How can you tell me what my parts do?
That's pretty hilarious considering that I own the parts and it's in my computer. I don't play multiplayer so yeah.. I don't know where you got that.
Sometimes it changes and the gpu is at 70% and the cpu is at 100% on certain games but it's rare, like I said, heavily cpu bound games. In 95% of the games I've played the cpu stays lower and the gpu is at 100%.
Okay though, whatever you say.. You definitely know the facts of my build way better. Kudos to you.
I have a heavily modded Skyrim and New Vegas.. I still rarely see dips below 40fps in those games.
Gimme half an hour and I'll go play them and give you the cpu loads for them.
I can tell you your wrong because I own a Q9550 and a GTX 560 which is a much lower card and in CPU heavy games like BF3, BF4, Skyrim, Metro and the likes I see a bottleneck and the Q9550 maxing out at 100%
I think it will play them fine but you certainly wont be maxing games out regardless of the video card. I have an i7 950 that is bottlenecking my current card atm. Those chips are old man. You should be able to play the new games though
I should've probably noted that I'm running at 4.0ghz stable.
What resolution and game settings btw? I don't know what to say then cause I have a Q9650 and my results don't really show that.. So I don't really know why my results are different then? I did state that Metro and Crysis have created a bottleneck though, so, I'm mainly disputing Skyrim and BF3, as I've ran both those with little bottleneck in BF3 when there is tons going and no bottleneck in Skyrim, even with all my mods.
I can post screenshots if you want..
The frequency only makes a small difference. You can not leave out the pcie lanes and well. Theres a reason why most boards only supported crossfire, not sli, because it couldnt handle dual 9800 GT's. you put a R9 290x in there. You will bottleneck, end of story. Invest in an 8320 or 4690. a boost of 1.17GHz does not make up for the performance increase from a GTX 560 that bottlenecked to a GTX 750 ti or R9 290X.
So I played Skyrim for half an hour like I said I was going to and here are the results in afterburner:
I extended the length in MS paint to add in the 4th core.. Still, the most heavily used cpu, core 1, is maxed 87% and the gpu maxed 90%. I was gaming at 1080p on Ultra with a 60fps cap and all my texture mods, companion mods, extra worlds, and quest mods on. It never dipped below 40, and I can go play it again to prove that.. Now the cpu was much more constant but there were some battle scenes that amped up the gpu usage. Oh and yes all my maximum limits are at 100 except for things that don't really effect it: gpu temperatures which is set at 80C, and frame cap of 60.
I don't have BF3 installed but I can assure you the results will be similar. Maybe my afterburner is broken? I don't know.
look at the gpu bouncing up and down, in your graph.
you are bottlenecked as hell by your cpu lol, and then you dont even play "multiplayer" games like BF4
i can roughly predict what your parts are doing, based on the parts you list me. I would call it hardware knowledge :)
You dont seem to understand cpu + gpu demending scenario´s and a potentional bottleneck.
Like i said, your core to quad bottlenecks your 290x massively. i allready knew this, but now you delivered your own proof. ☺
Yeep, core is bouncing around like hell ie bottleneck. Should be a solid line +- 5% depending on whats going on on screen. Massive bottleneck.
my 4770k at 4.6 struggles with skyrim XD. Though K ENB is killer.
Because power wise, Maxwell is a killer. The cost difference is easily outweighed by the saving on your power bill.
Perfect example of a severe bottleneck,look at the GPU usage and how bad it drops down in usage then back up,your cpu can't keep in a demanding scenario and cripples the gpu
I don't even get it?
How can the gpu usage get to 90% then and the cpu not get to 100%? I get to 100% when rendering on all 4 cores.
Alright....... Maybe I just didn't understand how it works.
Oh well. I'm bad at understanding how it works then... I don't get how it could get to 90% and 87% on the cpu. It's not constant but still, I thought if it was a bottleneck then the gpu would be at a constant usage while the cpu was maxed, I thought that is how it worked. Anyhow, I get the frames at the resolution I want. So I don't really care about anything else.
Because something included in the term CPU bottleneck is a chipset bottleneck. The chipset you are using does not have enough bandwidth to the CPU to support the GPU. Doent matter if you have that CPU clocked to infinit, The chipset will also bottleneck. On this chipset with that CPU, its ether the CPU or the chi[pset that bottlenecks. Depends on the game. You may be getting 40 FPS but on that card you should be seeing 60+ ion skyrim and you would have a shit tone of micro stutter.
Even getting an fx6300 system with a basic AMD motherboard will see a good boost in performance. Yes the fx6300 has worse single core performance but its a 6 core so better overall performance not to mention the chipset has a wider PCIe bus to deal with the GPU. Still not perfect but better than a Q9550. And I loved my Q9550. Still used it up untill last year as my main system.
CPU ussage highly depends on how the games are designed. Some games only utilize 1 or 2 threads, other can utilize 4 or even 8 threads.
This clearify´s why your cpu is not allways maxing out.
But your bottleneck is still there. The only thing which might help you a littlebit is Mantle, Mantle can take some of the overhead away from the cpu.
But im still affraid you will suffer from the slower cores of the core 2 quad.
Yes I know that part. The part that I lacked knowledge of is the complete definition of a bottleneck. I always thought it was one part was working at 100% while the other was less than it. I used benchmarks of higher end processors only using 50% or less cpu in certain games so I just took that and ran with it thinking that lower end cpus must use more and the latency, memory, and other issues will drop frames. Like a 4790k has higher framerates than a 4670k by roughly 10 frames, yet neither cpu is being used at 60% (most of the time). So I thought utilizing my cores at 80-90% wasn't a bottleneck as the gpu was typically reaching higher, but I lacked knowledge of the consistency required.
This computer and the 290X card has been my first use of the afterburner software.. To further it, in only a few games has my cpu maxed out completely, and yes I'm only talking about the 1st core, I've yet to find a game that utilizes all 4 above 90%. Yet every rendering program I've used will use all 4 cores at 100%, so I took it as it accepted the card and could run it to its full potential. So that was my confusion and not realizing the chipsets could bottleneck like anon said. Also like you said the games optimization, I also thought the optimization of some games could use the full hardware of a computer, but alas that may not be true and games typically have much shittier optimization than I thought.
The bottleneck is still there, but either way, I'm sticking to what I said, the stronger gpu won't hurt your system and you'll have good fps. I have good fps in most games. While the bottleneck is present, I couldn't really recognize it and my fps didn't dip down enough for me to really bother with it too much. I have used a 6870 in this system as well, and the 290X in it now performs much better, if even there is a bottleneck present. I still think that is due to the fact that the gpu is the most important piece of hardware for gaming..
The bottleneck you have is a data transfer bottleneck and a higher GPU will hurt the system's performance. You would get a more enjoyable experience on a GTX 470 than on a 290x because the GPU will be able to run constantly, not ramp up then down ramp up then down. There is not one definition for a bottleneck. A bottleneck is when some aspect of the system is hampering the performance. Every system has one, Thats why we dont have computers running crysis 3 at infinite frames per second. Most systems the GPU is the bottleneck. It performs as hard as it can but cant do any better and so it is bottlenecking the CPU from running at 100% CPU usage. But your system, you have huge amounts of bandwidth going through a small PCIe bus leading to burst of data. This causes micro stutter.
Lol, did you think that through?
I'll break it down for you. Let's say there is a 100W difference in consumption between the two cards at full load. Let's say you play 9 (nine) hours a day, every day. That's 9*100*365=328,500 Wh (Watts hour) = 328.5 kWh (kilowatts hour) a year.
A kWh in America is about 10 cents, in some areas more, in some areas less. A year, you pay $33 more for the power the 270 draws. When you buy a video card, do you care about your framerates or about the power bill?
If you have time to play 9 hours a day, 365 days a year then there is definitely someone else who is paying the bills. By your reasoning, the Titan Z (to name a model from the NVIDIA camp) is worse than the 750 because it consumes too much power.
EDIT: the reason people recommend the 750ti over 270 is because they are gullible and easily influenced by NVIDIA marketing propaganda.
lots of good advice, I think I might just temper my expectations and go ahead and use them.
