Ryzen 7 1700 still not used at 100% why?

[SHREDDER]

It has been 2 years and 5 months since i boughyt ryzen 7 1700(i had core i5 2500k from june 2011-march 2017 then mb got bured so iforced to buy 1700) and what inotice even today. is that while i play each game at max setttings 1440p that even those games who demang 8 cores cpus for max settings use it at less than 50%.
here a video i uploaded from assasin creed odyssey playing it maxed 1440p as you see cpu usage is less than 50% all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_49NMt_oxY
How to fix it? i have all latest drivers intalled(gpu and chopsets).
Pc specs arw
Mothberoard: asus prime x370 pro
cpu:: RYZEN 7 1700
GPU: GTX 970 G1 GAMING
RAM: 16 GB DDR4 3200MHZCL15 GS KILL RIP JAWS
hdd1: WD BLACK 4 TB
HDD2: 1 TB
psu: corsair 750m 750 watt
monitor : DELLP2416D 24'' 2560X1440 60 HZ IPS

As you see from the specs evrything is 2 years old except gpu which will become 5 years old in 1 month. I must also say that this problem didnt exist with 25ook that was used at 100% by all games even since november 2014 when i bought gtx 970. Why is this happening?

[UTFapolloMarine]

possibly a bottleneck with that 970 i could be wrong but try putting all settings to maxed max unless you are, id say go get a 2060 or higher

[r.linder]

You still have the wrong expectations about the hardware you preach about, and still don't seem to understand what you preach. You don't want games to be using 100% of your CPU resources, especially when it's an 8-core CPU that's well suited for multi-tasking.

AC:O also doesn't gain more than a few FPS from going from 6 cores to 8, but it gains twice that from 4 to 6. An overclocked 1600 can get the same performance.

Originally posted by POUusnavy:

possibly a bottleneck with that 970 i could be wrong but try putting all settings to maxed max unless you are, id say go get a 2060 or higher

He won't listen to you, because he has it in his mind that NVIDIA is going to magically release a 3080 Ti this year, when they won't. They have no reason to because they still have AMD Radeon in a headlock.

The 970 shouldn't be holding back the 1700, as the 1700 performs around the same as a 4770K or 4790K in most games, with exceptions like AC:O because those games benefit from 6 cores, which 4th gen CPUs from Intel obviously lack.
Clock for clock, 1st gen Ryzen is just barely ahead of 4th generation Intel, only gaining advantage in workstation builds and games where more cores actually mean something, which are very few.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfnvB1cEfzg

4 or 8 cores doesn't matter when a workload only uses 4 cores. When it comes down to the program using only 1~4 cores, the 8 core 1700 will only perform as good as it's match in IPC. So we see in many games using up to 4 cores that the 1700 is barely better than a 4790K, and in some cases, worse when the 4790K is overclocked. In the 1700's case, it takes a god level silicon lottery win to be able to overclock a first gen Ryzen CPU to 4 GHz and above.

The same can be said for a dual-core if it has the same IPC as the 1700 when both CPUs are running a program that doesn't use more than 2 cores. It always comes down to clocks and IPC.

[UTFapolloMarine]

Originally posted by Escorve:

You still have the wrong expectations about the hardware you preach about, and still don't seem to understand what you preach. You don't want games to be using 100% of your CPU resources, especially when it's an 8-core CPU that's well suited for multi-tasking.

AC:O also doesn't gain more than a few FPS from going from 6 cores to 8, but it gains twice that from 4 to 6. An overclocked 1600 can get the same performance.

Originally posted by POUusnavy:

possibly a bottleneck with that 970 i could be wrong but try putting all settings to maxed max unless you are, id say go get a 2060 or higher

He won't listen to you, because he has it in his mind that NVIDIA is going to magically release a 3080 Ti this year, when they won't. They have no reason to because they still have AMD Radeon in a headlock.

The 970 shouldn't be holding back the 1700, as the 1700 performs around the same as a 4770K or 4790K in most games, with exceptions like AC:O because those games benefit from 6 cores, which 4th gen CPUs from Intel obviously lack.
Clock for clock, 1st gen Ryzen is just barely ahead of 4th generation Intel, only gaining advantage in workstation builds and games where more cores actually mean something, which are very few.

okay brotha will consider this next time haha thinks Nvdia will magically release a 3080? come on haha man the super will hold the title for at least a year stay safe bro

[r.linder]

Originally posted by POUusnavy:

Originally posted by Escorve:

You still have the wrong expectations about the hardware you preach about, and still don't seem to understand what you preach. You don't want games to be using 100% of your CPU resources, especially when it's an 8-core CPU that's well suited for multi-tasking.

AC:O also doesn't gain more than a few FPS from going from 6 cores to 8, but it gains twice that from 4 to 6. An overclocked 1600 can get the same performance.


He won't listen to you, because he has it in his mind that NVIDIA is going to magically release a 3080 Ti this year, when they won't. They have no reason to because they still have AMD Radeon in a headlock.

The 970 shouldn't be holding back the 1700, as the 1700 performs around the same as a 4770K or 4790K in most games, with exceptions like AC:O because those games benefit from 6 cores, which 4th gen CPUs from Intel obviously lack.
Clock for clock, 1st gen Ryzen is just barely ahead of 4th generation Intel, only gaining advantage in workstation builds and games where more cores actually mean something, which are very few.

okay brotha will consider this next time haha thinks Nvdia will magically release a 3080? come on haha man the super will hold the title for at least a year stay safe bro

Yeah, try telling him that. Doesn't understand that GPU manufacturers don't release new GPUs every other week. There's always a minimum of 6-12 months depending on competition, and currently the best that AMD has is the 5700XT, which is still ripe with flaws.

[ugafan]

The more cores/threads you have, the lower your overall cpu usage will be. There is nothing you can do to "fix it".

And you've got a big time bottleneck using a gtx 970 at 1440p. You'll need to upgrade your gpu if you want higher frame rates.

[r.linder]

Here comes the "i will wait until nvidia release 3080 ti to upgrade because upgrade now is waste" comments from our OP... and a lot of deflections designed to waste time because he's only interesting in wasting our time with bs.

[IceFoxX]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by POUusnavy:

okay brotha will consider this next time haha thinks Nvdia will magically release a 3080? come on haha man the super will hold the title for at least a year stay safe bro

Yeah, try telling him that. Doesn't understand that GPU manufacturers don't release new GPUs every other week. There's always a minimum of 6-12 months depending on competition, and currently the best that AMD has is the 5700XT, which is still ripe with flaws.

AMD's plan for this year is just low and mid range... high end will come 2020... with hw raytracing etc . Anyway at this moment they are good enough... so at this moment there are not much titles with raytracing and 0 title which use complette raytracing for anything (because the hw still cant handle it...) The RTX and the Super are just rly rly good marketing and any fan boy was getting them (i just mean this people which was thinking that the rtx will do great in raytracing or any of this features...)

[r.linder]

Originally posted by IceFoxX:

Originally posted by Escorve:

Yeah, try telling him that. Doesn't understand that GPU manufacturers don't release new GPUs every other week. There's always a minimum of 6-12 months depending on competition, and currently the best that AMD has is the 5700XT, which is still ripe with flaws.

AMD's plan for this year is just low and mid range... high end will come 2020... with hw raytracing etc . Anyway at this moment they are good enough... so at this moment there are not much titles with raytracing and 0 title which use complette raytracing for anything (because the hw still cant handle it...) The RTX and the Super are just rly rly good marketing and any fan boy was getting them (i just mean this people which was thinking that the rtx will do great in raytracing or any of this features...)

It's not good marketing, it's just the idea of "build it and they will come." It's almost plain trickery, because Turing was barely an improvement over Pascal because the whole thing with it was raytracing - and it flops unless you spend twice as much as the 1080 Ti cost for only a 25~30% difference, and still mediocre raytracing performance.

[IceFoxX]

yea and the raytracing and all this other features are pure marketing....
did you see the super teaser? nothing just pure marketing because all was thinking there will coming something big improvements etc.
nvidia is rly good in marketing and in selling overpriced... (ofc it doesnt means that this cards are bad lol no but they are not so great too..)
raytracing etc is not new but the marketing was perfect ind the perfect time from nvidia...

[Cathulhu]

Raytracing isn't new. That is correct. Real time raytracing on the other hand is. Yes, the first generation can do it, kinda. But that alone is quite an achievement.

[IceFoxX]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

Raytracing isn't new. That is correct. Real time raytracing on the other hand is. Yes, the first generation can do it, kinda. But that alone is quite an achievement.

but its just selling because pure great marketing and not because the cards can handle it well lol nope perfomance etc is bad (raytracing...)

[SHREDDER]

Originally posted by ugafan:

The more cores/threads you have, the lower your overall cpu usage will be. There is nothing you can do to "fix it".

And you've got a big time bottleneck using a gtx 970 at 1440p. You'll need to upgrade your gpu if you want higher frame rates.

so is it normal ? Will it be the same even with a better graphics card?

[SHREDDER]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Here comes the "i will wait until nvidia release 3080 ti to upgrade because upgrade now is waste" comments from our OP... and a lot of deflections designed to waste time because he's only interesting in wasting our time with bs.

That my plan as i have already told you!

[r.linder]

Originally posted by SHREDDER:

Originally posted by Escorve:

Here comes the "i will wait until nvidia release 3080 ti to upgrade because upgrade now is waste" comments from our OP... and a lot of deflections designed to waste time because he's only interesting in wasting our time with bs.

That my plan as i have already told you!

It's going to be a long 12~24 months for something you can't afford. If you're complaining about the price of a 1080 Ti/2080, you can't afford a 3080 Ti.

Originally posted by SHREDDER:

Originally posted by ugafan:

The more cores/threads you have, the lower your overall cpu usage will be. There is nothing you can do to "fix it".

And you've got a big time bottleneck using a gtx 970 at 1440p. You'll need to upgrade your gpu if you want higher frame rates.

so is it normal ? Will it be the same even with a better graphics card?

He literally said that it's normal. The more cores you have, the less usage because that's how it works. You couldn't figure that out from his answer, yet you go around trying to tell others how good your system is and how much you claim you know?

[FeilDOW]

CPU usage is determined by your FPS, playing AC:Od at 1440p max settings with a sub 30fps with drops to 14fps isn't going to work your CPU close to 100%.