Question Will an Intel 11600k bottleneck a 3080 Ti ?

[Nighthawk117]

IMO, Cyberpunk is a terrible title to base any systems performance on. It was poorly optimized when released, remains fundamentally flawed

Is that really the case though, it's a big open world game with good graphics. Things like DLSS are really needed to run the game with ray tracing, which is used quite extensively and much more impressively in my view than any other game.

 

[Junglelyf]

I apparently missed something up there. I thought this was a "I am going to", not an "I already have".

In this case, only your perception of the performance you are getting is important. You are the one who needs to be happy with it and presumably funding it. Unless you came across a stellar deal, updating the 11th gen is likely not going to be worthwhile. The i9 does perform marginally better, but also costs are in line with typical Intel pricing now that the clear out sales have long dried up.

In my own world, I have not seen any reason to spend money towards a base system update yet. My 11900K does everything I want it to and could do with a more powerful graphics card, but I just wouldn't really utilize it much with the titles I play.

IMO, Cyberpunk is a terrible title to base any systems performance on. It was poorly optimized when released, remains fundamentally flawed, especially when you consider all the resolution modifiers that came out in order for really powerful hardware to run it "well". With that said, it is a beautiful game so long as your expectations are in line with said hardware.

Right, yes as I suspected, and upgrade would not be an intelligent move, I am happy with my system (and yes I funded it haha) and prefer to wait to upgrade everything all at once in coupe years time perhaps.

Cyberpunk is not actually my kind of game, I do not even own it, but I’m not entirely sold on it being poorly optimised, I have borrowed it before from a friend and it’s CPU and GPU utilisation seemed decent, better than most modern titles and found the frame time graph fairly consistent, also it does not suffer from shader compilation stutter.
I understand it is demanding with RT features enabled, but the rasterised version seemed reasonable to me performance wise, however I did not play on launch so I cannot speak to that.

Thank you for your input I appreciate it!

 

[punkncat]

Is that really the case though, it's a big open world game with good graphics. Things like DLSS are really needed to run the game with ray tracing, which is used quite extensively and much more impressively in my view than any other game.

It is a beautiful, big game. There are loads of things you can do to "make it more playable" but the question remains in my mind is this....

At this moment in time the 1650 is the most popular graphics card in the hands of Steam players. Assumably we could also surmise that (older) 6c CPU are being paired with them. Hold that thought.

Even when Cyberpunk came out two and a half (almost three) years ago it was well known for punishing even the best hardware available at the time. There are people who WANT that. Coming back around to those average players, the game is essentially unplayable at an acceptable (IMO 60 steady frames) framerate and will remain so for years moving forward given the uptake of newer better hardware to the mainstream.

In the meantime we have all these new modifiers and "the game plays great on my 4K/240 system with (insert type of modifier) on, where in reality you are actually playing at lower resolutions/generated graphics. This isn't a traditional performance scenario, it is a cheat in order to render these poorly optimized titles playable to a slightly larger crowd and driving what would otherwise be (possibly) unnecessary upgrades in an attempt to make that "one thing" workable.

Just my .02. No one else has to see it that way.

 

[punkncat]

Cyberpunk is not actually my kind of game

I have to admit that I dislike the mechanics of the combat aspect so much that I have a hard time playing it. I do use it as a reference point for performance for systems I own, build, update. Much the same way that Ashes of the Singularity was used for said so long. It will put a workout on a system, no doubt.

I recently updated a system from a 4690/970 into a R5 3600 based system. Due to the budget constraints and for the QOL improvements that were decided on, the 970 ended up having to stay for a while. Maybe an update gift for later, but no matter what settings I attempted to use I could not break into what I consider a playable realm on that title with that graphics card. Otherwise, I could load SotTR, Tom Clancy titles, Forza, and many others at fully playable 720p resolution. Technically, and as mentioned in the above post, a 970 is still better than the majority of players on the Steam Hardware Survey.

How does that make sense from a marketing strategy to get that game into more players hands?

 

[Junglelyf]

It is a beautiful, big game. There are loads of things you can do to "make it more playable" but the question remains in my mind is this....

At this moment in time the 1650 is the most popular graphics card in the hands of Steam players. Assumably we could also surmise that (older) 6c CPU are being paired with them. Hold that thought.

Even when Cyberpunk came out two and a half (almost three) years ago it was well known for punishing even the best hardware available at the time. There are people who WANT that. Coming back around to those average players, the game is essentially unplayable at an acceptable (IMO 60 steady frames) framerate and will remain so for years moving forward given the uptake of newer better hardware to the mainstream.

In the meantime we have all these new modifiers and "the game plays great on my 4K/240 system with (insert type of modifier) on, where in reality you are actually playing at lower resolutions/generated graphics. This isn't a traditional performance scenario, it is a cheat in order to render these poorly optimized titles playable to a slightly larger crowd and driving what would otherwise be (possibly) unnecessary upgrades in an attempt to make that "one thing" workable.

Just my .02. No one else has to see it that way.

Fair enough, I’m rather new to PC gaming, I was not even doing it when it released, it always seemed like a game that would push technology forward to me, they could have communicated that to their audience better, much like their Witcher 3 next gen version with RTGI, it’s basically unplayable without frame gen, that really annoyed me here I am with a 3080ti and a modern CPU getting hyped up for this Witcher 3 update, not knowing that at the time, only one GPU could even handle the next gen version bd that was the 4090, but instead of being honest about that they just released it in a totally unfinished state.

 

[punkncat]

There are certain similarities that could be drawn in regard to Cyberpunk and Crysis, if you are old enough to recall that meta. The bigger difference being that even though Crysis took a good system to run, it was a well designed and fully ready to release title that worked well right from the start on proper hardware.
Cyberpunk was not, and IMO remains so.

 

[Nighthawk117]

At this moment in time the 1650 is the most popular graphics card in the hands of Steam players. Assumably we could also surmise that (older) 6c CPU are being paired with them. Hold that thought.

Even when Cyberpunk came out two and a half (almost three) years ago it was well known for punishing even the best hardware available at the time. There are people who WANT that. Coming back around to those average players, the game is essentially unplayable at an acceptable (IMO 60 steady frames) framerate and will remain so for years moving forward given the uptake of newer better hardware to the mainstream.

I'd agree the bar of entry was relatively high for the time. However without ray tracing it is significantly less demanding, it was playable on a fast 4 core/8 thread CPU. A 6 core/12 thread CPU like the 8700K or Ryzen 5 3600 would play it fairly comfortably without ray tracing. They still do a good job with it on, but there are scenes in the most demanding areas I've found where the frame rate will drop below 60 FPS at times.

In the meantime we have all these new modifiers and "the game plays great on my 4K/240 system with (insert type of modifier) on, where in reality you are actually playing at lower resolutions/generated graphics. This isn't a traditional performance scenario, it is a cheat in order to render these poorly optimized titles playable to a slightly larger crowd and driving what would otherwise be (possibly) unnecessary upgrades in an attempt to make that "one thing" workable.

I know what your saying, it is a cheat but I always saw it as a cheat to make ray tracing possible. I don't have much time in the game without the latter though so can't remember exactly what the performance was.

Much the same way that Ashes of the Singularity was used for said so long. It will put a workout on a system, no doubt.

That's one of my most played games, I find it does have some flaws though. From 257 hours in the game, I would say the benchmarks for it in reviews are highly misleading.

 

[punkncat]

That's one of my most played games, I find it does have some flaws though. From 257 hours in the game, I would say the benchmarks for it in reviews are highly misleading.

Lol, I have an insane amount of time on that title. The biggest thing is that once the map you are on really starts to populate it can bring a system to its knees. Once all the 'NPC' players come online and your own army gets built up it can change the performance significantly. I just very recently uninstalled it to create some room. I have been enjoying some of the older 'free' titles some of the launchers are offering. Things I always recall hearing about and just never pulled on.

Edit- admittedly I "only" have a 3070, but I have not really seen any reason to keep Ray Tracing on with that graphics card. I like to check it out from time to time for the eye candy, but unless I drop to 1080p (which, also isn't really a bad thing over 1440) it just isn't worthwhile to tank frames that way. The resolution modifiers are too bothersome/tiresome to me. Don't care for it yet, but that will likely get better in another generation or two of card. To be fair, my next purchase for GPU is likely to be over on the AMD side.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

I thought Freesync/Gsync was all about screen tearing and would not affect frame times? Or perhaps I’m mistaken, I never use either technologies as I almost never see any tearing…

I believe it does effect frametime smoothness. What's the harm in trying, right? You can also add in Nvidia Reflex if you find gsync gives you additional latency.

 

[Nighthawk117]

Lol, I have an insane amount of time on that title. The biggest thing is that once the map you are on really starts to populate it can bring a system to its knees. Once all the 'NPC' players come online and your own army gets built up it can change the performance significantly. I just very recently uninstalled it to create some room. I have been enjoying some of the older 'free' titles some of the launchers are offering. Things I always recall hearing about and just never pulled on.

Strategy is my favourite type of game. Having played many RTS games over the years, Ashes performance is good given the number of units that can be on screen. However it's not nearly as good at scaling with core count as hardware reviewers claim. It's sold as if a 16 core CPU will make the thing run like a dream, in reality it won't.

From my experience, it scales best when the number of units is divided amongst lots of players. It does not do well if your against a single player. In my games even if it started out as lots of players, in the end it's just me slugging it out with 1 insane AI on the largest map. It really brings down performance, I've got it many times down to 2 FPS because the map is simply overwhelmed with units. I upgraded from an i7 6700K to an i9 10850K a couple of years ago. When the game is running well, the 10850K is smoother than the 6700K. However the 10850K has no real benefit when it comes to maintaining the performance late game against a single AI. The FPS craters and so does the CPU usage, I've used process explorer, what happens is the 1rst thread is pegged at 100% and the usage on the rest collapse.

I have other strategies that I've stopped playing like Galactic Civilisation III because late game is just so slow. Again it's not that the computing power isn't available, but it get's bottlenecked on one core and the rest of them then sit idle.

That's probably my biggest peeve in games, despite the core wars we are still brute forcing lots of things on a relatively small number of fast cores. I accept though there are games that do scale much better than others.

Edit- admittedly I "only" have a 3070, but I have not really seen any reason to keep Ray Tracing on with that graphics card. I like to check it out from time to time for the eye candy, but unless I drop to 1080p (which, also isn't really a bad thing over 1440) it just isn't worthwhile to tank frames that way. The resolution modifiers are too bothersome/tiresome to me. Don't care for it yet, but that will likely get better in another generation or two of card. To be fair, my next purchase for GPU is likely to be over on the AMD side.

That's still a very good GPU. I like ray tracing in Cyberpunk, I think it's worth the performance penalty. I have not been impressed with it in any other game though.

 

[punkncat]

That's still a very good GPU. I like ray tracing in Cyberpunk, I think it's worth the performance penalty. I have not been impressed with it in any other game though.

My current favorite implementation is the jungle benchmark scene in SotTR. The light through the leaves is astounding.

 

[Nighthawk117]

My current favorite implementation is the jungle benchmark scene in SotTR. The light through the leaves is astounding.

Oh ok that's interesting, never really got that far with the Tomb Raider series.

 

[punkncat]

Oh ok that's interesting, never really got that far with the Tomb Raider series.

I had never played them. My intro to Laura Croft were the movies. I was aware of, but never played.
Sometime a year or so ago SofTR was a free title so I picked it up and just held on to it. I love the benchmark scene and mostly due to the Day of the Dead/Halloween theme it has. The graphics on the game can be really good, but I don't care a lot for the puzzle/maze parts. I am more of a point me at it and let's kill it type gamer, aside from (also) strategy games. I still go back and play the various Warhammer titles prior to and up to Soulstorm. I tried to like Retribution and such but just didn't like the direction those titles went after that. Similar feelings about the World of Warcraft titles later on.
I really wanted to like DOTA 2. It has a similar premise but for some reason I just can't wrap my head around it. I have been considering the new Diablo as the previous old title was a great game. I still play Grim Dawn from time to time and it is a straight rip off of Diablo.

 

[zx128k]

It is cpu bottlenecked even at 4k but its not really too bad an 4k. The bottleneck is 16-11% depends on resolution. You will notice this in benchmarks if the framerate is high enough. 11600k vs 13900k.

GPU Average 1080p FPS	208.9 FPS	250.8 FPS
GPU Average 1440p FPS	163.6 FPS	185.1 FPS
GPU Average 4K FPS	103.2 FPS	113.4 FPS

The question is if the performance is still higher than your monitors refreash rate. Does the bottleneck matter?

At 4k a 10900k with DDR4-4000 RAM is 1%, this is not a big enough bottleneck to care about.

GPU Average 1080p FPS	241.4 FPS	250.8 FPS
GPU Average 1440p FPS	181.7 FPS	185.1 FPS
GPU Average 4K FPS	112.4 FPS	113.4 FPS

 

[Nighthawk117]

I had never played them. My intro to Laura Croft were the movies. I was aware of, but never played.
Sometime a year or so ago SofTR was a free title so I picked it up and just held on to it. I love the benchmark scene and mostly due to the Day of the Dead/Halloween theme it has. The graphics on the game can be really good, but I don't care a lot for the puzzle/maze parts. I am more of a point me at it and let's kill it type gamer, aside from (also) strategy games. I still go back and play the various Warhammer titles prior to and up to Soulstorm. I tried to like Retribution and such but just didn't like the direction those titles went after that. Similar feelings about the World of Warcraft titles later on.
I really wanted to like DOTA 2. It has a similar premise but for some reason I just can't wrap my head around it. I have been considering the new Diablo as the previous old title was a great game. I still play Grim Dawn from time to time and it is a straight rip off of Diablo.

I have all of them but have only played the first one. I'm one of those that buys games in sales but never gets around to playing them.

I am more of a point me at it and let's kill it type gamer

Me too that's why I havn't got around to them. I know it's a popular e-sports title but I've never really been interested in Dota 2 tbh. I quite liked the old Warhammer Dawn of War games. I like the traditional style of RTS games with base building. Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Act of War, Supreme Commander, Ashes of the Singularity, Act of Aggression, stuff like that. The last two being the most modern.

Grim Dawn looks interesting but I've never actually heard of it.