Best games to test "CPU Bottlenecking." Friend has a 4790k and is convinced he's bottlenecking a 980 Ti (Doubtful)

[LaboonTheWhale]

Hey guys

 

Before you guys say anybad mouthing towards me about this title, I have a friend who's convinced his 4790k is bottlenecking and should be upgrading to the 8700k for pure gaming only.

 

I just want to show him compared to my 8600k its not an issue but I feel showing him numbers would make more sense than just verbally telling him.

 

I have majority of AAA titles to benchmark and some past ones (Witcher 3, R6 siege, GTA V, Battlefield, etc). RTS games like Civ, cities skylines, or Total war series to test multiple AI on the screen at once.

 

But I dont know which one really takes it to the extreme to test to show he shouldnt be worried at 1080p gaming.

 

The CPUs i have to bench to add variety is the 2400G, 2700x, 8600k, and 8700k. 2400G being the further end of the budget spectrum to see if there really is an issue with bottlenecking. I want to test it at 1920x1080 (up to 240hz), 2560x1440, and 3440x1440 (up to 120hz).

 

[seon123]

Check with the games he plays. Just use afterburner to monitor the CPU and GPU usage. 

[Light-Yagami]

I bottleneck my gtx 1070 on a 6700k with 4.7ghz overclock in some games (BeamNG drive, AC Origins, Witcher 3 with mods). Of course he's bottlenecked by the CPU in some games, even if CPU usage isn't 100%. He's right to think about upgrading to 8700k. I see no reason why it wouldn't benefit him. He'll see noticeable fps gains. 

 

 

[Speed Weed]

Cities: Skylines and GTA 5 and PlanetSide 2 with its shitty DX9 engine. 

[Light-Yagami]

12 minutes ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

 

But I dont know which one really takes it to the extreme to test to show he shouldnt be worried at 1080p gaming.

 

He should be worried Especially at 1080p where CPU is far more stressed compared to higher resolution where GPU becomes a very obvious bottleneck. And if he's aiming for high fps, there is a definite deficit in performance on older quad core chip like 4790k. 

[LaboonTheWhale]

Just now, Light-Yagami said:

He should be worried Especially at 1080p where CPU is far more stressed compared to higher resolution where GPU becomes a very obvious bottleneck. And if he's aiming for high fps, there is a definite deficit in performance on older quad core chip like 4790k. 

he plays Siege, LoL, and CSGO on a 60hz panel which is why I wanted to test and show him its not a big deal at what he's playing on.

[Light-Yagami]

Just now, LaboonTheWhale said:

he plays Siege, LoL, and CSGO on a 60hz panel which is why I wanted to test and show him its not a big deal at what he's playing on.

Games will look smoother on a 60hz panel if he's playing games at 180fps, due to faster and more consistent input lag. That said, it's pointless to get an 8700k for 160fps instead of 130-140 if you can only display 60hz/s. I assumed he's running a 144hz panel at least, because in that case he'd want every fps he can get. But for 60hz gaming.. nah. he's alright.

[LaboonTheWhale]

Just now, Light-Yagami said:

Games will look smoother on a 60hz panel if he's playing games at 180fps, due to faster and more consistent input lag. That said, it's pointless to get an 8700k for 160fps instead of 130-140 if you can only display 60hz/s. I assumed he's running a 144hz panel at least, because in that case he'd want every fps he can get. But for 60hz gaming.. nah. he's alright.

I do apologize. That was a detail I forgot to put in.

[vanished]

The truth is, the 4790k probably is bottlenecking it.  Here's a Titan X (similar to 980 Ti iirc) showing improvements just from a 4790k to a 6700k, never mind how much an 8700k would help.

You'd get better fps by upgrading the CPU.

 

However, doing so would be totally stupid and I don't recommend it.  If you did upgrade to an 8700k, it would cost many hundreds of dollars for the new CPU, RAM, and motherboard.  The same money spend on a GPU upgrade would absolutely destroy any difference you'd get changing the CPU.  Something like a 1080 Ti on the 4790k is going to totally stomp an 8700k with a 980 Ti.

[LaboonTheWhale]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The truth is, the 4790k probably is bottlenecking it.  Here's a Titan X (similar to 980 Ti iirc) showing improvements just from a 4790k to a 6700k, never mind how much an 8700k would help.

You'd get better fps by upgrading the CPU.

 

However, doing so would be totally stupid and I don't recommend it.  If you did upgrade to an 8700k, it would cost many hundreds of dollars for the new CPU, RAM, and motherboard.  The same money spend on a GPU upgrade would absolutely destroy any difference you'd get changing the CPU.  Something like a 1080 Ti on the 4790k is going to totally stomp an 8700k with a 980 Ti.

Thanks for the heads up! I just thought this would be a fun day project on a slow weekend. This should help.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

Thanks for the heads up! I just thought this would be a fun day project on a slow weekend. This should help.

As proof of my claim, I'll offer up this

the 1070 is sort of like a 980 Ti iirc, so comparing that just to a 1080 you can see the difference, never mind the 1080 Ti.  And this is only at 1080p, so keep that in mind.  With higher resolutions the difference would become more pronounced as the GPU to CPU load ratio increases.

[Light-Yagami]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

As proof of my claim, I'll offer up this

Digital Foundry is the money isn't it? 

[WereCat]

30 minutes ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

Hey guys

 

Before you guys say anybad mouthing towards me about this title, I have a friend who's convinced his 4790k is bottlenecking and should be upgrading to the 8700k for pure gaming only.

 

I just want to show him compared to my 8600k its not an issue but I feel showing him numbers would make more sense than just verbally telling him.

 

I have majority of AAA titles to benchmark and some past ones (Witcher 3, R6 siege, GTA V, Battlefield, etc). RTS games like Civ, cities skylines, or Total war series to test multiple AI on the screen at once.

 

But I dont know which one really takes it to the extreme to test to show he shouldnt be worried at 1080p gaming.

 

The CPUs i have to bench to add variety is the 2400G, 2700x, 8600k, and 8700k. 2400G being the further end of the budget spectrum to see if there really is an issue with bottlenecking. I want to test it at 1920x1080 (up to 240hz), 2560x1440, and 3440x1440 (up to 120hz).

 

Witcher 3, R6 siege, GTA V, Battlefield

 

These games you mentioned + Assassin Origins maybe are quite CPU heavy so its expected to be "bottlenecked".

But does that even matter really?

 

I have my i7 4770k + 1080ti at 165Hz 1440p and all of these games mentioned can run well above 100FPS but not quite reach the desired 144/165FPS which in my case is definitely a bottleneck and yes, 8700k + high speed DDR4 would definitely give me some extra FPS but I highly doubt that the upgrade is worth it considering the price of RAM, CPU and new motherboard.

Honestly, there is no point to upgrade IMO unless he plays at a 240Hz 1080p display.

 

EDIT:

And going from DDR3 1600MHz CL9 to 2200MHz CL9 helped me a lot in games like Battlefield and Witcher 3.

CPU runs at 4.5GHz right now.

[vanished]

One last thing I'll mention - if you do decide to go for the platform upgrade instead, don't get an 8700k - the 9000 series should be coming very soon so I'd wait for that.

[Light-Yagami]

Just now, WereCat said:

Witcher 3, R6 siege, GTA V, Battlefield

 

These games you mentioned + Assassin Origins maybe are quite CPU heavy so its expected to be "bottlenecked".

But does that even matter really?

 

I have my i7 4770k + 1080ti at 165Hz 1440p adn all of these games mentioned can run well above 100FPS but not quite reach the desired 144/165FPS which in my case is definitely a bottleneck and yes, 8700k + high speed DDR4 would definitely give me some extra FPS but I highly doubt that the upgrade is worth it considering the price of RAM, CPU and new motherboard.

Honestly, there is no point to upgrade IMO unless he plays at a 240Hz 1080p display.

A leap from your CPU to 8700k is quite massive. It doesn't seem worth upgrading for those 30 or so fps, but you'll probably upgrade your GPU sometime and when you do, 8700k platform will be able to take leverage of its performance. You'll have to upgrade soon or later, so might as well do it sooner. That's my thinking process. But I get what you mean.

[WereCat]

3 minutes ago, Light-Yagami said:

A leap from your CPU to 8700k is quite massive. It doesn't seem worth upgrading for those 30 or so fps, but you'll probably upgrade your GPU sometime and when you do, 8700k platform will be able to take leverage of its performance. You'll have to upgrade soon or later, so might as well do it sooner. That's my thinking process. But I get what you mean.

TBH, these games mentioned are about the only ones that are starting to struggle with a 4core i7.

I definitely plan to upgrade in future but I just could not care less right now because of 5-6 games when everything else runs fine.

 

And I really dont consider 8700k to be a worthwhile upgrade for me.

[chckovsky]

Assassin's Creed Origins is the most CPU-intensive game in my Steam library, for sure. Only one to come close is Just Cause 3, but JC3's craving for CPU power stops at a point. ACO doesn't seem to stop. It's like a power virus to anything with less than 8 high clocked threads.