Got a 3080Ti, BFv usage is low, CPU is high

[MxPhenom 216]

This is a pretty tell tale sign of bottleneck is this specific title right?

GPU usuage is 50-65%
CPU is 90-100% most of the time with dips in the 80s

If I play Dying Light things seem fine though. GPU usage is 98-99%, CPU is lower than that.

Seems Battlefield is really the only game ive played so far where it seems like I've hit a CPU bottleneck. I reinstalled drivers for the new GPU twice now with no real change. I didnt think an 8700k would actually bottleneck this hard

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

YES this is a cpu bottleneck
this game may just be more cpu heaving then other games
I mean I can play dying light on a 4c4th chip

 

[MxPhenom 216]

YES this is a cpu bottleneck
this game may just be more cpu heaving then other games
I mean I can play dying light on a 4c4th chip

It definitely is, most Battlefield games have always been that way, but id expect GPU usage to be up there too. I just wanna believe my 1070 before was pegged at 99%.

I am planning to get a 5900x here soon so that'll give me a better idea.

 

[Space Lynx]

It definitely is, most Battlefield games have always been that way, but id expect GPU usage to be up there too. I just wanna believe my 1070 before was pegged at 99%.

I am planning to get a 5900x here soon so that'll give me a better idea.

would be nice to see your results when you upgrade the cpu, update us when the time comes

 

[MxPhenom 216]

would be nice to see your results when you upgrade the cpu, update us when the time comes

Yep will do. Just waiting for the x570s boards to release. I want the Asus Strix one then ill pull the trigger.

I am planning to redo my hardline water cooling loop to include this 3080Ti so I will probably do a build log as well here and on build.gg

 

[nguyen]

This is a pretty tell tale sign of bottleneck is this specific title right?

GPU usuage is 50-65%
CPU is 90-100% most of the time with dips in the 80s

If I play Dying Light things seem fine though. GPU usage is 98-99%, CPU is lower than that.

Seems Battlefield is really the only game ive played so far where it seems like I've hit a CPU bottleneck. I reinstalled drivers for the new GPU twice now with no real change. I didnt think an 8700k would actually bottleneck this hard

Try if overclocking the 8700K to 5.1ghz would help? I ran my delided 8700K @ 5.1ghz 1.44Vcore since the 8700K released back in 2017 and no sign of degradation.
I was thinking about upgrading to 5900X but they were unavailable for so long I just grabbed a 9900K, overclock it to 5.1Ghz 1.37Vcore and that pretty much 95% of a 5900X in gaming

 

[londiste]

It definitely is, most Battlefield games have always been that way, but id expect GPU usage to be up there too. I just wanna believe my 1070 before was pegged at 99%.

3080Ti is 2.5-3 times faster than 1070...

 

[evernessince]

Yeah, BFV chews through CPUs when paired with the latest GPUs in BFV. You definitely want an 8 core at least with BFV.

In addition, Nvidia has higher driver overhead which causes you to run into a GPU bottleneck quicker.

 

[nguyen]

Yeah, BFV chews through CPUs when paired with the latest GPUs in BFV. You definitely want an 8 core at least with BFV.

In addition, Nvidia has higher driver overhead which causes you to run into a GPU bottleneck quicker.

You have to specify that Nvidia has driver CPU overhead in DX12 while AMD has driver CPU overhead in DX11
Saying only Nvidia has CPU overhead problem is just spreading FUD, and BFV run better with DX11 API anyways.

For example this game use Cryengine with DX11 API

 

[mama]

You won't have a bottleneck with a 5900X.

 

[Chomiq]

You won't have a bottleneck with a 5900X.

There's no point for him to upgrade if he's bottlenecked in one specific game/engine.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

There's no point for him to upgrade if he's bottlenecked in one specific game/engine.

I was planning to upgrade anyways once x570 refresh boards are available mainly for BF6 this year. And a whole bunch of other games i havent wanted to try playing because 1070 just wouldnt do it, unless i wanted 30 fps.

I just happened to score a 3080ti before the x570 refresh boards were available

 

[oldwalltree]

Wonder how a 9900k would do? It would be a cheaper upgrade.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Wonder how a 9900k would do? It would be a cheaper upgrade.

That would probably fix it too.

 

[oldwalltree]

That would probably fix it too.

Looks like you are in the US? Could easily grab a 9900k for 275-300 and sell your 8700k for half that. Probably the most reasonable/cheapest course of action imo. But GL with whatever you decide!

 

[thesmokingman]

There's no point for him to upgrade if he's bottlenecked in one specific game/engine.

Isn't that down to his priorities?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

Isn't that down to his priorities?

It doesnt matter exactly. As I said, I was planning to upgrade all this at once, but i ended up with the 3080Ti sooner than I was expecting so now im just dealing with it for about a month.

Looks like you are in the US? Could easily grab a 9900k for 275-300 and sell your 8700k for half that. Probably the most reasonable/cheapest course of action imo. But GL with whatever you decide!

Ideally that would be a good idea, but I also want to get a new board that has 2 pin T_sensor headers on it for watercooling. Going to be using inline temperature sensor to base my fan speeds off water temp rather than component temp to keep the fans from rapidly flunctuating with any component temperature change, and my current board doesnt have it. Also MSi RGB control on this board is absolutely ass. I despise the Dragon software.

So I have other reasons for CPU and MOBO change, probably weird reasons, for some.

 

[oldwalltree]

It doesnt matter exactly. As I said, I was planning to upgrade all this at once, but i ended up with the 3080Ti sooner than I was expecting so now im just dealing with it for about a month.


Ideally that would be a good idea, but I also want to get a new board that has 2 pin T_sensor headers on it for watercooling. Going to be using inline temperature sensor to base my fan speeds off water temp rather than component temp to keep the fans from rapidly flunctuating with any component temperature change, and my current board doesnt have it. Also MSi RGB control on this board is absolutely ass. I despise the Dragon software.

So I have other reasons for CPU and MOBO change, probably weird reasons, for some.

Not weird at all actually. It would be weirder to drop the platform when you had a reasonable upgrade path left and all you need was more performance. Needing a certain header and software issues would totally warrant a platform change as the mobo is the base for everything else after all.

 

[elghinnarisa]

Is that kawasaki green or did you do like me and got the cheapest plastic kit? Well OT and whatnot aside
Aiming for 120fps or there around myself I have noticed quite a few games over the years that my 8700k is not able to keep up with. Although they are not all that common, they are at least appearing often enough to notice it. Recently games like Splinter cell blacklist, Far cry 4 that i felt playing again, and to some degree Battlefront 2 if my memory serves me correct.
Though I never encountered a game I could not get a 60+ FPS in without issue, it depends a bit on what you aim for and what you prefer.

If the framerate is still decent enough but the GPU doesn't get utilized completely, just crank up the settings, resolution scale, DSR and whatnot. Might as well add something fancy when one can. Thats what I do in those titles at least.

I have thought about replacing my 8700k as well, for more than one reason. But most of them arn't exactly great arguments so I decided to wait a bit longer. It still serves me well even if it consumes as much power as a heater and a half. Does keep the room nice and warm during the winter though!

 

[newtekie1]

The question is what framerates are you getting? Is the 8700K really causing unacceptable framerates, or is it giving good framerates but just not letting the GPU be fully utilized? And if the GPU isn't fully utilized, why not turn up graphical settings until it is?

 

[evernessince]

You have to specify that Nvidia has driver CPU overhead in DX12 while AMD has driver CPU overhead in DX11
Saying only Nvidia has CPU overhead problem is just spreading FUD, and BFV run better with DX11 API anyways.

For example this game use Cryengine with DX11 API

You don't seem to know what Overhead means. AMD does not have driver overhead issues in DX11 games. It just doesn't split threads for poorly optimized games. AMD's overhead is still lower regardless of whether you are using DX12 or DX11. Nvidia runs it's scheduler is software and thus that imparts an amount of overhead, AMD does so in the hardware and thus less overhead. It's not API dependent.

You've jumped to the assumption that "Oh AMD has lower performance in this DX11 game I've cherrypicked so it must be due to driver overhead" when in reality for that particular game it could be any number of reasons from poor opitimization to even Nvidia simply being better with that game. What i can say is that lower performance in the graph you linked is not a result of AMD driver overhead nor would you see that large of a drop from driver overhead either. That's like saying Project Cars was the result of CPU overhead on AMD's drivers when we all know it is in fact not.

FYI it doesn't matter which renderer you use for BFV as the game is well optimized:

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Review - NVIDIA is in Trouble

The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a worthy opponent to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. It offers similar performance at better power efficiency and lower noise levels. In our Radeon RX 6800 XT review, we also take a closer look at raytracing and "Rage Mode", a new 1-click method for overclocking.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[60to160]

Its the high framerates that's causing the extra CPU usage. BV is already a CPU heavy game.
The 8700K at 5.2GHz is only 5% slower than a 5GHz 9900K. And this is through out a 60 game spectrum. I just tested BV with an 8700K at 5GHz (5GHz ring) and a 9900K at 5GHz (5GHz ring) and some 3200CL14 FLARE X overclocked to 4133CL17 using a 3090. The only time i saw a 10fps+ difference was at 1080p. At 1440p is was no more than 10fps. At. 1080p and 1440p the game should be capped at 120-165 depending. At that framerate the 8700K running 4.7-5GHz+ (4.8GHz ring) BV runs surprisingly well. Especially on the 8700K. 50% CPU usage is barely a bottleneck when running one game. But, 50% GPU usage, there's something else going on. I wasn't seeing that much usage even at uncapped framerates. Though, if you can find one of those $250 9900K's/10700K's then there's a good enough reason to upgrade the CPU or platform. I recently picked up a few 10850K's for a $300 each. Why stop at 8c16t when a 10c20t CPU is the so cheap. Also, 3 out of the 5 10850K's could do 5.3GHz on 8c and 5.2GHz on the other 2. That's just awesome considering what intel wants for the 10900K's and 11th Gen 8c i9. If you got the money, i would definitely recommend waiting for 12th Gen. (Golden Cove) Alder Lake is something completely new and Microsoft has been working with intel to optimize for it. 16c24t, we won't have to wait to much longer.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The question is what framerates are you getting? Is the 8700K really causing unacceptable framerates, or is it giving good framerates but just not letting the GPU be fully utilized? And if the GPU isn't fully utilized, why not turn up graphical settings until it is?

Im maxed out. I can't really increase it anymore, other than changing resolution scale. Im not running DX12 with DXR in Battlefield because DX12 is pretty broken.

Currently I bounce from 110-130fps

EDIT: I did increase resolution scale and it did help a bit.

Is that kawasaki green or did you do like me and got the cheapest plastic kit? Well OT and whatnot aside
Aiming for 120fps or there around myself I have noticed quite a few games over the years that my 8700k is not able to keep up with. Although they are not all that common, they are at least appearing often enough to notice it. Recently games like Splinter cell blacklist, Far cry 4 that i felt playing again, and to some degree Battlefront 2 if my memory serves me correct.
Though I never encountered a game I could not get a 60+ FPS in without issue, it depends a bit on what you aim for and what you prefer.

If the framerate is still decent enough but the GPU doesn't get utilized completely, just crank up the settings, resolution scale, DSR and whatnot. Might as well add something fancy when one can. Thats what I do in those titles at least.

I have thought about replacing my 8700k as well, for more than one reason. But most of them arn't exactly great arguments so I decided to wait a bit longer. It still serves me well even if it consumes as much power as a heater and a half. Does keep the room nice and warm during the winter though!

What's kawi Green? My bike in my picture is the 09 Monster Energy edition 250F, so it came with black plastics.

 

[mama]

Im maxed out. I can't really increase it anymore, other than changing resolution scale. Im not running DX12 with DXR in Battlefield because DX12 is pretty broken.

Currently I bounce from 110-130fps

EDIT: I did increase resolution scale and it did help a bit.



What's kawi Green? My bike in my picture is the 09 Monster Energy edition 250F, so it came with black plastics.

DX12 works better for me pretty much on all games I play (except 1800 Anno which just crashes if I try). As a general proposition I suggest upgrading the GPU more regularly as you are doing rather than the CPU.

 

[nguyen]

You don't seem to know what Overhead means. AMD does not have driver overhead issues in DX11 games. It just doesn't split threads for poorly optimized games. AMD's overhead is still lower regardless of whether you are using DX12 or DX11. Nvidia runs it's scheduler is software and thus that imparts an amount of overhead, AMD does so in the hardware and thus less overhead. It's not API dependent.

You've jumped to the assumption that "Oh AMD has lower performance in this DX11 game I've cherrypicked so it must be due to driver overhead" when in reality for that particular game it could be any number of reasons from poor opitimization to even Nvidia simply being better with that game. What i can say is that lower performance in the graph you linked is not a result of AMD driver overhead nor would you see that large of a drop from driver overhead either. That's like saying Project Cars was the result of CPU overhead on AMD's drivers when we all know it is in fact not.

FYI it doesn't matter which renderer you use for BFV as the game is well optimized:

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Review - NVIDIA is in Trouble

The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a worthy opponent to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080. It offers similar performance at better power efficiency and lower noise levels. In our Radeon RX 6800 XT review, we also take a closer look at raytracing and "Rage Mode", a new 1-click method for overclocking.

www.techpowerup.com

The scheduler need to be run in CPU no matter what, AMD DX11 scheduler utilizes fewer CPU cores than Nvidia, thus require CPU with high single core performance whereas Nvidia scheduler require CPU with more cores and CPU resources
You can see how 6800XT get CPU bottlenecked with DX11 games at 1080p from the same 6800XT review:

So yeah Techspot is only exposing Nvidia CPU overhead problem while hiding AMD's, pretty typical of them really , although they did say AMD still has DX11 overhead problem in their article, they are not providing any information regarding that.
BTW BFV DX12 is so crap no one is actually using anyways, as with any old game that support DX11/DX12 concurrently, they just better off running with DX11.