Question How much will the GPU bottleneck the CPU?

[Dark Duxks]

I'm thinking about getting a Geforce GTX 1650 OC or GAMING X with 4GB but I have an i5-2500 (not k) because it's from my old pc and I'm not sure whether I should get either of these GPUs or if I should instead get the RX 570 however, I want to have a pc without the GPU dangerously overclocking the CPU. Will the 1650 overclock the CPU too much and I should just stick to the RX 570 or should I get the 1650?

(Also I'm going for a budget build because I don't have much money to build a whole new pc and I'm reusing my CPU, RAM, and HDD from my HP Compaq 6200 SFF Pro and all I did was buy an all-new computer case, CPU cooler, and PSU so do not ridicule me on my choice because at the time I didn't know which components to use. )

 

[MadsModsat]

The graphics card does not change any parameters in the CPU settings, which means the GPU doesn't apply any overclocks to the CPU or any other component in the PC

 

[Swarzenegger]

Why would you even want to upgrade to a 1650? In my eyes that's a downgrade if anything. A rx 570 is the highest you can go without a bottleneck, you need to upgrade your system if you want to have more performance.

 

[Moggy2]

Like poster above explained; the RX570 is about 10% better than the 1650
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1650-vs-AMD-RX-570/4039vs3924

if you want a better video card, get at least RX590 or something like that
and think about upgrading the CPU/memory/motherboard after this , otherwise the CPU will become a bottleneck...

 

[Karadjgne]

A cpu can never be a bottleneck, so please disabuse yourselves of that word, it's crap and not applied correctly in any sense of the word.

Source feeds a cpu data. The cpu compiles that data into a frame and pre-renders as many frames as it can per second. Then it sends those frames to the gpu, which finish renders the frame into a picture according to detail levels and resolution.

So if a cpu is pre-rendering 60fps that's what gets sent to the gpu, whether or not the gpu can or cannot put those frames on screen. Doesn't matter if in any particular game the gpu is capable of 100fps at low or 30fps at ultra or 100fps at ultra, it gets 60.

A bottleneck is a component that slows down the flow of data. Like a crimp in a hose. Since the cpu is the source of all fps and the gpu has absolutely no affect on cpu performance, how a cpu can be a bottleneck is impossible.

The only affect using an over powerful gpu has is the ability to maximize detail levels at any given resolution. A i5-2500 will do just fine with a 2080ti at 4k for instance, but the gpu will be severely under utilized at 1080p in most games, where no detail changes affect the fps on screen.

In any more modern game the 2500 is going to be tanked because it's an older gen quad core with comparatively lower IPC and no hyperthreading. So fps is going to be lower than most newer systems. Having a more powerful gpu is not going to change the fps, but will allow for a better picture, more detailing and not change the fps onscreen. A less powerful gpu may not put the details up without lowering fps onscreen if detail levels are set too high.

Get the best gpu you can justify, it's not going to bottleneck or affect the cpu, even if in some games its not fully utilized.

 

[Dark Duxks]

Well it's meant to be a budget build because I don't have much money to spend and I don't wanna have to pay another 200 just for a system when I already payed enough for a system I thought would be pre-optimized for gaming. So I'm just trying to figure out which one to buy.

 

[Dark Duxks]

Why would you even want to upgrade to a 1650? In my eyes that's a downgrade if anything. A rx 570 is the highest you can go without a bottleneck, you need to upgrade your system if you want to have more performance.

Ummm maybe think about how some people don't with nice blue sunny skies and colorful rainbows who can just throw away money for a $1,000 pc.

 

[Dark Duxks]

A cpu can never be a bottleneck, so please disabuse yourselves of that word, it's crap and not applied correctly in any sense of the word.

Source feeds a cpu data. The cpu compiles that data into a frame and pre-renders as many frames as it can per second. Then it sends those frames to the gpu, which finish renders the frame into a picture according to detail levels and resolution.

So if a cpu is pre-rendering 60fps that's what gets sent to the gpu, whether or not the gpu can or cannot put those frames on screen. Doesn't matter if in any particular game the gpu is capable of 100fps at low or 30fps at ultra or 100fps at ultra, it gets 60.

A bottleneck is a component that slows down the flow of data. Like a crimp in a hose. Since the cpu is the source of all fps and the gpu has absolutely no affect on cpu performance, how a cpu can be a bottleneck is impossible.

The only affect using an over powerful gpu has is the ability to maximize detail levels at any given resolution. A i5-2500 will do just fine with a 2080ti at 4k for instance, but the gpu will be severely under utilized at 1080p in most games, where no detail changes affect the fps on screen.

In any more modern game the 2500 is going to be tanked because it's an older gen quad core with comparatively lower IPC and no hyperthreading. So fps is going to be lower than most newer systems. Having a more powerful gpu is not going to change the fps, but will allow for a better picture, more detailing and not change the fps onscreen. A less powerful gpu may not put the details up without lowering fps onscreen if detail levels are set too high.

Get the best gpu you can justify, it's not going to bottleneck or affect the cpu, even if in some games its not fully utilized.

Ohh I'm sorry I don't spend my whole life trying to learn all about computers because I actually have things to do

 

[Karadjgne]

Don't get snarky. I've been messing around in pc's, both amateur and professional since 1980, have raised 4 kids, own my home and am still married. There's many ppl in here whom have similar stories, and know a lot more about pc's than I do, and are all volunteers. So when someone decides to give you an education, because you are lacking and giving misguided advice, next time just say Thank you.

 

[86zx]

i think people are using the phrase bottleneck In the sense that a specific component is hindering maximum potential of another component. So if a game is fairly cpu heavy and especially if it is an older cpu it might be severely hindering the graphics card from being fully utilized. With a cpu its kind like an upside down bottle where the water is going into the bottle slowly where as if it’s a weak gpu its more like the water is going out of the bottle slowly due to it having a smaller exit.

And to answer the question get the best gpu you can for your money cuz you can use it in your next build someday

 

[Karadjgne]

There's no set point. Playing a game like CSGO or LOL is going to have vastly different usage than BF5 or Witcher 3. So whereas in some games the gpu is almost asleep it's so bored, in others it's severely going to struggle. That's just the nature of games and game code.

Same applies to the cpu, for instance I can get 300fps in Office in CSGO, 220fps in Dust 2, or barely over 100fps in the Competitive maps. Yet I have over 170 mods in Skyrim so get 59-60fps since the cpu is so heavily bogged with scripts. That's all at ultra settings. Changing that doesn't increase fps since it's cpu limited. If I set to Low details, fps doesn't change.

Yet if I play Starwars: the Old Republic, 24man World Boss fights are brutal, I can't lower settings far enough to get more than 30fps, played at ultra it's closer to 4-5fps. The AI with spells and affects is seriously hard on my gpu.

So in one game skyrim, by common misused terminology, my cpu is a serious bottleneck, so needs upgrading, yet in a different game, cpu is fine, yet gpu is severely lacking so would be the bottleneck. The only answer to solve both would be a i9 9900k and RTX2080ti played at 1080p @ 144Hz.

None of which is going to happen. There's going to be games where the cpu is limited, and games where the gpu is limited. Whether someone can live with those limitations is upto them. If they can't, time to upgrade. If they can, save your money.

 

[86zx]

my system has 2 Xeon x5680 those are ancient paired with a 1070 and most games if I play in 1080p or 4K there’s only a couple fps difference but considering I’m able to play most games at high to ultra and get around 60-70fps I don’t think the 2500 will do too bad. Sure I got way more threads but most games don’t use them and single core performance is better on second gen Intel than my first gen xeons

 

[Karadjgne]

Actually your x5680 is somewhat better than the I5 2500. With equitable clocks, the Xeon has double the cache, triple the possible threads, both of which more than compensate for any IPC differences as most modern games are balked by quad thread cpus of any gen upto and including 7th. For such old cpus, they are still viable, just based on thread count alone.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Ummm maybe think about how some people don't with nice blue sunny skies and colorful rainbows who can just throw away money for a $1,000 pc.

They're saying that referring to the 1650 as an "upgrade" over the 570 doesn't make sense because the 570 performs better. And costs about the same or less.

Edit: Only real reason to consider the 1650 (non Super) is if you're power-constrained, e.g. you need a card that requires no additional power connectors (only applicable to some 1650 models).

 

[TJ Hooker]

So in one game skyrim, by common misused terminology, my cpu is a serious bottleneck, so needs upgrading, yet in a different game, cpu is fine, yet gpu is severely lacking so would be the bottleneck. The only answer to solve both would be a i9 9900k and RTX2080ti played at 1080p @ 144Hz.

None of which is going to happen. There's going to be games where the cpu is limited, and games where the gpu is limited. Whether someone can live with those limitations is upto them. If they can't, time to upgrade. If they can, save your money.

Yes, you will pretty much always have one component in your system that is the bottleneck, and which particular component it is can vary based on game/settings. That doesn't make the term "bottleneck" incorrect. I guess you can define it however you want, but if you start defining it as one thing while everyone else defines it differently it just makes things confusing and not very helpful.

 

[Saga Lout]

TJHooker said it all so there's no need to have an argument folks.

 

[Dark Duxks]

Don't get snarky. I've been messing around in pc's, both amateur and professional since 1980, have raised 4 kids, own my home and am still married. There's many ppl in here whom have similar stories, and know a lot more about pc's than I do, and are all volunteers. So when someone decides to give you an education, because you are lacking and giving misguided advice, next time just say Thank you.

No thank you

 

[Rodrigodrt]

the highest you can go without a bottleneck is a RTX 2080TI XXX JOHN CENA EDITION.

yea i mean it, there's no bottlenecks there, theres no bottlenecks with any GPU you add, its an old processor and it outputs what it ouputs, just because a better cpu exists and will get your more frames doesn't mean bottleneck, simply because no CPU out there will cap the frames you can get with a 2080ti, you keep upgrading, you keep gettin more frames, although on a diminished return...

however, its preferable to have an harmonious relation going inside your case, as in, better to buy a 2070S/2080S and a good cpu rather than full 2080ti

please forget this word bottleneck exist, thanks.