Where do you think the gaming framerate bottleneck should be?

[Komshija]

Bottlenecking isn't something that interests me as long as I am able to play at 50+ FPS on high settings. For the example, if my CPU is at 75% while GPU is at 100%, I don't really care as long as there is good in-game performance.

I do care about balanced systems, so huge or significant bottleneck is very unlikely scenario.

 

[Bill_Bright]

An unbalanced system does not automatically suggest a bottleneck. If the weakest link is still able to deliver the necessary data as the program calls for, then it is not bottlenecking. For example, if the CPU is "just" a fairly quick quad and the GPU is a top-end, state-of-the-art monster, but the user is experiencing no delays or performance degradation, it just means the user paid too much for the graphics solution.

 

[Papahyooie]

Totally agree with this. The laws of physics (and the speed of light) limits (bottlenecks) electron flow. Thus infinitely fast will never be possible - at least not until quantum superposition becomes an everyday reality.
Not really. If total budget for both CPU and graphics solutions are a factor, then that budget should be stated up front. If no budget, then current technologies and product availability, and/or theory is what matters - especially when the costs of such items are currently within reach of many members of this site. We are talking a couple $1000, not $millions.

It is not superfluous because striving to reach theoretical limits is a very valid goal and necessary exercise to consider. And if the costs are not totally prohibitive, seeing that that goal is within reach can be a real motivator to get there.

That said, I stick with my comment above. "There should be no bottlenecks. The computer should ALWAYS be waiting on the user. ALWAYS!"

Fair enough, but I think you're stretching the definition of bottleneck. The OP asked where the bottleneck SHOULD be. This assumes that there must be a bottleneck somewhere, and the choices were CPU or GPU. As I said before, a theoretical system with no bottlenecks is just that... theoretical.

So assuming that there WILL realistically be a bottleneck somewhere, it's pointless to argue which one is more desirable without the context of cost. As I said, if cost is no issue, then buy the fastest thing possible on both the CPU and the GPU and be done with it. If cost is an issue (and for most of us, it is) then the debate comes down to the actual merits of CPU vs GPU, and the impact a bottleneck on each would be.

 

[RCoon]

I don't understand the point of this poll, or even what on god's green earth it means. It's not down to users to choose where a bottleneck is. That's all predetermined by the components in a machine and what kind of game your playing.

What exactly are people voting for? Are they trying to pray away the bottleneck in their CPU by shouting at their computer and telling it the GPU should be the bottleneck instead?

I need a valid answer because so far I see three pages of people discussing something that literally makes no discernible sense - the kind of threads we lock down. It's basically like saying "how much oxygen do you think your body should breath?"

 

[Papahyooie]

I don't understand the point of this poll, or even what on god's green earth it means. It's not down to users to choose where a bottleneck is. That's all predetermined by the components in a machine and what kind of game your playing.

What exactly are people voting for? Are they trying to pray away the bottleneck in their CPU by shouting at their computer and telling it the GPU should be the bottleneck instead?

I need a valid answer because so far I see three pages of people discussing something that literally makes no discernible sense - the kind of threads we lock down. It's basically like saying "how much oxygen do you think your body should breath?"

I think the thread doesn't make any sense either, to be fair. It was created out of misunderstanding... but it HAS resulted in both technical and philosophical discussion. There is definitely merit to discussing whether and how one should PLAN a bottleneck (i.e, should you spend more money on this piece or that, despite the possible bottleneck). As such, I think it has value. Just my two cents.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Fair enough, but I think you're stretching the definition of bottleneck. The OP asked where the bottleneck SHOULD be. This assumes that there must be a bottleneck somewhere

Well, now you are assuming that assumption is valid. I say there must not be any bottlenecks anywhere.

What exactly are people voting for?

Which is why I said "other" explaining question is wrong.

 

[EarthDog]

My god this topic is really going nowhere at all.

Better off examining the bottleneck of a nice beer IMO

I don't understand the point of this poll, or even what on god's green earth it means. It's not down to users to choose where a bottleneck is. That's all predetermined by the components in a machine and what kind of game your playing.

What exactly are people voting for? Are they trying to pray away the bottleneck in their CPU by shouting at their computer and telling it the GPU should be the bottleneck instead?

I need a valid answer because so far I see three pages of people discussing something that literally makes no discernible sense - the kind of threads we lock down. It's basically like saying "how much oxygen do you think your body should breath?"

I asked the same question multiple times from the OP. Hes showed up at the site and posted over the past few days, but hasn't bothered to respond to anyone here for days.

Might as well close this debacle since he cant even swing by and clarify...

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

I think by "bottleneck" he probably means which component is the lowest denominator of the systems performance.

It's obvious that the GPU should ideally run at 100% load so it can realize its full potential. Therefore the GPU is the determining factor in overall gaming performance and by this terrible definition is the "bottleneck".

Anyone who'd rather see their CPU at 100% while the GPUs' only taxed 60-70% is just silly.... Like this thead.

 

[MrGenius]

I voted Other. Here's my explanation. I don't do gaming framerates. Hence I don't do gaming framerate bottlenecks. Plus I despise the term "bottleneck" in general(when applied to computers).

 

[Bill_Bright]

It's obvious that the GPU should ideally run at 100% load so it can realize its full potential.

No! That's not obvious at all! Should a car engine run at full load so it can realize its full potential? No. A PSU? No. RAM? No. A GPU is just a processor designed for graphics. There should always be some headroom left.

If any processor is running at 100%, that means it is maxed out. That also means it can go no faster and is now a bottleneck for any greater demands that may come along.

 

[Vayra86]

No! That's not obvious at all! Should a car engine run at full load so it can realize its full potential? No. A PSU? No. RAM? No. A GPU is just a processor designed for graphics. There should always be some headroom left.

If any processor is running at 100%, that means it is maxed out. That also means it can go no faster and is now a bottleneck for any greater demands that may come along.

Car analogies always fail, same case here. There is no speed limit in PC gaming and there aren't any pedestrians either, unless you're playing Carmageddon.

He's quite right in the most basic sense of the definition. A component running at max utilization is using its full potential and any component under that is not.

Headroom can be had in different ways, especially for gaming. You can frame cap, but you can also use methods such as Fast Sync which will push max utilization but drops the frames it can't sync with a refresh. The headroom is not visible, but still there, and the GPU is fully utilized, while the performance is of high quality and extremely stable. Prior to Fast Sync it was also quite common to put a frame cap far beyond the monitor refresh rate to have lower input lag.

Either way, this back and forth underlines why this is such a strange topic... once more

 

[Papahyooie]

Well, now you are assuming that assumption is valid. I say there must not be any bottlenecks anywhere.

I'm saying that this is the presiding assumption for the discussion at hand, considering the context of the OP. The way he framed the question assumes that there WILL be a bottleneck. So speaking of a system with no bottleneck is irrelevant to the question. It's superfluous (not to mention highly physically unlikely.)

 

[Nemesis 1ism]

Totally agree with this. The laws of physics (and the speed of light) limits (bottlenecks) electron flow. Thus infinitely fast will never be possible - at least not until quantum superposition becomes an everyday reality.
Not really. If total budget for both CPU and graphics solutions are a factor, then that budget should be stated up front. If no budget, then current technologies and product availability, and/or theory is what matters - especially when the costs of such items are currently within reach of many members of this site. We are talking a couple $1000, not $millions.

It is not superfluous because striving to reach theoretical limits is a very valid goal and necessary exercise to consider. And if the costs are not totally prohibitive, seeing that that goal is within reach can be a real motivator to get there.

That said, I stick with my comment above. "There should be no bottlenecks. The computer should ALWAYS be waiting on the user. ALWAYS!"

I agree cost of components does have effect on everything. My grands sons are building gaming pcs now the build will be on utube when they finish. I ordered the 960mb Intel Optane so that the entire games they play will load as cashe off of the main drive. Yes I know that's crazy expensive but they are my grandchildren and deserve the best of the best. I am old and not well so the money means nothing to me. THEIR LEARNING MEANS everything to me.

 

[EarthDog]

A 960gb optane drive??? For games? Thinking that is better than nvme for the long run? Wow did you get taken to the cleaners.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Car analogies always fail, same case here. There is no speed limit in PC gaming and there aren't any pedestrians either

No they don't - except to those who unrealistically expect an analogy must be absolute - which of course, they never are. There is no speed limit on the Autobahn and no pedestrians either. And of course, when "gaming" in a car (as in on a suitable race track) there are no speed limits or pedestrians either. Sorry you don't understand that.

I agree cost of components does have effect on everything.

Yes and no. If you are buying components and you have a budget, then the costs matter. If you have deep pockets, then costs may not matter.

If you are doing the R&D and pushing the envelope of theoretical limits, and you depend on limited grants and contributions, then budgets matter. But if your multi-billionaire benefactor has handed you a blank check, costs don't matter.

Since no budget was mentioned in the opening post or the opinion poll, then I say the cost of the components don't matter.

 

[TRIPTEX_CAN]

No! That's not obvious at all! Should a car engine run at full load so it can realize its full potential? No. A PSU? No. RAM? No. A GPU is just a processor designed for graphics. There should always be some headroom left.

If any processor is running at 100%, that means it is maxed out. That also means it can go no faster and is now a bottleneck for any greater demands that may come along.

So are you saying its a trick question? No part of the system should see full usage and therefore no bottleneck should occur unless the use specifies a "limit" ?

OK, lets roll with that.

I say if your opinion is to be upheld for a gaming scenario the only limitation imposed on the system is the monitors refreshrate. Sure any frames in excess of that are moot and are the only tangible limitation to the computer.

OK. I can live with that.

The monitors refrashrate is the only bottleneck that should occur an a perfect scenario for gaming purposes.

/thread

 

[phanbuey]

A gpu bottlenecked system generally feels smoother to me. When a system starts becoming cpu/memory bottlenecked i tend to notice more hitching and stuttering problems (esp w high refresh rate monitor). When the gpu tends to struggle a little the struggle is a bit more consistent than if ur cpu is pegged and windoze needs something, or if game elements arent loading in time.

 

[Vayra86]

No they don't - except to those who unrealistically expect an analogy must be absolute - which of course, they never are. There is no speed limit on the Autobahn and no pedestrians either. And of course, when "gaming" in a car (as in on a suitable race track) there are no speed limits or pedestrians either. Sorry you don't understand that.

Thank you for letting me know that I can drive faster in games. Care to also respond to the rest, which was obviously what it was all about and also completely ontopic response to your idea about bottlenecks?

 

[Gorstak]

I think bottleneck should be human body limitations, at least for gaming segment. Already we have screens that surpass human eye limitations, but for business and goverment segment, that's not a bad thing. I just wish they would stop milking people, and some laws should be voted against doing that. Also, prices should be country specific or at least governed by someone, for both hardware and software.

 

[trog100]

my definition of the term bottleneck is an unreasonable restriction that ideally should not be there.. so under my definition there should not be any "bottlenecks"..

having said that my definition dosnt seem to match the current popular one..

trog

 

[Bill_Bright]

So are you saying its a trick question?

"Trick"? It was not obscure intentionally. It was just too limited in scope to really be valid. There are just way too many potential bottlenecks that might affect a computer's performance. And yes, monitor refresh rate is one - but not the only one of those.

As I have said repeatedly, "the computer should ALWAYS be waiting on the user. ALWAYS!" - or as Gorstak correctly notes, the "human" limitations should be the only bottlenecks.

Care to also respond to the rest, which was obviously what it was all about and also completely ontopic response to your idea about bottlenecks?

It was not on topic at all. You claimed car analogies "always" fail. They don't. But blanket statements always do (and yes, I recognize the irony in that!). But you failed to see how those car analogies aptly apply, or in this case, when the cars are allowed to go as fast as they can on some specific roads that have no speed limits, or on race tracks.

I'll take it one step further and it actually ties with your 100% GPU point. The maximum speed obtainable depends on MANY more factors than just the engine. They include most notably, the transmission, but also wind and wind resistance, gravity, and more. If the engine is maxed out, you might still be able to go faster IF the transmission has another gear to throw in there. Or you might be able to faster if you can go down hill. Or if the wind flips around and gives you a push.

Regardless - if the transmission has no more gears to throw in and is spinning as fast as it can without flying apart, it becomes the bottleneck. If the engine cannot provide any more RPMs, it becomes the bottleneck. In either case, you aren't going any faster except by eliminating other bottlenecks. But if either the tranny or engine had more headroom, you could (assuming other factors did not bottleneck you!)

Now if the driver is already scared out of his/her wits and backs off the peddle, fine! But if he or she is yelling, "Faster! Faster!", that's a problem.

So to answer the OP's question, "where do I think the bottleneck should be?" The answer is clear, no where. If there must be a bottleneck, it should be with me, not my computer, not my network.

..so under my definition there should not be any "bottlenecks"..
having said that my definition dosnt seem the match the current popular one..

But its the correct one!

 

[Papahyooie]

For gaming:

Get the fastest stuff you can afford.

If you have to choose between a high end CPU or a high end GPU, go with the high end GPU and let the CPU be the bottleneck.

At the very high end, and at high framerates, this can create microstuttering and low minimum framerates. So if you're playing shooters that require high framerates, this logic CAN flip, and you might want the GPU to be the bottleneck, resulting in a stable framerate. However, if this is the case, I'd argue that it's better to buy the highest end GPU you can, and limit the framerate to the point that your CPU can handle it, but still keep the CPU at least CLOSE to your GPUs capability. That's exactly what I do with overwatch. I can't get my CPU to feed my GPU 144hz, so I cap the framerate to 120fps and get stable framerates. It's not quite as good as getting my full 144hz, but it's better than buying a high end CPU and having to skimp on the GPU which would result in probably LESS than 120fps.

So... if there must be a bottleneck, let it be at the CPU. But don't pair a 2080Ti with a Q6600 either...

/thread.

 

[Gorstak]

I'm a noob at this, but shouldn't stutter be reduced if you increase gpu usage? Like with fastsync or by using a higher resolution screen? I mean, if gpu is busy, does that releive cpu of pressure to the point no more stutter?

 

[Solaris17]

Storage. I want to take a different approach because NVMe storage is already insanely fast. I’d love for storage to once again be the bottleneck because then cpus and gpus both would be that much faster.

Let’s hope we get to that point again sooner than later