Bottlenecking.

[Bill_Bright]

Benchmarking is long dead. It's been dead for many years.

Well, I think you are alone in that opinion - I don't know of anyone who believes that, regardless their position as to where those bottlenecks are. Perhaps you have a $5000 gaming rig and fiber to the home, just don't play serious games or do any serious CAD/CAE work.

One thing I do agree with is most (but certainly not all - gamers can afford a decent amount of RAM). And having more RAM is generally better than having less but faster RAM. But sadly, many don't have or cannot afford systems that support large amounts. Because contrary to the false claim made before, not all systems come with, or can be upgraded to 8GB or more.

I know what my bottleneck is.

It's my damn wallet.

Yeah, that's where most of our bottlenecks our - that, and the better half.

 

[dorsetknob]

Mine is the LOM module

Spoiler: LOM MODULE

Lack Of Money

 

[slozomby]

. Because contrary to the false claim made before, not all systems come with, or can be upgraded to 8GB or more.

well if the system is pre C2D that's going to be a problem running modern games. should I dig my old 286 out of the closet and complain it wont run fallout 4?

 

[Kanan]

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.

They are neutral if they happen if you still have the FPS you wanted (eg. 60 or 120 fps). More below.

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.

What I meant is this: too little ram is just a temporarily bottleneck whereas too little bandwidth is a steady bottleneck. I called it "different" bottleneck. Actually read and understand what I say for a change. Having a discussion with you is like speaking to a wall at times. Also you're very "self-opinionated", the word in german is better. You always think and always want to be right. But you're obviously not.

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?

Simple I can exchange that GPU easier than half of the system (CPU+MB+Ram). So a GPU bottleneck is way better and also the one most (good) gaming computers have.

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.

"Good" and "bad" are things differently defined. For me it's simply something unavoidable and therefore rather neutral. And since this is a fact, it's nothing bad. Example: when I have a GPU bottleneck at 120 FPS it's nothing bad, not even remotely so, because I have more than enough FPS - actually it's something along the lines of "good". Now if I have a GPU or CPU bottleneck at 45 FPS it's something rather bad. CPU bottlenecks are especially bad, because solving them takes more money and work. Therefore I always want a CPU that's easily fast enough to feed the GPU and compute the game.

 

[Recon-UK]

I run Killing Floor at 1080P vsync on at 75hz solid, GPU only using 40% with 4x SSAA through NVCP.

Please kill me now MASSSSIVE BOTTLENECK.

My advice from this?

 

[EarthDog]

Have fun chasing your tails.

Leading the horse to water...

Yada.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Have fun chasing your tails.

Leading the horse to water...

Yada.

My Hoarsie's name is Ed.

 

[slozomby]

Leading the horse to water...

if the horse wont drink the water, you can always flog it when its dead.

 

[...PACMAN...]

Newish video from Jay.....nice explanation at the end for those in the dark.

 

[yogurt_21]

Ever try to fast pour a 2 liter? Doesn't work does it? The flow comes out in bursts while the bottle sucks in air to replace the liquid in the short windows of opportunity. You actually get better flow by backing off the angle and slowing it down allowing the air to move into the bottle at the same rate the liquid is pouring out.

If you truly have a "bottleneck" the same applies. Ie you will have stuttering, etc in gameplay at low detail with a fast gpu and a old/slow cpu. While sure buying a faster/newer cpu will alleviate the issue, upping the detail level forcing the gpu to do more work (ie both cpu and gpu showing a similar load level) will as well, and that one is free.

Sometimes of course people buy obscene gpu combinations to go with a 1080P monitor. At which point your monitor is likely the restrictive piece as you simply can't up the detail level high enough to properly tax your 1080 sli platform. Getting a faster cpu will show more frames but will not really resolve the bottleneck due to not being able to reach an equalized gpu/cpu ratio. You could pull out a card and see how that runs but you didn't buy 2 to sit one on the sidelines. Getting a 1600P or 4K monitor would be a better choice in that case.

of course becoming too obsessive with this won't do you any favors. You can get a nice balanced setup for today's games only to find out that tomorrows tax one component more than the other, forcing a re-balance.

Best case is to just target smooth gameplay and call it a day, upping detail or adjusting clocks to suit that goal.

 

[Bill_Bright]

well if the system is pre C2D that's going to be a problem running modern games. should I dig my old 286 out of the closet and complain it wont run fallout 4?

Complaining won't do any good of course. But if a motherboard is incapable of supporting enough RAM or a modern CPU, or only AGP graphics, then the motherboard is certainly a HUGE bottleneck in your goal for good gaming.

What I meant is this: too little ram is just a temporarily bottleneck whereas too little bandwidth is a steady bottleneck. I called it "different" bottleneck. Actually read and understand what I say for a change.

Simple I can exchange that GPU easier than half of the system (CPU+MB+Ram). So a GPU bottleneck is way better and also the one most (good) gaming computers have.

This is where you just don't make any sense.

You call me opinionated - I'm going by facts, not opinion. No bottlenecks are good. And at least I have been consistent with that throughout. You keep changing your tune. NOW you are saying too little RAM is a "temporary" bottleneck, a "different" bottleneck! Temporary??? Different??? Huh? And so what? Are delays and disruptions caused by insufficient RAM acceptable but delays and disruptions caused by the graphics solution not? Are "different" bottlenecks not "wanted" but GPU bottleneck are? That makes no sense. I say again, a 3ms delay is still a 3ms delay.

But not only that, you try to obfuscate and justify your "new" opinion by comparing exchanging the GPU with exchanging the CPU and the motherboard and the RAM too!!!!!!! That's not half the system! A new CPU, motherboard and RAM is basically a whole new computer! You totally ignore the possibility simply adding more RAM or replacing the CPU clear bottlenecks too! Or are those not bottlenecks worth clearing?

You ignore the fact (and hope no one notices) that adding or replacing the RAM alone is not only cheaper than replacing the graphics card, but it is an extremely easy task to perform! And often more RAM is all that is needed. You are ignoring the fact that upgrading the CPU is not an option either. Yet it too is typically easier on the budget and is an easy task to perform too. And you ignore the fact adding RAM or upgrading the CPU typically does not require a bigger PSU whereas adding a more powerful graphics card often requires a bigger PSU to support it.

Just because something is unavoidable that in no way makes it neutral. Just because you might be happy with 120FPS and likely will not perceive a difference at 144FPS (for most tasks), that does not make it neutral.

The facts are, bottlenecks exist. All are unwanted. Some are unavoidable. Some can be alleviated. Bottlenecks can be introduced at any point in the data path, including the disk, motherboard bus, network/internet, RAM, CPU, graphics, even the monitor as yogurt noted, and more.

My "opinion" is, IF I have a choice, I would much rather the biggest bottleneck be cause by insufficient RAM because that typically is the least expensive to replace and typically provides the most bang for the money (depending on the starting point). Are there exceptions? Of course. That's why blanket statements are wrong!!!

Now unless someone new would like to express their technical opinion that contributes value to the debate, I see no reason to continue this topic.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Newish video from Jay.....nice explanation at the end for those in the dark.

whats the overlay cpu/gpu at 6.20 ?

 

[Recon-UK]

whats the overlay cpu/gpu at 6.20 ?

MSI AfterBurner.

I run that too see below for bottlenecks.

 

[qubit]

Just how much does an AMD CPU bottleneck a GTX 1080? This video finds out.

 

[EarthDog]

Post 84 qubit.

 

[Recon-UK]

The AMD does "bottleneck" however 60hz or 75hz refresh rates? it's plenty.

I would never buy a 1080 though with that CPU.

 

[Caring1]

Now he should do the same thing with Intel CPU's, instead of trolling AMD.
From benchmarks I have seen, bottlenecking is not exclusive to one brand CPU.

 

[Kanan]

@Bill_Bright

This is where you just don't make any sense.

You call me opinionated - I'm going by facts, not opinion. No bottlenecks are good.

A GPU bottleneck with high FPS certainly isn't bad, I called it neutral - you called it bad. I already explained why it's certainly 100% nothing bad and you don't seem to understand. Maybe a age problem of some kind.

And at least I have been consistent with that throughout. You keep changing your tune. NOW you are saying too little RAM is a "temporary" bottleneck, a "different" bottleneck! Temporary??? Different??? Huh? And so what?

I just did that, so a old man like you can maybe understand my point - but I guess that's not happening ever. You're just here to "win", you're probably unable to accept you're wrong. Typical childish behaviour, or typical behaviour of old men that think they know everything and can't accept what others say (that are maybe younger too).

Are delays and disruptions caused by insufficient RAM acceptable but delays and disruptions caused by the graphics solution not? Are "different" bottlenecks not "wanted" but GPU bottleneck are? That makes no sense. I say again, a 3ms delay is still a 3ms delay.

It makes perfect sense, as already said and explained multiple times by me now. A GPU bottleneck is nothing bad if I still have more than enough FPS as I explained earlier. A Ram bottleneck is something entirely different, as it destroys your whole gaming experience.

But not only that, you try to obfuscate and justify your "new" opinion by comparing exchanging the GPU with exchanging the CPU and the motherboard and the RAM too!!!!!!! That's not half the system! A new CPU, motherboard and RAM is basically a whole new computer! You totally ignore the possibility simply adding more RAM or replacing the CPU clear bottlenecks too! Or are those not bottlenecks worth clearing?

Bullshit. It's not a new opinion it's just worded different and/or a addition to it. And IT IS half the system, maybe even less. I would call the most important part of the system the GPU now, it's that way for many years now. That's why CPU+MB+Ram is just the other half. Replacing CPU is something that rarely happens because most times users don't get any big gains from it, or it's simply not worth it money wise - most users rather replace CPU + MB + Ram or the whole system then. Someone with your "experience" should know that - if you would actually know anything about gamers or gaming PCs that is. Laughable that I must explain the simplest things to you know. Best thing would be if you'd stick with your opinions to threads that are about simple office machines, that way you wouldn't mix anything up with your old experiences of office PCs.

You ignore the fact (and hope no one notices) that adding or replacing the RAM alone is not only cheaper than replacing the graphics card, but it is an extremely easy task to perform! And often more RAM is all that is needed. You are ignoring the fact that upgrading the CPU is not an option either. Yet it too is typically easier on the budget and is an easy task to perform too. And you ignore the fact adding RAM or upgrading the CPU typically does not require a bigger PSU whereas adding a more powerful graphics card often requires a bigger PSU to support it.

I'm not ignoring anything. Actually you are not understanding my point, that's why you THINK that I ignored something. Too bad I have a way better understanding of users of today and gaming PCs especially. Again: please stick to threads about office PCs or something else and let the users that have experience with todays (gaming) PCs do the other talk. And about the rest: I explained what I meant up there.

Just because something is unavoidable that in no way makes it neutral. Just because you might be happy with 120FPS and likely will not perceive a difference at 144FPS (for most tasks), that does not make it neutral.

It does. When I stop caring about something, when I don't see it positive or negative, it is neutral. If you don't want to agree with this, stick with your faulty opinion - I couldn't care less. I'm most certainly NOT changing my opinion though. Your sight of things is just off.

The facts are, bottlenecks exist. All are unwanted. Some are unavoidable. Some can be alleviated. Bottlenecks can be introduced at any point in the data path, including the disk, motherboard bus, network/internet, RAM, CPU, graphics, even the monitor as yogurt noted, and more.

No, GPU bottlenecks are what is wanted, and other bottlenecks are what is not wanted - because bottlenecks are unavoidable that is a fact. Probably I can explain this to you 10 other times, you'd still not understand it.

My "opinion" is, IF I have a choice, I would much rather the biggest bottleneck be cause by insufficient RAM because that typically is the least expensive to replace and typically provides the most bang for the money (depending on the starting point). Are there exceptions? Of course. That's why blanket statements are wrong!!!

Too bad RAM rarely is the bottleneck, so yes, while it would be good to have a RAM bottleneck every time and just replace or add additional RAM it's just unrealistic. That's why I jumped to GPUs - at least what I say makes any sense. Too bad you're still not geting my point - you know, it's not sooo hard to understand. Many others here already did.

Now unless someone new would like to express their technical opinion that contributes value to the debate, I see no reason to continue this topic.

The topic is ended when its done, not when you say it or want it - especially not if your opinion is off in so many ways.

 

[Recon-UK]

Bottlenecked by coding of game, watch the FPS drop at beginning shot.

CPU & GPU are in harmony... yet the game decides it wants to load in new content on the fly.


BOTTLENECK BROOOO

 

[slozomby]

Bottlenecked by coding of game, watch the FPS drop at beginning shot.

CPU & GPU are in harmony... yet the game decides it wants to load in new content on the fly.


BOTTLENECK BROOOO

crappy code is crappy code. no amount of hardware fixes that.
if you watch the video he was at 99% gpu utilization the entire time. the cpu was not at 99% at all. if he had a faster gpu he would have more frames per second. thus by definition its a bottleneck.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

@Kanan I have to say you nailed it, explained much better than I did in my attempt.

 

[Recon-UK]

crappy code is crappy code. no amount of hardware fixes that.
if you watch the video he was at 99% gpu utilization the entire time. the cpu was not at 99% at all. if he had a faster gpu he would have more frames per second. thus by definition its a bottleneck.

It's my XEON rig LOL... used as sarcasm.

 

[qubit]

Post 84 qubit.

I blame you for this! Dang it.

 

[LightningJR]

no more wall of texts for me.. Bill you need tl;dr's on your posts now..

ill say this, we all agree that no bottleneck is best and we all want that but most of us know that's not possible, this is important, it's NOT possible.

because of this we have to make a choice, where do we want our bottleneck to be? well I would like my GPU to be it, when I see my GPU usage at 99% i am happy, why? because I know the main pixel pushing component is at full utilization and that what I am playing it at it's highest FPS. This should be any gamer's goal if they want the highest FPS.

I hope you can simply understand this, I am getting weary of this thread.

 

[EarthDog]

Now he should do the same thing with Intel CPU's, instead of trolling AMD.
From benchmarks I have seen, bottlenecking is not exclusive to one brand CPU.

Do you honestly think he was trolling AMD or simply providing a good reference point with the product that shows off that point more readily?

Certainly you can check for a bottleneck on Intel (read any techspot review of a game which compares both amd cpu and intel h2h as well as shows clockspeers on each cpu). The only way to do it though is to test from a low, to stock to overclocked clockspeed and compare it to AMD anyway.

The AMD does "bottleneck" however 60hz or 75hz refresh rates? it's plenty.

I would never buy a 1080 though with that CPU.

If your glass ceiling (frame target for vsync) is defined less than what the system will give you, of course it doesn't matter.

But clearly those aiming for 60hz are in a different system than those aiming for 120/144hz where you actually need the power of the system working with as few FPS bottlenecks as you can.

My overall point, check that....personal preference, is to not buy a system where my cpu is holding back my gpu. I buy/use high end cards. I didn't buy them for my cpu to put an artificial glass ceiling on it. Same reason I didn't buy a GT500 to only drive it on city streets. I bought that thing (I don't own one, not, lol) to take it to the track.