Bottlenecking percentage check

[Atomicdonut17]

I've been perusing a multitude of graphics cards, mostly the lower-end stuff like the RX 460-70, and the GTX 1050/ Ti. However, I decided to go check a site called Thebottlenecker.com, and comparing the Sapphire RX 470 with no overclock and the i3 6100 @ 3.7 GHz Dual-Core, 4 Thread CPU, it tells me that I would have an 18% bottleneck. I intend to use the i3 7100u,with a slightly higher 3.9 GHz, but the same core/thread count. I know bottlenecking isn't good, but is 18% a horrifyingly bad bottleneck or a small one? Thanks for your help.

 

[ThomasKK]

Nowadays most games require more graphical power than CPU, so for 80% of the times, an i3 will be an OK option, not the best, but OK. Other 20% of the games, including Battlefield series, GTA etc (with big open areas). - these titles also require a strong CPU to keep that huge area "alive" doing calculations, executing animations etc. So in such games you will see a bottleneck with a core i3, for example fps wont reach more than 40-50 even though on other games it reaches 80+. So a core i5 is the best option for gaming overall. From what i've heard, with a core i5 you would get ~15% more fps than with a core i3, maybe that's where the bottleneck numbers come from. If you are considering a "budget" gaming CPUs, take a look at intel's G4560/G4600, these 2 CPUs can be easily compared to i3-6100/7100.

 

[Spectre694]

I'm not really sure what kind of scale that website is even using honestly. It told me I had a 3% bottleneck and to replace my SSD with an SSD -_-

That said that isn't really a bad combination (not the greatest but not bad) should swap between the CPU and GPU being the bottleneck with the CPU probably a little more often depending on the game.

 

[Eximo]

Yeah, that thing isn't quite right. Gave me a 1%, but also suggested I replace an SSD with an SSD.

I would be curious to see their math.