Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

Look at any gaming benchmarks, unless they are running them at low resolutions, the CPU is not the bottleneck. I agree there is some fringe simulation cases, but most gaming is not inhibited by CPU. Once you're up in the 2k and 4k land, the GPU is the bottleneck. This video focuses on 1080p performance benefits. There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money. Anyone paying $500+ every time there is a new CPU platform, is guaranteed already running 2k and 4k content.

View on HN

The big CPU-bottlenecked esports game is CS:GO, or any other Valve / Source game. Even on an older CPU with mediocre single-threaded perf (i7-5820K), I can run the game fine on high settings, 1080p (100-250fps), but it occasionally dips down below my 144hz refresh rate, which can be annoying.

And yeah, the GPU is never begged while playing, but multiple CPU cores definitely are.

Also, emulation is another big place where CPU bottlenecking is a thing. Look at Dolphin (Gamecube/Wii), Citra (Wii U), and yuzu (Switch), they're all CPU bound. Folks in the various subreddits will ask why their new GPU isn't netting them a higher framerate, and it's because the GPU is almost not even used (though in some cases with better graphical effects, shaders, etc. they can be beneficial)

it's really not so clear cut outside of the few highly gpu-intensive AAA titles that get released each year. I play csgo (an older, but still very popular game) on a 4k display. my gpu hovers around 40% at max settings, while a couple cpu cores are constantly pegged.

it is hard to find benchmarks to show this however. the reputable sites mainly focus on 1080p because this is where the difference between cpus is most visible. doesn't mean there isn't a meaningful difference at higher resolutions, it just isn't as good a way to show what they are trying to show in a cpu review.

> There is zero reason to be upgrading between generations unless you're just burning money.

agreed, the speedup is almost never worth such a short upgrade cycle, especially for consumers. but this is moving the goalposts given the thread's context.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeWo7BLN9Y According to DF, 4k games are bottlenecking on the CPU via the 3090

When do they say that in the video? The CPU-limited comment at 10:28 is for 1080p / 1440p.

10:41 , so 10 more seconds. I910900k bottlenecking Hitman 2 at 4K Max

It doesn't seem like that's 4K: the text on the top-right corner clearly says 1080p or 1440p next to each framerate. The narrator also says 1080p and 1440p.

It's definitely confusing, since there's a mention of 4K elsewhere...

Sure, but that drives the point further right? Already CPU bound at 1080P

No. The CPU is the bottleneck at 1080P, but the GPU might become the bottleneck at a higher resolution.

not really. cpu bound at 4K implies cpu bound at 1080p, but the converse is not true.

Simulation is not necessarily 'fringe'. Kerbal Space Program, Oxygen Not Included, heck... Dwarf Fortress (ok, the last one IS fringe).

You are correct that most games don't use that much CPU. Most titles will run comfortably with an Intel I3 from the past three generations or so, provided there are no bottlenecks in the GPU. The CPU will be the bottleneck, but if you are getting sufficient framerates, so what?

Modern CPUs are insanely powerful. Even then, I moved to Ryzen - for the above mentioned titles.

I upgraded for Crusader Kings and, especially, Stellaris on large galaxies. Simulations are a great example of needing CPU.

I run Kerbal and Dwarf Fotress on an 11 year old Xeon, as well as every other modern game with a 1070 at 2560x1600. All the eye candy on. I'm not suggesting running a decade old CPU, but it's completely silly for this presentation to be pumping expensive CPUs for 1080p gaming benefits.

The reason why they ran the benchmarks at 1080p is because they want to ensure they are not GPU bound.

I don't disagree with you but I think this AMD video focused on closing the gap with Intel's single-core performance -- and many games are still single-core.

While I agree with the general statement, I want to remark that 1080p is actually 2k if you treat 2160p as 4k.

I guess you mean 1440p - which you could maybe label as 2.6k. But I don't think there is any such designation. Calling it WQHD is probably the right thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com