Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
You should tailor parts to your uses, not to other parts.
Why? Software is variable! There is not static, set way software runs on hardware. One software is different to the the next. The same software at one moment is different to another moment! So with the load being variable, it should be obvious that there's no such thing as a proper balance, but a lot people either don't get this very basic fact, or like to pretend otherwise. Learning about bottlenecks is good! Just don't fall into the trap of people selling you the idea there's some mythical balance to be achieved. It doesn't exist.
Knowing how well something will work for your uses is a bit of a question though. It will be confusing at first, and this is honestly something experience will help you a lot with. Learning your uses and how to analyze your resource usage during your use will tell you what you need.
Benchmarks and communities can also help tell you what to expect from given software/games/etc., but it may take a lot of research and time (and again, experience) to better grasp this.
Neither of those things are the only thing that matters in a vacuum.
Rough and quick rule of thumb for CPU performance...
A CPU's speed, or instructions per second (IPS) can roughly be said to be determined by the combined factors of clock speed and instruction per clock (IPC), or "architecture" more broadly speaking, which itself isn't a static value. Or, put less formally...
IPC + clock speed = IPS
Notice how clock speed is just part of an equation? This is why comparing different CPUs on clock speed alone isn't a good idea. That only works if the other parts of the equation are identical (they are only ever close to identical when comparing in the same CPU brand and generation, and even then there's usually minor differences like cache size which can impact this).
Cores are basically multiple "CPUs" on one package. CPUs just used to be a single CPU/core. Years ago, they started adding more cores, largely because making an individual core faster was slowing down.
This is important for one reason. Things do not "parallelize" (or "thread") by default. You may have heard that software has to be written for more cores, and that is what that means. For example, imagine a CPU that is 500 MHz. You run something on it that is CPU limited. Now imagine that identical CPU has a 4,000 MHz (4 GHz) copy. You will get a massive speed up "by default" as the clock speed increases, meaning the extra performance "just happens".
Throwing more cores at the problem does not work this way though. The software has to parallelize (or "thread") well. Games usually don't do so too much. If you've ever heard the term "per core performance", it means how fast the individual cores are, and it refers to this. Synthetic benchmarks are nice... but they just test all the cores and give you the total, so higher core CPUs have higher scores. This is a bad picture of how most real world software works. Most real world software doesn't parallelize well, so per core performance is a better indicator of performance. This is how Core i5s end up being faster than yesterday's Core i9. It might have less cores, but it has enough for most games, and the cores are faster.
The sweet spot for games is probably six core CPUs with eight core CPUs being worth a look. Above that is a waste for games.
Focus on the graphics card first, as that is more important for games. A Core i5/Core i7 or Ryzen 5/Ryzen 7 is plenty. Only get above those if you're already getting just about the best GPU and still have more to spend and want the best of the best CPU too.
Asking to learn is the best thing you can ever do. But be aware that "the right parts" are simply the ones that meet your need and make you happy. Don't get too tripped up or worried that you need some community sanctioned pairing. It doesn't exist. Get something that meets your performance needs. It's that simple.
A bottleneck is usually referring to the CPU being limited. Like if you had a huge GPU and the rest of your system is holding it back in some way.
For example, if you had rtx 4080 and you put it in a machine with a core 2 duo, I doubt it would be running like a 4080. Most likely it would be running with less potential. This would be a true CPU bottleneck. Nothing you could do would help here.
Now, if you took that same 4080 and put in in something like 3700x, the bottleneck would almost disappear or be very little. Depending on your settings you could be completely GPU bound here. That means the GPU would be the limitation sometimes and that should be your preference because that can be managed with graphic settings.
Now, if you wish more fps all you have to do is turn graphic down. CPU bound you turn graphic down and receive no uplift.
yeah sure. if i buy something new im gonna research for sure.
but i wanted to learn the trick behind it. i thought its something like "if your gpu has core clock speed of lets say 2000mhz then you cpu has to have like max 4ghz and you ram has to also have like 4000mhz or something like that. but it seems like you cant really tell before buying.
The first thing to understand is the term bottleneck is overused and in a great many contexts it's pretty meaningless. It's a colloquialism for "I don't prefer that, and I don't think it's optimal. But if invoke bottlenecks then my opinion sounds bigger than it is." Beware of the overuse or over-agressive use of the term.
In general as long as you avoid the most extreme disparate hardware combinations you won't have a bottleneck, not really, not in a meaningful and technical term. You'll just have a system that would perform better if you had better hardware. And what I mean is a midrange Intel i5 12600k/3070 ti system isn't bottlenecked, adding in better hardware would increase performance, but that performance increase isn't because a bottleneck has been removed.
And there's always some room for improvement in a build, and ideas what optimal could be. Having a budget and cutting a few corners a bit to fit into that budget doesn't create a bottleneck in most cases.
Don't buy a bottom of the barrel CPU for yur expensive highend GPU. What the good current midrange/highend CPU's are isn't some kind of secret. For a 3080 ti I would buy something current, and something more on the highend side. AMD 5th or 7th generation Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9, or Intel 12th or 13th gen i7/i9 (i5 would be passable too). In my build I run an i7 12700k and a 3080 ti.
For a modern highend system you want something with a decent number of cores and high clock speeds, which applies to most current midrange/highend CPU's anyway.
The only trick is to not cut corners unnecessarily because you've decided some component doesn't really matter as much. And cutting corners on everything, leaving a few percent here and there on the table starts to add up.
Ultimately rather than trying to avoid bottlenecks, which is easy to do by not doing anything ridiculous. Just try to build a good system. You can't really get into trouble with a good CPU, a decent motherboard, a good GPU, decent RAM, and a decently performing C: drive, some kind of SSD, with enough space you're not constantly having to juggle things.
People will have opinions about how you should have done something a little different instead. But those opinions may not be authoritative and they don't make a decent PC perform worse.
I would agree, there's no tricks. Nor strict formula, "if this, do that". Just buy decent current hardware and you'll mostly be fine. That's the trick. That there's no magic or mystery or tricks to it.
That's for AMD, not sure about Intel
if its not limited by fps (vsync/gsync/freesync) or anything else, and gpu is not maxed, its most likely cpu or something else
if the gpu is maxed then its the gpu limiting it
there is always a bottleneck somewhere
just depends on if you are happy with it or not
any cpu/gpu combo can be either a cpu or gpu bottleneck
depending on the game or settings
if you know its cpu bound, you can raise visuals so what you see looks better, even tho the cpu is still the limit
or if gpu bound, lower visuals or res so it can hit a higher fps
well for gpu bottleneck you could limit the framerate and resolution which will lighten load on gpu so you get more consistent frametime.
Isnt the 12 core Ryzen 9 actually worse that a 8core Ryzen 7 when it comes to gaming? Why do you recommend R7 5700X but say that i5 13600k is only passable?
5 numbers too much
15th gen when they change sockets, not 14th gen, that's just a raptor lake refresh
No I meant the 12600k, (because I run an i7 12700k) just a bit of a typo, but it could have been 10,11,12 or 13. So I'm not sure why you assumed 10600k. I didn't mention the 10 series explicitly in the rest of my post.
And no, the 10600k isn't too weak for the 3070 ti. They were released a year a part. If you had a 10600k in 2020 and upgraded to a 3070 ti in 2021, that would have been perfectly reasonable.
There is ALWAYS going to be a bottleneck in all systems. Could be the CPU, could be the GPU, could be RAM, could be something else, there's always going to be something holding the system back to any degree, it's pointless to care about it because it's always going to happen depending on the load. Stop staring at the FPS counter and enjoy the game for crying out loud, it doesn't matter.