Is My CPU Bottlenecking My GPU?

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810
I know most of the time this isn't the case, but I have an AMD FX-4150 and a GTX 770. I get the feeling that in Watch_Dogs, my CPU is holding my GPU back slightly. Is this the case, and if it is, am I better off getting a 6300 or saving and getting an i5 4440 and an accompanying motherboard? Thanks, and happy building/gaming.
 
Solution


There are no quad-core i3s, but they do run 4 threads despite having two cores, due to hyper threading.
Anyway, as...

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810


Haven't checked load, but I assume it's very high. Actually, the game runs OK for me. With V-Sync on (ultra preset), I get 30 FPS, which to me looks smoother because the GPU is putting out 10 or so extra frames to smooth things over with. Plus, my HD 7770 got 15-10 FPS with Ultra, and before that I was on an Xbox 360, so yeah...
 


I wouldn't run an 8350 on your motherboard.
 


FX 8 core needs better than normal motherboard so before buying consider that. Your Gigabyte 760 chipset board is not ideal
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810

What's the best budget mobo you'd reccomend for an 8350? Also, how are people seeing my specs? I put them in my profile somewhere, but they're not my signature.

 
Most games can use only 2-3 cores. I understand watch dogs to be able to use many cores.
The cores on all the FX cpu chips are not particularly fast compared to Intel
The question is can this be overcome by adding more cores?

One way to tell is to see how sensitive your game is to such changes.
Here is a back handed way to get some idea:

1. Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
Go to control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state/
This will simulate what a lack of cpu power will do.
Conversely what a 30% improvement in core speed might do.

2. Remove the use of one core in the bios.
This will tell you how sensitive your games are to the benefits of many cores.

If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810
rdizz81: "I would shoot for a Z97 board and an i5 k series CPU"- Don't plan on overclocking, ever. Thanks for the recommendation, though. I'll keep it in mind.

rolli59: "Your board would run FX6300 fine."- Yeah, but for approximately $50 dollars more, the 8350 will last me longer until I can get the i7 and go premium. Besides, starting from a $0 base point, either CPU is gonna take me a while to save up for. If the 6300 goes on sale, I'll consider it, though. Thanks for all the help.
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810

With all these people telling me it is, and with me seeing over a 400% improvement (literally) in most 1/2 core games, I'd have to say that my CPU factors in.

 

rdizz81

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2012
521
0
19,160
Just some food for thought, With a good cooler $30 like a hyper evo 212 and these new Z97 boards Overclocking is as simple as a push of a button in windows. Your value per dollar sky rockets.

Just sayin =p But ya your video card is nice and the CPU is bottlenecking for sure.

You can OC an i5 and it will perform just as good and in some cases better than in i7 in games for $100 less.
 
Yes. The FX-4150 is certainly a bottleneck for your GTX 770.

If you look at Watch Dogs benchmarks, an FX-6350 (overclocked FX-6300) performs similarly to an i3-4130, just a few fps less than the FX-8350. If you're going for Intel and an i7 eventually anyway and won't overclock, wouldn't it make more sense to get an H87 or H97 board now, with an i3, and then just wait for the i7? Otherwise you're replacing both the CPU and mobo twice.
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810


I noticed that the i3 4310 is a dual core. Are there i3s that are quad core? If so, are they still cheaper than a quad-core i5? Thanks very much for explaining all this.
 


There are no quad-core i3s, but they do run 4 threads despite having two cores, due to hyper threading.
Anyway, as mentioned, even with 2 cores they're still stronger than a stock FX-6300 in games, and would open up a much easier upgrade path to an i7.

Besides, if there *was* a quad-core i3, it'd just be called an i7. :3
Intel uses the same core architecture for all their new CPUs; the names "i3, i5, i7, etc" are determined by the number of cores, threads and software support, since individually they use the same parts and cores.

Celerons are underclocked dual cores, kind of a crippled version of the Pentium meant for ultra low cost.
Pentiums are normal dual cores, roughly 1/2 of an i5 when both are clocked the same.
i3s are dual cores with HT, roughly 1/2 of an i7 when both are clocked the same.
i5s are normal quad-cores.
i7s are quad-cores with HT.
 
Solution

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810

Thanks for the info. I did some research of my own, and SR-71 Blackbird (among others) have highly reccommended the 6300 over an i3. Originally, I'd planned to get an i5 4440 and an ASRock H97M Pro4. Would that be an advisable course of action?
 


I trust SR-71 when he recommends power supplies and other components, but I've seen too many people complaining about FX-6300s, and seen too many benchmarks of i3s and i5s both beating them in most games, to recommend the FX-6300.
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I think I may just do the i5 4440 and the ASRock Pro4 like I said, because if I'm spending the money anyway I might as well start with an i5. How is the motherboard that I picked?
 


My brother has the same board. It's been great so far.
 

Silibant

Honorable
Nov 23, 2013
432
0
10,810


Ok, thanks. I'll go with that and hope it works for the both of us for a long time.