does my gpu bottleneck?

[GrizzlyBear0]

i been using http://thebottlenecker.com/#calculator

but i doubt it's true 100%.

does my 1060 6gb gtx bottleneck with my amd ryzen 5 1600x

and what's the percentage of the bottleneck %.. etc?

My Current specs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/dHMFTB

[Jasun]

Don't worry about it too much, bottlenecking isn't a major problem--unlike how most people think it is. I believe that all hardware will have some sort of bottleneck but in your system, it'll be so minor that it'll be unnoticeable. 

[LienusLateTips]

Not at all

[GrizzlyBear0]

4 minutes ago, Jasun said:

Don't worry about it too much, bottlenecking isn't a major problem--unlike how most people think it is. I believe that all hardware will have some sort of bottleneck but in your system, it'll be so minor that it'll be unnoticeable. 

 

2 minutes ago, JDE said:

Not at all

but how can you find out the percentage of the bottleneck ?the webi used said 14-15%

[LienusLateTips]

1 minute ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

 

but how can you find out the percentage of the bottleneck ?the webi used said 14-15%

Don't need to, it's not a problem at all. Personally I've never thought about it if it's just minor

[GrizzlyBear0]

3 minutes ago, JDE said:

Don't need to, it's not a problem at all. Personally I've never thought about it if it's just minor

ah. so you don't know. well i'm interested in knowing such things.

[Mira Yurizaki]

28 minutes ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

i been using http://thebottlenecker.com/#calculator

but i doubt it's true 100%.

does my 1060 6gb gtx bottleneck with my amd ryzen 5 1600x

and what's the percentage of the bottleneck %.. etc?

My Current specs.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/dHMFTB

I don't think this website can be trusted. For instance it claims that the Intel Xeon E5-2660 v2 only bottlenecks the GTX 1080 by 0.9%. I can almost guarantee you that if you tested it against an i5-8400, the i5-8400 would win out most of the time, if not completely, in gaming.

 

Plus the only way it says it comes up with the numbers is that it averages GPU and CPU usage, but it doesn't go further. Taking it at face value, you can still bottleneck the GPU even if your CPU isn't 100% utilized. For instance, GTA V on average floats around 3-4 thread of utilization. This means that adding more cores to boost performance in GTA V largely starts dropping off at the 4 logical CPU core mark. So GTA V on a 8 thread processor looks like it's hovering around 50%-60% utilization, but it can still bottleneck a GPU simply because it's not processing the threads fast enough.

[DocSwag]

13 minutes ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

ah. so you don't know. well i'm interested in knowing such things.

You need to define percent bottleneck. And at any rate, reducing bottleneck to a number makes no sense. The amount by which one thing bottlenecks another depends heavily on stuff like game tested, background tasks, other components not being considered, etc. You can't just say one thing bottlenecks another by x% because it depends. Plus what does that even mean?

[Brooksie359]

5 minutes ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

 

but how can you find out the percentage of the bottleneck ?the webi used said 14-15%

Doesn't mean anything. It would be a case by case basis. Some games it won't bottlenwck at all other it will depend on the settings and some it will hard bottlenecks at certain settings. But for the most part you shouldn't encounter any bad bottlenecks

[Mira Yurizaki]

25 minutes ago, GrizzlyBear0 said:

ah. so you don't know. well i'm interested in knowing such things.

To add to what @DocSwag said, different applications utilize the hardware in different ways and some applications are deliberately designed in such a way.  So you can't say "Processor X will bottleneck GPU Y by Z%"

 

For example, a simple first person shooter like Call of Duty is light on the CPU because the AI is relatively cheap to calculate and there aren't a lot of agents, effects are mostly scripted, and physics isn't really a thing (or not much of a thing). You could easily pair an anemic performing CPU with a high-end GPU and still get 60 FPS.

 

Then there are games that are heavy on the CPU, like Ashes of the Singularity. Ashes of the Singularity spawns hundreds of AI agents and it needs all the CPU power it can get.

 

Then there's the question of how well the game is multithreaded. Most games before 2014 or maybe 2015 don't use multiple threads very well, so it's reliant more on how well a single core performs. AAA titles today are starting to use multiple threads effectively, making the games more reliant on how many cores the processor has.

 

And even then, games that stream data can be subject to storage bottlenecks, where the game hiccups because it needs to load more data and the storage isn't fast enough.

 

Anyways, I did write a topic about this at:

 

[Paddi01]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Plus the only way it says it comes up with the numbers is that it averages GPU and CPU usage, but it doesn't go further. Taking it at face value, you can still bottleneck the GPU even if your CPU isn't 100% utilized.

When a game uses only say 50% - 70% usage of both, CPU and GPU, is it an indication of a poorly optimized game if your hardware is actually much more powerful and capable of reaching higher fps?

[Darkseth]

1. This calculator is complete utterly bullshit.

It is simply NOT possible to "calculate" a Bottleneck by just knowing the Hardware and without knowing the Software beeing used.

This website is pure garbage³

 

What bottlenecks, and by how much, depends entirely on what software you use, and what settings (which games, which resolution, which graphic settings, etc etc etc).

And even if it's always: 1080p + Ultra, it still depends on the game. Division will run GPU Bottlenecked pretty much. Ashes of the Singularity, Cities skylines, etc.. will run CPU Bottlenecked if stuff going on is huge enough.

Different games = completely different answers.

 

2. And even if you can say, what bottlenecks, you can't "calculate" the exact %. You might estimate it rough yea. But %? No. Especially not without knowing the software.

 

3. You ALWAYS (!) Have something bottlenecking. Otherwise, you would've unlimited fps.

 

4. Other than asking about bottlenecks, ask yourself 2 questions instead:

- Does your CPU deliver enough fps for you? If yes, everything is fine. Rest depends on the GPU, what settings it can manage. If no, then GPU is not the issue at all, because your CPU doesn't deliver enough fps (for example, if a CPU can't even hold 60 fps without drops, no matter what GPU you put in, you will NEVER have 60 fps stable)

- Does your GPU deliver enough fps in your desired settings?

 

See both these points seperately.

It doesn't matter what bottlenecks more, and by how much. Do you have enough fps?

Example, CS:GO. You will be hard CPU bottlenecked with a high end Graphics card. But does that matter? No. Because you will sit far above 250-300 fps, much more than you will ever need. You do have a hard bottleneck. But it doesn't matter, because you have enough fps.

 

5. Usually, with high resolution and high settings (high visual quality, but "only" 60 fps~ target) you will probably always have a GPU Bottleneck.

And this is GOOD. You WANT the Graphics Card to bottleneck the rest of your System. This is the optimal state for a Gaming PC.

In this state, how much fps you have depends on how fast your GPU is, and what settings you use. You want more fps? --> Buy a stronger Graphics card. Or reduce settings.

If your CPU would bottleneck, you would have a huge problem. Because, CPU Bottleneck = GPU doesn't run at full speed. It runs throttled. You want more fps? yea, can't use a stronger GPU, if even the weak one gets slowed down.

Settings? Also nope. Most settings don't impact the CPU performance too much. Some stuff like objects, shadows, particles, physics yea. But resolution, graphic quality, textures. Nope.

if you have CPU-Bottleneck (lets say, you use an old Phenom II X4 at low 2.8 Ghz), you can't do ANYTHING to get better, higher, more stable fps. 

 

--> GPU Bottleneck is ideal. Because this way, you get the 100% full performance of the GPU you bought.

 

Another example: You have an i7 8700k @ 5.2 Ghz. A Monster of a CPU Performance.

You pair it with a GTX 1080 ti, and play games in 4k Ultra - in 40-50 fps

You have a HARD GPU-Bottleneck here. The CPU could easy deliver 120-200+ fps in the Game. But the GPU only manages 40-50 fps, because 4k Ultra is so demanding for the GPU. Why should a GPU Bottleneck be anything bad? ;-)

 

The CPU is also very important, but it only needs to reach a certain threshold. And of course, be a bit "overpowered", since you want to use it in 5+ years on your next GPU too - so it has to be fast enough for a stronger GPU.

 

 

 

So yea...You view this topic from a completely wrong perspective, and accept Problems, that might not be any problems at all.

 

 

And of course: The CPU can Bottleneck your graphics Card, and does NOT need to have 100% usage for that. It is different for many games, HOW they utalize the CPU, how many cores they use, and if they can make use of SMT-Cores.

In DX11, Games usually use different things on different Threads, like a Render thread.

 

I can start Prime95 on my Computer (i7 6700k. 4 Cores, 8 threads), and let it run on 1 Thread.

None of my Threads has 100% usage. Idk why, but windows shares the load on all threads. All 8 of them are at 15-20% or so (because other stuff is going on too). Usage looks like almost nothing. Still, this is a hard CPU-Bottleneck there.

 

If you want to know, if your GPU is bottlenecked by anything else, look  at the GPU Usage. If it sits clean at 100% suage all the time without any drops, it's pretty much not bottlenecked.

If it drops, or doesn't reach 100% usage, then it is bottlenecked. Maybe by the Processor (high frame rate situations for example) or very slow Ram. Or a slower HDD causing loading issues. Or even bad Game code optimization. Or a fps limiter like riva tuner or v-sync.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Paddi01 said:

When a game uses only say 50% - 70% usage of both, CPU and GPU, is it an indication of a poorly optimized game if your hardware is actually much more powerful and capable of reaching higher fps?

No, as it's more complicated than that.

 

First think about when the game was made. A game made before 2008 is likely not going to saturate a modern processor because it was made with a single core in mind, so everything runs in a linear fashion. And you can't magically make an application designed like that use multiple cores without redesigning the software. Likewise, a game made even a few years ago may still have been designed under the assumption that people with dual-core processors might run it. So calling a game from an earlier time period that cannot maximize your CPU's resources today as "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. It may have been well optimized for the time.

 

Then there's another consideration of whether or not it makes sense to run the game to run as fast as possible. Let's take Terraria for example. I'm pretty sure that game doesn't run at a bajillion FPS, even though it could probably get there. Because why would anyone need it to run excessively fast? So it's not going to utilize your CPU or GPU all that much, so calling that game "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. Also in consideration with the second point, some genres of games don't make sense for there to be a need for 144 FPS. Or even 120FPS. If Civilization had an FPS cap of say 60, would there be a problem? Mechanics wise, the game doesn't need high frame rates to play and enjoy because it's a turn based game. The 3D is just a nice presentation that doesn't actually have to be there (though it does lend itself to providing lots of information at a glance without needing to hover over the tile... not like you can't do that with a well designed 2D map).

 

And finally, there's the whole definition of "poorly optimized." Poorly optimized by who's metric? If you're someone who demands 144 FPS all the time, then I would argue every game is "poorly optimized"

[Paddi01]

8 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

No, as it's more complicated than that.

 

First think about when the game was made. A game made before 2008 is likely not going to saturate a modern processor because it was made with a single core in mind, so everything runs in a linear fashion. And you can't magically make an application designed like that use multiple cores without redesigning the software. Likewise, a game made even a few years ago may still have been designed under the assumption that people with dual-core processors might run it. So calling a game from an earlier time period that cannot maximize your CPU's resources today as "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. It may have been well optimized for the time.

 

Then there's another consideration of whether or not it makes sense to run the game to run as fast as possible. Let's take Terraria for example. I'm pretty sure that game doesn't run at a bajillion FPS, even though it could probably get there. Because why would anyone need it to run excessively fast? So it's not going to utilize your CPU or GPU all that much, so calling that game "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. Also in consideration with the second point, some genres of games don't make sense for there to be a need for 144 FPS. Or even 120FPS. If Civilization had an FPS cap of say 60, would there be a problem? Mechanics wise, the game doesn't need high frame rates to play and enjoy because it's a turn based game. The 3D is just a nice presentation that doesn't actually have to be there (though it does lend itself to providing lots of information at a glance without needing to hover over the tile... not like you can't do that with a well designed 2D map).

 

And finally, there's the whole definition of "poorly optimized." Poorly optimized by who's metric? If you're someone who demands 144 FPS all the time, then I would argue every game is "poorly optimized"

You are right, i was just interested in this question. I usually play at 70 fps btw .

[Mira Yurizaki]

My whole issue with bottlenecking is people don't understand when it's a problem. They just think "ohmygod my GPU isn't 100%, something's wrong!"  Bottlenecking is a problem to consider when the PC isn't meeting the target performance you'd like.

[Brooksie359]

29 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

No, as it's more complicated than that.

 

First think about when the game was made. A game made before 2008 is likely not going to saturate a modern processor because it was made with a single core in mind, so everything runs in a linear fashion. And you can't magically make an application designed like that use multiple cores without redesigning the software. Likewise, a game made even a few years ago may still have been designed under the assumption that people with dual-core processors might run it. So calling a game from an earlier time period that cannot maximize your CPU's resources today as "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. It may have been well optimized for the time.

 

Then there's another consideration of whether or not it makes sense to run the game to run as fast as possible. Let's take Terraria for example. I'm pretty sure that game doesn't run at a bajillion FPS, even though it could probably get there. Because why would anyone need it to run excessively fast? So it's not going to utilize your CPU or GPU all that much, so calling that game "poorly optimized" is inaccurate. Also in consideration with the second point, some genres of games don't make sense for there to be a need for 144 FPS. Or even 120FPS. If Civilization had an FPS cap of say 60, would there be a problem? Mechanics wise, the game doesn't need high frame rates to play and enjoy because it's a turn based game. The 3D is just a nice presentation that doesn't actually have to be there (though it does lend itself to providing lots of information at a glance without needing to hover over the tile... not like you can't do that with a well designed 2D map).

 

And finally, there's the whole definition of "poorly optimized." Poorly optimized by who's metric? If you're someone who demands 144 FPS all the time, then I would argue every game is "poorly optimized"

Except pubg that is clearly poorly optimized.