What is bottlenecking my system

[cquel]

So i have a system which is roughly about 1½ years old, which i built back in then because i wanted a better PC for gaming (CS:GO at the time, and it's actually still for CS:GO primarily). I get between 110-180 fps depending on the map in CS:GO (playing on low res & settings), which isn't enough at all, as i don't want the fps to ever drop below 200 fps (250 fps as a minimum is the most ideal tho) as i play semi-pro cs, and i most definitely can feel when the fps dips down to about 170 (playing on a 144 hz monitor). 

 

My setup.

 

Processor: AMD FX-8350 Black Edition @ 4 ghz

GPU: Sapphire Radeon R9 270x @ 2GB & Core 450 mhz and memory at 1400 mhz

RAM: 16 GB 

HDD: Some 1 TB @ 7200 rpm.

Motherboard: MSI gaming 7

PSU: Some Golden Certified Corsair on @ 750W

 

I really hope someone can give me an answer to this as i only really have the money to switch out one thing (CPU+Mobo(+RAM) or GPU)

[FilipSebik]

1 hour ago, cquel said:

-SNIP-

I guess thermals are your bottleneck now, I suggest you clean the CPU and GPU coolers and even your case from dust. And if the bottleneck persists then sell that AMD cpu and board and buy intel cpu and board

[The_Denks]

2 minutes ago, cquel said:

So i have a system which is roughly about 1½ years old, which i built back in then because i wanted a better PC for gaming (CS:GO at the time, and it's actually still for CS:GO primarily). I get between 110-180 fps depending on the map in CS:GO (playing on low res & settings), which isn't enough at all, as i don't want the fps to ever drop below 200 fps (250 fps as a minimum is the most ideal tho) as i play semi-pro cs, and i most definitely can feel when the fps dips down to about 170 (playing on a 144 hz monitor). 

 

My setup.

 

Processor: AMD FX-8350 Black Edition @ 4 ghz

GPU: Sapphire Radeon R9 270x @ 2GB & Core 450 mhz and memory at 1400 mhz

RAM: 16 GB 

HDD: Some 1 TB @ 7200 rpm.

Motherboard: MSI gaming 7

PSU: Some Golden Certified Corsair on @ 750W

 

I really hope someone can give me an answer to this as i only really have the money to switch out one thing (CPU+Mobo(+RAM) or GPU)

Dude you crazy.

 

Your system in not bottlenecking, just under heavy load.

Why do you need FPS in the 200 - 250 range, when your monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS. Thats what 144Hz means

[Guest]

Just now, UberGamerKing said:

Dude you crazy.

 

Your system in not bottlenecking, just under heavy load.

Why do you need FPS in the 200 - 250 range, when your monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS. Thats what 144Hz means

I guess you never played cs go before

[Zyndo]

I don't really know the requirements of CS, but that system isn't particularly powerful. a GPU upgrade would probably be your best bet. If you're serious about your gaming, it would be sensible to get a new intel CPU as well.

 

not sure why you need 144hz+ when your monitor only does 144 though. unless you love dat screen tear.

[meenmeen1103]

5 minutes ago, cquel said:

-Saw-

What's your cpu/gpu utilizations and temps while playing? 

[The_Denks]

2 minutes ago, dexxterlab97 said:

I guess you never played cs go before

I ahve, but he saying 'he feels the fps drop into the 170s' which is impossible, as his monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS

 

There is no display output difference regardless of 1000000000FPS or 145FPS with his monitor, as it can only display a maximum of 144FPS

[Zyndo]

1 minute ago, UberGamerKing said:

There is no display output difference regardless of 1000000000FPS or 145FPS with his monitor, as it can only display a maximum of 144FPS

That isn't exactly true.... if he plays without some sort of sync tech or fps cap settings he CAN get more than that. If his monitor receives a new frame whilst its in the middle of drawing without some sync tech enabled, it will begin drawing that new frame. so if he has a 144 hz monitor, and he is playing at 288fps, his monitor will draw half of each frame before moving onto the next frame...

 

But I cannot imagine that being particularly good for shooter games with that much tearing going on.

[LionSpeck]

1 minute ago, UberGamerKing said:

I ahve, but he saying 'he feels the fps drop into the 170s' which is impossible, as his monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS

 

There is no display output difference regardless of 1000000000FPS or 145FPS with his monitor, as it can only display a maximum of 144FPS

Technically, more FPS (if it's out of the range the monitor can display, which is 144Hz) is worse, because you experience loads of tearing, which looks like crap. Of course, if people is fanatic of having the frame appearing one millionth of a second before (otherwise they die because of LAG, ALWAYS LAG), more FPS is always better. Until people understand what G-Sync and Freesync are. But before that there's the ignorance of "more is better".

[LionSpeck]

15 minutes ago, cquel said:

So i have a system which is roughly about 1½ years old, which i built back in then because i wanted a better PC for gaming (CS:GO at the time, and it's actually still for CS:GO primarily). I get between 110-180 fps depending on the map in CS:GO (playing on low res & settings), which isn't enough at all, as i don't want the fps to ever drop below 200 fps (250 fps as a minimum is the most ideal tho) as i play semi-pro cs, and i most definitely can feel when the fps dips down to about 170 (playing on a 144 hz monitor). 

 

My setup.

 

Processor: AMD FX-8350 Black Edition @ 4 ghz

GPU: Sapphire Radeon R9 270x @ 2GB & Core 450 mhz and memory at 1400 mhz

RAM: 16 GB 

HDD: Some 1 TB @ 7200 rpm.

Motherboard: MSI gaming 7

PSU: Some Golden Certified Corsair on @ 750W

 

I really hope someone can give me an answer to this as i only really have the money to switch out one thing (CPU+Mobo(+RAM) or GPU)

Back in topic: what's """bottlenecking""" your PC is both the graphics card and (especially) the CPU.

[manikyath]

to everyone yammering about FPS in CS:GO not mattering, please shut the full cup and help the guy out.

 

it is *generally believed* (not gonna argue for or against) that CS:GO runs smoother when you run at 2-4x your display refresh rate, and some people *claim* to have gotten better at the game with higher FPS. (i completely agree the chances of placebo are quite large here).

 

anyways, on topic:

while i really dont like seeing an fx8350 anymore, my bet is on the R9 270x, a friend of mine has one of those, and they seemingly really lack "oomph" in some way...

[cquel]

17 minutes ago, meenmeen1103 said:

What's your cpu/gpu utilizations and temps while playing? 

Between 60-68 Celcius

[cquel]

15 minutes ago, UberGamerKing said:

I ahve, but he saying 'he feels the fps drop into the 170s' which is impossible, as his monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS

 

There is no display output difference regardless of 1000000000FPS or 145FPS with his monitor, as it can only display a maximum of 144FPS

No offense bro, but u clearly don't play cs on a high lvl. I can feel it, theres no denying that.

[Mr.Meerkat]

7 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

That isn't exactly true.... if he plays without some sort of sync tech or fps cap settings he CAN get more than that. If his monitor receives a new frame whilst its in the middle of drawing without some sync tech enabled, it will begin drawing that new frame. so if he has a 144 hz monitor, and he is playing at 288fps, his monitor will draw half of each frame before moving onto the next frame...

 

But I cannot imagine that being particularly good for shooter games with that much tearing going on.

What are you on? 120hz monitor and 300-450fps with no noticeable screen tearing...even when flicking with an awp  

16 minutes ago, UberGamerKing said:

Dude you crazy.

 

Your system in not bottlenecking, just under heavy load.

Why do you need FPS in the 200 - 250 range, when your monitor can only display a maximum of 144FPS. Thats what 144Hz means

There's this thing called frame latency/whatever it's called where more frames=the monitor can get a more recent frame displayed resulting it feeling more smooth (try it, you'll notice the difference between even 300 and 450fps)

 

Take it from a guy who plays CS every day and plays it semi-seriously  (I'm sure 2K hours across my 4 accounts=I don't know shit about this game)

 

[The_Denks]

1 minute ago, cquel said:

No offense bro, but u clearly don't play cs on a high lvl. I can feel it, theres no denying that.

You think you can, but it is physically impossible for your monitor to display anything higher than 144FPS.

 

And for your info, i do play a lot of CSGO.

[LionSpeck]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

while i really dont like seeing an fx8350 anymore, my bet is on the R9 270x, a friend of mine has one of those, and they seemingly really lack "oomph" in some way...

I'm currently using an R9 270X, and although it's not even close to "last gen AAA games", it was able to play at 60+ FPS Battlefield 1 Open Beta in 1080p at Medium graphics, which is impressively heavy on components, and lacks of optimization from every aspect (again, it was the beta). Still, CS:GO is an eSports game, which means it SHOULD be an easy game to run, just like SC2, DOTA2 and LOL. In fact, GPUs like the R5 and R7 series from AMD exist just for these games, which are compared to big games and AAA games at 720p (not max quality)

[cquel]

10 minutes ago, manikyath said:

to everyone yammering about FPS in CS:GO not mattering, please shut the full cup and help the guy out.

 

it is *generally believed* (not gonna argue for or against) that CS:GO runs smoother when you run at 2-4x your display refresh rate, and some people *claim* to have gotten better at the game with higher FPS. (i completely agree the chances of placebo are quite large here).

 

anyways, on topic:

while i really dont like seeing an fx8350 anymore, my bet is on the R9 270x, a friend of mine has one of those, and they seemingly really lack "oomph" in some way...

So would u recommend something like an 980 or 1080 ?

[typographie]

28 minutes ago, cquel said:

I really hope someone can give me an answer to this as i only really have the money to switch out one thing (CPU+Mobo(+RAM) or GPU)

It seems like this would be pretty easy to figure out. Bring up your MSI Afterburner graphs, configure them so you can see both GPU Usage and CPU Usage, and watch them as you play (or within 5 minutes after playing, if you don't have two monitors). Which one is hitting 100%?

[manikyath]

Just now, cquel said:

So would u recommend something like an 980 or 1080 ?

that's probably much too high of a grabs to pair with an FX8350.

 

ideally i'd recommend replacing both CPU and GPU, but that's a costly thing to recommend.

[LionSpeck]

1 minute ago, typographie said:

It seems like this would be pretty easy to figure out. Bring up your MSI Afterburner graphs, configure them so you can see both GPU Usage and CPU Usage, and watch them as you play (or within 5 minutes after playing, if you don't have two monitors). Which one is hitting 100%?

The problem with the FX8350 (which I also had a long time ago) is that it has 8 cores, which are not correctly split up by Windows, so you'll never see 100% utilization neither in the whole CPU nor in each single core. But, when switching to any Intel i5, you'll see less overall CPU use and a lot more FPS on the counter.

[Zyndo]

2 minutes ago, cquel said:

So would u recommend something like an 980 or 1080 ?

Get something like this build. reasonably cheap and should solve your CS problems: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/

 

to be more future friendly you could spend an extra 100 or so dollars and get an i7 6700 as well. not sure how much better it would be for CS:GO, but it would be helpful for a game like battlefield 1

[cquel]

1 minute ago, Zyndo said:

Get something like this build. reasonably cheap and should solve your CS problems: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/

 

to be more future friendly you could spend an extra 100 or so dollars and get an i7 6700 as well. not sure how much better it would be for CS:GO, but it would be helpful for a game like battlefield 1

Thanks, but i can't see the list u compiled  Can u take a screenshot of it and link to imgur or something similar ?

[typographie]

1 minute ago, LionSpeck said:

The problem with the FX8350 (which I also had a long time ago) is that it has 8 cores, which are not correctly split up by Windows, so you'll never see 100% utilization neither in the whole CPU nor in each single core. But, when switching to any Intel i5, you'll see less overall CPU use and a lot more FPS on the counter.

If nothing else, there's still a great deal of information to learn by looking solely at the GPU usage statistics. We might not be able to absolutely confirm it's a platform bottleneck that way, but we could at least determine if it's the GPU or not.

[Zyndo]

8 minutes ago, cquel said:

Thanks, but i can't see the list u compiled  Can u take a screenshot of it and link to imgur or something similar ?

I derped and posted the wrong link lol

 

Here you go: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/sMbNPs

[LionSpeck]

1 minute ago, Zyndo said:

I derped and posted the wrong link lol

 

Here you go: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/sMbNPs

Thumbs up to everything except maybe the GPU: I'd personally go with an RX 480. It's cheaper, performs better in some games (I don't know about CS:GO) and it's 100% capable of 144Hz even at 1440p (with light games or by cranking down the settings a bit)