Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The more graphical the game, the more demanding on the GPU.
The more complicated the task, or amount of instructions, the more demanding on CPU.
The games you listed are graphical demanding games, if you want to push your cpu, try total war Warhammer 3, or games with a ton of AI going on screen.
Now to explain if GPU not hitting 100% then means you're not getting full usage out of your GPU, and because you're not limited by CPU, then means you can bump the game settings higher if you wanted.
But again this mainly will vary game by game; game engine by game engine.
Some games are very GPU heavy while some will require a beefy CPU to handle AI/NPC pathfinding and other calculations of this sort that the GPU doesn't do.
When testing > Always disable all forms of VSync and/or Adaptive Sync. This ensures nothing is capped and this should give you more accurate results for your actual hardware. If you choose to apply and FPS Cap or some form of Sync method to keep from screen tearing; that's up to you.
And even if you disabled all of this in your GPU software, please remember many games have in-game settings for this stuff as well. Same goes for some benchmarks. Games and benchmarks also offer options such as Borderless Window Mode vs Full Screen vs Exclusive Full Screen; this CAN impact your overall results slightly.
It's a big/little design. It's 6 Performance cores for intensive tasks and 8 efficiency cores for light loads.
So, It's a fancy hexacore with a weak but energy efficient octacore added on top.
It`s only 6 real cores, rest are efficiency cores.
I do think it's the way forward of assigning cores for games and other cores for the OS and background tasks. Had a look at Ryzen's current offerings and honestly this whole v cache thing doesn't seem like a good solution.
It appears Intel is now winning the core war this time around. Struggle to see a good reason to buy an AMD CPU atm. After all the whole thing about Ryzen was you were getting more cores for your price and they weren't crappy cores like FX series.
First, the Intel CPUs run hot, really, really hot. Current solutions are not able to properly cool a top of the line 13900K CPU.
On the other hand, AMD is way more efficient, is cheaper and does not lag that much behind.
All around, AMD is the better option, unless you have money to burn and want the fastest CPU absolutely possible.
And let's not get into the server space where AMD Epyc is absolutely obliterating all Intel options currently. In some cases one AMD Epyc beats two Intel CPUs while offering more PCIe lanes which is something servers really want.
Your build is fine.
What you're seeing is also not unusual, because of one reason. CPUs are multiple cores, but not all software is (or can be) perfectly parallel in nature. Most games will use a few cores or so most of the time (often prioritizing one).
You need to break CPU utilization down to a per core look. Overall utilization means nothing here.
If you have any one core at 100%, it's a CPU bottleneck.
If the GPU isn't at 100%, it's also (likely) a CPU bottleneck.
But throw all that out the window. The modern (nonsense) narrative is that you should avoid CPU bottlenecks at all costs. The reason behind this has some merit. If you encounter a CPU bottleneck, you really can't do much (most of the time) to lighten the load. But with a GPU bottleneck, you can by lowering settings.
Here's the thing, or rather two things.
1. You always have a bottleneck somewhere. This is a simple fact because PCs don't have infinite performance, right? And what's the consequence of not having infinite performance, in a world where software load isn't static but is instead variable? Simple. It means something is always going to be the "slowest link in the chain".
2. A bottleneck existing therefore is arbitrary; it means nothing. It only matters if your performance is below what you desire.
If it's not lower than desired? Then all is well.
If it is lower than desired? Then identify which part is most responsible for the performance being undesirable and upgrade that part. That is where identifying bottlenecks comes in; to identify which part is most efficient to upgrade, not to remove them (as this is impossible).
It's truly that simple, but people like to complicate it with false visions of "balance". In a world where one software is variable to the next, and doesn't have a set amount it loads on hardware, it is therefore impossible to say there's a balance you can achieve since what is balanced for one might not be for another.
Therefore, balance a PC according to the needs it has to do, not to other hardware parts in the PC. And it sounds like you've done that rather well.
See people say this and yes the prices for the CPU alone looks great; the problem is basically all the Motherboards nowa days for Intel CPUs below $180-200 range are all junk and while you can use them; it gimps your entire system.
You can easily have $200+ worth of features an Intel board has, via an AM4 or AM5 socket AMD board for $100-150 range and not be gimped for higher end CPUs, PCIE Lanes and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gEVy3aW-_s
It is slightly cheaper, draws significantly more power and delivers less performance.
These benchmarks are only games. I and many do more than just game and want a CPU that is fast at everything. A couple extra frames in games matter less in the grand scheme of things. People won't notice it. But a few minutes shaved off render times is noticeable.