Does this program show if my CPU is the bottleneck?

[Oblaque]

Hello,

Sorry, I am very new to this program, but does this show whether my GPU or my CPU is the bottleneck that's holding back my PC? In short, will it tell me if my CPU is not fast enough for today's games at maximum settings? I have a GTX 1080 founders edition but my CPU is a quad core corei7 3.66ghz overclocked.

[UL_Jarnis]

Your question is not so simple to answer. Bottleneck depends on the work. Light enough task and yes, any configuration is CPU limited.

Now if you set a level of work - for example, pick one of the 3DMark tests - and then get a result and compare that to other results from other sources that have the exact same CPU, yet different GPU, or the same GPU, but different CPU, you could make some educated guesses as to is your system CPU limited with that specific work.

But you don't really need the benchmark for that - just good reviews that have large number of resulst from various systems.

GTX 1080 is currently the fastest single GPU out there, so it is definitely CPU limited on any light GPU load. On 3DMark, I'd say Ice Storm, Cloud Gate and Fire Strike Performance tests are most likely CPU limited on your configuration. The rest - Fire Strike Extreme and up - will need 2 or more GTX 1080s to hit CPU limits.

So, it all really depends on what exactly you run on your system. There are definitely games out there that are (framerate) limited based on your CPU and this depends greatly on the settings you use on those games.

So, to answer "3DMark can give you the performance of your system under variable loads. Some of the available loads are definitely CPU limited, some are not. What is the "bottleneck" depends on what you run on your system".

[Oblaque]

Originally posted by FM_Jarnis:

Your question is not so simple to answer. Bottleneck depends on the work. Light enough task and yes, any configuration is CPU limited.

Now if you set a level of work - for example, pick one of the 3DMark tests - and then get a result and compare that to other results from other sources that have the exact same CPU, yet different GPU, or the same GPU, but different CPU, you could make some educated guesses as to is your system CPU limited with that specific work.

But you don't really need the benchmark for that - just good reviews that have large number of resulst from various systems.

GTX 1080 is currently the fastest single GPU out there, so it is definitely CPU limited on any light GPU load. On 3DMark, I'd say Ice Storm, Cloud Gate and Fire Strike Performance tests are most likely CPU limited on your configuration. The rest - Fire Strike Extreme and up - will need 2 or more GTX 1080s to hit CPU limits.

So, it all really depends on what exactly you run on your system. There are definitely games out there that are (framerate) limited based on your CPU and this depends greatly on the settings you use on those games.

So, to answer "3DMark can give you the performance of your system under variable loads. Some of the available loads are definitely CPU limited, some are not. What is the "bottleneck" depends on what you run on your system".

Oh I see :) Thank you for the detailed explanation. I only play the latest PC games at absolute maximum graphical settings on a 27 inch, 144hz, G-Sync, 1920 x 1080 monitor. One of the games that I notice a bit of jitterness is in Starcraft 2. I was thinking as I played that game "how on earth is this game lagging when I have a GTX 1080?!"

But then I started to realize that it has to be my CPU. It is a Corei7 860 quad core overclocked to 3.66ghz. 4 actual cores and 4 virtual. I thought quad core 3.66ghz was plenty, but Starcraft 2 put it to shame haha.
would you recommend a CPU with more cores such as a 6 to 8 core processor with 3.5ghz? Or a quad core CPU that is overclockable to around 4.5ghz?

I mostly run 2 - 3 game at the same time at max settings in borderless window mode. I alt-start button through them. My specs are: 8GB RAM, 3.66ghz quad core CPU, GTX 1080 GPU, Samsung 850 EVO 1TB SSD and Windows 10 64-bit.

[Samikka]

4 cores are enough just get new cpu with newer architecture like i7 6700k

[UL_Jarnis]

Oh wait, if it is an older i7-860, it would definitely be a bottleneck with GTX 1080, especially in CPU-heavy games like Starcraft II.

your first post didn't really specify the i7 model so I kinda assumed it to be a bit more recent one.

If you are going to upgrade something on your system, a new CPU and motherboard is definitely the biggest upgrade you can make and there would be a substantial difference in games that have heavier CPU load - the CPU is, after all, something like 7 years old...

Number of cores or the clock speed is not the main thing - CPU generation is. Since i7-860, Intel has released four generations of new processors and even with the latest Skylake quad-core CPUs are "only" around 4-4.2Ghz and have the same 4 cores as yours, the difference to your generation of i7 is simply massive. You can compare the CPU test score from 3DMark on your system to a CPU test result from anyone running, say, i7-6700k (I'm sure some i7-6700k owner can link his score!) and it would demonstrate the difference in actual CPU performance.

[Oblaque]

Oh..... fuc k...... hahaha damn. I didn't know my CPU was that bad. Okay then, I'll have to save up for a new motherboard and CPU. Thanks for your help everyone :) I really appreciate it.

[Oblaque]

Originally posted by ZM | Dr. Dro:

Originally posted by Binomial Nomenclature:

Oh..... fuc k...... hahaha damn. I didn't know my CPU was that bad. Okay then, I'll have to save up for a new motherboard and CPU. Thanks for your help everyone :) I really appreciate it.

It isn't bad, mate. It's just old, lol. If it serves you as any consolation it's still faster than AMD's fastest CPU around :)

But indeed, your GTX 1080 will love having more processor power available for it, and NVIDIA's driver set doesn't suffer from CPU overhead as badly as AMD's does, so it's still a very fine machine. I'm still on SLI 980's myself, waiting up on the Titan P to see if I sell them off or just keep them for the long haul, probably the latter.

Oh okay whew! I am relieved now haha :) To be honest, I have no idea how and why AMD is still in business. Their CPU's and GPU's are good to point and laugh at best.

[Oblaque]

But, on the other hand, I guess they are good for competition to keep Nvidia's cards price down.

[Oblaque]

Originally posted by ZM | Dr. Dro:

Most people that are "loyal" to AMD these days are either people seeking budget options (in a few cases they shine), newbies that think more cores = better and nostalgic followers wanting to relive their Athlon64 hey-days where AMD was the clear superior option compared to Intel, something that doesn't happen in the past 10 years or so.

To most as long as something isn't a complete slideshow they're happy enough, I guess; but if you want the very best, you'll only find it with an Intel/NVIDIA configuration at the moment. Zen might change things, but I wouldn't be too hyped, after all, they DID manage to make Polaris10 flop - it might be a good product, have great performance for a great price, but the RX 480 still performs worse than the GTX 980 in power consumption, rendering performance and heat production even on an advanced 14nm LPP lithography (980 is 28nm)

Oh ic ic :) that is extremely interesting. Oh man, I can't wait until the Titan P comes out. I'm going to pass out due to time out.

[Raptor Jesus]

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TScpVAGNdcI

[Oblaque]

Originally posted by Raptor Jesus:

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TScpVAGNdcI

I currently love you. Now I feel a lot better about my current CPU :) I now know that my CPU "isn't" a "massive" bottleneck at the moment.