GTX 470/Monitor Bottleneck Question

[vashek]

I am currently running an EVGA GTX 470. I have been reading that my max monitor resolution may be bottlenecking my system since it is nowhere near 1080p. I have a Viewsonic VX2035vm LCD running at max 60 refresh & 1680x1050...its an older lcd monitor. Is it possible that the monitor could be holding my GPU and CPU back from their full potential? Here is what my system looks like...

Intel Q9550 (OC 3.4ghz)
EVGA Geforce GTX 470
4GB Corsair DDR2 4-4-4-12
WD Raptor 10,000rpm 150gb HD
Win7 64
Viewsonic VX2035wm Monitor (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/vx2035wm.htm)

I've always believed something was bottlenecking my system; thought it was lack of 8GB RAM, but I guess I never realized that it could be the monitor.

 

[alyoshka]

No. The monitor cannot bottleneck your rig.
If you feel you're experiencing bottlenecks, we'd like to know what are the signs and symptoms.
Yes, the monitor may not be able to display at the cards maximum resolution but that will not hinder the card doing it job the best way.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

No. The monitor cannot bottleneck your rig.
If you feel you're experiencing bottlenecks, we'd like to know what are the signs and symptoms.
Yes, the monitor may not be able to display at the cards maximum resolution but that will not hinder the card doing it job the best way.

If anything your rez is making your gpu perform better. The refresh rate of 60hz wont allow your eye to detect past 60fps because it won't display any fps past the refresh rate. That is perfectly fine imo.

 

[alyoshka]

Nope Nope Nope...... Sorry but I have to disagree the FPS has got nothing to do with the Hz of the monitor.
They are two different things all together.
60Hz is the speed of the pixels or dots being refreshed on the monitor/lcd and that's 60 Cycles per second even when displaying a stationary picture.
And 60FPS is frames per second........ a Frame is the whole X * Y (1920 X1080 example) being refreshed at 60 frames per second. That's a lot of pixels being refreshed within each frame. It's like a geometric progression.
Do not confuse the two all though the term HZ is used for Progressive Scan Monitors too. But there is a vast difference.
That is the main reason we can get 100+FPS on a good GPU with an average monitor.

 

[4745454b]

Wow, lots to cover here.

No. The monitor cannot bottleneck your rig.

I would argue that it can. Take an extreme example. If he was still using an old 15" CRT at 1024x768, there is no point in buying a GTX470. The monitor has "bottlenecked" the GPU. It won't decrease the performance as you normally think of a bottleneck, but it does make having that part pointless. Just like pairing a GTX470 with a single core P4.

60Hz is the speed of the pixels or dots being refreshed on the monitor/lcd and that's 60 Cycles per second even when displaying a stationary picture.
And 60FPS is frames per second

You just described the same thing. 60Hz is the refresh rate. The number of times the pixels are being refreshed is 60Hz or times per second. If you can draw 60 frames in a second, that's you'll see. If you can't, then you'll see only the 35FPS that your system can do. You won't see the 60. LCDs don't even refresh in the traditional meaning.

If your system can do 140FPS you'll still see only 60FPS max. If the monitor can't update more then 60 times in a second, there is no way it can show you 140 frames.

I do agree h

Edit: however that we need more info. What do you mean by you've always felt your machine has been bottlenecked? What makes you say/think that your machine has issues?

 

[cats_Paw]

If anything, Use strong AA....

 

[alyoshka]

Yeah, I got that meaning, but it is updating pixels at the rate of 60HZ, the Image can be updated at 100+ FPS though you will skip the intermediate updates that the Monitor will fail to show because of a higher speed of input of frames. SO basically you'll be dropping frames between frames.
It will not bottleneck anything once again, the main point of me stressing that "Bottlenecking" point is, because the OP has used the wrong terminology, and I'd like to know what he understands by bottleneck.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

Yeah, I got that meaning, but it is updating pixels at the rate of 60HZ, the Image can be updated at 100+ FPS though you will skip the intermediate updates that the Monitor will fail to show because of a higher speed of input of frames. SO basically you'll be dropping frames between frames.
It will not bottleneck anything once again, the main point of me stressing that "Bottlenecking" point is, because the OP has used the wrong terminology, and I'd like to know what he understands by bottleneck.

your gpu can generate 100 fps all it likes but if you have a 60hz monitor only 60fps are being displayed so its useless.

 

[bucknutty]

I have a similar pc on win7 ultimate 64 and in most games my q9650 is pinned at 100% while my gtx470 is bouncing around 50-80-90-100-60%. This suggests to me that the CPU is not able to supply info to the card fast enough to keep it at 100%. CoD BLOPs and BC2 are a great example of this behavour. Both games give me great performace where I average 60-70 FPS on higher settings.

The discussion about the monitor slowing performace, and old 15 inch CRTs is rather abstract. The bottom line is a 1680x1050 monitor will not cause lag or reduce your gamming experience. I think you will find a larger 1080p monitor nice but the overall feel will be the same.

If your have FPS drops in game then you can lower the settings or get a new CPU. Because you already have a 9550 the only logical step would be an i5-2 or i7-2 but again your over all experiance will most likley feel the same. Looking at the toms cpu charts the 9550 is up there pretty high.

 

[4745454b]

because the OP has used the wrong terminology, and I'd like to know what he understands by bottleneck.

and old 15 inch CRTs is rather abstract.

And I would argue that it is the right term. It wasn't an abstract example, just an extreme one to show my point. A bottleneck is something that prevents your system from showing or being its full potential. A single core P3 or P4 will bottleneck a GTX470. 512MBs of ram will bottleneck a Win7 machine. An old 4.3GB harddrive will bottleneck a gaming machine. And yes, a monitor can bottleneck a video card. By not having enough pixels it will make the fastest of video cards perform like slower ones because they would both put out only 60FPS. Upgrading the monitor will show the GTS450 to be slower then the GTX470.

The bottom line is a 1680x1050 monitor will not cause lag or reduce your gamming experience.

And this is why I think it's hard for people to grasp what I'm saying. Having a smaller monitors won't hurt your performance. As mentioned, your frame rates will be higher as well. Perhaps my explanation above will make more sense.

 

[ampersand]

I am currently running an EVGA GTX 470. I have been reading that my max monitor resolution may be bottlenecking my system since it is nowhere near 1080p. I have a Viewsonic VX2035vm LCD running at max 60 refresh & 1680x1050...its an older lcd monitor. Is it possible that the monitor could be holding my GPU and CPU back from their full potential? Here is what my system looks like...

Intel Q9550 (OC 3.4ghz)
EVGA Geforce GTX 470
4GB Corsair DDR2 4-4-4-12
WD Raptor 10,000rpm 150gb HD
Win7 64
Viewsonic VX2035wm Monitor (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/vx2035wm.htm)

I've always believed something was bottlenecking my system; thought it was lack of 8GB RAM, but I guess I never realized that it could be the monitor.

The "bottleneck" you see/feel might be due to the slow-ish response times of the monitor, which is listed at 5-8ms. If you can, try hooking up a screen with 2ms response time and see if you notice any difference.

 

[alyoshka]

A bottleneck, is literally a jerking in the flow of data from any part of the system to any other part due to a mismatch of speeds on either side of the circuits. There by causing a delayed action or reaction to any given command.
Literally a point which squeezes the flow of data.
Nothing to do with the Monitor...................
It's only internal. On the PCB, you can argue all that you want. Doesn't make any difference since it is just going to confuse the OP.
There is no flowing back of data from the monitor to the system, so there is no chance of a "Bottleneck" around that end, it ain't a closed loop...... common sense dictate and prevails.
Neither is he daisy wheeling his monitor to anything else in the world. so there is no flow there. therefore there is no bottle neck.
Let the OP explain what he means by "bottlenecks" , that was asked first. So let him get to it.
And then we'll let him know what it actually might be.

 

[4745454b]

For a classic bottleneck yes. But if what you were saying is true we'd still be using 1024x768 or 800x600 monitors seeing as our frame rates would be even higher. I guess you feel a PSU can't be a bottleneck either right? No flow of info? I'm pretty sure a 350W PSU will bottleneck a GTX470.

We've got off track and do need more info from the OP. I'll drop this so that you don't need think anymore.

 

[alyoshka]

A 350W PSU will not "Bottleneck" a GTX470 , it will just not have enough power to drive it.
That's what I meant by wrong terminology, by using the the word "Bottleneck" for a guy who drives into a wall, confuses everyone and sends them wondering what an accident is.

 

[bucknutty]

Hey 474545db we get what you’re saying, we understand, however your literal interpretation of the word is not practical as it relates to a modern computer question about a 1680x1050 monitor and a gtx470.

 

[4745454b]

You have that backwards. Alyoska is using the literal interpretation. I'm saying its expanded beyond that and the term bottleneck should include ANY device that will prevent your computer from its full potential.

 

[bucknutty]

I am the bottle neck on my gaming pc.

 

[vashek]

Thanks for the help guys. Some solid info on how refresh rates, etc work.