Far Cry 5 FPS Bottleneck

[Xoul2000]

My rig is a gtx 1050 ti msi oc edition,an fx 8350 at stock speed,and 16gb of ddr3 ram.I just ran far cry 5 at ultra settings at 1080p.I ran a fraps benchmark and i got an average of exactly 50fps.I also ran msi afterburner and saw that while my gpu usage is at 90-100% almost all the time,my cpu usage is always around 50-60%,no matter what i do.So according to what i have read,i could just keep the same cpu and upgrade to a gtx 1060 and get an fps of at least 60 average,is that correct?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Shektron]

I doubt it. I mean, yes, you'll get the 60 FPS you want, but it's not a smart move. The GTX 1050 Ti is a good card, if you really want to upgrade something, it should be the processor. The FX series no longer deserve to be in a PC meant for gaming. Let the GPU be, and upgrade the processor is what I would say. The FX 8350 will most likely bottleneck the GTX 1060 - maybe not in Far Cry 5, but in other games that need more CPU power. I doubt you're upgrading only to play Far Cry 5. Just get a Ryzen chip or 8th gen i5, the 1050 Ti is not that bad yet.

But, if you insist, yes, the GTX 1060 will give you 60 FPS approximately. It won't always be above 60 FPS, but the average will hover around the 60 FPS mark.

 

[Xoul2000]

Thanks!So,should i go with a ryzen 5 1600 and a b350 mobo or pay 60 dollars more and get the r5 2600?Of course i am planning to overclock.Ι was also thinking about getting an i5-8500,since it is better than the 2600 in games,but then again the ryzen beats it in productivity tasks.

 

[jankerson]

Thanks!So,should i go with a ryzen 5 1600 and a b350 mobo or pay 60 dollars more and get the r5 2600?Of course i am planning to overclock.Ι was also thinking about getting an i5-8500,since it is better than the 2600 in games,but then again the ryzen beats it in productivity tasks.

If you are gaming then it would be best to go with the CPU that is better for that purpose as that is were it will show up the most.

 

[10tacle]

Your chipset is about equivalent in performance +/- in gaming to an Intel Core i7 920 and it will bottleneck a 6GB 1060 some, but not as bad as some might think. Especially at 1080p or higher. Check out this link from six years ago comparing the FX 83xx series to Intel's 3rd-gen Ivy Bridge chips. Note they are using 1680x1050 resolution in these games which really puts the most pressure on the CPU:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5

FC5 responds to both CPU and GPU performance improvements however. So either a CPU or GPU upgrade would increase your FPS.

 

[Shektron]

Thanks!So,should i go with a ryzen 5 1600 and a b350 mobo or pay 60 dollars more and get the r5 2600?Of course i am planning to overclock.Ι was also thinking about getting an i5-8500,since it is better than the 2600 in games,but then again the ryzen beats it in productivity tasks.

Now that's the question of the month - Ryzen 5 2600 or i5 8400/8500? You can hear both sides from tech enthusiasts for days and days but never come at a conclusion.

Easy way out - in case you have a 60 Hz monitor, go with the Ryzen 5 2600X. The Ryzen 5 2600 comes with the cheaper cooler, which I really don't like. So go with the 2600X, as it comes with a better cooler.

If you have a high refresh rate monitor, i.e, 100 Hz or more, then get the i5 8500, the higher clock speed helps you get the extra FPS.

Now, a lot of people may/may not agree with this, but I feel like a it's a perfectly reasonable way to avoid a hefty discussion with the conclusion lying at the never-attainable horizon(I'm something of a writer myself, hence the awkward metaphors). Use the guide, it's fine.

 

[10tacle]

If you are wanting a balanced system between gaming and productivity, Ryzen 5 all day. But why buy the first generation for a new build? Ryzen 5 2600 + X470 chipset is so much better and you'll have a longer upgrade path for several years. In my mind it just doesn't make much sense building a new rig with last generation.

 

[Xoul2000]

Well the 2600x costs 270 dollars.For 30 dollars more,i can get an i7 8700,which pretty much destroys it in every task.

 

[maxalge]

My rig is a gtx 1050 ti msi oc edition,an fx 8350 at stock speed,and 16gb of ddr3 ram.I just ran far cry 5 at ultra settings at 1080p.I ran a fraps benchmark and i got an average of exactly 50fps.I also ran msi afterburner and saw that while my gpu usage is at 90-100% almost all the time,my cpu usage is always around 50-60%,no matter what i do.So according to what i have read,i could just keep the same cpu and upgrade to a gtx 1060 and get an fps of at least 60 average,is that correct?

Thanks in advance!

no, you will never see 100% cpu usage in games that dont use all cores

 

[maxalge]

Well the 2600x costs 270 dollars.For 30 dollars more,i can get an i7 8700,which pretty much destroys it in every task.

correct

at that level of budget ryzen is an insane choice

either go i5 8400, or i5 8600k


of course the i7 8700k would be ideal but not everyone can get that

 

[10tacle]

Well the 2600x costs 270 dollars.For 30 dollars more,i can get an i7 8700,which pretty much destroys it in every task.

I definitely agree with that. Ryzen 5 is not nearly as competitive as Ryzen 7 when up against Intel's lower tier i7 Coffee Lake. Now the Ryzen 7 2700X at $330 vs. Intel's i7 8700K at $360, that's another story entirely.

 

[Shektron]

Well the 2600x costs 270 dollars.For 30 dollars more,i can get an i7 8700,which pretty much destroys it in every task.

Honestly I feel like Ryzen 2 is not worth it. The gains are really minor, and it just feels like such an Intel move by AMD. I'd frankly say stick with the 1600 and a B350 board. Yes it's a generation older, but it still kicks ass. And you can always upgrade when AMD launches processors that offer some actual gains, probably Zen 2.

Plus, an i7 sounds overkill for a 1050 Ti, IMO.

 

[schaft]

The basic is simple, how much is your budget. Don't get half assed in upgrading as it will bite you back in the future. My old office pc i5-2320 with RX-480 (4x4Gb ram DDR3-1600, SSD, z-77 motherboard) can still optimized any game without problem though mostly due to 1600x900 limited by the monitor, but yeah it still ultra any game until now with 50+ fps. My experiment pc with xeon E5-26xxL V4 1,7GHz 12 core 24 thread (i got it dirt cheap US$128) along with 4x4Gb DDR4-2400, X99 taichi, SSD and GTX 1060, was just fine although need a bit adjustment for playing BF1 to force the game utilizing 12 thread instead of original 6 thread.

The main problem is most of the game maker still stuck with 4-6 thread. They are barely able to optimized the 2017 multi threads cpu. In Far cry 5, my experiment pc has worse benchmark, but funny thing is it has no significant drop while playing the game. With only 1,7GHz, most of you must think I should not be able to play at all, but the reality said differently. It ran nicely although most of the time stays between 60 fps and it can only use 6 threads. the game can only use 25% of my cpu and the temperature stay 50 degree celcius (46 degree celcius in idle, basic intel heatsink Intel Corp. BXSTS200C ). The recent game i played are kingdom come, assassin creed origin, BF1, far cry 5. They played just fine except for BF1 as I mentioned earlier.

Back to the main problem, If you have the budget, go i7-8700, if not then go ryzen 5 1600 and no need to get any higher. Ryzen 5 1600 has its problem, but it should last a while. i7 is the safetest bet for the long run with its intel's 6 core 12 thread. Just be careful in selecting ryzen as a few model do not include with free fan, it can safe you another $25 for good heatsink.

For me SSD is a must have. If the option is Ryzen 5 1600 + SSD against i7-8700 + HDD, I will go with the ryzen+SSD.
SSD has saved my life spent waiting for games to load, life cannot be bought back. Either get cheapest SSD with basic speed or go all the way with samsung pro 960

Good luck with your upgrade.