[SOLVED] i5 9600 bottleneck

[LORYT699]

Hi,
I will never do this question if I haven t watched some video/bench.
I m searching video cause I ve to upgrade my 1060 to a probably 4060 or 4050.
I have an i5 9600k and watching some videos of people with the same cpu I was noticing that some that display cpu usage and not only fps in 1080p with a 30series(not remember if the 60, 70 or 80) was at more then 90% cpu usage, and that was strange for me cause my cpu use to be lower then 70% in every game, usually is 50% or 60%, so I was not worrie about bottleneck.
Is this real and fair warries or I m just dreaming all this?
P.S.
if the bottle neck is real, does an oc get it better?
And I was thinkin about go to 2k, does exist monitor under 300 for 2k 120hz?
I don t care a lot about how contrast or good are the color but a lot with the ghosting

 

[Hellfire13]

A CPU should have enough resources available, not to limit the performance of the card. Unfortunately, 6 threads do not cut the ice anymore. GPUs these days are pretty powerful and resource hungry than they were a few years ago. A 9600k might limit some performance of a 4xxx series card dues to lack of enough threads for post process throughput. Overclocking may help, but not much.

 

[LORYT699]

A CPU should have enough resources available, not to limit the performance of the card. Unfortunately, 6 threads do not cut the ice anymore. GPUs these days are pretty powerful and resource hungry than they were a few years ago. A 9600k might limit some performance of a 4xxx series card dues to lack of enough threads for post process throughput. Overclocking may help, but not much.

ok, so I was not just dreaming it.
So oc could be helpful if I can archive a frequency enought high like extreme overcloacker(like 6 or 8 ghz)?just for understand
btw, go from a 1080p to a 2k could help to not bottleneck? cause I see that the cpu usage is lower with higher resolution(oviusly with losing some fps)

 

[Hellfire13]

ok, so I was not just dreaming it.
So oc could be helpful if I can archive a frequency enought high like extreme overcloacker(like 6 or 8 ghz)?just for understand
btw, go from a 1080p to a 2k could help to not bottleneck? cause I see that the cpu usage is lower with higher resolution(oviusly with losing some fps)

The CPU prepares the scene for the GPU to process it. The higher the resolution, the more work for the GPU to process, hence low CPU usage. Having said that, the CPU needs adequate resource to prepare the scenes serially in order to keep up. Also, there are some elements of the game API that needs CPU processing simultaneously. OC can help in preparing the scenes faster, but it cannot provide additional threads to speed up the process. You will need a better processor for that.
The other factor is game design. Some games are typically CPU intensive and some vice versa. Games which are CPU intensive will struggle with less CPU resource. Games which are GPU intense will work fine with that chip, as they wont need too many threads.

 

[LORYT699]

The CPU prepares the scene for the GPU to process it. The higher the resolution, the more work for the GPU to process, hence low CPU usage. Having said that, the CPU needs adequate resource to prepare the scenes serially in order to keep up. Also, there are some elements of the game API that needs CPU processing simultaneously. OC can help in preparing the scenes faster, but it cannot provide additional threads to speed up the process. You will need a better processor for that.
The other factor is game design. Some games are typically CPU intensive and some vice versa. Games which are CPU intensive will struggle with less CPU resource. Games which are GPU intense will work fine with that chip, as they wont need too many threads.

ok, I understand but the case that cpu bottleneck for haveing a poor core count(talking about my cpu so 6 core) is because there are a lot of fps so I will cap the fps before reaching that performance.
btw thanks and I will see when gpu will be out

 

[Hellfire13]

ok, I understand but the case that cpu bottleneck for haveing a poor core count(talking about my cpu so 6 core) is because there are a lot of fps so I will cap the fps before reaching that performance.
btw thanks and I will see when gpu will be out

You can do that, yes. Cheers...

 

[LORYT699]

You can do that, yes. Cheers...

thanks for the help

 

[Wolverine2349]

A CPU should have enough resources available, not to limit the performance of the card. Unfortunately, 6 threads do not cut the ice anymore. GPUs these days are pretty powerful and resource hungry than they were a few years ago. A 9600k might limit some performance of a 4xxx series card dues to lack of enough threads for post process throughput. Overclocking may help, but not much.

Yet I keep hearing how 6 core CPUs are the sweet spot for gaming and 8 cores is overkill. Obviously that is untrue. And no I do not believe HT or SMT 6 core CPUs make that much difference. A logical core cuts things in half and not remotely close to a physical core in performance. You need an 8 core CPU minimum for high end enthusiast gaming these days to be safely and probably 10-12 cores for good overkill leeway and headroom for the future. So all those saying the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X is a waste of money for just high end gaming is not really correct. Well maybe the 5950X but certainly not the 5900X.

 

[John Chesterfield]

Yet I keep hearing how 6 core CPUs are the sweet spot for gaming and 8 cores is overkill. Obviously that is untrue. And no I do not believe HT or SMT 6 core CPUs make that much difference.

Not true, otherwise everyone running a Ryzen 3600 would be screaming for an upgrade. But they're not, because the 3600 is still very respectable and can drive pretty high end graphics at 1440p and above. HT/SMT clearly helps, otherwise a 9600k would still be relevant. As @Hellfire13 pointed out, it's threads that make that difference, 6 v 12 is a no brainer.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Not true, otherwise everyone running a Ryzen 3600 would be screaming for an upgrade. But they're not, because the 3600 is still very respectable and can drive pretty high end graphics at 1440p and above. HT/SMT clearly helps, otherwise a 9600k would still be relevant. As @Hellfire13 pointed out, it's threads that make that difference, 6 v 12 is a no brainer.

Maybe at lower core counts. But 8 core and above and especially with 12 to 16 cores, is much better with SMT off than 6 cores with SMT/HT on right?? I have 5900x and have SMT off as I like real cores and 12 is more than enough unlike 6 and I am sure 12 cores 12 threads is way way way better than 6 cores 12 threads I would think??

I have always felt to disable HRT/SMT if core count is 8 or higher or if lower leave it on. There is a reason why Intel axed HT with Core 2 Duo form Pentium 4 as more real cores made it unnecessary. But with lots of real cores, not the need But 4 and 6 real cores is kind of ow given 4 cores was the norm for far too long like 1 core was for far too long prior to Core 2 Duo.

 

[John Chesterfield]

Maybe at lower core counts. But 8 core and above and especially with 12 to 16 cores, is much better with SMT off than 6 cores with SMT/HT on right?? I have 5900x and have SMT off as I like real cores and 12 is more than enough unlike 6 and I am sure 12 cores 12 threads is way way way better than 6 cores 12 threads I would think??

I too have a 5900x but have kept SMT enabled as I like to run one or two VMs while gaming, never tried to run without it so I can't say whether you're right or wrong on whether just cores or cores and threads is better. I expect some software will like all cores and no SMT. But by the same token, I'm sure some could lap up the threads quite happily.

A lot of software seems to be able to utilise threads and not just cores nowadays, I do remember a lot of people disabling HT/SMT back in the day as software then didn't like the distraction of it being on. But I think things have changed in this regard, the majority of software these days appears to be very much thread aware since Ryzen came onto the scene and shook things up. Maybe I'll try disabling SMT one day, see whether it boosts performance. But I'd err on the side of HT/SMT being beneficial in most cases nowadays.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I too have a 5900x but have kept SMT enabled as I like to run one or two VMs while gaming, never tried to run without it so I can't say whether you're right or wrong on whether just cores or cores and threads is better. I expect some software will like all cores and no SMT. But by the same token, I'm sure some could lap up the threads quite happily.

A lot of software seems to be able to utilize threads and not just cores nowadays, I do remember a lot of people disabling HT/SMT back in the day as software then didn't like the distraction of it being on. But I think things have changed in this regard, the majority of software these days appears to be very much thread aware since Ryzen came onto the scene and shook things up. Maybe I'll try disabling SMT one day, see whether it boosts performance. But I'd err on the side of HT/SMT being beneficial in most cases nowadays.

Would you say SMT/HT is beneficial even with high core count CPUs? I have heard that SMT/HT in general were especially beneficial overall for multi tasking but then when core counts got high, it was kind of pointless as foreground software by itself was better off without it?? Would you say that has changed and even software running in the foreground benefits from SMT/HT? Or just not hurt by it??

 

[John Chesterfield]

Would you say SMT/HT is beneficial even with high core count CPUs? I have heard that SMT/HT in general were especially beneficial overall for multi tasking but then when core counts got high, it was kind of pointless as foreground software by itself was better off without it?? Would you say that has changed and even software running in the foreground benefits from SMT/HT? Or just not hurt by it??

I'd say yes to all of that these days. You still need good single thread IPC performance for a lot of things, but I don't think HT/SMT hurts anything like it used to.

Like I say, Ryzen changed everything. And coders have had to adapt to that, although that's not to say all of them have

 

[Hellfire13]

Yet I keep hearing how 6 core CPUs are the sweet spot for gaming and 8 cores is overkill. Obviously that is untrue. And no I do not believe HT or SMT 6 core CPUs make that much difference. A logical core cuts things in half and not remotely close to a physical core in performance. You need an 8 core CPU minimum for high end enthusiast gaming these days to be safely and probably 10-12 cores for good overkill leeway and headroom for the future. So all those saying the Ryzen 5900X and 5950X is a waste of money for just high end gaming is not really correct. Well maybe the 5950X but certainly not the 5900X.

I have already addressed that in the subsequent post. There are a lot of variables at play here. There is a difference between what a card needs and what a game needs, to run optimally. Further down, there is a difference between which type of game needs what type of resource to run optimally. You cannot generalize them in the same sentence.

As for physical vs logical cores, there is a reason why the industry has shifted to HT/SMT, mostly.

 

[Wolverine2349]

I have already addressed that in the subsequent post. There are a lot of variables at play here. There is a difference between what a card needs and what a game needs to run optimally. Further down, there is a difference between which type of game needs what type of resource to run optimally. You cannot generalize them in the same sentence.

As for physical vs logical cores, there is a reason why the industry has shifted to HT/SMT, mostly.

Well it seems industry new CPUs both from Intel and AMD all have SMT/HT because AMD came in and provided competition starting with Zen and really with Zen 2. Intel used to ship CPUs without HT, but that stopped with Comet Lake even on the lowest Core i3 CPUs. Cause I guess Intel could not get away with just disabling it and forcing users to pay an extra tax just for a little thing like SMT/HT when AMD had it on all CPUs that were performing as well starting with with Zen 2 and had higher core counts.

Is that what you mean by industry and reason has shifted to HT/SMT mostly??

Do you think physical cores is still far superior to logical core even if logical core helps a bit especially at lower core counts??

 

[Hellfire13]

Well it seems industry new CPUs both from Intel and AMD all have SMT/HT because AMD came in and provided competition starting with Zen and really with Zen 2. Intel used to ship CPUs without HT, but that stopped with Comet Lake even on the lowest Core i3 CPUs. Cause I guess Intel could not get away with just disabling it and forcing users to pay an extra tax just for a little thing like SMT/HT when AMD had it on all CPUs that were performing as well starting with with Zen 2 and had higher core counts.

Is that what you mean by industry and reason has shifted to HT/SMT mostly??

Do you think physical cores is still far superior to logical core even if logical core helps a bit especially at lower core counts??

Two tasks running simultaneously, each requiring one thread, can complete faster with HT/SMT, because on a single thread the second task will have to wait in queue. Simply put, HT/SMT benefits Task Scheduling, which has become more prominent on recent platforms. Its not about which is stronger. Its about which is smarter.
That, and the cost factor. Its a business afterall.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Two tasks running simultaneously, each requiring one thread, can complete faster with HT/SMT, because on a single thread the second task will have to wait in queue. Simply put, HT/SMT benefits Task Scheduling, which has become more prominent on recent platforms. Its not about which is stronger. Its about which is smarter.
That, and the cost factor. Its a business afterall.

That makes total sense especially for multi tasking and background tasks more efficient especially when a task uses half of a CPU core time or less. But for tasks that need to saturate more than half of a CPU core, would it hurt performance at all especially since it would be fighting for full contention of the core when there are other cores to use. But if you do not have enough physical cores and need that many tasks to use more than half of a full CPU core than what happens?

 

[Hellfire13]

That makes total sense especially for multi tasking and background tasks more efficient especially when a task uses half of a CPU core time or less. But for tasks that need to saturate more than half of a CPU core, would it hurt performance at all especially since it would be fighting for full contention of the core when there are other cores to use. But if you do not have enough physical cores and need that many tasks to use more than half of a full CPU core than what happens?

Scripting trends have changed too with the rise of HT. Today, programs and APIs are mostly written in such a way that they can take advantage of multiple cores/threads. Exceptins will always be there, but its the general trend that matters or makes better business case.