As a Jawa Verifed Seller, I will say there is some incredible value in to be had in purchasing a prebuilt from a good seller on the platform.

never sekk in java, prices is joke, like you give it for free.

I like your videos but this is complete miss without DLSS results to compare. You just make an educated assumption. But DLSS is not free performance. It still impacts GPU's performance. I am not saying you are wrong, I just can't say you are right. And I can't test it myself as I don't have 2 CPUs. It would be nice for you, if you have 2 CPUs to make a follow-up video where you get same PC, different GPU and test one scene for native/upscalled. Than we could clearly see proportional impact of using DLSS.

@@ingamgoduka57 Late April Fools comment? UE and Unity are literally the two most CPU-limited engines out there, with tons of other issues like #stutterstruggle. 😄

But GPUs are miles better in running Physics just use Nvidia PhysX which is awesome & cross platform. But modern game developers are not using PhysX which is a missed opportunity. Rockstar games have their own GPU based Physic Engine called Euphoria its been used from GTA4 to their latest games. You can also use compute shaders for some physics but modern game developers are lazy. The only thing that kills CPUs is highpoly animated characters, too many different materials & shaders. But modern good game developers use shader vertex animation for NPCs which only uses GPU & change into skinned mesh when you start interacting with the NPCs GTA to Spiderman NPC. Cyberpunk implement same thing in their updates which drastically improved performance. Capcom must fix or ditch their game engine.

I just checked up the prices of them... oh boy, they arent even cheaper than a 12400F and have lower clockspeeds to boot xD

Amen brother

As one wise Al Yankovich once said, "it's all about the Pentiums!"

glorious 4K at 1 FPS

😂

CPU = Handles the gameplay or game feel. GPU = How pretty your game looks. I take gameplay over graphics any day, so i always overspend on CPUs.

But GPUs are miles better in running Physics just use Nvidia PhysX which is awesome & cross platform. But modern game developers are not using PhysX which is a missed opportunity. Rockstar games have their own GPU based Physic Engine called Euphoria its been used from GTA4 to their latest games. You can also use compute shaders for some physics but modern game developers are lazy. The only thing that kills CPUs is highpoly animated characters, too many different materials & shaders. But modern good game developers use shader vertex animation for NPCs which only uses GPU & change into skinned mesh when you start interacting with the NPCs GTA to Spiderman NPC. Cyberpunk implement same thing in their updates which drastically improved performance.

@@ingamgoduka57 Nvidia PhysX, even on Nvidia, do not run everything on the GPU. I know this is hard to believe for many but is the truth, I know this for two reasons, one I was a old Ageia PhysX user, before Nvidia bought it (meaning I add a Ageia PPU...) and I'm a game developer (a modder to be exact) my self for more than 20 years now and I have worked with PhysX (and other physics engines). Nvidia passed this wrong idea about what PhysX can really do, on purpose, just to sell you more GPU's and they won, because the majority of people/gamers, are totally mistaken about what GPU PhysX acceleration really does in games. In reality the only physics a GPU can accelerate, in real games, is the non gameplay impacting physics. Meaning soft body physics like, cloth movement and destruction, liquids, dynamic fog effects, particle based physics, ex. glass breaking peace's or similar effects and rigid body objects, that can't affect the AI or the player, in any meaningful way. Physics that can affect the AI or the player, meaning those that can kill/block the AI or the Player, is always run on the CPU, no matter what. For example, rigid body objects that you can pickup, with a gravity gun like in HL2 and shoot at NPC's to kill them, that is always run on CPU. Bullet detection/collision for shooters, is always run on the CPU. Collision detection for AI navigation, is run on the CPU. Collision detection for audio, is run on CPU. Ray tracing for gameplay, is run on CPU, etc. There's plenty of physics, in real games that exclusively run on CPU's, even on Nvidia, because there's no other way. Yes Nvidia has demos, where they have GPU's, running a bunch of rigid body objects around that look just like those moving around in games, but those demos, have zero AI, is all visual flare, the minute you put AI in the scene and the physics objects need to hurt the AI the physics have to switch to the CPU. And just for those that may wonder, this was true with the Ageia PPU as well, in reality the PPU was just a low power ASIC, with a custom processor with a bunch of tiny cores, very similar to a GPU.

Also the more amount of unique NPCs in a game, the higher the CPU load

Analogy to understand the relation between CPU and GPU: - GPU = orange - CPU = orange juicer - Objective: get quickly the highest amount of juice from the orange (highest possible FPS) = get the biggest possible orange (higher GPU) but don't forget that the best orange juicers (better CPUs) are the ones that get more juice from the same orange and avoid the worst orange juicers that can't even penetrate the orange (very low CPUs).

I agree. I had 3600 as well and it's not a very good CPU to play with ray tracing effects. I'm still using 2070super and even it was getting bottlenecked by 3600 for raytracing. Now I'm using 13900K and it's buttery smooth.

How is 4070 super holding in 1440p IAM planing to buy one but kind of nervous

@@EliteGamingG786 You can just... look up benchmarks online...

LOL even a 7600 isn't good enough

Yes but the good news is that a 7600 can max out GPU at 4k. While at 1440p or 1080p, a 7800x3d will do a better job.

Oof, Zen 1 was really bad for gaming. Zen 2 was better, but I think Zen 3 is when AMD actually started competing with Intel in gaming CPUs.

I mean it's very possible in a few games at 4K Native like Doom Eternal or even RDR2, but the combo isn't very reliable😅.

@@atirta777 I don't think those two games are very good examples. Neither of them is GPU-intensive enough relative to their CPU usage, and I expect an RX 7900 XTX would still be significantly bottlenecked by a Ryzen 5 1600X. I'd pick a different example like Cyberpunk 2077 with ray tracing enabled, which is so GPU-intensive at 4K (especially for AMD GPUs, which aren't great at ray tracing) that an RX 7900 XTX actually _wouldn't_ be bottlenecked by a Ryzen 5 1600X.

@@nathangamble125 Doom and RDR2 are good examples don't you think? The R5 1600X drives nearly 200fps on Eternal and I doubt 7900XTX does better than that with maxed RT on. Same with RDR2, about 90fps and 7900XTX doesn't reliably hit that at 4K Max. Also, we're talking about playable experiences here, which isn't the case with Cyberpunk 4K Native + RT on the 7900XTX.

Tell that person that he can upgrade to a 5700X3D for the cheap.

Especially the false narrative from NVIDIA that when you set resolution to 4K and enable DLSS you still play at 4K.

@@zzavatski Well.... yeah, but this is the fiction *everybody* is supporting, because (apparently) it is impossible to make hardware that will display games with any kind of effects in 4k at a decent speed for a reasonable price. If a 4090 -- agreed by all to be the most powerful hardware currently available, the "best of the best" -- can barely hit 60 fps at 4k Ultra in Alan Wake 2; can't even make 30 fps with RT on; if the only way to get decent framerates is through software 'hacks', *yet* Nvidia _still_ charges €1800 - €2100 for the hardware.... then we have to recognize that for whatever reason, the hardware is beyond its limit and everyone is lying and saying it isn't to get as much money as possible out of the users. Because it's ridiculous to think that I would spend €2000 on hardware that literally cannot do what I'm paying for unless you lied to me *like a **_boss_* .

Again they do it on purpose because in reality you don't need a super high end GPU to play 4k with high frames actually because it's about game optimization so if you optimize a game well enough you don't need a latest and greatest but they do it on purpose to make you buy the latest GPU so in a sense they work together because if games was so good optimize to run 4k 144 on a 1080ti for example people wouldn't have a reason to upgrade for does that mainly game it's sad but it's the truth​@@hollisbostick2872

True. Yesterday i tried Witcher 3 on both dx11 and dx12 on My i5 12600K, RTX 4070 different setting, resolutions and still have large frame drops on Novigrad.

@@grynadevilgearxd2442Witcher 3 next gen runs really badly because they hacked together a dx12 layer instead of making it run natively. If you try the Classic version you will have 0 framedrops in busy areas with your system.

@@Ravix0fFourHornWhat if we use Vulkan instead?

Yeah I know😀 because i'm playing on dx11. I just mean that Novigrad is more CPU bound with that many NPC.

@@grynadevilgearxd2442 nah witcher3 npc barely have any logic,they legit just block of texture that have 1 line and move around or never,witcher get high fps even on a 4core cpu xd,now rdr2 is a better test,days gone is also heavy cpu limited in town my 4core can barely output 30-40fps

Can you even explain what "cpu according to the framerate you like to play at" means? What would you recommend to a person who "likes" 60 fps? Or 144 fps?

2 steps when building a PC 1. Buy the fastest CPU in the market 2. Buy the fastest GPU in the market

@@aohjiiYou forgot the first step Step 1: Get a job

Respectfully disagree, the frames per second you might see on a chart will almost certainly not be your real world user experience. By the time you have a bunch of programs running in the system tray, a browser with 20 tabs open, discord and anything else you might have running in the background this will not be your experience, especially if you're like me and watching a 1080p or even 4k movie on a second screen while gaming. Typically I would recommend buying a CPU that is more powerful than you think you need, at the moment I'd say 8 cores minimum and scaling the GPU based upon your budget after that, temper your expectations and if you're not happy with your parts choice for your budget then wait and save more. It's always better to have a CPU that's more powerful than the GPU for so many reasons, the smoothness of operation is what you will notice day to day, gaming or not.

@@mertince2310basically he just means you have to balance your system. The gpu should almost always be your limiting factor in gaming. Hence why you spend 50% of your budget on the gpu. you choose the cpu that will not be the limiting factor. Obviously a 12400f and a 4090 is crazy. The cpu is the limit. Something like the 14700k is much more in line with the power of the 4090 and is a good balance.

What is an obvious thing to many to others it’s not 🎉

I've been saying this for years 😂.

Not to mention there is almost no reason to not run DLSS quality at 4K. It's where it shines the most

True, but youre good with a 4090 with even a 12600K or 5800X3D if you were gonna use upscaling. Its why with a 12700K im not really caring what new CPUs come out and havent cared about anything newer. Im more than fine with my 4070 Ti at 1440p, and id be fine with anything rivaling a 4090 in the future cause id realistically be moving to 4K in that case. Its complicating. If i were gonna buy a 4090 level GPU for 1440p in the future cause thats just how much harder it is to run 1440p max settings, id honestly just move to a used 14700K or 13700K, overclock and time the ram and be fine probably. Not planning on buying a new CPU+motherboard combo realistically till AM6 and whatever Intel has to over at the time.

You still got it wrong. At least kind of. Don't think in resolutions. The CPU doesn't care at all about any resolutions (only your GPU does) on the CPU side it is ALL just about FPS. If you have more FPS (on the GPU side) your CPU also has to work hardware and has to keep up. It alwas has to be able to render game logick at the required framerate. Usually GPU has less FPS at higher Resolutions and more FPS at lower resolutions. But if the game is not very gpu demanding you could also have like 1000 FPS @ 4K and you are CPU bound at like 100 FPS. Resolution. Doesn't. Matter. CPU -> Only FPS matter. You will get CPU Limited at a certain framerate in a specific game in a specific scene with specific settings no matter what resolution.

Is not a fair comparison, the 12700K kinda is a mistake by Intel, it is way too good.

@@saricubra2867 Well, whenever you make such a jump in CPU power and then add 'in certain titles', the response is automatically: no shit Sherlock. The 9400 doesn't even have multithreading. It's 6 cores and the same 6 threads. Plugging a Ryzen 1600 into those Starfield charts would probably show the 7800X3D to be miles ahead as well.

​​​? Is not that amazing, the 12600k is way better in that regard since it almost matches the 12700k in games for way less, in fact he should've gone with that one instead since he wasted money. ​@@saricubra2867

real

The best CPU to pair with an RTX 5090 will obviously be an Intel 8080.

Joke aside, that CPU was the greatest I've had. It was a huge leap in terms of x86 architecture and not overly expensive.

TY bro

I heard that the NVIDIA GPU driver offloads all the work to only a single CPU core, while the AMD GPU driver can distribute the driver workload to multiple CPU cores. Thus, you especially need a high single core performance CPU when you use a NVIDIA GPU. Someone please confirm, what I said.

- Remember, if you have 60 hz DISPLAY, then DISPLAY is your 60 fps bottleneck, no matter how high fps your CPU and GPU can produce.

excellent post! 🎉

Very short 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

none, which means my 5800x3d is dogshit

​@@brunoutechkaheeros1182 put RGB on your cooler.

I decrease the CPU render resolution to put more of the resolution on the GPU instead.

@@christophermullins7163 are you talking about draw distance? never heard of cpu render resolution before draw distance helps a lot for cpu and gpu but you will still get lag spikes a lot because of the pop in from draw distance

Applies more so to lower resolutions***

​@@christophermullins7163not at all. There is no difference in resolution. If you are playing at 60 fps, vou requirement will be the same regardless of resolution. People just say stupid things like this because they think "lower res = more fps = more CPU demand", but they fail to realize the CPU requirement increases due to higher fps, not lower resolution. They are not the same thing

@@meurer13danielHigher FPS means that the CPU has to handle a shorter game cycle therefore processing more inputs and outputs more quickly.

@@saricubra2867 I said that "CPU matters less at 4k than lower resolutions" and after watching this video, Daniel confirmed that my statement is accurate. The title is clickbaity AF. The point of the video is to say that when we say "play at 4k" we are more likely upscaling but that does not invalidate the original statement at all. "Slower CPUs have less of a performance hit at 4k" "CPU performance matters less at higher resolution" are irrefutably factual statements and Daniel himself knowd that without any doubt in my mind. It is all about the way we word the question and assuming we are using upscaling and lower graphics settings etc. it cannot be argued that anything I said is wrong. You'd be greatly benefited from trying to understand why that is the case if you still haven't realized that it is true. Go ahead and argue something irrelevant like Daniels video.. no one said anything about upscaling guys.. it's called clickbait.

@@christophermullins7163 But you are making a completely different statement. He didn't confirm your statement. This entire video is digging into the nuance of why cpu performance *looks* (emphasis mine) like it doesn't matter at 4k but it actually does. The issue isn't that slower cpus doesn't matter at 4k but more so that you're gpu limited if you just slap on max setting and called it a day. It will matter if you adjust down the settings and use up-scaling to reach your potential max framerate which is determined by what cpu you have. Most people aren't playing at max setting on 4k. It's like you heard the phrase "you're kind of right" and just stopped watching after that. You can argue all you want about how you're right but you actually aren't because you're making a statement based on a faulty conclusion. The data from the video above us literally tells us that you can be cpu limited at 4k and it does matter what cpu you have especially if you're reducing your gpu bottleneck by paring down the settings and resolution. No one in their right mind would recommend pairing a 4080 with something like a 2600x "because cpu doesn't matter at 4k" because we all know that it does bottleneck.

U should fine tune that even more with 14600k and a 7900xtx i get 150 to 180 fps in vald at 4k but the thing with vald is it artificialy limits gpu and cpu usage im always sitting at like 60% gpu and like 20% cpu usage in the emerald dream i get 90% + gpu usage and like 400+ fps at 4k

@@Billyshatner88Just get a 7800X3D which would blow both of them out of the water. Lol. In all seriousness, if the hardware you’re playing on is serving you well then no need to change it. The PC community STRUGGLES with this notion and continues to complain why they’re in debt.

Yeah, had a similar experience from the exact same upgrade in flight sim titles.

​@@Billyshatner88 psst... You're CPU bound. That's what being CPU bound looks like. If your framerate isn't hitting max and your GPU utilisation isn't at 100% that means you're CPU bound.

Yes CPU performance is all about raw data. Especially in multiplayer where you have to calculate 15-20 players like in a WoW raid that tanks the CPU hard while in a singleplayer game everything is predetermined the CPU doesn't have to do anything there.

I saw a person pair a zen 1 ryzen 5 1600x with a RX 7900xtx. They argued there is no bottleneck.

​@@ZackSNetworkwow that is insane. I can understand a 5800x3d or something but a 1600 isn't even going to have a PCIE 4 unless you go get a new motherboard that costs 3x the CPU 💀

Why would you drop $1,000 on a gpu and not at least get a 5600 or something for $130 more lol. Even if there is "no bottleneck"

They are the people crying why their framerates are the same on both low and max settings in certain games, and then blame it on bad optimisation lmao

People think that?

i'm still on a i7 8700k running at 4.8ghz with a 3060ti and i have people telling me all the time my cpu is still fine for gaming i play battlefield games all the time and helldivers 2 and it's always my cpu even when i play metro exodus this cpu is just to old now i cannot stay at 60 fps

Did the same change and got the same results as you, those better 1% lows make such a difference. Really wanted a 7800x3d, but factor in the price of the new ram and MB and it was 3-4 times the cost of just dropping in the 5800x3d. Shall stick with this for a while.

​@@ChoppyChofYeah, the 1% lows matter just as much. Most people think average fps is all that matters.

@theinsfrijonds Why not upgrade to a CPU that has more than dual channel memory? When I made the switch I noticed the difference in frame pacing, but I was also able to truly multi task. It amazes me that streamers don't use workstations to game with. Yes there's a limit of what a cpu can do at 4K, but no one has put the Quad, hex, and Oct memory channel systems to the test in a public video. The cool thing is you can work and GAME at the same time with a workstation. You have enough pci-e lanes that you can run two VM at the same time and use more than one GPU.. Gaming is limited to single GPU since SLI and Xfire bit the dust. if you have another GPU you can use VT-d and pass it through a VM to run rendering., professional workloads, or a streaming for youtube/twitch/whatever box on the same system. The use of unlocked threadripper and unlocked Xeon is not well know by those that focus only on gaming.

@@michaelcarson8375You save a lot more money buying an X3D cheap instead of buying an overpriced platform with quad channel support. The extra cache is equivalent to a giant memory OC.

@@michaelcarson8375 Those processors were out of my budget. I mostly bought AMD because it's more power efficient. I do hate the fact that the memory controller in their processors is definitely worse than Intel (limited to 3000 mega transfers per channel.) Also I'm not sure that there is a motherboard where I could access the second PCI Express slot with my 4090 graphics card. It's just that huge (four physical slots taken up in space but three on the back of the case.) Good to know though that there are uses for quad channel and up. I can only imagine that channels haven't covered that due to the limited number of buyers plus the fact that it would be very expensive for them to review

@@michaelcarson8375 Because workstation cpu are focused more on doing a bunch of things well rather than having high clock speed which some games really need. You could potentially limit yourself on performance if you go for something like a threadripper or a xeon cpu. Also the price difference doesn't really make sense for a streamer when they could put that money into second pc that they use for capture and rendering, keeping a eye on chat, and so on. They cut out the overhead on streaming without sacrificing performance this way. *edit* also using a vm while gaming could potentially get you banned if you play online if you can even launch the game at all due to anti cheat detection. A lot of cheaters used to use vms to run their cheats.

@@Shadowninja1200 Excuses excuses. There are unlocked CPUs from both Intel and AMD Those systems are the true high end desktops. Dual channel cpus no matter the number of cores are not high end desktops.

Will also handle background tasks better, plus more and more games can now take advantage of 12 or more cores, why hamstring yourself with 8?

@@mickieg1994 Because budget?

@@mickieg1994 only reason why I would go with 8 is if I’m hellbent on a x800x3D chip, but otherwise yeah the more cores the better

@@paul2609 I disagree, if the budget is that tight that you can't afford the extra £100 or so to go from 6 to 8-12, then you should seriously reconsider whether you can afford a pc at all.

@@teddyholiday8038It depends, for example, the 5900X has 12 big cores and the 12700K is hybrid. The only reason why i choose the 12700K besides the better IPC is the lack of CPU overhead (Intel thread director cleans interruptions for the main threads for any program). I wanted a X800X3D chip but they are 8 core only and they would feel like a slog when the scheduling isn't as good. Ryzen 9 5900X gets lower averages than these newer chips but 1% lows and frametimes are very, very smooth when the game is well optimized (like Cyberpunk 2077).

R5 5600 does not bottleneck 6800 on 1440p a very lil bit at 1080p

@@mrshinobigaming8447 they said r5 3600

@@mrshinobigaming8447 i have 3600 not 5600

since you saved money on a cheaper platform i would go as high as possible for gpu assuming you have the power supply for it. that gpu may end up slightly limted in some games, but 12600k is still a respectable processor. later on down the line you dont want to be in a situation where you want a cpu upgrade but your gpu then cant keep up with the new cpu.

@@AliceAliveOfficial77 yeah thanks that's what I thought

depends how much money you are willing to spend the minimum cpu i would go for talking about intel only is i5 12400F it's much newer then the i7 8700k i also have the i7 8700k and it cannot keep up any more the i5 12400F has more instructions and newer architecture more cache the i5 12600KF is much better with 10 cores and 16 threads much higher boost clock and more cache

@@DarkSoul-pb6dv I want to keep windows 10 so I plan on avoiding newer Intel cuz the p and e cores but this does help still thx

With a 7900xtx and 7800x3d i was gpu limited at ultrawide 1440p, i cant speak to city skylines, but at least for mfs2020 youll be gpu limited at 4k

Its kinda infurating that there is no comprehensive comparison of cpu performance on 4x/simulation games. Its always AAA stuff, id like to know how much a 7800x3d would improve my ticks per second on vic 3.

I bought my i7-12700K for PS3 emulation (besides for work), those games that you mentioned aren't as demanding.

Im in this scenario. Currently have a ryzen 3700x paired with RTX2080 and planning to upgrade to Rx7900XT. Im playing sim games at 4k, 60hz monitor. Wondering if the CPU bottleneck will be a problem and if a 5800X3D upgrade is a smart move. What do you guys think ?

@@BlueSatt A nice match i guess but that gear lifespan will be a bit shorter

You would be surprised how many people are bottlenecked by their wrong decisions and not researching when they are buying PCs or parts and wasting their money.

At 1080p? Yes. Probably in 90% of the games you play this system is cpu bottlenecked. But 120 fps is super game specific, can't talk about that in general. At 1440p, meh, probably not.

@@Chrissy717 so I’m just bottlenecked at 1080p ? I’ll be fine at 1440p and higher ?

@@IIIII47IIIII TLDR: I stopped as soon as I saw "upcoming release" which informed me that you are uninformed. PresentMon is on version 2 and it's been available for download for a significant amount of time already...

I have a 11 year old laptop with a pseudo 4:3 1440p CRT monitor, what is latency?

I game on Counter Strike 2 at 80fps with a high end CRT from 2001 (that can handle pseudo 1440p at 4:3) on an i7-4700MQ Haswell laptop from 11 years ago. OLEDs motion clarity are still terrible, having VGA is still a blessing and my CRT doesn't produce aliasing (phosphor dots >>> square pixels). If i could find the most powerful graphics card with VGA for my current tower PC, i would use that monitor and play everything at native pseudo 1440p (1856x1344).

@@saricubra2867 cool.

That's the thing tho, can't really drop settings for CPU limits. The only thing affecting it is (maybe) level of detail and, if the game has it, any other general setting that reduces spawn rate of NPCs and other objects that have collision and stuff. If your CPU can't hit 60 fps it just won't hit 60 and you either need to live with it or you need to upgrade. Even turning on dlss/fsr won't help (apart from frame gen).

I'm an i7-12700K owner, what is driver overhead? (a joke).

Correct, you are rendering internally at 1440p, again this is always game dependent

95% of the time yes

@@thewakly i literally only play cod mw3