being heavily choked.

This is very apparent in a game that streams most of its content.

[ace_cheaply]

19 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Yes, but if you're being bottlenecked by the CPU, the experience only gets worse when the GPU is also being heavily choked.

This is very apparent in a game that streams most of its content.

Granted, but as this is hypothetically taking place at 4k, that situation only occurs in less demanding titles. Also bear in mind that I've never owned an 8350, titan x's or a 4k monitor, nor do I stream content, so my opinion is solely based on second hand knowledge.  However, I still believe the 4570 would bottleneck less at 4k than at 1440p, and any issues you run into with the gpu being choked on 4k should only be exacerbated by decreasing the resolution, no?

[Thony]

7 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

This is not true.  He would be better off at 4k than at 1440p, because 4k shifts the bottleneck to the GPU.  The lower the resolution, the faster the gpu can render images, and the faster the cpu has to provide it information.  At 4k, the framerates are much lower, so the cpu doesn't have to keep up nearly as much as, say, 1080p. This is why an FX 8350 doesn't bottleneck titan X SLI in 4k. 

Please provide benchmark evidence. Considering FX is close to i5 i find this very stretched and impossible to believe without seeing it happen.

[Sintezza]

3 hours ago, Thony said:

Please provide benchmark evidence. Considering FX is close to i5 i find this very stretched and impossible to believe without seeing it happen.

 

At 4K you are pretty much fully GPU bound on most games.

So for example if you take a GTX1080 and you play at low res like 1080p.

The card can push so manny frames that the cpu has a hard time to keep up with it.

Of course it also depends a bit from game to game, some games tax harder on the cpu then others.

But at 4K the story is allot diffrent.

At 4K a GTX1080 isnt that powerfull anymore, it simply cannot produce as manny frames.

So most cpu´s wont realy have much issues keeping up with it.

Since the load on the cpu doesnt realy change much as you go up in resolution.

[dfg666]

On 6/10/2016 at 8:44 AM, ace_cheaply said:

because 4k shifts the bottleneck to the GPU. 

.......

[Nena Trinity]

12 hours ago, Ronnie76 said:

Arma is entirely CPU.

If anything Arma III makes GTA look like a piece of cake 

Not really it is just using one CPU core, in fact many other games are much more demanding but still run better... (best CPU for Arma is a OCable Pentium G or i5)

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

Not really it is just using one CPU core, in fact many other games are much more demanding but still run better... (best CPU for Arma is a OCable Pentium G or i5)

I'd put an Skylake i3-6100 against the OCable Pentium G, we all know whos gonna win 

[Nena Trinity]

6 minutes ago, Ronnie76 said:

I'd put an Skylake i3-6100 against the OCable Pentium G, we all know whos gonna win 

My bet is that a i3 clocked at same speed as a i5 or i7 will get very much the same results...  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

My bet is that a i3 clocked at same speed as a i5 or i7 will get very much the same results...  

Its debatable, when competing in HWBot competitions I find a lot of the time, i3's and i5's beat i7's single core score by a huge amount, so in some terms, its actually better to use an array of CPU's to get the best performance. That all depends on the game though! 

 

[Sintezza]

31 minutes ago, Ronnie76 said:

Its debatable, when competing in HWBot competitions I find a lot of the time, i3's and i5's beat i7's single core score by a huge amount, so in some terms, its actually better to use an array of CPU's to get the best performance. That all depends on the game though! 

 

Thats a bit weird then.

Because a core i3 or a core i7 from the same family are pretty much the same thing core for core if they are clocked at the same speed.

A core i3 is basicly an i7 with 2 faulty physical cores disabled, and some cache disabled.

[ohitsluca]

50 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

My bet is that a i3 clocked at same speed as a i5 or i7 will get very much the same results...  

DigitalFoundry did some tests on i5-2500k vs i7-3770k (and at the end of the video the 6700k), and the i7-3770k had around 10 more FPS in most of the games tested. They also tested the i5-2500k with faster RAM and even that gave ~5 FPS more. The i7-6700k had about 10 frames more than even the i7-3770k which is still a very capable card. Most modern games are taking advantage of more CPU cores, and even faster RAM. Without being able to test it, based on DF's results, I'd say you would actually see a decent improvement with an i7 > i5 > i3 in most titles.

Edit: EVEN BETTER! They did the test with the i3-6100 vs i5-6600k vs i7-6700k and it was pretty clearcut. Link to video: