Question Does CPU need to reached 100% with low FPS before deciding it's time to upgrade?

[namhoang1002]

I have a PC with the following specs:

• CPU: i7 8700k
• GPU: 2080 Super
• RAM: DDR4 24GB
• SSD: M2 NVME

I usually having FPS drop in the game when having something popup in the screen like moving too quickly, shake camera too quickly or when mob and skill effect spawns into the screen. I have tested by this way to make sure it isn't belong to the GPU. I changed the resolution from 2560x1440 to 1024 x 768, but FPS is roughly the same.

What I don't understand is, GPU and CPU is only at around 60~70% usage, from task manager all CPU cores is being used. I thought that if my GPU usage is low and CPU at 100% but still having low FPS then it's time to upgrade, then my new CPU usage stay at 80% usage with stable FPS then it's correct. But in this case it's not at 100% so I am confuse whenever I need to upgrade to 13600k or not.

2560 x 1440:

• Camera still - City: 80FPS
• Move character and camera FPS: 62-69

1024 x 768:

• Camera still: 84 FPS
• Move character and running FPS 67-72

I'm having this issue on many game release recently.

 

[Rathnhake]

Changing resolution should mitigate the usage to some degree, nonthless the way each game takes advantage of a higher number of cores/threads varies from one to another.

Is the 8700 enough for that GPU? Depends on resolution, target framerate, overall graphics quality settings (those being the easiest ways to workaround a bottleneck). Needless to say, you will most likely benefit from moving to a 13th-gen CPU no matter the scenario.

 

[Viking2121]

The CPU does not have to be at 100% to have low FPS, especially a CPU with multiple cores and threads, A poorly optimized game can still get low fps while the CPU sits at a low %. Often games that are not written to take advantage of so many cores and threads, you'd see varying cpu usage as windows tends to scale the load crossed multiple threads even if the game is only able to use 1 or 2 cores. There are many different ways you can get low fps.

There is a point in just about every CPU's life where its not really recommended to go beyond a certain GPU performance bracket, but thankfully thats slowed down a lot.

Now a 2080 super on a 8700k, that should be a pretty decent combo, I mean yes you gain some performance going to a 13600k, thats just how it is.

What games are we talking about here? There are plenty that are really badly optimized games in the last few years.

 

[namhoang1002]

The CPU does not have to be at 100% to have low FPS, especially a CPU with multiple cores and threads, A poorly optimized game can still get low fps while the CPU sits at a low %. Often games that are not written to take advantage of so many cores and threads, you'd see varying cpu usage as windows tends to scale the load crossed multiple threads even if the game is only able to use 1 or 2 cores. There are many different ways you can get low fps.

There is a point in just about every CPU's life where its not really recommended to go beyond a certain GPU performance bracket, but thankfully thats slowed down a lot.

Now a 2080 super on a 8700k, that should be a pretty decent combo, I mean yes you gain some performance going to a 13600k, thats just how it is.

What games are we talking about here? There are plenty that are really badly optimized games in the last few years.

Thank you, for the game, I can list a few

• A Plague Tale: Requiem → In the town or where rat start to spawn, drop from 60FPS to ~34FPS...
• Watch Dogs: Legion → Only happen when moving too fast.
• Genshin with FPS Unlocked → This is the example above, set resolution to 800x600 won't yield more FPS

 

[Karadjgne]

Seems like ypu are getting things mixed up. A bit.
CSGO is the easiest way to explain. It uses 2 cores, that's all, no more. It can easily drive those cores to 100% on a sufficiently powerful pc. But the other cores aren't doing anything other than background tasks. So, if you just look at cpu usage, you'll see it at @ 40% or so, yet you aren't getting great fps. Why. Because both of the cores used are maxed out, regardless of what cpu is used.

In game graphics have 2 sources, gpu And cpu. Lighting affects, post processing affects, field if view, clouds, shadows etc are very much cpu bound. Some will have significant visual differences, some will have extremely minor visual differences, but be extremely taxing on the source.

For instance, you snapshot a Terrorist, using max ultra graphics. In that instant few frames, the cpu has to place every single hair on dude's beard, every shadow, every movement, shader, color variation of every hair etc. That's a lot of usage % on those cores and you didn't even notice, it was too quick visually. Cut that down to medium and most of the beard is a black masque, one color, no shadows, no shades, no hair etc. That's very easy on the cpu to supply, usage % goes down, fps goes way up.

Same applies to the little stuff like floating damage numbers, bloom affects, spell affects, especially when dealing with other players in local area, where the cpu has to keep track of all their broadcasted and combat info too.

Clouds are white fluffy things in the sky. As long as they resemble clouds, good enough, they don't have to look exactly like perfect clouds, because I could care less about the scenic view when I'm trying to dodge bullets at the same time as trying to kill the idiot shooting at me.

You can turn specific settings down, per game, never notice the difference, yet the cpu/gpu will very much notice.

 

[TerryLaze]

Seems like ypu are getting things mixed up. A bit.
CSGO is the easiest way to explain. It uses 2 cores, that's all, no more. It can easily drive those cores to 100% on a sufficiently powerful pc.

It uses at least 3 cores to a high degree and a few more to a not so high degree.
That is if they haven't changed anything in the last 6 or so years.
All the things you say are still correct, just don't use CSGO as an example.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Yes, I would say that what you've described is the absolute best reason to upgrade. What you have is no longer capable of what you want. I commend you because most people upgrade far more often than they really need to and they waste a lot of money because of it.

Your situation is exactly the right one to do an upgrade and it doesn't even have to be all that expensive. If you're not an overclocker (and overclocking is of limited value these days anyway) then this should be all that you need:

CPU: Ryzen 5 7600 - $250
Motherboard: MSi PRO A620M-E - $85
RAM: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 32GB DDR5-6000 CL36 - $100

That's less than $500 and it would just annihilate what you currently have. The CPU also comes with an included air cooler so you wouldn't even need to pay extra for that. This is all that you would need to game and that motherboard supports AM5 CPUs up to 120W.