Is the rtx3060 video card suitable for the i5-9400f processor?

[HAL]

Is the rtx3060 video card suitable for the i5-9400f processor?

[ㄒㄖ尺几ㄩ卩ㄒㄖ]

Originally posted by Munithe EXT:

For the thread title, the 9400f will bottleneck a 3060. A 10400f is optimal for that GPU.

not by a meaningful or even noticeable amount under most circumstances, the performance difference between the i5-9400 and i5-10400 is around 5% in single core performance which is more or less reflected accurately in most games, in most games between the two with a 3060 Ti there's a difference within 10 frames and both often handle upwards of 100 FPS, for a weaker card like the base 3060, it's fine, people take bottlenecks way more seriously than they actually need to because its an inevitability

Originally posted by Kunovega:

How you're using it is not how the industry or the majority of gamers use it.

You are severely failing to understand the subtle difference in meaning here.

and all you're doing is being petty and arguing over semantics with people that don't even care, while also using language that lumps the majority of gamers with yourself to make illusion feel as small and insignificant as possible, and the way you've addressed the topic since the first comment has been arrogant and combative in the way you address people's supposed understanding of it, and yet you expect people to run with their tail between their legs in response

[Monk]

Originally posted by ChickenBalls:

Originally posted by Tornupto:

can easily bottleneck at 1440p, not just 1080p

not with RT on
there is a reason its called a RTX 4090...
and why buy a 4090 and not play games on a 4K gaming monitor?

Because you want higher fps while not really loosing any real fidelity?

1440p or using dlss and notably higher fps is worth it over just going 4k.

Kunovega, you are wrong.

Heck, please give us an example of where both the cpu, ram and gpu are all perfectly balanced in perfirmance while gaming.

Everything has a weak spot and that us all a bottleneck is really.

As an example, I have a 4090 and a 13900k, both heavily overclocked (3150 and 5.8 respectively) all Water-cooled, paired with ddr4 runing at 4133.
In my case my ram is holding me back a bit, if I swapped thst out for 8000HMHz ddr5, then the 13900k woukd be the weak point, a 14900k running at 6GHz would improve that a bit more and depending on settings could push the 4090 to be the limiting factor.
Get all of them balanced and you'll realise your motherboard might be holding back your memory or your memory controller on the cpu, there is always a bottleneck.

A limit of performance is still holding back something else somewhere in the chain.

[_I_]

point is there is always something limiting another component

a more balanced system will be limited by multiple things at nearly the same time
but it really depends on loads, more cpu heavy games or games that need fewer faster cores need a faster cpu, or games that are more graphic heavy or if running at higher res need a more powerful gpu

any component reaching 'design limit' is going to slow other components, that is a bottleneck

[Kunovega]

Originally posted by _I_:

point is there is always something limiting another component

a more balanced system will be limited by multiple things at nearly the same time
but it really depends on loads, more cpu heavy games or games that need fewer faster cores need a faster cpu, or games that are more graphic heavy or if running at higher res need a more powerful gpu

any component reaching 'design limit' is going to slow other components, that is a bottleneck

That's not how it works. You can have a balanced system where none of the parts hold each other back and they all reach their full potential within their design parameters.

This is what you keep failing to understand. You think if all bottlenecks are removed the FPS would be infinite, you said this earlier, but that's not what would happen, they all simply perform the best they can. This is measurable.

Alternatively if you have components preventing them from reaching these limits, those are your bottlenecks.

Bottleneck is specific to when one part is holding back another, not to when the part itself has reached its own limitations.

[Kunovega]

Originally posted by Monk:

Originally posted by ChickenBalls:

not with RT on
there is a reason its called a RTX 4090...
and why buy a 4090 and not play games on a 4K gaming monitor?

Because you want higher fps while not really loosing any real fidelity?

1440p or using dlss and notably higher fps is worth it over just going 4k.

Kunovega, you are wrong.

Heck, please give us an example of where both the cpu, ram and gpu are all perfectly balanced in perfirmance while gaming.

Everything has a weak spot and that us all a bottleneck is really.

As an example, I have a 4090 and a 13900k, both heavily overclocked (3150 and 5.8 respectively) all Water-cooled, paired with ddr4 runing at 4133.
In my case my ram is holding me back a bit, if I swapped thst out for 8000HMHz ddr5, then the 13900k woukd be the weak point, a 14900k running at 6GHz would improve that a bit more and depending on settings could push the 4090 to be the limiting factor.
Get all of them balanced and you'll realise your motherboard might be holding back your memory or your memory controller on the cpu, there is always a bottleneck.

A limit of performance is still holding back something else somewhere in the chain.

Just because you can't figure out how to build a balanced system doesn't change what the term means.

You keep pointing at your own systems and going "well I have a botlteneck so everyone must have one" that doesn't matter, it's not what I'm talking about.

Every individual component has a max limitation, if all of them reach that limit, you have no bottlenecks, you simply have the top performance your set of parts is capable of.

---

You need this explained? Buy the best GPU; the best CPU and more RAM than either of them can use; if all 3 are doing the best they can then they are not bottlenecking anything. Yes, you'll have an upper limit of performance, but that's exactly what it is the best any of them can give you regardless of what they are mounted with.

Alternatively if you have the best GPU and a CPU that can only manage it at half its performance, or not enough RAM to fully service either of them, you have a bottleneck while both the CPU and RAM are achieving the best they can do within their limits, you've bottlenecked the GPU because it's being actually held back from performing in full.

You're confusing identifying the top end possible performance of a specific part with the term bottleneck where in a bottleneck isn't your upper limit it's specifically when you can identify that a component isn't able to reach its own full potential due to a specific other part.

You're failing at this completely.

Every source I linked earlier in this thread explains this extensively

This is the only thread I've seen anywhere in decades that attempts to use this word wrong and I seem to be the only one that bothered to provide sources backing up what I said

I'm done here, you've all decided to ignore what you were shown and argue over something you aren't grasping

[HAL]

finally

[ㄒㄖ尺几ㄩ卩ㄒㄖ]

3060 is a decent pairing with a 9400f, though 6700xt might be the clear better choice in terms of value if the prices are similar

and make sure you don't get the 8gb 3060, it's slightly weaker due to the memory bus changes and just poor value overall

[HAL]

Originally posted by Tornupto:

3060 is a decent pairing with a 9400f, though 6700xt might be the clear better choice in terms of value if the prices are similar

and make sure you don't get the 8gb 3060, it's slightly weaker due to the memory bus changes and just poor value overall

thank you! this is only right answer for my question! +rep

[DOOMed]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by Kunovega:

It's not the same wording of what you said; you're implying anything that doesn't reach infinite FPS is bottlenecked, which is false.

Is it though?

Answer me something. Why don't we have infinite performance then? It's because we have limits.

And eventually, something will limit performance.

That is what a bottleneck is!

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Any one part reaching its full potential is not a bottleneck.

Yes, yes it is.

Originally posted by Kunovega:

A bottleneck is the comparison between parts, where one part is holding back another from its potential.

Yes, and when one part is at a limit and the other part is not, what do we call that?

Originally posted by Kunovega:

The way you attempted to use it implied things should have no max potential.

Where did I imply a part can't reach a limit? Maybe you inferred it.

Originally posted by Kunovega:

At this point you don't even seem to understand why you were wrong.

Ironic.

And eventually, something will limit performance.

That is what a bottleneck is!

No! This a current technical limitation. A bottleneck is where either the CPU can't process enough data to feed the GPU, or the GPU can't process enough data from the CPU. Either one results in a performance hit, usually resulting in an fps drop.

Hell, it can be a ram speed bottleneck in certain cases, but a bottleneck is different to an upper performance limit.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

There's literally pages of links I've already given you that you either ignored or didn't understand. How you're using it is not how the industry or the majority of gamers use it.

I'm more interested in what you have to say in direct response to the things I am saying. Using external sources for support is one thing, but if you're just going to defer me to "pages of links" that aren't even contesting what I'm stating, then it should be of no surprise that I'm going to ignore it. Once I saw you referring to bottleneck calculators, that's when I knew where this was going. You have a common misconception that there's some objective "balance" you can achieve where bottlenecks don't exist, simply because you don't count them as such despite them literally being such.

And what the majority says, does, or thinks on any given thing doesn't make something right, and you should probably know that. That's called appealing to the masses. Again, I'm more interested in you substantiating yourself.

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Design limits are not bottlenecks.

Sure they are. That's what a bottleneck is. It's the weakest link in the chain that is preventing the rest from performing faster. Just like how a neck of a bottle is narrower than the rest and would impedes the rate at which fluid was poured from it. That's... why it's used as a term.

If something is at its limit, and something else isn't, then by literal definition, the part at its limit is also a bottleneck. You're trying to argue that it can't be because it's at its potential without realizing that these are not mutually exclusive things. So why are you pretending they are? It can be reaching its own potential for itself while still serving as a bottleneck for letting the entire rest of the PC run beyond where it currently is. And that's precisely how it goes, because we would have to have infinite performance on tap (which we don't) for there to never be a limit. There is always a limit, or always a bottleneck.

Originally posted by Kunovega:

You are severely failing to understand the subtle difference in meaning here.

To the contrary; I understand the distinction you're proposing quite well. I'm simply straight up rejecting that notion that some bottlenecks count, and others don't and therefore aren't bottlenecks.

[Monk]

Sorry kunovega, but, you are wrong.

There is no truly balanced system, one part will always be more powerful than another so will be held back, even if by only a ammount.

Honestly I thought I explained that rather clearly using my own system as an example (showing even the fastest pieces have this issue).

But, perhaps you could give us an example of component choices where everything is in perfect harmonious balance.

I mean, it doesn't exist, but I'd like to know what you think this mythical setup is.

[ㄒㄖ尺几ㄩ卩ㄒㄖ]

Originally posted by Munithe EXT:

Originally posted by Tornupto:

not by a meaningful or even noticeable amount under most circumstances, the performance difference between the i5-9400 and i5-10400 is around 5% in single core performance which is more or less reflected accurately in most games, in most games between the two with a 3060 Ti there's a difference within 10 frames and both often handle upwards of 100 FPS, for a weaker card like the base 3060, it's fine, people take bottlenecks way more seriously than they actually need to because its an inevitability

What numbers are you running 2k or 1080

2k isn't 1440p, it's 2048x1080, physically closer to 1080p in pixel res, the advertisements of 2k as 1440p is purely marketing jargon they need to f off with

and 1080p, a 3060/ti isn't going to perform at over 100 fps consistently at 1440p with decent settings in nearly as many games
if you pulled your claim from a bottleneck calculator then that's why it makes no actual sense, everyone knows the differences intel puts out per generation is usually tiny.

[_I_]

Originally posted by Munithe EXT:

Originally posted by Tornupto:

not by a meaningful or even noticeable amount under most circumstances, the performance difference between the i5-9400 and i5-10400 is around 5% in single core performance which is more or less reflected accurately in most games, in most games between the two with a 3060 Ti there's a difference within 10 frames and both often handle upwards of 100 FPS, for a weaker card like the base 3060, it's fine, people take bottlenecks way more seriously than they actually need to because its an inevitability

What numbers are you running 2k or 1080

and refresh rate, and desired fps

high fps take more cpu and gpu
high res takes ore gpu

[_I_]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Originally posted by _I_:

point is there is always something limiting another component

a more balanced system will be limited by multiple things at nearly the same time
but it really depends on loads, more cpu heavy games or games that need fewer faster cores need a faster cpu, or games that are more graphic heavy or if running at higher res need a more powerful gpu

any component reaching 'design limit' is going to slow other components, that is a bottleneck

That's not how it works. You can have a balanced system where none of the parts hold each other back and they all reach their full potential within their design parameters.

This is what you keep failing to understand. You think if all bottlenecks are removed the FPS would be infinite, you said this earlier, but that's not what would happen, they all simply perform the best they can. This is measurable.

Alternatively if you have components preventing them from reaching these limits, those are your bottlenecks.

Bottleneck is specific to when one part is holding back another, not to when the part itself has reached its own limitations.

if nothing is being held back by other components than what is limiting performance to infinity?

vsync off fps would be 999999999999999999, each sub pixel displayed would be shown from its own complete frame


are you saying a perfectly 'balanced' system could still be way under performing, at <1fps

[_I_]

2k isnt a defined res
1440p is close to 2x the 1080p pixel count
or 1080 ultra extra wide 3840x1080 is 2x 1080p

but stick to res numbers, width x height if possible
4k is almost acceptable, as its 4x full hd