bottleneck???

[Realz]

I have got this problem mostly solved just at work and curious so I'm making another topic. i have 1080ti gpu, and i76800k cpu. I am currently at 3.8ghz shooting for 4.0ghz due to a bottleneck it has gotten slightly better. Just wondering if anyone has had to OC the cpu to compensate for a bottleneck. Thanks for any stories or info.

[stealth80]

Depends what resolution, if at 1080P any CPU, even a 7700k @ 5.1ghz will still be somewhat a bottleneck in the majority of games. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

BF1 will do that... 95-100% of a 4core CPU (Some cases leading to dropped usage) meaning tweaks have to be applied.

But the i7's sit around 50-85% usage, and usually isn't a problem providing the GPU with ample info.

[Zyndo]

11 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Depends what resolution, if at 1080P any CPU, even a 7700k @ 5.1ghz will still be somewhat a bottleneck in the majority of games. 

lol no. almost every game on the market will make the 1080ti GPU bottleneck before the 7700k becomes a problem, even at 1080p. Unless you're turning your graphical settings WAYY down (for no good reason) then a 7700k will not be the limiting factor in your gaming performance.... definitely not in the "majority" of games anyway.

 

15 minutes ago, Realz said:

I have got this problem mostly solved just at work and curious so I'm making another topic. i have 1080ti gpu, and i76800k cpu. I am currently at 3.8ghz shooting for 4.0ghz due to a bottleneck it has gotten slightly better. Just wondering if anyone has had to OC the cpu to compensate for a bottleneck. Thanks for any stories or info.

Yes, if your CPU is holding back your GPU from generating more frames then making your CPU more powerful (either through a hardware upgrade or, in your case, an overclock) will lessen the "bottleneck", orather the amount of frames per second your GPU is unable to do that it would like to do.

In short, if your CPU is holding you back, overclocking your CPU makes it hold you back less. Overclock it enough and it will no longer hold you back at all. this is entirely the point of overclocking a CPU - to increase CPU related performance.

[stealth80]

5 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

lol no. almost every game on the market will make the 1080ti GPU bottleneck before the 7700k becomes a problem, even at 1080p. Unless you're turning your graphical settings WAYY down (for no good reason) then a 7700k will not be the limiting factor in your gaming performance.... definitely not in the "majority" of games anyway

 

You say that then this below (also remember yes, the majority of games, there's a 30 year catalogue of games - it's only the absolute latest games that want more cores and 5 ghz)

 

5 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

Yes, if your CPU is holding back your GPU from generating more frames then making your CPU more powerful (either through a hardware upgrade or, in your case, an overclock) will lessen the "bottleneck", orather the amount of frames per second your GPU is unable to do that it would like to do.

In short, if your CPU is holding you back, overclocking your CPU makes it hold you back less. Overclock it enough and it will no longer hold you back at all. this is entirely the point of overclocking a CPU - to increase CPU related performance.

At 1080P a 1080ti is held back by CPU, that is why CPU related performance is tested at 1080P, to try and eliminate the GPU as the bottleneck

[Zyndo]

Just now, stealth80 said:

At 1080P a 1080ti is held back by CPU

Not by a 7700k at 5.1GHz its not, not in the "majority of games" anyway.

A lot of other inferior CPU's, definitely... but not that one. You need more than a single 1080ti to push the 7700k to its limits, even at 1080p. There are certainly going to be a handful of games in limited number of situations where that doesn't hold true, but the majority of the time in the majority of games, assuming you have at least the ultra graphics preset on in said game (with minimal AA going) then the 7700k is still way ahead of the 1080ti most of the time.... and if you're not playing on ultra settings, then why are you investing in a 1080ti?

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, Zyndo said:

Not by a 7700k at 5.1GHz its not, not in the "majority of games" anyway.

A lot of other inferior CPU's, definitely... but not that one. You need more than a single 1080ti to push the 7700k to its limits, even at 1080p. There are certainly going to be a handful of games in limited number of situations where that doesn't hold true, but the majority of the time in the majority of games, assuming you have at least the ultra graphics preset on in said game (with minimal AA going) then the 7700k is still way ahead of the 1080ti most of the time.... and if you're not playing on ultra settings, then why are you investing in a 1080ti?

Ok so in that case why overclock from say 4.8ghz to 5.1ghz for gaming if the CPU isn't the bottleneck? In that theory you may as well stay at 4.8ghz and save the heat and energy waste. 

[Zyndo]

Just now, stealth80 said:

Ok so in that case why overclock from say 4.8ghz to 5.1ghz for gaming if the CPU isn't the bottleneck? In that theory you may as well stay at 4.8ghz and save the heat and energy waste. 

May as well.

But its not ALL games, as mentioned earlier... so having that 5.1GHz overclock will help in the few situations where its needed. and "needed" is a bit of a weird word to use... because you're very likely going to be well over the refresh rate of your monitor anyway if you run into this issue (except maybe on a 240hz).

[Zyndo]

2 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

Snip

Before this gets too far off topic though, if you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me with some benchmarks backing up your claims and I'll see if I can help put your concerns to rest. You can get your answers and this thread can get back to its original intent.

[stealth80]

Just now, Zyndo said:

Before this gets too far off topic though, if you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to PM me with some benchmarks backing up your claims and I'll see if I can help put your concerns to rest. You can get your answers and this thread can get back to its original intent.

well you derailed it .... What I said is true for the majority of games - remember games didn't just release this year in  AAA+ format. Some people still play tonnes of older games, many without proper multithreaded support etc. 

 

Also, OP still hasn't answer as to what resolution 

[stealth80]

For the OP, if gaming at 1080P the 1080ti is being held back, here's some 1080P reviews paired with a 7700K @ 4.9hgz

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1352-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti/

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1352-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti/page2.html

 

https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/luke-hill/nvidia-gtx-1080-ti-founders-edition-11gb-review/10/    4 FPS increase over a 1080 @ 1080P, CPU limited in GTA V, but + 17FPS at 4k (GPU limited)

 

Statement from Eurogamer/digital Foundry http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review

 

 

"We're including these 1080p results for a couple of reasons - but we simply can't recommend GTX 1080 Ti for gaming at what is now a relatively low resolution. GTX 1060 and 1070 make much more sense for full HD gameplay - beyond that, you're leaving a lot of performance on the table by using anything more powerful. However, users of 120Hz 1080p displays may be looking to this product to deliver gameplay performance more in line with their screen refresh, so the numbers are worth running. And with the average frame-rates here settling well above 100fps in many cases, it might seem like a good pairing - but the raw benchmarks do not reflect the reality of what it actually feels like to game like this.

In short, many of our test titles lose a big chunk of their performance very suddenly, at any given point. Typically, the more the CPU has to calculate - for example, intense physics in Crysis 3 or a detail-packed vista in Far Cry Primal - the more we see the processor becoming the limiting factor, resulting in a sudden lurch downwards with in-game frame-rates.

Some games do scale better than others: for example, dropping down from the ultra to the high preset on Frostbite titles can help stabilise performance beyond 100fps, but otherwise, minimums are often in 80-90fps territory, even with a modern overclocked i7. In this scenario, we'd rather stabilise at the lower frame-rate and eliminate the stutter - and put simply, this does not require a card with the raw brute-force offered by the GTX 1080 Ti."

 

 

I could go on all night, there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest the bottleneck is there. Yes if you have a 144hz monitor it won't be so bad, but you simply will not be getting the performance/IQ you paid for. 1080ti should be used for 1440P 144hz or 4k 60hz. 

 

In short, you're gonna need a high clock if gaming at 1080P on your 6800k get the most from it

 

 

 

 

 

[Zyndo]

7 minutes ago, stealth80 said:

dropping down from the ultra to the high preset on Frostbite titles can help stabilise performance beyond 100fps

That right there is indicative of the GPU being the limiting factor, not the CPU. Dropping settings does alleviate a minor amount of stress on the CPU, but much more so on the GPU. if you're seeing notable performance boosts after dropping your graphical settings, that's not due to something being insufficient on the CPU side of things, I mean, if your fps goes UP that means your CPU is in fact NOT holding you back (if you see it go up by a small amount, that can be the result of a graphical change and the CPU having a little bit more power to play with, but when they describe this issue its not a subtle difference).

I could go down game to game to game and point everything out.... a game like CIV for example, definite extreme CPU bottlenecking going on... but its due to the game being so outrageously CPU intensive and so overwhelmingly GPU intensive.. I mean there's like a 15% performance difference between the GTX 1060 3GB and Titan Xp on that title, despite the titan being massively more powerful. But in the example of a game like Civ... does it really matter if you're playing it at 60 fps or 200 fps? game experience does not change at all.

I could go on and on and on for each game and state rationales for each (for example they want to claim CPU bottlenecks but don't list usages), but that is not the topic of this thread. Yes, there are SOME games on the market which leave the 7700k wanting, but those games are few and far between. Even in these 20 games tested (many which were deliberately selected for their CPU dependency) only a handful even produced bottlenecks at 1080p.... and there are a LOT more than 20 games on the market today.

I'm done discussing this with you in this thread. keep your ignorance to yourself from now on please. have a good day.

[Realz]

My monitor is the ROG swift asus 27" 1440p 144hz, just so you guys know I'm still reading all the responses.

[stealth80]

40 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

That right there is indicative of the GPU being the limiting factor, not the CPU. Dropping settings does alleviate a minor amount of stress on the CPU, but much more so on the GPU. if you're seeing notable performance boosts after dropping your graphical settings, that's not due to something being insufficient on the CPU side of things, I mean, if your fps goes UP that means your CPU is in fact NOT holding you back (if you see it go up by a small amount, that can be the result of a graphical change and the CPU having a little bit more power to play with, but when they describe this issue its not a subtle difference).

I could go down game to game to game and point everything out.... a game like CIV for example, definite extreme CPU bottlenecking going on... but its due to the game being so outrageously CPU intensive and so overwhelmingly GPU intensive.. I mean there's like a 15% performance difference between the GTX 1060 3GB and Titan Xp on that title, despite the titan being massively more powerful. But in the example of a game like Civ... does it really matter if you're playing it at 60 fps or 200 fps? game experience does not change at all.

I could go on and on and on for each game and state rationales for each (for example they want to claim CPU bottlenecks but don't list usages), but that is not the topic of this thread. Yes, there are SOME games on the market which leave the 7700k wanting, but those games are few and far between. Even in these 20 games tested (many which were deliberately selected for their CPU dependency) only a handful even produced bottlenecks at 1080p.... and there are a LOT more than 20 games on the market today.

I'm done discussing this with you in this thread. keep your ignorance to yourself from now on please. have a good day.

 I didn't even quote you it was aimed at the OP and I even stated that...... yet you reply to tell me you're done discussing it in this thread and call me ignorant? But then this isn't the first time you have failed to have a decent discussion here

 

17 minutes ago, Realz said:

My monitor is the ROG swift asus 27" 1440p 144hz, just so you guys know I'm still reading all the responses.

Ok, ye you should be set then this is pretty much the perfect scenario for the 1080ti, high refresh 1440P or 4k 60hz. 

 

You will still see some benefit though from overclocking the 6800k, you didn't tell us your cooling config, but 4.4ghz should be do-able without too much stress on the CPU - however just don't do it on stock cooling (not that I think you are) 

 

I'm in a slightly similar scenario to a lesser degree with a 1080 (2050mhz on water) and a Ryzen 1700 where I have seen benchmark results go up by quite a bit purely from new bios updates allowing higher ram speeds - of which, what Ram are you using? It doesn't make a massive difference on Intel, but it all helps - obviously some games won't benefit at all, but others (Fallout 4 is one example I think of) where ram speed can really help. 

 

 

[Zyndo]

Just now, stealth80 said:

 I didn't even quote you it was aimed at the OP and I even stated that

that's fine. I merely replied to inform you that your information and reasoning is incorrect, and that the OP should not take much stock in it.

 

25 minutes ago, Realz said:

My monitor is the ROG swift asus 27" 1440p 144hz, just so you guys know I'm still reading all the responses.

but yes. with that monitor and GPU pairing, you should seek to overclock your 6800k as far as you can, you will benefit from increased fps in many situations at 1080p. we've been mostly discussing the 7700k in above posts, but the 6800k is quite a bit behind the 7700k in IPC and frequency, so much of what I've been saying will not strictly pertain to your 6800k.... there will be tangible benefits in a large number of games to increasing your frequency as high as you can get it (this will still vary from game to game).

[Realz]

@stealth80 @Zyndo My cooling is a closed loop corsair system for the cpu, i for sure want to go to 4.0ghz, would like to go more but want to be careful

[Zyndo]

Just now, Realz said:

@stealth80 @Zyndo My cooling is a closed loop corsair system for the cpu, i for sure want to go to 4.0ghz, would like to go more but want to be careful

which one specifically? and what do you want to be careful about? with an AIO solution like that, you will most likely be thermally limited, causing stability issues, before you push anything too far to risk damaging it another way (although it could depend on your exact setup and ambient temperatures)

[stealth80]

29 minutes ago, Zyndo said:

that's fine. I merely replied to inform you that your information and reasoning is incorrect, and that the OP should not take much stock in it

 

You keep saying this and providing little evidence - the 1080ti will still get high frame rates at 1080P, but you will struggle to get 100% utilization from it. If I was paying £650+ for a GPU I would want 100% use from it.

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review/

 

Its evident by the fact the difference between the ti and vanilla shrinks as the resolution drops, therefore proving the CPU as the bottleneck - obviously the 7700k is the best on the market at the moment and it's not as obvious on that as it is on other processors (hence my "somewhat comment" in my original statement) If the CPU and other system resources aren't the bottleneck then the difference between the 2 should be the same at all tested resolutions.

 

1 hour ago, Zyndo said:

That right there is indicative of the GPU being the limiting factor, not the CPU. Dropping settings does alleviate a minor amount of stress on the CPU, but much more so on the GPU. if you're seeing notable performance boosts after dropping your graphical settings, that's not due to something being insufficient on the CPU side of things

The example here was Battlefield One, a massively CPU optimised game, dropping settings also reduces physics therefore actually helping massively - it even stated that in comments I copied across "dropping down from the ultra to the high preset on Frostbite titles can help stabilise performance beyond 100fps, but otherwise, minimums are often in 80-90fps territory, even with a modern overclocked i7"

 

I don't see why you got so salty so quickly. It's a discussion forum, that's what we do. To come tell me i'm wrong and then call me ignorant when I present benchmarks etc to suggest the bottleneck is there (not every game, certainly not all new games) is a little off.

 

Whilst there's isn't an actual ceiling of bottleneck, there is certainly reduced gains when compared to a 1080 at 1440P and 4k.

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, Realz said:

@stealth80 @Zyndo My cooling is a closed loop corsair system for the cpu, i for sure want to go to 4.0ghz, would like to go more but want to be careful

how are your load temperatures at the moment? and as @Zyndo said, what cooler is it? 

[Realz]

@Zyndo I mean now at 3.8ghz under load the highest i have seen my cpu it has been 57c maybe 

[Zyndo]

1 minute ago, Realz said:

@Zyndo I mean now at 3.8ghz under load the highest i have seen my cpu it has been 57c maybe 

It would be helpful to know every component in your system, case included, case fans included, exact motherboard cooler graphics card models, etc. as well as room temperature if you have it.... but at 57C you have a lot of overclocking headroom left, especially consider the higher your temps get, the faster your fans will typically spin (will be dependent on whatever fan curve you have set up)

[Realz]

@Zyndo @stealth80 Im not a 100% sure im trying to look the cooler came with the pc when i bought it like 2 years ago, was trying to look its one fan so probably a 120mm corsair

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, Realz said:

@Zyndo I mean now at 3.8ghz under load the highest i have seen my cpu it has been 57c maybe 

There's more room for temps. Are you overclocking all 6 cores? I've never had X99 so can't really offer any advice here. But, max appears to be 105C and < 80C is desirable. What voltage are you running? 

Again what AIO are you using? 

[stealth80]

Just now, Realz said:

@Zyndo @stealth80 Im not a 100% sure im trying to look the cooler came with the pc when i bought it like 2 years ago, was trying to look its one fan so probably a 120mm corsair

Hmm my experience of a H80 (you probably have a newer version) was terrible on my 4790K - its temperatures were comparable to the Hyper 212 it replaced at increased volume, its what drove me to custom loops.

 

Depending on your case, I would consider a 240mm AIO, the Kraken X52 seems pretty good based on reviews along with the Corsair H110i - again I have no personal experience with these, but they seem abouts the best AIO's from reviews

 

 

[Zyndo]

1 minute ago, Realz said:

@Zyndo @stealth80 Im not a 100% sure im trying to look the cooler came with the pc when i bought it like 2 years ago, was trying to look its one fan so probably a 120mm corsair

on a 120mm AIO you may not be able to get much more than 3.8GHz... maybe to 4GHz (but if you have the headroom at that point there is no reason you couldn't go higher). with a better cooling solution (like a large air cooler or 240/280/360mm AIO) you can often get 6800k's into the 4.2-4.4 range. up to you if you think you want to go for the investment.