How well will Intel i5 4690, GTX 960, will work on a 1366x768 resolution?

[Noam111]

Read the title.
So yeah.
How well will Intel i5 4690, GTX 960, will work on a 1366x768 resolution?
It will work good?

 

[Ecky]

What I'm saying is, games generally have a fixed amount of CPU needs. If a game can only run up to 40fps on a Core i5, it will only ever reach a maximum of 40fps, regardless of what monitor or GPU you have.

Wrong. ON so many levels.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Darkbreeze]

You really can do whatever you want. I use a 27" screen myself, and would consider a smaller one to harm my experience.

More resolution does = more GPU usage, but so do more game details. That doesn't mean we want to run our games at minimum details, does it?

Resolution does not equate to screen size. You can have a 1080p monitor at 24", 27" or 50", so size has nothing to do with it, which makes this comment misleading. Not necessarily wrong, but misleading. Higher resolutions do affect GPU performance, but it is not related to the size of the monitor. 2,073,600 pixels is 20,73,600 pixels no matter how big those pixels are, and the GPU will see the same load regardless. Increase resolution, and the demands on the GPU increase.

 

[Ecky]

Did I ever say that a larger screen reduces framerate? I believe what I said was "More resolution does = more GPU usage", and "(I) would consider a smaller (screen) to harm my experience. " There's the implication that a larger screen will probably have a higher than 1366x768 resolution, yes.

 

[Darkbreeze]

What I'm saying is, games generally have a fixed amount of CPU needs. If a game can only run up to 40fps on a Core i5, it will only ever reach a maximum of 40fps, regardless of what monitor or GPU you have.

Wrong. ON so many levels.

Care to elaborate?

Games do not have a fixed CPU demand. Ever. Demand on the CPU changes based on what you're doing in the game, what game it is, and where you are in the game. It also depends on some settings. Fighting one on one in a given game is not going to present the same load to the CPU as when you enter a town or other factors are involved. I don't have time to fully explain it to you, nor should I have to if you're giving advice, but suffice to say that once again, while perhaps not 100% blatantly wrong, it's definitely misleading and mostly inaccurate.

 

[Darkbreeze]

I use a 27" screen myself, and would consider a smaller one to harm my experience.

To the uninitiated, that would equate to there being a difference in performance based on screen size.

 

[Ecky]

What I'm saying is, games generally have a fixed amount of CPU needs. If a game can only run up to 40fps on a Core i5, it will only ever reach a maximum of 40fps, regardless of what monitor or GPU you have.

Wrong. ON so many levels.

Care to elaborate?

Games do not have a fixed CPU demand. Ever. Demand on the CPU changes based on what you're doing in the game, what game it is, and where you are in the game. It also depends on some settings. Fighting one on one in a given game is not going to present the same load to the CPU as when you enter a town or other factors are involved. I don't have time to fully explain it to you, nor should I have to if you're giving advice, but suffice to say that once again, while perhaps not 100% blatantly wrong, it's definitely misleading and mostly inaccurate.

I'm afraid you misunderstood what I meant to communicate. Or, rather, I communicated poorly.

The CPU needs at a particular instant in a game will not vary based on resolution, and will vary insignificantly based on graphical settings.

If you are CPU bottlenecked in a particular place in a game with a GTX950 Ti, and upgrade to a GTX 980, your framerate will not increase. Likewise, using a less expensive GPU also does not alleviate a CPU bottleneck.

 

[Ecky]

I use a 27" screen myself, and would consider a smaller one to harm my experience.

To the uninitiated, that would equate to there being a difference in performance based on screen size.

Arguably yes. Find me a 27" PC monitor that is 1366x768 that the OP might accidentally buy, and I'll grant you this one. Effectively, larger screens DO reduce performance, because they're (generally) higher resolution. And more specifically, any larger screen OP is likely to buy is going to be higher resolution, and thus will reduce performance.

 

[Ecky]

I'd like to add that when I made my statement about fixed CPU usage, I was responding to this:

I saw that getting a new monitor will fix my issues. Seems that the CPU usage is reduced and the GPU usage is higher.
Is it true? Should i get a new monitor instead?(1920x1080)

It is absolutely not true that CPU usage is reduced when getting a new monitor. A CPU's usage will be the same... or, in my poor wording, "fixed", regardless of screen size.

Way to jump on me over an ambiguous statement without reading the thread to understand the context of what I said.

 

[Benjiwenji]

First of all, i5 + 960 is excellent for the 1366x768 resolution.

Second, screen size and graphics performance are unrelated.

Third, bigger screen doesn't necessarily entails better experience as it is a preference.

i.e. - I have a 24" on one of my desks and finds it too large for being only about a foot away. 😛

 

[logainofhades]

Arguably yes. Find me a 27" PC monitor that is 1366x768 that the OP might accidentally buy, and I'll grant you this one. Effectively, larger screens DO reduce performance, because they're (generally) higher resolution. And more specifically, any larger screen OP is likely to buy is going to be higher resolution, and thus will reduce performance.

Ask and you shall receive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA0AJ2GM4731&cm_re=Samsung_T28D310NH-_-9SIA0AJ2GM4731-_-Product

Or they could even buy a 720p TV, to use as a monitor. Plenty of those in larger sizes. Larger screen doesn't necessarily mean higher resolution. For example, this one is small, and 1080p

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

Monitor: Acer S200HQL GBD 60Hz 19.5" Monitor ($89.97 @ B&H)
Total: $89.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-04-23 21:35 EDT-0400

 

[Benjiwenji]

1920x1080 is 1080, and whether it is on a 21", 27", or a 55" TV, the resolution remains the same. Quality, however, may vary since resolution isn't the only factor to define your viewing experience.

For example, I have multiple 21" and 24" monitors, 42" and 55" TVs, and they all have same resolution, 1920x1080. My system performance isn't reduced switching from a 21 to 24".

 

[Ecky]

I'm well aware of how resolution affects performance, and how in the strictest sense, screen size does not. Consider me sufficiently chastised for using simple language that could have been misinterpreted.

OP asked if they should get a new 1080P monitor to reduce their CPU bottleneck, and I attempted to explain that going with a higher resolution screen would not affect CPU bottlenecks, and apparently failed. Since OP implied they were using a 1366x768 monitor (and not TV) I made the assumption that it was a smaller monitor, and that they might benefit more from spending money on getting a larger, higher resolution screen, rather than replacing their i5 or GTX 960. I seem to have failed at this too.

Please accept my apologies for bungling answering this thread.

 

[logainofhades]

Actually, higher resolutions do offset the balance, with regards to CPU and GPU dependency. The higher the resolution, the more GPU dependent the game will become. Hence why when reviews want to see CPU performance differences, in games, they typically choose a lower resolution, so the GPU has less of a factor, on the results.

 

[Ecky]

The balance, yes. But let's say someone is running a game and is CPU limited at around 40fps in a specific scenario. Sure, they can up the resolution until their GPU is delivering less than 40fps, but there's nothing they can do with in-game settings that will get them above 40fps if that's all the CPU will deliver in that particular scene.

OP was under the false impression that they could get more FPS by upping the resolution, because it would reduce CPU load somehow.

I also heard that less resolution=less GPU usage.
Less gpu usage means i don't get the max frames i can get right?

I saw that getting a new monitor will fix my issues. Seems that the CPU usage is reduced and the GPU usage is higher.
Is it true? Should i get a new monitor instead?(1920x1080)

These are false, and I tried to say as much, but it appears I've confused everyone except OP.

 

[Darkbreeze]

See, this ^^^^^ makes much more sense than what you said the first time, which was that

If a game can only run up to 40fps on a Core i5, it will only ever reach a maximum of 40fps, regardless of what monitor or GPU you have.

Specifying "scene" vs "game", when it comes to what the CPU can or cannot do, is major consideration because while the CPU might easily be capable of 60fps in much of a given title, there may be especially complex or demanding "scenes" where the CPU performance hits a wall.

 

[Noam111]

Guys.
What the hell is going on? LOL.
Just woke up.
So what should i do then?

 

[Ecky]

I think your hardware is fine for gaming.

I don't like small or low resolution screens, and consider a good screen to be just as, if not more important than CPU or GPU. If your screen is small, low resolution, or low quality, I recommend that as an upgrade.

 

[Noam111]

I think your hardware is fine for gaming.

I don't like small or low resolution screens, and consider a good screen to be just as, if not more important than CPU or GPU. If your screen is small, low resolution, or low quality, I recommend that as an upgrade.

I said im having issues, like mouse stuttering and such.
I wanna know what will fix it. new processor or new monitor?

 

[Ecky]

Regarding those issues, neither. An i3 4xxx should not stutter. This sounds to me more like a software problem.

Have you recently checked for viruses or malware? Are there any processes in device manager that are showing lots of CPU usage, even when sitting idle at the desktop?

Worst case, you might try refreshing you install of Windows. That should certainly eliminate any such problems, if they are indeed caused by software.

 

[Noam111]

Regarding those issues, neither. An i3 4xxx should not stutter. This sounds to me more like a software problem.

Have you recently checked for viruses or malware? Are there any processes in device manager that are showing lots of CPU usage, even when sitting idle at the desktop?

Worst case, you might try refreshing you install of Windows. That should certainly eliminate any such problems, if they are indeed caused by software.

Tho, When im getting a high GPU usage i dont stutter.

 

[Ecky]

An i5 would give you more CPU power, and help keep the GPU fully utilized. Still, I would not expect this sort of behavior from an i3. I have an i3 4150 in my wife's PC, and have seen no stuttering or mouse-lagging in any games.

 

[Noam111]

An i5 would give you more CPU power, and help keep the GPU fully utilized. Still, I would not expect this sort of behavior from an i3. I have an i3 4150 in my wife's PC, and have seen no stuttering or mouse-lagging in any games.

Well, im getting a high CPU usage. maybe that's the reason.
But sometimes when im getting both high GPU usage, and high CPU usage, i dont get stuttering.
Man idk what to do 🙁

 

[Ecky]

I'm pretty care-free about wiping my Windows installation, so if it were me, I'd probably refresh and start from scratch, and see if it's better. Not everyone can do that as easily as I can, though.

I do expect an i5 will provide you some benefits, so even if it doesn't fix your stuttering, it wouldn't be wasted money.

 

[Darkbreeze]

That Haswell i3 is very capable. Multiple reviews show it outperforming FX 8 core chips overclocked to 4.6Ghz, so I seriously doubt your stuttering is due to the CPU, but I do agree that replacing it with an i5 isn't a waste, but I wouldn't expect to see earth shattering differences. Performance differences on most game titles between the same gen i3 and i5 from Haswell to present arent't terribly different, as the Intel hyperthreading is pretty effective. Some games apparently won't see the HT as a core, so on games that fully require a quad core CPU this could be a problem, but that's an entirely different issue than what you're seeing.

I'd second the opinion that wiping windows by doing a CLEAN install of the OS followed by a CLEAN install of the GPU card drivers is the best place to start and short of their being an actual issue with the game itself, or a faulty card, is the most probable place to find the problem.

 

[xDiiThy]

That's not true. CPU usage is the same, but it requires more from your GPU to run at a higher resolution.

Let's say for instance, that you run a 1366x768 screen, your CPU can deliver 40fps, and your GPU can deliver 60fps. You will only get 40fps, because your CPU can't feed your GPU quickly enough.

If you upgrade to a 1920x1080 screen, your GPU may only be able to deliver 35fps at that resolution. You're still running the same game, and your CPU can still deliver 40fps, so it's no longer the bottleneck, but you can't magically get more CPU performance by increasing your GPU workload.

Like what?
So what you're saying changing monitor wouldn't change stuff?

You probably have a virus on the PC high cpu usage or less than 8GBs ram, I have an i3 4170 at 1600*900 and a 270X and never experienced any stuttering or FPS drops with 8GB RAM runs really smooth all games, also getting an SSD will help. Same with the i3 4130 still pretty powerful with a GTX 960.