Will a better graphics card make my CPU work harder?

[darylprater]

I have a 1050ti and get about 40fps on Far Cry 5. I ran afterburner to see how everything runs. My graphics card is the only thing that is maxed out so I guess that's the bottleneck.

But my CPU runs all 6 cores at like 95% usage sometimes while playing games. If I bought a 1080 and started getting like 100 fps on Far Cry 5 would the CPU usage stay the same? Or would my CPU usage go up because now 100 fps is going threw my PC instead of just 40?

Or maybe that's all done with the GPU and wouldn't effect my CPU at all?

 

[jaslion]

I have a 1050ti and get about 40fps on Far Cry 5. I ran afterburner to see how everything runs. My graphics card is the only thing that is maxed out so I guess that's the bottleneck.

But my CPU runs all 6 cores at like 95% usage sometimes while playing games. If I bought a 1080 and started getting like 100 fps on Far Cry 5 would the CPU usage stay the same? Or would my CPU usage go up because now 100 fps is going threw my PC instead of just 40?

Or maybe that's all done with the GPU and wouldn't effect my CPU at all?

Full specs.

 

[darylprater]

eh the specs are kinda irrelevant to my question but here they are anyway

AMD FX-6300 Vishera 6-Core 3.5 GHz Socket AM3
1050ti
16GB of ram

 

[boju]

Specs are relevant as the cpu needs to instruct the gpu so a 6300 will bottleneck a 1080 quite a bit but you'll still see an improvement over the 1050ti but wont get 1080's full potential compared to say Ryzen 1600x/1700 or i7 8600k. There will be a significant drop with your current cpu.

Right now your cpu usage is high because youre probably lowering graphics or resolution to compensate frames with a lesser gpu. That would drive up cpu usage as its doing more work but because 1050ti is low tier you wouldn't have much choice besides accepting 40 fps.

6300 isnt a suitable cpu for an 1080 so getting 100fps in FC5 probably wont happen but depends on trial and settings albeit you will definitely see an improvement. But least you could carry the gpu over to a new system if you upgrade.

 

[darylprater]

yeah its a budget graphics card, but that's actually 40 fps with everything on ultra and 1080p. But my GPU clock runs maxed out at 100% usage the while time, and my CPU runs at like 95% at all times, (all other programs on my PC are closed of course) So I feel like if I got a GTX 1080 the CPU only has 5 more % before it's maxed out. So I could get like 45 fps instead of 40 fps.

So basically it's pointless to get a better graphics card unless i upgrade my processor too right? And it's a old socket type so I would have to upgrade my motherboard too. So basically get a new PC and don't waste my time getting a better video card.

 

[boju]

Yeah pretty much. New Ryzens are out and new gen Nv GPUs out soon so hold out i reckon. 6300 isn't a bad bad processor but much more improvements can be had.

 

[jaslion]

eh the specs are kinda irrelevant to my question but here they are anyway

AMD FX-6300 Vishera 6-Core 3.5 GHz Socket AM3
1050ti
16GB of ram

The specs are the one thing we need to know to answer your question.
No matter what gpu you bought for your pc it will still only give you about40fps. The fx6300 is not good enough for far cry 5 and will MAJORLY bottleneck anything higher than a 1050ti (which it is already doing atm).

 

[darylprater]

Really the question had nothing to do with my PC, I guess I just worded it bad. The question was just "will a better graphics card make my CPU work harder?"

I didn't know if the fps in a video game effected how hard a CPU works or not.

I guess a better question would have been if I put a cheap $50 video card in my PC and ran Far Cry 5 getting like 10 fps would that be easier on my CPU? So instead of my CPU running at 95% it's limit it runs at like 40% of it's limit because my video card is too slow.

I didn't know if your graphics card effects how hard your processor runs or if they are just 2 different things.

 

[jaslion]

Really the question had nothing to do with my PC, I guess I just worded it bad. The question was just "will a better graphics card make my CPU work harder?"

I didn't know if the fps in a video game effected how hard a CPU works or not.

I guess a better question would have been if I put a cheap $50 video card in my PC and ran Far Cry 5 getting like 10 fps would that be easier on my CPU? So instead of my CPU running at 95% it's limit it runs at like 40% of it's limit because my video card is too slow.

I didn't know if your graphics card effects how hard your processor runs or if they are just 2 different things.

If your cpu is not being fully used (not all games can use all cores keep that in mind. Also not all games can use all cores they use efficiently) but your gpu is then your gpu is holding back your cpu. This can happen but if it's happening in almost every game and it's really holding your cpu back then the gpu is the bottleneck.

It's the same with the gpu. If the gpu can't run at near 100% it is most likely being held back by the cpu (unless the game caps it's useage and whatnot).

The easiest way to see this is to put all settings on low and stay at the same resolution.
Then turn the resolution as low as you can and compare the fps difference. If there is only a small difference and the cpu useage is staying about the same but the gpu useage is going down and the game isn't putting on an fps cap then your cpu is holding you back.

 

[darylprater]

thanks, ill try that. MSI Afterburner is awesome though, it tells you the exact percentage usage of all the cores in your CPU, and your exact usage of GPU and ram. So I know the GPU is the bottleneck but only by 5%, because my CPU stays around 95%.

It seems like with a better GPU more pixels would be running threw my PC faster, and the CPU would have to support those extra frames and pixels. So then the CPU would hit 100% and be the bottle neck.

But I thought maybe the CPU just powers the game and has nothing to do with the graphics, and extra frames would only put a load on the GPU, not CPU.

 

[J_E_D_70]

You are right in that the cpu is important to framerate - the cpu sets up the frame (while taking care of dozens of other tasks) and the gpu renders it. Once the cpu is maxed out, adding more gpu power has diminishing returns.

My preference is to be fairly balanced with the gpu allowed to run at or near 100% with the cpu having some headroom.

 

[jaslion]

thanks, ill try that. MSI Afterburner is awesome though, it tells you the exact percentage usage of all the cores in your CPU, and your exact usage of GPU and ram. So I know the GPU is the bottleneck but only by 5%, because my CPU stays around 95%.

It seems like with a better GPU more pixels would be running threw my PC faster, and the CPU would have to support those extra frames and pixels. So then the CPU would hit 100% and be the bottle neck.

But I thought maybe the CPU just powers the game and has nothing to do with the graphics, and extra frames would only put a load on the GPU, not CPU.

The cpu won't run at 100% constantly. A game is non static but an average of 95% basically means it's maxing out (you are also pushing your gpu with ultra settings quite a bit so sometimes the gpu can't quite keep up). A 1050ti is really about as far as the fx series should be pushed.