Question Is there any game that my CPU would bottleneck with a 4090

[YouFilthyHippo]

Title. Its a 3900X

 

[hotaru.hino]

If you're not running 4K, practically all of them.

 

[Nighthawk117]

Title. Its a 3900X

Yes most games under the right conditions. The important thing is are you getting the performance you want. If your playing at high refresh rates at 1080p for example, a newer cpu like the 7800X3D would be significantly quicker.

What refresh rate and resolution are you running at?

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Yes most games under the right conditions. The important thing is are you getting the performance you want. If your playing at high refresh rates at 1080p for example, a newer cpu like the 7800X3D would be significantly quicker.

What refresh rate and resolution are you running at?

Im looking at getting a 1440p 240Hz monitor. But I want to know. Why would a 3900X bottleneck it? Its a 12 core 3.8, still fairly recent

 

[hotaru.hino]

Im looking at getting a 1440p 240Hz monitor. But I want to know. Why would a 3900X bottleneck it? Its a 12 core 3.8, still fairly recent

Because most games rely on the performance of a single core still over how many cores it has. Granted it may use 2-3 cores, but it can't come close to saturating a 12C/24T processor

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

Because most games rely on the performance of a single core still over how many cores it has. Granted it may use 2-3 cores, but it can't come close to saturating a 12C/24T processor

So it sounds to me like games need to start using more cores

 

[USAFRet]

So it sounds to me like games need to start using more cores

So convince the game devs to write things differently, to target a small segment of the user base.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

So convince the game devs to write things differently, to target a small segment of the user base.

A 200$ quad core 13100 shouldn't be better for gaming than a $500 i9 11900K because it has better single-threaded performance. That's stupid. Something here is grossly lopsided

 

[hotaru.hino]

So it sounds to me like games need to start using more cores

A 200$ quad core 13100 shouldn't be better for gaming than a $500 i9 11900K because it has better single-threaded performance. That's stupid. Something here is grossly lopsided

I bet you'd also go "why does this corridor shooter take up 100% of my 16 core CPU when there's literally only six guys on screen!?"

There are plenty of reasons why games either can't or won't tax a 12-core, 24-thread processor.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

I bet you'd also go "why does this corridor shooter take up 100% of my 16 core CPU when there's literally only six guys on screen!?"

There are plenty of reasons why games either can't or won't tax a 12-core, 24-thread processor.

Ok well, something is very very wrong if a 200$ 13100 can beat a 500% 11900 in gaming just because it has better single threaded performance. That's just totally messed up. Just being honest

 

[hotaru.hino]

Ok well, something is very very wrong if a 200$ 13100 can beat a 500% 11900 in gaming just because it has better single threaded performance. That's just totally messed up. Just being honest

No, that's called progress.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

No, that's called progress.

Then the 1900K should be $200 and the 13100 should be $500, not the other way around

 

[hotaru.hino]

Then the 1900K should be $200 and the 13100 should be $500, not the other way around

I mean, if you feel upset that buying an 8-core processor didn't mean much future proofing in gaming, performance, now you know.

 

[Nighthawk117]

Im looking at getting a 1440p 240Hz monitor. But I want to know. Why would a 3900X bottleneck it? Its a 12 core 3.8, still fairly recent

At 1440p there are plenty of games where the 4090 can push the frame rate higher than what a 3900X could cope with. For example:

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/images/battlefield-v-2560-1440.png

That's Battlefield V, the 7800X3D can run the game at 331 FPS average. While the 3900X can run at 168 FPS. In this instance the GPU is being held back by the 3900X. What frame rate you can hit is largely dictated by IPC and clock speed. Core to core latency also plays a role particularly on older Ryzen CPU's that are constructed from 4 core modules linked by Infinity Fabric.

What bottleneck, if any you will have though will be highly dependent on the game you are playing and the graphical settings. I agree the 3900X is a very powerful CPU, I wouldn't upgrade one if it was in my system. However if 240hz is the goal then yes you will encounter bottlenecking.

Techpowerup's review of the 7800X3D is worth a look to illustrate this better:

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Review - The Best Gaming CPU

AMD's Ryzen 7 7800X3D is everything that gamers want: eight fast cores, in a single CCD, with 3D VCache stacked on top at a price point of $450. In our review we can confirm that 7800X3D is indeed the fastest gaming CPU available, beating Intel's 13900K and even the 7950X3D.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Nighthawk117]

A 200$ quad core 13100 shouldn't be better for gaming than a $500 i9 11900K because it has better single-threaded performance. That's stupid. Something here is grossly lopsided

The 13100 has a faster architecture, faster cores will hit higher frame rates. It's also not necessarily the case it is better in every respect. Higher core count CPU's often have smoother frame times than lower core count ones in games that are heavily threaded. I don't know how the 11900K and 13100 compare though in something like Cyberpunk that uses lots of cores as I haven't tested it.

 

[Nighthawk117]

So it sounds to me like games need to start using more cores

Triple A games have improved a lot in using multiple cores but their scaling with core count is highly variable and usually has diminishing returns the more cores you add. I have strategy games I've stopped playing because they are simply too slow, I have a 10 core CPU but the games get bottlenecked by the first thread. Even on the latest CPU, they'd still run slow. The only solution is to use more cores but that's easier said than done, particularly for games where the budget is more limited.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

That's Battlefield V, the 7800X3D can run the game at 331 FPS average. While the 3900X can run at 168 FPS. In this instance the GPU is being held back by the 3900X. What frame rate you can hit is largely dictated by IPC and clock speed. Core to core latency also plays a role particularly on older Ryzen CPU's that are constructed from 4 core modules linked by Infinity Fabric.

Nicely explained.