Should I upgrade from a i5-7600k?
- Thread starter Spexels
- Start date
Solution
- Jul 18, 2014
- 21,771
- 1,935
- 93,640
Somethings wrong, there's no reason that CPU should be at 100% while gaming. What else do you have running in the background? You may want to scan the system with a good AV program and do a full scan with Malwarebytes.
feelinfroggy777
Glorious
- Dec 13, 2016
- 5,721
- 135
- 45,990
The 7600k is a very good CPU. What resolution are you gaming at? You are probably gaming at 1080p. At 1080p, the bottleneck moves from the GPU to the CPU. So your CPU has to work really hard to keep the GPU fed. The 1070 is a very good GPU and it can eat lots of data. So it is not surprising that the 7600k cannot keep it completely fed all of the time at 1080p. If you move to a higher resolution such as 1440p, then you will see a reversal because the 1070 will have to work much harder and will not be able to "eat" all of the data the 7600k will provide.
So what monitor are you using?
So what monitor are you using?
feelinfroggy777
Glorious
- Dec 13, 2016
- 5,721
- 135
- 45,990
I set my physics to auto. I run SLI, so it depends on the game, but sometimes I let the other GPU run the physics, but that should not matter.
What frame rates are you getting?
This may sound like a stupid question, but you are going into the video or graphics settings of the games and you are setting the resolution at 1440p? A lot of games go to 1080p by default.
What games are you playing? Some of the really CPU heavy games, you are going to have high CPU usage. Take BF1 for example. Your CPU is the minimum requirement for that game. Other games are very difficult to bench because of variation in online play and what is rendered. So games like pubg are really hard to bench because each game is so different.
I would also run a scan with Malwarebytes. It is free, but it can pick up somethings that Norton cannot.
I used to have Norton a long time ago. I don't use it because it is very intrusive. I am sure it is better now, but it may be worth turning it off and running a game and see if it is the culprit.
The other thing you need to look at in task manager and the CPU%. I know you said that there were only a couple of processes going, but what % is your CPU at when idle? There may be more background processes going on that you don't know about.
- Feb 13, 2017
- 92
- 0
- 1,630
I get bad fps in bf1 and planetside 2, 30 fps for planetside, 45ish for bf1, but games like rs6 and gta 5 are okay, but are slightly below what they should be. Of course I change the resolution, and I change the graphics settings accordingly. I get around 10% usage when idle, Norton uses around 5% cpu when playing games. So is it normal to have 100% usage in bf1?
the i5 is at 100% cpu utilization on lots of games at 1080P in many games, it's *very* common ....
But as long as you are happy with it's framerates provided, who cares about cpu utilization? (If you try to live stream while gaming, it may chug a bit, and drop frames, but, many are still quite happy with i5 performance, especially when OC'd...
But as long as you are happy with it's framerates provided, who cares about cpu utilization? (If you try to live stream while gaming, it may chug a bit, and drop frames, but, many are still quite happy with i5 performance, especially when OC'd...
feelinfroggy777
Glorious
- Dec 13, 2016
- 5,721
- 135
- 45,990
Something is wrong if you are playing 1440p and getting 45fps with a 7600k and a 1070.
Are you running GeForce experience? Try uninstalling it. It can impact performance.
Do a clean install of your drivers. When you download the drivers, choose custom instead of recommended. When you do a box wil open and ask if you want a clean instal. Select that and unselect Gefore Exprince.
10% is high, but it still should noft be 45 fps in bf1 at 10%.
Are you running GeForce experience? Try uninstalling it. It can impact performance.
Do a clean install of your drivers. When you download the drivers, choose custom instead of recommended. When you do a box wil open and ask if you want a clean instal. Select that and unselect Gefore Exprince.
10% is high, but it still should noft be 45 fps in bf1 at 10%.
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,740
- 4,559
- 142,790
BF1 is notorious for 100% usage on any i5. As is Witcher 3, gta:v, pubg and most other AAA titles optimized for 8 thread usage.
Resolution doesn't affect cpu to any real degree, the same info is processed no matter what the resolution. Refresh is totally opposite, the higher the refresh, the harder the cpu has to work to supply the gpu with needed frames. Gpus work a lot harder on resolution, 1440p is @1.7x as many pixels it's got to paint per Hz as 1080p. So expect some frame drops. Add in physX and it'll drop further.
Look around the net for patches, there are some for BF1 that are supposed to help i5 usage. Also make sure you have the latest audio and Lan drivers for the mobo. Windows upgrades/updates can cause conflicts with date codes and legacy drivers where vendors haven't patched yet for windows releases.
DX can also make a difference, if playing the game through DX12, many report lower fps than when played through DX11.
And, lastly, there's this. (probably related to the driver/date code issues)
http://www.techradar.com/news/microsoft-will-finally-patch-up-windows-10-creators-update-game-issues
Resolution doesn't affect cpu to any real degree, the same info is processed no matter what the resolution. Refresh is totally opposite, the higher the refresh, the harder the cpu has to work to supply the gpu with needed frames. Gpus work a lot harder on resolution, 1440p is @1.7x as many pixels it's got to paint per Hz as 1080p. So expect some frame drops. Add in physX and it'll drop further.
Look around the net for patches, there are some for BF1 that are supposed to help i5 usage. Also make sure you have the latest audio and Lan drivers for the mobo. Windows upgrades/updates can cause conflicts with date codes and legacy drivers where vendors haven't patched yet for windows releases.
DX can also make a difference, if playing the game through DX12, many report lower fps than when played through DX11.
And, lastly, there's this. (probably related to the driver/date code issues)
http://www.techradar.com/news/microsoft-will-finally-patch-up-windows-10-creators-update-game-issues
- Dec 26, 2012
- 30,740
- 4,559
- 142,790
Cut down on viewing distance, grass.
A cpu is responsible for how a blade of grass looks, how it moves, it's angles, rotation, color, placement, shadows etc. It sends all that info to the gpu, which only has to paint that on screen. If at medium distance, there's 1 million blades of grass all in detail, that's entirely on the cpu to organize. Then add in all the waves and color variations that are entirely on the cpu. That's a lot of cpu work, very little gpu. Max out that distance and now there's 2 million blades of grass. Cpu is now swamped, gpu really hasn't changed much. Cut it to close, and cpu can breathe as it's only detailing and placing 500k blades, the rest is a blur of color representing grass.
Anything that you can do to alleviate cpu usage will be a bonus, some settings are highly cpu dependent, grass is one found in many games, physx, hairworks, viewing distance etc. You personally will not see much of a change unless you look for it, visually there's not much difference between very high and ultra. To the cpu/gpu there's a huge difference. You register a dude standing in shadows in a corner on very high, at ultra the gpu is trying to picture the shades of shadow on one side of his face vrs the other, lighting direction, depths of shadows by his feet etc etc. And he was a blur in time as you drove past, barely even seeing him. You can realistically cut back on many settings and not really notice the difference at all.
A cpu is responsible for how a blade of grass looks, how it moves, it's angles, rotation, color, placement, shadows etc. It sends all that info to the gpu, which only has to paint that on screen. If at medium distance, there's 1 million blades of grass all in detail, that's entirely on the cpu to organize. Then add in all the waves and color variations that are entirely on the cpu. That's a lot of cpu work, very little gpu. Max out that distance and now there's 2 million blades of grass. Cpu is now swamped, gpu really hasn't changed much. Cut it to close, and cpu can breathe as it's only detailing and placing 500k blades, the rest is a blur of color representing grass.
Anything that you can do to alleviate cpu usage will be a bonus, some settings are highly cpu dependent, grass is one found in many games, physx, hairworks, viewing distance etc. You personally will not see much of a change unless you look for it, visually there's not much difference between very high and ultra. To the cpu/gpu there's a huge difference. You register a dude standing in shadows in a corner on very high, at ultra the gpu is trying to picture the shades of shadow on one side of his face vrs the other, lighting direction, depths of shadows by his feet etc etc. And he was a blur in time as you drove past, barely even seeing him. You can realistically cut back on many settings and not really notice the difference at all.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Question Why Beyerdynamic DT 990 PRO is so quiet?- Started by kaizerSoze05
- Replies: 2
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question Issues with USB3 hub chained from Thunderbolt dock
- Latest: jauntysquirrel
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram