Same. For me neither is a bottleneck. More like trying to fit a softball in a garden hose, lol. My PC has tagged in my house, and I'm currently being choke-slammed by all the repairs, lol.

😂😂😂 poor people are always bottlenecked

@@camotech1314 LMAO! So painful, and so true. I'm so poor I can't even pay attention.

that comment killed me

This comment made me laugh. So true.

That's a huge upgrade. Mine is similar. I upgraded from the i5-8600K to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D ... I've only tested one game... But Kingdom Come went from 40 FPS at ultra to 60 FPS ultra. Never knew my CPU could bottleneck my PC like that. I also massively upgraded the cooling, which helped keep temps insanely low. My GPU used to run at 90+ and my CPU at 90+ ... Now my CPU runs at 75 and GPU 75 at max.

I just went from a 6700k (4.8ghz) to a 14700k with a 3070, and from a z170 w 2600mhz ram to a z790 w 6000mhz ram, yet to pick it up, stoked! A 7900xt is planned next 😁 I'm at 3440x1440 120hz so I didn't think my cpu was bottlenecking super hard until I got into act 3 in bg3 😂

Yep! Im building a new pc and for the moment my GTX 1080 paired with Ryzen 7 7800x3d will have to work

Those microcenter bundles are the real value

@@balin1 In the UK Microcenter doesn't exist we have Currys PC World but the choice of peripherals is limited .

i play enshrouded on my i7 4790 and a rx 570 at 30 fps.....i dont mind tho cuz im old

@@tentymes10x i ve been playing at 60 fps a lot lately. i cant handle 30fps anymore XD

@@hamzaalhassani4154same, I upgraded to a 1650 super build from a 1050, and now I can play every game at 60 fps where before I was struggling to get 30. I can’t get used to 30 anymore

thats not such a bad setup. Cyberpunk is just really demanding game. I bet you would get 60fps in elden ring for example.

@@megapet777 i can get 60 fps, you're right. But i have to sacrifice details and use upscaling whenever possible.

Exactly, I upgraded my PC from i5 3rd Gen to i5 10th Gen, and GPU from GTX750Ti to RTX4060 only to find out that my i5-10400 is bottlenecking 😢 Now I need to spend more money on i7 or i9 12 or 13th Gen processor to get the max performance 😭😭

​​​@@DragomirGamingI really hope I won't be running into the same issue after upgrading to an R5 5600X. As it stands, my Arc A750 is being bottlenecked quite hard by the Ryzen 3 2200G. According to my tests with another PC, the Ryzen 5 is 2,6x faster than my current CPU so who knows. Edit: well as it turns out, no, a 5600X is not a bottleneck. In fact, it's the best gaming CPU in the price range.

that cpu will abselutely not get bottlenecked by a a750@@masterkamen371

I bought a 4070 for a computer that had a ryzen 5 2600 cuz I didn't know what bottlenecking was

@@user-ch1bx4hu9p You could buy a i3-12100F if you go with LGA 1700, if you want a faster CPU or want to go with AM5 than the R5 7600 should be plenty fast.

niceeee what setup u got

CoffeeLake and Turing build?

​@@_IMNNO😂

Because no one would ever put a 2080ti in a case with an I3 in real life.

Please resume this video

same 😂😂😂

RTX Overdrive

or just use intel's gpu busy graph to know what settings to use.

@@x0Fang0xtried and didn’t work at all with my rx 7600

YES! Always show frametimes pls.

Is there a way to check exactly which are the game threads and render threads? I don't see it in afterburner/rtss.

A lot will depend on how the game itself balances demands between the cpu and gpu, *and* what you are doing in the background. (I came back up here to mention, this got *very long*, so tldr people should just skip this post and have a good day ;D and, also, I *don't* have big issues with any other games, *including* what little I've played of cyberpunk -8.2 hours- So this is a story of an "exception to the rule" sort of thing. *One particular game* that brought my system to it's knees due to bottlenecking. For reference, I run an i7 7700 at stock speed, and a zotac 1080 mini at stock speed. ssds all around. it's a prebuilt -zotac mek1- except for the 1080, a beefier power supply, 32 gigs of ram and being stuffed with more ssds than zotac ever intended lol and while it may sound very old by today's standards, to build *the same tier rig* in today's market would be about 3 times what I could afford. Plus, since I use a 65" tv running 1080p@120hz I'm basically limited to 1080p gaming, which the current system already handles quite well *in most games*. STRESS the *in most games* part lol hence this bottle-necking story) Like, I play a lot of 7 days to die, which actually relies *a lot* on the cpu when there are hordes (lots of zombies at once). Things worked pretty well on the base game, but when I started running a mod (Darkness falls) that tended to increase the size of the hordes a bit, and some various other things, it was dropping the game from completely playable, to completely UNplayable (12-14 fps while dozens of zombies are trying to pound on you, with occasional drops to 0 fps. yes *ZERO* fps lol!). So I started messing with game settings, trying to see what I could turn down in hopes of squeezing out a few more fps to get by... But... What I discovered, was that I could actually *turn a whole lot of graphics settings UP* and it didn't really matter, and I was actually already running the game at much lower settings than I really needed to, because it simply wasn't really the graphics being too high that were killing me. There was a major game update right in the middle of my settings-testing so I never got to learn if there were any particular settings worth turning down... But what I did manage to learn fairly quickly, was that I was almost constantly pegging the CPU up to 100% (in the task manager. I didn't have anything at the time to look at single core usage, but if it's riding at 100% in the task manager a majority of the time what's happening per core is probably less important lol). Now... I'll bring up one of the *big* issues that I hit on as a problem right away. I *stream* my games. So I always have obs running in the background, and I always keep chrome open to monitor my stream (just that one window, on a second monitor) and often I have firefox open in the background, for this and that (I still have all the bookmarks from back to the early 2000's in my browser, cause I always move them forward to my next pc, so firefox sort of serves of *alternative/extra* memory for my brain, which I rely on heavily since I have such a bad memory, *plus* I tend to always open things in new tabs, and my browser loads with all tabs from the previous sessions, so I can look back over my previous tabs to help keep track of time and when i did things, what i was looking up yesterday and the day before, etc. I rely on this so-much-so that I often end up with hundreds, or even *thousands* of tabs in my main browser. I believe the record number of tabs i've had in firefox at one time was 3,172 or something like that. somewhere over 3 thousand, i'd have to find the pic to know the exact number for sure. but, for reference, chrome with my one twitch page open, tends to hog just-as-much-or-more cpu than firefox with 2,000+ tabs). Chrome tended to want to use about 14% cpu most of the time (it liked to randomly use 60+% for no obvious good reason) and firefox tended to want to use 7%-14% as well, so the first thing I had to do, was stop streaming for testing. Aaaand, well I didn't get much further than that before the big game update changed too much to use what I'd already done, which for various reasons had taken a couple of days. And it's that part that was really showing me how cpu-limited/bottlenecked my system was with this particular game. The basic problem was, that getting REAL reliable AND *consistently* repeatable test results on that game was a heck of a lot harder and more time intensive than I expected. It was *literally* taking me *hours-per-setting* to get AND verify consistent/reliable/meaningful differences between runs. And the primary problem was that my video card was simply a bit *too* good for single changes to make an obvious impact. As in, the difference between low/off and ultra/on could be between 0-5 fps difference, while the variation between runs *with the same setting* could ALSO be between 0-5 fps. So I wasn't able to do just simple run/spin around tests and get real numbers. They were all over the place. I had to build a big square base with a particular place to stand, run around to all 4 corners and spin around to get everything to load, reset the time and weather to be the same, set my crosshairs on a particular point in the distance, then spawn a given number of zombies set to run towards me, and log the fps while they'd be beating on the base, and while I'd be shooting, etc. had to do that multiple times for *every single setting* to have consistent accurate results. And just running around in the city wouldn't have told me anything, because *that* part wasn't what was killing my fps. it was when my cpu was having to do this and that when there were large groups 25-50 or more trying to chase/attack at once. Which, ironically, was the absolute WORST time to have major fps drops. But, anyway, yeah. I *thought* that all these fancy green flamey effects that were added to some of the zombies (added by the mod) were going to be what was killing my fps, but no. spawning zombies that had lots of effects, had almost no impact compared to ones that didn't. That was all within the realm of what the graphics card could handle, if it was being allowed to handle things *at all*, which it *wasn't* when there were large groups, due to the cpu bottle-necking. So, yeah, if you go to do some graphics troubleshooting/tuning, and find that turning a bunch of settings down doesn't seem to actually help, and/or actually seems to make the game run slower/worse, you may very well be cpu-limited/bottlenecked, because your gpu is stuck waiting around for the cpu to take care of some things before it can do it's next job. And, since I still can't afford to upgrade to a similar tier modern system, i'm probably looking at needing to upgrade from my 7700 to a 7700k, since the k model's base clock is as fast as the standard model's full/max "turbo" speed. My mek1's proprietary bios may not allow me to actually overclock the k, but just the default speed bump would essentially be an overclock, so it's all good. And with that, I think this system will be about as maxed as it can get. Although... I actually have a factory refurbished 2080 super in the mail that i got for a decent price, which is probably the max video card I could use in this system. lol That might seem silly considering I've been talking about my system already being bottlenecked by the cpu, *but*, there's some caveats. 1) My system is only this heavily cpu bottlenecked *on this one game*. other games, which balance things more heavily on the on the graphics side, don't have such a game-breaking limitation. 2) The new video card costs $276 (including tax and shipping). I couldn't buy anything near that tier from nvidia for that price, and I will *never* touch another "noone would ever notice that it doesn't have a 256-bit memory interface during normal gaming" card again... I bought a lower tier card that was recommended on that advice once, and had to suffer a year of seasickness-inducing micro-stutter before I could afford another 256 bit card to replace it. And since nvidia is now even chopping down their xx70 series cards, that only leaves me xx80 series and higher, which cost... well you know what they cost ;P 3) The 2080 super is a "blower card". My system was designed to use a 1070ti blower card, which sits in a little chamber, and the blower card blows all the heat out the back. I swapped it for my 1080 mini, because I already had the 1080 and i didn't want to use a 70ti when I already had an 80, even though, in my quick round of testing, the 80 didn't really perform much different than the 70ti. But, yeah, the temps with the mini are *bad*. I even tried adding a fan to pull the hot air out, and it made literally no difference. AND I found during recent testing that my 1080 *will not throttle* even though it's supposed to. so it's a risk to leave it running in there unmonitored. and it's actually the heat issue that was my biggest reason to buy the newer card. now it's time for lunch :) lol

Can you please help me? I got a Ryzen 5 3600x and 6750XT and there is a significant Bottleneck what should I do?

@@al3xb827 Turn graphics settings up. You can probably play at better settings without losing FPS due to the CPU bottleneck. You can try to OC your CPU if you have thermal headroom. You can try limiting the framerate, if you are experiencing large hitches in performance. ...Or just upgrade the CPU.

@@princexaine5340 thanks. Somehow it looks like in some games if you change the graphic settings there isn't such a big impact on fps. But yeah that was my idea to oc the cpu at least. Cause I just bought the GPU sometime later this year I may upgrade the CPU.

@@al3xb827 Right, and I know hearing "upgrade" after you've already dropped money on a component isn't the answer we all want to hear, but in reality, you can only do so much to mitigate the bottleneck your setup is experiencing in titles where a powerful cpu is beneficial.

Just stop being poor 😂 bottleneck solved 😅

@@camotech1314 ok i will stop being poor, from now on i will be a millionair. Thanks for the lifehack!

Just stop being solved 😂 bottleneck poor 😅

Just stop being bottleneck 😂 poor solved 😅

Just bottleneck being poor, stop solved 🔥🔥

don't you just love it when you got an fps sissy crying about not getting the same fps as jay or some other youtuber video on the high end with their gpu even though it is still butter smooth? to play the game?🤣🤣🤣

@@raven4k998 What looks and feels butter smooth to one person is not the butter smooth to another person. Lots of people are happy with 60 FPS from a motion clarity and input lag perspective. There are lots of people who have a much more enjoyable experience when they are at 90 FPS to 144 FPS. It is down to their preference. I don't judge other people I just help educate them to get a smoother, faster better looking gaming experience.

@@micb3rd cry me a river cause the point he made was that 20 fps is nothing at all

This really messes up VR, where frametime is king.

if you have shadow of the tomb raider do the benchmark in 1080p it will tell you, check GPU BOUND if it's 99% your gpu is limiting the game if it say 0% it's your cpu, this will tell you the balance of your setup

@@fredEVOIX Thanks for the tips. Cheers!

My brother had a system with a stock 3770k and upgraded to the GTX 1070 back in 2017. He got a couple years out of that setup and he had no complaints. He did upgrade to a 9900k, but not for the sake of gaming performance.

@@friendlysloth hmm. I see. I guess I know what to expect now lol

@@ThickpropheT I'm still running a 3770k with a 1070 and there is nearly no bottlenecking. At best like 2-3 % depending on the game/task, so it's not noticeable.

I dont see recommending a 7800x3D or a 12700k for 1080p High without RT a "better utilization", there is nothing good in that

ohhhh. that would be why my 4770k and 3080 have been acting weird after the update. frames are still there as normal but CPU uti is like... 60% now.

@@max16 But if it's because of better utilization, shouldn't your fps increase along with the usage?

@@justcrap3703 Not necessarily.

​@@justcrap3703maybe the GPU was already at it's limits as well.

That's an excellent analogy because that's basically exactly what happens. My only addition to this is while they're sitting around waiting for each other, the painter would be sipping some soy latte abomination while the mathematician would be sucking down double shot espressos, lol.

​@@demontekdigital1704its still use it when hitting 144fps

That would mean your VRAM, SSD and RAM are like the accountant/warehouse manager who holds and keeps stock of whats being used/needed... Right?

Also if you frame limit your fps to below your monitors refresh rate then it’s very hard to get cpu bound as well. There’s no reason to have more frames then your monitors refresh rate. You can just set this globally in nvidia control panel or AMDs settings. ( Don’t use in game settings for it (or v sync) as they often are terrible and cause problems).

its like a restaurant operation where GPU is the kitchen and CPU is the Front of the House. When kitchen is beefy enough and can send food as fast as it can and FOH just can't keep up in delivering the food, thats cpu bottlenecking. The kitchen will end up slowing down production because why? no one picking up the food to go anyway

Now play a normal game

apparently 90% usage on an 8 core CPU from what a developer said on Twitter

Depends on what windows does, ONLY seeing 90% on a 4 core 8 threads example. But having 32 threads etc will be hard oressed to see the total go over 30 to 50% usage. Plus cpus do spc so far more that also reduces usage.

I'm pretty excited for this personally. I have a 4090 and a 5800X3D and it already runs the game amazingly, with DLSS 3.5 and the CPU usage upgrades I feel like the game will be jaw droppingly beautiful.

@@maolcogiI'm in the same boat but with a 13900k, extremely excited but concerned about temps lol

@@durrik The Cyberpunk Dev did say to make sure your CPU cooling is up to the task 😅We'll find out tomorrow

the beauty of computing, whether productivity, gaming, or other is tailoring something to your use case. I see it all the time in subreddits where people throw out recommendations with very ltitle information on the use case scenario. As a professional, most the stuff I read and watch on KZfaq really misses the mark. Nvidia has iterated leaps and bounds with its GeForce Experience gaming optimization settings and slider. It used to be horrid but does a pretty bang up job dialing in settings if you take the time to use it. Decide on a target FPS you want, then turn the slider until you find a breaklpoint that you like.

I got a 5600X with a 3060 Ti and living in Miami FL. Even if I was willing to buy a peak end system I can't tolerate the heat that dumps out of anymore more powerful. The ventilation in this house isn't setup to handle a hot spot like that. Nvidia would need to give me a voucher for a central AC upgrade and more duct installation.

​@@Mr.Morden5600x will handle a 4070 1440p no issue.

just got a 7800xt but still on my r5 2600 lol looks like a 5600x will do fine upgrade@@jondonnelly4831

I have rtx 3060ti in my old i7 3770k machine. It can play most newer games without issues. Even the newest i3 is better that that but it still going.

My god thank you for mentioning that its an I3 he mentioned. I was confused cause I thought he misspoke and meant a I7 13700 and was like.. woa.. how would that be a bottleneck

Or my antique i5-6600k paired with an RTX 3090. That situation is being resolved this month when all my new build parts arrive.

@@thedoctor7158 im running an I5 9400F with an overclocked RTX 3070Ti. Will also solve the issue soon.

@@Alex96194 parts arriving by the end of the week except a few parts like the Thermaltake CPU frame and AIO arriving next monday.

@@Alex96194 I am going with an i7-13700K, not 14700K as the "refresh" doesn't really make it much better than the 13700 but does cost extra, 96GB DDR5 6400. I also bought a seasonic 1600W PSU with a 10 year warrnaty that will not only likely outlive my system even if I have it for another 20 years but also has plenty of head room for higher powered components down the line. I am waiting to see what the 5th gen Nvidia GPUs look like so not going with a 4th gen as my 3090 is still good enough for really any game at 5120x1440 super ultrawide.

This probably explains why my RYZEN 5 3600 paired with a GEFORCE GT 710 is making my games from 200fps down to 60fps in a second just by dragging my mouse left and right

Something not often talked about...at all? Dude Literally everyone talked about this when 4060 were released, for example hardware unboxed did one comparison between 3060(or 4060 cant remeber) and 6700xt in games with bigger vram needs

@@xXLEGEND368XxNo they didnt. Dude. They talked about how it fucks performance but not that you can actually have 8GB 100 fps and still the game runs like shit with a million stutters and all it ever was is YOUR VRAM. How many games people complain about stutters when their hardware was just to shit to even load all the assets in time

The axact same thing I thought!

lol I was just going to comment that, I was like how the fuck do you do that?

@@daniell9834 RTX being too real😂

same here!

agree with this also because I use a 2070 super lol so I would like to see a ryzen 5600 or so which is the most popular for most of gamers and a 2070, 3060, or 3070 or so maybe 3080 or different cards with different CPUs

HUB has a couple of videos on this topic.

Starfield has me confused. According to their min specs I'm below or at min with a 1700x and a 1080 but it runs just fine at 1440p medium settings. Dips below 60 in the large cities but I can deal with that. What I don't understand is why people with better cpus and gpus are having the same issues

I used this on my 3070 TI Rig and it worked great. Highly recommend @@alfredthibodeaux2414

@@insomniacjack729 the game engine doesnt really like more than 8 threads aka 4 cores, on 8 cores you didn't really saw this but now that we have 10-16 cores this became relevant, games don't know what to do and jump between cores all the time creating stutter and fps drops, imagine talkking on the phone but every word plays on a different one and you have 16 in front of you...that's the problem but devs know it, a lot of recent games limit core usage by default now

@insomniacjack729 Starfield is one of this year worst offenders, though. It's very badly optimized. Someone discovered recently that the Bethesda developers have a bad gpu driver implementation.

for me my bigger fear was the operating voltages of ddr3 and 1.65v ram vs 1.5v in that "ERA" it grew to be quite troublesome for a lot of end users during this time. Where a newer GPU also required a relatively ideal range of 12v rail operation/capability....paired aspects of vdroop etc when running 1.65v ram in these sort of scenarios which largely FRIED/KILLED a lot of ppls builds/systems etc. ESP as they were little/by little upgrading aspects of their build like GPU/SSD etc....w.o realizing how INTEGRAL a TIGHTER system from an operating voltage stanpdoint....building a PC really GREW into/became...even to this day.

This is why i say if you have a Cpu bottleneck you should instantly do a 15% overclock on the gpu as the card makes up for the gap a tiny bit but you still have to know there will be slow downs and loading issues etc. Thing is these issues really dont bother as much right now in my current combo so im good.

im alright, if my belongings all returned theyll keep me busy for years

i mean some ppl "adapt' b-die ram....and OC the snot out of their ram....w.o realizing the price difference is near trying to grab a better cpu/board/chipset/ram combination w.o trying to buy "BENCHMARKER FLAGSHIP ram kits" Price difference PURELY from a if you "SELL" what you have for an "upgrade" the cost/difference is almost negligible

@@erikbritz8095 Yeah OC'ing can improve things but it could potentially also have lasting long term effects. On the CPU. I support OC'ing on test benchmarks but for gaming its kinda walking into a black hole a bit. Any bugs or glitches that occur is like a soup of worms. XD. Most devs will just be like WTAF are you playing on hardware from the late 90's for XD.

@@MJSGamingSanctuary nah my idea us a low level overclock so enough to feel a difference but not enough to hurt anything. Plus my pc is doing fine post gpu upgrade so now im saving up for a i5 13600k or Ryzen 5 7600x combo.

yeah did that with 4670 long time ago, absolutely no difference

The issue with the test you suggest is the mobo of that settup will not have sufficient PCIE lanes. So at that point you are bottlenecking on the motherboard before the CPU even comes into the picture. That renders the test inconclusive as to how much of the bottleneck would be from the CPU.

@@fortigan2174 the Crossblade Ranger has a 16 lane pcie slot...cards only use 8. I'm not sure what the lane issue you speak of is, however I do realize that older boards have older gen lanes. Now speed can have a huge impact, but you have to go way way back in time to drop below pcie 8x... My point was, gimping the CPU does not give an accurate reflection of a real-world scenario, where someone might be trying to use an overpowered graphics card in an old system that cannot keep up.

@@fortigan2174 I'm no expert, and if I am missing something in my previous comment, I am open to clarification. Thank you.

haha!

Yeah I have a 3600 and seeing if that would bottleneck a 4070 hard

​@@GregBurgess360depends on your setup, but most likely it would be heavily bottlenecked. You should consider upgrading your CPU to something better on the AM4 platform if you don't want to spend much more

Just turn on the graph in-game and you can see performance in % of the GPU and CPU. If you play a high GPU tense game like Cyberpunk at 1440 with high settings and your GPU is below 98% performance it's for sure bottlenecked. @@GregBurgess360

I have a new (bought 2 months ago) 6750 XT with a 9900K. I can tell you the bottleneck is real with that pairing.

​@@GregBurgess360 as a fellow 3600 owner, it would, but not by that much. It would also depend on what res you're playing at. I play 1440p so my CPU doesn't work as hard

the 5700x3d is very good for its price

What cpu do you have? I have a 13700k and im planning on getting a 4090

@@BarneyMartinez I got a 7600x. I game at 4k all the time. Extremely happy with it. Planning on getting the next 7800X3D, which would be "8800X3D" once it comes out in probably a couple years.

Yeah, i went from 1080p 60hz to 1440p 165hz recently and it's mind blowing. Of course, if you have at least 100fps in games. At 60fps it's not a big difference, pretty much same, just a higher resolution. But at competitive titles 144hz or above is a gamechanger

What did you upgrade to from 5600X? I have RX 7800 XT now and 5600X and it kind of feels that the 5600X is a little bit of bottleneck in some situations.

What happens when cpu bottle necks gpu? I can currently get a 4090 at a good price and considering buying?but I currently have 5800x3d cpu, if I bottle neck at 1440p will games stutter or drop frames etc? Thanks

@@dragonclubracing8669 A 5800x3d will work fine with a 4090, hell you can get away with a 5600x. Some cpu heavy games will have a little bottleneck on a 5600x, but no matter what you have a bottleneck in your system which was the entire point of this video. Any CPU that has came out in the past 5 years that isn't a I3 or Ryzen 3 will run a 4090 just fine. Even more fine if your planning on playing 1440p or 4k.

i mean if you play on 4k or 21:9 with that gpu it will not seem as bad either vs qhd or 1080p in a scenario where youd be foolish enough to try to run a 240hz 1440p monitor or a 360hz 1080p monitor for some asinine "gaming" purposes.

IT IS fine, these cpu terrorist always upselling you stuff. I'll pair a 3300x with a 7700 xt just out of spite, I bet it'll be fine for 1440p 60 fps...

i set my 3600 at 2.2ghz all cores, still hitting stable 60 fps in 1440p gaming in rdr2 and cyberpunk with a 3060ti eagle

​@@rusudan9631clearly GPU limited😂

If you're using a 3600 in games like Starfield or Cyberpunk, you should feel bad. You are leaving so much performance on the table, and I can tell you this considering I had a superior 3700X and swapped to a 7600X. Unless you're running lighter games, a 5600X3D or a 5800X3D would massively improve your gaming performance in Cyberpunk and Starfield.

@@rustler08 You’re right. Thankfully, I’m only playing BG3 and LoL at 1440p 144Hz. If I wanted to run Starfield I’d need to sell my kidney. Not interested.

yeah i remember playing for honor on a new 6700 xt with a r5 2600 thinking looks nice but something is off, and when i moved to AM5 with same gpu and 7600x, the 1% lows and all the hick ups were gone.

Thats a downgrade..

@@BansheeNornPhenex How is that a downgrade? The 6950 XT is twice as fast

I agree with the sentiment of confusion here. It's not just about bottlenecks. It's how do I maximize the potential of a 3080 or a 7900xt so that my older CPU really isn't a problem? Are certain areas of a game really CPU intensive (bottlenecked) regardless of settings? 3440x1440 is a good use case. You'd think it'd stay GPU bound, but lower a setting and maybe now you're CPU bound. But if you have everything ultra, you get less FPS. I think most KZfaqr's are almost getting there but it's still confusing. The best recommendation I have is to turn on metrics and test every setting yourself to see where the bottleneck is when min/maxing for FPS vs quality.

I have 4790K and 4K as well, and just upgraded to 7900XTX, still don't get CPU bottlenecks that would warrant CPU upgrade. Might even modify my Z97 motherboard to support ReBar (there's github for that) to get more performance out of that ol'reliable CPU!

@@Gastell0 I still did find it worthwhile to upgrade my CPU though. There are some games where the CPU performance was subpar, and the upgrade to a better CPU made stutters less frequent. Just because I tended to be more GPU rather than CPU limited, it doesn't mean that I always was limited by the GPU. Better CPU performance still improved on the general gaming experience overall. More so in some titles than in others though.

@@Gastell0 So say we're playing Starfield on ultra settings. We want more FPS but not so much a loss in visual quality. Does the CPU start bottlenecking in the city no matter what or just when we lower settings trying to improve FPS? There seems to be a fine line between min/maxing and shifting load back onto the CPU that I think we will just have to figure out for ourselves on a per game, per area, per rig basis.

@@mackan072 That's definitely, I was debating what to upgrade, MB+CPU+RAM or GPU, and went with GPU as it provides the most gains (I changed from GTX1080)

I had an FX chip with a 1070. Before that an HD 7950. I don't think either ever saw usage over 75%.

@@nhf7170 I used an FX-8350 with an AMD 480 and it was a pretty good match, though the CPU was the bottleneck more often than the 480 was.

It's quite easy to understand even before buying a card: Hard bottlenecks should not happen anymore as long as you got at least 8 cores. Even a 6 core cpu running at high speeds will seldom drop you to framerates that are considered bottlenecks in its fullest. Best advise is: Running a midrange-cpu -> buy a midrange gpu. Pairing a 5600x with a 4090 is not a good choice. Funny thing is: Any 8-core cpu nowadays ( if it's 8 perf- cores ) should be safe not to force you into any bottlenecks. So best advice to the end: If you got a cpu, read the test what it was performing like with gpus that were out at that time. Then search for a gpu- test with the cards you want to use and 1 of the cards in the cpu test in it. Check the performance difference of the cards. The trick behind this is, that usually there will be the best performing card of the cpu generation listed. If the cpu was able to run that card unlimited, any card with equal or minimal higher performance won't cause the cpu to bottleneck. Most times you even cards with much higher performance will only be slowed down. Real bottlenecks occur only when the cpu or the gpu are not able to handle the workload anymore and they have to wait for each other. Therefore: buy accordingly and get your game settings right. Most times when running into bad frame times, increasing resolution or using gpu-intensive settings will lower the average fps by a bit, but will smoothen out frame consistency, which in the end will give you the better experience. I know this answer is long and hard to read, but giving a list of which gpu to buy to which cpu would take years to make. Just because there is so many combinations out there. Plus, you would need to do it for every resolution and a long list of games to get consistent results.

Google bottleneck calculator. There is a nifty website that lets you choose a CPU, GPU, what you’ll be using them for, and at what resolution. Check it out. 👍🏼

Honestly. You have a very good pairing with the 5600x and 6800xt. As for bottlenecking on paper is really down to the individual game your looking at playing. Some are cpu heavy and others gpu heavy. Hypothetically you could get similar performance in a game with your 6800xt paired with a 5950x or your 5600x. If it’s GPU heavy. But the next game may play way better with the 5950x if it’s a cpu heavy game. The argument could be made that your previous pairing, 1070 and 5600x your cpu is bottlenecked by your gpu. This is where I’d want to be btw. Not the other way around. But I digress. I don’t upgrade anything until I see something in my system isn’t providing the level of performance I’m looking for. Then I look at deals and wait for the best bang for buck. Kinda like you did looking at the 6800xt I just upgraded to a 5600x from my 3300x because I started playing games that needed more cpu to push the frames to my gpu fast enough. (Gpu at 60% util) But before I never needed a faster cpu. Just gpu. To touch on your psu question. I’d go with the 750W. I’d push for a good 850W though. Cards are getting more and more power hungry so in the future when you need another upgrade you don’t want to be buying ANOTHER psu just to power the next gpu. Buy one that’s good now so you can slot in a gpu in the future. Your psu is a component that can grow with your rig. And for your pairing question of the 7600x. I’d buy the best gpu for your budget. Even if your cpu is bottlenecking it a bit in specific titles. Your gpu potential isn’t going anywhere. Amd will be releasing another gen on am5 (finger crossed it’s the same story as am4) you can upgrade then to get the potential in your gpu then, when you need to. Buy what you can afford and have fun gaming! But I’m just a dude who has his own opinions on stuff and I’m sure someone will shoot me down 😂 I hope this helps. Cheers.

Hardware Unboxed and other benchmarking tech channels show cpu scaling vids every few months, thats the best place

@@imo098765 Thanks for the answer, that's how I decided on my GPU. I shot it for 509 (average price for a 6800XT was 560 Euro, 6950 is 640 Euro). But it took me some time to find a channel providing me with the necessary information. I could have needed a video as a guide for it, including possible bottlenecks for certain CPU / GPU combos.

I think the point is that Synergy matters 👍

Yeah. As long as things are of similar age and of similar price tiers you’re okay. Don’t pair a Celeron with a RX 7900xt. Don’t pair a 7800x3d with a RX 6400. And people will need to know there is no magic set of hardware that REMOVE bottlenecks. They don’t realize that different software will use hardware differently.

Not entirely true, If your cpu and mobo can only do pcie gen 3(which is intel 10gen and previous), and you buy a lower end gpu like the rx 6600 gpu that only has 8 pcie lanes you will see stutters and lower fps then if you had gen 4 8 lanes or gen 3 16 lanes.

Thats not due to CPU choice, that just the 6600xt itself, and it would be FPS not stuttering. PLUS 6600xt isnt fast or powerful enough to benefit from gen 4 PCIE much at all you lose MAYBE 5% from actual tests ive seen. If youre on a 6600xt youre already gonna have stutters and lower fps. Plus the 6600xt is a HORRIBLE buy, 2080ti is a solid 65-80% better and 150 bucks USD less, and a 3080 is like 50 bucks cheaper and even better @@neiltroppmann7773​

@@neiltroppmann7773Valid point, although the stutter part is a bit farfetched as from what I know the only thing that'd actually change is the framerate