CPU performance does matter...

[Vic Vega]

I love threads like these. Some fanboy comes along and says you need super duper ultra mega blah blah blah to play blah blah and here is some big name web site that says it. Then you have a bunch of guys with lower end Intel and AMD systems come in and say it runs just fine. Priceless.

 

[Puppies04]

I had an i7 860, it didn't clock well, so I got an 875K, then my board died. Neither of them could hit close to 4GHz without heat issues on my former Noctua NH-D14.

Sorry you misunderstood me, I was trying to point out a lot of the increased performance he is seeing is down to clock speed which he could have achieved with a CPU 1/4 the price of that 980x. Although i'm sure the OP has valid reasons for buying that beast.

 

[SHAQ]

There won't be overkill until somewhere past 6Ghz for some games. Or the game engines could just be lousy and not scale with faster hardware. For instance, I played Mafia not too long ago and it still ran in the 30's in some places even though my rig is 3-4x faster than it was in 2003. It had some mods for draw distance and better textures but it still would have run better if the engine was worth a damn. I think Crysis is another game with a terrible engine as I can lower all the settings to low and still struggle to maintain over 60 fps in certain areas.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Sorry you misunderstood me, I was trying to point out a lot of the increased performance he is seeing is down to clock speed which he could have achieved with a CPU 1/4 the price of that 980x. Although i'm sure the OP has valid reasons for buying that beast.

I am the OP

 

[upsdriver]

It is annoying when something is CPU bottlenecked while not using 50%+ of the resources available.

I'm having trouble understanding this. How is the CPU bottleneck caused when the CPU is at <100% usage (on the two cores it's using)? Can't the program/game just use the idle portions of those cores?

I play Skyrim on a i7 860 @ 3.36 and hd5850 stock (high/ultra, 2x AA, 1920x1080). I'm seeing 50-60% usage on the CPU cores it's using with 80-99% GPU usage (vysnc off). If the CPU isn't at full load, why can't it push more to the GPU when the GPU is at only 80%? I understand it's not going to use all cores, but why doesn't it use more of the cores it does use?

 

[Puppies04]

I'm having trouble understanding this. How is the CPU bottleneck caused when the CPU is at <100% usage (on the two cores it's using)? Can't the program/game just use the idle portions of those cores?

I play Skyrim on a i7 860 @ 3.36 and hd5850 stock (high/ultra, 2x AA, 1920x1080). I'm seeing 50-60% usage on the CPU cores it's using with 80-99% GPU usage (vysnc off). If the CPU isn't at full load, why can't it push more to the GPU when the GPU is at only 80%? I understand it's not going to use all cores, but why doesn't it use more of the cores it does use?

The parts of the game that use the cpu and gpu are not generally interchangable. It isn't a case of you have spare cpu performance so it will magically make your gpu work harder. If you want to utilise more hardware capacity turn the settings up, run at a higher resolution or start messing with the .ini files like I saw someone post about in the video cards and graphics forum a couple of days ago.

 

[Puppies04]

I love threads like these. Some fanboy comes along and says you need super duper ultra mega blah blah blah to play blah blah and here is some big name web site that says it. Then you have a bunch of guys with lower end Intel and AMD systems come in and say it runs just fine. Priceless.

Of course that persons idea of "just fine" would be completely unacceptable to somebody else. Different stroke for different folks.

At the moment I have a friend living at my house so he has the spare room that I built this rig for. I'm playing BF3 on a 60" plasma and I am turning a lot of settings down, once he moves back out and I have a higher res 120hz gaming screen I'm sure the sliders will be pushed a lot higher.

 

[upsdriver]

The parts of the game that use the cpu and gpu are not generally interchangable. It isn't a case of you have spare cpu performance so it will magically make your gpu work harder. If you want to utilise more hardware capacity turn the settings up, run at a higher resolution or start messing with the .ini files like I saw someone post about in the video cards and graphics forum a couple of days ago.

Could you expand on this a bit more (or tell me what to google)? I'm still confused on how there could both be <100% usage on both CPU and GPU.

 

[Blastman]

I'm having trouble understanding this. How is the CPU bottleneck caused when the CPU is at <100% usage (on the two cores it's using)? Can't the program/game just use the idle portions of those cores?

That's the problem -- the workload on loaded threads often can't be split to the idle cores -- every thread cannot be split up into a multithreaded workload scenario. This could be either a situation where the coding to do this is too much work, or the code itself is not able to be parallelised for additional CPU's.

If a game engine is only dual threaded, it will only use 2 cores of a quad core CPU no matter how demanding those 2 threads get. If a lot of action and things are happening in the game one could see a low of 30fps (or even worse) due to the CPUs (2 cores) not being able to render things faster. Since the game engine is only able to use 2 threads (2 cores) half of the quad core CPU sits idle while the other 2 cores struggle to keep the frame rate up. So one can get CPU limited frame rates while 2 cores sit idle on a quad. In this case the only thing that will help frame rates is a higher Ghz -- clock the CPU faster so the 2 loaded cores can do more work and increase frame rates. Work can't be allocated to the 2 idle CPU's because the game engine doesn't support them.

There are also situations where a game engine may use 4 or more threads, but load the threads differently. If a game uses 4 threads (4 cores) it's possible that only 2/4 threads might get heavily loaded and end up limiting frame rates while the other 2 threads are hardly doing anything and the cores can easily keep up for their allocated workload. This might happen because of the way the game developer has allocated the workload among the 4 threads. 2 threads might be allocated the bulk of the "heavy lifting" while the other 2 threads only do small things -- so 2 cores are fully loaded and 2 cores are idle half the time. So another CPU limited situation can arise even though the game takes advantage of 4 cores and is not fully utilizing them. Again, increasing the speed (Ghz) of the CPU will increase frame rates because the 2 loaded cores that are limiting fps can now render faster.

 

[upsdriver]

That's the problem -- the workload on loaded threads often can't be split to the idle cores -- every thread cannot be split up into a multithreaded workload scenario. This could be either a situation where the coding to do this is too much work, or the code itself is not able to be parallelised for additional CPU's.

If a game engine is only dual threaded, it will only use 2 cores of a quad core CPU no matter how demanding those 2 threads get. If a lot of action and things are happening in the game one could see a low of 30fps (or even worse) due to the CPUs (2 cores) not being able to render things faster. Since the game engine is only able to use 2 threads (2 cores) half of the quad core CPU sits idle while the other 2 cores struggle to keep the frame rate up. So one can get CPU limited frame rates while 2 cores sit idle on a quad. In this case the only thing that will help frame rates is a higher Ghz -- clock the CPU faster so the 2 loaded cores can do more work and increase frame rates. Work can't be allocated to the 2 idle CPU's because the game engine doesn't support them.

There are also situations where a game engine may use 4 or more threads, but load the threads differently. If a game uses 4 threads (4 cores) it's possible that only 2/4 threads might get heavily loaded and end up limiting frame rates while the other 2 threads are hardly doing anything and the cores can easily keep up for their allocated workload. This might happen because of the way the game developer has allocated the workload among the 4 threads. 2 threads might be allocated the bulk of the "heavy lifting" while the other 2 threads only do small things -- so 2 cores are fully loaded and 2 cores are idle half the time. So another CPU limited situation can arise even though the game takes advantage of 4 cores and is not fully utilizing them. Again, increasing the speed (Ghz) of the CPU will increase frame rates because the 2 loaded cores that are limiting fps can now render faster.

I'm referring to a situation where the 2 cores that the game is using are not at full load but gpu seems to be cpu bottlenecked.

I understand a game can only use x number of threads so some cores will sit idle. But if the non-idle cores are only at ~70&#37; load, shouldn't I see full gpu usage?

 

[GaiaHunter]

I'm referring to a situation where the 2 cores that the game is using are not at full load but gpu seems to be cpu bottlenecked.

I understand a game can only use x number of threads so some cores will sit idle. But if the non-idle cores are only at ~70% load, shouldn't I see full gpu usage?

The bottleneck might be in a specific part of the CPU that isn't measured by the task manager (not sure exactly what it measures).

For example SC2 can be CPU bottlenecked, but increasing core clock of the Phenom II over a certain point barely increases performance (but if you increase the CPU-NB performance increases again, so L3$ might be the problem). Cache size, latency, whatever might be the cause

 

[micrometers]

Cpu doesn't matter.

CPU basically allows for a higher upper limit of framerate. But GPU determines lower limit.

 

[12andy]

Cpu doesn't matter.

CPU basically allows for a higher upper limit of framerate. But GPU determines lower limit.

Then why do we see such varying minimum frames, when identical GPUs are paired with various CPUs?

Aside from that, BF3 multiplayer is a perfect example of mid-class quads affecting the lower limits.

 

[bradley]

Why not just buy a console and be done with it already?

 

[12andy]

Why not just buy a console and be done with it already?

I'm not sure who that was directed to, but I think that remark is a little uncalled for, given the demographic of this site.

Consoles have performance issues of their own, anyway.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Cpu doesn't matter.

CPU basically allows for a higher upper limit of framerate. But GPU determines lower limit.

Depends on the game. In an RTS the game can be highly CPU limited and the minimum framerates will be determined by the CPU, Starcraft 2 is a good example.

Even a game that is normally GPU limited can have some parts where the CPU is the main limiting factor.

 

[Jacky60]

CPU speed doesn't matter for most games and nearly all console ports but it does for the more demanding 'PC only' games like Arma2 and Shogun 2. It's simply about how many pixels it can pump into a given scene plus all the other stuff/ai/etc and then most modern CPU's start to crawl.

 

[Edrick]

Cpu doesn't matter.

CPU basically allows for a higher upper limit of framerate. But GPU determines lower limit.

How about some test to back up that claim?

I disagree with your statement. Personal experience being my main source of data.

 

[bradley]

I'm not sure who that was directed to, but I think that remark is a little uncalled for, given the demographic of this site.

A long time ago this forum was filled with enthusiasts. Now perhaps it has enough users who take offense at innocuous comments. Anyway, if you're primarily a gamer, then consoles provide a better investment of both time and money.

 

[AdamK47]

A long time ago this forum was filled with enthusiasts. Now perhaps it has enough users who take offense at innocuous comments. Anyway, if you're primarily a gamer, then consoles provide a better investment of both time and money.

Some of those same enthusiasts still exist, believe it or not. Some people actually enjoy building, maintaining, and upgrading their system to get it running at its best. *gasp!*

 

[bradley]

Some of those same enthusiasts still exist, believe it or not. Some people actually enjoy building, maintaining, and upgrading their system to get it running at its best. *gasp!*

Nice to see someone who enjoy the chips more than the politics. Hey, if Cyrix was still around, I would probably have something from them too.

 

[Puppies04]

CPU speed doesn't matter for most games and nearly all console ports but it does for the more demanding 'PC only' games like Arma2 and Shogun 2. It's simply about how many pixels it can pump into a given scene plus all the other stuff/ai/etc and then most modern CPU's start to crawl.

Go grab yourself a 3-4 year old 2ghz dual core, a GTX580 and a copy of some console ports from this year like skyrim and BF3 then come back and correct what you just wrote

This is taking things to the extreme, even a dual from last generation would show you what I am talking about although the difference would be less profound.

 

[toyota]

Cpu doesn't matter.

CPU basically allows for a higher upper limit of framerate. But GPU determines lower limit.

just ignore this guy. he has no clue what he is talking about and probably does not even have a pc good enough for modern games.


this is the same guy that claims even a 1.0ghz Athlon can run many modern games and that cpus have not mattered since the Pentium dual core.

CPU's stopped mattering around the time that the dual core pentiums started coming out. GPU has been the main bottleneck for a verrrry long time. You could probably play most modern games fine on a 5 yr/o CPU, many on even the original 1ghz athlon.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Some of those same enthusiasts still exist, believe it or not. Some people actually enjoy building, maintaining, and upgrading their system to get it running at its best. *gasp!*

You, sir, are a liar. Everybody knows that 30fps, low detail, 1280x720 is good enough for all of us. And who wants to build their own PC? That's SOOOO laaameee.

Hell, I should just sell my PC and buy a bunch of 360's and PS3's. They did say that the PS3 has supercomputer level power, afterall.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I upgraded from a i7 930 to a 2600k and can't tell a difference. But then again I'm not staring at the fps counter every single second I play games. I'm sure it is helping though. Maybe with more time with it I'll notice it more.