The subject of bottlenecks!

[Mudzie]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm currently in the process of building my first PC and there's the subject of bottlenecks that I've been researching for a while now. I understand what it means and how I should be careful choosing the components to reduce bottlenecks as much as possible, but my problem is that aside from reviews, benchmarks and experiences, there aren't specific values/specs within CPU models of the same tier to use for determining the level of bottlenecking. It's mostly relative.

 

By different tiers I mean, for example, that the probability of an i3 bottlenecking a GTX 1080 is obviously higher than an i7 for example. But looking at different i7 models with the same number of cores such as i7-4790 vs. i7-6700K vs. i7-7700, you can tell which is better in performance, but you cannot know without experience to which extent they bottleneck a Titan X Pascal for instance. So by going with an i7-4790, you cannot know how much you're compromising performance for price unless you try the other CPUs (or someone else does and shows you the results).

 

Here's why I'm having trouble: Now I'm a student on a budget, but at the same time I take my time saving to get good components for high-end gaming. I recently won a Titan XP (I know, lucky bastard!) and am determined to build a PC around it. I was going for an i7-7700K CPU, but looking at the other options I think I can get a cheaper CPU which performs good enough with this GPU playing on Full HD to 4K (preferably 4K). I love a good game experience and even though obviously appreciate higher fps, 60 fps is 2x more than I'm used to, so for me it's just great! So I cannot really tell if an i7-4790 or even an AMD FX-8350, which is waaaayyy cheaper, will bottleneck the crap out of the Titan XP.

 

Bottom line: I don't have so much money to spend, but I don't want to go too cheap on the Titan XP and lose its advantage over say the GTX 1080. If you have any suggestions on which CPUs I should look at that are within a budget of a student and are able to carry the weight of a Titan, please do tell! But also if you have advice on how I should approach this bottleneck check, I would really appreciate your input. I don't have much experience in this, so I appreciate any feedback.

 

Cheers,

Mud

[Squibbies18]

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5

8 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

Hi everyone,

 

I'm currently in the process of building my first PC and there's the subject of bottlenecks that I've been researching for a while now. I understand what it means and how I should be careful choosing the components to reduce bottlenecks as much as possible, but my problem is that aside from reviews, benchmarks and experiences, there aren't specific values/specs within CPU models of the same tier to use for determining the level of bottlenecking. It's mostly relative.

 

By different tiers I mean, for example, that the probability of an i3 bottlenecking a GTX 1080 is obviously higher than an i7 for example. But looking at different i7 models with the same number of cores such as i7-4790 vs. i7-6700K vs. i7-7700, you can tell which is better in performance, but you cannot know without experience to which extent they bottleneck a Titan X Pascal for instance. So by going with an i7-4790, you cannot know how much you're compromising performance for price unless you try the other CPUs (or someone else does and shows you the results).

 

Here's why I'm having trouble: Now I'm a student on a budget, but at the same time I take my time saving to get good components for high-end gaming. I recently won a Titan XP (I know, lucky bastard!) and am determined to build a PC around it. I was going for an i7-7700K CPU, but looking at the other options I think I can get a cheaper CPU which performs good enough with this GPU playing on Full HD to 4K (preferably 4K). I love a good game experience and even though obviously appreciate higher fps, 60 fps is 2x more than I'm used to, so for me it's just great! So I cannot really tell if an i7-4790 or even an AMD FX-8350, which is waaaayyy cheaper, will bottleneck the crap out of the Titan XP.

 

Bottom line: I don't have so much money to spend, but I don't want to go too cheap on the Titan XP and lose its advantage over say the GTX 1080. If you have any suggestions on which CPUs I should look at that are within a budget of a student and are able to carry the weight of a Titan, please do tell! But also if you have advice on how I should approach this bottleneck check, I would really appreciate your input. I don't have much experience in this, so I appreciate any feedback.

 

Cheers,

Mud

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5 if you can 

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

look bottle necking even a high end gpu is hard since cpu growth stalled so much even 5 year old cpus wont bottle neck it

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

also alot of the stuff you'd use a titan xp for are gpu only work loads so it wouldn't really get bottle necked unless your doing hybrid cpu gpu work loads

[AlwaysFSX]

 

[Bananasplit_00]

ok wait for Ryzen first of, we dont know prices and preformance of the Ryzen CPUs yet but there could be one thats the perfect fit for this. when looking at current CPUs the cheapest id go would be an I7 4770K(preferably the I7 4790K because the 4770 has horrible thermals unless delided) and then throwing an overclock on it. there is currently no AMD CPU capable of not bottlenecking a Titan X, but Ryzen will change that most likely

[Guest Kloaked]

You'll probably want an i7 and decently clocked memory for 4K as you're essentially rendering four 1080p panels at the same time, which is a rather large workload.

 

If you're wanting to save money, you're not going to with 4K gaming. Either do 1440p or 1080p if you want to save money. Otherwise, if you want a good experience you'll have to splurge on good parts for 4K.

 

1 minute ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

ok wait for Ryzen first of, we dont know prices and preformance of the Ryzen CPUs yet but there could be one thats the perfect fit for this. when looking at current CPUs the cheapest id go would be an I7 4770K(preferably the I7 4790K because the 4770 has horrible thermals unless delided) and then throwing an overclock on it. there is currently no AMD CPU capable of not bottlenecking a Titan X, but Ryzen will change that most likely

You're telling them to wait on Ryzen, then in the same sentence you're saying you don't know the price or performance of the CPUs? 

[Mudzie]

13 minutes ago, Squibbies18 said:

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5 if you can 

Ok, so I take from that i7-4790 isn't actually a big no-no like the AMD is. It's still about 60€ cheaper than an i7-7700K.

11 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

 

Thanks a lot for this video, clearly shows what the problem is with AMD in comparison to Intel CPUs when it comes to high end GPUs. An 8350 is a bad choice for high-end cards above GTX 1060...

[Mudzie]

19 minutes ago, Alaradia said:

look bottle necking even a high end gpu is hard since cpu growth stalled so much even 5 year old cpus wont bottle neck it

Well, there WILL be a bottleneck but I think you mean it wouldn't be as significant. My dilemma was which to go for to get the least bottleneck for the least amount of money... Kind of.

17 minutes ago, Alaradia said:

also alot of the stuff you'd use a titan xp for are gpu only work loads so it wouldn't really get bottle necked unless your doing hybrid cpu gpu work loads

That's a good point to think about... Also the video above shows that e.g. playing Cities Skylines requires more CPU usage than GPU for calculating AI and whatnot. A lot of games I play rely much on CPU.

[Squibbies18]

2 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

Well, there WILL be a bottleneck but I think you mean it wouldn't be as significant. My dilemma was which to go for to get the least bottleneck for the least amount of money... Kind of.

That's a good point to think about... Also the video above shows that e.g. playing Cities Skylines requires more CPU usage than GPU for calculating AI and whatnot. A lot of games I play rely much on CPU.

i'd go for a 6600K at least then or the  I7 4770K

[PeachyUwUSenpai]

1 minute ago, Mud_89 said:

Well, there WILL be a bottleneck but I think you mean it wouldn't be as significant. My dilemma was which to go for to get the least bottleneck for the least amount of money... Kind of.

That's a good point to think about... Also the video above shows that e.g. playing Cities Skylines requires more CPU usage than GPU for calculating AI and whatnot. A lot of games I play rely much on CPU.

i'm talking about intel wise not amd amd will bottle neck but even as far back as a 2770k wont bottle neck

[Mudzie]

18 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

ok wait for Ryzen first of, we dont know prices and preformance of the Ryzen CPUs yet but there could be one thats the perfect fit for this. when looking at current CPUs the cheapest id go would be an I7 4770K(preferably the I7 4790K because the 4770 has horrible thermals unless delided) and then throwing an overclock on it. there is currently no AMD CPU capable of not bottlenecking a Titan X, but Ryzen will change that most likely

Yea I also was thinking about waiting for the Ryzen... I cannot find out when it's gonna be released in Q1 2017!
Also, the 4790K costs about as much as a 7700K, and the 4770K is more expensive. I think I'd rather go with the 7700K in that case.

[Verrierr]

1 minute ago, Mud_89 said:

Yea I also was thinking about waiting for the Ryzen... I cannot find out when it's gonna be released in Q1 2017!
Also, the 4790K costs about as much as a 7700K, and the 4770K is more expensive. I think I'd rather go with the 7700K in that case.

Exact date is not yet announced as far as I know.

[belfouf]

32 minutes ago, Squibbies18 said:

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5

not the 8350 for lord sake, it'll bottleneck the hell out of a titan. go for the i7-4790 or go for a top tier i5 if you can 

not playing at 4K, all is relative. At this point 8350 = 4790

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

[Mudzie]

24 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

You'll probably want an i7 and decently clocked memory for 4K as you're essentially rendering four 1080p panels at the same time, which is a rather large workload.

 

If you're wanting to save money, you're not going to with 4K gaming. Either do 1440p or 1080p if you want to save money. Otherwise, if you want a good experience you'll have to splurge on good parts for 4K.

 

You're telling them to wait on Ryzen, then in the same sentence you're saying you don't know the price or performance of the CPUs? 

It's true, 4K setup is expensive, but if I find good and (relatively) cheap CPU that's capable I'd go for that not needing to upgrade in the near future when I acquire all the 4K stuff.

What's your interpretation of "decently clocked"? Does a 2.8 GHz (base) CPU counts as decent for such GPU?

 

Saw Linus' video on Ryzen and it DOES sound like it will be competing with high performance and cheaper price. There aren't numbers yet, but it sounds like an option to consider when it's out there.

[belfouf]

43 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

snip

 

Bottom line: I don't have so much money to spend, but I don't want to go too cheap on the Titan XP and lose its advantage over say the GTX 1080. 

 

Cheers,

Mud

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

maybe wait for Zen, but at 4K you can save money on CPU with AMD.

 

PS: AMD is tailored made for new software platforms such as W10, DX12... and is a better investment. Intel has performances decrease with time, it's the opposite with AMD

[Mudzie]

10 minutes ago, Squibbies18 said:

i'd go for a 6600K at least then or the  I7 4770K

It's so much cheaper than i7 for me, which makes it a great option. But I'd be really careful when using an i5 with a Titan XP... I'd rather see some benchmarks and make 100% sure that it wouldn't bottleneck the GPU too much.

[grimreeper132]

2 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

It's true, 4K setup is expensive, but if I find good and (relatively) cheap CPU that's capable I'd go for that not needing to upgrade in the near future when I acquire all the 4K stuff.

What's your interpretation of "decently clocked"? Does a 2.8 GHz (base) CPU counts as decent for such GPU?

 

Saw Linus' video on Ryzen and it DOES sound like it will be competing with high performance and cheaper price. There aren't numbers yet, but it sounds like an option to consider when it's out there.

There are some number now, how reliable they are is another question, but anyways, it's likely ZEN is going to be with us within the next month or two so if you can wait I'd wait

[Mudzie]

12 minutes ago, Alaradia said:

i'm talking about intel wise not amd amd will bottle neck but even as far back as a 2770k wont bottle neck

My point is there will always be a bottleneck no matter which manufacturer you go for, whether it's from the CPU or the GPU side.

[Mudzie]

6 minutes ago, belfouf said:

not playing at 4K, all is relative. At this point 8350 = 4790

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

2 minutes ago, belfouf said:

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/56/amd-fx-8350-powering-gtx-780-sli-vs-gtx-980-sli-at-4k/index.html

 

maybe wait for Zen, but at 4K you can save money on CPU with AMD.

 

PS: AMD is tailored made for new software platforms such as W10, DX12... and is a better investment. Intel has performances decrease with time, it's the opposite with AMD

I've read about performance degradation with AMD more often than Intel, but I wouldn't worry about that point. With good cooling setup and less OCing I think one can manage to make a CPU live longer with above 80% efficiency. But your point about AMD being a better investment when it comes to price per performance is what I'd like to know about, if it doesn't significantly bottlenecks the Titan.

[belfouf]

1 minute ago, Mud_89 said:

 

I've read about performance degradation with AMD more often than Intel, but I wouldn't worry about that point. With good cooling setup and less OCing I think one can manage to make a CPU live longer with above 80% efficiency. But your point about AMD being a better investment when it comes to price per performance is what I'd like to know about, if it doesn't significantly bottlenecks the Titan.

4K is so intensive on GPU I think any 8 core AMD or 4 cores Intel can Handle it pretty easy. It's not like you'll play 4K 144fps. If you aim 30-60fps no pressure on CPU, big pressure on GPU

 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/422344

[Guest Kloaked]

9 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

It's true, 4K setup is expensive, but if I find good and (relatively) cheap CPU that's capable I'd go for that not needing to upgrade in the near future when I acquire all the 4K stuff.

What's your interpretation of "decently clocked"? Does a 2.8 GHz (base) CPU counts as decent for such GPU?

 

Saw Linus' video on Ryzen and it DOES sound like it will be competing with high performance and cheaper price. There aren't numbers yet, but it sounds like an option to consider when it's out there.

I'm rooting for AMD since I do not like Intel as a company, but I do not see them beating Intel at all in any way with Ryzen. I would be deathly surprised if they even matched Intel at all in performance and have a lower price tag.

 

You're not going to find a cheap CPU that will do 4K appropriately. If you can buy a Titan XP, you need to get an unlocked i7 for 4K. If you do not have 4K right now, a 7600k would be fine.

 

I was referring to a decently clocked memory kit. Higher clocked memory (to an extent) will help relieve CPU bottlenecks - your motherboard has to support XMP and Z boards do. If you get an unlocked CPU like a 7600k or 7700k you can overclock them (since that's what they're made for) as well.

 

4 minutes ago, Mud_89 said:

I've read about performance degradation with AMD more often than Intel, but I wouldn't worry about that point. With good cooling setup and less OCing I think one can manage to make a CPU live longer with above 80% efficiency. But your point about AMD being a better investment when it comes to price per performance is what I'd like to know about, if it doesn't significantly bottlenecks the Titan.

AMD has terrible performance for the money.

[Mudzie]

10 minutes ago, belfouf said:

4K is so intensive on GPU I think any 8 core AMD or 4 cores Intel can Handle it pretty easy. It's not like you'll play 4K 144fps. If you aim 30-60fps no pressure on CPU, big pressure on GPU

 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/422344

Yea my aim is to go minimum 60 fps at 4K. This score is pretty low-ish...

[Mudzie]

19 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

I'm rooting for AMD since I do not like Intel as a company, but I do not see them beating Intel at all in any way with Ryzen. I would be deathly surprised if they even matched Intel at all in performance and have a lower price tag.

 

You're not going to find a cheap CPU that will do 4K appropriately. If you can buy a Titan XP, you need to get an unlocked i7 for 4K. If you do not have 4K right now, a 7600k would be fine.

 

I was referring to a decently clocked memory kit. Higher clocked memory (to an extent) will help relieve CPU bottlenecks - your motherboard has to support XMP and Z boards do. If you get an unlocked CPU like a 7600k or 7700k you can overclock them (since that's what they're made for) as well.

 

AMD has terrible performance for the money.

I also don't see them even reaching Intel, let alone beat them. BUT seeing how cheaper AMD CPUs for gaming as compared to Intel are, and yes still considering the lower performance, I wouldn't say it's a TERRIBLE price-performance ratio. It's more than decent. When it comes to Nvidia GPUs older than the 1070, AMD CPUs do carry the weight and deliver good performance for down to as much as half the price of rival Intel CPUs. Of course your performance degrades to say 20-25%? That's a good deal for a budget.

 

I was actually looking at 6700K with Z170 chipset. I'd rather use base frequency than OCing, therefore I'd still worry about the 7600K bottleneck though. But OCing is also a good option to consider to go cheaper I guess.

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

 

You're telling them to wait on Ryzen, then in the same sentence you're saying you don't know the price or performance of the CPUs? 

yes because Ryzen COULD bring something better to the market but seeing as noone outside of AMD and some motherboard manufacturers CQ testers noone knows how Ryzen performs nor the price. it COULD be better or terrible, even though its less then a month to release we know barely anything outside of that there will be an 8c/16th with a base clock of 3.4GHz that preforms about the same as the I7 6900K at stock speeds and that all Ryzen chips are unlocked