Is this game more GPU or CPU bound after the graphical/engine upgrade?

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Because even though my GPU (GTX 1050 3GB) is in between minimum and recommended per the updated system requirements (although closer to the latter), I'm not sure if the game still relies on the CPU as PhysX is implemented in-game and can't seem to be disabled. I do have vsync enabled and I noticed that changing the mirror and vegetation settings seem to impact performance, but other settings like anti-aliasing and shadows doesn't seem to at all.

My CPU (i5 9300H) is actually being bottlenecked by my GPU, as I'd need at least a GTX 1660 Ti/RX 5600M and preferably RTX 3070 Ti/RX 6800M to not be; according to benchmarks I've done with Crucial and UBM (yes I know that site is shady), I have won the silicon lottery, although that doesn't mean much with PhysX lol. I also have 16GB DDR4 2666MHZ (dual channel), 500GB storage (M.2 SATA + 2.5"), and Windows 11 Home 23H2 if that helps.

[Neyoz08]

full cpu bound ^^

[Wolfgang]

The game is currently CPU bound as it is running mainly on a single core.

And yes, the game is using CPU PhysX to ensure compatibility for everyone. And since it isn't a physics heavy game you shouldn't notice anything. You can however still go back to bullet with the following launch command:

-bullet

But yes, your bottleneck is the GPU and I would advice the following due to the current GPU market:
- If you need high end GPU try to find the AMD 9070 GPUs at MSRP.
- If you really want Nvidia, then see if you can find a used GTX1070 to GTX1080 Ti (these are still very potent GPUs even today thanks to their VRAM) or if you need the newer features (DLSS, RTX) then see if you can find a used RTX3070 or higher but it shouldn't cost more than MSRP
- If you want the best value for your money (and your Mobo supports ReBar) then go with the Intel Arc B580. Again, try to find it at MSRP or close to it. I know, there is the bashing of Intel dedicated GPUs but they are right now the best you can go for if you want decent value and not want either high end or used GPU.

Edit: The CPU you specified is a laptop CPU. So if you are running a laptop you have sadly no upgrade path other than buying completely new.

[Antaiir]

As others already said, you need a good CPU. When you compare benchmark tests, look for good "single core performance" / "performance per core" values.

[Bonzoguy]

I have i58400 . Used to have a 1050ti 4gb , but now using a rtx2070super .

[[ BBS ] Bootleg]

the bottleneck is not really that much set in stone, depends on how you configure your system (performance vs stability). got a modest i5-3470 here, at 3.2GHz , running an AMD rx550 (4GB) and can easily run the game in high settings at 1920x1080.

so it mainly depends on what performance you're looking for from the game. there is only so much that the current game engine can do.

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by Wolfgang:

Edit: The CPU you specified is a laptop CPU. So if you are running a laptop you have sadly no upgrade path other than buying completely new.

yeah i'd have to get a desktop, as my gaming laptop doesn't support Thunderbolt, so an eGPU is not a viable option

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by Antaiir:

As others already said, you need a good CPU. When you compare benchmark tests, look for good "single core performance" / "performance per core" values.

i5 9300H @ 2.4GHZ = i5 6600K/R5 1500X
i5 9300H @ 4.1GHZ = i5 8600K/R7 2700X

These comparisons I gave are under the assumption my laptop is charging, the desktop equivalents are not overclocked nor de-lidded, and doesn't account for specific niche cases where they may surpass my CPU. And obviously because I won the silicon lottery, my i5 9300H performs better than most although there are some people with i5 9300H that perform even better than mine. I've also undervolted and power limited my CPU and iGPU via ThrottleStop, along with using a laptop cooling pad, so that further skews the comparison; I think without the 3 beneficial factors, my CPU would probably only rival i7 6700K or R7 1700X at best.

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by BBS Bootleg:

the bottleneck is not really that much set in stone, depends on how you configure your system (performance vs stability). got a modest i5-3470 here, at 3.2GHz , running an AMD rx550 (4GB) and can easily run the game in high settings at 1920x1080.

so it mainly depends on what performance you're looking for from the game. there is only so much that the current game engine can do.

yeah that is true, but the GTX 1050 3GB (on par with GTX 1050 Ti in raw performance, but winning silicon lottery made it rival GTX 1650 Ti; keep in mind these Turing GPUs will obviously have some inherent advantages over my Pascal) is still too slow to keep up with my i5 9300H in CPU bound and mixed cases.

how are you still using such an ancient CPU in 2025? you can easily get like i5 12400F from a few years ago, and that runs circles around even i7 9700K and R7 3800X

[[ BBS ] Bootleg]

Originally posted by 4K_240hz_MLED:

how are you still using such an ancient CPU in 2025? you can easily get like i5 12400F from a few years ago, and that runs circles around even i7 9700K and R7 3800X

i know but so long as this thing gets the job done (well above my own expectations) i don't see a reason to change it. my old one dated back to 2003, had a radeon hd5570 2GB back then, and that thing kept playing stuff on medium/high settings well beyond 2020. so whatever people say about "not good enough for minimum" usually is bullocks. that budget setup i had a few years ago could still pull things off in this day and age.

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by BBS Bootleg:

Originally posted by 4K_240hz_MLED:

how are you still using such an ancient CPU in 2025? you can easily get like i5 12400F from a few years ago, and that runs circles around even i7 9700K and R7 3800X

i know but so long as this thing gets the job done (well above my own expectations) i don't see a reason to change it. my old one dated back to 2003, had a radeon hd5570 2GB back then, and that thing kept playing stuff on medium/high settings well beyond 2020. so whatever people say about "not good enough for minimum" usually is bullocks. that budget setup i had a few years ago could still pull things off in this day and age.

so you can play games that require at least i5 9400F or R5 3600X? i'm kind of skeptical, unless those games care more about single core than multicore performance

but yeah, i agree with the don't fix what ain't broke mentality; i could upgrade to R9 9950X3D, RTX 5090, 32GB GDDR7, 256GB DDR5, 4TB M.2 NVME, 12TB 2.5" SSD, and 4K 240HZ OLED 0.01ms GSync over my current i5 9300H, GTX 1050, 3GB GDDR5, 16GB DDR4, 250GB M.2 SATA, 250GB 2.5" SSD, and FHD 60HZ IPS 20ms SDR...yet why should i when everything is fine?

although due to some eye problems i've been experiencing these last few weeks, i may consider getting a QHD 144HZ OLED 0.01ms FreeSync soon.

[[ BBS ] Bootleg]

Originally posted by 4K_240hz_MLED:

so you can play games that require at least i5 9400F or R5 3600X? i'm kind of skeptical, unless those games care more about single core than multicore performance

doesn't mean literally -all- of them, just the ones that are above my system specs at this time (i5-3470 and rx550). these include (but not limited to) ets2, ats, caribbean legend, mafia2 (def.edition) , mafia3 (def.edition) , dredge, saints row (entire series), world of tanks, world of warships, just to name a select handful.

should give you an idea of what this relative old/dated setup can still do.

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by BBS Bootleg:

Originally posted by 4K_240hz_MLED:

so you can play games that require at least i5 9400F or R5 3600X? i'm kind of skeptical, unless those games care more about single core than multicore performance

doesn't mean literally -all- of them, just the ones that are above my system specs at this time (i5-3470 and rx550). these include (but not limited to) ets2, ats, caribbean legend, mafia2 (def.edition) , mafia3 (def.edition) , dredge, saints row (entire series), world of tanks, world of warships, just to name a select handful.

should give you an idea of what this relative old/dated setup can still do.

well Euro Truck Simulator 2 needs at least GTX 660 for the GPU, but i forget what for the CPU for minimum as per recent system requirements; the RX 550 is on par with the GTX 1050 (2GB), so you're fine there. i'm gonna assume that American Truck Simulator was also updated to a newer engine as the system requirements are the same.

[[ BBS ] Bootleg]

aye, i'm fully aware. the funny detail is, i got the rx550 just two years ago. before that, the old radeon hd5570 (back from '02/'03 i think) was still able to pull off most of those games mentioned earlier, just at lower graphs. true, mafia 3 was a bit taxing on the thing, most of the others worked absolutely fine in medium graphs *shrug* hence why i'm not too bothered by "minimal requirements" cause the actual minimum is much lower than those posted. goes to show you that most people are simply too demanding/spoiled of what they see on their screens :)

[QHD_144hz_MLED_5ms]

Originally posted by BBS Bootleg:

aye, i'm fully aware. the funny detail is, i got the rx550 just two years ago. before that, the old radeon hd5570 (back from '02/'03 i think) was still able to pull off most of those games mentioned earlier, just at lower graphs. true, mafia 3 was a bit taxing on the thing, most of the others worked absolutely fine in medium graphs *shrug* hence why i'm not too bothered by "minimal requirements" cause the actual minimum is much lower than those posted. goes to show you that most people are simply too demanding/spoiled of what they see on their screens :)

well minimum usually means what the developers officially guarantee will run, and if you have anything worse then you're on your own if ♥♥♥♥ happens

i think at launch, the RX 550 was on par with the GTX 950 but over time due to driver updates managed to rival the GTX 1050; i know that the RX 590 (listed as recommended) was faster than the GTX 1060 but slower than GTX 1070 (basically GTX 1660), but over time was updated to pretty much rival the GTX 1070 (or GTX 1660 Ti). obviously it still depends on the game, config, resolution, settings, rig, etc.

[[ BBS ] Bootleg]

exactly that ---^

so if people with hardware thats well above mine are complaining about stuff like that, i just crack a smile and shake my head. (hence the 'spoiled' comment earlier). the simple reason that my old rig can still pull these kinds of stunts is that developers actually consider people with old(er) hardware or less powerful machines that just the top-of-the-line products. so as long as they keep doing that im gonna be golden without the need of spending hundreds or thousands on another computer :)