17-2600 bottleneck GTX 10 series gpu

[Mick Naughty]

A 1080 is effected by a 4790k. 

Same issue with a 3770k and a titan Black. 

 

Can sit here all day and compare bs. Comes down to the game and rig. 

[KarathKasun]

9 hours ago, Apepa said:

Please, for the love of god, read the thread first.

 

I mentioned the Phenom II because someone else said:

10-year old CPU. Apples to Apples.

 

I'm not comparing Sandy Bridge to a Phenom, I'm commenting on the fact that increasing graphics settings will make a CPU bottleneck even worse.

 

Good Lord. The humanity.

 

EDIT: And that even goes for old games from when the Phenom was relevant. TESTED

No, I have a dual 3ghz "C2Q" Xeon machine.  In nearly all games the only setting that changes CPU load would be draw distance or object count.  You can crank everything else up and it does not change the framerate.  If the framerate does not go down and you are CPU limited, the settings do not have a CPU cost.

 

Ive done testing with tons of games as it was my main rig for nearly two years with an R9 290 in it.  1080p and 4k performance was almost identical in many games.

[Darkseth]

9 hours ago, Apepa said:

I have a spare rig with a Phenom X4 that I ended up using with my 1060 last month while I was waiting for a replacement motherboard for my Coffeelake machine.

 

I have a spare rig with a Phenom X4 that I ended up using with my 1060 last month while I was waiting for a replacement motherboard for my Coffeelake machine.

 

I have a spare rig with a Phenom X4 that I ended up using with my 1060 last month while I was waiting for a replacement motherboard for my Coffeelake machine.

 

I have a spare rig with a Phenom X4 that I ended up using with my 1060 last month while I was waiting for a replacement motherboard for my Coffeelake machine.

 

 

 

 

Except your main bottleneck at 4K Ultra is going to be the GPU by a wide margin, even on a 1080Ti.

You can have as many spare rigs as you want, you can even get 100 of those. Doesn't change the Fact, that my  Statement is correct: Higher graphic settings = more stress on the GPU. Period.

 

While you are right, some settings to put a higher stres on the CPU too, but mainly the GPU will be stressed more --> Bottleneck shifts heavily towards GPU.

 

 

Exactly. In 4k Ultra the GPU is the bottleneck by a large margin. Why? Because of my statement: Higher settings = higher GPU Bottleneck. Not CPU (as YOU claimed).

 

With your sentence there you have proven me right, thanks: Higher Settings = GPU Bottleneck. Not CPU.

 

 

--> If you have too much GPU Power for the current CPU, you simply increase settings, and give the GPU more to work. Simple as that.

[Apepa]

52 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

No, I have a dual 3ghz "C2Q" Xeon machine.  In nearly all games the only setting that changes CPU load would be draw distance and object count.  You can crank everything else up and it does not change the framerate.  If the framerate does not go down and you are CPU limited, the settings do not have a CPU cost.

 

Ive done testing with tons of games as it was my main rig for nearly two years with an R9 290 in it.  1080p and 4k performance was almost identical in many games.

Draw distance, object count, particle effects, grass/tree quality, shadows, additional light sources.

 

You said "the graphics settings", not the "resolution". Most people will already be running at their native resolution.

[KarathKasun]

Particles had no effect, Grass didnt either.  Shadows is a creation engine only thing (FO4/Skyrim).  Light sources have no effect.

 

In FO4, low to ultra has almost zero overall effect outside of shadow distance and item fade.

[Apepa]

7 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

 

Exactly. In 4k Ultra the GPU is the bottleneck by a large margin. Why? Because of my statement: Higher settings = higher GPU Bottleneck. Not CPU (as YOU claimed).

That's just resolution. The phrase "maxed out @1080p" refers to more than just resolution and AA.

 

Nice try, Donald.