Determining CPU & GPU performance compatability

[TYK310]

So after reading the forums, I learned that the CPU can apparently bottleneck the GPU performance (im assuming there's a scientific reason behind this if anyone wants to give me a watered down version). My main question is to know if there a formula or rule of thumb for determining which CPUs won't bottle neck the GPUs. I'd also like to know how to determine for any future GPUs as well.

Thanks

 

[RobCrezz]

Depends on a few things. Some games put more load on the CPU than others, so the cpu may not be a bottleneck in all things.

The only science is to check the cpu benchmarks for a particular game, at a certain point (when using the fastest GPU available generally) when benchmarking running a faster cpu just stops improving the performance a significant amount. At this point is generally where the cpu is no longer a bottleneck. However, when using a lower performing GPU this bottleneck may not be an issue as the cpu can potentially keep up as the fps would be lower. Its easier to understand with an example.

Fallout 4 is a good example as its quite a CPU heavy game.

You can see here that its clearly not a game that takes advantage of lots of cores/threads, for example the 8 core AMD cpus barely keep up with a dual core (but fast) Intel i3, and you can also see that the 6 and 8 core intel 4960x and 5960x bring no adantage over the quad core intel cpus.

You could argue on this game, that pretty much any Intel i5 from the 2500k upwards is not a significant bottleneck. However if you graphics card cannot push more than 30fps anyway then you would be just fine with Athlon 860k or 6350 etc.


Sorry it was long winded but I hope that explains it reasonably well, its a term thats thrown around a lot on the forum, often incorrectly.

 

[TYK310]

Depends on a few things. Some games put more load on the CPU than others, so the cpu may not be a bottleneck in all things.

The only science is to check the cpu benchmarks for a particular game, at a certain point (when using the fastest GPU available generally) when benchmarking running a faster cpu just stops improving the performance a significant amount. At this point is generally where the cpu is no longer a bottleneck. However, when using a lower performing GPU this bottleneck may not be an issue as the cpu can potentially keep up as the fps would be lower. Its easier to understand with an example.

Fallout 4 is a good example as its quite a CPU heavy game.

You can see here that its clearly not a game that takes advantage of lots of cores/threads, for example the 8 core AMD cpus barely keep up with a dual core (but fast) Intel i3, and you can also see that the 6 and 8 core intel 4960x and 5960x bring no adantage over the quad core intel cpus.

You could argue on this game, that pretty much any Intel i5 from the 2500k upwards is not a significant bottleneck. However if you graphics card cannot push more than 30fps anyway then you would be just fine with Athlon 860k or 6350 etc.


Sorry it was long winded but I hope that explains it reasonably well, its a term thats thrown around a lot on the forum, often incorrectly.

Thank you mate, I actually prefer the long winded answers helps me grasp the concept. So, would that FPS results show a pretty similar trend with a GTX 970 graphics card? Also, this is indirectly related to graphics performance, but does the MOBO have an effect on gaming performance in anyway?

 

[RobCrezz]

Depends on a few things. Some games put more load on the CPU than others, so the cpu may not be a bottleneck in all things.

The only science is to check the cpu benchmarks for a particular game, at a certain point (when using the fastest GPU available generally) when benchmarking running a faster cpu just stops improving the performance a significant amount. At this point is generally where the cpu is no longer a bottleneck. However, when using a lower performing GPU this bottleneck may not be an issue as the cpu can potentially keep up as the fps would be lower. Its easier to understand with an example.

Fallout 4 is a good example as its quite a CPU heavy game.

You can see here that its clearly not a game that takes advantage of lots of cores/threads, for example the 8 core AMD cpus barely keep up with a dual core (but fast) Intel i3, and you can also see that the 6 and 8 core intel 4960x and 5960x bring no adantage over the quad core intel cpus.

You could argue on this game, that pretty much any Intel i5 from the 2500k upwards is not a significant bottleneck. However if you graphics card cannot push more than 30fps anyway then you would be just fine with Athlon 860k or 6350 etc.


Sorry it was long winded but I hope that explains it reasonably well, its a term thats thrown around a lot on the forum, often incorrectly.

Thank you mate, I actually prefer the long winded answers helps me grasp the concept. So, would that FPS results show a pretty similar trend with a GTX 970 graphics card? Also, this is indirectly related to graphics performance, but does the MOBO have an effect on gaming performance in anyway?

Yeah so it would be similar with a 970 except the performance would be lower.

No the mobo doesnt really have any impact on performance really.