Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Will CPU "Bottleneck" my GPU

Last response: in Components
Share

Yup there's not enough GPU there to be bottlenecked. If you got a high end GPU, then yes it could be bottlenecked by that CPU. Unless you upgrade, however, you have nothing to worry about in terms of bottleneck.

Why is it that this graphics card can play every game skyrim on max with little lag but its not really a expensive card? Only demanding game i havent played this card with is battlefield 3 and crysis.
Related ressources

Athair said:
Why is it that this graphics card can play every game skyrim on max with little lag but its not really a expensive card? Only demanding game i havent played this card with is battlefield 3 and crysis.


yeah maybe at a resolution of 800x600

Athair said:
I play skyrim on 1280x1024 thank you very much.


thats (1280x1024)/(1080x1920) = .63 or has only 63% of the pixels that a 1080p screen has. ill take 1080p and lower graphics settings over that resolution any day.

cbrunnem said:
thats (1280x1024)/(1080x1920) = .63 or has only 63% of the pixels that a 1080p screen has. ill take 1080p and lower graphics settings over that resolution any day.



Okay I dont know much about resolution effecting graphics so can you explain it like your talking to a child please : (

Athair said:
Okay I dont know much about resolution effecting graphics so can you explain it like your talking to a child please : (


the more pixels the more of a load the gpu has. if you were to play your rig hocked up to a 1080p monitor i would suspect about a 40% decrease in performance because of the added load. Decreasing the resolution has the opposite effect.

at the same time though the lower your resolution the more stress you put on the cpu because now the gpu can spit out a lot of frames per second making the cpu have to put out more as well.

cbrunnem said:
the more pixels the more of a load the gpu has. if you were to play your rig hocked up to a 1080p monitor i would suspect about a 40% decrease in performance because of the added load. Decreasing the resolution has the opposite effect.

at the same time though the lower your resolution the more stress you put on the cpu because now the gpu can spit out a lot of frames per second making the cpu have to put out more as well.



1080p is HD and mine isn't right? Also what I should do if that is correct is buy a 1080p monitor then find a happy medium resolution for my gpu and cpu like how you suggested (1080x1920)?

Athair said:
1080p is HD and mine isn't right? Also what I should do if that is correct is buy a 1080p monitor then find a happy medium resolution for my gpu and cpu like how you suggested (1080x1920)?

you could buy a new monitor that supports 1080p but your fps at that resolution will not be good. you would need a new gpu to play at good settings at 1080p

1280x1024 is still 40% higher resolution than consoles render games at...

In HD terms, it is between HD (720p) and Full HD (1080p).

Your GPU is gonna struggle to play things at 1080p - why not just be happy with how your system is doing at 1280x1024?

To game well at 1080p, you're likely to need a new monitor, GPU and probably CPU... you have to decide if it's worth the cash to do that, but from what I gather you're fairly happy as is.

:EDIT: Well... Toms' GPU hierarchy chart puts your GT440 around the same class as an 8800 GTS 320. I had an 8800GTS 320 until this past month and was gaming just fine at 1080p as long as AA was turned off... handled Skyrim perfectly on high settings. The only thing it couldn't handle was the really GPU intensive games like Crysis/Crysis 2/BF3. However, pretty much anything made for a console - Mass Effect 2, Skyrim, Arkham Asylum, Borderlands - ran just fine at highest or close to highest settings minus AA.

BigMack70 said:
1280x1024 is still 40% higher resolution than consoles render games at...

In HD terms, it is between HD (720p) and Full HD (1080p).

Your GPU is gonna struggle big time to play things at 1080p - why not just be happy with how your system is doing at 1280x1024?

To game well at 1080p, you're likely to need a new monitor, GPU and probably CPU... you have to decide if it's worth the cash to do that, but from what I gather you're fairly happy as is.


Ill stick with what i got but i will be getting a new comp soon so thank you know i know i need a new monitor to support 1080p also i want a GTX 560ti that will run 1080p for sure but how good of a cpu should i get? If i can afford it too i want a 3.5GHz i5

The 560ti is a very good midrange card. The best CPU you can get for the money if you're thinking of games is an i5-2500k.

If you can't afford that, I'd recommend getting an i3-2100. It's $100 cheaper, performs as well as or better than anything from AMD in games, and allows you to upgrade to something like a 2500k later on if you so choose.

BigMack70 said:
The 560ti is a very good midrange card. The best CPU you can get for the money if you're thinking of games is an i5-2500k.

If you can't afford that, I'd recommend getting an i3-2100. It's $100 cheaper, performs as well as or better than anything from AMD in games, and allows you to upgrade to something like a 2500k later on if you so choose.


Ya the i5-2500k was what i was talking about. I might just have to get the i3 though. Ya i plan on getting another 560ti a bit after i build new comp and SLI them.

BigMack70 said:
1280x1024 is still 40% higher resolution than consoles render games at...

In HD terms, it is between HD (720p) and Full HD (1080p).

Your GPU is gonna struggle to play things at 1080p - why not just be happy with how your system is doing at 1280x1024?

To game well at 1080p, you're likely to need a new monitor, GPU and probably CPU... you have to decide if it's worth the cash to do that, but from what I gather you're fairly happy as is.

:EDIT: Well... Toms' GPU hierarchy chart puts your GT440 around the same class as an 8800 GTS 320. I had an 8800GTS 320 until this past month and was gaming just fine at 1080p as long as AA was turned off... handled Skyrim perfectly on high settings. The only thing it couldn't handle was the really GPU intensive games like Crysis/Crysis 2/BF3. However, pretty much anything made for a console - Mass Effect 2, Skyrim, Arkham Asylum, Borderlands - ran just fine at highest or close to highest settings minus AA.


doubtful. define exactly high settings.

Athair said:
Does your hard drive effect online gaming at all? Or just the RAM, CPU, and GPU?


if you have over 4gb of ram preferable 8gb of ram then the only things that affect gaming online is cpu and gpu assuming you have a suitable internet connection or wireless card.

cbrunnem said:
doubtful. define exactly high settings.


My 8800GTS played Skyrim on 1080p high settings (no AA) and got an average of 50fps outdoors, 30fps cities.

I played Mass Effect 1 & 2 maxed out with ~45fps average, Borderlands maxed out ~45 fps average... same with Arkham Asylum. Anything on the Source Engine (Portal 2, Half Life 2 ep. 2) ran at 1080p with 4xAA and averaged at least 40fps. Same with anything on Unreal Engine 3. Starcraft 2 ran smoothly on high settings.

Crysis was unplayable at 1080p highest settings (I think it got 5fps?)... had to use a mix of medium-high. Didn't even try Crysis 2 or BF3, since I'm pretty sure it would only have handled those games on low settings.

cbrunnem said:
if you have over 4gb of ram preferable 8gb of ram then the only things that affect gaming online is cpu and gpu assuming you have a suitable internet connection or wireless card.

I have 8gb ram and good wireless internet wish it wasnt wireless though. Hmm my brother has 4 gb ram its memory speed is 800 and mine is 6400 can i take one of my 2gb ram cards and put it in his so we both have 6? He has same specs as me but that 4 gb ram and he lags playing wow and league of legends when i dont will that help alot?
Ask the community
!