I upgraded my SLI680/3570k setup with a 2060 Super a few days ago and I’m seeing basically no improvement. I play mostly competitive first person shooters so I always play with everything on low with no AA etc at 1080p in order to get the highest frames possible and clearest rather than prettiest picture possible.
I’m getting higher frames with the new GPU and greater GPU load at higher graphics settings but that reduces rather than raises my overall frame rate obviously.
It’s looking like I’m going to have to upgrade my whole system as the CPU seems to be the problem rather than the old GPUs so I’m looking to get a 9900KF and a new mobo and ram (the best CPU upgrade I can do without upgrading anything else is a 3770k and I doubt it will make a huge difference).
So my question is, for someone who games on low settings and wants a baseline of 100fps and preferably higher, is a top of the line CPU paired with an average GPU sufficient/ideal even?
Given that with all settings on low, games seem to more likely to draw on the CPU than GPU, do I even need a good GPU?
Black ops 4 for example is getting 100-160 FPS with max CPU usage and 1-10% GPU usage. The GPU seems to be almost unnecessary at low settings. Insurgency Sandstorm and BFV are maxing out the CPU and the GPU is at around 40% usage, both getting around 75 frames on average.
Obviously the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU but if my old i5 is capable of taking the lion’s share of the load in brand new games and in the case of Black Ops 4, often the entire load, it seems that on low settings, a good CPU would be the most important part of the system and a decent but not high end GPU would be sufficient.
TLDR: All discussions on CPU vs GPU seem to be based on normal use where users just want the highest quality settings at 60 FPS so having a decent CPU and a great GPU seems to be what’s suggested but for low settings with high frames being the goal, is it actually the other way around?
I’m getting higher frames with the new GPU and greater GPU load at higher graphics settings but that reduces rather than raises my overall frame rate obviously.
It’s looking like I’m going to have to upgrade my whole system as the CPU seems to be the problem rather than the old GPUs so I’m looking to get a 9900KF and a new mobo and ram (the best CPU upgrade I can do without upgrading anything else is a 3770k and I doubt it will make a huge difference).
So my question is, for someone who games on low settings and wants a baseline of 100fps and preferably higher, is a top of the line CPU paired with an average GPU sufficient/ideal even?
Given that with all settings on low, games seem to more likely to draw on the CPU than GPU, do I even need a good GPU?
Black ops 4 for example is getting 100-160 FPS with max CPU usage and 1-10% GPU usage. The GPU seems to be almost unnecessary at low settings. Insurgency Sandstorm and BFV are maxing out the CPU and the GPU is at around 40% usage, both getting around 75 frames on average.
Obviously the CPU is bottlenecking the GPU but if my old i5 is capable of taking the lion’s share of the load in brand new games and in the case of Black Ops 4, often the entire load, it seems that on low settings, a good CPU would be the most important part of the system and a decent but not high end GPU would be sufficient.
TLDR: All discussions on CPU vs GPU seem to be based on normal use where users just want the highest quality settings at 60 FPS so having a decent CPU and a great GPU seems to be what’s suggested but for low settings with high frames being the goal, is it actually the other way around?