Is my cpu the bottleneck?

[diablo24life]

i have an fx4100 and my gpu is a XFX radeon 6790. im getting pretty good FPS ranging from 50-60 fps in skyrim on highest settings. but im wondering what is my better hardware? my cpu or my gpu? im thinking of upgrading to a fx8150 and i think ill see some performance gain. if i do then that would mean my cpu is the bottleneck. what do you think? i know that crossfire would give me better gaming performance then what i already have, but im just trying to figure out what my bottleneck is here.

 

[Raidur]

FX 8150 isn't much different then the 4100 in games due to games only using 4 cores or less. The ones that use more barely benefit.

FX 4100 has plenty of power for a 6790, you're fine.

The 4100 has awesome overclocking headroom so that could be something to look into.

 

[geofelt]

Some games are cpu heavy, but most can not take advantage of more than two or three cores. The FX-8150 is likely to do you no good.
Other games are graphics intensive.

To help clarify your options, run these two tests:

a) Run your games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.

b) Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.

It is possible that both tests are positive, indicating that you have a well balanced system, and both cpu and gpu need to be upgraded to get better gaming FPS.

 

[geekapproved]

What resolution are you playing at?

Even at 1080p the 4100 at 4.5ghz still get's beat in gaming by a stock i3-2100, even in Skyrim.

Your cpu however is not hindering your 6790 because it's a pretty low end card. A 6790 is a lot slower than a 6850, which is slower than the older 5850.

You should be looking at a video card upgrade for sure, AND overclocking your cpu.

 

[diablo24life]

Some games are cpu heavy, but most can not take advantage of more than two or three cores. The FX-8150 is likely to do you no good.
Other games are graphics intensive.

To help clarify your options, run these two tests:

a) Run your games, but lower your resolution and eye candy.
If your FPS increases, it indicates that your cpu is strong enough to drive a better graphics configuration.

b) Limit your cpu, either by reducing the OC, or, in windows power management, limit the maximum cpu% to something like 70%.
If your FPS drops significantly, it is an indicator that your cpu is the limiting factor, and a cpu upgrade is in order.

It is possible that both tests are positive, indicating that you have a well balanced system, and both cpu and gpu need to be upgraded to get better gaming FPS.

How do i limit my cpu %? where is it control panel? all i see is the energy saving plan thing where it says you can turn of your display or put ur pc to sleep at a specified time

 

[geofelt]

control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state

 

[diablo24life]

control panel/power options/change plan settings/change advanced power settings/processor power management/maximum processor state

that made a big difference! i dropped my cpu% to 50% and i lost 30 FPS. when i cranked it back up to 100% i was at 71 fps. playing skyrim btw and i was in the same part of the world. did a little test.

 

[geofelt]

that made a big difference! i dropped my cpu% to 50% and i lost 30 FPS. when i cranked it back up to 100% i was at 71 fps. playing skyrim btw and i was in the same part of the world. did a little test.

I think if you will run cpu intensive games, your better option is to check out sandy bridge.
Read this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html

 

[diablo24life]

I think if you will run cpu intensive games, your better option is to check out sandy bridge.
Read this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-6.html

yeah sandy bridge seems to be beating amd. have you ever tried to increase your cpu% above 100? what does that do?

 

[geekapproved]

The sad facts:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

Even a stock Pentium G630 is nearly as fast as a 4.5ghz 4100.

 

[serialkiller]

the fx 4100 is a bit slower than i3 2100 and fx 8100 is as fast as i3 2120 or might be even slower

if ur unhappy with ur processor(which i dont understand)get an i5 2500k and and xfire ur gpu i think that u play at resolution of 720-1080 most likely 900
thats y u have high fps and u dont need to change any thing if u want to then only xfire and oc to 4.5 ghz

 

[Cazalan]

If you got $200 to spend use it on a new GPU.

I'd wait for the Radeon 7850/7870 that are due out soon.

 

[geekapproved]

the fx 4100 is a bit slower than i3 2100 and fx 8100 is as fast as i3 2120 or might be even slower

LOL

A bit slower? Did you even look at the benchmark link I posted. It's slower than the i3 even at 4.5ghz. The Pentium G630 is almost as fast as the 4100 at 4.5ghz.

 

[diablo24life]

LOL

A bit slower? Did you even look at the benchmark link I posted. It's slower than the i3 even at 4.5ghz. The Pentium G630 is almost as fast as the 4100 at 4.5ghz.

are you kidding? yes it is A BIT slower hes right. did YOU take a look at the link you posted? as you can see the i3 2100 has the fx 4100 beat by only a few FPS. lol retard

 

[serialkiller]

intel fanboy

 

[a_tractor]

INTEL FOREVER serialkiller AMD SUCKS and AMD is never going to keep up with intel AND NO IM NOT AN INTEL FANBOY it is just a fact intel is the best.

 

[amuffin]

I like how the amd fanboys don't know what they are talking about.

 

[a_tractor]

who? is the fanboy?

 

[Raidur]

are you kidding? yes it is A BIT slower hes right. did YOU take a look at the link you posted? as you can see the i3 2100 has the fx 4100 beat by only a few FPS. lol retard

Do you think the stock Athlon II X3 is only a bit slower than a 4.5ghz FX?

Well by your logic it's only a bit slower in half of those benches.

In gaming with a single GPU you aren't going to see the true difference between the CPUs. You need to push big frames or use super low resolutions and completely relieve the GPU bottleneck.

 

[diablo24life]

Do you think the stock Athlon II X3 is only a bit slower than a 4.5ghz FX?

Well by your logic it's only a bit slower in half of those benches.

In gaming with a single GPU you aren't going to see the true difference between the CPUs. You need to push big frames or use super low resolutions and completely relieve the GPU bottleneck.

haha are you mentally challeneged or something.. ROFLLLLLLL
you could overclock the i3 say another 400 mhz and thats only going to give it an additional 1-3 fps increase. yeah thats really smoking the fx4100 eh? a wopping 2FPS lmao YOU ARE DUMBBBBB

 

[Raidur]

haha are you mentally challeneged or something.. ROFLLLLLLL
you could overclock the i3 say another 400 mhz and thats only going to give it an additional 1-3 fps increase. yeah thats really smoking the fx4100 eh? a wopping 2FPS lmao YOU ARE DUMBBBBB

So, by your logic. A 4.5ghz FX doesn't smoke a stock Athlon II X3?

I think you need a better understanding on how to read these benchmarks and how these components work before you start making comments like that.

The test you were looking at is obviously GPU bottlenecked, meaning you aren't seeing the true raw performance difference. Just the performance difference with the single GPU they showed.

Pump up the GPU power and you'll see quite a gap.

Current $1000 system is FX 6 core @ 3.3ghz and 4.45 overclocked. 6950 crossfire.

Sept system is i5-2500k @ 3.3ghz and 4.49 overclocked. GTX 460 SLI.

As we know, GTX 460 SLI is slower than 6950 crossfire.

As we also know, Crysis is not a CPU bound game, and really doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores.

So... if you look at the Sept system without overclocking (which will perform similar to an i3-2100 due to the reasons i stated) and slower GPUs it still smashes the FX 6 core EVEN WHILE the FX is overclocked to nearly 4.5ghz.

What is your logic here?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossfire-ssd,3098-6.html

 

[diablo24life]

So, by your logic. A 4.5ghz FX doesn't smoke a stock Athlon II X3?

I think you need a better understanding on how to read these benchmarks and how these components work before you start making comments like that.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/7/318859/original/Crysis VH.png

Current $1000 system is FX 6 core @ 3.3ghz and 4.45 overclocked. 6950 crossfire.

Sept system is i5-2500k @ 3.3ghz and 4.49 overclocked. GTX 460 SLI.

As we know, GTX 460 SLI is slower than 6950 crossfire.

As we also know, Crysis is not a CPU bound game, and really doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores.

So... if you look at the Sept system without overclocking (which will perform similar to an i3-2100 due to the reasons i stated) and slower GPUs it still smashes the FX 6 core WHILE overclocked to nearly 4.5ghz.

What is your logic here?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-overclock-crossfire-ssd,3098-6.html

so with your logic your saying that the i3 2100 smokes the fx 4100? how is 1fps "smoking" the fx4100? illiterate intel fanboy

 

[Raidur]

so with your logic your saying that the i3 2100 smokes the fx 4100? how is 1fps "smoking" the fx4100? illiterate intel fanboy

Please go look up how this stuff works and research more benchmarks/reviews. Then come back and argue, you're making yourself look silly.

Illiterate? Did you even read my post?

1FPS isn't smoking. However all of those CPUs are in close range of each other because it was a GPU bottlenecked test. Most of those CPUs are enough to keep up with a 7970's performance, and that's all they have to do in this test. There is a measurable difference due to that selection of games being semi CPU-bound.

Unless you really believe the Athlon II X3 is close in performance to a 6 core FX overclocked to 4.5ghz?

Your logic and ability to understand/learn simple logic, or have a real conversation/argument seems impossible here. So I'll give up.

 

[diablo24life]

Please go look up how this stuff works and research more benchmarks/reviews. Then come back and argue, you're making yourself look silly.

Illiterate? Did you even read my post?

1FPS isn't smoking. However all of those CPUs are in close range of each other because it was a GPU bottlenecked test. Most of those CPUs are enough to keep up with a 7970's performance, and that's all they have to do in this test. There is a measurable difference due to that selection of games being semi CPU-bound.

Unless you really believe the Athlon II X3 is close in performance to a 6 core FX overclocked to 4.5ghz?

Your logic and ability to understand/learn simple logic, or have a real conversation/argument seems impossible here. So I'll give up.

hey genius this is the link you quoted the i3 2100 on smoking the 4100
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html
this goes to show you that you are as dumb as a bag of dirt lmaoo what do you got there 1.5 more FPS? while min fps is the exact same? dude you should crawl back under the rock u emerged from

 

[Raidur]

hey genius this is the link you quoted the i3 2100 on smoking the 4100
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html
this goes to show you that you are as dumb as a bag of dirt lmaoo what do you got there 1.5 more FPS? while min fps is the exact same? dude you should crawl back under the rock u emerged from

Exactly which post did I state that?

Then go read forum rules if you enjoy your time here on Toms Forums.