Bottlenecking

[laushik]

Would the i5 6600k overclocked to 4.6 Ghz bottleneck the msi gtx 1070 gaming x 8g clocked at 2000mhz for 1080p 144hz?

[CommanderAlex]

For regular 1080 60fps, it should be fine, but if its 120/144Hz then it can possibly. 

[MoonlightSylv]

You should be fine.

[HKZeroFive]

Beyond 60Hz at 1080p - yes. For 1440p and above, no.

[laushik]

1 minute ago, CommanderAlex said:

For regular 1080 60fps, it should be fine, but if its 120/144Hz then it can possibly. 

Ok Im planning on getting a 144hz monitor, so will I run into any issues?

[CommanderAlex]

Just now, laushik said:

Ok Im planning on getting a 144hz monitor, so will I run into any issues?

You shouldn't run into issues since you have an OC of 4.6Ghz. 

[laushik]

11 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Beyond 60Hz at 1080p - yes. For 1440p and above, no.

By that do you mean the cpu will bottleneck at beyond 60hz at 1080p and not for 1440p?

[HKZeroFive]

Just now, laushik said:

By that do you mean the cpu will bottleneck at beyond 60hz at 1080p and not for 1440p?

Correct. Since higher resolutions put more stress on the GPU.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

15 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Correct. Since higher resolutions put more stress on the GPU.

That would increase GPU usage, but won't make the CPU go faster, so I don't see how can it can be less of an issue.

[HKZeroFive]

17 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That would increase GPU usage, but won't make the CPU go faster, so I don't see how can it can be less of an issue.

The lower the resolution, the fewer the pixels. Thus, less load is put on the GPU.

 

However, if you increase the resolution, you get lower FPS as a result of more pixels. This means it utilises the GPU more and lowers CPU usage. This, however, varies amongst games.

 

There's a reason why the AM3+ platform is somewhat fine at 4K.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

The lower the resolution, the fewer the pixels. Thus, less load is put on the GPU.

Yes, but how is that going to generate a bottleneck? If the GPU doesn't 100% usage to deliver, then it won't run at 100%, no matter the CPU.

 

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

However, if you increase the resolution, you get lower FPS as a result of more pixels. This means it utilises the GPU more and lowers CPU usage. This, however, varies amongst games.

 

There's a reason why the AM3+ platform is somewhat fine at 4K.

A higher resolution doesn't need to translate into lower FPS. I don't see a reason why, for example, a GTX 1080 would deliver lower FPS going from 24op to 480p (extreme example).

Also, why would CPU load fall?

 

I can understand that, if the GPU is struggling by itself, then how fast your CPU runs is less of an issue. That doesn't make any CPU better per se, it just means that you need a stronger GPU before even noticing that your CPU isn't particularly fast - i.e., the game simply doesn't require much on the CPU side.

[HKZeroFive]

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

A higher resolution doesn't need to translate into lower FPS. I don't see a reason why, for example, a GTX 1080 would deliver lower FPS going from 24op to 480p (extreme example).

Also, why would CPU load fall?

It's an extreme example, yes. But the same principle applies. A lower resolution will be more dependent on the CPU, because there are fewer pixels and thus, the GPU can output more frames. It becomes a question of whether or not the CPU can send those frames to the GPU. At lower resolutions, it'll be more likely to bottleneck.

 

The opposite happens as we increase resolution.

Just now, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I can understand that, if the GPU is struggling by itself, then how fast your CPU runs is less of an issue. That doesn't make any CPU better per se, it just means that you need a stronger GPU before even noticing that your CPU isn't particularly fast - i.e., the game simply doesn't require much on the CPU side.

That is exactly what is happening. A higher resolution simply demands less of the CPU and more GPU. Thus, eliminating the 'bottleneck'.

[Mira Yurizaki]

The stress level on a CPU is the same, regardless of resolution. The beauty of 3D modeling is that it's resolution independent. Here's an example: the CPU tells the GPU to render a single triangle. In a low resolution version we have this:

 

But in a higher resolution version, we have this:

 

Note, the GPU has four times as much work to do (sampling 16 pixels instead of 4), but the CPU still said "render this triangle at this resolution".

 

The reason why there appears to be frame limiting at lower resolutions is not as cut and dry as "the CPU is bottlenecking". It could be the GPU is saying "My workload isn't a lot so I'm going to idle". It could be Windows going "this application's workload isn't a lot, so I'm going to give it more idle time". The CPU is bottlenecking only when it's taxed so much it's holding others back. Otherwise there's something else going on in the system.

[ace_cheaply]

At 144 hz in cpu bound games you will get substantially lower averages, minimums and maximums than a 6700K. You will also get more stutter, caused by frame times dropping. 

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The stress level on a CPU is the same, regardless of resolution. The beauty of 3D modeling is that it's resolution independent. Here's an example: the CPU tells the GPU to render a single triangle. In a low resolution version we have this:

 

But in a higher resolution version, we have this:

 

Note, the GPU has four times as much work to do (sampling 16 pixels instead of 4), but the CPU still said "render this triangle at this resolution".

 

The reason why there appears to be frame limiting at lower resolutions is not as cut and dry as "the CPU is bottlenecking". It could be the GPU is saying "My workload isn't a lot so I'm going to idle". It could be Windows going "this application's workload isn't a lot, so I'm going to give it more idle time". The CPU is bottlenecking only when it's taxed so much it's holding others back. Otherwise there's something else going on in the system.

At 144 hz, the CPU will be holding the gpu back, because it simply won't be able to deliver the frames as fast or as consistently as 6700k. If you're not playing gta V, far cry 4 or other open world games then it doesn't rear it's head as much. It does do a good job of matching the 4790k though, although not in all titles again.

 

 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

10 hours ago, ace_cheaply said:

At 144 hz, the CPU will be holding the gpu back, because it simply won't be able to deliver the frames as fast or as consistently as 6700k. If you're not playing gta V, far cry 4 or other open world games then it doesn't rear it's head as much. It does do a good job of matching the 4790k though, although not in all titles again.

But again, bottlenecking isn't as cut and dry as you think. The problem I have with these analyses is that they're missing two other data points: what's the CPU load and what's the GPU load? I ran GTAV's benchmark last night to have some measure of proof that CPU usage doesn't change with graphics settings and no, it doesn't. The game kept my CPU at 70% on average on both a 720p lowest settings run and a 1440p highest settings run.

 

Also I benchmarked F1 2013 (because it was the only thing I had on hand that had a benchmarking tool) and I cannot for the life of me get it to go faster than 110FPS, even though it's nailing my CPU at 50% and the GPU usage is at 35%. Does this indicate a bottleneck? No, not really. The CPU is more than capable of handling the game, the problem is what the game is doing to prevent it from issuing more draw calls.

 

Then there were my 3DMark runs when I put my GTX 1080 through its paces. 3DMark 03 and 06 got worse scores than my Core i5-4670K with a GTX 980, but then caught up from Vantage on (except for 3DMark's Ice Storm Extreme).

 

So again, bottlenecking isn't something that's cut and dry "yes you will" because of the specs alone. It depends on the entire system and the application. But I really just want this notion that any bottlenecking is bad, because that's the vibe I'm getting here. Unless you're running top tier parts, you're going to run into a bottleneck to some degree.

[ace_cheaply]

21 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

But again, bottlenecking isn't as cut and dry as you think. The problem I have with these analyses is that they're missing two other data points: what's the CPU load and what's the GPU load? I ran GTAV's benchmark last night to have some measure of proof that CPU usage doesn't change with graphics settings and no, it doesn't. The game kept my CPU at 70% on average on both a 720p lowest settings run and a 1440p highest settings run.

 

Also I benchmarked F1 2013 (because it was the only thing I had on hand that had a benchmarking tool) and I cannot for the life of me get it to go faster than 110FPS, even though it's nailing my CPU at 50% and the GPU usage is at 35%. Does this indicate a bottleneck? No, not really. The CPU is more than capable of handling the game, the problem is what the game is doing to prevent it from issuing more draw calls.

 

Then there were my 3DMark runs when I put my GTX 1080 through its paces. 3DMark 03 and 06 got worse scores than my Core i5-4670K with a GTX 980, but then caught up from Vantage on (except for 3DMark's Ice Storm Extreme).

 

So again, bottlenecking isn't something that's cut and dry "yes you will" because of the specs alone. It depends on the entire system and the application. But I really just want this notion that any bottlenecking is bad, because that's the vibe I'm getting here. Unless you're running top tier parts, you're going to run into a bottleneck to some degree.

You are trying to get into semantics here.  Does it get less fps than an i7? Does it have lower mins? Lower maxes?  More stutter? Higher frametimes?   Then it's a bottleneck. Being cpu limited introduces much more stutter than being gpu limited, whether you agree or not.

[arch_linuxos]

15 hours ago, laushik said:

Ok Im planning on getting a 144hz monitor, so will I run into any issues?

I used to have that setup. Despite what people say (and there is truth to it), you'll be fine. I could run DOOM at 140FPS. 

 

Yes, it does technically bottleneck it. But no, it does NOT matter - the FPS is still plenty high. You won't notice any FPS drops. It's smooth as butter.

[Crusader93]

5 minutes ago, arch_linuxos said:

I used to have that setup. Despite what people say (and there is truth to it), you'll be fine. I could run DOOM at 140FPS. 

 

Yes, it does technically bottleneck it. But no, it does NOT matter - the FPS is still plenty high. You won't notice any FPS drops. It's smooth as butter.

I have seen in some cases that the CPU may cause stutter when it bottleneck, which will be noticable no matter the fps. I dont know if that will happen here, but if not, it will be as you say.

[arch_linuxos]

Just now, Crusader93 said:

I have seen in some cases that the CPU may cause stutter when it bottleneck, which will be noticable no matter the fps. I dont know if that will happen here, but if not, it will be as you say.

GTA V will, as well as other games that are tied disproportionately to the CPU. But for most, I think it's good .

[Crusader93]

2 minutes ago, arch_linuxos said:

GTA V will, as well as other games that are tied disproportionately to the CPU. But for most, I think it's good .

True, but i wouldnt be able to shake that feeling

[arch_linuxos]

Just now, Crusader93 said:

True, but i wouldnt be able to shake that feeling

Yeah I know  I switched to 6700k yesterday from 6600k lol. So I guess deep down, I couldn't either .

[Crusader93]

Just now, arch_linuxos said:

Yeah I know  I switched to 6700k yesterday from 6600k lol. So I guess deep down, I couldn't either .

Smart choice ;P

I have noticed that even the 6700K can run 100% load with a 1080 in some(very few) areas in certain games with everything cranked up. That makes me a little nervous that maybe intel soon will have problems producing cpu's that does not bottleneck when we get 1080Ti cards and so on

[arch_linuxos]

Just now, Crusader93 said:

Smart choice ;P

I have noticed that even the 6700K can run 100% load with a 1080 in some(very few) areas in certain games with everything cranked up. That makes me a little nervous that maybe intel soon will have problems producing cpu's that does not bottleneck when we get 1080Ti cards and so on

Yeah I feel the same... Will require 6900k to run without bottlenecks lol. Guess that's why NVIDIA's stock is going up and Intel's is going down .

[Dearouge]

Hi everyone!

I would just like to ask you for your opinion on upgrading AMD CPU in AM3+. I currently have AMD Phenom II x6 1100T BE + Sapphire r9 380x nitro on this motherboard: GA-990FXA-UD3. http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3894 - the CPU is real bottleneck of the system now. So I would like to upgrade to to Vishera FX-8320E (low tdp, low price and probably good performance for gaming like FPS, racing, GTAV, GW2..???) and I hope that it won't bottleneck the GPU anymore. So is that correct assumption??

 

So is the upgrade worth it and will solve my issue or should I just go and buy new motherboard + cpu (and possibly switch to intel??). I would prefer to buy just the CPU - but feel free to suggest anything different!

 

Thanks for any reply.

Just for sake of good: I have 16 GB of 1600Mhz DDR3 ram

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

So again, bottlenecking isn't something that's cut and dry "yes you will" because of the specs alone. It depends on the entire system and the application. But I really just want this notion that any bottlenecking is bad, because that's the vibe I'm getting here. Unless you're running top tier parts, you're going to run into a bottleneck to some degree.

 

I start to realize that, with the definition of "bottleneck" these guys are using, the answer will always be "yes". In fact, the only instance in which the CPU wouldn't be"bottlenecking" the GPU is when the GPU is "bottlenecking" the CPU by that same definition.

 

Of course, underlying that definition is the assumption that FPS can, and should, go to infinity. But it makes the whole debate really moot, as there is no alternative answer to "yes" (I'd love to see a case in which the answer is "no" by that standard).

 

Personally, I find the following thought experiment much more useful: fix a resolution you want to use, fix a constant FPS rate you want to achieve, and ask yourself whether the CPU is binding, the GPU is binding, or none.

 

I, for example, have a 1920x1200, 60Hz screen. Hence, a I want a GPU+CPU combo that can give me constant 60FPS in as many games as possible (well, actually just in those I actually want to play). I can only say that component Y is "bottlenecking" component X if all the following apply:

- I get less than 60 FPS

- Y is at 100%, X is not

- X could see increased usage, and it would translate to higher FPS, was Y faster.

 

(obviously, you can adapt these to your setup and expectations).

The last one is important, because there is no bottleneck unless there is a counterfactual in which X can do more than it currently does. That's why I can't agree with claims of ultra high end GPUs being "bottlenecked" by CPUs at ridiculously low resolutions/quality.