CPU bottlenecking GPU

[Andy D]

Hey all,
Current system is a 920 @ 4Ghz with 2*4890s crossfire (16x 16x PCIe motherboard)

Still not enough to run Crysis in full at 1920*1200 with 2x AA playable but sure that Cysis was only made to make us all feel inadequate + want to upgrade

Anyway...whatever game I try, Crysis, Dragon Age, NFSS, etc. looking at the CPU utilisation on my G15 keyboard screen it doesn't really go past 15%.

Is this a good enough rough indication of how much the CPU is working? Thinking about it now I should run task manager on my second monitor to check, but overall upgrading from a Q6600 @ 3.1Ghz to 920 @ 4Ghz doesn't seem to make any difference for games that I can tell. Seems at least for games it's better to just spend a huge wad on the graphics card(s). Maybe I should have spent the £1000 on 2 5970s rather than upgrade the whole lot (had 2 * 8800GTs SLI before)

Have always read people's response to performance queries saying you need a faster CPU or you will be 'bottlenecking' your GPU but from my own findings it seems it's best to stick with a cheap half decent CPU/motherboard and spend the upgrade money on the GPU.
I guess I can still upgrade to 2*5970s though lol !

 

[raralis]

15% for all 4 cores?

Most games utilize 2 cores only. You might want to check all cores while running games.

Apart from Crysis, none of those games require more than a single 4890 to run everything at max and stay above 30fps.

2x 4890s should be more than enough if configured properly (drivers etc).

 

[capriboy1978]

There's no way your cpu is bottle necking twin 4890's bud. Thats a pretty sweet set up, I was set on something similiar until dx11 hit and I sold my 4890 ready to buy a 58xx or 5970. Needless to say I wasn't subsidizing anyone's next villa so didn't buy into dx11 and picked up a 4870x2 instead.

 

[tankskun]

Not going past 15%? is this 1 core or overall. When I play an oldskool game like F.E.A.R. one of the cores can reach 90ish% - MAX constantly.

 

[feeddagoat]

what res are you gaming at too out of interest. plus a 920 @ 4Ghz is pretty much highist end atm, what do you actually hope to upgrade to atm?

 

[JonJ678]

Is it not immediately obvious that a cpu that is barely loaded is in fact faster than you need?

No motherboard that can run two 8800gt's with a q6600 can run two ati cards, your alternative upgrade route would have required a new motherboard as well.

Did you resolve the problem of the two 4890s not fitting on your motherboard then?

 

[setter]

Wouldnt matter how much you spent on a gaming rig, crysis is a game thats to far ahead of its time (and tbh its not that great a game) crysis isnt even a quad optimized game, supreme commander, gta 4 and arma 2 are the only games i know that currently optimise quads (arma2 being one i play) at 1920x1200 on a 4ghz i7 setup

 

[Gittins]

Ain't Dirt2 quad core optimised?

 

[Marvin]

Is it not immediately obvious that a cpu that is barely loaded is in fact faster than you need?

No motherboard that can run two 8800gt's with a q6600 can run two ati cards, your alternative upgrade route would have required a new motherboard as well.

Did you resolve the problem of the two 4890s not fitting on your motherboard then?

If he's upgraded from a Q6600 to an i7, he won't have the same motherboard - and the new i7 motherboards are both Crossfire and SLI compatable.

Even so, I'd have thought (looking at CF'd 4890 reviews) that you should be able to max out Crysis and still get decent frames - even at 1920x1200.

That's using the same system as you (i7 920, 2 4890s), but the CPU is only clocked to 3.8GHz. The settings there are maxed out, and is run with 4x AA.

Full review here

I don't have any idea why you aren't seeing the results, unless it isn't running in Crossfire - check in the Catalyst suite.

 

[reiyushin]

Is this a good enough rough indication of how much the CPU is working? Thinking about it now I should run task manager on my second monitor to check, but overall upgrading from a Q6600 @ 3.1Ghz to 920 @ 4Ghz doesn't seem to make any difference for games that I can tell. Seems at least for games it's better to just spend a huge wad on the graphics card(s). Maybe I should have spent the £1000 on 2 5970s rather than upgrade the whole lot (had 2 * 8800GTs SLI before)

Yea, there's little to be gained in gaming from that upgrade, you should get a few FPS more than your Q6600 and if/when games start using HT or are better optimised for this new architecture then you'll reap the benifits

Have always read people's response to performance queries saying you need a faster CPU or you will be 'bottlenecking' your GPU but from my own findings it seems it's best to stick with a cheap half decent CPU/motherboard and spend the upgrade money on the GPU.

Meh, ignore these people 99% of the time. It takes an extreme imbalance to create a bottleneck.

For gaming provided you have a reasonably high end CPU (Right now that'd be Q6/8/9 E6/7/8 i5/7 or a PII/AII) with a decent overclock in some on the older chips cases you will not bottleneck any single GPU and most dual GPU setups

I think you can test for it by watching the FPS you get in game (using your usual settings) if your FPS remains perfectly constant no matter what you do then your CPU is bottlenecking (the GFX is rendering each frame as soon as it receives it with ease)
If your FPS is more erratic then your CPU is not bottlenecking (the GFX can't render the frames fast enough so your FPS drops)

 

[Andy D]

If he's upgraded from a Q6600 to an i7, he won't have the same motherboard - and the new i7 motherboards are both Crossfire and SLI compatable.

Even so, I'd have thought (looking at CF'd 4890 reviews) that you should be able to max out Crysis and still get decent frames - even at 1920x1200.

That's using the same system as you (i7 920, 2 4890s), but the CPU is only clocked to 3.8GHz. The settings there are maxed out, and is run with 4x AA.

Full review here

I don't have any idea why you aren't seeing the results, unless it isn't running in Crossfire - check in the Catalyst suite.

I will run benchmarks again but what I remember was getting around 44fps with settings = High with 4* AA, but down to 30ish with settings = Very High and 0* AA. It was indeed this same article that made me decide on going for 4890 crossfire rather than Nvidia.

 

[Andy D]

Is it not immediately obvious that a cpu that is barely loaded is in fact faster than you need?

No motherboard that can run two 8800gt's with a q6600 can run two ati cards, your alternative upgrade route would have required a new motherboard as well.

Did you resolve the problem of the two 4890s not fitting on your motherboard then?

Yes, I returned the 2 OC value 4890s and Overclockers promptly refunded me
The 2 XFX ones fit fine but I then had to spend another £110 on a PCIe XFi soundcard to replace my PCI one :-|

 

[Andy D]

Overall I had this feeling I needed to upgrade (retail therapy!). I play WoW mostly, except for Dragon Age: Origins in-between.
My old setup was fine for these 2 and the odd spot of NFSS, Left 4 Dead, TF2 etc.

I initially decided that to upgrade my system it should be graphics card.
I then decided I should really upgrade the CPU/motherboard to something faster as to NOT bottleneck the new graphics card.

I even changed my monitor from a 20" to a 24" just to ensure I was making good use of the upgrade
Now though I just have this feeling that spending half what I did on just a graphics card upgrade would have given me more. Looking at these sort of benchmarks is what I mean...

 

[reiyushin]

Your setup is only beaten by crossfire 5850 and 5870 (which cost substantially more) so I think you've done well
I'll be going for crossfire 4890's after I get a decent monitor...gaming at 1280x720 isn't exactly taxing

Crysis maybe a bad example as it seems to be a pig....it came out with the 8 series nvidias and still isn't playable at max settings using the best cards on the market...

 

[Andy D]

My results are not quite as expected comparing to the graph, and I do have to reduce some settings such as shadows to make parts of the game playable.

Here is what I got just now (windows 7 btw)...

26/12/2009 23:54:18 - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=8x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 66.41s, Average FPS: 30.11
Min FPS: 17.91 at frame 144, Max FPS: 38.00 at frame 855
Average Tri/Sec: -9900692, Tri/Frame: -328775
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.08s, Average FPS: 32.75
Min FPS: 17.91 at frame 144, Max FPS: 38.95 at frame 861
Average Tri/Sec: -10314350, Tri/Frame: -314976
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.91
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 61.20s, Average FPS: 32.68
Min FPS: 17.91 at frame 144, Max FPS: 38.95 at frame 861
Average Tri/Sec: -10225838, Tri/Frame: -312901
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

26/12/2009 23:54:18 - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 32.715

 

[R34pz]

I think you're flogging a dead horse with Crysis, it still has impossibly high requirements to run full settings. The best thing you can do is run it at 2xAA and reduce your settings to High, i'm sure you would get around 60fps then. Try something else like modern warfare 2, which IMHO blows crysis out of the water anyway, even if it is short. You will get around 80+fps when it's maxed out with 4xAA (max it will go to), plus I think it looks more impressive also. Fair enough the single player is short, but it's a fantastic ride while it lasts. Plus Special Ops mode is really great, not to mention multiplayer. I've never seen the appeal of Crysis, I think it's all show and not a great deal else, just like Far Cry before it. I know some people adore the game, but there is much better out there now to show what your system can REALLY do.
As for low CPU usage, have you set your power management in the ctrl panel to High Performance? Because it sounds like you may have it on Power Saver, plus you will get quite low CPU usage on that beast of a chip anyway, as not many games will need anwhere near that kind of power.

 

[scotty365]

upgrading from a Q6600 @ 3.1Ghz to 920 @ 4Ghz doesn't seem to make any difference for games that I can tell

Yeah - I agree in most games. My mates i7 plays not much different to mine for the most part with the same GPU (at 1920x1080).