Bottlenecking.

[Bill_Bright]

Bottlenecks aren't bad they are unavoidable, they are neutral. I already wrote that - again read my posts before responding to them.

I did read it. And it is still wrong. They may be unavoidable, but they surely are not neutral. If they were neutral, they would have zero impact on throughput. And zero impact on throughput is not a bottleneck.

A bottleneck is when a part of the pc isn't fast enough to hand over data to the other so it gets slowed down (eg slow cpu).

That's right!

A ram bottleneck isn't even that. A ram bottleneck is a missing quantity to load all data into it.

Of course that's a bottleneck. Again another tunnel vision perspective. If you don't have enough RAM and that forces the system to wait while the data is stuffed into the PF or read from the drive, for example, that's still a bottleneck. The speed of the RAM is just one factor but so is the amount. Bottlenecks in one area affect the whole throughput.

For example, using the freeway again - if a crash shuts down lanes causing a 27 minute delay in you getting home, it does not matter if the crash happened on the on-ramp, off-ramp, or anywhere in between. The end result is the same - you are still 27 minutes late getting home. Does it matter to your kids if the crash (bottleneck) was at the on ramp instead of the off ramp? No. The "end result" (throughput) is exactly the same.

You're overstating what a bottleneck is.

No I'm not. A bottleneck is a bottleneck. You are trying to narrowly define a bottleneck as a delay that can only occur at only one or two places. That is not true! Bottlenecks can occur anywhere and affect the entire throughput - regardless where in the process they actually occur. That is exactly why too little RAM can create a bottleneck, just as too slow a CPU can, just as a slow drive, or slow internet connection.

Tell us, how is it better (or worse) if a 3 second delay for results to appear on the monitor are due to a slow CPU, instead of a slow GPU? How is this 3 second delay better (or worse - or different) than that 3 second delay?

I say no bottleneck is good. It does not matter where it occurs, it is bad, and all are unwanted. One is not better than another. It may be unavoidable due to budget restraints, Laws of Physics, or the technical limits of the state-of-the-art.

 

[Flow]

There is no such thing as a bottleneck.
You need a cpu with X performance and a videocard with Y performance.
Fail at either one and your game will run slow/poor.
The game doesn't require X and Y ?
Your game will run smooth and fast.

If anything, nowadays games give reasonable minimum and recommended specs of which hardware is required, and again, failing at either component will slow your game down or make it unplayable.

Hm, it was said before and I agree, the phrase bottleneck is highly subjective.

 

[Bill_Bright]

There is no such thing as a bottleneck.

Of course there is. Look it up in any dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bottleneck: something that slows down a process
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bottleneck: A hindrance to progress or production.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bottleneck: a place or stage in a process at which progress is impeded.
http://searchenterprisewan.techtarget.com/definition/bottleneck: A bottleneck, in a communications context, is a point in the enterprise where the flow of data is impaired or stopped entirely. Effectively, there isn't enough data handling capacity to handle the current volume of traffic.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bottleneck.html: a bottleneck limits the throughput of associated resources.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/bottleneck: a specific problem in part of a process, that causes delays to the whole process

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/bottleneck.html

How many more do you want?

Fail at either one and your game will run slow/poor.

Right! Because the one creates a bottleneck for the other. You just defined a bottleneck.

 

[agent_x007]

There is no such thing as a bottleneck.

Is this a bottleneck ?

Because it can't be, since it doesn't exist - right ?
If it can "run it" (ie lauch it), it's minimum spec - at least that's how I see it.
"Minimum recommended" - that's what enables 30FPS gameplay (in most cases).

PS. Slightly of topic :
I think minimum specs for new games are A LOT too high because new PC's and PC parts need to sell well.

 

[jboydgolfer]

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

Found this shot of the imaginary bottleneck on a conspiracy site, amongst blurry, grainy pictures of UFO's and the lockness monster.
It was the only evidence I could find

 

[EarthDog]

PS. Slightly of topic :
I think minimum specs for new games are A LOT too high because new PC's and PC parts need to sell well.

Try running a game with the minimum spec'd PC.

 

[agent_x007]

Try running a game with the minimum spec'd PC.

Kinda did that for latest Doom - it worked fine : LINK

 

[EarthDog]

And looks like a console...not the point of a pc. Most aren't very playable.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Not the point. The statement was, "you want a bottleneck...". All bottlenecks are bad! You do NOT want a bottleneck anywhere! Ever!

If a bottleneck can be avoided, it ALWAYS should be. You never "want" a bottleneck - anywhere - ever! No component should EVER go into a wait state because the preceding or succeeding component is incapable of keeping up! Period!

It makes no difference from the user perspective (that is, for total throughput) if a 3 second delay occurs because the GPU cannot keep up, or the CPU cannot keep up, or the drive cannot keep up. 3 seconds is 3 seconds! If the user initiates a task, and it takes 3 seconds for the results to appear on the screen, it does not matter if the bottleneck occurred at the GPU or CPU! 3 seconds is still 3 seconds and is still unacceptable.

It is the point I was making, until you start playing AAA games(Shadow of Mordor or Skyrim) and MMO's(Wow or Rift) on max settings you will see where the point of performance breakdown is in your system. To make it clearer, if there is a choice of a bottleneck, gamers want it on video cards because its the easiest component to upgrade. My system for example my video card is old now, I can not play some new games on max settings for this reason, this is my bottleneck.

I am not discounting anything you said, just trying to help you understand from a gamers perspective. For gamers, its not about a 3 second delay but about Frames Per Second, most gamers dont know shit about the technical aspects of what is actually causing bottleneck, they only speak in parts and part names, CPU GPU, RAM, etc. Personally, I prefer to know the detailed aspects.

 

[trog100]

generally most systems are "bottlenecked" by the size of the owners wallet..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

It is the point I was making, until you start playing AAA games(Shadow of Mordor or Skyrim) and MMO's(Wow or Rift) on max settings you will see where the point of performance breakdown is in your system. To make it clearer, if there is a choice of a bottleneck, gamers want it on video cards because its the easiest component to upgrade. My system for example my video card is old now, I can not play some new games on max settings for this reason, this is my bottleneck.

I am not discounting anything you said, just trying to help you understand from a gamers perspective. For gamers, its not about a 3 second delay but about Frames Per Second, most gamers dont know shit about the technical aspects of what is actually causing bottleneck, they only speak in parts and part names, CPU GPU, RAM, etc. Personally, I prefer to know the detailed aspects.

Depending on the system/game, it doesn't need to be a AAA title. Read any review at techspot and notice in some of those titles the performance difference between AMD CPUs and like intel CPUs. Is that not a bottleneck?

 

[rtwjunkie]

Depending on the system/game, it doesn't need to be a AAA title.

Indeed! Plenty of Indie games are equally as taxing on a system (and no, before anybody says it, not necessarily because they are poorly coded. This is a sad fact that is also endemic to AAA studios too)

 

[Iceni]

Bottlenecks are relative.

Any system that cannot use the speed of hardware to 100% has a bottleneck of some sort.

For example, PCIe 1x for a card that needs 16x. Sata 1.0a controller running a Sata 3.0 SSD. 100Mhz ram in a 166Mhz system.


An older GPU been ran at 100% is not a bottleneck,. It might be holding the system back in terms of performance, but it in itself isn't been limited. So it's a hardware limitation.


That doesn't cover speed differences across brands. If AMD and Intel show GPU speed differences, But in both systems the cards are running at 100% then it's not a bottleneck. One company has worked out a way to either take load off the GPU, or streamline data transfers. In this instance since both systems use 100% of the GPU it would be classed as a design difference.

 

[Bill_Bright]

It is the point I was making, until you start playing AAA games(Shadow of Mordor or Skyrim) and MMO's(Wow or Rift) on max settings you will see where the point of performance breakdown is in your system. To make it clearer, if there is a choice of a bottleneck, gamers want it on video cards because its the easiest component to upgrade.

No! You have an extremely narrow understanding of bottlenecking in computers - sorry, but you just don't get it. You are making another blanket statement that simply does not apply to all. You don't speak for all gamers. You assume everyone's current bottleneck is their graphics. That's tunnel vision and a bad assumption.

You also assume gamers are somehow unique and have bottlenecking issues that are different than say professional CAD/CAE users, CGI developers, graphics editors, or other users. That too is simply false.

"Choice" of a bottleneck? That does not make sense. I ask again, how is a 3 second (or 3 millisecond) delay caused by the GPU any better or worse or different than a 3 second (or 3 millisecond) delay caused the CPU?

Easier to upgrade? Maybe. Maybe not! Do you think swapping CPUs is hard? I don't. Swapping graphics cards is not hard either but often requires a bigger PSU too - either for more power, the right connectors, or both. Swapping PSUs is not hard either but takes more time and can be a PITA to deal with cable dressing and management. Plus users (not just gamers, BTW) can easily spend a lot more money on a card (especially with a PSU too) than on a new CPU! So to suggest a new card is easier for ALL gamers is just false!

Plus many games very CPU intensive. And again, bottlenecks are NOT limited to being located with the CPU or GPU only. RAM, drives, motherboard bus, and more can be sources of unwanted delays in over all throughput. So you have no place to suggest you speak for all gamers. You surely don't.

So I say again, I don't "want" any bottleneck. And without knowing where any current bottleneck might be in any specific computer, neither you nor I can say which component would be best to replace to alleviate that bottleneck. Every computer is different, as is how the unique user uses it.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

You're right about one thing, I dont speak for all gamers. And, again you missed my point, I guess it may seem narrow minded to those that are narrowminded as well. I do think gamers are a unique breed of people, something you will never understand, nor do you care to. I've already said I agree with your analogies, but you keep missing my point, I'm done here.

 

[Flow]

Of course there is. Look it up in any dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bottleneck: something that slows down a process
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bottleneck: A hindrance to progress or production.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bottleneck: a place or stage in a process at which progress is impeded.
http://searchenterprisewan.techtarget.com/definition/bottleneck: A bottleneck, in a communications context, is a point in the enterprise where the flow of data is impaired or stopped entirely. Effectively, there isn't enough data handling capacity to handle the current volume of traffic.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bottleneck.html: a bottleneck limits the throughput of associated resources.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/bottleneck: a specific problem in part of a process, that causes delays to the whole process

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/bottleneck.html

How many more do you want?Right! Because the one creates a bottleneck for the other. You just defined a bottleneck.

Huh, that's silly, so many links.
So get old tech cpu and combine it with new tech gpu, then run a game that relies most on the gpu, no bottleneck. Game will run flawless.
The other way around is the same.

To be clear, we are talking about computers right? The fact remains a game needs a certain cpu and videocard to run proper. Fail at either one and it will run poor.
You can call that a bottleneck but I call it inadequate hardware.
Improve either part of your hardware and gain better fps and benches. You can repeat this endlessly, with again and again better results.
You simply can not define bottleneck for computers since there will Always be one, or not at all.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.

But that's about it, I do not have the intention to start a flame or anything alike. So peace.

 

[Bill_Bright]

And, again you missed my point, I guess it may seem narrow minded to those that are narrowminded as well. I do think gamers are a unique breed of people, something you will never understand, nor do you care to. I've already said I agree with your analogies, but you keep missing my point, I'm done here.

I have not missed your point at all. You still think because gamers are unique (and I agree with that) that they have unique bottleneck issues. That is just simply false, but it is you not understanding that. I have been speaking with the broadest viewpoint possible, explaining over and over again (because you are not getting it) that bottlenecks can occur anywhere from start to finish, not just at one or two points along the way, and that none are better than another. But your tunnel vision is not letting you see that. Open your eyes wider!

And the proof that one is not better than the other is your inability to explain to us how a 3ms delay caused by the GPU is better (or worse) than a 3ms delay caused by the CPU. You cannot because bottlenecks affect the entire throughput. If a slow CPU takes an extra 3ms to process and hand off the data to the GPU, the GPU, no matter how powerful, cannot erase that 3ms delay.

Nor can a faster CPU compensate for a slow GPU. A 3ms delay in the results appearing on the screen is a 3ms delay that cannot be erased - regardless where the delay was created. All any other component can do is not add to that delay with another bottleneck.

Huh, that's silly, so many links.

What was silly was you saying there is no such thing as a bottleneck.

The fact remains a game needs a certain cpu and videocard to run proper. Fail at either one and it will run poor.
You can call that a bottleneck but I call it inadequate hardware.

Exactly! Inadequate hardware is what creates a bottleneck! Why can't you see that? ???

But more than that, why can't you see that inadequate RAM can also create a bottleneck with gaming, or a very slow drive (with disk intensive games), or even a slow network connection for on-line games? That's the "big picture". Sticking to CPUs and GPUs as the only source of bottlenecks is being narrowminded.

You simply can not define bottleneck for computers since there will Always be one, or not at all.

I can define bottlenecks for computers. I did! All those dictionaries did. And even you did! But you are wrong when you say "not at all". While I do understand what you are trying to say, just because we, as humans, may not perceive a bottleneck is occurring, that does not mean one does not exist. Even with transfer speeds at the speed of light (which is impossible in any conductor), nothing is instant.

 

[Jetster]

You guys are too much. This thread is declining

 

[P4-630]

Just visit askwoody.com askbillbright.com

 

[LightningJR]

Why would a gamer want the GPU to be the main bottleneck of their system?

CPU/RAM/HDD bottlenecks can also cause odd behavior when playing games, it can introduce stutters, pop-in, slow downs, etc. This is almost never the case when your GPU is the bottleneck.

The GPU is the main driving force behind the performance of most 3D games it's why people will pay $1200 for a Titan X and $400/$500 for a 6700K/6800K to go with it. So another reason you would prefer a GPU bottleneck to to get the maximum performance out of the main and most expensive part of you system. (remember, this is a gaming scenario)(Price/Performance metric)

Having your GPU @ 80% utilization and CPU (or some other bottleneck) at 100% is not preferable because the loss of performance is much greater than if you had your GPU @ 100% and CPU (or some other bottleneck) @ 80%.



We can't attain the perfect situation where everything is 100% utilized so we prefer the GPU to be the bottleneck, if you can't understand this by now then I am sad to say you're a lost cause.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree and have been saying all along that we cannot attain 100% perfection.

"Everything is 100% utilized" makes no sense. We don't want anything to go unutilized, but it is never desirable to have any component 100% maxed out.

You note that many folks spend the most money on the GPU in gaming rigs for the maximum performance while gaming is true and makes sense. But that is exactly why you DON'T want the GPU to be the bottleneck!

You are also suggesting CPU/RAM/HDD bottlenecks and their associated stutters, pop-in, slow downs, etc. are somehow more desirable than GPU induced bottlenecks. Bull feathers! No bottleneck is better than another which you don't seem to understand (speaking of lost causes).

And you also don't say how a GPU induced bottleneck is different, or more desirable. Are you really trying to convince those reading that an underpowered graphics card can't cause stutters?

I am truly sorry that you cannot fathom that bottlenecking, no matter where it occurs, is not desirable. If it disrupts the game play, it does not matter if caused by the GPU, CPU, RAM, Drive, etc. Whatever component is causing it needs to be upgraded. Do you disagree with that too?

How about getting some gamers contributing to this thread?

Does LightningJR really speak for you and you "want" bottlenecks in your system to be in your graphics card because you want to spend "$1200" on a new graphics card? Or would you rather spend considerably less to upgrade your CPU or add more RAM?

Does DeathtoGnomes speak for you and you "want" the graphics card to be your bottleneck because a graphics card is "easiest to upgrade" - even though it is arguably the most expensive component in your computer and may also require a new PSU too? Do you find adding RAM or replacing your CPU is so much more challenging than replacing a graphics card?

Or does P4-630 speak for you, a person who joined this thread for the sole purpose, NOT to contribute any sage technical advice for the OP, but ONLY to post some puerile snide remark?

Come on gamers! Speak your own mind. Do you "want" (and "want" is the point of contention here) bottlenecks in your gaming experience to be caused by your graphics solution as LightningJR and DeathtoGnomes claim you do?

 

[dorsetknob]

"" i get no bottleneck playing solitare or Free cell ""

 

[slozomby]

I want my monitors refresh rate to be the slowest part of my system. if the rest of the components cant keep up with that then I have a problem.

other than that this thread has devolved into pointless bickering.

my gtx 1080 is a bottleneck when It hits 100% gpu utilization. the fact that it will be rendering 140+fps at the time is irrelevant to it being a bottleneck. I'm still more than satisfied with the performance.

 

[Iceni]

I want my system to play games. 60fps, Reasonable graphics I'm happy.

Benchmarking is long dead. It's been dead for many years. The gains that were won when benchmarking was it it's peak were ground-breaking and showed real system speed increases. Current systems don't have that. If you overclock it's to safe every day levels. And there is no point in competing with results as someone with more cash will have a better combination than you. The current use for a benchmark is to check your system against others of a similar build to make sure you have the correct performance.

So a system for me is fairly easy.

Lag free gaming at 5870x1080 resolution, I'm not interested in the fancy lighting, or real life shadows. Or even pixie dust and sparkles. It's rare I turn on AA even.

I want a system that shows balance, Provided it is showing me that and everything is smooth what else is there.

Now modern PC bottlenecks for gaming. I can't name many. Existing problems have been removed in most cases.

Ram speed has been set since volume and bandwidth took over from raw speed. It doesn't matter that the ram isn't running at insane speed because you simply have more and it can deliver more of that information at once.

CPU speed is still largely unused. 2-4 cores in a system and in a vast portion of games 1 is sufficient. Games need to catch up here, not hardware. Once game catch up then it will be core count that matters not core speed.

Sata speeds are pretty good, native Raid, and SSD's mean that there are no bottlenecks here any-more.

GPU's are still only as good as the chip on them. That is never going to change. The PCIe lane isn't going to struggle to deliver the information to the card.

So what's actually left.....Resolution and colour depth. GPU's alone will breach this one, but 4K gaming is still in it's infancy and hardware hasn't caught up fully.

We need a revolution in gaming. And games that are going to use all of the hardware we have.

 

[alucasa]

I know what my bottleneck is.

It's my damn wallet.

My bottleneck in my PC is CPU. I know that for 110% sure.