[SOLVED] i3 9100F - A bottleneck for the newer generation already?

[ArjunY]

I hope all of you are doing well and taking care of yourselves.

A question. Considering that the i3-9100F is a budget CPU (albeit being 3.6 GHz with 4 Cores), is it likely to be a bottleneck should I pair it with a new RTX 3070, thereby giving me lower frames than what is ideally expected? If yes, any processor like Ryzen 5 3600 and above is sufficient to fix that bottleneck, right?

I'd be really glad to receive your thoughts on the same.

 

[rgd1101]

what your budget? for the cpu/motherboard?
you got the rtx 3070?

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I would not pair a 9100f with any GPU that cost more than $200 or so.

Its a 4 thread CPU which is very limiting.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

What resolution do you play games at?

 

[ArjunY]

what your budget? for the cpu/motherboard?
you got the rtx 3070?

Haven't gotten one yet, though it's still likely I might change my mind altogether.

 

[ArjunY]

What resolution do you play games at?

Not so ambitious about the 4k resolution, as I'm yet to own a display. I intend to game at 1080p 60fps, and most likely on a 43-inch LED TV at home (1080p 60Hz), hence have started to consider a 1660 Super for the same.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Honestly for 1080p you would likely be limited by the 9100f heavily in games when using a 3070, probably even with the 1660 super.

I would consider a i5 9400f or r5 2600 the bare minimum for a 1660 super, and really a 3600/10400f minimum for a 3070 at 1080p.

This depends a lot on games tested however.

 

[geofelt]

There is no such thing as "bottlenecking"
If, by that, you mean that upgrading a cpu or graphics card can
somehow lower your performance or FPS.
A better term might be limiting factor.
That is where adding more cpu or gpu becomes increasingly
less effective.

Most games are more dependent on the graphics card than the processor.
Particularly fast action games.
Try this simple test:
Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
This makes the graphics card loaf a bit.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

What is your current graphics card?
What is the make/model of your power supply?
That will determine the max graphics upgrade possible.
I would think a GTX1650 Super would be a good match.

 

[ArjunY]

Honestly for 1080p you would likely be limited by the 9100f heavily in games when using a 3070, probably even with the 1660 super.

I would consider a i5 9400f or r5 2600 the bare minimum for a 1660 super, and really a 3600/10400f minimum for a 3070 at 1080p.

This depends a lot on games tested however.

Hmm... I had gone through articles on the web mentioning the best GPUs to get along with the 9100F, with even the RTX 2060 Super mentioned as the upper limit. It'll be a 12% bottleneck though, as I just checked an estimate on the net.

To be frank, I did like what I saw on YouTube benchmarks though.

 

[ArjunY]

There is no such thing as "bottlenecking"
If, by that, you mean that upgrading a cpu or graphics card can
somehow lower your performance or FPS.
A better term might be limiting factor.
That is where adding more cpu or gpu becomes increasingly
less effective.

Most games are more dependent on the graphics card than the processor.
Particularly fast action games.
Try this simple test:
Run YOUR games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
This makes the graphics card loaf a bit.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.
If your FPS stays the same, you are likely more cpu limited.

What is your current graphics card?
What is the make/model of your power supply?
That will determine the max graphics upgrade possible.
I would think a GTX1650 Super would be a good match.

My graphics card is a Galax GT 710 2GB DDR3.
My PSU is a stock one, included with an iBall cabinet, hence will upgrade to a 550W PSU.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Definitely replace that PSU.