Where do you think the gaming framerate bottleneck should be?

[qubit]

Any computer system is always bottlenecked by its slowest component, since if there was no bottleneck, then it would run infinitely fast. So, in a gaming system, where should that bottleneck be, CPU or GPU? Please vote in the poll.

I say GPU for the following reasons:

1 I believe having the bottleneck at the CPU makes frame pacing less even, resulting in more noticeable and annoying stutter. If anyone knows more about this, let us know
2 The CPU is generally upgraded much less often than the graphics card, since performance gains are only a few percent each generation
3 A GPU bottleneck maximises the financial investment in the graphics card and graphics cards are now very expensive - think RTX 2080 Ti at a whopping $1200. You don't want this baby not to perform to its fullest because of a slow CPU. On the other hand, pairing a fast graphics card with a slow CPU just for kicks, means that you can max everything out at the highest resolution and the framerate doesn't slow down, because it's already quite low, lol

There are probably more reasons, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Note that where the CPU and GPU are evenly matched, the bottleneck will tend to switch between them from moment to moment and will be more obvious for some games more than others. I've never seen a utility to show this happening however, so there's no way to observe this happening.

 

[agent_x007]

Other : Both/"Balanced".
Depending on situation, you should be limited by GPU power when for example using MSAA 16xQ on 4k resultion and by CPU speed if you are playing CS:GO with 300FPS+.
For "CPU bottleneck" RAM speed may also become a contributing factor at very high FPS.

This option enables best quality settings flexibility in games (example : low GPU utilisation = free resolution increase. low CPU utilisation = better streaming quality), along with with best platform to upgrade from (you will see clearly see what you need as your next upgrade).

EDIT : For "GPU Bottleneck" lovers :
Too slow CPU will give problems at minimum framerate (or crappy game code) at some point, regardless of how much GPU power you throw at it.
And, given AA and resolution options that can go WAY beyond monitor capabilities we can set today, GPUs can "maxed out" on almost any CPU at this point.
For "CPU Bottleneck" lovers... I'm sorry

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well, since the CPU is upgraded less often, and drives not only frame rates but everything else in a game, the CPU needs to be powerful enough to not hold back a game.

However, I game at 60hz because I am perfectly happy with 60fps. Thus, I rarely see a bottleneck by either, although when I do it is by the GPU getting too old.

 

[mouacyk]

Cache... cuz min frames.

 

[qubit]

Cache

Cache? Waddya mean by cache?

 

[king of swag187]

I'd prefer the GPU to be the main bottleneck as that is (usually) easily upgrade, but for something like a laptop with a (usually) soldered CPU/GPU, you can atleast attempt to upgrade the GPU using MXM (PCIE X16)/NVME (PCIE X4)/TB3 (32Gbps)

 

[dj-electric]

The question is kinda wrong.
Optimally, you want your GPU to always be maxed out, so you could potentially always have the highest graphics performance.

This is not a bottleneck because the GPU's speed would be what dictates what your CPU does next.

 

[eidairaman1]

Cpu and ram gotta be quick to feed the gpu, with advant of ssds the bottleneck is getting less. However we are still under physics.

 

[dorsetknob]

If you Believe the Spouting of some people its going to be ping/latency
because we all will be Cloud Gaming in one or 2 tears time (not a spelling mistake).

 

[eidairaman1]

If you Believe the Spouting of some people its going to be ping/latency
because we all will be Cloud Gaming in one or 2 tears time (not a spelling mistake).

Thats when I will take my Exit from gaming.

 

[qubit]

The question is kinda wrong.
Optimally, you want your GPU to always be maxed out, so you could potentially always have the highest graphics performance.

This is not a bottleneck because the GPU's speed would be what dictates what your CPU does next.

The question isn't wrong. As I said right at the start, if there was no bottleneck, then the computer would run infinitely fast.

I do agree with the bit in bold though, which is similar to what I was getting at in my OP, although I was rather indirect about it, lol.

 

[agent_x007]

Like I wrote in my edit :
Throw enough DSR/VSR/Res. scaling/AA at any GPU, and it will maxed it out with 0% impact on CPU.
That way you can REALLY cheap out on CPU as well (double win !).

 

[cucker tarlson]

Anyone who actually saw CPU bottlenecking has to admit that CPU bottleneck is the last thing you want in your system.For me it's enough to ruin the experience. It's just not comparable to a smooth experience you're getting when the CPU is not running out of resorces.

In a system running a fast card with a fast cpu but limited to 60Hz/60 fps there is no bottleneck. Neither the CPU is limiting the GPU, nor the GPU is running out of horsepower.

 

[Nemesis 1ism]

Any computer system is always bottlenecked by its slowest component, since if there was no bottleneck, then it would run infinitely fast. So, in a gaming system, where should that bottleneck be, CPU or GPU? Please vote in the poll.

I say GPU for the following reasons:

1 I believe having the bottleneck at the CPU makes frame pacing less even, resulting in more noticeable and annoying stutter. If anyone knows more about this, let us know
2 The CPU is generally upgraded much less often than the graphics card, since performance gains are only a few percent each generation
3 A GPU bottleneck maximises the financial investment in the graphics card and graphics cards are now very expensive - think RTX 2080 Ti at a whopping $1200. You don't want this baby not to perform to its fullest because of a slow CPU. On the other hand, pairing a fast graphics card with a slow CPU just for kicks, means that you can max everything out at the highest resolution and the framerate doesn't slow down, because it's already quite low, lol

There are probably more reasons, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

Note that where the CPU and GPU are evenly matched, the bottleneck will tend to switch between them from moment to moment and will be more obvious for some games more than others. I've never seen a utility to show this happening however, so there's no way to observe this happening.

I run high end Intel in all my builds as I RUN 1080 and the gpu is the bottle nick that tells you that INTEL cpu have not bottle nicked. Ware as at 1440 is time for you to buy next generation gpu as well as cpu on AMD SETUPS 1440 the gpu is bottle nicked and cpu on amd and doesn.t matter until next generation gpu.

 

[agent_x007]

In a system running a fast card with a fast cpu but limited to 60Hz/60 fps there is no bottleneck. Neither the CPU is limiting the GPU, nor the GPU is running out of horsepower.

Sure there is.
If either CPU or GPU are underutilised at a given time, the "maxed out" part of this setup is "bottlenecking" the other one.
If you add 60FPS cap, in 90% of cases you will only see underutilisation on both CPU and GPU at the same time (% balance will change depending on scene/game/program/settings/etc.).

In short : Having no bottlenecks is impossible to accomplish in real world (like VERY impossible).
Usage CPU/GPU drops = You have bottleneck, FPS drops below 60FPS = You have bottleneck (too slow part to do 60FPS).

 

[Nemesis 1ism]

Myself I really want the Intel cpu for the masses using intels emib along with what ever GPU they develop over the next couple of years I have a hunch it's going to be fantastic. 2x6 cores connected to each other with emib connected to gpu on die with emib 12 cores no HT and I will be pleased with that. If the Intel GPU is as good as I beleave it will be. Crosses fingers. This wouldn't even be the high end the MIDDLE end is what I allude to.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Cache? Waddya mean by cache?

Im with him, i think the platform should ideally be the only bottleneck theoretically anyway , the CPU and GPU should be so good in an ideal system for me that the limit's are physical and all those limits start at the interconnections (in terms of performance limitation), the fabric.
That though is an idealistic system not what we have now , limited by physics not tech.
In the case of Now, systems of today im all in with you ,GPU should be your bottleneck.

@Nemesis 1ism you should take resolution and use case into account then because I could and still can change my bottleneck from cpu to gpu and vice versa 720p effects on low v 5k max IQ.

 

[mouacyk]

Cache? Waddya mean by cache?

Im with him, i think the platform should ideally be the only bottleneck theoretically anyway , the CPU and GPU should be so good in an ideal system for me that the limit's are physical and all those limits start at the interconnections (in terms of performance limitation), the fabric.
That though is an idealistic system not what we have now , limited by physics not tech.
In the case of Now, systems of today im all in with you ,GPU should be your bottleneck.

Imagine an i9-9775C at 5GHz with 256MB eDRAM L4 that can run sub-25ns latencies. Of course, AMD and Intel will never be able to sell another CPU for the next 7 years though.

 

[Vya Domus]

Imagine an i9-9775C at 5GHz with 256MB eDRAM L4 that can run sub-25ns latencies. Of course, AMD and Intel will never be able to sell another CPU for the next 7 years though.

That L4 cache is overrated. There is a reason neither Intel nor AMD chooses to include such a thing, the cost far outweighs the performance improvement. High frequency DDR4 made the on chip eDRAM redundant and obsolete.

 

[Apocalypsee]

Software, be it either the driver itself and/or operating system itself. For example, CPU scheduling in Windows is subpar especially on new architecture like Ryzen. Some examples like FireStrike score affected by core parking and recent anand's scheduler war with AMD threadripper. This can be tweaked if Microsoft put some effort in their CPU scheduler, and aware what type of CPU they being using.

For GPU driver, you can see some performance difference between two cards (one die harvested vs full fledged) is not that much, for example Vega 56, if HBM2 memory clocked to Vega 64 speed they performs very close to each other, it should be more if you see a huge number of stream processor difference between the two (3584 vs 4096). I believe there are resources that left untapped.

API played some role in this, the introduction of closer-to-metal API like Vulkan and DirectX 12 should reduce some bottleneck, as you can see from Techreport latest best gaming CPU late 2018 Vulkan score, using FX 8370 CPU in Vulkan makes it VERY competitive to the modern CPU.

 

[newtekie1]

GPU

If your GPU isn't the bottleneck, you haven't turned up the graphics settings high enough.

 

[EarthDog]

I can't for the life of me figure out the purpose of this poll...I read the first post and replied...

Where do TPU readers think a bottleneck SHOULD be??????? You are having the uneducated lemmings (me included here) take a random guess on where they think a bottleneck SHOULD be? Da heck does that tell anyone?

So, let me take a stab at this.......for whatever purpose it is intended for......... the GPU. Why the GPU, because for all intents and purposes, it is the primary part that should be pumping out the FPS and no other part SHOULD be holding it back, be it the CPU, Memory bandwidth/timings, cache, whatever. So, it SHOULD be at the GPU. Reality has it pegged at other places depending on other factors. Running 1080p and a mid-range card or better.......the CPU is going to hold things back. Running 2560x1440 or 4K and a mid/high end card, the GPU is still the bottleneck. Running 2 2080s and 4K......better run that CPU and memory bandwidth up for optimal results. Its going to vary depending on the situation...

Curious poll is curious.

 

[Salty_sandwich]

Thats when I will take my Exit from gaming.

well you don't have exit gaming, it's not like all your games will instantly stop working, simply dont buy into game streaming until you feel its worth it or not at all, issue solved.

personally I don't think the hardcore gamers will buy into game streaming, unless it has something really awesome they just have to have.

 

[Vayra86]

I can't for the life of me figure out the purpose of this poll...I read the first post and replied...

Where do TPU readers think a bottleneck SHOULD be??????? You are having the uneducated lemmings (me included here) take a random guess on where they think a bottleneck SHOULD be? Da heck does that tell anyone?

So, let me take a stab at this.......for whatever purpose it is intended for......... the GPU. Why the GPU, because for all intents and purposes, it is the primary part that should be pumping out the FPS and no other part SHOULD be holding it back, be it the CPU, Memory bandwidth/timings, cache, whatever. So, it SHOULD be at the GPU. Reality has it pegged at other places depending on other factors. Running 1080p and a mid-range card or better.......the CPU is going to hold things back. Running 2560x1440 or 4K and a mid/high end card, the GPU is still the bottleneck. Running 2 2080s and 4K......better run that CPU and memory bandwidth up for optimal results. Its going to vary depending on the situation...

Curious poll is curious.

Glad you've taken your wisdom back to TPU again

Here to stay?

 

[EarthDog]

I feel the dam cracking... but not a thing has changed in 6 months since 'leaving' so........yeah... doubtful it will be like before, but will post occasionally outside of my FS thread.

EDIT: I just noticed I lost all my 'knowledge' tags......... I guess I'm a moron and nobody should listen to me since I don't have them anymore.