Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
The 960 is the bottleneck.
A 2GB model is a dead boat now days with major stutter issues and nearly unusable performance in modern titles expecting VRAM to be present when its not.
A 4GB model is nearly identical in performance to the 1050ti and is just as good as they are in modern titles. Not going to be winning any benchmark comps, but for the GPU shortage world we live in the 1050ti is still a serviceable and usable card.
Be on the lookout for an upgrade, but provided 4GB you will be good to go for the short term.
I really wish people around here (not just you Escorve) would quite bashing older hardware with little reason...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2XAqQd7ADE
The best (currently actually available) APU is nearly half the speed of a 1050ti in most cases, and even when overclocked and paired with 4200Mhz Ram it still lags behind the 1050ti by anywhere from 10-30 frames or 10-30%. Trying to say that dedicated 1050ti class cards (which a 4GB 960 is) are "not much faster" than Vega (iGP) graphics is neither true nor helpful to actual users on such hardware.
Dont get me wrong, I think the Vega APU's are amazing performing, *and* I agree the 960 is aged. But people on these forums need to quit acting like anything less than the most recent xx60 is the bare minimum. For 1080p/60 you dont need a 3060ti or higher as the first reply suggests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZzgLO4Xcec
The differences make it known in titles that aren't too demanding on the GPU. Which are typically what people are going to be playing with something that old. 1050 Ti or 960, you're not going to enjoy a AAA title like RDR2 or Cyberpunk.
And it still doesn't change the topic at hand. His GPU is still the bottleneck, and it's still ridiculous to pair a GTX 960 with a Ryzen 7 3700X outside of the current market.
CPU usage is heavily affected by the amount of threads currently being used. So even if a game isn't particularly demanding, if it's still using 4 cores, it's using 4 cores.
That being said, it's still possible for the CPU to be the bottleneck from time to time, even with a relatively weaker GPU.
I get the impression a lot of people have a flawed concept of what bottlenecking is. Or rather, they understand what it is, but then they sprout this idea that there's some balance range you have to fall within, or else you're "bottlenecked" and this is flawed thinking. There are no ideal matches. There is no "you need XX CPU to get the most of ZZ GPU" because that just means the CPU is the bottleneck, but that DOESN'T mean the faster CPU also isn't (just to a slightly lesser extent).
Bottlenecking ALWAYS happens. If it didn't, you'd just have endless performance potential. Whatever the bottleneck is, is what's preventing more performance from being attained. Not all software, not all games, and not all moments within a game leverage things the same way. There is no ideal match of certain CPUs for certain GPUs; the REAL ideal match is "if I am going to spend money, what is the current best to get the most given what I have and what i am willing to spend".
The only thing you need to worry about is not pairing a really awful CPU with a really strong GPU, and vice versa, and it would take more imbalance than most people think to where it's at the point that you're missing out on a lot of performance. You're nowhere near looking at that with the CPU you have. If you want more game performance, yes, a GPU upgrade is well worthwhile.
The OP is fully aware that the graphics card is the bottleneck, just asks by how much.
"Just curious but how much of a bottleneck is a GTX 960 to a Ryzen 7 3700x? How much power is my cpu holding back?"
..to this... (cross outs and bold addition my emphasis)
"Just curious but how much of a bottleneck is a GTX 960 to BY a Ryzen 7 3700x? How much power is my cpu holding IT back?"
...you get how I read it. Yes, we were wrong though (well, I was; I won't speak for anyone else), but the brain is a funny thing. I misread one word and filled in another where I presumed it was missing due to grammar or a typo.
Regardless, my comment was less about which was bottlenecking which, and more about bottlenecking in general and how it's often wrongly emphasized (IMO), and all of what I said still stands. If OP asked "how much", there's no proper broad answer for this for the reasons I mentioned.
Myself running R5 2600x + GTX1060 6GB i'm GPU bound in gaming but plenty of CPU power for multi tasking etc for what i need. (i think i'm good up to rtx3060 b4 better ipc will make much of a difference in gaming for me). e.g. : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlfwXqODqp4
So i think your CPU is holding plenty of power in reserve if you upgrade the GPU in the future.
Ryzen 7 3700X can handle any GPU on the market withe ease, even a 2080 Ti or 3090
You'd have to drop down to a Ryzen 3 class to see the CPU hold back the GPU.
WoW, bottleneck calculator.
Very useful.
My favorite.
There are so many tiny minute things that can ultimately impact CPU and/or GPU performance aside from the big things, and there's always a bottleneck when it comes to games like CS:GO because some CPUs can get 600+ FPS in those games with the best GPUs, whereas others may only get half that with the same GPU.