4 ms·

You don't need it if you DO play games. I'm running an 11 year old Xeon, that maxes every modern game at 2560x1600 on a 1070. GPU is WAY more important than CPU

You don't need it if you DO play games. I'm running an 11 year old Xeon, that maxes every modern game at 2560x1600 on a 1070. GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming.

leetcrew 6y ago
> GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming. depends on the game. plenty of popular esports titles will bottleneck on the CPU with even a low end graphics card.
- overcast 6y ago
  Look at any gaming benchmarks, unless they are running them at low resolutions, the CPU is not the bottleneck. I agree there is some fringe simulation cases, but most gaming is not inhibited by CPU. Once you're up in the 2k and 4k land, the GPU is the bottleneck. This video focuses on 1080p performance benefits. There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money. Anyone paying $500+ every time there is a new CPU platform, is guaranteed already running 2k and 4k content.
  - outworlder 6y ago
    Simulation is not necessarily 'fringe'. Kerbal Space Program, Oxygen Not Included, heck... Dwarf Fortress (ok, the last one IS fringe). You are correct that most games don't use that much CPU. Most titles will run comfortably with an Intel I3 from the past three generations or so, provided there are no bottlenecks in the GPU. The CPU will be the bottleneck, but if you are getting sufficient framerates, so what? Modern CPUs are insanely powerful. Even then, I moved to Ryzen - for the above mentioned titles.
    - overcast 6y ago
      I run Kerbal and Dwarf Fotress on an 11 year old Xeon, as well as every other modern game with a 1070 at 2560x1600. All the eye candy on. I'm not suggesting running a decade old CPU, but it's completely silly for this presentation to be pumping expensive CPUs for 1080p gaming benefits.
      - pdimitar 6y ago
        I don't disagree with you but I think this AMD video focused on closing the gap with Intel's single-core performance -- and many games are still single-core.
      - schnabeltierr 6y ago
        The reason why they ran the benchmarks at 1080p is because they want to ensure they are not GPU bound.
    - hombre_fatal 6y ago
      I upgraded for Crusader Kings and, especially, Stellaris on large galaxies. Simulations are a great example of needing CPU.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    it's really not so clear cut outside of the few highly gpu-intensive AAA titles that get released each year. I play csgo (an older, but still very popular game) on a 4k display. my gpu hovers around 40% at max settings, while a couple cpu cores are constantly pegged. it is hard to find benchmarks to show this however. the reputable sites mainly focus on 1080p because this is where the difference between cpus is most visible. doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference at higher resolutions, it just isn't as good a way to show what they are trying to show in a cpu review. > There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money. agreed, the speedup is almost never worth such a short upgrade cycle, especially for consumers. but this is moving the goalposts given the thread's context.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y According to DF, 4k games are bottlenecking on the CPU via the 3090
    - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
      When do they say that in the video? The CPU-limited comment at 10:28 is for 1080p / 1440p.
      - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        10:41 , so 10 more seconds. I910900k bottlenecking Hitman 2 at 4K Max
        FartyMcFarter 6y ago
        It doesn't seem like that's 4K: the text on the top-right corner clearly says 1080p or 1440p next to each framerate. The narrator also says 1080p and 1440p. It's definitely confusing, since there's a mention of 4K elsewhere...
        NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        Sure, but that drives the point further right? Already CPU bound at 1080P
        leetcrew 6y ago
        not really. cpu bound at 4K implies cpu bound at 1080p, but the converse is not true.
        FartyMcFarter 6y ago
        No. The CPU is the bottleneck at 1080P, but the GPU might become the bottleneck at a higher resolution.
  - Matthias247 6y ago
    While I agree with the general statement, I want to remark that 1080p is actually 2k if you treat 2160p as 4k. I guess you mean 1440p - which you could maybe label as 2.6k. But I don't think there is any such designation. Calling it WQHD is probably the right thing.
  - jyrkesh 6y ago
    The big CPU-bottlenecked esports game is CS:GO, or any other Valve / Source game. Even on an older CPU with mediocre single-threaded perf (i7-5820K), I can run the game fine on high settings, 1080p (100-250fps), but it occasionally dips down below my 144hz refresh rate, which can be annoying. And yeah, the GPU is never begged while playing, but multiple CPU cores definitely are. Also, emulation is another big place where CPU bottlenecking is a thing. Look at Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii), Citra (Wii U), and yuzu (Switch), they're all CPU bound. Folks in the various subreddits will ask why their new GPU isn't netting them a higher framerate, and it's because the GPU is almost not even used (though in some cases with better graphical effects, shaders, etc. they can be beneficial)
mikepurvis 6y ago
It depends. I threw together an HTPC a few months ago out of mostly second-hand parts and it's been a mixed bag. With an i5-4460 and an RX 570, I can run modern shooters perfectly, but a bunch of indie games give me unexpected trouble. Hades for example (isometric roguelite heavy on visual effects) still gives me lots of slowdowns and framedrops, and I even get jitter and issues on some really old titles that I would have expected to be butter-smooth, like Sonic Generations.
- overcast 6y ago
  The RX 570 is definitely a budget level GPU, an upgrade to that would certainly give you what you need to run those games on an I5 properly.
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    Sure it's a budget card, but I don't think it's the issue, because I got great performance on COD WWII (2017) when I tried it at 1080p on high settings. Additionally, the games listed as problematic ran great on a Dell laptop equipped with an 8th-gen i7 and a GTX 1050 mobile. At least, they ran great for like a minute or two until the thermal throttling kicked in. So given that my HTPC build does have issues, and it has a slightly better GPU and much worse processor, I'm inclined to think the processor is the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much point trying to get a better processor than that for the old LGA 1150 board, when I could spend only slightly more cash on some DDR4 RAM, a B450 motherboard, and maybe an older Ryzen to be upgraded to one of these Zen 3 ones in a few years when prices have dropped.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Have you tried MS Flight Sim? That's the game that convinced me it's time to upgrade my trusty i5-4670k
easde 6y ago
If you're playing at high framerates (120Hz+) you'll find that your CPU is inadequate for many recent games. (playing games on a 1070 and a 6 year old Xeon and feeling the lack of single-threaded performance)

You don't need it if you DO play games. I'm running an 11 year old Xeon, that maxes every modern game at 2560x1600 on a 1070. GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming.

leetcrew 6y ago

> GPU is WAY more important than CPU in gaming. depends on the game. plenty of popular esports titles will bottleneck on the CPU with even a low end graphics card.

overcast 6y ago
Look at any gaming benchmarks, unless they are running them at low resolutions, the CPU is not the bottleneck. I agree there is some fringe simulation cases, but most gaming is not inhibited by CPU. Once you're up in the 2k and 4k land, the GPU is the bottleneck. This video focuses on 1080p performance benefits. There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money. Anyone paying $500+ every time there is a new CPU platform, is guaranteed already running 2k and 4k content.
- outworlder 6y ago
  Simulation is not necessarily 'fringe'. Kerbal Space Program, Oxygen Not Included, heck... Dwarf Fortress (ok, the last one IS fringe). You are correct that most games don't use that much CPU. Most titles will run comfortably with an Intel I3 from the past three generations or so, provided there are no bottlenecks in the GPU. The CPU will be the bottleneck, but if you are getting sufficient framerates, so what? Modern CPUs are insanely powerful. Even then, I moved to Ryzen - for the above mentioned titles.
  - overcast 6y ago
    I run Kerbal and Dwarf Fotress on an 11 year old Xeon, as well as every other modern game with a 1070 at 2560x1600. All the eye candy on. I'm not suggesting running a decade old CPU, but it's completely silly for this presentation to be pumping expensive CPUs for 1080p gaming benefits.
    - pdimitar 6y ago
      I don't disagree with you but I think this AMD video focused on closing the gap with Intel's single-core performance -- and many games are still single-core.
    - schnabeltierr 6y ago
      The reason why they ran the benchmarks at 1080p is because they want to ensure they are not GPU bound.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    I upgraded for Crusader Kings and, especially, Stellaris on large galaxies. Simulations are a great example of needing CPU.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  it's really not so clear cut outside of the few highly gpu-intensive AAA titles that get released each year. I play csgo (an older, but still very popular game) on a 4k display. my gpu hovers around 40% at max settings, while a couple cpu cores are constantly pegged. it is hard to find benchmarks to show this however. the reputable sites mainly focus on 1080p because this is where the difference between cpus is most visible. doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference at higher resolutions, it just isn't as good a way to show what they are trying to show in a cpu review. > There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money. agreed, the speedup is almost never worth such a short upgrade cycle, especially for consumers. but this is moving the goalposts given the thread's context.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y According to DF, 4k games are bottlenecking on the CPU via the 3090
  - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
    When do they say that in the video? The CPU-limited comment at 10:28 is for 1080p / 1440p.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      10:41 , so 10 more seconds. I910900k bottlenecking Hitman 2 at 4K Max
      - FartyMcFarter 6y ago
        It doesn't seem like that's 4K: the text on the top-right corner clearly says 1080p or 1440p next to each framerate. The narrator also says 1080p and 1440p. It's definitely confusing, since there's a mention of 4K elsewhere...
        NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        Sure, but that drives the point further right? Already CPU bound at 1080P
        leetcrew 6y ago
        not really. cpu bound at 4K implies cpu bound at 1080p, but the converse is not true.
        FartyMcFarter 6y ago
        No. The CPU is the bottleneck at 1080P, but the GPU might become the bottleneck at a higher resolution.
- Matthias247 6y ago
  While I agree with the general statement, I want to remark that 1080p is actually 2k if you treat 2160p as 4k. I guess you mean 1440p - which you could maybe label as 2.6k. But I don't think there is any such designation. Calling it WQHD is probably the right thing.
- jyrkesh 6y ago
  The big CPU-bottlenecked esports game is CS:GO, or any other Valve / Source game. Even on an older CPU with mediocre single-threaded perf (i7-5820K), I can run the game fine on high settings, 1080p (100-250fps), but it occasionally dips down below my 144hz refresh rate, which can be annoying. And yeah, the GPU is never begged while playing, but multiple CPU cores definitely are. Also, emulation is another big place where CPU bottlenecking is a thing. Look at Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii), Citra (Wii U), and yuzu (Switch), they're all CPU bound. Folks in the various subreddits will ask why their new GPU isn't netting them a higher framerate, and it's because the GPU is almost not even used (though in some cases with better graphical effects, shaders, etc. they can be beneficial)

mikepurvis 6y ago

It depends. I threw together an HTPC a few months ago out of mostly second-hand parts and it's been a mixed bag. With an i5-4460 and an RX 570, I can run modern shooters perfectly, but a bunch of indie games give me unexpected trouble. Hades for example (isometric roguelite heavy on visual effects) still gives me lots of slowdowns and framedrops, and I even get jitter and issues on some really old titles that I would have expected to be butter-smooth, like Sonic Generations.

overcast 6y ago
The RX 570 is definitely a budget level GPU, an upgrade to that would certainly give you what you need to run those games on an I5 properly.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Sure it's a budget card, but I don't think it's the issue, because I got great performance on COD WWII (2017) when I tried it at 1080p on high settings. Additionally, the games listed as problematic ran great on a Dell laptop equipped with an 8th-gen i7 and a GTX 1050 mobile. At least, they ran great for like a minute or two until the thermal throttling kicked in. So given that my HTPC build does have issues, and it has a slightly better GPU and much worse processor, I'm inclined to think the processor is the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much point trying to get a better processor than that for the old LGA 1150 board, when I could spend only slightly more cash on some DDR4 RAM, a B450 motherboard, and maybe an older Ryzen to be upgraded to one of these Zen 3 ones in a few years when prices have dropped.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

Have you tried MS Flight Sim? That's the game that convinced me it's time to upgrade my trusty i5-4670k

easde 6y ago

If you're playing at high framerates (120Hz+) you'll find that your CPU is inadequate for many recent games. (playing games on a 1070 and a 6 year old Xeon and feeling the lack of single-threaded performance)