CPU or GPU intensive?

[Adam Edward]

HI guys!

After reading some overclocking forums here, i have questions as to what determines if a pc game is cpu intensive or gpu intensive?

I have my i7 3930k oc'd to 3.8ghz, but i didn't see the need for boosting it more for a few reasons.

1: will i really see a performance increase?
2: what if the game is more gpu intensive? how do i know?
3: is there a ratio of cpu longevity decrease based on the oc amount?

Thanks !

Adam

 

[Kypav]

You can monitor CPU and GPU load while playing your games to determine that.
I use HWinfo64 and MSI AfterBurner.

 

[Novuake]

1. In some games, like Battlefield 3 and 4 multiplayer, and overclock makes a massive difference the more people on the map that the CPU needs to track.
2. Benchmarks and asking on forums. OR you could strive to understand what and CPU loading works by trying different things.

3. THis one is more interesting.

When overclocking is done PROPERLY, the longevity only start getting affecting if either the CPU is getting to hot for extended period OR once you start increase voltages. There is unfortunately no set formula.

Can I ask what method you followed to get your CPU to 3.8GHz? This would determine a lot.

 

[Novuake]

You can monitor CPU and GPU load while playing your games to determine that.
I use HWinfo64 and MSI AfterBurner.

Not that simple. 😀 Wish it was.

 

[hapkido]

Games are usually GPU intensive. If it's CPU intensive, your processor cores will be ~100% usage while your GPU will be less than 100% usage. As long as you're not over-volting your CPU and are keeping it adequately cooled, the lifespan should be about the same as if it was stock speeds.

 

[Novuake]

Games are usually GPU intensive. If it's CPU intensive, your processor cores will be ~100% usage while your GPU will be less than 100% usage. As long as you're not over-volting your CPU and are keeping it adequately cooled, the lifespan should be about the same as if it was stock speeds.

Not entirely true... If the program/game is incapable of using multiple cores then obviously only the CPU will not near 100%.
If its multithread capable but not optimized, then 2 cores will be at 60% for example, that could still be a bottleneck.

See where im going with this?

 

[Adam Edward]

Can I ask what method you followed to get your CPU to 3.8GHz? This would determine a lot.[/quotemsg]

I have the asus rampage iv formula x79.
In the settings for that we were able to do minor boosts and then test it out with speed fan and cpuid.

Sometimes when we pushed it up too much, we lost the ram at 2133 (which im running) and it droped it down to 1866. So it seemed that perfect window was at 3.8 from native 3.2ghz.

I can't really call that a "method" per se. Mostly just tweak and test.

The only game i, currently, play that is mulitplayer intensive is FF14, which temps on the cpu held at 40-50c and the gpu would stay around 55-60c under the heavy loads/lag etc. (asus ares2)

The cpu is water cooled as well.

 

[Adam Edward]

Games are usually GPU intensive. If it's CPU intensive, your processor cores will be ~100% usage while your GPU will be less than 100% usage. As long as you're not over-volting your CPU and are keeping it adequately cooled, the lifespan should be about the same as if it was stock speeds.

Not entirely true... If the program/game is incapable of using multiple cores then obviously only the CPU will not near 100%.
If its multithread capable but not optimized, then 2 cores will be at 60% for example, that could still be a bottleneck.

See where im going with this?

My cpu usage is always extremely low.

 

[Novuake]

Even mid game? In ALL games and task you play and use?

Then their is no point in overclocking more. 😀

 

[Adam Edward]

Even mid game? In ALL games and task you play and use?

Then their is no point in overclocking more. 😀

Well i'll do a complete viewing of the cpu usage when im at home later today and make sure.

Honestly, i just like to tinker and tweak and maximize as much performance gain as i can while maintaining longevity.
If there really is a significant boost in performance by me going up to 4.5ghz (which i read on other forums, ROG) then i would like to try it.

But if the noise becomes too much and the heat output too high and it will burn out faster, then i'll pass.

I just want to know im squeezing all the goodness out of it. 🙂

 

[Novuake]

Even mid game? In ALL games and task you play and use?

Then their is no point in overclocking more. 😀

Well i'll do a complete viewing of the cpu usage when im at home later today and make sure.

Honestly, i just like to tinker and tweak and maximize as much performance gain as i can while maintaining longevity.
If there really is a significant boost in performance by me going up to 4.5ghz (which i read on other forums, ROG) then i would like to try it.

But if the noise becomes too much and the heat output too high and it will burn out faster, then i'll pass.

I just want to know im squeezing all the goodness out of it. 🙂

Well I can give you a good idea the more info you provide of how much longetivity you can lose relatively. But its all a rough estimate, overclocking is different between every single CPU sample, even if they are the same exact model and batch.

 

[hapkido]

Games are usually GPU intensive. If it's CPU intensive, your processor cores will be ~100% usage while your GPU will be less than 100% usage. As long as you're not over-volting your CPU and are keeping it adequately cooled, the lifespan should be about the same as if it was stock speeds.

Not entirely true... If the program/game is incapable of using multiple cores then obviously only the CPU will not near 100%.
If its multithread capable but not optimized, then 2 cores will be at 60% for example, that could still be a bottleneck.

See where im going with this?

2 cores at 60% is not and will not be a bottleneck. Whether it's using 2 cores at 60%, 4 cores at 30%, or all 6 cores at 20% doesn't matter. As long as one or more cores isn't at 100% you have performance left on the table and it's not a bottleneck.

Specifically, what game are you seeing CPU issues with?

 

[Novuake]

Games are usually GPU intensive. If it's CPU intensive, your processor cores will be ~100% usage while your GPU will be less than 100% usage. As long as you're not over-volting your CPU and are keeping it adequately cooled, the lifespan should be about the same as if it was stock speeds.

Not entirely true... If the program/game is incapable of using multiple cores then obviously only the CPU will not near 100%.
If its multithread capable but not optimized, then 2 cores will be at 60% for example, that could still be a bottleneck.

See where im going with this?

2 cores at 60% is not and will not be a bottleneck. Whether it's using 2 cores at 60%, 4 cores at 30%, or all 6 cores at 20% doesn't matter. As long as one or more cores isn't at 100% you have performance left on the table and it's not a bottleneck.

Specifically, what game are you seeing CPU issues with?

Not gonna argue with you.
As a test you can use a CPU that has limited shared / L2 or L3 cache.
The cache does not feed fast enough so the CPU clock is never loaded high enough, but due to the caching shortage, the CPU is STILL a bottleneck..

In future if you refute someone claim, please at least explain your reasoning and or provide proof.

Thanks

 

[hapkido]

I did explain my reasoning -- if there's performance left on the table, it's not bottlenecking.

Can you provide some examples of L2 and L3 cache bottlenecking games when the CPU cores aren't loaded at 100%?

 

[Novuake]

I did explain my reasoning -- if there's performance left on the table, it's not bottlenecking.

Can you provide some examples of L2 and L3 cache bottlenecking games when the CPU cores aren't loaded at 100%?

Hmmm difficult yo provide examples since google isnt helping me much here....

But it exists and I am sure you can see the reasoning behind it.

This was a VERY common problem back on the P4 HT. Although the hyperthreading did help, the cache bottlenecked hard and just could not feed it fast enough to saturate both threads. And by doing so it actually got WORSE performance in many cases when TRYING to multitask.

if you have never heard of the above example then you clearly have not been in this sort of discussion very long.

 

[hapkido]

if you have never heard of the above example then you clearly have not been in this sort of discussion very long.

This is a cop out.

Of course CPU cache can affect performance just like having 1GB RAM can affect performance, but I haven't seen anything credible that suggests i7-3930k suffer from caching problems or even that games are cache dependent.

 

[Novuake]

if you have never heard of the above example then you clearly have not been in this sort of discussion very long.

This is a cop out.

Of course CPU cache can affect performance just like having 1GB RAM can affect performance, but I haven't seen anything credible that suggests i7-3930k suffer from caching problems or even that games are cache dependent.

Its a second example of what I am trying to say. Keep in mind I was just refuting the fact that cores will ALWAYS be at 100% when bottlenecking. The OP is not the only one that will be reading this thread to figure out if their CPU can keep up.

And yes, games can be dependent on cache. Try running Skyrim on high settings with a L3 lacking APU. The CPU usage never reaches very high, but the CPU can not keep up.

 

[Adam Edward]

[/quotemsg]

Well I can give you a good idea the more info you provide of how much longetivity you can lose relatively. But its all a rough estimate, overclocking is different between every single CPU sample, even if they are the same exact model and batch.[/quotemsg]

Awesome! What is everything that you would need from me in order to maximize my performance? AS you can tell 'm new to this and learning as i go.

 

[Novuake]

Well if you provide your overclock settings and where the voltage is peaking at for example. What temperatures you get under max load. That sort of thing.