Cpu bottleneck

[mokuj1m]

guys i need to know how to indicate a cpu bottleneck? is it when the cpu usage reach 100% means there's bottleneck? i'm using E7300 with 9800 GT, when i played lost planet with dx9 at 1280x1024 n all high setting (8XAA) i got avg 40-50 fps. sometimes when the screen got really messed up n full of action, it drops to even below 10 fps. is this normal? n when i checked the cpu usage it showed above 80%
can anyone describe when a cpu called bottleneck? (if could in a simple describtion, coz im not really an enthusiast)

 

[Devastator_uk]

if the cpu usage is around 100% it would suggest that that is a bottleneck. One thing you can do is lower the settings slightly in key area, like change the 8xAA to 4xAA, and you'll notice very little difference in quality but could help improve performance quite a lot.

 

[mokuj1m]

thanks, so it's really a bottleneck then. then u sure that E7300 at stock speed really hold back 9800 GT 512mb? is this true? btw i use 4 gb ram ddr2 667 mhz, can i avoid this bottleneck if i oc the processor?
thanks for the quick reply

 

[mokuj1m]

btw i played GoW at high settings (1280x1024) with dx9 n got avg 55-60 fps, even at the crowdest situation it never drop to below 10 fps just like the lost planet. so i'm abit confuse bout this case, is this really a bottleneck or not...... thanks. and i havent try crysis yet, what's the best settings u guys suggest for my spec to play crysis?

 

[Devastator_uk]

That doesn't make any sense as if that worked then it would be a gpu limitation not a cpu one. If it is the cpu no gfx changes will make a difference.

I'm not sure what I was typing there but some graphics settings do rely on the CPU as well as the GPU, depend on the setting and the game as some games will use software(CPU) rather than GPU for certain things.

 

[gamerk316]

A bottleneck is not when the CPU is using 100%, but when the CPU is unable to drive enother component (usually the GFX card) to its max usage. The easiest way to test is to raise the settings. If your FPS doesn't change, the CPU is holding your card back. You see this phenomina a lot with SLI/CF setups (and note, how much better i7 does as a result; all SLI/CF seem to be bottlenecked by current duos/quads).

For example: if I get 82 FPS at 1024x768, 82 FPS at 1280x1024, 79 FPS at 1600x1200, and 52 FPS at 1980x1280. This is a CPU bottleneck, as inccreasing the resolution does not impact performance. The CPU simply can't make the GFX card go higher than 82 FPS, no matter how low the resolution was set to(although you might see a low gain at ultra low settings, due to the card needing less data sent its way, freeing up the CPU somewhat...)

The opposite is also true, where setings below a certain point will cause a massive performance jump. Example: you get 8 FPS at 2560x1980, 31 at 1980x1280, and 45 at 1600x1200. You are bottlenecked at the highest resolution, but this can be either the GPU not being good enough for that resolution, or the CPU not being able to send data to the card fast enough. You would need to test with a faster CPU to determine weather or not the CPU is the limiting factor in this case.

 

[myriad46]

Although I do not share strangerstrangers frustration with the technical side of this issue, there may be an easier answer...

mokuj1m: the numbers you are getting at those settings, considering your processor and graphics card are pretty good already. Your "bottleneck", whihc has been explained sufficiently in this thread already, is not really a bottle neck, but a threshhold of total system performance. Until you get a faster chip (front side bus) or multiple graphics cards, you aren't going to see much better than what you are getting already, IMHO.

So, I would have to agree with strangerstranger in that sometimes you just have to be happy with what you've got.

 

[javimars]

Final point, people need to stop this BS and just be happy, if you can play a game, just play it and enjoy it. If you are unhappy then and only then worry.

The max a LCD monitor can do is theoretically 60hz for the most part and even if the electronics can do more, the actual liquid crystals usually cannot.

Real world people.

funny you say that.. fps has a lot to do with how much you can enojoy the game. i play quake1 still ,yeah i know its a 1994 game, and before i bought my 24" i was running it at 2700fps @ 1680x1050 and i tell you its a big difference now with my 1300fps @19x. you might think why soo much fps? well the way quake1 is the more fps you can have the lower your ping can be.quake1 netcode is crap, i know. also ever heard of the new tvs with 120hz? my point is a game running at 90fps seems a lot smoother than a game running 40fps or even 60 which is vsync or whatever your monitor refresh rate might be.

 

[B-Unit]

If you are getting 82 fps and your gfx card can do 150, wtf would it matter, that is the max fps your system can do, i see no bottleneck.

WTF are you smoking? If your GPU is capable of pushing out 150 FPS at a given setting, and your system will only do 82, I would say that your pretty muchly bottlenecked. Is it a bottleneck worth worrying about? No, but a bottleneck none the less.

 

[javimars]

CRt i meant.

Oh and that 82 vs 150, doesn't matter in reality so who cares.

.... my lcd 24" does 75hz at 16x10....you must be a rpg gamer as in such game it wouldn't make that big difference but on fps(first person shooter) games such as fc2 or even crysis the more fps(frames per second) you can achieve the easier to aim. dont belive me? go download an old game such as quake1, set vsync on, and play online. then disable vsync and try it again. assuming you can achieve over 300fps you will notice a HUGE difference.

 

[Dekasav]

Methinks anyone who can *see* more than 60fps plays too much fps.

 

[amdfangirl]

60fps is smooth enough!

 

[tripper688]

lost planet is extremely gpu intensive, your 40-50fps is actually the norm for a 9800gt caliber videocard. an e7300 has more than enough juice for the game to be playable, you really won't see drastic improvements increasing cpu speed unless you decide to upgrade your videocard. and with the whole fps thing...yes your eyes can make out the difference between a game with good graphics running at 60fps vs 160fps but with an lcd refreshing at 60hz (just throwing a number out there), you're not actually getting 160fps, your monitor can't show 160fps if it can only refresh 60 times a second, therefore insane numbers of fps really does not translate to a big real world improvement.