Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 590 possible bottleneck

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 15, 2011 10:19:40 PM

Hey there. I recently installed a GTX 590 and with SLI enabled, the performance is almost identical to having SLI turned off. Could there possibly be a bottleneck due to my CPU, or something else? Thank you.

Specs:

Asus Rampage ii Extreme
i7-920 @2.66Ghz (2.8Ghz via turbo boost while gaming)
Corsair Dominator 6GB DDR3 1600
evga GTX 590
Enermax 1050w PSU
Western Digital 300GB Velociraptor

More about : gtx 590 bottleneck

a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 10:25:12 PM

What game and resolution?
It should be your CPU, the 590 is one heck of a card, but it also be the game peaking.
June 15, 2011 10:28:34 PM

Timop said:
What game and resolution?
It should be your CPU, the 590 is one heck of a card, but it also be the game peaking.


Far Cry 2 is the primary one I'm testing on which is at 1920x1080. I recently talked to Asus support and he said it could be my RAM, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 10:31:06 PM

absolute bottleneck. you would have to overclock your cpu to 5ghz to remove a bottleneck at that res. a single gtx580 is plenty for that res. Move up to a larger res monitor to see any benefit from that monstrous card.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 10:32:41 PM

RAM is perhaps the least possible to affect game performance. For most games a 4GB 1333 set would no more than 2fps behind yours.

A GTX560 can max out Far Cry 2 at 1080P, if you're getting 110fps with a single card, SLI wont help at all.
June 15, 2011 10:40:12 PM

I dont think the cpu is the problem.If we have bottleneck with the 920 then what can i say...I think it has to do with some settings,experiment with the and see if anything changes.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 10:43:17 PM

kss207rc said:
I dont think the cpu is the problem.If we have bottleneck with the 920 then what can i say...I think it has to do with some settings,experiment with the and see if anything changes.

The 920 is an older CPU with low clocks. So its entirely possible.
a c 271 U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 10:55:18 PM

Timop said:
The 920 is an older CPU with low clocks. So its entirely possible.

Clocks aren't everything, architecture also has a part to play.
a b U Graphics card
June 15, 2011 11:15:11 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Clocks aren't everything, architecture also has a part to play.

Hence "old". Nehalem is "old" compared to Sandy bridge. Like how GT200 is "old" compared to GF1X0.
June 16, 2011 12:24:58 AM

'Old" but very powerful thats the point.
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 3:10:55 AM

^ most people that would run a gtx590 would have an i7 2600k oc'd to 4+ghz. thats the kind of power you need, not a stock i7 920.
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 3:26:27 AM

I find it hard to call an i7 920 at stock settings a bottleneck, when it still gives you 60+ fps, the max most monitors can show. The problem isn't that anything is holding back performance, it's that you have excess graphical power. In order to use that power, you'd need a higher resolution, 3D or 3 monitors.
a c 169 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 9:23:22 AM

^ the OP is asking why he is getting same performance with crossfire on and off, the answer is the cpu bottleneck. I agree, an i7 920 is capable of playing any game smoothly but it is still a bottleneck if he wants to see an increase in performance at 1080p. Cranking up AA and all quality settings to max would be an option, you should get better image quality without much loss in performance, if any, any may see sli get better performance than no sli.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 1:50:04 PM

Funny really but iam2thecrowe is technically right as is bystander,
Personally i come down on Bystanders side of the fence. While technically the card is being reduced in its performance because the CPU cant power it, the same and actually more FPS can be had in the same situation with an E8400.
So while yes it is a bottleneck there is little that can be done and 5ghz may not even be enough.
So if a fully overclocked E8400 and a fully Overclocked i7 920 no matter how old they are get the same figures more or less then really its got to be way to much GPU for a single monitor, moving up the resolution will make no difference just do the same thing but at a lower FPS.
Take a look here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-...


Mactronix :) 
a c 216 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 3:20:39 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
^ the OP is asking why he is getting same performance with crossfire on and off, the answer is the cpu bottleneck. I agree, an i7 920 is capable of playing any game smoothly but it is still a bottleneck if he wants to see an increase in performance at 1080p. Cranking up AA and all quality settings to max would be an option, you should get better image quality without much loss in performance, if any, any may see sli get better performance than no sli.


While that's true, even if he did OC the card to 5ghz, in most cases, the only improvement he'll see is what a benchmark or FPS counter will show. He will rarely notice, if ever, any difference in actual playing experience. The monitor still holds back max displayed FPS by it's refresh rate.

The points I'm trying to make are 1) that he has more graphical power than his monitor's refresh rate can display and 2) that a higher resolution, or 3D display would be needed to have the card give practical improvements.

I also get tired of the term CPU bottlenecking being applied to these cases. It often results in the OP thinking he needs a faster CPU and still not have any playable improvement.
a c 130 U Graphics card
June 16, 2011 3:32:08 PM

I to get frustrated with people claiming a Bottleneck if the Op dosent have the latest Sandybridge CPU.
People need to differentiate between a true bottleneck where a CPU upgrade will help and a max FPS restriction where laying out hard worked for monies for a new CPU will yield negligible increases.

Mactronix :) 
!